id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
65,950,855 |
On 18.04.2019 at about 12.00 hours, Vasantha came to the said house and was sitting on the stairs in the ground floor.Around 13.00 hours, M.S.Pandian, son-in-law of V.K.Gurusamy, who was known to her, came there running and rushing inside the house where Jeyanthilal is residing in the ground floor.It is, at that time, 5 persons armed with 5/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 deadly weapons chased the said M.S.Pandian and trespassed into the house and all of them attacked M.S.Pandian repeatedly with aruvals and swords.When Vasantha tried to prevent them, the five persons threatened to cut and kill her also.Therefore, she raised alarm.However, the said M.S.Pandian was indiscriminately attacked.Thereafter, when she went inside the house, she found M.S.Pandian was lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries.An amputated finger of M.S.Pandian was found inside the house.At the entrance of the house, a bullet and a broken cell phone were also found.Thereafter, the said victim was shifted to nearby Velammal Hospital by an ambulance.However, he was pronounced dead by the doctors.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that thereafter, Vasantha came to B4 Keeraithurai Police Station and prepared a complaint statement requesting action, based on which a FIR in B4 Keeraithurai P.S.Cr.No.412/2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC was registered.After thorough investigation, the accused Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai, S/o.Alagarsamy and Muthupandi, S/o.Further, the investigation reveals that there was a previous enmity prevailing between V.K.Gurusamy and Rajapandi of Keeraithurai area over political rivalry and family disputes for years together.Due to that, both the parties carried out their revenge murders.Recently, V.K.Gurusamy's son V.K.G.Mani and son-in-law M.S.Pandian kidnapped Thoppilli Muniyasamy S/o.Rajapandi, murdered him and burnt his body into ashes.The accused Muthukumar @ Pattakumar was driving another two wheeler with Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth as pillion rider and followed them and all of them rushed to Nagupillai Thope.After seeing M.S.Pandian going on walk, the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan, who was in the car shot M.S.Pandian with a pistol in his possession.On hearing the sound, M.S.Pandian, escaped from them and ran away.Immediately the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan, Selvam @ Pinam Thinni armed with big aruval, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari armed with a big sword, Muthupandi and Chinna Vavuthalai armed with deadly weapons chased M.S.Pandian and attacked him indiscriminately.On seeing this, when Vasantha tried to prevent them, the assailants threatened her also and fled away from there by car and two wheelers.They have also robbed a Two Wheeler TN 59 BP 5477 creating panic and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the local people and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the public order.Even the shopkeepers there also closed their shops and the vehicle riders came on that way also returned.8/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that when M.S.Pandian was killed by the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan by pistol with prior conspiracy and also robbed the two wheeler from an innocent rider who came on that way, the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan was surrendered before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 25.04.2019 and was remanded to judicial custody till 03.05.2019 at the Puzhal Prison, Chennai.Thereafter, he was transferred to Central Prison, Madurai on 03.05.2019 and his confession was recorded.The case properties, namely, one Pistol, bullets 30, one empty bullet, a yellow polythene bag used to keep the pistol and a kerchief were seized under attachi.Then he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai on 7.5.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at District Prison, Ramanathapuram.Moreover, Bhuvaneswaran @ Bhuvanesh @ Kocha S/o.Ganesa on his arrest has given a confession statement on 25.04.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody.Besides, Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy, S/o.Muthu was arrested on 26.04.2019 and his confession statement was recorded.Thereafter, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV , Madurai 9/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 on 26.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody.When the investigation team was searching the other accused, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari S/o.Chellapandi, Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth, S/o.Chinnapandi and Rambabu, S/o.Murugan surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Trichy.On 26.04.2019, they were transferred to the Central Prison, Madurai.Annalakshmi, W/o.Muniyasamy has filed this Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the validity of the impugned order of detention dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, the 2nd respondent herein in Proceedings in No.40/BCDFGISSSV/2019, to quash the same and to set her son Boomi @ Boominathan at liberty.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent while passing the impugned detention order has not followed the principles established by law because they have not informed the detention to the family members of the detenu.Therefore, the 2nd respondent appears to have inferred that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the above case and if he comes out on bail, he would indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The above reasoning given by the Detaining Authority shows that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind properly for the reason that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the fact that at the time of passing the detention order whether the said bail application was pending before the Sessions Court or not, but nowhere in the detention order the detaining authority mentioned about the date of filing the bail application, date of hearing, date of pending disposal 3/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 whereas the detention order has been passed on 15.07.2019 without verifying the pendency of the bail application.Hence, this non- application of mind would vitiate the impugned detention order, it is pleaded.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the detention order says that the co-accused Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy was granted bail by the Madurai Bench of this Court, it has to be seen that the said Muniyasamy was granted bail on the ground that though he had two previous cases, but the same are not similar in nature.Insofar as the present detenu is concerned, the Sponsoring Authority did not place the entire materials before the Detaining Authority.For all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to go.A detailed Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city, Madurai.4/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019Though the detenu also has moved the bail application, the same was pending.As per the ground case, one Vasantha, w/o.Pandian is residing at Flat No.572, TNHB Colony, Anuppanadi, Madurai for rent and her ancestral house is located at Door No.50/216, Subbammal Compound, Sinthamani Main Road, Madurai.While so, one Jeyanthlal is residing at the ground floor for lease whereas one Seenivasan is residing at the first floor of the house for rent.Kumar were arrested on 24.04.2019 and their confession statements were also recorded.6/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 Besides, the case properties, namely, a Two Wheeler was seized from Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai and a sword and Aruval were seized from Muthupandi under Athachi.Thereafter, the duo were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai.Therefore, in order to take revenge, the supporters of Rajapandi murdered one Muniyasamy on 12.06.2018 mistaking him as M.S.Pandian.In continuation, Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali, relative of Rajapandi insisted the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan on several occasions to murder M.S.Pandian.Under such circumstances, the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan joining with other accused Rambabu, 7/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 Selvam @ Pinam Thinni, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari came in a car, armed with deadly weapons driven by Padam @ Muniyasamy.Chinna Vavuthalai followed them on a two wheeler with Muthupandi as a Pillion Rider.Thereafter, the trio were taken to police custody on 27.04.2019 and their confession statements were recorded.Moreover, the case properties, namely, a sword was seized from Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari, a Hero Honda Splender Two Wheeler was seized from Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth and one Two Wheeler was seized from Rambabu on 28.04.2019 under attachi.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted 10/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 that the representation dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner addressed to the State Government marking a copy to the Detaining Authority was received by the Detaining Authority on 05.08.2019 from the petitioner and remarks for the same were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 05.08.2019 and the remarks which were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 06.08.2019 were sent to the Government on the same day without any delay.Therefore, there is no infirmity in the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent.9. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and I have also perused the typed set of papers including the detention order carefully.At the outset, it is an admitted case that after killing M.S.Pandian, when the investigation team was searching the offenders, the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan was surrendered before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 25.04.2019 and was remanded to judicial custody till 03.05.2019 at the Puzhal Prison, Chennai.Thereafter, he was transferred to Central Prison, Madurai on 03.05.2019 and his confession was recorded.The case properties, namely, one Pistol, bullets 30, one empty bullet, a yellow polythene 11/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 bag used to keep the pistol and a kerchief were seized under attachi.Then he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai on 7.5.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at District Prison, Ramanathapuram.The accused Rambabu along with other accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Trichy.Moreover, a sword was seized from Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari.On the basis of the confession statements given by them, it appears that a Hero Honda Splender Two Wheeler was also seized from Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth and one another two wheeler was seized from Rambabu on 28.04.2019 under attachi.Thereafter, all these three accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and their remand period has also been extended.While so, the representation dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner to the State Government marking a copy to the Detaining Authority was received by the Detaining Authority on 05.08.2019 and remarks for the same were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on the same day and remarks were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 06.08.2019 which were sent to the Government on the same day itself without any delay.12/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019Secondly, the detenu was in remand in the ground case in Crime No.412/2019 of B4 Keeraithurai Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC altered into Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392 and 302 of IPC and Section 25(1- A) of the Arms Act, 1959 altered into Section 120-B, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392, 302 of IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act, 1959 in Central Prison, Palayamkottai and on the date of passing of the detention order i.e. on 15.07.2019, the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.2391/2019 was pending disposal.One of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is whether a person who has been implicated in a solitary case by any stretch of imagination, can be branded as Goonda within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (T.N.Act 14 of 1982).Muniyasamy under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (T.N.Act 14 of 1982).In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.(T.R.,J.) (B.P.J.,) 04.06.2020 INDEX : YES/NO INTERNET : YES/NO tsi 15/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.and B.PUGALENDHI,J.tsi To:2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Pre-delivery order in HCP.(MD) 800 of 2019 16/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.800 of 2019 04.06.2020
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,952,861 |
Through: Ms Aashaa Tiwari, APP.2.1 Innocent and unaware of the predator lurking for her around the corner, the prosecutrix - who, in view of the proscription imposed by State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh AIR 2004 SC 1290, must remain unnamed and would, therefore, be designated by the appellation C' - was, at 4 pm on 7th February 2012, playing with her friends outside her house, when it began to rain.The children dispersed in different directions.Sangeeta (PW-19) - the mother of C' - made various attempts to trace her, but remained unsuccessful.Finding her alone and seizing the opportunity, the appellant, on the pretext of feeding her ber, coaxed C' to accompany him to a spot near the canal (nehar) in the vicinity.There, the appellant stifled her by covering her mouth, struck at her face and eyes, burnt her hair and attempted to strangulate her, whereafter he proceeded to commit rape on her.Having perpetrated the heinous act, the appellant threw the prosecutrix into the nehar, at which time Sonu (PW-16) fortunately arrived at the spot.Sonu found C' weeping and lying face down in the nehar, clinging to the weeds.Her face was swollen and her clothes were wet and blood stained.The appellant, who was standing by the banks of the nehar, was also soaked from head to toe.Chagrined at the inopportune arrival of Sonu at the spot, the appellant tried to flee from the spot, but was apprehended by Sonu who, by that time, had picked C' up from the spot in the nehar where she was found by him.Alka (PW-9) was noted, by her, as "ek ladka ek chhoti bachi ke saath baitha hai, caller ko doubt hai kuchh galat kaam kiya hai" (a boy is sitting with a young girl, the caller feels that something wrong has been done to her).Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 2 of 672.2 Krishan Kumar (PW-14) was sitting at the tea stall, which belonged to Amit (PW-17), when Sonu arrived there, carrying C' in one arm and holding the appellant by the other.As he was carrying C', the clothes of Sonu were also wet.The fact of the appellant having committed rape on C' was disclosed, by Sonu, to Krishan Kumar.It was noticed by Sonu (PW-16), as well as Amit (PW-17), that C' was bleeding from her private parts.The police, having been informed, reached the tea stall 10-15 minutes later.2.3 Krishan Kumar (PW-14) stated that he knew C''s parents.The Police, thereupon, directed Krishan Kumar (PW-14) to inform them of what had happened.Krishan Kumar, therefore, proceeded to C''s house, to inform Virender (PW-15), C''s father, of the tragedy that had occurred.2.4 At or around 5 pm, Krishan Kumar (PW-14) reached Virender (PW-15) and informed him that someone had done galat kaam" (wrong deed) with his daughter C' and had been apprehended on the spot.On hearing this, Virender (PW-15), accompanied by his wife Sangeeta (PW-19), rushed to the tea-stall, reaching there within 5 Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 3 of 67 minutes.They found C' in tears.Her hair was partly burnt and her underwear was blood stained.On removing her underwear, Virender found that C' was bleeding vaginally.It must, however, be understood, that when a child of tender years alleges that an adult has done galat kaam with her, it nearly inevitably indicates commission of rape, or, at the very least, outraging of her modesty.2.6 Virender (PW-15), Sangeeta (PW-19), C' and the appellant were brought to the Maharishi Valmiki Hospital (hereinafter referred to as MV Hospital) by the PCR.Alleged H/o ? Sexual assault Pt conscious, oriented PR: 86/min BP: 110/70 mm Hg Chest } CVS } NAD P/A }- Minor abrasions (+) over B/S face- Swelling (+) over left side of face- Blood stain (+) over lower garment- Refd to Gynae SR for further physical examination & management 2.7 C' was, subsequently, examined by Dr. Shilpi, who noticed that she was bleeding vaginally.As she needed to examine her under anesthesia, which was not possible at the MV Hospital, C' was referred to the BSA Hospital.The entry, made by Dr. Shilpi on the body of the MLC of C' (Ex PW-13/A), was as under:Attended L1IO of pts' father Virender yesterday.Examination tried but victim is very apprehensive and uncooperative.Bleeding from genitals seen.Adv Refer to BSA for examination under Anaesthesia and proper sample collection as no Emergency OT/Anaesthesia facility available at MVH.Acting thereupon, ASI Raj Kumar reached the MV Hospital at about 6.40pm with Ct.Arjun Lal (PW-23), where they collected the MLC of C'.At that time, Virender (PW-15), Ct.Kuldeep (PW-5) and Ct.Meenu (PW-7) were present there.Kuldeep took the appellant to P.S. Bawana, on instructions of ASI Raj Kumar.C' revealed, to ASI Raj Kumar, that Shri Bhagwan Bhaiya ne galat kaamkiya" (Shri Bhagwan bhaiya did a wrong deed).2.10 The statement of Sonu (PW-16) was recorded by the Police.Rukka was prepared by ASI Raj Kumar (PW-11) on the basis of the statement of Virender.The rukka was taken by Ct.Arjun Lal (PW-23) to the PS, where FIR was registered.Copies of the FIR and original rukka were given by Ct.Arjun Lal (PW-23) to SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) for investigation.The appellant was taken into custody.The IO SI Anil Tushir (PW-24), accompanied by Ct.Arjun Lal (PW-23), reached the MV Hospital, where the IO directed W/Ct.Meenu (PW-7) to accompany C' and her parents to the BSA Hospital, to which she had been referred for treatment.At about 8.45 Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 6 of 67 pm, C was shifted to the BSA Hospital accompanied by W/Ct.Meenu (PW-7) and other staff.At the BSA Hospital, Virender's statement was recorded by ASI Raj Kumar (Ex. PW-11/A).Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 6 of 672.11 At the BSA Hospital, C' was examined by Dr. Shaina, who prepared the MLC of C' (Ex. PW-12/A), recording that her hymen was torn, and that she was bleeding per vagina.Her vaginal and rectal mucosa were also found to be torn, and it was further observed she had sustained bruises on her left eye, cuts on both lips and fresh wounds on her chin and neck.- BPV +- Vaginal mucosa torn- Rectal mucosa tear present Injuries- Bruises present under lt eye- Cuts present on both lips- Fresh aberrations present on Right side of chin and neck 2.12 Ct.Arjun Lal (PW-23) and the IO SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) returned to the PS, where the IO was met by ASI Raj Kumar (PW-11), who handed over, to him, the MLC of the appellant.The appellant, on being interrogated by the IO, admitted to having committed rape on C'.The IO arrested the appellant, vide arrest memo Ex. PW- 23/A. The disclosure statement of the appellant (Ex. PW-23/C) was recorded by the IO, wherein the appellant pointed out the site of incident, the pointing out memo being exhibited as Ex. PW-23/D. Site plan was prepared by the IO, who also recorded the statement of Sonu (PW-16).The appellant was identified by Sonu.The IO also recorded the statement of C' and Ct.Arjun Lal.2.13 On the next date i.e. on 8th February 2012, at 9 a.m., Ct.Balraj (PW-3) and IO SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) took the appellant to the Bawana Canal, and, thereafter, to the MV Hospital.The appellant was medically examined.The MLC of the appellant (Ex.PX-5) opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of sexual Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 8 of 67 intercourse.The statements of Amit (PW-17) and Krishan Kumar (PW-14) were recorded by the IO.The IO, thereafter collected the MLC of the appellant and sample pullandas handed over by Ct. Balraj (PW-3), which were seized by him.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 8 of 672.14 The appellant was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody (JC), and the sealed articles were deposited by the IO in the malkhana.2.15 On 15th March 2012, the seized exhibits were taken by Ct.6. Virender (PW-15), the father of C' and husband of Sangeeta (PW-19), deposed, in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, that (i) on 7th February, 2012, Krishan Kumar had arrived at his house and informed him that C' was at the tea stall and was totally soaked from head to toe, and that someone had done galat kaam" with her,(ii) when he arrived at the tea stall, he found that the appellant had been apprehended by a large number of members of the public, and that his daughter C' was totally wet with her hair partly burnt, forehead swollen and bruise marks on her neck, as if someone had tried to strangulate her, (iii) when he lifted her, he found that she was bleeding from her private parts, (iv) on his asking C' what had happened, she revealed Shree Bhagwan mujhe bula kar le gaya aur mera khoon nikal diya, baalo me aag laga diya aur nehar mein duba diya (Shree Bhagwan called me and took me with him and made me bleed, he set fire to my hair and threw me in the nehar), (v) the Police, thereafter, took his daughter to the MV Hospital, where she was examined and medically treated, (vi) from MV hospital, they were referred to BSA Hospital, and (vii) his statement (Ex PW-11/A) was recorded at the BSA Hospital.Anil, who deposed as PW-4, also tendered his evidence-in- chief by way of affidavit (Ex PW-4/1), wherein he confirmed having taken the exhibits of the case, from the malkhana, on 15th of March 2012, and having deposited them at the FSL, Rohini, and that, so long as the exhibits remained in his custody, they were not mishandled.He was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.Kuldeep (PW-5) also tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit, which was exhibited as Ex PW-5/1, in which he affirmed that, on 7th of February 2012, ASI Raj Kumar (PW-11) handed over, to his custody, the appellant, who, in turn, was handed over, by him, to the IO SI Anil Tushir (PW-24).He was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.W/Ct.Meenu (PW-7) also filed her examination-in-chief, by way of affidavit (Ex PW-7/1), in which she confirmed that she had reached MV hospital at about 7:30 PM on 7th February 2012, where she met ASI Raj Kumar (PW-11) and Ct.Arjun Lal (PW-23), and that the prosecutrix C', 5 years of age, was under treatment there.W/Ct.Alka (PW-9) also tendered her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-9/1).She testified, in the said affidavit, having recorded, at 5.51 PM on 7th February 2012 regarding ek ladka ek choti bachhi ke saath baitha hai caller ko doubt hai kuchh galat kaam kiya hai (a boy is sitting with a young girl, the caller feels that something wrong has been done to her).She was not cross- examined, despite grant of opportunity.HC Dharmpal (PW-10) who, too, tendered his examination-in- chief by way of affidavit (exhibited as Ex PW-10/1) deposed, therein, that the exhibits, in the above case, were deposited by the IO SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) on 7th and 8th February 2012 which, as per the directions of the IO, were handed over, by him, to Ct.Anil Kumar (PW-4) on 15th March 2012 and that, after submitting the said exhibits to the FSL, Rohini, Ct.Anil Kumar handed over, to him, the receipts of the exhibits and a copy of the RC registered in the case.Arjun Lal (PW-23) reached the MV hospital, collected the MLC of the prosecutrix C' and, after recording the statement of Virender, sent Ct.Arjun Lal to PS Bawana, for registering a case.He further stated that the appellant was also sent to PS Bawana in the custody of Ct.Kuldeep (PW-5), and that he had handed over the MLC of C' to the IO SI Anil Tushir, who had arrived at the MV hospital.He was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.ASI Shree Bhagwan (PW-22) deposed, in his examination-in- chief, that, on 7th February, 2012, at about 6 PM, he received a call from the PCR, that one boy was sitting with a small girl at the Hanuman temple tea stall, and that the caller suspected that the boy had raped the girl.He further stated that, on receiving the said information, he immediately reached the concerned site, where he found the appellant and the prosecutrix, who was about 5 years of age, as well as the caller who had contacted him.In the meantime, the Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 28 of 67 parents of the prosecutrix C' also reached there and, as per the deposition of ASI Shree Bhagwan, C' disclosed, to her parents, the fact that the appellant had committed rape with her and tried to throw her in the nehar.ASI Shree Bhagwan further deposed that, thereafter, they took C', her parents and the appellant to the MV hospital, where she was medically examined and that, on arrival of ASI Raj Kumar there, the appellant was handed over to him.He also correctly identified the appellant, who was present in the court.In his cross- examination, PW-22 ASI Shree Bhagwan further elucidated that the appellant and the prosecutrix C' were both wet, at the time when they, i.e. PW-22 and the other members of the Police, reached the spot, though it was not raining.He further stated that he did not check whether the appellant was smelling of alcohol or not and that, as there was a large number of persons at the spot, they hurriedly removed C' and the appellant to the hospital.Arjun Lal (PW-23) deposed, in his examination-in-chief, that, on 7th February 2012, while on emergency duty, he, along with ASI Raj Kumar (PW-11) reached the MV Hospital and collected the MLC of C'.He further deposed that the appellant was handed over, by the PCR officials, to ASI Raj Kumar who, thereafter, recorded the statement of Virender (PW-15) and prepared the rukka, which he carried, with him, to the Police Station for registration of a FIR.After the FIR was registered, as per the statement of Ct.Arjun Lal, a copy of the FIR, along with the original rukka, were handed over, by him, to the IO SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) for further investigation, after which Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 29 of 67 they reached the MV hospital, where they met ASI Raj Kumar and Ct.Meenu (PW-7).Arjun Lal further stated that C' was taken to the BSA Hospital, along with Ct.Meenu, where the doctor handed over, to her, the MLC of C' along with 15 sealed exhibits, which were seized by the IO.The appellant, he stated, was handed over to the custody of Ct.Kuldeep (PW-5) and sent to the Police Station, where he reached later, with the IO.He further deposed that, at the Police Station, the appellant was interrogated by the IO, whereupon he disclosed that he had committed rape on C' at the nehar, whereupon the IO proceeded to arrest the appellant, vide Arrest Memo exhibited as Ex PW-23/A. He also stated that the disclosure statement, of the appellant, was recorded by the IO, which was exhibited as Ex PW- 23/C, and bore his signatures.He also testified to the fact that the appellant pointed out the place of incident, vide pointing out memo exhibited as Ex PW-23/D which, too, bore his signatures.He correctly identified the appellant, who was present in the court.In cross-examination, PW-23 Ct.Arjun Lal deposed that the prosecutrix C' did not make any statement in his presence, and that ASI Raj Kumar had recorded the rukka on the basis of the statement of Virender, i.e. her father.He further stated that, of the persons present at the tea stall, one of them revealed that he knew the parents of C'.Arjun Lal, reached the MV Hospital, at the time when the prosecutrix C' was about to be shifted to the BSA Hospital, (ii) after recording the statement of the officials of the PCR, he returned to the Police Station, where ASI Raj Kumar (PW-11) provided him the MLC of C' (iii) he interrogated the appellant, who was in the custody of Ct.Kuldeep (PW-5), at which the appellant confessed about his involvement in the crime, whereupon he arrested the appellant and proceeded to record his disclosure statement (Ex PW-23/C), (iv) thereafter, the appellant pointed out the place of incident, vide memo exhibited as Ex PW-23/D, (v) he, thereafter, prepared the site plan (Ex PW-24/A) and also recorded the statement of Sonu, who met him near the place of incident, (vi) Sonu identified the appellant, (vii) he also recorded the statements of the parents of C' and of Ct. Arjun Lal, and had the seized articles deposited in the malkhana, (viii) on the next day, i.e. 8th February 2012, he recorded the statements of Amit (PW-17) and Krishan Kumar (PW-14), (ix) the appellant was taken to the MV Hospital for medical examination, after Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 31 of 67 which he collected his MLC and 5 pullandas from Ct. Balraj (PW-3), which he seized and (x) the appellant was, thereafter, produced before the learned MM and sent to JC, and the seized articles were deposited in the malkhana.He further deposed that, on 15th March 2012, the exhibits of the case were sent to the FSL through Ct.Anil (PW-4) and statements were recorded by him, whereafter he was transferred from the case.He correctly identified the appellant, who was present in the court.In cross-examination, he stated that, at the MV Hospital, the prosecutrix C' was not in a position to speak and did not inform him anything about the incident, as she was continuously crying and was extremely scared and apprehensive, and that, even at the BSA Hospital, she was not in a fit condition to make a statement.At one stage, it was suggested that the appellant had accompanied Sonu to the tea stall himself'.Elsewhere, an entirely inconsistent suggestion was given that Sonu had not brought the appellant and the victim from the canal to the tea shop.Apparently, the appellant was not sure as to what defence he was to plead.Anil Kumar, P.S. Bawana.This is yet another case - sad and sordid in equal measure - of innocence plundered.Carrying C' in one arm and holding the appellant by the other, Sonu proceeded to a nearby tea-shop owned by Amit (PW-17).C', who was in a state of shock and terror, remained silent throughout.At Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 2 of 67 around this time, someone, using Sonu's mobile, called the PCR.The call, which was recorded by Ct.She also bore marks around her neck as if someone had strangulated her.On his asking, C' informed him that the appellant had brought her to the nehar on the pretext of eating ber and had stifled her by covering her mouth, burnt her hair, done galat kaam (wrong deed) with her and had, thereafter, thrown her in the nehar.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 3 of 67C' was medically examined and treated and the appellant was handed over to the Police.The MLC of C' (Ex. PW-13/A) was prepared by Dr. S.N. Siddharth (PW-13), who referred her for gynecological examination.In the MLC, Dr. S.N. Siddharth (PW-13) observed minor abrasions, on both sides of the face of C', swelling on the left side and the fact that her lower Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 4 of 67 garment was blood stained.For ready reference, the MLC, as prepared by Dr. Siddharth, may be reproduced as under:Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 4 of 67Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 5 of 67 2.8 On Virender's (PW-15) and Sonu's (PW-16) asking, C' detailed the incident as above, further stating that the appellant had tried to strangulate her.She also stated that her statement had been recorded by the Police.C's underwear (Ex. P-1), which was wet as C' had been lying in the nehar, was seized by the Police.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 5 of 672.9 At about 6.25 pm on the same day, DD No. 62B was received by ASI Raj Kumar (PW-11), regarding the above occurrence.Samples were taken for analysis.For the sake of completion of the record, we proceed to extract the MLC of C', as recorded by Dr. Shaina, thus:for EA and proper sampling Alleged H/O physical and sexual assault H/O forcep coitus & physical assault in evening of 7/2/12 (given by pt's mother) M/H - Pt has not achieved menarche Unmarried P/H - NAD O/E - Pt conscious and oriented GC fair BP - 110/70 mm Hg PR - 98/m afeb P/A - soft- EVA done and tears repaired Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 7 of 67 L/E - HymenCrl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 7 of 67Anil (PW-4) to the FSL and receipt thereof handed over to the MHC (M).2.16 On 16th April 2012, investigation of the case was shifted from SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) to SI Narender (PW-25).2.17 On 3rd May 2012, SI Narender (PW-25) moved an application for permission to record the statement of C', whereafter her statement, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) was recorded by Sh.Deepak Wason, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini.(The said statement may be reproduced thus (in vernacular, followed by the translation thereof):Main mummy papa ke saath rehti hoon.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 9 of 67Kuchh din pehle ek ladka ber ke bahane mujhe bulakar ek jungle mein le gaya.Woh cycle par mujhe le gaya.Mera baal aur gala daba liya aur behosh kar diya.Thodi der mein mujhe hosh aaya.Usne mujhe naale mein ger diya.Ek aadmi ne mujhe bachaya.Main us ladke ko pehchan nahin sakti.Meri peshab wali jagah par khoon aa raha tha."(Translated into English) I live with my mother and father.Mother, father, brother and four sisters.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 10 of 67Some days back one boy, on the pretext of feeding me ber, called me and took me into a jungle.He took me on a cycle.He strangulated me and made me unconscious.I regained consciousness after sometime.He threw me in the nala.One man rescued me.I was bleeding from the place from which I pass urine.SI Narender thereafter recorded the statement of Virender (PW-15) and W/Ct.2.18 Consequent to completion of investigations, SI Narender, on the next date i.e. 4th May 2012, submitted the charge sheet in the Court of the learned MM supplementary charge-sheet, dated 12th August 2012, was also filed by SI Narender, to place the FSL reports, which he had collected in the meantime, on record.The sequence of events, as recorded in the charge-sheet having already been recited hereinabove, no further allusion is required to be made thereto.Evidence 3 Having, thus, set out the case as pleaded by the prosecution, let us proceed to reconnoiter the evidence that emerged, in order to assess whether it supported the prosecution's version.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 11 of 67We find that the learned ASJ has compartmentalized the oral evidence adduced in the present case into evidence of the public witnesses, medical evidence and evidence of police witnesses.We propose to follow the same scheme, eschewing reference to the evidence of a few witnesses which are formal in nature, and are not really necessary in order to decide the present appeal.The first public witness whose evidence was recorded by the learned ASJ was Krishan Kumar (PW-14).The examination-in- chief and cross-examination of Krishan Kumar merit reproduction, in extenso (substituting the name of the prosecutrix with the pseudonym C'), thus:I have been residing at the aforementioned address for the last 13 years and I am employed as Operator/Chowkidaar in Delhi Jal Board.I know Sonu.I also know C' aged about 5 years who was residing in J.J. Colony, Bawana with her parents and I also know the place the jhuggi where she was residing as I was known to her parents.On 07.02.2012 at about 5 p.m. I was present at the T shop near Hanuman Mandir at Bawana Mor.I saw that Sonu was bringing accused Shree Bhagwan and C' by holding their hands and there was blood on the clothes of C'.Sonu told me that accused Shree Bhagwan committed rape with C'.I immediately went to the house of C' and called her parents.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 12 of 67Accused Shree Bhagwan is present in the court today.Witness correctly identifies accused Shree Bhagwan.XXXXXX by Ms. Shashi Jaiswal Amicus Curiae for accused.I identified the child because I had seen her previously and I knew her parents and used to frequent their house.Victim C' was wearing Jumpher and underwear (kachi).I have seen Sonu only who brought the victim girl and the accused.Sonu with victim girl and accused met me at Tea shop.The police was already informed and police reached at the spot after 10-15 minutes and three police personnels came at the spot in the PCR van.Upper part of pant of Sonu was also wet and his shirt was also wet as the victim girl was on his lap.Sonu brought the accused Shree Bhagwan by holding his hand at the Tea shop.When I reached at the Tea shop already 15-20 persons were standing there.Sonu had already brought the victim girl and accused Shree Bhagwan at the Tea shop before my arrival there and Sonu told all the incident to me.I called the parents of C' on the asking of the PCR official because I know the child and her parents.It is correct that the Tea shop is just near the canal.Sonu used to work as a Farmer and used to sell seasonal fruits and vegetables.Sonu used to sell seasonal fruits and vegetables near the tea shop.It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of Sonu and police.It would thus be seen that, while, in examination-in-chief, as also initially during his cross-examination, Krishan Kumar deposed that he saw Sonu coming towards the tea-stall carrying C' in one arm and holding the hand of the appellant by the other, he prevaricated, to some extent, later during his cross-examination, by deposing that Sonu had already brought C' and the appellant to the tea-stall prior to his (Krishan Kumar's) arrival there.The extent, to which such prevarication dilutes the effect of his testimony, is an issue which we would address later in this judgement.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 13 of 67He correctly identified the appellant, who was present in court.Sonu (PW-16) deposed in his examination-in-chief that (i) on 7th February 2012, at about 5 PM, he was coming to the place near the Hanuman temple where he used to sell guavas, where he saw one girl, about 5 years of age, lying in the canal, and one boy standing near her Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 14 of 67 (at this juncture, Sonu pointed out towards the appellant stating that he was the person who was standing near the girl), (ii) the girl was weeping, (iii) he picked up the girl from the canal and found that her face was swollen and her clothes were blood stained, (iv) the appellant tried to flee, but he apprehended him, and brought the appellant and the girl near the tea shop, where Krishan Kumar (PW-14) met him, (v) he informed Krishan Kumar about the facts and, thereafter, dialed the Police, who reached the spot, (vi) Krishan Kumar informed the parents of the girl, (vii) he handed over the appellant and the girl to the Police,Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 14 of 67(viii) the underwear of the girl was also blood stained and (ix) on his asking the appellant to tell the true facts, the appellant admitted that the girl was his neighbor and that he had committed rape on her.In cross-examination, PW-16 Sonu further stated that (i) the girl was lying at the corner of the nehar with her head in the water and was clutching in the weeds flowing in the water, (ii) she was wearing a frock and underwear, (iii) he carried the girl on the shoulder and held the appellant with his another hand, (iv) the appellant was drunk and smelling of alcohol and was already soaked from head to toe when he met him, (v) when he requested the appellant to carry the child, the appellant questioned him regarding his identity, (vi) the girl did not say anything to him (i.e. to Sonu); she was weeping when he found her and, though her eyes were open on the way to the tea shop, she did not speak, (vii) he neither knew the parents of the girl, nor Krishan Kumar, before the date of incident, though he knew the tea shop vendor Amit (PW-17) very well, and (viii) the rape of C' did not take place in his presence.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 15 of 67Amit, the tea shop vendor (PW-17) deposed in his examination- in-chief, that (i) he had been running the tea stall near the nehar for the last six years, (ii) on 7th February, 2012, Sonu who was previously known to him brought a small girl and the appellant to his tea stall,(iii) he had seen the appellant in the area earlier, as he was a labourer,(iv) the child was shivering and was totally soaked from head to toe,(v) Sonu told him that he had recovered her from the nehar and that the appellant had done "galat kaam" with her, (vi) at that point, he and Sonu noticed that there was blood on the underwear of the child and that she was bleeding from her private parts, (vii) Krishan Kumar (PW-14), who was present at the shop stated that he knew the child and her parents, and therefore went and called the parents of the child who was about 5 years of age and (viii) in the meantime, Sonu called the police, who reached the spot and took the child and her parents with them.In cross-examination, Amit (PW-17) stated that (i) he did not know the family of the child and had seen her for the first time, (ii) it was Sonu who told them that the appellant had done "galat kaam" with the child, (iii) the child who was crying, did not disclose the name of the person who had done "galat kaam with her in his presence and (iv) though he knew Sonu they were not friends.9. Sangeeta (PW-19), the mother of C' and the wife of Virender (PW-15), endorsed the deposition of her husband Virender, by stating, in her examination-in-chief and cross examination, that (i) C' had been playing with her friends outside their house at 4.00 - 4.15 PM on Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 16 of 67 7th February 2012, when it began to rain, whereupon the children dispersed, (ii) she made all efforts to search for her daughter but was unable to find her, (iii) at about 5 PM, Krishan Kumar (PW-14) arrived at their house, and informed them that their daughter C', who was wet and shivering and had been rescued from the nehar, had been brought to a nearby tea stall and that it appeared that something wrong had been done to her, (iv) when she, and her husband Virender (PW-15) reached the tea stall, they noticed that C' was, in fact, wet and shivering and that her underwear was soaked with blood, (v) they also saw that C' was crying and that there were bruise marks around her eyes and forehead, as well as marks around her neck which made it appear that someone had tried to strangulate her, (vi) the hair of C' was also partly burnt, (vii) consequent to the police arriving at the spot C' was shifted to MV Hospital, accompanied by Sangeeta and her husband Virender, (viii) at the MV Hospital preliminary treatment was administered to C' whereafter she was referred to the BSA Hospital, (ix) C' remained admitted in BSA Hospital for about 8-9 days during which her wounds were stitched, (x) though, while they were at the tea stall, C' who went on crying, did not respond on being queried by her (Sangeeta), as to what had happened, (xi) after they had reached the Hospital, she revealed that the appellant had taken her, with him, to the nehar, where he did galat kaam with her, and also burnt her hair and hit her face with his fist, whereafter he strangulated her and threw her in the nehar, (xii) C' further revealed that another person had rescued her from the nehar and brought her to the tea stall and that the police had recorded her statement, and (xiii) the Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 17 of 67 underwear of C' was soaked, as she had been lying in the nehar.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 16 of 67Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 17 of 67C' was also examined, in chief, and cross-examined, as PW-20, albeit without oath, as she was only 6 years old at the time.Being a child prosecutrix, it would be appropriate to reproduce the entire record of her testimony, in examination-in-chief and cross- examination, as under (the translation, in English, is provided alongside):PW-20 Ms. (C') aged 6 years D/o Sh.Virender R/o J.J. Colony, Bawana, Delhi.(Camera proceedings conducted in the chamber in the presence of Ld. APP for the State, Ms. Vandana Chauhan, Counsel for Delhi Commission for Women and Ms. Shashi Jaiswal counsel for the accused, in vernacular) (Without Oath being child is 6 years old) Q. Tumara Naam Kya Hai? ( What is your name?) Ans. ........Q. Tumare Papa Ka Naam Kya Hai? (What is your father's name?) Ans.Virender Q. Kahan rehti Ho? (Where do you stay?) Ans.J.J. Colony, Bawana, Delhi.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 18 of 67Mummy, papa ke sath aayee hun.(I have come with mommy and papa.) Q. Tumare school ka Naam Kya Hai? (What is the name of your school?) Ans.School Ka Naam Pata Nahi Hai.Madam Ne Nahi Bataya Hai.Main Tisri class Main Padti Hun.(I do not know the name of my school.Madam has not told us.I study in the third class.) (Mother of the child is also present in the chamber within her sight to make the victim child comfortable but not permitted to intervene.I find that the victim/child is comfortable and is in a position to depose and hence, I now proceed to record her statement.) Q. Aap Mujhe Poori Baat Batayengi Kya Hua Tha? (Will you tell me exactly what had happened?) Ans.(By nodding her head) Han.Mujhe Shree Bhagwan Ber Khilane Ke Liye Le Gaya Tha.(Yes.Shree Bhagwan took me with him to feed me ber'.) Court question: Sh.Bhagwan Ko Kaise Janti Ho? (How do you know Shree Bhagwan?) Ans.Sab usko Shree Bhagwan Ke Naam Se Bulate Hain.(Everyone addresses him by the name Shree Bhagwan.) Q. Kaun sa Ladka Le Gaya Tha? Jisko aap Shree Bhagwan Kehte Ho usko Pehchan Sakti Ho? ( Who was the boy who took you with him? Can you recognise the person whom you call Shree Bhagwan?) Ans.( Yes.) Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 19 of 67 (At this stage the accused has been produced in the chamber alongwith three other boys of similar height, physique, complexion and wearing similar clothes and the child has correctly identified the accused Shri Bhagwan by pointing out and thereafter by touching him.) Court Question: Iska Naam Kya Hai? ( What is the name of this person?) Ans.Shree Bhagwan.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 19 of 67Q. Shree Bhagwan Tumhe Kahan Le gaya Tha?Shree Bhagwan Ber Khilane Ke liye Mandir Ke Paas Le Gaya tha.(Shree Bhagwan took me with him to a place near the temple, to feed me ber.) Q. Mandir ke Paas Usne Kya Kya Kiya? (What did he do, near the temple?) Ans.(At this stage child become apprehensive and is feeling shy and has kept quiet and then responded after sometime on persuations from the Court.) Ans.Apni Bhi Kachi Utari aur Meri Bhi uteri.Phir gala dabakar Aankh Main ghoosa Laga diya.Phir Balon Main aag Laga di.(He removed his underwear as well as mine.Then he pressed my neck and hit me in my eye.Then he set fire to my hair.) Court Observations: Child has been tonsured completely and I am told by her that this was done after the incident.Q. Baal Jalene Ke Baad Tumahare Baal Kisne Kate the? (After they were burnt, who cut your hair?) Ans.Baal Jalene Ke Baad Nai Se Baal Kataye the.(After they were burnt, I had my hair cut by a barber.) Court Question: Kitne Bade Baal The? (How long was your hair?) Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 20 of 67 Ans.Witness touched her shoulder meaning it was shoulder length.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 20 of 67Q. Kachi Utari to Shri Bhagwan Ne Kya Kiya Tha? (On removing the underwear, what did Shree Bhagwan do?) Ans.Pishab dal diya tha.(He poured urine.) Q. Jungle kaha Hai? (Where is the jungle?) Ans.Mandir Ke Aage.(Ahead of the temple.) (Child has stretched her hand and has said that ahead the temple) Q. Tum Geeli kese Ho Gai? (How did you get wet?) Ans.Nehar Mai Shree Bhagwan Ne Phenk Diya Tha.(Shree Bhagwan threw me in the canal.) Q. Kya Shree Bhagwan Geela Kaise Ho Gaya tha? ( How did Shree Bhagwan get wet?) Ans.Baarish Ho rahi thi tab Shree Bhagwan geela Ho gaya tha.(Shree Bhagwan became wet as it was raining.) Court question: tum Shree Bhagwan ko kaisi Jante Ho? (How do you know Shree Bhagwan?) Ans.Us Waqt dekha tha jab usne kiya tha.(I saw him when he was doing it.) Q. Tumhe Kisne Bachaya Tha? (Who saved you?) Ans.Ek uncle Ne.(An uncle saved me.) Q. Shree Bhagwan Ko Kisne Pakra tha? (Who court Shree Bhagwan?) Ans.Jis uncle ne bachaya tha un Uncle Ne Shree Bhagwan Ko pakra tha.(The uncle who saved me, caught Shree Bhagwan.) Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 21 of 67 Q. Shree Bhagwan Ne Mara aur ganda kaam kiya tha tab Tumhe Uska Naam Pata Tha? (When Shree Bhagwan hit you and did the dirty deed, did you know his name?) Ans.Jab wo aaye tha.Tab Usko sab Shree Bhagwan Bolte The tab mujhe pata chala.(When he came, everyone used to call him Shree Bhagwan; then I learnt his name.(At this stage, witness has identified her statement ex.PW20/A bearing her thumb impression at point A) Q. Pehle court mein jab aayee thi tab uncle ko sab bataya tha? (When you came to the court initially, did you tell uncle everything?) Ans.(Yes).Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 21 of 67Q. Kye Tumne Pehle uncle (Ld.MM) ko Bataya tha Kis Shree Bhagwan Ne Galat Kaam Kiya tha? (Did you initially tell uncle that the galat kaam was done by Shree Bhagwan?) Ans.Naam Bataya tha.(Yes.I told his name.) Court observations: Name of the accused was not mentioned in the statement of accused u/s 164 CrPC.XXXX by Ms. Shashi Jaiswal, Amicus Curiae for accused.Q. Kisne Bola tha Ki Court Mai Eaise Bolna.(Who told you to depose like this in court?) Ans.Maine Khud Bola Hai.Kisi nai nahi bataya.Ye kehya Galat Hai Ki Maini Mummy Papa Ke Kehne Par Shreee Bhagwan Ka Naam Liya tha.Yeh Kehna galat Hai Ki Shree Bhagwan Ne Mujhe Bachaya Tha aur galat kaam nahi kiya tha."(I have spoken of my own will.No one told me to do so.It is wrong to say that I took the name of Shree Bhagwan on being asked to do so by my mother and father.It is wrong to say that Shree Bhagwan saved me and did not do galat kaam.) Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 22 of 67 Medical WitnessesCrl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 22 of 67Dr. S.N. Siddharth (PW-13), who was the first to have medically examined the prosecutrix C', proved, in his examination- in-chief, the MLC (Ex PW-13/A) drawn up by him after examining C', and further confirmed that he had referred C' for gynaecological examination.He deposed that, on local examination, he had observed minor abrasions over both sides of her face, swelling over the left side of the face and bloodstains over her lower garment.He was not cross- examined, despite grant of opportunity.On behalf of Dr. Shilpi, Senior Resident, Gynaecology in MV Hospital (who had examined C' after she was referred by Dr. Siddharth), Dr. Geetanjali Singh (PW-18) entered the witness box, stating that she could identify the signatures of Dr. Shilpi, having seen her writing and signing in the course of her official duties.Dr. Geetanjali Singh deposed, further, that, consequent to being referred by Dr. Siddharth, C' had been examined by Dr. Shilpi, after obtaining requisite consent from her father.She further deposed that Dr. Shilpi had tried to talk to C', and examined her, but that C' remained apprehensive and uncooperative.She confirmed that C' was bleeding vaginally.Dr. Geetanjali Singh further stated that C' was, therefore, referred to the BSA Hospital, for examination under anaesthesia and proper sample collection, as no emergency OT/anaesthesiologist facility was available at the MV Hospital.She Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 23 of 67 identified the signatures of Dr. Shilpi, on the MLC of C'.She was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 23 of 67Dr. Shimpi Goyal, Senior Resident in the Gynaecology Department of the BSA Hospital, deposed, as PW-12, in place of Dr. Shaina, who had medically examined C' in the said hospital, clarifying, at the outset, that Dr. Shaina was not working in their Hospital any more, and that her present address was not known to them.Dr. Goyal stated that she could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Shaina, as she had worked with her and seen her signing and writing documents.Dr. Goyal went on, after this preliminary clarification, to prove the MLC prepared by Dr. Shaina, after examining the prosecutrix C', which was, consequently, exhibited as Ex PW-12/A. She identified the signatures of Dr. Shaina, on the said document.Thereafter, she reiterated the contentions of the MLC.She was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.Sunil (PW-1) tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit dated 30th July 2012 (PW-1/1), in which he deposed that(i) on 7th February 2012, at about 6.00 PM, he had received a PCR call to the effect that, at the tea stall near the Hanuman Temple, one boy was sitting with a small girl, and that the caller suspected that something wrong had happened, (ii) on receiving the said call he, along with the PCR van staff, reached the spot where the appellant Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 24 of 67 was found sitting with C', who was about 5-6 years of age, (iii) the parents of C' reached the spot and asked her what had happened, whereupon she revealed, to her parents, that Shree Bhagwan had "galat kaam" (wrong deed) with her and tried to drown her in the canal, (iv) he, along with the PCR van staff, took C' and her parents Virender (PW-15), Sangeeta (PW-19) and the appellant, to the MV Hospital, where C' was handed over to the Duty Constable and the appellant was handed over to ASI Raj Kumar.In his cross examination, PW-1 Ct.Sunil, however, turned hostile, stated that C' was not understanding Hindi and was, therefore, only crying and not saying anything.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 24 of 67Lady Ct.Ritu (PW-2) also tendered her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit (Ex PW-2/1), wherein she affirmed that, on 3rd May 2012, she, along with SI Narender (PW-25) accompanied the prosecutrix C' and her father Virender to the Rohini Court, where they got the statement of C' recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr PC).She was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.Balraj (PW-3), too, tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit (Ex PW-3/1), wherein he confirmed that, on 8th February, 2012, he, along with the I/O SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) accompanied the appellant, from the lock-up at PS Bawana, to the Bawana Canal, for investigation and that, thereafter, they went to the MV Hospital and had the appellant medically examined and his MLC Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 25 of 67 drawn up.He also deposed as to the handing over, to him, of samples by the doctor at the MV Hospital, which he handed over, in turn, to the IO SI Anil Tushir.Thereafter, he deposed, the appellant was produced before the learned MM and remanded to JC.Though he was cross-examined, nothing substantial emerged therefrom.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 25 of 67He also confirmed that, from the MV hospital, she, along with the PCR staff, Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 26 of 67 C' and her parents, reached the BSA Hospital, for further treatment, where C' was diagnosed and medically examined, and her MLC prepared.The samples in the MLC were handed over, to her, by the doctor which, in turn, she handed over to ASI Raj Kumar.In fine, she stated that she, along with her staff, the prosecutrix and her parents, came to the Police Station.Though she was cross-examined by learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant, nothing substantial emerged therefrom.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 26 of 67He further deposed that, so long as the exhibits were at the malkhana, they were Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 27 of 67 tampered with.He was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 27 of 67ASI Raj Kumar, as PW-11, also tendered his examination-in- chief by way of affidavit (Ex PW-11/1), and further deposed, orally before the learned ASJ, that he had recorded the statement of Virender, i.e. the father of the prosecutrix C', which was, accordingly, exhibited as Ex PW-11/A. In his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief, ASI Raj Kumar testified that, on 7th February, 2012, on entrustment vide DD No 60 2B, he, along with Ct.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 28 of 67He also accepted that the IO did not interrogate C', or record her statement, in his presence.He went on to state that, when they met the appellant in the hospital, his clothes were wet, and that, on being asked the reason thereof, by the IO, the appellant initially stated that he had been sitting at the banks of the nehar and was trying to save Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 30 of 67 C' but, later on, broke down and confessed that he had done "galat kaam" with her.He emphatically denied the suggestion, put to him, that the appellant had not made any statement, to the IO, to the effect that he had done "galat kaam" with C', or that he had always insisted that he was innocent and trying to save her.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 29 of 67Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 30 of 67SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) supported the above statements, by deposing, in examination-in-chief, that (i) consequent to being handed over a copy of the FIR and original rukka, by Ct.Arjun Lal (PW-23) on 7th February 2012, he, along with Ct.He further stated that C' never mentioned the name of the appellant to him directly, as the person who had done wrong with her and that the name of the appellant was mentioned by her father and by the public witness.He further accepted that he did not find the appellant to be smelling of alcohol, though the interrogated him at the Police Station, but denied the suggestion that the appellant had claimed that he was innocent and was only trying to save C', who was drowning in the nehar.He also denied the suggestion that the appellant did not make any disclosure confessing his involvement in the crime, or that he had recorded the same on the asking of the father of the prosecutrix C'.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 31 of 67The last witness, whose statement was recorded, was SI Narender (PW-25), who testified regarding the fact of his having got recorded the statement of the prosecutrix C' under Section 164 of Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 32 of 67 the CrPC, which was, consequently, exhibited as Ex PW-20/A, as also to having recorded the statement of her father Virender and of W/Ct.He correctly identified the appellant, who was present in the court.In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had tutored the prosecutrix C', or that she had identified the appellant, in the court, on his having pointed him out.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 32 of 67He professed ignorance regarding most of the events that had taken place, as retold to him, and insisted that he had been falsely implicated in the case.He denied the fact that he had pointed out the place of occurrence, and insisted that he was trying to save the prosecutrix C', as she was drowning in the nehar.He insisted that he never tried to flee from the spot and was, rather, standing at the bank of the nehar, after having saved the life of the prosecutrix C'.He flatly denied all allegations, made against him, by the various witnesses, as also the fact that C' had been raped, following which there was blood on her underwear, etc. He asserted that all witnesses, who had deposed against him, had deposed falsely.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 33 of 67The FSL report, issued on 4thJuly, 2012, is significant only to the extent that it failed to detect any semen on the Step 9 vaginal secretions (Ex 1L(a) and 1L(b), the Step 9 cervical mucus collection (Ex 1M),the Step 10 Culture (Ex 1N), or the Step 12 Rectal examination (Ex 1P(a), 1P(b) and 1P(c)) samples of the prosecutrix C'.The impugned judgementThe learned ASJ, vide the impugned judgement dated 17th October 2012, convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), for having committed the offences of kidnapping of C' from the lawful guardianship of her parents, with the intention of forcing or seducing her to illicit intercourse and, thereafter, committing aggravated sexual assault/rape upon her.Vide subsequent order dated 31st October, 2012, the learned ASJ sentenced the appellant to (i) 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default punishment of simple imprisonment of 15 days, for the offence under Section 363 read with Section 366 of the IPC, and (ii) rigorous imprisonment for life, with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, with default punishment of 6 months' simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 376 (2) (f) of the IPC.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 34 of 67There was no reason to disbelieve their testimonies.(ii) The age of the prosecutrix was also proved to be 5 to 6 years, at the time of commission of the crime, in view of the un-controverted testimonies, to this effect, of her parents, i.e. Virender (PW-15) and Sangeeta (PW-19).(iii) The MLC of C' (Ex PW-12/A), as prepared by Dr. Shaina, stood duly proved by Dr. Shilpi Goyal (PW-12) and Dr. Geetanjali Singh (PW-18).Dr. Shilpi Goyal had further proved that, on local examination, the hymen of C' was found torn, she was bleeding per vagina and her vaginal and rectal mucosa were found torn.She further deposed that, under local anesthesia, the said tears were prepared.She also testified to the bruises, under the left eye of C', cuts on both her lips and fresh wounds on the right side of chin and neck, as observed in the MLC.Dr. Geetanjali Singh also proved that, at the time of Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 35 of 67 medical examination of C', the child was apprehensive and uncooperative and was bleeding vaginally.The testimony of this witness had gone completely uncontroverted.As such, the medical evidence that had come on record was compatible with the allegation of aggravated sexual assault and rape having been committed upon C'.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 35 of 67(iv) While it was true that the FSL Report (Ex PW-25/A) stated that semen could not be detected on any of the exhibits, this finding could not help the appellant, in view of the peculiar circumstances in which the crime had been committed, being that, after commission of the offence, C' was thrown into a flowing nehar.In these circumstances, it was quite possible that the semen would have been washed off.(v) The examination-in-chief of C', during trial, completely and categorically inculpated the appellant.The only suggestions, made to her in cross-examination, were that she had named and identified the appellant on the tutoring of her parents, and that the appellant had not, in fact, committed any galat kaam with her and had, rather, saved her.She denied the said suggestions.(vi) Sonu (PW-15) also deposed, in his examination-in-chief, that the prosecutrix C', when he found her, had her face swollen and clothes blood stained, and that the appellant had tried to flee from the spot, but that he had apprehended him and brought him, with the prosecutrix C', to the tea shop near the Hanuman Temple, where he was met by Krishan Kumar Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 36 of 67 (PW-14), to whom he narrated all the facts.His deposition that, on his asking the appellant to tell the true facts, the appellant admitted to having committed rape with C', also stood uncontroverted.In his cross-examination, Sonu clarified that he was able to apprehend the appellant, as he was drunk at the time and smelling of alcohol.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 36 of 67(vii) The testimony of Sonu found independent corroboration in the depositions of Krishan Kumar (PW-14) and Amit (PW-17).(viii) The assertion, by the appellant, that he was trying to save C', and had been falsely implicated by Sonu, was demolished by the deposition of C' herself, as she identified the appellant from amongst many persons, of similar profile, present in the court, and also went on to describe the various acts committed by the appellant, towards her violation.There was no reason for C', who was merely a child, to lie or wrongly identify the appellant; neither was there any history of animosity between the appellant and her parents, or between the appellant and Sonu, or Amit, or Krishan Kumar.(ix) The defence, of the appellant, that the oppressor of C' was, actually Sonu, was improbable.There was no reason why, if Sonu had perpetrated these atrocities on her, C' would have named the appellant, instead of Sonu.Even otherwise, it was improbable that a person, who had committed such a crime on C', would himself save the child; rather, his instinct would have been to flee from the spot.(x) Rather, the conduct of the appellant was more suspicious, as there was no explanation for his presence at the corner of the nehar, where the prosecutrix was clinging on to the weeds and trying to save herself from drowning.It was clear that, in fact, Sonu had saved C' and, but for his intercession, she would have drowned.(xi) In the circumstances, as the identity of the appellant, the manner of commission of offence, the place of commission of offence and the various documents, stood proved, and the veracity of the prosecution witnesses was neither shattered, nor their testimonies falsified, and in the absence of any inherent contradiction, inconsistency or infirmity amongst the statements of the various PWs, the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(f) of the IPC (as it existed then), stood proved against the appellant.Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey ventilates the following submissions:(i) In her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, the prosecutrix did not name the appellant.Rather, she stated that Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 38 of 67 she was not in a position to identify the boy who had committed rape on her.Sans penetration, there could be no question of rape.(vi) The explanation, for the absence of semen on any of the exhibits, to the effect that the semen could have been washed away by the flowing water in the canal, was facile, as, had rape taken place, semen would be inside the vagina, and could not, therefore, disappear merely because the prosecutrix was lying in the canal.(vii) The site plan also indicated that the spot of alleged occurrence of rape was not an isolated place.Per contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP, merely placed reliance on the statements of the prosecutrix C', under Section 164 of Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 39 of 67 the CrPC and, thereafter, during the course of trial.She emphasised that these were sufficient to indict the appellant, and that no further proof was required.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 39 of 67In State of Chhattisgarh v. Dehra, (2004) 9 SCC 699, the respondent committed rape on an eight year old girl, when she was alone at the home.The victim narrated the incident to her mother, on her return.The MLC drawn up at the BSA Hospital (Ex. PW 12/A) by Dr. Shaina, coupled with the statement of Dr. Shimpi Goyal (PW-12), Senior Resident in the Gynecology Department of the said Hospital, further established the fact of vaginal bleeding.Dr. Shimpi Goyal, too, was not cross examined.In view of the fact that these Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 52 of 67 MLCs unambiguously found that C' was bleeding vaginally, her hymen was torn (thereby establishing the fact of penetration given the fact that she was only 5 years old), her vaginal and rectal mucosa were torn and she had suffered vaginal injuries, there can be no doubt regarding the fact that she had been subjected to rape.The prosecutrix has recited, in exhaustive and excruciating detail, all that transpired with her during the nightmarish encounter with her assailant on the banks of the nehar and has been painfully consistent throughout.She has, clearly, unequivocally, and without an iota of ambiguity or doubt, deposed that (i) the appellant had enticed her to accompany him on the pretext of feeding her ber, (ii) he took her to a spot near the temple,(iii) he removed his own, and her, underwear, (iv) he thereafter throttled her neck and smote her in her eye, (v) he then set fire to her hair, (vi) he thereafter urinated in her, and (vii) having done so, he Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 53 of 67 threw her in the nehar, as a result of which she was soaked when found by Sonu.It commands, and commends, instant acceptance.C', moreover sustained cross-examination and, in equally clear and categorical terms, asserted that she had not been tutored and had given her statement of her own accord.She unhesitatingly denied the suggestion that the appellant had tried to save her from drowning.In the first place, as we have already noted hereinabove, on her being specifically questioned in this regard in cross-examination, the prosecutrix C' categorically asserted that her statement had been given of her own accord and she had not been influenced by her parents to do so.We Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 54 of 67 also find that the deposition of C' was detailed as well as spontaneous, and that her answers were natural responses to the questions put to her.Even more significantly, her identification, of the appellant, from four boys of similar height, physique and complexion, wearing similar clothes, clearly belies the assumption, sought to be inferred by Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey from the statement of C' under Section 164 of the CrPC, that she could not have recognized her assailant.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 54 of 67Adverting now to the statement of C' under Section 164 of the CrPC, we observe that, in the said statement, C' has pointed out that, a few days earlier, a boy had enticed her to accompany him into the jungle under the pretext of feeding her ber' and that they had proceeded on his cycle.She also pointed out that the boy had tried to strangulate her and had made her unconscious and that, after she regained consciousness, he pushed her into the canal, from which she was rescued by another man.It has to be borne in mind that the question was put to C' without the appellant, or any likeness of him, being shown to her.Without the appellant before her, C', who was merely a child of tender years, might well have been unsure whether she would be able to recognize her attacker; however, that cannot lead to an inference that, even if the attacker was before her in flesh and blood, she would still be unable to recognize him.That apart, we cannot attribute, to a seven-year old child, the same comprehension, of the question put to her and the same accuracy, of the answer given by her thereto, as could be attributed to an adult witness of matured intelligence.It would, therefore, in our view be entirely impermissible to use the statement, of the prosecutrix C' rendered under Section 164 of the CrPC - which was otherwise complete and coherent in all material particulars - as eroding, in any manner, the effect of her subsequent deposition, in evidence, before the learned ASJ.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 55 of 67Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 56 of 67During the course of arguments a feeble attempt was made, by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, to shift the blame upon Sonu and to hold him responsible for the victim's fate.In his court statement, Sonu provided a vivid account of the incident and deposed that, on 7th February, 2012, at about 5.00 p.m., when he was approaching the Hanuman Temple, where he used to sell guavas, he saw a girl, around five years of age, in the canal.He identified the appellant to be the individual who was standing that time near the said girl.As the girl was weeping, Sonu brought her out of the canal and noticed that her face was swollen and her clothes bloodstained.The appellant tried to run away from there but was apprehended by Sonu and brought to the tea shop near the Hanuman Temple.C's' parents arrived there on the call of Krishan Kumar, and Sonu handed over the appellant and C' to the police.He further stated that the girl's underwear was bloodstained.In cross- examination, he explained that his residence was nearby and he used to sell seasonal fruits and vegetables on the pavement.He further informed that the appellant was drunk at that time and smelling of alcohol.The appellant, who Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 57 of 67 was found standing on the banks of the Nehar' was soaked with water from head to toe.He denied the suggestion that the appellant had rescued the prosecutrix.He further claimed that on his confronting him, the appellant questioned him saying Tu Kya Lag Raha Hai?.He denied the suggestion that the appellant did not try to run away and he himself accompanied him to the tea stall.Sonu volunteered to add that the appellant had attempted to run away, but that he did not allow him to do so.He was fair enough to inform that the child did not divulge anything to him.He denied the suggestion that the child was not brought by him to him to the tea shop or that the appellant did not commit any wrong with the victim.No suggestion was advanced, during the effect that Sonu was the perpetrator of the crime, or that the appellant had saved the girl from drowning in the canal.The appellant, who was in the company of C' soon before his apprehension, did not offer any explanation for the underwear/clothes of C' being bloodstained, or for her face being swollen.These facts were in the especial knowledge of the appellant, Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 58 of 67 which he failed to divulge or explain, as required by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of any prior animosity or ill-will, Sonu, aged around 24 years, a poor guava seller, cannot be expected to falsely implicate the appellant in such a heinous crime.It appears, rather that C' was fortunate that Sonu happened to reach at the spot in time for her; or else the appellant could have caused even more harm to her.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 58 of 67Though the deposition of the prosecutrix C' would, by itself, be sufficient to bring the charge of rape home to the appellant, we also take notice of the fact that the appellant was accurately identified by Krishan Kumar (PW-14), Virender (PW-15), Amit (PW-17), ASI Shree Bhagwan (PW-22), Ct.Arjun Lal (PW-23), SI Anil Tushir (PW-24) and SI Narender (PW-25).These depositions were either not subjected to cross examination or, where they were, withstood the same.In conjunction with the deposition of C', we would also be inclined to believe the evidence of Amit (PW-17) who clearly stated that he saw Sonu coming towards his stall, carrying the prosecutrix in one arm and holding the appellant by the other.The said statement stood supported by his evidence, in cross examination, where he reiterated that it was around 5.00 PM when the child was brought to his shop.We also note, in this regard, the evidence of Krishan Kumar (PW-14) in his examination-in-chief, in which he categorically stated Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 59 of 67 that he saw that Sonu was bringing to accused Shree Bhagwan and C' by holding their hands In his cross-examination, too, Krishan Kumar stated, initially that he had seen Sonu only who brought the victim girl and the accused and, further, that Sonu brought the accused Shree Bhagwan by holding his hand at the Tea shop.It is, no doubt, true that, later in his cross-examination, PW-14 Krishan Kumar did state that Sonu, had already brought C' and the appellant at the tea shop before his arrival there.However, we are not inclined to discard the evidence of PW-14 Krishan Kumar, to the effect that Sonu had, infact, brought the prosecutrix C' and the appellant with him to the tea stall, as this fact also stands corroborated by the evidence of PW-17 Amit, in cross-examination, to the effect that, at 5.00PM, when C was brought to his shop, Krishan Kumar was already present there.As such, it appears clear, to us, that, apart from Amit, Krishan Kumar was also present at Amit's shop before Sonu reached there, and that Amit and Krishan Kumar were both witnesses to the fact that Sonu was bringing, with him, the prosecutrix C', carrying her in one arm, and the appellant, holding him by the other.Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 59 of 67We, therefore, reject the contention, assiduously canvassed before us, by Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, that the perpetrator of the offence against C' was not the appellant, but Sonu.Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail.C.HARI SHANKAR (JUDGE) S. P. GARG (JUDGE) March 08, 2018 gayatri Crl Appeal 1395/2013 Page 67 of 67
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
659,678 |
Shyam Lal had lodged a missing person report with the Police.The prosecution contended that on 23.03.2000 Mahesh and Parvesh went to Surender's, (an Electrician's) shop at Najafgarh; he was Mahesh's friend.On that day i.e. 23.03.2000 Parvesh and Mahesh reached Surender's shop.All the four appellants (who reached there later, along with Parvesh's mother Rajindri), took Parvesh and Mahesh away with them.Subsequently on 26.03.2000 Mahesh's dead body was discovered near the Nazafgarh drain, near Chawla Bridge.The body showed injury marks and it appeared that Mahesh had died on account of beating.Surender (hereafter referred to as "PW-12") and Mahesh's brother Umesh (hereafter referred to as "PW-9") identified the dead body at Subzi Mandi mortuary.A post mortem was conducted which indicated that the dead body had several injuries on various parts of the body; death was caused by throttling.An FIR was registered, and investigation commenced.The prosecution alleged that the deceased was taken from Surender's shop in a Tata Sumo to Gurgaon where he was subjected to beating by the appellants.From Gurgaon he was taken to Roshan Vihar at Najafgarh where he was again beaten.The prosecution alleged that due to the injuries and beating, the deceased could have raised an alarm.He was shifted to some other place.It was alleged that Lalit @ Pinki arranged a Maruti van no. HR26F6207, which belonged to Deepak @ Deepu.The four appellants sat in the Maruti Van and took Mahesh with them; they proceeded to village Shikharpur where they called Jagmohan @ Jag and Sunil @ Pappu and talked with them.Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 2The prosecution alleged that Jag and Pappu were friendly with Devender.They sat in the van at his (Devender's) insistence and headed to Gurgaon through the fields.It is alleged that after a short distance Devender stopped the van and along with the appellants took them aside in the pretext of having some deliberations.It was alleged that Deepak heard some noises and screams and then he saw that Jag was holding the deceased's hand, whereas Sunil and Shyamlal were holding the deceased's head.Devender had a hockey stick with him; Himmat had a danda and they were beating the deceased.The Appellant Pritam was instigating others to beat Mahesh.Deepak is reported to have stated that, (when he enquired why this was done), the accused told him that the deceased Mahesh had spoiled their honour and would not be spared.(5) The witness had mentioned about a quarrel between Mahesh and Shyamlal's family, in the police statement, which he did not support in his deposition in Court.The starting part of the prosecution story, in this case was the motive aspect.That DD entry extract was proved as Ex. PW- 16/A. The incident, and what actually transpired on the day of abduction was spoken about by PW-12, the deceased's friend.I came to mortuary Subzi Mandi and identified the dead body of Mahesh there.The identification of dead body is Ex. PW-12/A which bears my signature at Point A. "Therefore, Shyam Lal and two other accused come to his house and informed about it.After some time Surender informed him on Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 19 telephone that Shyam Lal and six others had taken Mahesh in a Tata Sumo to some unknown place; he had also disclosed the number of the Tata Sumo.PW-9 identified accused Shyam Lal, Devender and Himmat to be the persons who had come to him.Subsequently, he identified the dead body at Subzi Mandi mortuary by Ex. PW9/A. This witness was specifically asked whether he had recorded the Tata Sumo number given by Surender; he produced a diary and a torn page from it and exhibited as Ex. PW9/DX.Before that, Parvesh and her mother had talked to each other.(5) The witness (PW-12) identified the Appellants, though in his deposition he was not able to mention their names in the beginning.(6) PW-12 deposed having informed PW-9, - a fact corroborated by the latter, in his deposition.(7) PW-9 and PW-12 identified Mahesh's dead body.They also threatened Deepak, upon which he left the spot.After some time, Jag and Sunil brought back the Maruti van and left.The prosecution alleged that the appellants were subsequently arrested.Pursuant to their disclosure statements when they lead the Police to various places where the deceased had been taken, weapons of offences such as hockey stick and thapi were recovered.The prosecution alleged that after the incidents narrated by Deepak the deceased was brought once again to Roshan Vihar where again he was beaten.The appellants allegedly conspired to get rid of him since he had suffered series injuries.Devender caught hold of Mahesh legs; Pritam and Himmat caught hold of his hands and Shyam Lal sat on his chest and strangulated him till he died.Shyamlal allegedly sent Himmat to arrange a vehicle to dispose of the body.He hired a Maruti Car No.DL1CB2554 driven by Sukhbir @ Billu.He declined to take Mahesh because he suspected that he had died.It is stated that Himmat sat on the driver's seat of the vehicle stating to Sukhbir that he should wait there and that they are taking the Mahesh to the hospital.It was alleged that Himmat sat on the driver's seat (of the said Maruti van) with Devender by his side; Shyamlal and Pritam sat on the rear seat and Mahesh was laid in between the two seats.It was alleged that appellants threw his body near Chawla village near a bridge at a lonely place and returned the vehicle to the driver.The appellants were charged with offence under Sections 302/308/I20B/201/34 IPC.They entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.By the impugned judgment and order the trial court convicted all the Appellants.It is urged that the entire prosecution story is built round circumstantial evidence, and that the accused- Appellants were "last seen" in the company of the deceased.The Appellants rely on the judgment reported as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, and urge that the court has to tread with care and caution while basing a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence, and avoid the danger of converting suspicion into proof.Reliance is also placed on Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343, Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of UP 1974 SCC (Crl.) 429 and State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh & Anr.It is urged that broadly the circumstances of "last seen" alleged against the appellants by the prosecution were that the deceased was seen last with the Appellants by PW 12 - Surender.The body of the deceased was recovered on 25.03.2000 at about 11.26 AM by DD No.15A - Ex.PW10/A, near Baru Sarai.The said DD No.15A was made the basis of the FIR in the present case.Learned counsel submitted that PW12 was projected as the solitary witness of last seen, on whose testimony the case of the prosecution rests.It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and the possibility of other persons coming in between exists.In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases."Learned counsel emphasized that the dead body was recovered on 25.03.2000 at around 11.26 AM.Time since death was given as 6-7 days approximately.Counsel for the Appellant submitted that to calculate this time gap between the point of time when the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead as referred to in Bodhrajs case (supra), it was incumbent on the prosecution to Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 4 prove the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen alive.This crucial aspect, according to the Appellants, the prosecution failed to prove in the present case.PW-12 in his testimony did not give the date when he allegedly saw the accused and the deceased at his shop.In fact he deposed "I cannot give the date when Shyamlal and others came to my shop in Sumo to take away Mahesh for my shop." Therefore, when date and time of alleged last seen was unclear, it could not be conclusively said that the time gap between the point of time when accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead, was so small to rule out the possibility of someone, other than the accused, having committed the crime.The Appellant relied on the testimony of PW-8 Govind, (the deceased's landlord) who deposed that the deceased had a quarrelsome nature.Given these circumstances, applying the ratio in Bodhraj, the possibility of somelese having committed the offence could not be ruled out.He further deposed that in the meantime 8-10 persons including the appellants came in a Tata Sumo.The learned counsel argued that though the prosecution failed to prove when Holi was celebrated in the year 2000, yet judicial notice of the fact that in that 2000 Holi was on March 19 can be taken.This, urged counsel, is corroborated by PW-12's statement that after 5-6 days he was called by the Umesh, brother of Mahesh in P.P. Madipur.He further deposed that he went to identify the dead body on day next day to his going to P.P. Madipur with Umesh.By reverse calculation, the date of last seen can also be arrived at from this aspect in the following manner.According to the witness PW-12, body was identified the "next day", on reverse calculation, one day prior would make it 26.03.2000 when the witness went to PP Madipur PW 9 Umesh.Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandhu Kavatage AIR 1979 SC 1410, where the last seen was on 26 July 1974 and the body was recovered on the next day from a well, the Supreme Court held that "as there was sufficient interval between the death of the boy and the recovery of the body, the link in the chain of circumstantial evidence does not appear to be fully complete.""9. ..... According to Bhikjya all the three, i.e., deceased, appellant and Bhamta left his house together.Undoubtedly thereafter deceased was not seen alive by anyone but two persons were in company of the deceased, viz., appellant and Bhamta when they left the house of Bhikjya.Now, Bhamta was the co-accused.Crucially the two main witnesses PW-9 and PW-12 gave Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 7 contradictory versions when they deposed with regard to the conveying of information regarding identity of persons who allegedly kidnapped Mahesh.He had only told me that 5/6 persons had taken away Mahesh in a Sumo TATA."However, PW-12 Surinder's deposition showed shifting stands.He first claimed knowledge about identity (and names) only Shyamlal and Himmat; later, he claimed to know Bittoo as well; yet later, he named all four as those who had come in the Sumo.Such shifting stands of PW-12, contradicted by PW-9, make this witness unreliable with regard to fixing of identity.It is also urged that the said two witnesses also contradict with regard to the number of persons who had allegedly taken away Mahesh.While PW-12 claimed that 8-10 persons had come in the Sumo, PW-9 stated that he was told by Surinder that 6/7 persons had taken away Mahesh in Sumo.Such inconsistency in testimonies renders the "last seen" evidence unreliable.The learned counsel submitted that therefore, the circumstance of last seen, has to be excluded from consideration while assessing if the Appellants were guilty.persons that in pursuance to love affair you all accused persons conspired together to kill Mahesh and in pursuance to your conspiracy you called Mahesh and Parvesh in Delhi at the shop of Surender in the year 2000 prior to Holy near Milind cinema.What have you to say?(6) The witness had mentioned in the previous statement that the accused used to visit him, to enquire about Parvesh and Mahesh.In his deposition, PW-12 mentioned that they had visited him only once.(7) PW-12 had deposed that Parvesh's mother had talked with Mahesh, and abused him -which he had not stated in the police statement.(8) In the deposition-in Court-PW-12 said that Parvesh's mother had gone to his shop two days before Holi - which was an improvement on the Section 161 statement.(10) PW-12 contradicted himself about Mahesh's face injury caused by Shyam Lal.(11) In the statement to police, he claims to have noted the Tata Sumo registration number; but admitted, in his Court deposition, to being illiterate.(12) PW-12's statement about being called 5-6 days after the incident by Umed is not corroborated by him (i.e. PW-9 Umesh).(13) In the previous statement, he claims to have received a telephone call from Mahesh, in his shop.(14) The witness had three different versions as to who were in the Tata Sumo.At one stage, he mentioned that except Shyam Lal and Himmat, he did not know the names Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 10 of other accused.However, he said that all accused used to enquire about Mahesh from him.(15) The witness clearly stated that the incident occurred 2 days after Holi (which was on 19.3.2000).Likewise, submitted counsel, PW-9 wavers in his testimony substantially.He made vital improvements, variations and omissions with regard to various aspects deposed by him.Regarding identity of persons who allegedly took away Mahesh, he gave different versions, at places names some and at another place stating that Surender did not give the name of any person.There is variation with PW-12's testimony, in regard to the number of persons who allegedly took away Mahesh, as told to him.He was confronted with the threat theory that he introduced for the first time in Court.He brought in knowledge of Mahesh's death through Malti also for the first time in Court.The other contradictions, improvements etc. were sought to be pointed out.The chain of circumstantial evidence gets irreparably broken and the link evidence becomes conspicuously missing.The Trial Court itself had not taken the said recoveries/circumstances as incriminating in any manner.The weapons were sent to the forensic laboratory, but were not found to contain any blood.They were not shown to the post mortem doctor to seek his opinion as to whether the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by these weapons.The said weapons thus do not get connected with the offence in question in any manner.The recovery witnesses, none of whom were independent witnesses, admit that they articles were recovered Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 11 recoveries from open places and the weapons were not concealed.Learned counsel points out that the weapons were not recovered from the exclusive possession of the Appellants and that a two day gap between the disclosure and recovery also adds to the suspicion.Without prejudice counsel argued that on this part, i.e the motive, if taken to be proved, for the sake of argument, it can be considered as only incriminating the Appellant Shyamlal the father of Parvesh and against not all others.Motive being a double edged weapon, could be reason for false implication.Learned counsel for the appellant Pritam supplemented the arguments.Although the prosecution case was premised upon circumstantial evidence, learned counsel urged that each circumstance in the entire chain of circumstances was conclusively proved to unerroneously implicate the appellants and none else as the propounder of the crime.Urging that there was a strong motive, which stood established vis--vis the appellants for the commission of crime, learned counsel relied upon PW-16/A, which was a D.D. entry No. 11, recorded by the police on 24.12.1999, stating that Parvesh, the daughter of Shyam Lal was missing.PW-14 proved the D.D. entry No. 5, recorded on 26.03.2000 (Ex. PW-14A), reported by Shyam Lal, which stated that on 22.03.2000, Parvesh returned home.The report went on to state that she had returned voluntarily after she had left earlier with Mahesh and that she was unharmed.They had counseled him not to indulge in it.PW-12 was also aware of the disapproval by Shyam Lal and other members of Parvesh's family.It is further argued that PW-12 also was slightly intimidated because at that time when he sought to intervene, and asked the appellants not to create a scene, he was threatened.The witness was confronted with the statement which he denied.He claimed to be aware of the elopement of Mahesh, and Parvesh, Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 17 and said that the latter's mother had visited him, at his shop.He spoke about how on the day of the incident, the abductors went to his shop in a Tata Sumo and took away Mahesh.The Appellants impeach his credibility by stating that he was inconsistent about the identity of the abductors; in the statement recorded under Section 161, he stated something, and in his examination in chief, and yet later, in cross examination, he deposed differently.The witness, PW12 deposed that Mahesh was his friend and had an affair with Shyamlal's daughter of which he (Shyam Lal) did not like.Parvesh's mother, Rajendri made enquiries from PW-12 about her (Parveen's) whereabouts.PW-12 testified that aproximatelyy two days after the Holi, (in 2000) Mahesh along with Parvesh went to his shop where the latter's mother was already present.He however, knew Shyam Lal and Himmat by their name and according to him, a scuffle took place in his shop, between deceased and the accused.He (PW-12) witness asked them not to behave in that manner.PW-12 deposed that Himmat asked him to keep quiet if he wanted to save himself.The witness testified that he wanted to go with Mahesh in the Tata Sumo but he was not allowed by the accused.PW-12 deposed that all these four persons took Mahesh and Parvesh in the Tata Sumo.Shyam Lal and one or two persons followed the Tata Sumo on a two wheeler.He deposed about informing Mahesh's brother, PW-9, on telephone, about the incident, on the same day.After 5/6 days he identified the dead body of Mahesh at Subzi Mandi mortuary.Significantly (an aspect noted by the Trial Court) in cross-examination PW-12 was specifically asked that mother of Parvesh had given him a telephone number to him with a request to inform her in case Mahesh and Parvesh went to his shop, which he noted on a page in his diary.This was been exhibited as Ex. PW12/DB.He also noted the number of the Tata Sumo in his diary and the extract of the diary was exhibited as Ex. PW12/DA."Out of the person who came to my shop after getting down from TATA Sumo (the witness pointed out toward accd.Davinder, Shyam Lal, Pritam and Himmat) were the persons who came to my shop I dont know these persons by their name except Shyam Lal and Himmat present in the court.These persons had altercation and scuffling with Mahesh (Hatha Pai Karney Lagey).Himmat told me that either I should keep mum or I shall be killed (Saley ya to chup ho jha nahi to tujhe bhi jaaan say maar Deyange).All the 5/6 persons made Mahesh sit I TATA Sumo Car.All these persons took away Mahesh and Parvesh in TATA Sumo Car.Shyam Lal and other1/2 persons followed the TATA Sumo car on two wheeler scooter.I gave a ring to brother of Mahesh on the same day.After 5/6 days I was called by Umesh brother of Mahesh in PP Mdi Pur.Thereafter we both went to P.S. Najafgarh.Equally, in an earlier part of the statement, he did not mention all the names.This however, does not mean that the witness was not aware of the identities of those who went to his shop, on the date of the incident.The above portion of his deposition shows that he knew all the accused, though at that time, he was not aware of the names of some of them.PW-12's deposition, to an extent, receives corroboration from the statement of PW-9, who, at the suggestion of the Appellants, during cross-examination, testified as follows:"It is correct that the telephonic message recd.by me from Surender on 22.3.2000 was to the effect that Mahesh and Shyamlals daughter Parvesh came here today, Shyam Lal, Devinder @ Bittoo Himmat and Pritam came to the shop of electrical goods at Milan Cinema and those people took away Mahesh and Parvesh in Tata Sumo No. DL4CF 9386..."This witness had mentioned about these aspects and what PW-12 had told him, on this, in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. PC.PW9 Umesh Kumar deposed that his brother, Mahesh had a love affair with Shyam Lal's daughter and that she left her house with his brother.In cross-examination PW-9 testified to not receiving any telephonic message from Surender prior to 22.3.2000 nor meeting him.He, however denied that he responded to the telephonic call of Surender by saying "jo jesha karega, vaisa bhareha".A reading of the testimonies of the two witnesses, would show that:Both of them had reached there.If witnesses are exact in their recollection of dates and events, and corroborate each other in all these aspects, the possibility of tutoring is strong.However, inessential inconsistencies, are not material, at any rate, to undermine the basic version.The trial court held that as far as the first part of the prosecution evidence was concerned the testimony of PW12 was trustworthy that the Appellants had gone in the Tata Sumo and took away Mahesh from his shop on 22.03.2000 at about noon time.Apart from this curious aspect, PW-18 had deposed that the Appellants were arrested at the behest of PW-1, and their personal search memos were signed by him, as a witness.These were placed on the record, and proved as Ex. PW-PW-18/H, PW-18/I and PW-18/J. Having regard to these facts, the court is of opinion that the prosecution witnesses having been won over by the accused, particularly since they were known to them, and they belonged to the same village, cannot be ruled out.The Trial Court had disbelieved the prosecution story regarding the recovery of alleged weapons of offence.This anger, at the deceased, translated into something more serious, leading to a murderous attack, resulting in his death.The injuries indicate merciless beatings rained on the deceased.By all accounts, the Appellants' motive was to teach the deceased a lesson, and do him to death- what has been termed as "honour killing".The practice negatives an individual's freedom of exercise choice of his or her spouse, and leading a life, with dignity, and enjoying the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.The practice places exaggerated value endogamous choice, dictated by kith and kin, on the one hand, and Crl.A. Nos.844/01, 972/01, 356/02 & 357/02 Page 28 denies "outsiders" the freedom of choosing their partners, based on consent.
|
['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.
|
65,968,571 |
323, 506 and 307 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, victim Uttam Singh along with his companion were campaigning to save water in village Semariya.Petitioner Laxman asked them to leave the village.When the victim and his companion protested that they were doing a good work, the petitioner started to filthily abuse them.Victim asked the petitioner not to abuse them; whereon, the petitioner beat the victim with stick on head.As a result, victim suffered a fracture in the skull.FIR was lodged by Ajay Singh, companion of the victim on the same day against an unknown person.the first information report was lodged against unknown persons;the name of the petitioner has been introduced in the case 11 days after the date of the incident;the charge sheet in the matter has been filed and;Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner Laxman Singh is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner Laxman Singh shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,968,980 |
This application u/S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant Amandeep Singh Saran who is in custody since 8/8/2015 in connection with Crime No.532/2013 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, Distt.Mandsaur for commission of offence punishable u/S. 420, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 / 4 of the M. P. Nikshepkon ke hiton ka sanrakshan Adhiniyam.Learned senior counsel for the applicant has argued before this Court that FIR was lodged by one Rajendra Singh alleging that the present applicant is Director of a Company and he has collected Rs.100/- per month, each from the complainant and his wife and the maturity amount in respect of the deposit was Rs.5,550/- each.It has also been argued before this Court that the aforesaid amount has been paid to the complainant and on account of the FIR lodged by the complainant, the applicant is in Jail.It has also been argued that in the light of an order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal dated 28/6/2016, the Company has--- 2 ---HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE deposited the title of assets amounting to Rs.1200 crores which is more than the liability of the Company.He has straightway drawn attention of this Court towards an order dated 26/9/2017 passed in M.CR.C.No.14349/2017 (Amandeep Singh Saran Vs.A prayer has been made for grant of bail.Learned counsel for the respondent - State has read out the statements available in the case diary.She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.She has argued that the Company has collected money from large number of persons.However, she has fairly stated before this Court that in respect of the complainant who has lodged FIR, more than the amount of Rs.5,550 has been paid to the complainant and his wife.The order dated 26/9/2017 reads as under :MCRC-14349-2017 (AMANDEEP SINGH SARAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)--- 3 ---HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE 26-09-2017 Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri Vikash Mahawar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri B.P Pandey, learned G.A for the respondent/State This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 11/04/2016 in connection with Crime No.103/2016 for offences registered under Sections 420, 409, 120B, 506 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Tries Chit Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, police station Umariya.Hence he be released on bail.Learned G.A opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application but admitted that applicant is still in custody and presently lying in the Central Jail, Raipur.Five lacs only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court--- 4 ---HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in subsection (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.--- 5 ---(6) The applicant shall surrender his passport and shall not leave the country without leave of the trial court.; and, (7) The applicant shall not contact in any manner with the complainant party, otherwise the complainant is free to file application for cancellation of bail.Certified copy, as per Rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR Kamal Rathor 2017.12.18 16:25:05 -08'00'
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
658,365 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest relating to crime No.312/2015 registered at Police Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh for offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 294, 506 of IPC.It is alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the public servant with an axe.However, two minor scratches were found to the victim, which could be caused in day to day work done by the complainant.It appears that false injuries were shown by him.- 2 -The applicant assures that he will cooperate in the investigation.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period, so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider his application under Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
658,376 |
JUDGMENT Chainani, J.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
658,442 |
The prosecution case as available from the evidence is that on 4-5-76 the two deceased Umrao and Juggey, residents of Babhauri after taking their break fast had gone to Madawara market.At about 12.00 or 12.30 P.M. they came back from there by a bus.In their Khalihan underneath a neem tree they were sitting.Gajraj PW-4, Gulab Rani PW-2 [Wife of Umrao) and Kirat were also present in the vicinity.Kirat thereafter had taken his cattle to the village pond.Smt. Gulab Rani and her son Gajraj went to drink water in the hutment of Gore Lai.When she was drinking water, Umrao's daughter Phulbai came there and informed her mother (Gulab Rani) that a large number of persons had collected in the baithak (a big room to be used as an assembly hall) of Modely.They are holding guns, lathis, axe and ballams etc. They were saying that Umrao and Juggey had come, let us kill them.Hearing this, Gajraj and Smt. Gulab Rani came out of the Madai.They saw these persons coming towards them from three sides.Ratan resident of Ratanpur was standing with gun on the road leading to the school another Ratan stood on the road leading to Chittar and blocked the passage.Ratan Modely was exhorting other accused.Both the mean were standing with guns, to assault if any of their family or others come forward to rescue the two deceased.In all 44 accused persons came there.Out of above 44 persons Nathu, Meharban, Gopi, Bahadur, Bhagirath Girdhari and Babu, in all seven, were armed with axes.Darbari, Dayaram and Vijay were armed with ballams.Ratan resident of Ratanpur and Ratan Modely were armed with guns.Rest of the appellants, 32 in numbers were armed with lathi.All of them started to assault Umarao and Juggey Pradhan with axes, lathi and ballams underneath the neem tree.When Smt. Gulab Rani, Gajaraj and Gorey Lal appeared to save them, they were also assaulted by some Of the accused persons, Gajraj was assaulted by Sukh Singh, Uttam, Jawahar, Girdhari and Ratan r/o Madawra with lathi.Gulab Rani was assaulted by Uttam and Bahadur with lathi and axe respectively.In the midst of assault Umrao somehow managed his escape towards the village.He was chased and thrown on the ground by Meharbah, Bhagirath, Gopi, Dhan Prasad, Ganiya and Sura and he was assaulted by them with axes and lathis.In the course of the assault Mulchandra, Nathu.Panchey, Lakshman, Rammu and Khuman came to the spot and intervened.Lakshmaniasked the assailants, "they have already killed two, will they kill the whole family?" Upon this the assailants ran towards the village.While running away Bahadur turned back and struck a blow of axe on the head of Juggey.Thereafter all of them had run away.In the assault two persons lost their lives.They are Umrao and Juggey.Margins are abraded.Underneath injury No. 1 on the left front of the forehead bone was found fractured in an area of 1-1/2 X 1/4 cm.Underneath injury No. 5 depressed and commuted fracture was detected.The right parietal and temporal bone were also found fractured.The anterior fossae underneath injury No. 5 was found broken in an area of 1-1/2" and there were several linear fractures in the back of the skull.Underneath injury No. 5 also a fracture of wall was noted.The stomach was found empty.Kirat is brother of the two deceased.He is informant.He had orally dictated the FIR to the Head Constable on 4-5-1976 at 2.30 P.M. He had proved the FIR as Ext. Ka-4 on record.In this case some blood stained arms were also recovered from the arrested accused persons.Appellant Darbari was arrested "and in the search of his house blood stained ballam was recovered.It was wrapped in cloth and sealed.Since the incharge of the police station Ran Veer Singh was under transfer at that time, he took over the investigation of the case.These documents were proved by him.He had also prepared the inquest memo.Ext. Ka-15 of deceased Umrao.He had also proved the recovery memo of blood stained earth and simple earth from near the dead body of Umrao and Juggey.He also proved all the relevant papers pertaining to other recovery.He had also recorded the statement of witness Kirat.He had sent Smt. Gulab Rani, Gorey Lal and Gajraj with Chaukidar for medical examination to Madawra Hospital.He had also arrested some of the appellants on 5-5-1976 and effected the recovery of blood stained ballam from Darbari's house.He had also arrested appellant Bahadur.Appellant Darbari had stated that he was Postmaster at Bamhauri.PW 4 Gajraj is son of Umrao and nephew of Juggey deceased.He was also injured in the incident.He has very clearly stated that his uncle and father had gone to the market after taking their breakfast.They had come back at about 12-12.30 p.m. during noon hours.After coming back from bus they were just sitting under a neem tree in the Khalihan.He, his mother and Kirat were sitting there.Gorey Lai, according to him, was in his Khalihan.When his mother told him that she is feeling thirsty, he along with his mother had gone to the hut of Gorey Lai.While they were quenching their thirst his sister Phoolbai came there and told them that in the baithak of Modely people have gathered with guns, lathis, ballams and axes.Some of them were standing and some of them were sitting.She further told them that they were talking that Umrao and Jugga Pradhan have arrived and let us kill them.After learning this from the sister they came out of the hut.Apparently Umrao does not appear to have sustained any specific ballam injury.This version of the witness finds full corroboration from the medical evidence as well.He had stated in para 9 that the assailants all of a sudden had launched assault on the two deceased.According to him, 32 amongst the present assailants were holding lathi.They were also assaulting the victims.He had further stated that Kirat had come to the spot 011 three occasions but every time he was threatened by Ratan Modely as a result of which he had withdrawn himself from the scene of occurrence.He was confronted with his statement to the Investigating Officer to the extent that after departure of all the assailants, his uncle Kirat who had taken the cattle to the pond also returned.He had further stated in para 12 that Kirat had gone for lodging the report at about 3.00 p.m. He has further clearly stated that from the place he went on foot and thereafter whether he used any vehicle or not he cannot say.The Investigating Officer arrived at the scene of occurrence sometime later after the arrival of Kirat.They need not surrender.Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance.He is required to send his compliance report to this Court immediately on the compliance of the order.JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.This appeal was filed by as many as 44 appellants.All the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 323/149, I.P.C. for one year's R.I. and to life imprisonment under Section 302/149, I.P.C. Appellants Meharban, Babu, Bahadur, Nathu, Girdhari Lal, Bhagiarth, Gopi, Dayaram, Vijay, Darbari Singh, Ratan s/o Kaddey and Ratan s/o Khet Singh were also convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to three year's R.I. All of them were also convicted under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.2. Appellants Komal, Anand Kumar, Guman, Kanhai, Sukh Singh, Panchu, Dasrath, Chittar, Uttam, Bhagwant, Kishore, Kashiram, Jhallau, Ashok, Gulzari, Lotan, Ganiya, Sura, Dhowan, Malkhan, Ratan s/ o Malkhan, Keshav, Kashiram, Mohan Singh, Hamira, Hathi, Dhan Singh, Ghasi, Dhan Prasad, Kapoor Chand, Man Singh, Ratan s/o Imrat and Jawahar were also convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. All the sentences of the appellants are to run concurrently.Out of the convicted appellants, Sukh Singh, Jhallu, Ganiya, Malkhan, Ratan s/o Malkhan, Babu, Ratan s/o Kaddey and Ratan s/o Chet Singh have already died during the pendency of this appeal.Their appeals in the circumstances abate.Two persons of their family Gulab Rani, Gajraj and Gorey Lai, had sustained injuries.The FIR of this incident was lodged by Kirat (PW-5) at Police Station Madawra orally at 2.35 P.M. The same is Ext. Ka-4 on record.The autopsy was conducted on the person of Umrao on 6-5-1976 at 10.00 A.M. by Dr. D. R. Prabhakar.He found following ante mortem injuries on his person :-Vertical Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" X bone deep left side of midline of forehead.Direction from above downward (paper torn).Lacerated wound 2" X 1/4" Bone deep right side of midline of head in front.Incised wound 1" X 1/4" Bone deep upper (paper torn), ear, on the head Direction below upper (paper torn).Incised wound 1" X 1/4" Bone deep on the Right side of forehead.Direction from forward.Lacerated wound 4-1/2" X 1/8 bone deep right side of head 4-1/2" above right ear underlying bone (paper torn).Abrasion 3" X 2" back of left arm below the axilla.Abrasion 1" X 3/4" back of right arm 2 below (paper torn).Abrasion 1 -1 /4" X 3/4 back outer side of right wrist.Abrasion 2" X 1-1/2 front of right arm at (paper torn).Abrasion 1-1/2" 1/2 back of outer side right thigh lower 1/4th.Abrasion 1/4" X 1/4" outer side of Rt.Knee (paper torn).Abrasion 4" X 2-1/4" back outer side of right leg lower half.Multiple Abrasion in an area 2" X 2" (paper torn) left Knee.Incised wound 7/8" X 1/4" X bone deep (paper torn) leg, at its lower half direction (paper torn).Incised wound 3/4" X 1/4" bone deep on the inner (paper torn) leg at its lower half.1/2 inside (paper torn).Abrasion 5" X 1/1/2" on the back & outer & inner (paper torn) left leg at its lower 1/4th.Abrasion 1-1/2 X 1/2" on the left back upper (paper torn).In the intestine faecal matter was present.The deaths occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries caused to his person.The same doctor had conducted the autopsy on the person of Juggey on the same day at 8.30 P.M.The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person :Incised wound 1-5/8" 1" X bone deep on the left forehead 1/2" above outer end of left eye brow under lying bone fractured.Direction from outer to inner side & upward.Incised wound 2" X 1/6" X bone deep right side of head.4" above & behind right ear.Direction below upwards.Contused wound 1"X 1/8" Xbone deep (underlying bone fractured) on left head 3-1/2 above and behind left ear.Contusion 2" X 1" left side of head 2" X 1", just behind & above upper end of left ear.Contusion 2" X 1" left side of head 2" X 1" just behind & above upper end of left ear.Large eccheymosis area 9" X 6" ...? The midline of chest back on both sides, at its lower half.Incised punctured wound 3/8" X 1/8" X 1/2" 011 the back and inner side of left wrist.Direction upward inward & forward.Incised wound 5/8" X 1/6" X muscle deep outer side of left leg lower 1/4th.Direction below upwards.Direction inwards & upward.Dired blood is present on the left ankle in front & inner side of left foot in the contiguous area.In the internal examination depressed and commuted fracture was found on the front of the head.The left parietal bone was also found broken.Near commuted fracture 'U' shaped was detected by the doctor and was connected with the parietal temporal gerion.The parietal bone was found open in its fractured portion in a considerable width.The left middle was also found broken.Stomach was empty, The intestine contained faecal matter.The death in his opinion was the result of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by him.He had sustained as many as 18 injuries.All his injuries were caused by blunt weapons.He did not sustain any injury of sharp edged weapon.The injuries of Gulab Rani were examined by Dr. D. R. Prabhakar on 5-5-1976 at about 7.00 A.M. Four injuries were found on her person.One of which was cause with a sharp edged weapon on her head.The rest of the injuries were caused by blunt object.Injury No. 1 was kept under observation and X-ray was advised by the doctor.The doctor had opined that these injuries were possible to have been caused at 1-1.30 P.M.Gorey Lal injured was examined by Dr. O.P. Chadha on 5-5-1976 at 7.30 A.M. He had sustained only one injury which was caused by a lathi blow on his back.It was found to be simple.The duration was reported about a day old.His injury report is Ex. Ka-3 on the record.The prosecution in order to establish its case had examined Gulab Rani (PW-2), Gajraj (PW-4), Kirat (PW-5).Rest of the witnesses Dr. O.P. Chaddha (PW-1), Prem Narain Mishra, constable (PW-3), Govind Das (PW-7).Ghan Shyam Das (PW-8), Dhrav Prasad, (PW-9), Latkan (PW-10), Investigating Officer Ran Veer Singh (P-12) and Uma Shanker Tiwari (PW-13) were examined as formal witnesses.Apart from this chemical examination report was also brought on record.Out of the eye-witnesses examined in this case Gulab Rani (wife of the deceased) and Gajraj (son of the deceased) are injured witnesses.Thereafter he had lodged them at police station in the lockup.The investigation of this case was taken over on 5-5-1976 at 1.45 P.M. by S.H.O. Ran Veer Singh (PW-11) from him.Appellant denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution.They had claimed that the incident had not occurred at the time and in the manner alleged by prosecution and they have been falsely involved in the present incident on account of enmity in connivance with police.On 4^5-1976 there was an inspection conducted at his Post Office by Shri Bhagwan Swarup, Overseer.On the same day the Investigating Officer reached there and took him into custody in his presence.He had picked up ballam from post office.Shri Bhagwan Swarup, Overseer has sent a report of this event to his superiors.Appellant Ratan son of Khet Singh had stated that on 4-5-1976 none had collected in his Baithak.Rest of the appellants denied the incident and their participation in it.From the side of the defence Bhagwan Swarup (DW-1) was produced in the evidence.So far as the incident is concerned, it cannot be doubted for the reason that it is being supported by two injured witnesses.Three persons had suffered injuries in this incident.Out of them Gulab Rani and Gajraj had appeared in Court and deposed effectively enough to establish the correctness of the factum of the death of Umrao and Juggey in the incident by violence.This is further borne out from the fact that the inquest memos were promptly prepared and the dead bodies were dispatched immediately thereafter from the spot.Blood was also found around the two dead bodies.The postmortem examination reports of the two injured deceased further establish that they had met a homicidal death.Thus from these facts and circumstances the murder of the two at the alleged place of incident i.e. in the Khalihan underneath neem tree and at the time as alleged by the prosecution is proved beyond any doubt.The defence has challenged that the incident had not occurred at the time as alleged by the prosecution.Their claim is that it had taken place during early hours of the morning.This assertion of the defence is based mainly on the ground that the stomachs of the two deceased persons were found empty and the intestines were containing faecal matter and gases.The second argument is that the medical evidence is wholly inconsistent with the eye-witness account.The witnesses are highly interested, partisan and related.The last argument is that the learned Sessions Judge had made no attempt to separate the grain from the chaff while convicting all the appellants, enmasse, under Section 302, I.P.C. Their individual roles had not been taken into consideration.The contention is that there were three ballams used but there were only two injuries which can be attributed to two ballams blows at the most.No doubt the witnesses examined in this case are partisan and related.The law however does not call for rejection of their testimony out right for this reason alone.The settled law is that if their evidence is found trustworthy it can be relied upon.Undoubtedly this requires examination of their evidence with great caution and care.The prosecution has examined two of the three injured witnesses, Gulab Rani and Gajraj.Taking into consideration the nature of their injuries, it will be wholly impossible for as to discard the factum of their presence.Number of their injuries such as injury Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17 of Gajraj and 2 injuries of Gulab Rani give a clear picture of the intensity and nature of the assault.Examination of the injuries Nos. 15, 16 and 17 clearly indicate that Gujraj was also beaten while fallen on the ground.So far as injuries of Gulab Rani are concerned, she had sustained one cut wound 5 cm (max.) on left side of the head medial and above root of nose and wound was found to be bone deep.She had also a contusion, reddish, in an area of 7 x 3.5 cm on the right palm from root of right index finger up to the wrist joint and another reddish contusion in the size of 14 x 2.5 cms on left scapular region and reddish contusion in an area of 9 x 2 cm on left scapular region medial end being 6.1/2 cm from midline.So these injuries on her person under no circumstances and by no stretch of imagination can be said to have been manufactured or self suffered.The injury on palm shows clearly that she tried to resist the assault on her person.The only criticism that has been levelled against them by the defence is that they were sent for medical examination next day.Both injured were examined on 5-5-1976 at 7.00 and 7.30 a.m. and third {not produced) at 6.00 a.m. on the' same day.They were taken to hospital by Chaukidar of the village.The FIR in this case was lodged at 2:35 p.m. on 4-5-1976 by Kirat (PW 5).The medical opinion is that the duration of the injuries was about a day.We do not find any fault with their medical examination in the morning and the evidence of these injured persons cannot be discarded on this ground.The motive of the murder and the Implication of such a large number of persons has also been challenged.In this context the total number of injuries sustained by five persons, two deceased and three injured assume significance.Umrao had sustained in all 17 injuries out of which three were incised wounds.All the injuries of sharp edged weapon were on the forehead right and left and on the back of his head behind midline right ear.Apart from these three injuries of sharp edged weapon he had also sustained two blunt weapon injuries on the head.The other two punctured incised wound were on his legs.Both of them were bone deep.Rest of the injuries on the person of the victim were abrasion on thigh, knee, legs and on the back of outer and internal left leg.The number of abrasions upon the person of deceased Umrao further go a long way to corroborate the prosecution case that when in the midst of assault he started to run towards the village he was thrown down on the ground and assaulted by as many as six appellants Meharban, Bhaghirath, Gopi, Dhan Prasad, Ganiya and Sura in front of beda of Gulzari and he was killed by lathis and axes.An examination of incised wound clearly reveals that this deceased had sustained one incised wound 1" x 1/4" x bone deep on the left by midline of the forehead direction above, the second incised wound is on the head at the right ear region.The direction is the same.The third incised wound is also on the right side of forehead direction from behind forward.The two lacerated wounds are on the right side of the head.This leaves no room for any doubt about the common object of the assembly.Most of the bones of the head were fractured.The fractures were extensive.Several linear fractures were also caused.Thus these injuries of sharp edged weapon could be possibly by axes.So far as injuries Nos. 3, 14, 15 and other two incised wounds on the legs are concerned, they could be of ballam.It will be appropriate to mention here that when any assault by a large number of persons is launched it becomes impossible for witnesses to ascertain and define as to which injury was caused by whom amongst the assailants and how many of them actually could lay their hands on their victims.Normally only those who are in the forefront successfully-participate.These who are behind them do not get much of opportunity though present there.In the present incident two persons have been brutally killed, one of them when he managed to escape was thrown down and assaulted.Three injured had also sustained as many as twenty-five injuries.All this happened in a short span of time and that too against wholly defenceless persons.The witnesses become over-zealous and exaggerate by specifying blows to individual accused sometimes.Juggey Pradhan had sustained as many as 8 injuries.Out of them injury Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 are incised wounds varying in dimension.Injury No. 1 is in the size of 1-5/8" x 1" bone deep on the left forehead, above outer end of left eye brow under lying bone were fractured.Injury No. 2 is of the dimension of 2" x 1/6 x bone deep on the right side of the head, 4" behind right ear.Injury No. 6 is punctured wound in the size of 3/8" x 1/8" x 1/2" on the back of inner side of left wrist.Injury No. 7 is also another incised wound of 5/8" x 1/6" x muscle deep on the leg.So in our opinion injury Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the result of ballam whereas injury Nos. 1 and 2 are the result of axes.Underneath injury No. 1 commuted fracture was found in an area of 3 x 2-'/2".Under two different wound on the head injury Nos. 3 and 4, also fractures were detected and it was found to be a commuted fracture.It is in "shoe" shape.The fracture had gone almost from one end to another end.This must be the result of lathi blows on the head.The Doctor had stated in his cross-examination that out of eight injuries of deceased Juggey six were on the left side.He had further stated that all the incised wounds sustained by Juggey are going upward.He had further admitted that two punctured wounds of Juggey were on the non-vital part.He had further admitted that there is no punctured injury on the person of Umrao.Out of 17 injuries 10 were abrasions.Out of injuries sustained by him injury Nos. 3 and 4 are upward in direction.He had admitted that the abrasions were caused due to friction on hard surface.He further admitted that the stomachs of the two deceased were empty and the intestines contained faecal matter.It has been suggested that they were assaulted during some night hours.We are not prepared to accept this contention of the defence.The injuries do not corroborate this suggested time of occurrence.The mere fact that the deceased were empty stomach at the time of incident cannot be utilised as conclusive proof in support of the contention.There is positive evidence that these two deceased went to market after having their breakfast at about 6 a.m. The defence has not challenged this fact.They had not bothered or dared to probe the witnesses any further on the point.The prosecution evidence is consistently the same from FIR to Court on this part.There is nothing on record to indicate that the deceased persons after they had left their house had taken any thing up to the time of the incident.Since there has been a gap of about 6 hours from the last ingestion, the food particles must have left the stomach, before their death.So far as two injured are concerned they were examined by Dr. O. P. Chaddha and we do not find anything in his cross-examination from which any adverse inference as suggested by the defence may be drawn.He has stated that all the three injured persons were brought to the hospital by Chaukidar Abdullah Khan.No doubt he has admitted that the injuries of Gajraj from 1 to 5 and 12 and 13 were not on vital part.Injury No. 14 on the knee and abrasion may occur as a result of friction, but no where in cross-examination any suggestion has been given to the witnesses that these injuries were self sustained or manufactured.No such suggestion was given even to the doctor that he has prepared false reports.In these circumstances it is impossible for us to discard the testimony of these witnesses and the prosecution case on this score that they were examined in the morning.The explanation offered is that doctor was riot available at the hospital during night hours.The doctor has riot been cross-examined on the point his presence or absence during night.So far as the argument that the incident could have taken place during early hours of the morning and not at 1.00-1.30 p.m. during the day is concerned for reasons discussed above we find this argument wholly untenable and accordingly we reject it.The evidence of witnesses strengthens fully our conclusion.Gulab Rani states that her husband and her Jeth Juggey Pradhan had left for Madawra market in the morning after taking their breakfast and they had come back to the village by bus.They arrived at 12-12.30 p.m. She had also claimed that she was working in the Khalihan.Kirat's presence is also admitted.She claims that he had gone towards pond with the cattle before arrival of accused persons.She had very categorically replied to the defence suggestion that there was no need for her to be present in the Khalihan.Her reply is that no doubt her grain was lifted but the chaff was still lying there in the Khalihan and so she was present.Chaff is generally collected and stored by women in villages.With regard to coming of Phoolbai who conveyed the information of assembly of such a large number of persons with weapons in front of the house of Ratan Modely to her in Khalihan, we feel that it is not improbable.She is a child and is likely to come to her mother.She was initially at the house but had gone to the Khalihan from her house because of her mother being there.She was thrown a suggestion by the defence that after return of Umrao and Juggey, she, Gajraj and Kirat had also sat down underneath neem tree.She denied the suggestion and said that since Juggey was her Jeth therefore she could not sit there.This clearly indicates about their presence.She had further stated in cross-examination that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day.The learned Sessions Judge has read out her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and noting made by him is that no con tradition could be pointed out on the point mentioned above.She was subjected to the cross-examination with regard to going to hutment of Gorey Lai.Her reply is that both the huts are close by.There was no water in her hut and therefore she had gone to the hut of Gorey Lal and sat there.We do not find any falsity in this part of her evidence.She had stated that Umrao and Juggey had not brought anything from the market.She had further stated that the two deceased had told her only about going to the market but what was the purpose behind their visit to the market was not disclosed to her.She could not offer any explanation for the omission in her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. to the effect that she had not stated therein that Phoolbai had informed her about this large assemblage and the accused person's intention to kill them i.e., Umrao ' and Juggey.She denied the suggestion that this improvement she had made with the intention to rope in so many persons in the offence.No capital can be had from this omission because the Investigating Officer may not have questioned her about the same.It has also been urged that she has not specified injuries of ballams.It will be improbable to give out details of the acts and precise blows of different weapons for any witness where such a large number of assailants participate.She had admitted that ballam walas had assaulted only her Jeth Juggey Pradhan.She had admitted that Kirat had come three times from the side of Kanhai's bera but Ratan Modley had threatened him to kill.Why these facts had not been recorded by the Investigating Officer in her statement she could not explain.She is an illiterate woman and disclosed only what was asked from her by Investigating Officer.The law does not require every minute detail to be recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Only broad features of the case are to be enquired about and recorded therein.Her statement was recorded on that very day before she could get medical aid for her injuries.Her husband and jeth were killed.Her son too was severally assaulted.In such circumstances how can it be expected of her to give out to the police officer such minor details on her own.Her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. contains broad features of the incident.Such minute details are subject-matter of evidence during trial alone.She had further admitted in para 18 that Umrao had sustained few injuries at the neem tree.When he tried to run towards the village he was pulled down by six appellants at the bera of Gulzari and assaulted there.She was unable to tell that how many assailants assaulted him underneath the neem tree.Initially she had stated that all the 44 assailants except two gunwall as assaulted Umrao and Juggey underneath neem tree.She denied that the assailants werein two parties.All the assailants were assaulting the two.She had further admitted that Juggey had fell down at the same spot where the assault was initiated upon him.She had further stated that Umrao as a result of assault by six appellants fell down at the bera of Gulzari and the aforesaid six persons had killed him there.She had further stated that they had assaulted him while he was standing and also after he fell.Umrao was assaulted by six appellants with the end part of the lathi (huda) on his chest.She stated that neither she fell down nor blood fell down after her sustaining injuries from Kulhari on the head.It must have been soaked by her clothes.She had admitted that finally Kirat come to the spot after assailants had run away but Kirat had came to the spot thrice before as well.In the cross-examination it has been brought in her testimony that she had been in the hospital in the night but the doctor had told that he would examine her in the morning and so the medical examination was conducted during morning hours.Kirat had gone to lodge the report soon after.She had refuted the suggestion that before sun rise the two deceased persons were killed arid she, Gorey Lal and Gajraj were also assaulted.Therefore very clearly the defence accepts the injuries of injured persons and the two deceased to have been received in the same transaction.The only dispute they are raising is that the assault took place in darkness and they could not identify the assailants.These replies have been elicited in the cross-examination.Thus the time of return of the two deceased to village from market is fully proved so also is the time of occurrence.We also do not find any substance in defence contention that she is a partly reliable witness.Nothing has been pointed out which may make us derive such a conclusion.She is an illiterate women.She has withstood her cross-examination bravely.They saw people coming from three different sides.Ratan Modley was standing with gun on the road leading to the school.Ratan r/o of Ratanpur was standing with gun on the road that leads to Chittar.Ratan Modely exhorted other accused and said that as they are standing with guns on the road kill them and if any person comes to save them we will see.Barring Ratan Modley and Ratanpurwale Ratan, all the other assailants started assaulting Umrao and Juggey in the Khalihan with their respective weapons.When he, his mother and Gorey Lal ran to save them, they were also assaulted.Accused Uttam, Jawahar, Sukh Singh, Gulzari, and Ratan Garawale started assaulting him with lathies.When his mother came to save him.Bahadur assaulted her with axe and Uttam with lathi.When Umrao ran towards his village to save himself; he was chased by Meharban, Bhagirath, Dhan Singh, Surat Singh, Ganpat and Gopi.He was thrown in the compound of Gulzari and was assaulted by the abovesaid assailants with axes and lathies.At the time of assault Lakshman of village Bahadur, Khuman of Sorey, Rammu of Village Jalandhar, Nathu, Paney and Moolchandra of his own village arrived at the scene of occurrence.Lakshman said, "You have killed two persons will you finish the whole family?" Then all the assailants withdraw towards the village.While running away, Bahadaur gave a blow on the head of Juggey.He, his mother and Gorey Lal had also sustained injuries.As earlier discussed he is an injured witness.He had sustained as many as 18 injuries of blunt weapons on his person.These injuries by no stretch of imagination can be held to be self suffered or self inflicted.He has been assaulted with intense severity.Only providence saved him.His presence in the circumstances cannot be doubted.He has stated in para 5 that the incident had taken place at about 1.30 p.m. during noon hours.The time of incident is finding corroboration from the First Information Report as well as Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement and medical evidence.Our attention has been drawn that the information given by the sister regarding the assemblage of the appellants at Ratan Modley's house and statement that let us kill the two is not there in his statement to Investigating Officer.No doubt this omission is there.Although he had failed to offer any explanation but in our opinion this omission is of no serious consequence.During the course of Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement, the Investigating Officer may not have questioned him about this detail.The Investigating Officer has not been asked whether he has enquired from these witnesses about this part or not.If his reply would have been in the affirmative the omission may have assumed significance.A discrepancy has been pointed out about his previous statement and the present statement in Court inasmuch as in Court he had only said that he had been assaulted with lathi by Uttam, Sukh Singh and Ratan Garawala whereas in his statement to the Investigating Officer he has stated that when he fell down he was assaulted by Uttam with lathi.He has disputed the disclosure of assault by ballam in his statement to the Investigating Officer.He has very specifically stated that none of ballam walas were amongst his assailants.He had further specified that ballamwala had only assaulted Juggey deceased and none else.He could not tell whether ballam struck or not on the person of Jaggey deceased.We find that injury No. 6 and injury No. 8 are incised punctured wounds.Injury No. 7 cannot be ignored.Both the dead bodies were sent for post mortem at 7.00 p.m. in the evening.Only Kirat accompanied the dead bodies.The Investigating Officer had recorded his statement and that of his mother, Phoolbai and Gorey Lal on the same day.Prompt recording of the statement of Phoolbai by the Investigating Officer silences the argument about omission of her story in their statement to Investigating Officer.He has further stated that except Kirat the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of all the witnesses on the same day.He further stated that all the witnesses were present when inquest memo and site plan were prepared.All the witnesses have disclosed to the Investigating Officer the places from where they had seen the incident.By the time dead bodies were sent statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded.The dead bodies were sent on a bullock cart.His mother arid Gorey Lal had gone by police car.They reached Madawra at 7.30 p.m. They had reached Madawra's hospital in the night.Their Medical examination was not conducted that night but was conducted on the next morning.A suggestion was given that they were taken to the hospital by the Chaukidar and no constable had accompanied him.This very suggestion suggests that definitely they were sent to the hospital for medical examination that very day and the injuries thus were not seriously under challenge.Thus the argument that the report was transcribed with the consultation of the police and the incident had taken place in the darkness and the witnesses including he and his mother could not see the assailants and named them purely on account of enmity does not hold any water.The presence of both the witnesses PW 1 and PW 3 under no circumstances can be disassociated or doubted.The circumstances and evidence discussed earlier unerringly establish beyond any doubt that this witness PW 4 who is a close relation of the two deceased was present at the time of incident and had sustained injuries in the same incident in which Umrao and Juggey Pradhan lost their lives.According to him he had gone to the police station and the report was taken down on his dictation.He had further given out the motive behind these murders.According to him his brother Juggey was the Pradhan of the village as a result of which Jain and Lodhis were nurturing malice against him.They had brought forth a no confidence motion against his brother Juggey which failed ultimately.He had further stated that in the murder of Girwar, Juggey.Umrao, Chudey Luhar were accused.A day before occurrence accused Sukh Singh, Babu, Jawahar, Uttam tried to outrage the modesty of his wife for which a report was lodged by him at the police station.He had disclosed that Meharban and Jairam are brothers.Similarly Ganiya and Sura are bother and cousin of Meharban and Jairam, Nathu is uncle of the above said four persons.Babu is son of accused Kanhai.Girdhar is nephew of Kanhai accused, Bhagirath, Sukh Singh and Panchu are brother.Vijai accused is son of accused Kallu.Darbari, Komal and Gulzari are brother of accused Kallu.Ashok is son of Darbari.Anand Kumar is cousin of Darbari.Thowan and Kishorey are brother, Jawahar is son of Chittar.Kashiram is cousin of Jawahar accused.Uttam is father of the Bhagwant.Malkhan and Dhari Singh are cousin, Ratna and Keshav are sons of Malkhan.Hammira and Man Singh are brother.Similarly Hathi and Ghasi are brother.He was subjected to cross-examination for the omission in the FIR of the fact that these Jain and Lodhis were nursing jealousy against Juggey on account of his being Pradhan of his village.His reply is that because of bad mental state it may not have been written.This fact is written in the statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. But this enmity was on account of Juggey being Pradhan of village is not there.In our opinion, this omission is not relevant and no value can be attached to this omission.FIR is not an encyclopaedia.He has stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day.This witness instead of his wife told his Bahu to the Investigating Officer and instead of a day before as stated in Court told the Investigating Officer a day before yesterday.He could not explain the variation.In our opinion such variations do not merit our consideration, as they are not immaterial for this case.He had very clearly stated that when he reached the spot for taking cattle to the pond he had seen that Umrao and Juggey were sitting underneath a neem tree.He had further seen that Gulab Rani and Gajraj were collecting chaff.He had very categorically stated that he dictated the FIR after having learnt about the incident from his sister-in-law and his nephew.He has stated in his cross-examination that he had seen Gorey Lal, Gulab Rani and Gajraj attempting to save the two deceased and after murder of the two deceased Gulab Rani and Gajraj had informed that they had come out from Gorey Lal's hut.A contradiction has been pointed out in his testimony from the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. His sister-in-law Gulab Rani arid Gajraj were present in their Khaliyan and Gorey Lal was in his Khaliyan.He pleaded ignorance as to how this statement has been transcribed.This contradictory statement remained there but we are not impressed to go to the extent of discarding his presence at the spot on it alone.PW 4 and PW 5 it clearly emerges out that this witness must have arrived at the scene of occurrence before the assault commenced and came to an end and the assailants took to their heels.Thus even if he has not seen the entire incident, he must have identified the assailants before their leaving the spot and as per his own statement he was told by his sister-in-law and nephew about the incident before he lodged the First Information Report.To a question that apart from the named witnesses he had stated in the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. 'Gaon Ke Annya Log', the reply made by him is that he had stated to the Investigating Officer 'Annya Gaon Ke Log' because most of the witnesses belong to adjacent villages arid not 'Gaon Ke Annya Log'.The Investigating Officer may have misunderstood him and therefore, may have transcribed Gaon Ke Annya Log.He has stated that his statement was recorded in the Khalihan and not at the police station.He has refuted that only Chaukidar had gone to lodge the report.It is incorrect to say that Moolchandra did not accompany him while he was going to lodge the report.A suggestion was given to him that there is a Post Office in his village and Darbari appellant is Postmaster.Darbari appellant is married to the sister's daughter of, Gulzari and Komal accused.He has evaded the reply to the suggestion that Darbari had lodged a report against Latkan and Paney.He has denied the suggestion that in the murder of Girwar Umrao and Juggey were accused and Kanhai was a witness but it is admitted to other witness.He has also refuted the suggestion that the incident had taken place during dark hour and he, Gajraj and Gulab Rani could not see or identify the assailants.Thus in our opinion the testimony of this witness too cannot be discarded as a whole.Undoubtedly PW 6 Dr. D. R. Prabhakar has admitted in his cross-examination that Juggey had punctured wounds which are not on the vital part and Umrao had absolutely no punctured wound.He has further admitted that Juggey has received three blunt weapon injuries whereas Umrao has also two.Thus according to him if these abrasions are excluded then participation of as many as 32 lathiwalas in the assault is doubtful.He has further stated that the stomach of both the deceased were empty and there was some faecal matter in their intestines.No benefit can be granted from the presence of faecal matter in the intestine of two deceased persons to the defence.The prosecution witnesses very categorically stated in their evidence that they had left for the market in the morning after only taking breakfast and had returned to the village at about 12.30 during noon hours.Till then they have taken anything or not is not questioned from the witnesses.We do not know the quantity that these two deceased had taken in the morning before they left for the market.In 3-4 hours it is to pass into the intestine.Otherwise also in a case of this nature where as many as three persons had sustained injuries and two of them are produced in evidence, we do not find any merit in this contention.This does not create any doubt in our mind about the time of occurrence.Lodging of FIR is corroborated from the testimony of PW 9 Constable Dhruv Prasad who was at that time clerk constable at the police station.He has admitted that Moolchand accompanied the information and he had stated the fact that all the assailants with common object had assaulted.When he saw the report, he admitted that this did not contain assault with common object.He further corroborated the statement of PW 5 Kirat by saying that he had informed about 44 accused persons.Since the name of Kishorey was repeated in this FIR therefore the report contained 45 names.This repetition of name in the FIR clearly indicates that it had been transcribed without any consultation.If consultation would have been there, this repetition was wholly impossible.According to this witness Investigating Officer Megh Singh who made initial investigation, was present at the police station when this FIR was transcribed but he has no knowledge whether any statement of witnesses was recorded at the police station or not.Then he further stated that he had not seen recording of any statement of the witness at the police station.The defence cannot get any benefit from this omission on the part of the Investigating Officer when two persons are done to death and as many as three persons are seriously injured no Investigating Officer will bother to waste his time in recording the statement of the informant.He instead will be in a hurry to visit the spot.The distance of village is four miles from the police station.The Investigating Officer had left police station immediately for the spot and three injured persons reached the police station at 9.30 p.m. in the night.They had come with Chaukidar Ajit Kumar.No police personnel had come with them except police driver.They were sent to the hospital with Chaukidar.No constable was sent because during those days there was dearth of force at the police station.He further stated that in the FIR the lack offence is transcribed.These circumstances, in our opinion, fully corroborate prompt lodging of F.I.R.In the circumstances of the present case it is proved that these injured persons reached the police station at 9.30 p.m. during night.This fact has not only been asserted by three witnesses but fortified from the statement of this witness as well.We do not find any valid reason not to accept this.He had further corroborated the version that they were not medically examined that night because doctor was not there.They were medically examined next day.He has refuted the other suggestion with regard to lodging of the report etc. and proved that axe had been recovered from the possession of the Babu appellant and ballam was recovered from the house of Darbari.Kulhari (axe) was bloodstained.PW 10 is the witness of recovery of weapons.He is brother of witness Paney named in the FIR and son of Kanhai.It appears that he is related with the informant.This witness further stated that all the three accused persons lived separately.Darbari was staying in the village or not is evaded by him.He has admitted that the letters that came to the village from outside were distributed by Darbari.Thus this fact is borne out that Darbari was connected with the Post Office.The defence suggestion in this regard was refuted.There are a number of houses adjacent to the house of the two appellant from whom the recovery of ballam and axe is alleged by the prosecution.None of them were made witnesses of these recoveries.In the circumstances we are not prepared to accept these recoveries.Regarding recovery of ballam and bloodstained axe, we are not inclined to accept the prosecution evidence.PW 11 Randhir has stated that he had gone with the driver and conductor of the bus by which the deceased Juggey and Umrao had returned to the village.Since they were not prepared to depose, their statements are not recorded.This fact is not transcribed in the case diary by him.Merely as recorded in case diary, he has made an enquiry from the villagers with regard to going to the market of the two deceased.Since nobody was ready to state anything, he did not transcribe this fact or their names too in the case diary.He has admitted that he has not transcribed the statement of people whose fields were adjacent to the field of occurrence.He had further stated that nobody was available.After the occurrence villagers were not available.No seriousness can be attached to this omission or lacuna committed by the Investigating Officer as this is not going to adversely affect the prosecution story and the veracity of the eye-witnesses.Close relations are not likely to allow the real assailants to go scot free.Villagers normally avoid to become a witness in such cases especially when the village is deeply divided in factions.We do not see any serious infirmity in the testimony of the Investigating Officer.The statement of the other Investigating Officer PW 12 does not help the defence.So far as PW 5 is concerned., his testimony is only given to establish motive and also the fact that he has transcribed the FIR on the basis of what had been told by .his Nephew and sister-in-law.Regarding his having seen the occurrence, it does not appear to us that he came to the spot from the pond and had gone away thrice due to fear on account of threats extended by Ratan Modley.No doubt this witness has very clearly stated that the alleged incident was witnessed by him.His evidence with regard to the incident can be ignored.He must have seen the assailants at the fag end.We have no doubt about this fact.He has proved the time of occurrence, motive and also presence of both the deceased and injured at the spot.In our opinion having arrived at the conclusion that the incident had occurred as alleged by the prosecution and in the manner stated by the witnesses, we still have to examine the probability of participation of 44 persons in the incident, out of whom two persons were armed with gun.Not a single firearm injury is there.The evidence against them is that they had been standing there with guns in their hands as watch wards.According to the prosecution case they were standing to prevent any person coming to the spot yet so many persons came to the spot and spoke to the assailants.There are three ballam walas.According to the Medical opinion only two injuries on the person of Juggey can be attributed to ballam walas.Six persons were armed with axes.Learned counsel for the defence wants us to examine and assess the probability of participation of 32 persons with lathis, 6 persons with axes and 3 persons with ballam in the incident.Participation of two gunwalas appear to us highly doubtful.They had not in any manner participated in the incident.Still we find that as many as 6-7 persons had seen the occurrence apart from PW 4 Gajraj, PW 2 Gulab Rani and Gorey Lai.This further goes to suggest that they may not have been present and even if their presence is accepted none participated in the incident.This further does not rule out.the probability that they may have disassociated themselves at the nick of time and remained aloof.If they were sharing the common object of murder of the assembly what prevented them from using their guns is not understandable.Thus these two persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.These persons Ratan son of Kaddey and Ratan son of Khet Singh who were armed with guns are, therefore, given the benefit of doubt.The specific roles have been attributed in the assault of Umrao to six appellants.PW 1 was unable to give out names of assailants of Umrao before he tried to run.No doubt she has stated very clearly that only 6 appellants killed her husband after throwing him on the ground.The names of six persons are available to us from the testimony of PW 2 Gajraj as assailants i.e. Meharban, Bhagirath, Gopi, Dhan Singh, Ganiya and Sura.He has given out the names of those who assaulted his mother as Bahadur and Uttam.He also disclosed the names of his assailants as Uttam, Jawahar, Sukh Singh, Gulzari, Ratan Garwale.So far as deceased Gajraj is concerned, it is alleged he was assaulted by all the appellants.But examination of his injuries show that he had sustained only eight injuries.Out of which five are incised wounds.Injury No. 2 is a contusion and third is large echymosis in an area 9" x 6" the midline on the chest back on both side, at its lower half.Injury No. 5 may be a result of sustained lathi blows which the deceased, may have been subjected to after his fall.The other contusion was on the head.There was only one fracture.Thus, so far as Juggey is concerned, in his case the participation of some with lathi can be worked out.Participation of ballamwalas can specifically be deciphered against two only.Injury No. 7 on his person can also be attributed ballam.It is common knowledge that when the victims are being assaulted by a mob then generally those who are in the fore from participate largely in the assault but it does not mean that others had not share their common object.From the nature and manner of the assault, it appears to us that the assault was launched by a large number of persons upon two deceased as well as three injured persons and the common object must have been to kill.So far as Darbari appellant is concerned, he has produced DW 1 Bhagwan Swaroop, sorting postman.His evidence shows that this appellant was arrested on 4-5-1976 by the police at 2.45 p.m. from the post office.This witness Bhagwan Swaroop has very clearly stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to headquarter.He had prepared the report about the arrest of the Darbari appellant in two copies and had sent that by registered post to S.P.O. Lalitpur.He has filed carbon copy of his report.He has stated that if a registry is made to the department no postage stamp is necessary to be affixed.He has admitted that he has not made any complaint at any police station or with any superior police officer.On 5-5-1976 he had sent a registered letter to the police that they had arrested appellant Darbari without any information which has resulted into complete closure of the post office.He has further admitted that in the letter sent to the S.H.O. Madawra he had not stated about the removal of cash and postage stamp of his office by the police.He has further stated that the department had not conducted any enquiry on the report.The prosecution had compelled him to file the copy of the application sent by him to police station, and also that of the receipt of the reply.He has refuted the suggestion made by the prosecution that being a member of the department he had made this ante dated.He had refuted that Darbari was arrested with blood stained ballam.We have carefully examined the statement of this witness and we find some substance in the case of the appellant that he was arrested from the post office on the date of occurrence itself.This fact itself goes a long way to discard the participation of this appellant.No accused who had participated in such a heinous offence of murder will be in such a frame of mind to be present with blood stained ballam for nearly two hours in the village post office.In the circumstances this appellant is also entitled to the benefit of doubt.The evidence of enmity in this case specifically has come against the family of Girwar.In his murder both the deceased and Paney were accused.Girwar is son of Than Singh, Pancham and Nathhu are his brothers.Meharban and Ram Diya are his sons.Ganiya and Soora are sons of Pancham.Nathu is first cousin of Girwar and Pancham being son of their uncle.We don't entertain any doubt in the participation of five members of this family.Nathhu Ganiya, Soora, Meharban and Daya Ram.The other enmity available to us is against Uttam, Sukh Singh, Babu and Jawahar.We do not find any difficulty in accepting their participation.Three of them have been attributed main role as well.Apart from them eight others also have been attributed specific roles.They are Gulzari Ratnam Garwala, Babu, Bahadur, Bhagirah, Than Singh, Soora, Dhan Prasad and Gopi.We do not find any difficulty in their participation in the incident .As a matter of fact participation of all the seven having axes, two possessing baallams and as many as 12 lathi walas is concerned we find safe to decipher.Rest of the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt, especially when we find participation of as many as 32 persons having lathies most unsafe to believe.The persons holding axes are Meharban Babu, Bahadur, Nathhu, Girdhari Bhagirath and Gopi.Two ballams were held by Dayaram and Vijai.Participation of Gartiya, Soora and Dayaram being of the family 6f Girwar cannot be doubted.Similarly participation of Sukh Singh, Uttam, Gulzari, Dhan Sing, Dhan Prasad, Ratarn s/o Malkhan, Jawahar, Malkhan, Komal, Ashok, also cannot be doubted .These last 12 are lathi holders.Out of these appellants whom we find guilty of the offence of murder five have died during the pendency of appeal.They are Sukh Singh, Ganiya, Babu, Malkhan and his son Ratan.Their appeals have already abated.We uphold the conviction and sentence of the remaining abovementioned appellants viz. Meharban, Bahadur, Nathhu, Girdhari, Bhagirath and Gopi who were armed with axes and Dayaram and Vijai who were armed with ballam.Conviction and sentence of Soora, Uttam, Gulzari, Dhan Singh, Dhan Prasad, Komal, Ashok , Jawahar and Bahadur who were armed with lathies are also confirmed.The last argument that some of the appellants were minor at the time of incident has some force.These accused persons could be convicted and but no sentence ought to have been awarded to them by the Sessions Judge.They are Ashok 20 years.Jawahar 20 years, Bahadur 19 years, Gopi 19 years, and Vijai 20 years.Out of them we have confirmed the conviction of only four.The incident is said to have taken place on 4-5-1976 i.e. 4 years and five months before the statements were given by these appellants.On the basis of their above statements learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered extention of benefit of the Children Act after proper verification.From a perusal of the judgment we find that no argument was advanced before the learned Sessions Judge on this point.For the first time before us this argument has been raised.They are on bail.They need not surrender.Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.So far as the appeal of appellants No. 1, 2, 10,16, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37, 38, and 40, viz. Meharban, Komal, Uttam, Gulzari, Soora, Dhan Singh, Dhan Prasad, Nathhu, Girdhari Lai, Bhagirath, and Dayaram respectively, is dismissed.Their conviction and sentences are upheld.They are on bail.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,844,813 |
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, Palani @ Vellai Palani, S/o Marimuthu, aged 34 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.937/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 12.08.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.D.Jayachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail by the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.766/2014 in respect of Crime No.356/2014 on the file of E-3 Teynampet Police Station, for the offence under section 379 IPC; by the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364/2012 in respect of Crime No.1062/2011 on the file of P-3 Vyasarpadi Police station for the offence under sections 457 and 380 IPC; and by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.2392/2012 in respect of Cr.No.1960/2012 on the file of T-1 Ambathur Police Station, for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 r/w 506(ii) IPC.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,584,492 |
stm/ay CRL.O.P.Nos.23370 to 23376 of 201225.07.2018
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,845,472 |
Cr.R.No.209/2017The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision application are that on 06.12.2015 at about 1:00 AM, complainant Mahesh Sharma accompanied by Santosh Saxena was travelling by Taxi bearing Registration No.M.P.07/1843 boarded by them at the R ailway Station for returning back to their home.When Taxi reached near Sita Sagar Gas Agency, at that time a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.M.P.09N2603 coming from the opposite side dashed the Taxi No.M.P.07/1843, due to which taxi was overturned.According to the complainant, the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver.The matter was reported to the Police Station City Kotwali, Datia.(05.05.2017) The applicant has preferred this revision on feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Appeal No.11/2016, whereby the order of conviction passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class(JMFC) Datia on 29.12.2015 in Criminal Case No.217/2006 has been upheld.The applicant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 337 (on two counts) and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month and two years respectively with the fine of Rs.500/- for each offence, with default stipulation.In furtherance, thereto, an F.I.R. bearing Crime No.422/2005 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC.The injured received various injuries on their person and were referred for medical examination to the District Hospital, Datia where injured Santosh Saxena died due to injuries sustained in the accident.After that the Police added the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC against the applicant.During investigation, the Police recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the applicant and seized the offending vehicle from the possession of the applicant and after completion of the investigation,-( 3 )-R.No.209/2017 charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.The applicant abjured his guilt.He took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter.Out of them, Anand Sharma (PW.2), Ghanshyam Sen (PW.3), Mahesh Sharma (PW.6) and Ajay Makdaria (PW.9) did not support the prosecution story and they have turned hostile.It is borne out from the record that the trial court has convicted the present applicant primarily on the testimony of Mahesh Kumar Saxena (PW.1), who had identified the applicant as the driver of the offending vehicle and had used phrase "high speed" in respect of the conduct of the driver in his examination-in- chief.Accordingly, the trial court in its judgment dated 29.12.2015 has recorded conclusion in paragraph 20 that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the present applicant.The appellate court did not interfere with the order of conviction and repelled the contention of the present applicant that his identity as a driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident has not been established by the prosecution.The appellate court was of-( 4 )-In order to substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the statement of Mahesh Kumar Saxena (PW.1), who has not stated that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner by the applicant.Although he narrated that the vehicle was driven in high speed but he has not clearly stated the approximate speed at which the vehicle was being plied.It is also submitted that the prosecution has not met out the standard of proof required for conduction of an offence charged against the applicant.Further, it is also contended that the injured witness Mahesh Sharma (PW-6) has not identified the present applicant as the driver of the offending vehicle and he has denied the fact that he had named the applicant as the driver of the offending vehicle in the F.I.R. Ex.Now coming to the consideration of the another question whether mere on the deposition of Mahesh Kumar Saxena (PW.1), the speed of offending vehicle could be held to be high speed when he has not stated the exact or approximate speed of Maruti Car.-( 7 )-Although Mahesh Kumar Saxena (PW.1) identified the applicant as the driver of the offending vehicle but he failed to disclose the registration number of the offending vehicle.He said that the vehicle was driven by the applicant at the time of incident but there is apparent contradiction in his statement as on one hand, in his examination-in-chief he stated that he handed over the applicant and his vehicle to the Police on the date of incident on the other hand, he admitted that he knew the applicant since last one month from the date of the statement recorded before the Court.If he knew the applicant from the date of incident then he would not have stated in his cross examination that he came to know about him since last one month.The prosecution has also not proved the seizure memo of the offending vehicle by not presenting the seizure witnesses before the Court.In these circumstances, the courts below did not examine the case in the light of the discussion made above and the basic ingredients of the offence in which conviction has been made are not satisfied.Consequently, the judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.11/2016 by the Ist Additional Sessions-( 8 )-R.No.209/2017 Judge, Datia and the judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.217/ 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Datia are set aside.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,853,223 |
Present HON.SHRI JUSTICE B.D.RATHI *** (Misc.Case No.9741/2012) Suresh Singh Sikarwar Vs.State of M.P. & another Shri R.K.Sharma and Shri D.P.Singh, Advocates for petitioner-Suresh Singh Sikarwar.During inquiry, it was collected that the marriage of Krishnapal was solemnized on 19/2/2007 with Smt. Radha alias Reeta, daughter of one Rajendra Singh Parmar, resident of Shivpuri.It was alleged that Krishnapal was subjected to maltreatment physically as well as mentally by his wife.The detailed discussions were mentioned in the FIR hence need not be proliferated.On 6/9/2012 on being called by his father-in-law Rajendra Singh, Krishnapal (since deceased) alongwith his friends Prashant and Neelesh reached at Shivpuri in a car.When the car of the deceased passed through the way near front of the residence of the present petitioner, Krishnapal (since deceased) and his friends were restrained by the petitioner and other family members of the wife of Krishnapal and thereafter Krishnapal was illegally confined inside the bungalow of the petitioner where he was also beaten.Admittedly, in the present case the option was open to the aggrieved person to lodge the FIR for investigation either at Shivpuri or at Bhopal.Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1- State.Shri Ankur Mody, Advocate for respondent No.2-Shri Narendra Pratap Singh Bundela.O rder (Passed on 19th Day of March, 2015) Per B.D.Rathi, J. -The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of FIR registered at Crime No.537/12 for commission of offence under section 306 and 343/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioner by police station Chhola Mandir, Bhopal including other consequential criminal proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.(2) Brief facts as per prosecution case, on perusal of the record goes to indicate that one Marg No. 62/12 was registered under section 174 of the Code by police station Chhola Mandir, Bhopal in regard to unnatural death of 2 Misc.C. No. 9741/12 Krishnapal alias Raja Bundela.He was released after four hours.Then Krishnapal returned to his residence at Bhopal and on 7/10/2012 he committed suicide by lying before the running train.During the course of investigation, one suicidal note left by the deceased was also seized by the police from the place of incident.Crime No. 537/12 has been registered for the offence under sections 306 and 342/34 of I.P.C. against Rajendra Singh, Smt. Radha @ Reeta (wife of Krishnapal) and the petitioner Suresh Singh Sikarwar, which is still pending at the stage of investigation.2 Misc.C. No. 9741/12(4) In view of the objection raised above, with the consent 3 Misc.C. No. 9741/12 of the parties, we take up the matter firstly for consideration on the point of sustainability of the petition by this court.3 Misc.C. No. 9741/12This issue has been elaborately examined and considered in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs.6 Misc.C. No. 9741/12By exercising such option, the complainant/aggrieved person has lodged the FIR at Bhopal police station where also the part of offence was committed.Therefore, after investigation certainly final report will have to be filed in the court having jurisdiction over area of that police station.In such circumstances, Chhola Mandir police station, Bhopal cannot 7 Misc.C. No. 9741/12 file final report before the court having jurisdiction in Shivpuri area.7 Misc.C. No. 9741/128 Misc.C. No. 9741/12The infusion of the concept of 'cause of action' into the criminal dispensation has led to subsequent confusion countenanced in High Courts.It seems to us that Bhaskaran allows multiple venues to the Complainant which runs counter to this Court's preference for simplifying the law.Courts are enjoined to interpret the law so as to eradicate ambiguity or nebulousness, and to ensure that legal proceedings are not used as a device for harassment, even of an apparent transgressor of the law.Law's endeavour is to bring the culprit to book and to provide succour for the aggrieved party but not to harass the former through vexatious proceedings.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,855,419 |
Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the petition.At this stage, there is no occasion to look into the question whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not and that would be a subject matter of trial.The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Order Date :- 24.10.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
658,622 |
Pradeep Kumar filed a complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Civil Lines, Delhi on 16.11.19975 in which he mentioned that on 15.11.1975 his sister Arunima Saxena aged 15/16 years had gone to Balak Ram Hospital to bring medicine but did not return.On 15th November, 1975 his elder brother Mukesh Kumar had lodged a report with the Police Station that his sister is not traceable.It is mentioned that on search they came to know that one Dewan Singh who was known to the family and had been working in Khyber Pass near the Petrol Pump was also missing from his house during the same period.It is further mentioned that Dewan Singh had been roaming about near his house for a few days.The complainant had an apprehension that his sister Arunima had been kidnapped by Dewan Singh.He was arrested near the Khyber Pass.On the basis of the statement made by Dewan Singh Arunima was traced out in the village Pillanji in the presence of Badley and Chhotay.S.I. Sham Lal recorded Arunima's statement in which she stated that Dewan Singh met her outside Balak Ram Hospital at about 10:00 a.m. and informed her that her brother Rakesh had met with an accident and on that pretext took her to village Pillanji and had threatened her.She further stated that at Pillanji the accused had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her.Apart from the medical examination the prosecutrix was also examined by a Radiologist.According to the Radiologist, she was above 15 years and below 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence.ORDER Dalveer Bhandari, J.After the investigation, a case was registered against Dewan Singh.The prosecution examined 18 witnesses to strengthen its case.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.denied having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix in a room at village Pillanji.The appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.The prosecutrix's parents insisted that the appellant should marry her but he refused to marry her because she had a bad reputation in the locality.Mr. Arvind Chadha, the learned counsel for the appellant seriously made an attempt to demonstrate that the appellant's conviction under section 376 I.P.C. is not sustainable because the prosecutrix was a consenting party.He had taken me through the entire evidence to establish that the consent of the prosecutrix in this case is writ large.Admittedly the prosecutrix had known the accused for quite some time because he used to visit her house.On the way, the appellant met her and informed that her brother Rakesh met with an accident and that she was called by him.The appellant took the prosecutrix to village Pillanji on a scooter.They roamed about on the scooter and reached village Pillanji at about 1:00 p.m. There the appellant informed her that his friend resides in that village who knows about her brother Rakesh and he would come there by 5:00 p.m. He kept her in village Pillanji uptil 5:00 p.m. but the appellant's friend did not come by 5:00 p.m. and thereafter he had taken her to a room in village Pillanji and threatened her in that room that he would tell her parents that he had kidnapped her.The accused had sexual intercourse with her during that night.In the morning, the accused had gone to his sister's house which was there in the same village.Immediately, after sometime appellant's sister came to that very room in the morning.The prosecutrix remained with the sister of the accused for quite sometime.The prosecutrix did not either mention the fact of forcible intercourse with her by the accused or had shown her anxiety to return her home.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even assuming she had any explanation for not showing her anxiety to go home up to 5:00 p.m. but when the friend of the accused did not turn up even by 5:00 p.m. and thereafter she was taken to a room in village Pillanji.Even after 5:00 p.m. she did not even ask the accused that she wanted to go to her house to see her brother who had allegedly met with an accident.Furthermore the Prosecutrix was kept in the room for the whole night and next day when the accused's sister came she did not mention even a word to her about the incident.At no place or at no point of time the prosecutrix had shown her anxiety to go to her house particularly when her brother had met with an accident on that very day.The entire conduct and behaviour of the prosecutrix during the relevant period clearly reveal that she had known the accused for a long time and she was a consenting party.According to the learned counsel on the basis of evidence on record no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out against the accused/appellant.The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Mahla Ram Vs.The Crown AIR 1924 Lahore 699; to demonstrate that in the entire incident there has been no resistance by the prosecutrix and the evidence of resistance would have important bearing in a case under section 376 I.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:"In a case under Section 376 IPC the first and foremost circumstance that can be looked for in case of this kind is that the evidence of resistance which one would naturally expect from the woman unwilling to yield to a sexual intercourse forced upon her.Dr. (Mrs.) Suresh Singh who had conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix mentioned that she noticed old torn hymen.She has also mentioned that there is no sign of external injury anywhere.It was submitted by the learned counsel that in this case there was no resistance whatsoever on the part of the prosecutrix, otherwise it would have ordinarily reflected in the medical examination.According to the learned counsel for the appellant apart from the testimony of the prosecutrix the medical examination of the prosecutrix cumulatively demonstrate that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in the entire episode and consequently the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained.The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on Mantu and others Vs.In this case, there were allegations of forcible rape successively by 5 persons.According to the doctor's report, there was no sign of forcible intercourse or visible injuries on person of victim of girl.As per statement of the doctor the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse, cohabitation and there were discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Therefore, conviction of the appellant could not be sustained and needs to be set aside.The learned counsel placed reliance on Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,864,207 |
This is a repeat (2nd) application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner- Siddhant Singh, who has been arrested by Police on 22.1.2019 in Crime No.53/2019, Police Station Barwani, District Barwani concerning offence under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh after filing fo the challan.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.As per prosecution story, the petitioner was an employee of Spandan Sfurti Finance Ltd. Which is a micro- finance company registered by the Reserve Bank of India.The company provides short-term loan facility to group of women to start their business.As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner prepared forged group of 27 women and withdrawn the loan of Rs.7,93,415/- from Barwani Branch of the company.He obtained KYC, Identity proof, address proof and other documents of 27 women and withdrawn the aforesaid amount by misguiding the Branch Manager Vinod Chouhan.He himself deposited first and second instalment of the loan, but when the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 17924/2019 2 Siddhant Singh V/s.State of M.P.third instalment was not deposited, then the Branch Manager inquired from these 27 women and found that they did not obtain any loan.Therefore, the FIR was lodged against the petitoner for the aforesaid offences.Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence u/s. 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as he has not prepared any forged documents.The loans were taken by the women and they did not pay instalments to the company.All the documents pertaining to KYC, identify proof, address proof, etc. are valid documents and had been supplied by the said women.It is a matter of investigation as to whether they have received the amount of loan or not.In order to avoid repayment of loan, they have falsely implicated the present petitioner.The amount was disbursed to them after due verification.The petitioner was only authorised to collect the documents from the group of women and deposit the same in the company and thereafter, the Branch Manager is competent to sanction the loan.Thus, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Dy.Advocate General opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner has collected all the documents from the women, but the loan was not actually disbursed to them.The petitioner himself was repaying the instalments, therefore, he has committed the fraud.The investigation has been completed and challan has been filed.All the documents in resect of application form, identity proof, address proof, KYC, etc. are available in the challan.It is not in dispute that the forms for distribution of loan were submitted in the Branch Office of the company.As per the allegation, the petitioner along with Branch Manager Vinod Chouhan withdrawn the loan amount, but did not disburse the same to the 27 women.Their statements have been recorded, in which, they have categorically stated that the petitioner has collected the forms from them, but they did not receive any loan amount.When the photocopy of the cheque-book were taken from the said women, then the amount ought to have been credited in their account, but the petitiner has withdrawn himself and started paying the instalments, but after two instalments, he stopped the repayment of loan and this fact of forgery and cheating came to the knowledge of the company.In view of the above, at present, no case for grant of bail is made out.Accordingly, this M.Cr.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,346,728 |
He interrogated Ram Krishna Singh at the police station and then left for village Gauriya where he reached at about 2-30 p.m. He prepared inquest reports relating to the dead bodies of Smt. Beti and Vijai Bahadur.He found Jagbir Singh in an injured condition.The two dead bodies in a sealed condition along with Jagbir Singh were despatched to District Hospital Fa-tehgarh.The investigating Officer took possession over blood-stained and plain earth which he sealed in separate containers.He also found 4 fired cartridges, 2 of which bore the mark P. O. F. (Pakistan Ordnance Factory) while the remaining bore the mark K. F. He also found fired cartridges of 12 bore, three L. G. pellets, one piece of lethal and bullet of 300 bore rifle.These were properly sealed.Medical examination of Jagbir Singh was conducted on 24th March, 1973, at 7-30 p.m., by Dr. S. C. Pandiya.Gunshot wound of entry with inverted and lacerated margins 1-1/2"X 1-1/2" X going inside chest cavity (circular on right side front of chest) 3" away from right nipple at 2 o'clock position and 1/2" away from mid-line of front of chest.Blackening and tattooing around the margins of wound present 1/4" broad.5 Gunshot wounds of exit with everted and lacerated margins 1/4" X 1/4" (circular) each in area 4"X3" of left side back 2" below lower angle of left scapula.A braised contusion 1"X 3/4" on outer end of left eyebrow.Pleura was lacerated.Lungs and pericardium were lacerated.One wadding piece was recovered as embedded in left lung substance.JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J.This is an appeal by Kaplan Singh, Dularey and Malhey against their conviction and sentence to death under Section 302, I.P.C., so far as Kaptan Singh is concerned, and Section 302/149, I.P.C., so far as Dularey and Malhey are concerned, with the aid of Section 303, I.P.C. Kaptan Singh and Da-larey have also appealed against their conviction and sentence to undergo two years' R. I. each under Section 148, I.P.C. There is also a usual reference in respect of these three accused for confirmation of death sentence by the learned Sessions Judge.Appeals by Sukkha, Ram Dayal, Bisrara, Lankush Shankar and Barey Lalla have also been filed against their sentence and conviction to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/149, I.P.C. each for murder of Vijai Bahadur Singh and Smt. Beti, Shanker has also appealed against his sentence and conviction to undergo two years' R. I. under Section 148, I.P.C., while remaining accused noted above have come up in appeal against their sentence and conviction to undergo one year's R. I. each under Section 147, I.P.C. Accused Balbir has come up in appeal against his sentence and conviction to life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed murder of Smt. Beti as well as for sentence and conviction under Section 302/149, I.P.C. for the commission of the murder of Vijai Bahadur Singh.He has also come up in appeal against his sentence and conviction to undergo two years' R. I. under Section 148, I.P.C. The sentences of all these accused on various counts were ordered to run concurrently.All these appeals and the reference as noted above were heard together and these shall be disposed of by one judgment.2. Accused Kaptan Singh and Balbir Singh are real brothers.They live in one house in village Gauriya.Accused Dularev and Malhey alias Phool Singh are also real brothers and they are uncles of Kaptan Singh and Balbir Singh.Accused Bisram is son of accused Dularey.They also live in this very village.Accused Shanker is mausara bhai of accused Kap-tan Singh and Balbir Singh.Accused Sukkha is sarhu of accused Dularey.Accused Lankush is cousin of accused Sukkha.Accused Ram Dayal is nephew of accused Kaptan Singh.All these accused also reside in village Gauriya, Accused Barey Lalla is a resident of village Gau-hana.Ham Krishna Singh and Vijai Bahadur Singh, who is now dead, were real brothers, and they also resided in one house in this village Gauriya along with their mother.Smt. Beti deceased.The house of Ram Krishna lies to the extreme north of the village.The prosecution story is that there is a long standing enmity between the family of Ram Krishna Singh, on one hand, and the family of Kaptan Singh, on the other, in this way that in the year 1955 Ram Prasad, father of accused Kaptan Singh, was murdered, Vijai Bahadur deceased, his brother Ram Krishna Singh, his uncle Bhuri Singh and four others were implicated in that murder as accused, but were acquitted on trial.After about 2 or 3 months of the aforesaid murder, one Badnu, uncle of Vijai Bahadur deceased, was murdered.Hardeo, who was brother of accused Kaptan Singh and who was also made an accused in this case, but he having died earlier to the trial had escaped sentence and conviction, had been implicated as an accused along with others, but had secured an acquittal.In the year 1958, Bhuri Singh was murdered.In that murder case Kaptan Singh, Hardeo Singh, Dularey, Malhey and others were implicated and they were sentenced to life imprisonment.Their appeal was also dismissed by the High Court.Kaptan Singh, Malhey and Dularey were released in 1967 on probation.In the year 1970 Ranbir, another torother of Kaptan Singh, was murdered and in that murder case Vijai Bahadur deceased along with Ram Krishna Singh and others were implicated.That case was said to be still pending when this occurrence took place.Apart from these murders of one or the other of the members of either family there were two cases fought out in between these families under Sections 107/117, Cr.P.C. in which one party consisted of accused Kaptan Singh, Hardeo deceased and others, while the other party consisted of deceased Vijai Bahadur and others, it was further alleged that 5 or 6 days before this incident, Ram Krishna Singh had helped police in an encounter that took place between the police, on one hand, and the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera, on the other, in which Babu, brother of Gulshera and Shamshera, along with two others was apprehended.This incident is said to have closely brought together the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera and the group of Kaptan Singh which group was already friendly with this gang of Gulshera and Shamshera.The prosecution story now reads in this way that on 23-3-1973, at about 9 A.M., Ram Krishna Singh was going towards his well, which was situate in front of his house, with the object of taking bath.At that very time, his brother Vijai Bahadur deceased was engaged in giving fodder to his cattle which were tied at the charni which was also situate in front of his house under a Neem tree.At that very occasion, Ram Krishna Singh saw a group of 14 persons, which included Gulshera, Girish and Kaptan Singh, armed with rifles, Balbir, Dularey, Shanker and Shamshera, armed with guns, Hardeo, armed with a spear, Sukkha, Ram Dayal, Bisram, Malhey, Lankush and Barey Lalla, armed with lathis, approaching from the northern direction.Seeing this group, both these brothers raising an alarm started running towards their house.They reached their barotha where their mother, Smt. Beti, was sitting.These assailants, however, managed to reach the door and when they tried to enter, Smt. Beti attempted to close the door with the result that Balbir accused was said to have shot at Smt. Beti on account of which she fell down dead.In the meantime, both the brothers had come inside their courtyard.In the courtyard were present Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of Vijai Bahadur, along with her son, Jagbir Singh, and other ladies and children who had however, in the meantime managed to escape inside the southern kothari.Entering the house, Hardeo is said to have aimed a bhala blow at Vijai Bahadur, Vijai Bahadur however, caught the bhala and threw it down.Kaptan Singh accused thereupon fired at Vijai Bahadur on account of which he fell down dead.In the meantime, several people including Sunder Singh, Shri Krishna, Sheo Ratan and Baldeo are said to have come upon the roof of the house of one Prithviraj and from there they had managed to see the occurrence.Ram Krishna Singh, although he was shot several times, however, managed to escape by going inside the aforesaid kothari which faces east and had closed the door from inside.Smt. Kamla Devi, however, picked up the spear that had been thrown by her husband and gave a blow upon accused Kaptan Singh on account of which he received injuries.In the meantime, 6 or 7 shots were fired and some of the pellets are said to have injured Jagbir Singh.Thereafter, all these accused and their companions managed to make good their escape.After the departure of the assailants, Ram Krishna Singh came out of the house and dictated F.I.R. Ext. Ka-7 to Narbir Singh and taking this F.I.R. with him, he went to P.S. Harpalpur which lay at a distance of about 10 miles, where he handed over this F.I.R, on the same date at about 11-15 a.m. Sri T. P. Singh, who was posted as Second Officer P. S. Harpalpur, took up investigation.According to the doctor, a gunshot wound of 1/4" diameter on the outer side of the left foot near the ankle with diffused swelling of the whole foot was noticed.The injury was kept under observation.According to the opinion of the doctor, the injury was caused by a pellet and its duration was about one and a half days old.It may be noted here that Chowdhry died before the committal of this case and, as such, the post-mortem reports were proved by secondary evidence before the learned Sessions Judge.The following ante-mortem injuries were found upon the body of Vijai Bahadur:Gunshot wound of entry with inverted and lacerated margins 2"X2" (circular) x brain cavity on occipital prominence slightly to right mid-line.Blackening and tattooing around the margins of wound present 1/4" broad alround.Gunshot wound of exit with everted and lacerated margins 6" X 4" X brain cavity deep on left frontal prominence area and left eye.The internal examination revealed skull bones to have been fractured.Brain was badly lacerated and torn into pieces and present outside.Base was fractured.In the view of Dr. Chowdhry, the death was caused due to coma as a result of firearm injuries.Following ante-mortem injuries upon the body of Smt. Beti were found:In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries.Proceedings under Sections 87 and 88, Cr.However, on 2nd of April, 1973, accused Du-larey, Phool Singh, Bisrarn, Lankusfo and Ram Dayal surrendered in Court.It may be noted here that against Gulshera and Shamshera a charge-sheet was submitted in their state of absconding.After completing investigation, all the accused were asked to stand their trial for the offences for which they were subsequently found guilty and sentenced.The defence of accused Kaptan Singh was that he had undergone full period of imprisonment.He admitted the various murders that had taken place either in his family or in the family of the complainant.P.C. was also admitted, but, according to him, one of these cases was compromised.He denied that he had anything to do with this occurrence.He denied that he was absconding.He denied his relationship with Ram Dayal and Dularey.He categorically stated that he was not a member of unlawful assembly along with Gulshera, Shamshera and Girish.Balbir's statement is more or less on the same lines as that of Kaptan Singh.He further contended that he was at the house of his father-in-law and had not absconded.Sukkha denied having anything to do with this occurrence.According to him, he was falsely implicated because he had given evidence against Ram Krishna Singh in connection with the murder of Narbir Singh, The defence of Ram Dayal was complete denial.He alleged false implication as he had voted against Gokaran in the election of Pradhan.He also stated that Sheo Ratan, a witness named in the F.I.R., was son of Gokaran.Dularey's statement was denial of the occurrence.According to him, he was falsely implicated because he had appeared as a witness against Vijai Bahadur and Ram Krishna Singh.Bisram accused stated that he was implicated because of his father Dularey and his uncle Malhey.He denied having anything to do with this occurrence.The defence of Malhey was also complete denial.He denied that he was absconding and alleged false implication on account of enmity of the complainant with Dularey accused.Accused Lankush denied having anything to do with this occurrence.He denied that he was absconding and alleged false implication on account of the fact that his brother Sukhlal had appeared as a witness against Ram Krishna Singh, Shanker accused stated that he was a resident of village Marha and denied knowing rest of the accused.Barey Lalla accused stated that he belonged to village Gauhana.He denied having anything to do with this occurrence or having anything to do with this group.He alleged false implication on account of enmity with Narbir and Rajvir with whom he was inimical so much so that proceedings under Sections 107/117, Cr.P.C. had taken place between him, on one hand, and Narbir, on the other.Narbir, according to him was the scribe of this F.I.R.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution story and, having relied upon the testimony of witnesses and having rejected the defence, sentenced and convicted the appellants as above.It was argued before us by Sri S. N. Mulla learned Counsel for the appellants that the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera was responsible for this incident and, for reasons manifest, the complainant Ram Krishna Singh thought fit to seize the opportunity to implicate the present appellants of this case to feed fat his grudge.His contention was that after 1958 when Bhuri Singh was murdered for which Kaptan Singh, Dularey and Malhey had undergone sentence and had been released in 1967 on probation, nothing was done from the side of Kaptan Singh which could have shown that they were active in taking revenge from the complainant's family.Thus, they could have no hand in this incident.It was urged that actually Ram Krishna Singh had invited the attention of the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera because admittedly as is the prosecution story, Ram Krishna Singh had helped the police in an encounter with this gang 5 or 6 days before this incident in which Babu brother of Gulshera and Shamshera, and two others were arrested.It was urged that although in the evidence it was casually mentioned as if gang of Gulshera and Shamshera was on visiting terms with Kaptan Singh, but no overt act was shown on the basis of which it could be held that one group or the other earlier to this incident had helped each other in any way.It was rightly contended before us that the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera did not require anybody's help to perpetrate this crime.It was also rightly contended that if the group of Kaptan Singh was inclined to commit the offence, that group by itself consisting of the appellants and one Hardeo, who is brother of Kaptan Singh and who is dead, was sufficient and would not be obliged to the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera to do this crime, Indeed, it was, rightly also, argued that having taken the help of Gulshera and Shamshera, who were motivated to commit this crime, it would be Gulshera and Shamshera who would wreak vengeance for what Ram Krishna Singh did to their brother Babu and two members of the gang, and yet the prosecution evidence, as disclosed in this case, is as if these sharp shooters and leaders of the gang did not inflict any injury on any member of the complainant's family while it was left only to the three brothers, namely, Kaptan Singh, Balbir Singh and Hardeo deceased to commit the crime.So far as the motive part is concerned, as was mentioned earlier, we are more inclined to agree with the argument advanced before us that there was motive for false implication in the background of what we have discussed above rather than motive for commission of the crime because to us it appears that Ram Krishna Singh thought it fit to seize the opportunity of implicating the entire group of Kaptan Singh for the crime committed by Gulshera and Shamshera's gang alone because he would be killing two birds with one stroke.He would avenge the family feud and see that the whole group was implicated in this case so that he and Vijai Bahadur and others, who were implicated in the murder of Ranbir, were allowed to defend themselves with impunity.The argument that why true assailants would be left out, as is the usual argument made in such cases, loses importance because Ram Krishna Singh knew that at one time or the other the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera was bound to be liquidated with the result that perpetrators of this double murder would eventually meet their own fate.It was to teach a lesson to the family of Ram Krishna Singh for meddling with the gang.Indeed, it appears that having committed this crime, they were given a chase by the police because we find that from the side of defence Ext. Kha 10 has been filed which shows that Sri Ashok Kumar Misra, Dy. S. P., Farrukhabad, had come on jeep to the police station and taking P.A.C platoon, surrounding of this gang was planned.It appears that the entire police force of this very police station probably had also taken part in that encounter and that explains why this F.I.R. was got dictated at leisure with full consultation with the police as well as with the active connivance of Ram Krishna Singh who is a helper and probably informer of the police in this case.Now Jagbir Singh categorically admitted that the Sub-Inspector had come to his house at about noon, that Ram Krishna Singh wrote something on a piece of paper on the dictation of the Sub-Inspector and that paper was given to the Sub-Inspector after having been signed by Ram Krishna Singh.He also admitted that at that time Narbir Singh was also present.He also admitted that on the bidding of the Sub-Inspector, Narbir Singh scribed whatever Ram Krishna Singh had written legibly.He also admitted that the Sub-Inspector stayed up till evening at his house.This clearly goes to show that the F.I.R, cannot be said to be a prompt story, nor can such an F.I.R. be said to be a prompt F.I.R. having been handed over at 11-15 a.m., when the incident is said to have been committed at about 9 a.m. and when the distance between the village and police station was about 10 miles.Moreover, there is one more clinching evidence which goes to show that the whole story put in the F.I.R. was a trumped up story.If we look to the inquest report of Vijai Bahadur which is Ext. Ka-13 as well as photo of his body which is Ext. Ka-14, it comes out as if at the time of the inquest a wound was found on his left palm.Having found or rather wrongly found this wound in the palm, in the first information report it was categorically mentioned as if Hardeo gave a spear blow to Vijai Bahadur which hit him on his left hand and later on the wife of Vijai Bahadur picked up this bhala and gave the blow with it to Kaptan Singh which injured Kaptan Singh.However, in the post-mortein report of Vijai Bahadur only one gunshot wound, namely, of entry and exit was noticed and no injury in the hand was found.This circumstance completely knocks the bottom out of this prosecution story that Hardeo had hurled a spear which hit deceased Vijai Bahadur in the hand, and later on, this very spear was picked up by Vijai Bahadur's wife with which she gave a blow to Kaptan Singh, All the witnesses had tried to trot out this story.If, indeed, the witnesses had seen the occurrence, and if, indeed, such a spear was hurled, we fail be understand why Vijai Bahadur could have escaped such an injury.It was definitely put to Ram Krishna Singh in cross-examination done for Sukkha, Ram Dayal and others that the report was scribed by Narbir Singh at the house on the dictation of the Sub-Inspector.It, therefore, cannot be argued that a chance question was put to Jagbir Singh and in confusion he gave out such a reply, As we shall presently discuss, all the witnesses now try to resile having given any such statement to the investigating officer that injury with the- help of spear was caused on Vijai Bahadur.To illustrate, we may mention here the injuries caused to the mother of the complainant were ascribed to Balbir.The gunshot injuries caused to Vijai Bahadur were ascribed to Kaptan Singh and the so-called spear injury in the palm of Vijai Bahadur was escribed to Hardeo deceased, As rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants, once the gang of Gulshera and Shamsihera came to this village with the definite object of taking revenge from Ram Krishna Singh or his family for the arrest of Babu and two members of the gang, it is surprising why these desperados did not actually do anything, but left to the family of Kaptan Singh to perpetrate this crime.On the other hand, this crime was committed by the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera alone as a sort of lesson to be taught to Ram Krishna Singh for siding the police and making the arrest of Babu and others possible.Ram Krishna Singh in his examination-in-chief tried to say that seeing the accused as well as the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera, he and his brother rushed inside their house shouting.His mother, who was in the barotha, tried to close the door, and then Balbir Singh fired upon her on account of which she fell down.He then said that he and Vijai Bahadur had by that time come in the courtyard.In that courtyard were present Kamla Devi, wife of Vijai Bahadur, and Jagbir Singh, a minor son of Vijai Bahadur.Then Hardeo hurled a spear on Vijai Bahadur.Vijai Bahadur snatched the spear and threw it down whereupon Kaptan Singh shot at his to other on account of which he fell down.Seeing his brother having fallen, he rushed inside the kothari, the door of which faced east and shut its door.Thereafter, Kamla Devi took up the spear and gave a blow with the appear to Kaptan Singh.He saw all these things from inside the kothari through the daraz of the door.The other accused continued firing and in that connection Jagbir Singh got injured.In cross-examination the witness said that when Balbir fired, he was standing on the east and that Balbir Singh's gun was at & distance of one or two cubits from that of his mother.He had also said that his mother had managed to shut one of the shutters, but the other could not be shut on account of which she received injuries.If we look to the site-plan, as well as peruse his statement it would come out that from the place where this witness was standing in the barotha, he could not have seen as to who actually shot at his mother.Seeing the topography of this fallen barotha, it is impossible to believe that while Ram Krishna Singh was running for his life, he would have been in a position to see the actual assailant who shot at his mother, specially when one of the shutters of the door was closed.Indeed, as was rightly argued before us, once both the brothers ran for their lives, we do not think either of them would have dared to look back for the simple reason that had they done so, they would not have been able to run as fast as they would have done without peeping back.Thus, the statement of this witness that he had actually seen his mother being shot at by Balbir cannot be accepted in the face of the circumstances noted above.Indeed, we are inclined to accept this argument that either this witness was not at all present at the time of the incident or, if he was present, he had managed to run to the south towards ahadi of his house in order to save his life.We may note here that it has come on record that the wall on the southern side was of lesser height.He had probably managed to escape, otherwise we have no doubt in our minds that with these sharp shooters in the persons of Gulshena and Shamshera with rifles he would not have escaped for his life; on the other hand, he would have met with the same fate as that of his brother.In his anxiety to make himself a witness of each and every event that took place in the courtyard, he tried to say as if he had managed to escape being injured by rolling on the ground and crawling inside the kothari.This sort of performance by this witness is simply a fiction of his Imagination.What is more, having seen the fate of his brother and mother, he would not have dared to peep from the kothari had he taken shelter inside the same.His testimony, therefore, under the circumstances, does not inspire confidence, He is an interested witness so far as Kap-tan Singh and other accused are concerned.We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting his testimony.Baldeo P.W. 3 tried to say as if he was going to cut grass when he managed to be at the house of Vijai Bahadur, and, having seen the accused and gang of Gulshera and Shamshera, he rushed towards the east and then along with several others climbed up the house of Prithvi Raj and via his roof he managed to reach the south-eastern chhat of Ram Krishna Singh.In cross-examination he had said that previous to climbing this chhat, he had not heard any fire, but in the court he said that he had heard shots of fire.The witness in the first breath said in examination-in-chief that when he boarded the chhat, he saw 6 or 7 shots having been fired and at that time in the courtyard there was Vijai Bahadur and his son alone and that there was nobody else.He thus excluded Kamla Devi.Later on, he tried to correct himself.Then again, the witness said that the accused had fired towards the kothari in which Ram Krishna Singh had taken shelter.No signs of firing were found on the shutters of this kothari.Indeed, had this been a fact, it would not have been possible for Ram Krishna Singh as he said that he peeped from that kothari.The witness in the examination-in-chief tried to say that he had not seen the spear causing injury upon Vijai Bahadur.In cross-examination the witness admitted that he is a labourer by profession and has no cultivation but then tried to say that he had 3 or 4 cows.The witness admitted that in between his house and that of Prithvi Raj there were 50 or 60 houses.In 161 statement he had said as if on hearing shouts he had come on the spot.In the court of session he tried to say that he was going to scrape grass when he managed to be near the house of Vijai Bahadur.This goes to show that the witness is a chance witness.Besides, the evidence is that shots were being fired towards the direction where these witnesses were standing.Had this been so, we dare say that some of them might have received injuries.In fact, we are not prepared to believe that in this atmosphere anybody would have dared to be near about the house of the complainant, much less to challenge the accused.Besides, we are not prepared to hold that so many persons like Baldeo and others would have been allowed by the inmates of the house of Prithvi Raj to go inside the house and after climbing their chhat jump on the chhat of Ram Krishna Singh.This part of the story, it appears to us, has been deliberately introduced to make presence of outside witnesses possible.The witness admitted to be a labourer.He said that he had no cultivation of Ms own.A suggestion was made that he used to cultivate on batai the cultivation of Ram Krishna Singh and also used to be a labourer of Vijai Bahadur.This suggestion appears to be correct which explains the reason why he became willing to appear for the prosecution.It is surprising that none of the neighbours was examined in this case and it was left to Baldeo, a resident of a far off place, to appear for the prosecution.We may mention here that Ompal was cited in the charge-sheet.According to Ram Krishna Singh Ompal had come to the house of Gokaran who is his cousin.Ompal would have been a better witness than Baldeo to have appeared, but he was withheld.We would, therefore, hold that Baldeo is a chance witness and being under the thumb of Ram Krishna Singh, he had to appear for the prosecution.His testimony can be safely rejected.Coming to the statement of Kamla Devi P.W. 4, we find that this lady named all the accused apart from Gul-shera and Shamshera as well as Girish.She then gave the statement how a bhala was hurled towards her husband, how Kaptan Singh fired upon her husband and how she gave a bhala blow to Kaptan Singh.She also said how her son received injury.In cross-examination, she admitted that she had not Been the outside incident with her own eyes, but we find that in her 161 statement she had given out that particular story.Indeed, she admitted that Ram Krishna Singh had asked her to depose and that is why she gave that statement to the Sub-Inspector.If, therefore, she could be persuaded by Ram Krishna Singh to give a particular type of statement, she can be persuaded to stick to the prosecution story.She also said that Ram Krishna Singh managed to escape in the kothari by crawling, and while he was crawling, he was not fired.As mentioned by us above, it is impossible to believe that had Ram Krishna Singh been in the courtyard, when the assailants came inside, he would not have been allowed to escape.We find that in examination-in-chief she said that at the time of the incident, her two daughters and her deorani were also in the courtyard, but hearing the .gunfire, all of them took shelter in the kothari.Looking to the maternal instinct, we would rather hold that this lady looking to the background of the family feud and also hearing the shouts of her husband and Ram Krishna and seeing them rushing inside the house, would not have allowed her son to remain in the courtyard, but like her daughters and deorani, she would not have lost a minute to take shelter along with her son inside the kothari.Jagbir Singh.Suffice it to say that if he was outside, and so was Kamla Devi, and all the assailants, as was the prosecution case, came inside along with this gang, they would not have allowed either Kamla Devi or Jagbir to escape, specially when they had no hesitation in shooting the mother of Ram Krishna Singh.Kamla Devi denied having given this statement to the investigating officer that Hardeo's spear had injured her husband's left hand.Thus, she is conscious of the infirmity in the prosecution story and has no compunction in resiling from that statement like Ram Krishna for obvious reasons.As mentioned by us above, when she was prepared to give a particular story to the Sub-Inspector having not been an eye-witness on the bidding of Ram Krishna Singh, she could give any type of statement in the Court to suit the occasion.After all, her husband had died and her son and her husband's brother have to be saved from future vengeance.She would not like the family of Kaptan Singh to be spared because she also knows like Ram Krishna Singh that ultimately Gulshera and Sham-shera's gang was bound to be liquidated sooner or later.She would, therefore, achieve the object for the double murder of her mother-in-law and her husband.We, therefore, are not impressed by her testimony and we reject the same.Coming to the statement of Jagbir Singh P.W. 5, he too had given a statement to the investigating officer that Hardeo had hurled a spear upon his father which had caused injury in his left hand, but he denied having given that statement when he was put a specific question in the Court.It goes to show to what extent he is prepared to go.He tried to say as if he received injury in the courtyard.Now, we find Jagbir Singh admitting that he stayed in the hospital for about one and a half months.The investigating officer tried to give a curious statement as if he tried to search for Jagbir Singh in between 23rd March and 8th May, but had come to know that he was in the hospital.We fail to understand why no attempt was made by him to interrogate Jagbir Singh in the hospital.By suppressing all these important documents, which could throw light upon the nature of injury and the cause for the same, we can safely infer that had these documents been filed, they would have been against the prosecution story.Jagbir Singh repeats the story of Baldeo having come on roof.He, therefore, has no compunction for truth but, being a child witness could be tutored to speak for the prosecution.The witness admitted that he had not seen Balbir Singh firing upon his grandmother.When he was confronted with his 161 statement where he said about that fact, he said that from the courtyard it was visible that Balbir Singh had fired upon his grandmother.We, there-tore, have no hesitation in rejecting his testimony as well.It is true that two persons have lost lives, but it is equally true that in this case no opportunity was lost sight of either by the investigating agency or by the complainant's family to see that all those accused, with whom there was enmity, should be roped in and falsely implicated to wreak vengeance.It is not a case of giving up the true assailants, as noted above by us, because these persons knew and, indeed, Earn Krishna Singh having helped the police in an encounter knows, that sooner or later Gulshera and Shamshera's gang would suffer the fate which is reserved for gangsters and thereby the death of two inmates of the house would be avenged.That is why they have no compunction in implicating these accused so that they may not escape and should suffer for what was done by the gang of Gulshera and Shamshera.As a result of discussion, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution case is a mixture more of falsehood than truth and the falsity consists in implicating all these accused.As a result, we find all the accused not guilty of the various charges with which they were asked to stand their trial.They are acquitted on all the counts.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 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.
|
134,686,139 |
Shri Madhukar Kulshrestha, Advocate for the petitioner.Dr.(Smt.) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the State.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner has filed this third repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail after rejection of earlier one with liberty to come again after recording statements of material witnesses by order dated 17/6/2016 in Mcrc.The petitioner has been arrested on 11/5/2015 by Police Station Kotwali, District Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 738/14, registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 342, 323, 324, 294, 506-B/34 of I.P.C.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.The trial is in progress in which 5 Pws have been examined.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,690,588 |
In her statement, she stated that she resides with her maternal grandparents and that she is eleven years of age.She is a student in the fifth standard.She stated that on 11.04.2013, she was with her step aunt's (mausi's) daughter, Bhavna, who was over one year old at the material time.She had taken her to the first floor of the residence to play with her in a room.She stated that Sanju - her step maternal aunt's husband, mausa, the appellant herein - had followed her and bolted the door from inside.She stated that he switched on the television and increased its volume.He made her lie on the bed and took off her underwear.She was wearing a skirt and a coty at that time.She stated that Sanju (the appellant herein) then gagged her mouth with his hand and raped her.She stated that she screamed but the noise did not travel outside the room.She started CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 2 of 30 crying and the appellant threatened to kill her if she told anyone in the house about the incident.She stated that this was the reason for her not telling anyone about the incident.She stated that Sanju had raped her in November, 2012, as well, when no one was in the house, but she did not remember the exact date.He had also threatened to kill her if she informed anyone about the incident.She stated that she told her maternal grandfather about the incident on that day (that is, on 01.05.2013) and he took her to Sagarpur Police Station.She stated that she was playing upstairs, under the sun, with her sister, Bhawna (main apni bahan Bhawna ko dhoop me upar khila rahi thi).She stated that the husband of her maternal aunt (mausa), Sanju, followed her upstairs and asked her why she was standing in the sun.He told her to bring the girl (Bhawana) inside.She stated that she went into the room and he closed the door from inside.He increased the volume of the TV.She shouted but nobody heard her.She stated that her maternal grandfather (nana) does machinery work (machine ka kaam).She stated that she was wearing a skirt and coty.Her mausa removed her lower clothes and misbehaved (battamiji kari) with her.She stated that he also took off his clothes and gagged her mouth with his hand and then he put his private part on her private part (apne toilet ki jagah ko mere toilet ki jagah laga di).She stated that he did a bad act (gandi harkat) with her and as a result she also bled.She stated that she opened the gate and came out and thereafter, she narrated the incident to her maternal aunt (mausi) but she scolded her and also beat her.She stated that her maternal aunt told her grandmother (nani) that she was leveling a false allegation against her mausa (Sanju).She stated that her grandmother (nani) made her withdraw from her school and sent her to her another mausi at Timarpur.The appellant is the husband of one Radhika who is the daughter of Sharvan Kumar and his second wife Kusum.Sharvan Kumar's younger brother (Mohan Lal) has also been referred to by the prosecutrix as her maternal grandfather (nana), however, he is not her maternal grandfather.Mohan Lal (PW6) had brought the prosecutrix to the police station for recording the complaint.In her statement recorded on 01.05.2013, she had referred to Mohan Lal as her nana.The appellant is also not her maternal aunt's husband.He is the husband of her step maternal aunt- Radhika.The statement of Sh.Mohan Lal under Section 161 of the Cr.He stated that the prosecutrix is the granddaughter of his elder brother and she resides with him as her CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 5 of 30 parents have expired.A. 800/2016 Page 5 of 30She stated that she was studying in the 6th standard in Nagar Nigam Prathmik Vidhyalaya.On being asked, she stated that both her parents had died and that she was residing with her maternal grandparents, maternal uncle and aunt, with two sisters and two brothers.She correctly identified the appellant as her mausaji in Court.She deposed that on 11.04.2013, in the afternoon, she had come back from school and had started playing with a girl, Bhawna, who was aged one year, and was the daughter of the accused mausaji.The prosecutrix deposed that the accused is not her real mausa but is in such relation in the family.She stated that the accused mausaji came into the room and raped her.He removed her skirt, coty and undergarments.He also took off his clothes and put her on the bed and raped her.She deposed that she tried to raise an alarm but the accused mausaji raised the volume of the television very high.She stated that he committed rape upon her on the second floor of the house.She was CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 6 of 30 asked to clarify and she stated that she lived on the ground floor and the rape was committed on the room, which was situated on the floor above.She deposed that she told him that she would tell her nanaji, but he threatened to kill her.She was very frightened and did not tell anyone about the incident.She deposed that accused mausaji had also raped her last year, that is in 2012, during the wedding time of the devar of her mausaji.She stated that she did not recollect the date or month of the incident and at that time no one else was in the room.She deposed that on being told about the incident, her maternal grandfather (nanaji) took her to the police station where she told everything to the police and her statement was recorded.Thereafter, she was taken to the DDU hospital where she told everything to the doctor who medically examined her.She also deposed that she was produced before the Child Welfare Committee and remained in Nirmal Chhaya for about three-four days.In her cross examination, the prosecutrix stated that her nanaji Mohan Lal is not her real nanaji as such and that the house she resided in, belonged to him.A. 800/2016 Page 6 of 30She proved the MLC report of the prosecutrix (PW 4/A).She deposed that on 02.05.2013, the prosecutrix was sent to her for medical examination by Dr. Manoj and she was accompanied by the police and her grandfather Mohan Lal.The victim told her that she was raped by her mausa named Sanju in Brahmpuri at her nana's residence.PW-4 deposed that she examined the patient and on local examination, the hymen was found to be torn.There was no active bleeding and no fresh tear seen.She lifted nine samples from the body of the victim.She deposed that the victim had initially been examined by Dr. Manoj, CMO in DDU Hospital.The prosecutrix was taken to the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for her medical examination, which was conducted on 02.05.2013 at 12:10 pm.The MLC (Ex.PW 4/A) indicates that the prosecutrix had narrated that she was raped by her mausa and he had done so in November, 2012, as well.She deposed that two of the children, including the prosecutrix, reside with her and the two other children reside with their maternal aunt (mausi) in Timarpur.In the cross examination, PW5 deposed that it was correct that accused Sanjay had a job and that he used to go to office at 8:00 am and come back at 05:00 pm.She stated that the accused Sanju and his wife Radhika were residing on the top floor and there was one kitchen on the said floor.She deposed that they would prepare lunch from 12 noon to 02:30 pm.She stated that the prosecutrix did not tell her or her husband about the incident.He deposed that Sharvan Kumar is his eldest brother.He has two wives namely Geeta and Kusum.Geeta is the first wife of his brother and she had six children, including Mamta, who was the mother of the prosecutrix.Mamta had four children including the prosecutrix.Out of them, two children, including the prosecutrix started residing with their nana (Sharvan CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 9 of 30 Kumar).PW6 deposed that on 30.04.2013, there was a marriage function in the house of his younger brother in Brahmpuri.On 01.05.2013, while he was coming from the house of his younger brother, the prosecutrix, who had come to attend the marriage at his brother's house met her and she appeared to be sad.He deposed that he asked her what happened and she told him that her step mausa, the appellant, (identified by him in Court) had raped her in the month of November, 2012 and on 11.04.2013, in the house of her nana, Sharvan Kumar.She further told him that he had threatened that he would kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone.He deposed that he took the prosecutrix to the police station and thereafter, the police took the prosecutrix for her examination to the hospital.He deposed that the prosecutrix was sent to Nirmal Chhaya by the police and she was kept there.It has an area of 22 sq yards and it is a three storeyed building.On the ground floor, his nephew Suresh Kumar resides.There are two rooms on the ground floor, two rooms on the first floor and one room is built in the second floor.He stated that the rooms in the ground floor are in his possession.His brother Sharvan Kumar resides with his wife Kusum on the first floor and his first wife Geeta resides on the second floor.A. 800/2016 Page 10 of 30In the cross examination, PW6 stated that when he came to know about the incident from the prosecutrix, he did not tell his brother Sharvan about the incident.He admitted that he did not confront the accused Sanjay either.He stated that he did not tell them because they could exert pressure upon him to not pursue the matter.He stated that he reached the police station with the prosecutrix at about 1 or 2 pm.He stated that after lodging of the FIR, the police when to Brahmpuri to arrest the accused Sanjay.He stated that he did not recollect whether the accused was brought to the Police Station from Brahmpuri by the police.He stated that he did not tell his brother Sharvan Kumar and his wife about the incident after the registration of the FIR as he was told by the prosecutrix that she had told her maternal grandparents about this incident and also her mausi Radhika but they did not pay heed to the incident and rather, she was scolded by them.He stated that they returned back at about 3 am from the hospital.A. 800/2016 Page 11 of 30He stated that Mohan Lal (PW 6) was his paternal uncle (chacha) and was unhappy with him as he wanted him to leave the residence of Sh.Sharvan Kumar (nana of the prosecutrix- DW1) as he wanted his children to reside in the said house.In his defence, the accused examined three witnesses.Sharvan Kumar deposed as DW1 and he stated that he is the father in law of the accused and that the victim is the daughter of his late daughter Mamta.He stated that the prosecutrix was residing with him prior to the registration of the present case and thereafter for some more days.He stated that he and his daughter, Radhika were taking care of the victim and she was solely under his guardianship.He stated that the accused and his daughter, Radhika were residing in the second floor of the house from the year 2013 along with their children.Further, some of her statements are also contradicted by the evidence on record.In her initial statement recorded on 01.05.2013 (Ex.PW12/A), she had unequivocally stated that she had not mentioned the incident to any of her family members at the material time.According to her, she had been assaulted in CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 16 of 30 November 2012 and on 11.04.2013, but she had not informed about the same to any person.She stated that on that date (that is, 01.05.2013), she had informed about the incidents to her maternal grandfather (nanaji) and he had brought her to the police station.As stated above she had referred to Mohan Lal as her nanaji and not to her real maternal grandfather (Sharvan Kumar).It is relevant to note that she had stated that she had taken the daughter of her mausi who was about one year old to a room on the first floor and she was standing outside the said room.In her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, she stated that she was feeding her sister (Bhawna) under the sun on the top (main apni bahan Bhawna ko dhoop me upar khila rahi thi).Her statement can also be interpreted to mean that she was playing with her sister.However, she also stated that she had bled as a result of the act committed by her mausaji (the appellant herein).This was not mentioned by her in her statement recorded a day earlier.It is important to note that she also added that she had informed about the incident to her mausi, but in turn, her mausi had scolded and beaten her.She also stated that her mausi also told her nani that she was leveling a false allegation against Sanju.She stated that her grandmother got her to leave the school and then sent her to her other mausi who was residing at Timarpur.In her statement made on 01.05.2013, she had clearly stated that she had not informed about the incidents to anybody.In other words, she confirmed that she had been assaulted on the first floor.This is also consistent with her statement recorded on 01.05.2013 on the basis of which the FIR in question was registered.She testified that she did not inform about the incident to anybody as the accused had told her to keep quiet and had threatened to kill her if she didn't.This, clearly, is not consistent with her statement made earlier; both, in her statement recorded on 01.05.2013 and her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC on 02.05.2013, she had stated that she informed about the incident to her maternal CRL.She testified that on being told about the incident, her nana nani had taken her to the police station where her statement was recorded.This is also not in conformity with the other statements as there is nothing on record that her maternal grandmother had accompanied her to the police station.She further stated that there were two rooms on the ground floor besides a temple.She further stated that the house in question belonged to her Nana Ji (Mohan Lal).In her cross examination, she was confronted with her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC where she had asserted that she had informed about the incident to her mausi.On being confronted, she contradicted her statement made in the examination- in-chief and stated that she had narrated the incident to her Mausi (Radhika) in the evening of the same day (that is, 11.04.2013).She CRL.As noticed above, this was not mentioned by her in her initial complaint.It is material to note that the prosecution did not examine the maternal grandmother of the prosecutrix (Geeta).Thus, her statement that she had narrated the incident to her Mausi (Radhika) in the evening of the same date, that is, 11.04.2013 has not been corroborated by her maternal grandmother (Geeta).The step maternal CRL.He stated that he contacted the prosecutrix and she told him that her mausa (Sanju) had raped her and had threatened to kill her if she informed about the incident to anyone.In his testimony, he stated that there was a marriage function in the house of his younger brother on 30.04.2013 and when he was coming from the house of his younger brother, the prosecutrix who had come to attend the marriage at his brother's house met him and she looked very sad.He stated that he asked her as to what happened and she told him that her step mausa had raped her in the month of November 2012 and on 11.04.2013 in the house of her maternal grandfather (Sharvan Kumar).VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe appellant has filed the present appeal seeking to challenge the judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed by ASJ-01, Patiala House Courts, whereby the appellant was convicted for committing penetrative sexual assault on a child victim - an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter the 'POCSO Act').He was also convicted under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC') for raping and threatening to kill the victim.The appellant also seeks to challenge the order on sentence dated 11.01.2016, whereby the appellant was directed to undergo CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 1 of 30 rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of 50,000/-, for committing the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It was further directed that in default of the payment of the fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.A. 800/2016 Page 1 of 30The appellant was prosecuted pursuant to registration of a FIR being FIR No. 91/2013, under Sections 376/506 of the IPC, at PS Sagar Pur.A. 800/2016 Page 2 of 30The appellant contends that there are many inconsistencies in the testimony and the statements made by the prosecutrix and the medical evidence is not sufficient to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had committed the offence.The said witnesses had clearly stated that the prosecutrix had not mentioned anything about being assaulted by the appellant.The Trial Court had also erred in not appreciating that there was a dispute regarding the property where the appellant and the prosecutrix resided and that Mohan Lal (referred to by the prosecutrix as her maternal grandfather) had tutored the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the appellant to put pressure on him to leave the said property.A. 800/2016 Page 3 of 30The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 02.05.2013 under Section 164 of the Cr.PC.There is much confusion in this case regarding the relatives mentioned by the prosecutrix.The maternal grandfather referred to by the prosecutrix as nana in some of her statements, is not her real CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 4 of 30 grandfather.He is the younger brother of the maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix.Apart from referring to her maternal grandmother as nani, she has also referred to the second wife of her maternal grandfather as nani.A. 800/2016 Page 4 of 30At this stage, it would be relevant to state that there is evidence that the prosecutrix has an elder sister and two brothers.Their parents expired in the year 2008 and thereafter the prosecutrix was living with her maternal grandparents.The name of the maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix is Sharvan Kumar (he deposed as DW1).It has also been brought in evidence that Sharvan Kumar has two wives - Geeta and Kusum.The prosecutrix is the daughter of the deceased daughter of Sharvan Kumar and Geeta.He stated that he contacted the prosecutrix and then she told him that her mausa-Sanju (the appellant herein) had raped her and had also threatened her that if she told anybody, he would kill her.He stated that on coming to know the same, he brought the prosecutrix to the police station and her statement was recorded.In her cross examination, she was confronted with her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.She stated that when she told Radhika mausi about the incident, her Geeta nani was also present there.A. 800/2016 Page 7 of 30The MLC indicates that she was accompanied by her maternal grandfather (nana).However, in fact, she was accompanied by Sh.Mohan Lal (her maternal grandfather's younger brother).A. 800/2016 Page 8 of 30Smt Kusum (step maternal grandparent- nani) deposed as PW-She deposed that her husband has two wives and that she is the second wife of her husband.Mamta had four children and the prosecutrix was the youngest of them.On the next day she was produced before the court where her statement was recorded.On 06.05.2013, he alongwith the brother of the prosecutrix had secured her release from Nirmal Chhaya, Hari Nagar and since then she has been residing with him and is studying in the fifth standard.A. 800/2016 Page 9 of 30The prosecutrix had told him about the incident in the afternoon, when she had come to attend the marriage of his niece.He deposed that both wives of his brother Sharvan Kumar reside with Sharvan Kumar in the same house.There are five rooms in the CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 10 of 30 premises where both wives of his brother Sharvan Kumar reside.Dr. Ashish K. Jain, deposed as PW10 and he had conducted the medical examination of the appellant and he stated that there was nothing to suggest that the appellant was not capable of sexual intercourse on the day of his examination.W/SI Dominica Purty deposed as PW12 and she stated that on 01.05.2013, she was called by her ACP to reach PS Sagarpur.On reaching there, she met the prosecutrix and Mohan Lal and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix.She deposed that she took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital for her medical examination where the doctor gave her nine sealed pullandas.She stated that she seized the exhibits and from the hospital, she returned to the house of the victim.She stated that she prepared the site plan (Ex. PW 12/C) at the instance of the prosecutrix.She searched the house for the accused but he was not available.Thereafter, she went to the Police Station with the prosecutrix.She stated she along with SI Krishan Kumar and Ct Surender went to Tigri to arrest the accused from his house as he was residing in House No. K-40, Janta Jiwan Camp, Tigri.The accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded.In her cross examination, PW 12 stated that the maternal grandparents were residing on the ground floor and the victim's mausi was residing along with her family members on the first floor.The victim was residing on the first floor of the premises.She stated that it was correct that the real grandfather of the victim, Sharvan Kumar, did not say anything about the commission of the alleged offence.She stated that she did not record the statement of the victim's nani since CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 12 of 30 she was not willing to talk.She stated that the prosecutrix had taken the child along with her when she had gone on the room on the first floor.She stated that she had visited the premises in question and the verandah on the first floor was outside the room and was about six feet wide and as long as the size of the house.The accused was residing in his house with his consent due to his weak financial condition and was supporting them in their day to day affairs.He stated that on 11.04.2013, at no point of time, did the prosecutrix tell him about any such offence committed by the accused.He stated that he never made any such complaint to the police against the CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 13 of 30 accused.He stated that he was called by phone from CWC (Nirmal Chhaya) to come and take custody of the prosecutrix after about three- four days of keeping the prosecutrix in custody.He stated that he visited the CWC and the official told him that required formalities would have to be fulfilled to take custody of his granddaughter.He deposed that one lady official in a civil dress told the officials of CWC that he was not the real grandfather of the victim and was the step grandfather and hence, the custody could not be granted to him.They told him that the real nana would be given custody of the victim.He stated that three-four police officials had visited the neighbourhood of his residence and had inquired about the real nana of the victim and his neighbour had said that Sharvan Kumar was the real nana of the victim.The said fact was communicated to him by the neighbour.He stated that he did not know what was the conspiracy between Mohan Lal (PW 6) and the police officials to grant him custody of the victim.A. 800/2016 Page 13 of 30DW1 further testified that on the date of 11.04.2013, he was inside the room with his wife.He stated that the victim had returned after school in the afternoon.He stated that he did not hear any high volume sound of the television from the room of the accused, in the afternoon of that day.He stated that he knew the accused well and that the accused could not have committed any such act.He stated that Sanjay was falsely implicated in the present case and that the victim was being tortured to depose falsely to victimize the accused.Smt Radhika, wife of the accused, deposed as DW2 and stated that on 11.04.2013, she was on the second floor of the house along CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 14 of 30 with her husband and her father.The prosecutrix returned back from school on that day i.e. 11.04.2013 at about 1:30 pm.She stated that the prosecutrix was residing alongwith them and used to sleep along with her nana-nani (maternal grandparents) on the first floor.She stated that she looked after the prosecutrix and all her needs.She stated that the prosecutrix came after some time to her room and took her child and went to the first floor where her father and mother were present.She stated that the accused was present with her on the second floor till about 5 pm on that day.She deposed that no such incident of rape was committed upon the prosecutrix till that time.She stated that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case.She asserted that the prosecutrix had not complained about the accused to her or to her father and mother.She claimed that the prosecutrix was residing in the house in a cordial atmosphere and was bestowed with love and affection by them.She stated that the accused, her husband, was innocent and that the police officials, in connivance with Mohan Lal had falsely implicated the accused in the present case.A. 800/2016 Page 14 of 30Mrs. Preeti, CWC Welfare Officer deposed as DW3 and stated the custody of the prosecutrix was given to her brother John, who was aged about nineteen years.She stated that CWC did not conduct any inquiry with regard to who was the guardian of the prosecutrix and under whose custody she was residing.She deposed that the chairperson of CWC could not appear before the Court as she had been operated recently.DW3 stated that it was correct that Vicky, the brother of the prosecutrix was just nineteen years old when the CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 15 of 30 custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to him.She deposed that Vicky was working as a housekeeping boy at New Diagnostic Centre, MRI Centre Pvt. Ltd.A. 800/2016 Page 15 of 30DW3, was asked the question as to why the custody of the prosecutrix was not given to her real nana (grandfather) with whom she was residing earlier.She stated that she had handed over the custody to the real brother of the prosecutrix after consultation with the prosecutrix as she showed her desire to go with him.Reasons and ConclusionThe prosecution's case rests most entirely on the statement made by the prosecutrix.In this case, no meaningful investigation was conducted and there is no evidence corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix.A. 800/2016 Page 16 of 30A. 800/2016 Page 17 of 30Her assertion that her maternal grandmother (Nani) had withdrawn her from her school and sent her to Timarpur is belied by the attendance register (Ex.PW 2/D) of her school.She was absent from school on 12.04.2013 but had attended the school for the entire next week, that is, from 15.04.2013 to 20.04.2013 (except 19.04.2013, which was a holiday).The Admission and Withdrawal Register of the School (Ex PW2/A) also establishes that the prosecutrix was not withdrawn from her school.She testified that the accused had raped her in a room located on the second floor of the house.She was asked by the Court to clarify the same and she stated that there was a ground floor and the room where she was raped was located on the floor above.In fact, she was accompanied by Sh.Mohan Lal (the younger brother of her maternal grandfather) and as observed earlier she refers to Mohan Lal and not her real maternal grandfather, as nanaji in her statement recorded on 01.05.2013 and her statement recorded on the next day under Section 164 CrPC.A. 800/2016 Page 18 of 30The prosecutrix was cross-examined.In her cross-examination she confirmed that she had not mentioned the incident to any of her brothers and sister.She stated that on the date of the incident, her nana nani were in their room on the ground floor of the house.She stated that there was only one room at the first floor and the kitchen is inside that room.A. 800/2016 Page 19 of 30 further stated that when she informed her about the incident, her nani (Geeta) was also present there.A. 800/2016 Page 19 of 30As stated before, the maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix (Sharvan Kumar) had two wives who were residing with him at the same premises.The real maternal grandmother of the prosecutrix is named Geeta.The prosecutrix had not mentioned in any of her earlier statements that her Nani (Geeta) was also present when she had narrated the incidents to her Mausi (Radhika).In her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, she had merely stated that her mausi Radhika had told her nani that she had leveled a false allegation against Sanju.In her cross-examination, she stated that her mausi had scolded her but did not mention that she had beaten her as well.However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she had stated that her Mausi had scolded her and also beaten her.Thus, her statements recorded on 01.05.2013, 02.05.2013 and her testimony are inconsistent in this regard.In her cross-examination, she had also stated that there was some bleeding after she was raped.A. 800/2016 Page 20 of 30 grandmother (Kusum) - the second wife of Sh.She stated in her cross-examination that the prosecutrix had not told her or her husband about the incident at any point of time.A. 800/2016 Page 20 of 30The prosecutrix also testified that she had informed about the incident to her nana (Mohan Lal) on 29.04.2013 at the time of the wedding.However, in her statement she had stated that she had informed her nanaji (Mohan Lal) about the incident on that day (the day her statement was recorded - 01.05.2013)He testified CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 21 of 30 that the prosecutrix had also told him that the accused had threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone.A. 800/2016 Page 21 of 30In his statement, he had said that he became aware that the prosecutrix had been raped.Whereas, in his testimony he states that he had found the prosecutrix looking sad and on inquiring from her the reason for the same, she informed him that her step mausa had raped her.In addition to the above, it is also material to note that in his statement recorded on 02.05.2013, Mohan Lal did not mention that the prosecutrix had told him about being raped in the month of November 2012; but in his testimony he stated that she had informed him that the accused had raped her in November 2012 as well.Mohan Lal did not confront his elder brother, Sharvan Kumar, who is the real maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix and with whom she was staying.He also did not accost the accused but he brought the prosecutrix straight away to the police station.He stated that he did not inform them or confront them because they could pressurize him not to pursue the matter.In the natural course, one would expect that an elder of the family being informed of any such incident would make inquiries from other family members.The prosecutrix was residing with the maternal grandparents.Thus it CRL. A. 800/2016 Page 22 of 30 would be natural for Mohan Lal to at least make inquiries from them regarding the accusations made by the prosecutrix considering that the prosecutrix was in their care.In addition to the above, there is also some confusion regarding the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed.The prosecutrix in her testimony had stated that she was raped in a room located on the second floor of the house.She was asked to clarify this and she stated that there was a ground floor and the room where she was raped was located on the floor above.Thus, according to her, she was raped on the first floor of the building.In her complaint (statement recorded on 01.05.2013), she stated that she had taken the daughter of her Mausi to the first floor.However, during the course of arguments, it was contended that the incident had taken place on the second floor of the building.Ms Dhalla had contended that there was a small room on the floor above the first floor, which was occupied by the appellant and the offence in question was committed in that room.She submitted that if one carefully examines the testimony of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she had been assaulted in a room on the second floor of the house as she had clarified that there is a ground floor and the room where she was raped was on the floor above.She contended that the prosecutrix used to reside on the first floor and from her perspective from the first floor, there was a ground floor and a room above (which would be the second floor).Whilst, Ms Dhalla may be correct that the examination-in chief of PW1 may be read in the manner as suggested by her.But that would be inconsistent with CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 23 of 30 her statement recorded on 01.05.2013 where she stated that she had taken the daughter of her mausi to the first floor of the premises.Further in her cross examination the prosecutrix confirmed that "there is only one room on the first floor and the kitchen is inside that room only"A. 800/2016 Page 23 of 30At this stage, it is also necessary to observe that no meaningful investigation was conducted in this case.She testified that she had returned to the house of the victim and prepared a site plan (Ex.PW12/C) at the instance of the prosecutrix.However, a plain perusal of the said plan indicates that that it is a rough site plan which indicates the location of the house.The said site plan is of little relevance insofar as the controversy in the present petition is concerned.It was important in this case to have made a site plan as to the building where the offence is alleged to have been committed.This would have lent certain clarity in the matter.The mausi of the prosecutrix was residing along with her family members on the first floor.In her cross-examination, she stated that the residence of the victim was only made up to the first floor.A. 800/2016 Page 24 of 30 not the first floor.Thus, the investigating officer really did not seem to have any idea where the offence is alleged to have occurred.The IO also did not testify as to the description of the room and/or verify whether a television was placed inside the said room.A. 800/2016 Page 24 of 30Apart from ascertaining and examining the scene of the alleged offence, it was also necessary for the investigating officer to have ascertained the number of people residing in the said building and those that were present in the house at the time of the alleged incident.However, it does not appear that any such exercise was done.There is no evidence as to who was present in the house and, if not, their whereabouts at the material time.The prosecutrix also testified that she had informed about the incident to her nana (Mohan Lal) on 29.04.2013 at the time of the wedding.However, Mohan Lal had stated that he came to know about the incident on 01.05.2013 from the prosecutrix, when she had come to attend the wedding.It was contended on behalf of the appellant that on the date of the incident, there were other family members present.In her cross-examination, she testified that they had prepared CRL.A. 800/2016 Page 25 of 30 lunch from 12:00 noon to 02:30 pm.It is in evidence that the kitchen was inside the room where the appellant and his family resided and where the offence was allegedly committed.The prosecutrix had in her cross-examination stated that there was only one room on the first floor and the kitchen was inside that room.A. 800/2016 Page 25 of 30Mohan Lal (PW6) had testified that the building in question was built on a plot measuring 22 sq. yards and it was a three storeyed building.He testified that on the ground floor his nephew Suresh Kumar, who was married, and his two children were residing and there were two rooms built on the first floor and one room built on the second floor.He claimed that the rooms on the ground floor were in his possession.He stated that his brother Sharvan Kumar resided with his wife Kusum on the first floor and his first wife Geeta was residing on the second floor of the said building.He did not mention about the appellant, his wife Radhika or any of their children residing in the said premises.According to him, there were three rooms in the possession of Sharvan Kumar and his family.It thus appears that there were some property disputes between Mohan Lal and Sharvan Kumar.Mohan Lal claimed that he was in possession of the rooms on the ground floor although, he did not reside there.The prosecutrix also believed that the said property belonged to Mohan Lal.But Sharvan Kumar stated that the house belonged to him.On being cross examined Mohan Lal (PW6) admitted that there were disputes between him and Sharvan Kumar as he denied the suggestion that there were no disputes between them.A. 800/2016 Page 26 of 30It is settled law that the solitary testimony of a victim is sufficient for convicting the accused provided the testimony is unimpeachable and trustworthy.It also appears that there was some property dispute in respect of the house where the prosecutrix resided with her grandparents.The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,691,022 |
2.1.According to the Petitioner, it is one of the importers ofRaw Cashew nuts in shell from Tanzania and entered contract with 4thRespondent, wherein 'Master Distributor Limited' is one of the seller andshipper to them and issued a proforma Bill of Lading.The aforesaid partyhad agreed to deliver a larger extent of Six thousand Nine hundred and SixtyMetric Tons of Raw Cashew nuts as per contract and the Petitioner had almostreceived the considerable quantum of Cargo.However, there is a remainingcargo of 290.250 M.Ts dispatched through Port of Origin Tanzania andnecessary details are as under:-BILL OF LADDING NUMBERS1.COSU6095467990 - 14.4.2016 -4 Containers - 64.500MT - 860 bags2.COSU6095468160 - 14.4.2016 - 8 Containers - 129.375MT - 1725 bags3.COSU6095468170 - 14.4.2016 - 3 Containers - 48.000MT - 640 bags4.COSU6095468180 - 14.4.2016 -3 Containers ? 48.375 MT - 645 bags _________________________________ TOTAL -18 Containers-290.250MT-3870 bags 2.2.The categorical case of the Petitioner is that it had already paidamount through bank for 6846 Mts.So far, they had received 5534.828 MT only.In respect of the remaining quantity of 1311.172 Mt., the present 18containers consisting of 290.250 MT of cargo is dispatched.The Petitioner is the real legal owners of the cargoand as such, it may be permitted to move the cargo.The Petitioner is havinga good case and balance of convenience.Indeed, the cargo had reached Tuticorin on 29-04-2015 and the Petitioner is to pay heavy cost and demurrageto both 2nd and 3rd Respondents.For the import of shipment, theThird Respondent had filed 'Import General Manifest (IGM) with TuticorinCustoms on 28.04.2016 in advance, which is the prevailing procedures as permanifest received from Transhipment Port Colombo to the name of consignee M/s.Best Cashew Traders-Kollam (The writ Petitioner).On 09.05.2016 theConsignee M/s.Best Cashew Traders-Kollam had served a copy of letter to theThird Respondent office that they lodged a complaint at Kollam East PoliceStation on 02.05.2016 against the Fifth Respondent and on 18.05.2016, theirPort of Loading agent at Dar Es Salam had informed that they had changedconsignee as M/s.Glory Cashews as per Shipper M/s.Master Distributors request on 03.05.2016 and release the new original Bills of Lading on 09.05.2016,which was confirmed by the shipper M/s.Master Distributors.3.2.It transpires that (through e-mail) on 18.05.2016, the ThirdRespondent's Port of Lading Agent at Dar Es Salam had asked them about the formalities required to amend the Import General Manifest (IGM) filed by theCustoms, since Shipper M/s.Master Distributor had approached their PortLoading Agent at Dar Es Salam and requested for Import General Manifest amendment, inasmuch as the 'Original Bill of Lading Consignee' is differentfrom Import General Manifest (IGM) filed consignee for which they had repliedthat they would check and revert back.Master Distributor and their Port of Loading Agent confirmation new Original Bill ofLading was released on 09.05.2016 to the name of M/s.Therefore, the'Original Bill of Lading' was released only on 09.05.2016 and not on14.04.2016 itself.In fact, without submitting the 'Original Bill of Lading' in theThird Respondent's office, the Third Respondent could not start processingamendment and that was informed to the Third Respondent's Port of Loading Agent at Dar Es Salam, Shipper M/s.Master Distributor and Amended Original Bill of Lading Consignee M/s.Glory Cashews.3.6.The Third Respondent had informed the Port of Loading Agent thatthe dispute is between the Shipper M/s.Master Distributor and IGM ConsigneeM/s.Best Cashew and amended Original Bill of Lading Consignee M/s.Glory Cashew and hence, they, as carrier agent, are not responsible for the timedelay, cargo damage, demurrage, detention, loss and towards any claim.TheThird Respondent has a carrier agent as per the regulation, whoever issubmitting the original documents with it, by the proper consignee, cargoshall be released and submit their request to the First Respondent foramendment if required for approval based on Original Bill of lading submittedin their office.The Third Respondent submitted its request to the FirstRespondent for approval of amendment and further processing on 10.06.2016 based on Original Bill of Lading submitted in their office, which wasacknowledged by Customs vide No.4319/10.06.2016 and that the documents are pending before the First Respondent.4.The Contents of the Fourth Respondent's Counter:-Therefore, 'Proforma Bill of Lading' is not sealed by the carrier and thesame cannot be considered as a 'Bill of Lading' as mentioned in the IndianBill of Lading Act.4.2.In the instant case all the original four Bills of Lading bearingNos.(i) COSU6095467990; (ii) COSU6095468160; (ii) COSU6095468170 and (iv) COSU6095468180 produced or issued by the Carrier/Shipping Line showing the Fourth Respondent/master Distributors Limited as the 'Shipper' and GloryCashews as the 'Consignee' of the Cargo.The Petitioner is not a party to theaforesaid four Original Bills of Lading, which is the essential document inshipping to prove their ownership/title.Therefore, the Petitioner has notright to claim any title over the cargo mentioned in the said Bill ofLadings.Only when the Bills of Lading from the Shipper passes on to theconsignee/notified party, through the bank or directly after receipt ofconsideration for the goods, the title/ownership on the cargo passes on tothe consignee.4.4.The original consignee/Glory Cashew had already made interimpayment to the Fourth Respondent/Master Distributors Limited and the saidRespondent, as Shipper had released the Original Bills of Lading to theconsignee/Glory Cashews.Therefore, 'Glory Cashews' is now the Original ownerof the cargo, which is legally entitled to receive the cargo from the Port onsurrendering Original Bill of Lading and production of delivery order fromthe carrier/shipping Company.4.5.The real intention of the Petitioner is to stop delivery of thecargo to its rightful owners and to cause hardship and loss to the FourthRespondent.The Fourth Respondent is one among the Directos of another Company viz., 'Sparkle Way Limited', which had a contract with the'Petitioner/Best Cashew Traders' to supply Raw Cashew.The Petitioner on14.08.2015 had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the supply of6000 MT of Raw Cashews with 'Sparkle Way Limited'.Also, on 05.02.2016, the Petitioner and the Sparkle Way Limitedentered into another MOU, whereby the Petitioner had acknowledged the receiptof 4750 MT of Cashew and the Sparkle Way Limited had agreed to supply the balance of 1150 MT of cargo to the Petitioner.As per second MOU, the SparkleWay Ltd., (through Fourth Respondent) shipped the balance cargo to thePetitioner.That apart, the Deputy High Commissioner ofHigh Commission of India/Dar Es Salam, Tuticorin in referenceNo.Dar/Com/212/3/2015, dated 18.05.2015 had mentioned about the incidents of cheating/fraud against Indian Companies/businessmen in the field of CashewNuts and advised the Indian businessmen to be extra cautious of the TanzanianCompany called M/s.Acclimatise International Group.The Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the First Respondent statesthat the dispute in the present case is a private dispute and that theOriginal Bill of Lading is in the name of Petitioner in WMP(MD)No.7714 of2016 and further, the Original Import General Manifest is in the name ofPetitioner and in fact, the First Respondent is willing to abide by thisCourt's order.7.The Second Respondent's Contentions:-According to the Learned counsel for the Second Respondent, 18 containers are lying in its warehouse at Tuticorin and as per Section 63 ofthe Customs Act, 1962, it is entitled to 'Payment of Rent' and warehousecharges.In fact, the writ Petitioner and the Fifth Respondent claim to bethe owner.Apart from that, as per secondMemorandum of Understanding, the Sparkle Way Limited through Fourth Respondent had shipped the balance cargo to the Petitioner.Indeed, thePetitioner had produced only one of the sale agreement dated 01.11.2015entered into with Sparkle Way Limited and the Fourth Respondent for thedelivery of cargo.In terms of the contract the shipowners delivered the goods tothe buyer in the drums.The consignee incurred damages not because of any defect in the drums but because the seller sent goods different from those hehad agreed to sell to him.Therefore, the shipowners were not liable for anydamages to the purchaser on the basis of breach of any of the terms of thecontract.?(b)In the Order dated 18.12.2014 in W.P.Nos.4552 and 6258 of 2013 between VELLANKI FRAME WORKS v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (vide MANU/AP/2058/2014), at paragraph No.40, it is observed as follows:-?Section 30(3) of the Customs Act read with the Levy of Fee (CustomsDocuments) Regulations, 1970, allows the proper officer to permit an IGM tobe amended or supplemented, on payment of prescribed fees, if he is satisfiedthat there is no fraudulent intention.2.Resume of Writ Facts:-As such, they hadpaid the entire amount for the cargo in question.It is further representedon bealf of the Petitioner that on receipt of consideration value only, theyhad released the Bill of Lading in the Petitioner's name viz., Best cashewTraders Kollam.2.3.As a matter of fact, the cargo was laden on Board at Port of OriginDAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA on 14.04.2016 and reached the delivery/destination port Tuticorin on 29-04-2016 and further that the cargo was cleared from thePort.In fact, the 3rd Respondent submitted IGM MANIFESTO in the name of their concern 'Best cashew Traders Kollam' and cargo is under the custody ofthe secod Respondent Customs Freight Station.2.4.It comes to be known that the letter of Legal Manger of BolloreAfrica Logistics Tanzania Limited shows that the 4th Respondent had takensteps to change the name of the consignee from 'Best cashew Traders Limited'to Glory Cashews of SNP, Kollam.Also, that the letter shows that theconsignee name should not be changed and if they failed to do so, the matterwould be reported to police from the Managing Director of the contractingCompany.Furthermore, the Logistics Company requires formal notification/instructions from Police/ Court order directing them not to amend theconsignee?s name and therefore, the Petitioner lodged a complaint beforepolice.2.5.The version of the Petitioner is that by naratting necessary facts,on 08-05-2016, a representation was made to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and in fact, the first and 2nd Respondents are state Authorities, who are regulatingthe import of cargo at Tuticorin Port.The Third Respondent Container lineshad prepared the IGM Manifesto in the name of their concern Best cashew Traders Kollam, till then there was no amendment in the name of ThirdRespondent.The grievance of the Petitioner is that the shipper had not comeforward to hand over the 'Original Bill of Lading' to clear the cargo.Theobvious intention is to change the name in original bill of lading and tosell the cargo at the increased rate to some other third party.As such, thePetitioner made a representation to the state authorities to stop thedelivery of the cargo to any third parties by producing 'unlawful' amendedBill of lading etc. and also asked to restrain the further movement of thecargo without their consent and concurrence.2.6.The cargo is perishable in nature and therefore it is to be clearedfrom Customs Ware House.3.3.The writ Petitioner (IGM Consignee) on 20.05.2016 had obtained aninterim direction from this Court restraining the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 notto release the cargo to anyone based on any amended Bill of Lading andimmediately they had informed the said order to the Port of Loading Agent atDar Es Salam, the Fourth Respondent, Fifth Respondent and all other stackholders.3.4.Even after knowing the Court order on 25.05.2016, the ShipperM/s.Master Distributor again insisted the Third Respondent's Port of LoadingAgent at Dar Es Salam for amendment of Consignee as 'M/s.Glory Cashews' and asked to submit documents to Customs and as per their Port of Loading Agent, at Dar Es Salam request, they had informed the formalities required to befulfilled for the amendment in IGM with Tuticorin Customs.3.5.As per Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) manifest consignee isM/s.Best Cashew Traders with onboard date and Bill of Lading date was14.04.2016 i.e. the date of sailing of vessel Ex Port of Loading.As per theThird Respondent's Port of Loading Agent, Shipper M/s.Master Distributor hadapproached their Port of Loading Agent and requested for change of newconsignee as M/s.Glory cashews on 03.05.2016 and as per Shipper M/s.But the Petitioner had not mentioned about the MOU entered withSparkle Way Limited as regards the delivery of their cargo.One of the saleagreement, bearing No.PL/506/2015, dated 01.11.2015 entered into with SparkleWay Limited and the Fourth Respondent for the delivery of cargo was onlyproduced before this Court, with a view to obtain an order in their favour.4.6.There is no agreement between the Fourth Respondent and the Petitioner for the delivery of any additional cargo for 6900 MT, as stated bythe Petitioner.In fact, the agreement entered into between the Petitionerand the Sparkle Way Limited is for the delivery of 6000 MT and there is novalid agreement in force for delivery of their cargo in the present shipmentcovered under the four bills of lading to the Petitioner.The Petitioner hasfailed to produce any original bills of lading issued in their favour beforethis Court and therefore, it is not entitled for any cargo covered under thesaid four original bills of lading.4.7.The Fourth Respondent or his Company does not have any legally binding liability to supply any quantity of Raw Cashews to the Petitioner, asalleged, since the Petitioner had not paid any amount to the FourthRespondent's Company viz., 'Master Distributors Limited'/Shipper/Consignor inthe present case.The Petitioner's name was wrongly entered in the IGMinstead of the name of the Consignee/'Glory Cashews' by mistake.4.8.The original Consignee/Glory Cashews had imported the present consignments on the basis of a separate purchase contract, dated 20.03.2016and invoices.Due to the unlawful action of the Petitioner, the containerswith cargo due to the Consignee/Glory Cashews are lying in the Tuticorin Portincurring heavy demurrage, ground rent etc. Further, if at all there is nofurther dispute between the parties, the same is to be adjudicated before theappropriate Civil Court and this Court shall not invoke its writ jurisdictionto settle a private complaint/civil dispute between two parties.4.9.The Consignee/Glory Cashew holds the original Bills of Lading toestablish their ownership and they are willing to surrender the originalBills of Lading and take delivery of the cargo as per conditions, to be fixedby the Court.The cargo is of perishable in nature and the same was loaded inthe containers on 22.03.2016 and shipped on14.04.2016 and it is lying in thePort of Tuticorin for more than one month.Since the Consignee/Glory Cashewsis holding the original Bills of Lading, the balance of convenience is in itsfavour to take delivery of the cargo.5.The Petitioner's Contentions:-5.1.According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the instantcase, the Petitioner as an importer of 'Raw Cashew Nuts' in Shell fromTansania had entered into a contract with the Fourth Respondent, wherein theMaster Distributor is one of the seller and shipper to it and issued aProforma Bills of Lading.It is also represented that as per the contract, itwas agreed to deliver a larger extent of 6960 Mt 'Raw Cashew Nuts' and thatthe Petitioner is to receive the remaining cargo of 290.250 MTs despatchedthrough Port of origin Tansania.5.2.The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitionerhad paid the amount through bank for 6846 Mts and they had received 5534.828 MT.Only for the balance quantity of 1311.172 MT, the present 18 containersconsisting 290.250 MT of cargo was despatched and further that on receipt ofconsideration value only, the 'Bill of Lading' in Petitioner's name viz.,Best Cashew Traders, Kollam, was released.5.3.Added further, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends thatthe cargo was laden on Board at Port of Origin DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA on 14.04.2016 and reached the delivery/destination port Tuticorin on 29-04-2016and the cargo was cleared from the port and that that Third Respondent/CoscoIndia Shipping Private Limited, Tuticorin submitted 'Import GeneralManifesto' in the name of the Petitioner's concern 'Best Cashew Traders,Kollam' and the cargo is under the custody of the Second Respondent Customs Freight Station.5.4.The Learned counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to take a standthat 'Original Bill of Lading' would be given to 'Consignee' and that ImportGeneral Manifesto' was prepared in Petitioner's name.The Learned counsel forthe Petitioner submits that the letter of Legal Manger of Bollore AfricaLogistics Tanzania Limited shows that the 4th Respondent had taken steps tochange the name of the consignee from 'Best cashew Traders Limited' to GloryCashews of SNP, Kollam.5.5.At this state, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner brings it tothe notice of this Court that the letter of the Bollore Africa LogisticsTanzania Limited also shows that the 'Consignee name' should not be changed and if they failed to do so, the matter will be reported to the Police fromthe Managing Director of the contracting company.That aprt, it is the standof the Petitioner that the said Logistic Comapny requiresinstructions/notification from the Police/Court order directing them not toamend the Consinee's name.Therefore, the Petitioner had made a complaint before the Police.5.6.The Learned counsel for the Petitioner referes to the ingredientsof Section 30(3) of the Customs Act 1962, which mentions that if the properofficer is satisfied that the import manifest or import report is in any wayincorrect or incomplete and that there was no fraudulent intention, he may bepermitted to be amended or supplemented.In this connection, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to statethat the 'Import from Tansania' attracts import duty and refers to the BookCustoms Law Mannual, with Special Economic Zones of R.K.Jain in 35th Edition (2008), 7.133 and 7.134, wherein M.F.(D.R.) Circular No.13/2005-Cus, dated11.03.2005, deals with instructions regarding the Import Manifest ?Incomplete or incorrect filing of.In the said circular, the major amendment(iv) relates to 'Change the Importer's/Consignee name'.?3.The matter was re-examined.It has been decided by the Board thatall amendments to the Import General Manager (IGM) may be considered on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.The said Section (Sub-Section 3) provides that if the proper officer issatisfied that the import manifest or import report is in any way incorrector incomplete, and that there was no fradulent intention, he may permit it tobe amended or supplemented.Hence, the need for adjudication will arise onlyin cases where there are major amendments involving fraudulent intention orsubstantial revenue implication arising from the amendments.The above instructions may be brought to thenotice of the Trade immediately through appropriate Public Notice.??4. ... But after drawing the Bill of Lading in the name of thecomplainant, the first accused with the help of second accused forged theBill of Lading by changing the naem of consignee in the name of one Johnson,S/o.Jose, Proprietor of Gloria Cashew and received an amount of Rs.78,000/-US Dollar and again forged the Bill of Lading in the name of one Anzar Babu,S/o.Abdul Rasheed, Proprietor Ideal Cashew, Kollam by promising to import Raw Cashew Nuts to them from Thanzaia.Since the consecutive forgery committed by the accused amounted to serious offence punishable under Section 420 ofIndian Penal Code, I submitted another report to the Chief JudicialMagistrate Court, Kollam, under Sections 120 B, 409, 465, 468 and 420 IPC.5.It is respectfully submitted that subsequent to the registration ofthe Crime, the witnesses including the above mentioned Johnson and Anzar Babu were recorded, who have given statement to the effect that the Bill of Ladingissued in the name of defacto complainant issued in their name also.Thedocuments including agreement as well as the forged Bill of Lading issued inthe name of Anzar Babu have been recovered.It is submitted that on the basisof the statement and the documents recovered so far it has come out thatapart from the offences of cheating the accused have committed the abovementioned the offences also.6.It is respectfully submitted that the investigation of the case is inprogress and the recovery of original Bill of Lading is essential for theinvestigation of the case.The recovery of the Bill of Lading stated to havegiven to Johnson is also to be recovered.The various documents fortransporting the material from Thanzania are yet to be recovered.It issubmitted that for the proper investigation of the case, the arrest of theaccused is highly necessary.But as this first accused is a person who isfradulently travelling from one place to another, the investigating agency isnot in a position even to contact him or to apprehend him.8.The Submissions of the Respondent No.3:-8.1.According to the Learned counsel for the Third Respondent, the writPetitioner on 20.05.2016, in WMP(MD)No.7404 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.9351 of 2016 had obtained an interim direction restraining the Respondent Nos.1 and 3not to release the cargo to anyone on any amended Bills of Lading, in which,the Third Respondent is a party.The Learned counsel for the Third Respondentcontends that as per Third Respondent's Port of Loading Agent, ShipperM/s.Master Distributor and the Third Respondent's Port of Loading Agentconfirmation of new original Bills of Lading was released on 09.05.2016 inthe name of M/s.Glory Cashews, with which, shipped onboard and Bill of Ladingdate was 14.04.2016, the date of sailing of vessel Ex-Port of Loading basedon already released Bill of Lading.8.2.The Learned counsel for the Third Respondent submits that withoutsubmitting 'Original Bills of Lading' in Third Respondent's office, theycould not start processing amendment.The Learned counsel for the ThirdRespondent takes a stand that it had informed its Port of Lading Agent thatthe dispute is between the Shipper M/s.Master Distributor and Import GeneralManifest Consignee M/s.Best Cashews and the amended original Bill of Lading Consignee M/s.Glory Cashew and hence, as a carrier agent, it is notresponsible for the time delay, cargo damage and demurrage etc. 8.3.The Learned counsel for the Third Respondent takes a prime pleathat as a carrier agent and as per Regulation, whoever is submitting theoriginal document, with which by the proper consignee cargo shall releasedand submit its request to the First Respondent for amendment, if required,for approval, based on original Bill of Lading submitted in their office.9.The Contentions of the Fourth Respondent:-9.1.The Learned Senior counsel for the Fourth Respondent submits thatthe writ petition is filed by the Petitioner without having any evidence toprove his title or ownership over the cargo as claimed in the writ petition.9.2.The Learned Senior counsel for the Fourth Respondent takes a pleathat the documents produced by the Petitioner are just copy of a draftproforma Bill of Lading (which is normally prepared by the Importer or theirCustoms House Agent not signed by the carrier and not issued by the carrierin carrier's name) and as such, the proforma Bill of Lading is not sealed bythe carrier and the same cannot cannot be considered as a Bill of Lading asper Indian Bill of Lading Act.9.3.The Learned Senior counsel for the Fourth Respondent projects anargument that in the instant case, all the four Bills of Lading (originals)produced or issued by the carrier/shipping line indicating the FourthRespondent/Master Distributor as Shipper and Glory Cashews as the Consignee of the cargo.Moreover, the writ Petitioner is not a party to the fourthOriginal Bills of Lading, which is a basic document to establish theownership/title.9.4.The emphatic stand of the Fourth Respondent is that a mereproduction of a 'Proforma Bill of Lading' does not enable the Petitioner toclaim title over the case and the holder of 'Original Bills of Lading' isconsidered as owner of the goods inasmuch as the original Bill of Lading isthe evidence of contract between the parties in the Bill of Lading andtreated as evidence of title.9.5.The Learned Senior counsel for the Fourth Respondent contends thatthe Fourth Respondent is one among the Directors of another Company viz.The Central Board of Excise andCustoms has provided for two broad categories of amendments Major and Minor.The major amendments include changing the Importers/consignees name.Consequently, writ petition fails.In fine, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties tobear their own costs.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,691,088 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.14150/2020 (Kundan s/o Ghasiram Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 29.05.2020 Mr. Chandra Prakash Purohit, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the bail application.Prayer allowed.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.14150/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,346,927 |
A case may be registered and investigation be taken up by the local police as per order.The rukka is being sent through Asi Ishwar Singh of Special Staff.Sd/ P.S.Palwal I/C Special Staff, EASTDistt.It appears that on August 10, 1991 the petitioner produced two persons namely Anil Kumar Solanki and Lokesh Kumar, before Inspector P.S.Patwal and told him that the said two persons had got recovered 144 duplicate gas cylinders.The Inspector, thereupon, instructed the petitioner to book them as per law and directed S.I.Shiv Raj and others who were also present there at that time, to assist the petitioner in the matter of registration of the case and preparation of required documents.On August 11, 1991 not only the said Index but even the said personal search memos were found missing from the file.As if all this was not enough, even Anil Kumar Solanki was found to have been replaced by another gentleman and it so transpired that this was the handiwork of the petitioner and his associates who had charged Rs.75000.00 as illegal gratification.(5) What is further required to be noticed is that during investigation the police managed to recover the original Memo of Personal Search of Anil Solanki, one turned carbon copy of the said Memo of Personal Search and the Original "Index Missal" in which Anil Solanki was shown as one of the accused persons.(6) Two things more need to be noticed before I bring this narrative to a close.(2) SUB-INSPECTOR Manoj Pant of the Delhi Police is facing trial in Fir 118 of 1991 under sections 218, 220, 221, 342, 193 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code.It appears that the case was registered on the complaint made to the Station House Officer, P.S. Geeta Colony on August Ii, 1991 by Inspector P.S.Patwal of the Special Staff, East District.Since that report is self-speaking, I feel tempted to reproduce the same.It runs as under:ON10th August, 1991 S.I. Manoj Pant alongwith the staff of Special Staff, East Distt has apprehended one Lokesh Kumar s/o Mam Chand r/o A/1595, Mansarovar Park, Delhi in case Fir No.304 dated 10/8/91 under section 411 I.P.C. and 7 - X/55 E.C. Act, P.S. Krishna Nagar.On his disclosure statement, S.I. Manoj Pant has apprehended one Anil Solanki s/o Sukhbir r/o A- 92, Laxmi Garden, Loni Ghaziabad (UP) which was produced before me.I directed S.I. to book the accused as per law and on their disclosure 146 Gas cylinders were received from both the accused.During process, it is reported that Si Manoj Pant has let loose the main accused Anil Solanki and in his place his relative Gajinder Singh s/o Bhami Chand r/o 1/11154 A, Panchsheel Garden Navin Shahdara Delhi was involved in this case with the ulterior motives.It has come in the notice of the senior officers that Si Manoj Pant has released the main accused in the above case with the malafide intention and for illegal gratification.Thus Si Manoj being a public servant framed incorrect record with intention to save proper person from punishment and wrongfully confined to Gajinder Singh .
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,694,906 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of an information given by the defacto complainant to the effect that the accused persons being aided and abetted by one another used abusive language towards the defacto complainant and thereby they have interfered with her modesty.Moreover, the petitioner including the other accused persons have also threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.During investigation, the investigating officer submitted a prayer for adding Section 376 of the IPC against Siraj Roy.In this backdrop of facts and circumstances, the petitioner has filed this application.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,695,648 |
I. The application is hereby allowed to the extent of applicant no.3 Lahudas @ Lahu s/o Bibhishan @ Ramesh Solanke.In the event of arrest of applicant no.3 Lahudas @ Lahu s/o Bibhishan @ Ramesh Solanke in connection with crime no. 125 of 2019 registered with Dindurd Police Station, Taluka Dharur, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, he be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions;a. Applicant no.3 shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 06:58:56 :::13-ABA-1093-2019 -4- b. Applicant no.3 shall attend the concerned police station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 08.00 am to 11.00 am till filing of the charge sheet.The application is accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 06:58:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 06:58:56 :::
|
['Section 365 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.
|
134,697,127 |
C (J. P. GUPTA) h JUDGE ig H tarun Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2017.12.07 12:21:47 +05'30'C As per prosecution story applicant and his parents demanded h dowry from the deceased and tortured her and on 04/08/2017 ig deceased was found dead on account of strangulation in the H applicant's house and also made efforts to show that death was taken place on account of suicide by hanging herself.Charge sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.It is further submitted that circumstances shows that there is a reasonable possibility that death would have taken place on account of hanging herself by the deceased.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,347,005 |
2. Between October, 3967 to July, 1968 i.e. during an interval of about. 10 months, pay bills of teachers, of the total amount of Rs. 27,555/- of the establishment of District Education Officer Raipur, marked Exs.P-6 to P-13, were encashed from Raipur Treasury.The amount of those bills was obtained for the purpose of disbursement by Shankerlal Vishwakarma, who was at the relevant time, Assistant District Inspector of Schools, working in the office of District Education Officer, Raipur.Those pay bills were written out by Nand Kumar, a teacher attached to that office.One Premchand Bagh was a Section Clerk in that office who had checked those pay bills.Another official named Ramesh Shanker was also a Clerk who had written note-sheets with respect to those pay bills.Dattatreya Deshpandey was an Accountant in that office who had initialled and forwarded those bills along with note-sheets to his officer viz. District Education Officer.Rameshwar Dayal and Mahesh Chandra Bose were the District Education Officers who had worked during the relevant period in different times.The prosecution story briefly stated was that those bills were got prepared by Shankerlal Vishwakarma, A.D.I.S. through his clerk Nand Kumar.They were false and forged bills in the names of teachers who had not at all worked.The money obtained by Shankerlal Vishwakarma on the basis of those bills was defalcated by him instead of being disbursed to the teachers, who in fact, did not exist.Premchand Bagh, Ramesh Shanker and Dattatreya Deshpandey who belonged to the clerical staff, knew that those bills were false and forged and yet allowed those bills to be passed, by putting their own initials in token of checking or re-checking or by writing note-sheets.Rameshwar Dayal and Mahesh Chandra Bose who worked at different times during the relevant period as District Education Officers passed bills, knowing those bills to be false and fabricated.One Pyarelal Pandey who was an Auditor from A.G.M.P. attached to that office also helped in the conspiracy by his failure to point out the dubious character of the bills.It is the prosecution case that a conspiracy of wide remification had taken place between all the aforesaid officials to commit various offences.All the aforesaid 8 persons were prosecuted Pyarelal, however, died during trial.The learned special Judge, Raipur, who tried the case, found the prosecution story to be established against all but two accused.He convicted accused Shankerlal Vishwakarma under 5 counts; i.e. under Sections 120B, 409, 467 and 420, I.P.C. and S.5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, 4 years, 3 years, 3 years and 1 year respectively and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year under the second count.He drew our attention to the evidence of Bodhan Prasad (P.W. 3) who was Head Clerk at the relevant time in the office of the District Education Officer, Raipur and Accountant in that office at the time of giving evidence.This witness stated in paragraph 71 of his evidence that the possibility that teachers whose names appeared in the pay bills (Exs. P-6 to P-13) were appointed by some order besides the appointments made in Ex. P-53 could not be ruled out.It was argued on this basis that the names of teachers mentioned in the pay bills in question were not fictitious or imaginary.Even assuming that the names given in the questioned pay bills were not fictitious, that would not go to show that those bills contained genuine claims.The charge was that the pay bills were forged by them.Coming now to Accountant of the office, namely, Dattatriya Deshpandey, he was having two kinds of duties.Coming last to the cases of District Education Officers who worked at the relevant time, they were Rameshwar Dayal and Maheshchandra Bose who worked at different times.It has appeared in the evidence of Bodhan Prasad (P.W. 3) in paragraph 63 that in the year 1967-68, which is the relevant year, there were 280 Middle Schools and 1700 Primary Schools.About 8,000 teachers were working in those schools.He shall surrender and serve out the remaining sentence.JUDGMENT S.K. Chawla, J.This appeal as also Appeals 53/85 and 94/85 are by convicted accused persons, numbering five.Appeal No, 925/85 is by the State against acquittal of two other accused persons.The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.Accused Nandkumar was convicted under three counts, i.e. under Sections 120B and 467, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to rigorious imprisonment for 2 years, 3 years and 1 year respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently.Accused Premchand Bagh, Ramesh Shanker and Dattatreya Deshpandey were convicted under three counts under Sections 120B and 471, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, 2 years and 1 year respectively, with direction that all those sentences will run concurrently.Accused Rameshwar Dayal and Mahesh Chandra Bose were, however, acquitted.The five convicted accused are appellants in the three appeals under consideration while the acquitted two accused are respondents in the State appeal.There was the evidence of this witness Bodhan Prasad (P.W. 3) in paragraph 67 that the bills in question contained false claims because those very teachers had already been paid and their pay was being drawn twice and there lay the falsity in the bills.A perusal of the bills in question (Exs. P-6 to P-13) would show that first four pay bills (Exs. P-6 to P-9) contain 24 identical names of teachers.Two more bills (Exs. P-11 and P-12) contained another set of 18 identical names.The 6th bill (Ex. P-10) contains 6 names and the last bill (Ex. P-13) contains 34 names.This brings to a total of 82 names in all, in the bills.What is more, he admitted in his examination that he had not made any payments to those prosecution witnesses whose names appear in the pay bills in question.There is, therefore, no getting away from holding that the bills in question contained false claims in the names of teachers, some of whom might have been even imaginary, in view of the fact that the names of schools and places were not mentioned against some of the names in the pay bills.It is further pertinent to oberve that the particulars of alleged disbursement of the amount of the pay bills in question was not, on the admission of this accused, entered by him in Cash Book (Article-1).It will be noticed that Shankerlal Vishwakarma or his alleged accomplices had not made signatures or writings of another or had not unauthorisedly altered the pay bills in material particulars.The definition of a "false document" contained in Section 464, I.P.C., would show that aperson is said to make a false document under Clause (1), if any signature, mark, writing etc. of another is made with requisite mens rea, or under Clause (2) if a document is materially altered unauthorisedly or under Clause (3) if a document is got executed from a person of unsound mind or intoxicated person or a person who from deception practised on him does not know the contents of the document.Keeping this definition in mind, the Acquittance Registers Ex. G-5 to G-7 containing signed receipts may be said to be forged, but that was not the charge against accused persons.As the pay bills in question (Exs. P-6 to P-13) were not forged, although they contained false claims, the offence committed was not forgery.Turning now to accused No. 2 Nand Kumar, it appears that he was a teacher, who had been attached to work under A.D.I.S. Shankerlal Vishwakarma.He was supposed to write out the pay bills on the basis of pay data supplied to him by Shankerlal Vishwakarma.Being a clerk, he could not have taken upon himself the task of finding out whether the data given to him was correct.In this connection, Bodhan Prasad (P. W. 3) a senior official working in the office of the District Education Officer, Raipur stated in paragraph 85 of his deposition that it was the duty of the A.D.I.S. to check the correctness of the pay data received from various Headmasters.No law punishes a person for just doing clerical work.There is nothing to show that accused Nand Kumar shared the dishonest intention of Shankerlal Vishwakarma or had his finger in the pie.No offence has been proved against him.The case of accused Premchand Bagh, a Section Clerk, and Ramesh Shankar, another Clerk attached in the office of the District Education Officer, Raipur may now be taken up.A Section Clerk also used to check the bills on the basis of pay data.As he was the person who primarily checked the bills, it is proper to suppose that he must be having the necessary record to enable him to properly check the pay bills.In our opinion, he could, if he was so minded, have found if the claims made in the pay bills were genuine.But the possibility that he did what he calls, routine checking, which is euphemism for mechanical checking, and was therefore, not able to smell the rat cannot be ruled out.This is not to reward negligence on his part.If negligence is statutorily made an offence, the offender will have to be punished.It is the evidence of Bodhan Prasad (P.W. 3) in paragraph 56 that as an Accountant, Deshpandey was drawing establishment bills and also taking them to the treasury for encashment.This was itself a big job.Nearly 60,000/- rupees used to be drawn and disbursed on account of the establishment.During the relevant period, some eight thousand teachers were working in Raipur District.The pay bills of teachers used to be given to the Accountant along with note-sheets.The Accountant could at best make only a cursory checking, which was in reality re-checking.He used to submit the pay bills along with note-sheets, to his officer i.e. District Education Officer.In these circumstances, accepting the fact that accused Deshpande as Accountant has re-checked the pay bills in question, it does not follow therefrom that he was aware of the false nature of the claims made in those bills.He too could, and might have, put his initials honestly.There were 45 ranges and for each range there was A.D.I.S. On an average 200 bills of all sorts used to be prepared in a month in the office of the D.E.O. Bodhan Prasad admitted that the District Education Officer used to be so much burdened with work that he had little or no time to look to the bills.Hence, the District Education Officer after satisfying himself that the bills had been checked and rechecked and were accompanied by note-sheet, used to sign the bills.He was relying, and was also entitled to rely, on his subordinate staff.The State appeal against their acquittal deserves to be dismissed.Yet another ruling of the Supreme Court Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 806, was cited in which a Patwari who had accepted a bribe of Rs. 150/- and who had been sentenced to R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 161, I.P.C. and to R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 150/- under Section 5(2) of the Corruption Act, was given relief in the sentence by the Supreme Court because appeal was being disposed of 14 years after the incident.The appellant never made any deposit of the money or even part thereof regarding which cheating was committed nor was such an offer made at the time of hearing of the appeals before us.It is also doubtful if the appellant would be in a position to pay back the sum of Rs. 27,555/-.No purpose would be served by visiting the appellant with some fine with a view to only reduce apart of the jail sentence.The jail sentence imposed on the appellant of one year for the offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and of three years for offence under Section 420, I.P.C. appears to us to be adequate and proper.For the forgoing reasons, criminal appeals 53/85 and 94/85 are allowed.The convictions and sentences of appellants Premchand Bagh, Ramesh Shankar, Datta-triya Deshpandey and Nand Kumar is these appeals are set aside and they are acquitted.Appeal No. 925/85 against the acquittal of respondents Rameshwar Dayal and Mahesh Chandra Bose is dismissed.The acquittals of these respondents are maintained.The present appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 48/85) is partly allowed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
870,692 |
One day, when he went to the house of Ram Lakhan, accused, he saw Bhagaloo Singh, accused in compromising position with the daughter of Ram Lakhan, accused and reprimanded him.Bhagaloo Singh was living with Ram Lakhan, accused and helping him in his agricultural work.Bhagaloo Singh had told Vinod Kumar not to disclose the factum of his intimacy with the daughter of Ram Lakhan to anyone.Thus, a quarrel took place between the two and Bhagaloo Singh, accused threatened Vinod Kumar to face the dire consequences.It is in that consequence that the two appellants, alongwith Ram Lakhan caught hold of Vinod Kumar (deceased) and Bhagaloo Singh gave several blows by a sharp edged weapon "Karauli".Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 956 of 2002 dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.7.2002 passed by the Sessions Court, Hardoi, in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 2000 convicting the appellants and co-accused Bhagaloo Singh, under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as `IPC') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that:A) An FIR dated 26.10.1999 was lodged by Rajesh Singh (PW.1) in Police Station-Tandiyanwan, Fatehpur District, Hardoi, against the appellants and two other co-accused Ram Lakhan and Bhagaloo Singh that the said four accused had killed Vinod Kumar on 25.10.1999 at 9.00 P.M. Vinod Kumar, aged 22 years was friend of Raj Kumar, the son of Ram Lakhan, accused, and thus had visiting terms with the family.Vinod Kumar died immediately on the spot after having 2 12 injuries.There had been enmity in these groups of parties and there had been criminal cases between them.B) On the basis of the said FIR, Case Crime No.155/1999 was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and investigation ensued.The dead body of Vinod Kumar was recovered and sent for post mortem examination.Buddhi Narain Lal (PW.5), Investigating Officer completed the investigation and submitted chargesheet under Sections 302/34 IPC.All the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.C) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined five witnesses, namely, Rajesh Singh (PW.1), Devi Gulam Singh (PW.2) as eye-witnesses, Dr. R.K. Porwal (PW.4), Constable Shailendra Singh (PW.3), and Buddhi Narain Lal, I.O. (PW.5).The accused also examined Jag Dev (DW.1) and Salim (DW.2) to prove alibi that the appellants could not be present on the place of occurrence as they had been in their agricultural field.It may be pertinent to mention here that accused, Ram Lakhan had died during the course of trial.Hence, the appellants filed this appeal.Shri J.P. Dhanda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the appellants had falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity as there had earlier been criminal cases between the parties.The FIR was lodged with a delay of 9 hours and the prosecution failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the same.Rajesh Singh (PW.1) and Devi Gulam Singh (PW.2), the alleged eye-witnesses, were very close relatives of the deceased, and thus, their testimonies cannot be relied upon safely.Prosecution failed to examine any independent witness.Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.On the contrary, Shri T.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the appeal contending that the prosecution furnished satisfactory explanation of delay of 9 hours in lodging the FIR, as nobody could go to the police station at a distance of 18 Kms.out of fear.Both the eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased but their testimonies had been found trustworthy by both the courts below, and thus cannot be discarded.More so, the law does not prohibit to rely upon the evidence of the closely related witnesses of the deceased or victim if it is found to be reliable.In view of the above, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.The autopsy on the body of the deceased Vinod Kumar was conducted Dr. R.K. Porwal (PW.4) on 26.10.1999 and he found the following ante-mortem injuries:i) Incised wound size 1 cm x 0.5 x muscle deep present on left temporal region, 1.5 cm lateral to left eyeball.ii) Incised wound size 16 cm x 5 cm x bone deep present in front of the neck, 2 cm above the xiphisenuim the trachea is clean cut, margins of the wounds are clean cut.iii) Incised wounds size 2 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep present on left side of the chest at the level of nipple at 9 O' clock position.Wound is 6 cm medial to nipple underlying heart is clean cut.iv) Incised wound size 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on right side of chest at 4 O'clock position from right nipple.It is 6 cm away from right nipple.v) Incised wound size 2 cm x 0.7 cm x chest cavity deep (lower chest) present on right side of chest, 7 cm away from right nipple at 4 O' clock position underlying lower is lacerated.vi) Incised wound size 6 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep.Present on right side of chest left O'clock position, 9 cm away from nipple margins of the wounds are clean out.vii) Incised wound size 6 cm x 2.5 cm x chest cavity deep on left side of chest 1.5 cm left to midline.viii) Incised wound size 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on left side of chest 4 cm lateral to midline at the level of xiphislesinim.ix) Incised wound size 5 cm x 2.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep present on left side of upper abdomen 1 cm lateral to medline at the level of T8 spine intestine is coming out of the wound.x) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present side of back at the level of T9 spine 8 cm lateral to midline.xi) Incised wound size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present on right side of back at left the level of T12 spine 6 cm lateral to medline.xii) Incised wound size 1 cm x 0.5 x muscle deep present on left side of back at the level of T10 spine 7 cm lateral to midline.The cause of death spelt out in the post-mortem report was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.It is 6 pertinent to mention that in his deposition in the Trial Court, Dr. Porwal reiterated the said cause of death and also stated therein that the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were attributable to a sharp edged weapon, like karauli and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The fact of homicidal death of Vinod Kumar, the place of occurrence and time of his death are not in dispute.Shri Dhanda has raised very limited issues referred to hereinabove and the case is restricted only to those issues.Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version.In absence of such an explanation, the delay may give presumption that allegations/accusations were false and had been given after thought or had given a coloured version of events."I had not gone to lodge report in Police Station Tandiyanwan due to fear.We looked the corpse at night.I and Hanif went to Tandiyanwan Police Station by motorcycle in next morning".The incident occurred at 9.00 P.M. on 25.10.1999 and the FIR was lodged on 26.10.1999 at 6.10 A.M. at the police station at a distance of 18 K.M. from the place of incident.Rajesh Singh (PW.1) has mentioned that on account of fear of the accused persons, he could not go to the police station to lodge the FIR at night.This explanation has been found by both the courts below to be perfectly convincing, and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below drawn an inference that the explanation furnished was quite satisfactory.We do not see any cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below.So far as the issue of accepting the evidence of closely related witnesses is concerned, both the courts below had placed a very heavy reliance on the depositions of Rajesh Singh (PW.1) and Devi Gulam 8 Singh (PW.2), in spite of the fact that Rajesh Singh (PW.1) was the brother of the deceased Vinod Kumar and Devi Gulam Singh was also closely related to Rajesh Singh (PW.1).The daughter of Rajesh Singh (PW.1) got married with Sarvesh, the nephew (sister's son) of Devi Gulam Singh (PW.2).Both of them had supported the prosecution case.Both of them have been extensively cross-examined by the defence, but nothing could be extracted therefrom which could impair their credibility.The courts below found that evidence of both the eye-witnesses inspired confidence and was worth acceptance as both of them had given full version of the incident.More so, both the courts below have held that the witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants and the co-accused and spare the real assailants.In the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants had not taken the defence that they could not be present at the place of occurrence as at the time of occurrence they were working in their paddy field.Thus, in view of the above, the deposition of the two witnesses examined in their defence becomes meaningless.The incident had occurred outside the village and not inside the village.Therefore, it is likely that some other persons might have come there after the accused had run away from the place of occurrence.Rajesh Singh (PW.1) had deposed that one Sushil Kumar, a resident of far away village of district Hardoi, who got married in the same village was also with him.However, no question had been put to Buddhi Narain Lal (PW.5), I.O. by the defence as to why Sushil Kumar had not been examined.So far as the evidence of defence witness, namely Jag Dev (DW.1) is concerned, he has deposed that the present appellants had been working in their paddy field at the time of occurrence of the crime.However, the court below did not believe his statement for the reason that the witness had never got his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, nor did he disclose such fact to any other person.He was examined first time in the court.The said witness was present in the morning at the place of occurrence when the Investigating Officer reached there.The appellants had been named in the FIR.Salim (DW.2) also admitted that he knew that a murder case had been registered against the appellants, but he did not 10 disclose to the Investigating Officer or to any other person that the appellants could not be the assailants.Salim (DW.2) has also admitted that his father was the Pradhan and he had defeated Saroj Singh, a very close relative of Vinod Kumar, deceased.But where the Sessions Court properly appreciated evidence and meticulously analysed the same and the High Court re-Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are inter-related to each other or to the deceased.
|
['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.
|
87,069,870 |
The inmates of the house brokeopen the doors and identified the charred dead body as that of their daughterVasanthi (A1).The police believed the said version.After postmortem, the deadbody was cremated and all religious rituals were performed by the parents.Surprisingly, Vasanthi (A1), who was believed to be dead, appeared before thepolice after some time with her newly married husband (A2) and sought for policeprotection.One Nithya, (the alleged deceased), the daughter of PWs14 and 15, wasstudying in Chettinadu Arts and Science College, at Karumandapam, Trichy.Thefirst accused (Vasanthi) was also studying in the same college.Nithya andVasanthi were friends.According to the case of the prosecution, the secondaccused had fallen in love with the first accused and they got married secretly.Theaccused felt that they were blackmailed.Therefore, they decided to do away withNithya.Accordingly, it is alleged that on 26.12.2008, at about 6.15 p.m. whenNithya had come to the house of A1, both the accused gave her milk mixed withsleeping tablets.After she had fallen asleep, both the accused killed her bythrottling.During the trial, as many as 24 witnesses were examined and 37documents were exhibited, besides 15 material objects.PW1 is the father of A1/Vasanthi.According to him, on 26.12.2008, whenhe returned to his house, he found the main door of his house locked frominside.Therefore, he gave a phone call to his son (PW2) to rush to the house.Accordingly he rushed.At about 9.00 p.m. they opened the door with the help ofPW10, by using a crowbar.When they entered into the house, they found a charreddead body.PW1 and other family members were under the impression that it wasVasanthi.They believed that she had committed suicide.Thus, they identifiedthe dead body as that of Vasanthi.P18 is the First Information Report.In the complaint, PW1 hasstated that Vasanthi (A1) was alone at home and she had committed suicide bysetting fire to herself.Taking up the case for investigation, PW21 proceeded to the place ofoccurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar in respect of place of occurrenceunder Ex.P2 in the presence of PW8 and another witness.Then, he preparedEx.P19, rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence and from the place ofoccurrence, he recovered 4 material objects namely, a 6 liters capacity PlasticCan with odour of kerosene, broken padlock, broken tiles piece and a Nylon ropewith plastic dollar.Then, she examined PWs1 to 3 and recorded their statements.The panchayathars too concluded that the dead body wasthat of Vasanthi.Base of the brunt area is reddish.Singeing of hair present.Deep burns present on the back of the trunk, front of both thighexposing the bones.The above mentioned wounds are ante-mortem in nature.Noother external, internal and bony wound present."Thus, it came to lightthat the dead body, which was all along believed to be that of Vasanthi was thatof some one else.Therefore, the investigation officer had to take up the taskto find out as who the dead was.PW14, is the mother of Nithya.She has stated that Nithya was a closefriend of the first accused.According to her, on26.12.2008, when she was about to leave her house for job, she asked Nithya asto why she did not go to the college.Nithya told her that she was in search ofthe cycle key to leave for the college.On the same day, in the evening when shereturned home, she did not find Nithya at her home, though the college workingtime was over.When she enquired the other children at home, they told thatNithya had gone to the house of A1/Vasanthi.But, Nithya did not return overnight.PW14 has further stated that on the next day, that is on 27.12.2008,she was informed by yet another friend of Nithya that Vasanthi/A1 had committedsuicide and her body was found at her house.Therefore, PW14 and PW15, (themother and the father of Nithya) went in search of Nithya.But they could notfind her anywhere.Then, they went to the house of A1/ Vasanthi to share thegrief, on account of the alleged death of Vasanthi believing that A1 was nomore.Even, thereafter, they continued the search for Nithya.No.7 of 2009 for girl missing.PW20 handed over the casediary in Cr.No.7 of 2009 to the Inspector of Police for investigation.Thus, ason 06.01.2009, there were two cases under investigation simultaneously in twodifferent police stations.On 10.01.2009, when these two accused (A1 and A2) appeared before theAssistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Police Station, in their writtenrepresentation they had alleged that they had fallen in love with each other andfinally, they got married.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) Who was the deceased? The charred dead body was beyond recognition.Thebody was found in a house locked from inside.The police were shocked, as they were all along under the impressionthat Vasanthi was no more.On further investigation, the investigating officerfound that Vasanthi's college-mate by name Nithya was found missing.Theinvestigating officer concluded that the above stated dead body was that ofNithya.He further concluded that the death of Nithya was homicide and Vasanthiand her husband (A1 and A2), were the perpetrators of the crime.The trial Courtaccepted the case of the prosecution as proved and convicted the accused for theoffences under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and 201 r/w 302 IPC.Then, with a view to screen the evidence, they dragged the body tothe bathroom, poured kerosene and set fire to the body.With these allegationsthey were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and 201 r/w302 IPC for having allegedly committed murder of 'Nithya' and for causingdisappearance of evidence.Since the accused denied the charges, they were puton trial.Then, PW1 went to the Cantonment PoliceStation, Trichy, and made a complaint.On receipt of the said complaint (Ex.PW21 conducted inquest on the dead body on 27.12.2008 at 07.00 a.m. Ex.P20,is the inquest report.Then, she forwarded the body for postmortem.PW18, Dr.Renuka Devi, who was a tutor in Trichirapalli Medical College,on 27.12.2008, at about 12.05 p.m. commenced autopsy on the dead body.She foundthe following injuries;-Superficial burns present on the head, face, front of the trunk, bothupper limb, perineum and both legs.Peeling and carbonisation of cuticlepresent.P14 is the postmortem certificate.She opined that the deceased would havedied due to Asphyxia due to burn injuries.She preserved the visceral organs forchemical analysis.Examination of visceral organs proved that there was nopoison.6. PWs 1 to 3, cremated the body ceremoniously in the local electricalcrematorium.They proceeded with the last rites for Vasanthi.While so, to theshock and surprise of every one, Vasanthi (A1) and her lover Mr.Venkatesan (Nowmarried to A1) appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment,Trichy on 10.01.2009 seeking protection to their lives.Since they couldnot find Nithya, on 06.01.2009, PW14, the mother of Nithya, went to theSomarasampettai Police Station at about 10.00 p.m. and preferred a complaintalleging that her daughter Nithya was missing.Based on the same, PW20registered a case in Cr.Since they apprehend that their life was in danger atthe hands of their respective parents, they sought police protection for leadinga happy married life.From 10.01.2009 to 12.01.2009 these two accused were keptin the Cantonment Police Station for safety purpose, though they were allowed tofreely move out also.The Assistant Commissioner sent a message to PW21regarding the above fact.Therefore, PW21 handed over the case to the Inspectorof Police for investigation.Taking up the case for investigation, PW22, the then Inspector ofPolice attached to Cantonment Police Station examined the accused on 10.01.2009.These two accused gave statements to the effect that they got married and theywere in need of protection since their life was in danger at the hands of theirrespective family members.P22, tothe Court.On 11.01.2009, PW22 examined these two accused again and recordedtheir statements.From the statements, PW22 came to know that the dead body wasthat of Nithya.Therefore, he submitted yet another report under Ex.P23, andaltered the case into one under Section 302 IPC.They were independentlyreduced into writing by PW22 in the presence of PW11 and another witness.Atthat time, the first accused was having a handbag.When it was searched by PW22,it was found that there was a pair of gold stud and a pair of gold drops(Titanic model dolak) (MOs 5 and 6 respectively) inside the bag and they wererecovered under a Mahazar (Ex.P8) in the presence of the witnesses.In the saidconfession, she disclosed the place where she had hidden, MOs 7 to 10, i.e. Notebooks and other belongings of the deceased.PW22 recovered the same under amahazar Ex.In his confession, A2 had disclosed the place where he had hidden, aPlastic Can and a cloth bag (MOs 12 and 11 respectively).Then produced MOs11and 12 from the place of concealment.PW22 recovered the same under a Mahazer-Ex.Then, he returned to the Police Station along with the accused andforwarded the above Material Objects to the Court and sent the accused forjudicial remand.Then, he made a request, on 19.01.2012 to the Doctor, whoconducted postmortem, to change the name of the deceased in the postmortemcertificate under Ex.Accordingly the name was changed as Nithya.Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by PW23, who made a requestfor conducting DNA Test for the purpose of identification of the deceased.Themother of the deceased Nithya was asked to appear for the DNA test.But, DNAtest could not be conducted as DNA could not be extracted from the visceralorgans preserved at the time of postmortem.Then, PW24 took up the case forinvestigation.P24 is the receipt to show that the body was cremated in theOyamare Electric Crematorium, Trichy.He collected the marriage certificate(Ex.On completing the investigation, he laidcharge sheet against both the accused.Before the Trial Court, PWs 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have turned hostile andthey have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.PW15 is thefather of the deceased and PW16 is the brother of PW15, who have spoken to thefact that Nithya was found missing from 26.12.2008 onwards.PW17 has spoken toabout the identification card issued to Nithya.PW12 is the photographer whotook photographs of the dead body.PW13 is the photographer who enlarged thephotographs of the first accused.The others are official witnesses.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not chose toexamine any witness on their side, or to exhibit any document.Having considering all the above materials, the trial Court byjudgment, dated 06.07.2012, convicted them and sentenced them to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence under Section 302r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 201 r/w 302 IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before thisCourt.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perused the recordscarefully.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.i) Nithya was lastly seen alive by PW14 on 26.12.2009 at her house and inthe evening, she did not return home.The inmates of the house informed PW14that Nithya had only gone to the house of A1/Vasanthi.ii) The charred dead body found in the house of PW1 on 26.12.2008 was thatof Nithya and thus, Nithya is no more.iii) The death of Nithya is not natural and it is a homicide amounting tomurder.iv) The accused were found absconding till 10.01.2009 from 26.12.2008.This conduct of the accused is an incriminating circumstance against theaccused.v) The accused appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police,Cantonment Police Station, on 10.01.2009 and made a false plea that they werenot aware of the death of NithyaA1 made a disclosure statement to thepolice, in which she had disclosed that she had hidden the notebooks and othermaterial objects belonging to the deceased and accordingly, they were producedby her from the place of concealment.vii)A2 also gave a disclosure statement, in which he had disclosed that hehad hidden a plastic can and a yellow cloth bag and accordingly he produced thesame from the place of concealment.viii) PWs 14 and 15 have identified the properties, namely, the notebooksjewels etc., recovered from the accused as the ones belonging to the deceased.For the possession of the same, there is no explanation at all by the accused.According to the learned Public Prosecutor, these circumstances havebeen clearly established by the prosecution and they form a complete chain whichunerringly point to the guilt of the accused.Therefore, they should bepunished, he contended.But, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit thatnone of the above circumstances has been proved at all beyond all reasonabledoubts.Thus, according to the learned counsel, there is nocircumstance or chain of circumstances, unerringly pointing to the guilt of theaccused.Mainly, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution hasmiserably failed to prove that Nithya is dead.According to the learned counsel,it should be presumed that Nithya is only alive.We have considered the above submissions carefully.Though it is sated by the prosecution that on that day instead of going tothe college she went to the house of A1, absolutely there is no evidence for thesame.Nextly, the charred dead body was found in the house of PW1 on26.12.2008 evening.At that time, according to the evidences of PW1, PW2 andPW10, the house was locked from inside and they had to break open the doors toenter into the house.Had it been the case that the deceased was done to deathinside the house by anybody else, it would not have been possible for the doorto be locked from inside.This aspect has not been explained by the prosecutionat all.PW21 recovered the broken padlock and broken tiles from the house.Theobservation mahazar prepared by her in the presence of witnesses shows that thehouse was locked from inside.This gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that thedeceased would have either committed suicide or the death would have beenaccidental.This alternative theory has not been ruled out by the prosecution.Initially, PWs1 to 3 believed that the dead body was that ofA1/Vasanthi.Therefore, they went to the extent of performing the last ritesbelieving that it was Vasanthi, who was dead.Now, it is projected by theprosecution that the dead body, which was found in the house of PW1, was that ofNithya.If that is so, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove thisaspect beyond reasonable doubts.For this purpose, the family members of Nithyahad no occasion even to see the dead body, because the dead body had alreadybeen cremated at Oyamare Electric Crematorium, Trichy after postmortem.In orderto establish the identity of the deceased, an attempt was made to go in for DNAexamination.But, unfortunately, the DNA couldnot be extracted from the visceral organs, because they had already decomposed.Thus, the DNA examination failed.The skull was also not preserved, so that itcould have been at least sent for superimposition test.That was also not done.Since the dead body was charred beyond recognition, from its appearance in thephotograph, PWs14 and 15 could not identify the same.Thus, the prosecution hasnot at all established that the dead body so found in the house of PW1 on26.12.2008 was that of Nithya.In other words, whether Nithya is dead has notbeen proved by the prosecution at all, beyond all reasonable doubts.Nextly, the doctor (PW18) who conducted postmortem, would say that thedeath of the deceased was due to Asphyxia due to burning.She has not at allgiven any opinion that the death was due to manual strangulation, whereas thecase of the prosecution is that the deceased was done to death and thereafter,the body was dragged to the bathroom and then, set on fire.Thus, the medicalevidence also contradicts the prosecution version.Next comes the conduct of the accused.According to the prosecution,from 26.12.2008 till 10.01.2009 both the accused were absconding and thus, thisis a very serious incriminating circumstance against the accused.But, we do notfind any force at all in this submission of the learned Additional PublicProsecutor.It is the positive case of the accused that they eloped, as theirrespective family members opposed their marriage proposal, and got married.Theyhave produced the marriage certificate.They were under the impression thatthere was threat to their life.Therefore, they did not return to their nativeplace at once.After sometime, they went to the Assistant Commissioner ofPolice, on 10.01.2009 seeking protection.It is the case of the accused thatthey were hiding themselves because there was threat to their life.Thus, theabsence of these two accused in the village between 26.12.2008 and 10.01.2009has been clearly explained by the accused.Thus, the conduct of the accused innot available in the village between 26.12.2008 and 10.01.2009, is not, in anymanner, incriminating.Now, the possession of the material objects at the hands of theaccused needs to be considered.They were interrogatedon 10.01.2009 as well as on 11.01.2009 and their statements were recorded.Theydid not confess to the guilt of the crime and they did not make any disclosurestatement.At that time, it was stated that, on 12.01.2009, A1 was found inpossession of a hand bag in which MOs 5 and 6 were found.Above all, whether Mos5 and 6 belonged to the deceased or not, hasnot been established by the prosecution.The learned counsel for the appellantswould point out that PW14, during cross-examination, has admitted that she couldnot say whether MOs 5 and 6 belonged to the deceased or not.PW15 has admitted,in his cross examination, that he had not seen the deceased wearing these twojewels at all.Thus, the link between MOs5 and 6 and the crime has not beenestablished at all.Therefore, assuming that Mos5 and 6 were found in the handbag of the first accused on 12.01.2009, it does not incriminate the firstaccused in any manner.Nextly, it is alleged that out of the disclosure statement of thefirst accused, the notebooks belonging to the deceased were recovered and on thedisclosure statement of the second accused, a plastic can and a cloth bag wererecovered.In paragraph 17of the judgment, the trial Court has recorded as follows:- "In the confession statement A1 has stated that A1 and A2 loved each otherand they performed registered marriage without knowledge of their family membersand the fact of registered marriage was known to deceased Nithya and Nithyablackmailed her that she would reveal the marriage to the parents of Vasanthiand hence A1 and A2 decided to murder Nithya and accordingly, they asked Nithyato come to her house and after she came to her house she and A2 forcible takenher to the bed and closed her nose and mouth with hands and after she died theydragged the dead body to the bathroom and set fire to the dead body with anintention that if the body burned beyond recognition her family members wouldhave thought that she (A1) committed suicide and they will not search for herand she can live peacefully with A2 in some other place.jikrToThe Principal Sessions Judge, TrichyThe Public Prosecutor, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
870,744 |
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. onthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No. 677 of 2006 (Crime No. 500 of 2006 Police StationGola, District Lakhimpur Kheri,) the appellant Ajay Kumar Rastogi aliasPintu along with Shyam Kishore Rastogi has been convicted andsentenced under Sections 304/34 I.P.C. for a period of ten years rigorousimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment offine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellantthat he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliableevidence against him on the basis of which he could have beenconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. He furthersubmitted that co-accused Shyam Kishore Rastogi having similar casehas been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated11.11.2009 andthe allegations against the appellant are similar to that of co-accusedShyam Kishore Rastogi.That the appellant was on bail during trial andthere is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bailand he has every hope of success in appeal, and as such he deservesbail.Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, this fact hasnot been controverted by learned A.G.A. that similarly situated co-accused Shyam Kishore Rastogi has been admitted to bail.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for theappellant.Hon'ble Vedpal,J.Learned counsel for the appellant does not press this time barred appeal at this stage.It is therefore, dismissed accordingly as notpressed.In re :Hon'ble Vedpal,J.Rejected vide my order of date passed onmemo of appeal.This is an application for recall of the orderdated 26.8.2009, dismissing the Writ Petition No.126 (RC) of 2006 for non prosecution.It has been stated in the affidavit annexedwith the application that when the case was fixedfor hearing on 26.8.2009, counsel for thepetitioner could not appear in the Court becausehe could not see the case in the cause list.Grounds shown in the affidavit aresufficient The petitioner was not going to bebenefited by getting the petition dismissed indefault.The application is allowed.The orderdated 26.8.2009 is recalled.The writ petition isrestored to its original number.List the petition for hearing.21.1.2010 Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2010Pankaj Kumar Tewari and another. .....Appellants Vs.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and RakeshKumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year's simpleimprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of paymentof fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and havehave been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable underSections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail duringtrial and presently they are on interim bail.That there is nothing onrecord to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.In view of the above, having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, Iam of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail.Let theabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appealon furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties eachin the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned providedthey deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial court.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellant Suresh Pandit @ Nanku has beenconvicted in Special Sessions Trial No.19 of 2002 (Case CrimeNo.172/2005) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, Police StationDalmau, District Raebareli.The maximum sentence awarded to himunder Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is six months' rigorousimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of paymentof fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and allthe substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail.That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused theliberty of bail.Let theabove appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal onfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fineimposed by the trial court.Tripathi Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2010Hasmat Ullah and others .....Appellants Vs.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellants Hasmat Ullah, Ikbal Kha and IshhakKha have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.529 of 2005 (CaseCrime No.C-35/2004) for the offence punishable under Sections 452,323/34, 504, 506(2) I.P.C., Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi.Themaximum sentence awarded to them under Section 452 is threeyears' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- on each ofthem and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year'sadditional imprisonment and all the substantive sentences weredirected to run concurrently.Accused-appellants were on bail duringtrial and presently they are on interim bail.That there is nothing onrecord to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.In view of the above, having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, Iam of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail.Leteach of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendencyof appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with twosureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellants Israj and Kalloo have beenconvicted in Sessions Trial No.884 of 1997 (Case Crime No.63 of1994) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Kasimpur,District Hardoi.The maximum sentence awarded to them underSection 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is two years' simple imprisonmentalong with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of them and in default ofpayment of fine to further undergo one month's additional simpleimprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to runconcurrently.Accused-appellants were on bail during trial andpresently they are on interim bail.That there is nothing on record toshow that they ever misused the liberty of bail.In view of the above, having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, Iam of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail.Leteach of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendencyof appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with twosureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concernedprovided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellant Suneel has been convicted inSessions Trial No.116 of 2006 (Case Crime No.534 of 2004) for theoffence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and underSection 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, DistrictRaebareli.The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act is six months' rigorous imprisonment alongwithwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to furtherundergo two months' simple imprisonment and all the substantivesentences were directed to run concurrently.Accused-appellant wason bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail.That there isnothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty ofbail.In view of the above, having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, Iam of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail.Let theabove appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal onfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amountto satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fineimposed by the trial court.Tripathi Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2010Karta Ram and another. .....Appellants Vs.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellants Karta Ram and Vinod have beenconvicted in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2002 (Case Crime No.C-25/2001)for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and underSection 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Khargupur, DistrictGonda.The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 323I.P.C. is one year' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- on eachof them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo twomonths' additional simple imprisonment and all the substantivesentences were directed to run concurrently.Accused-appellants wereon bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail.That thereis nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty ofbail.In view of the above, having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, Iam of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail.Leteach of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendencyof appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in thelike amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided theydeposit the fine imposed by the trial court.Tripathi Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.2876 of 2009Siya Ram and another. .....Appellants Vs.Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearingin due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G. A. andperused the record of the case.In S.T.No.137 of 2003 (Crime No.230 of 2000), the appellantsSiya Ram and Kripa Ram alongwith one another namely Badlu have beenconvicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections307/34 and 506(2) I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to them underSection 307/34 I.P.C. is ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with afine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergoone year's rigorous imprisonment It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellantthat the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is notreliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted isnot made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.That theappellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial courthas not properly appreciated the evidence available on record.That therole of firing has been assigned to co-accused Badlu and the appellantshave been assigned the role of exhortation.That the appellants were onbail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that they evermisused the liberty of bail and the appellants have every hope of successin appeal.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.Itreveals from the record that role of firing has not been assigned to any ofthe appellants.The submission of learned counsel for the appellants hassubstance.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, havingregard to the nature of evidence, adduced during trial and the probabilityfactor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail.Letthe appellants Siya Ram and Kripa Ram be released on bail during thependency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond withtwo sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Courtconcerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court.The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remainsuspended during the pendency of appeal.Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearingin due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the recordof the case.In S.T.No.513 of 2001 (case crime no.160 of 1999), appellantBandesh Singh has been convicted and sentenced for the offencepunishable under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C. The maximumsentence awarded to him is three years' simple imprisonment alongwith afine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo twomonths' imprisonment.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellantthat the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is notreliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted isnot made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.That theappellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial courthas not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and thatappellant was on bail during trial and the appellant has every hope ofsuccess in appeal.Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the learned counselfor the appellant, the probability factors of the evidence on record, termof the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail duringthe trial and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CaseBhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit casefor bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment.Let appellant be :2:released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable suretieseach in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned ondeposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.:2:The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shallremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.27.1.2010Tripathi Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2010Shailendra Kumar Tiwari .......Appellant Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh .......Opp.PartyHon'ble Vedpal,J.Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearingin due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the recordof the case.In S.T.No.315 of 2005 (case crime no.233 of 2004), appellantShailendra Kumar Tiwari has been convicted for the offence punishableunder Sections 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo four years rigorousimprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment offine to further undergo six months' imprisonment.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellantthat the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is notreliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted isnot made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.That theappellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial courthas not properly appreciated the evidence available on record.Hefurther contended that on the same evidence of co-accused KaushalKishore Tiwari and Mahesh Tiwari have been acquitted.Let appellant bereleased on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable suretieseach in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned ondeposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.:2:The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shallremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.27.1.2010Tripathi Crl.In re :Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).Hon'ble Vedpal,J.Heard the learned counsel for theappellant.This appeal has been filed after aperiod of limitation.An application underSection 5 of the Limitation Act.A.G.A. to file objection against theapplication the application for condonationof delay within fifteen days.List thereafter.Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).Ashok Vs.State of U.P.Hon'ble Vedpal,J.List alongwith application underSection 5 of the Limitation Act with Crl.In re :Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).Ashok Vs.State of U.P.Hon'ble Vedpal,J.Heard the learned counsel for theappellant.This appeal has been filed after aperiod of limitation.An application underSection 5 of the Limitation Act.A.G.A. to file objection against theapplication the application for condonationof delay within fifteen days.List thereafter.Tripathi Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2010Rakesh Kumar Singh and another.Appellants Vs.State of U.P.....Opp.PartyHon'ble Vedpal,J.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act,Police Station Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli.The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. wasone year' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- on each ofthem and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month'ssimple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directedto run concurrently.Accused-appellants were on bail during trial andpresently they are on interim bail.That there is nothing on record toshow that they ever misused the liberty of bail.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case inview of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of theopinion that the appellants can be released on bail.Let each of theabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appealon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the likeamount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they depositthe fine imposed by the trial court.Tripathi Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010Riyaz AhmadAppellant Vs.State of U.P.....Opp.PartyHon'ble Vedpal,J.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellant Riyaz Ahmad has been beenconvicted in Sessions Trial No.221 of 2006((221-A/2006)(N.C.R.No.18/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34I.P.C. and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment.Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail.That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused theliberty of bail.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case inview of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of theopinion that the appellant can be released on bail.Let the aboveappellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal onfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount tosatisfaction of the court concerned.The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shallremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.25.1.2010Tripathi ourt No. 7 Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010Riyaz AhmadAppellant Vs.ourt No. 7State of U.P.....Opp.PartyHon'ble Vedpal,J.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellant Riyaz Ahmad has been beenconvicted in Sessions Trial No.221 of 2006((221-A/2006)(N.C.R.No.18/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34I.P.C. and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment.Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail.That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused theliberty of bail.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case inview of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of theopinion that the appellant can be released on bail.Let the aboveappellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal onfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount tosatisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fineimposed by the trial court.The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shallremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.25.1.2010Tripathi Original Suit No. 865 of 1997Hon'ble Vedpal,J.Taken up today.Sri Mohit Kumar, plaintiff in personand Sri N.K. Seth Senior Advocateassisted by Sri Sanjeev Agrawal fordefendant Dato Mohan Swami arepresent.Today in this case both the partieshave to admit and deny the documentsfiled by each other.The documents arealleged to be in a sealed cover with theRegistrar which have not been sent tothis Court today with the file.Both theparties pray that this case be also takenup from morning on10th February,2010when other cases between the partiesare fixed for hearing.As prayed by the parties, thiscase be fixed on 10th February,2010 forhearing.Registrar of the Court is directedto produce the documents kept in sealedcover in the Court on the date fixed at thetime of hearing.21.1.2010TripathiTestamentary Case No. 1 of 2004Hon'ble Vedpal,J.Taken up today for hearing.The applicant Mohit Kumar inperson and Sri N.K. Seth SeniorAdvocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal for Dr. Dato Mohan Swami arepresent.Since both the testamentarycases are to be heard together andTestamentary Case No. 3 of 2003 hasbeen fixed for hearing on 10thFebruary,2010, therefore, this case bealso be fixed for hearing on the sameday.21.1.2010Tripathi Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003Hon'ble Vedpal,J Taken up today for hearing.Heard Sri N.K. Seth, Senior counselassisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal forpetitioner and Sri Mohit Kumar, opposite party inperson.Sri Mohit Kumar states that his C.M.An.No.69254 of 2009 is pending for disposal.He also states that hisC.M. Application No. 12334 of 2009 is alsopending for disposal and the copy of thisapplication was sent to Sri Mohit Kumar by postbut Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has notreceived the same, on which Sri N.K.Seth,learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerfurnished copy of Application No. 124334 of 2009to Sri Mohit Kumar today before the Court.Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has to filean objection against C.M.An.No. 124334 of 2009,the copy of which has been furnished him today.He seeks fifteen days' time to file objection.Sincethe learned counsel for the petitioner has alsoprayed that C.M. An.No.69254 of 2009 moved bySri Mohit Kumar be heard after 8th February,2010and Sri Mohit Kumar also seeks time to fileobjection against petitioner's applicationno.124334 of 2009, therefore, with the consent ofboth the parties the case is fixed for 10thFebruary,2010 for hearing.Both the applicationsmoved by the petitioner Dr. Dato Mohan Swamias well as Sri Mohit Kumar shall be heard on that date.21.1.2010Tripathi Civil Misc.No.4672 of 2010 in reWrit Petition No. 126 (RC) of 2006Ram Pal Vs.JokhuHon'ble Vedpal,J.This is an application for recall of the orderdated 26.8.2009, dismissing the Writ Petition No.126 (RC) of 2006 for non prosecution.It has been stated in the affidavit annexedwith the application that when the case was fixedfor hearing on 26.8.2009, counsel for thepetitioner could not appear in the Court becausehe could not see the case in the cause list.benefited by getting the petition dismissed indefault.The application is allowed.The orderdated 26.8.2009 is recalled.The writ petition isrestored to its original number.List the petition for hearing.The applicant joined the service on 1.10.1986 as a Stenographer inBahraich Judgeship.1992, but by means of the W.P.No.1990 ,ceasing him from services.The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.Consequent to the said order, passed in the writ petition, the applicantshall be deemed to be in continuous service.Nothing adverse has been reported by the District Judge againstthe applicant.In view of the above, the representation is allowed and the DistrictJudge, Bahraich is directed to pay salary of the period from 1.6.1990 to26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4.1992 with all consequential benefits includingthe increment.Tripathi (Vedpal) Administrative Judge Session Division ,Bahraich Bahraich 25.1.2010 Officer in Charge Computer I have to say that today,i.e, 25.1.2010 I have uploaded wrong order inCrl.Kindlyget it deleted at the earliest.(S.P.Tripathi) P.S. to Hon"ble Vedpal,J.Employee No. 2515 Court No.5 Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2010Ashok Kumar Chaubey and another.Appellants Vs.State of U.P.....Opp.PartyHon'ble Vedpal,J.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellants Ashok Kumar Chaubey and ShivKumar Chaubey have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2004(Case Crime No. 50 of 1998) for the offence punishable underSections 323/34, 504, 506 (2)I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC &ST Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda .The maximumsentence awarded to them under Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Actwas one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- oneach of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo twomonths' imprisonment and all the substantive sentences weredirected to run concurrently.Accused-appellants were on bail duringtrial and presently they are on interim bail.That there is nothing onrecord to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case inview of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of theopinion that the appellants can be released on bail.Let each of theabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appealon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the likeamount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they depositthe fine imposed by the trial court.Tripathi Court No. 7 Criminal Appeal No.2709 of 2009Shri Ram Yadav and another.State of Uttar Pradesh.......Opp.PartyHon'ble Vedpal,J.Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the recordof the case.In S.T.No.385 of 1993 (case crime no.555 of 1992), appellantsShri Ram Yadav and Raj Kumar have been convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 412 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five yearsrigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- payable by each ofthem and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six monthsrigorous imprisonment.As per prosecution version, accused appellant Shri Ram Yadavwas found in possession of 30 bags of sugar and appellant Raj Kumar wasfound in possession of twenty five bags of sugar which was the propertyin relation to which dacoity was committed by two persons namely IshakAli @ Mama and Chand Babu.Learned counsel for the appellantssubmits that there is no evidence against the appellants that they were inknowledge of the fact that the property which was recovered from hispossession was property in relation to which dacoity was committed andas such the offence does not fall within the purview of section 412 I.P.C.but at the most it may be an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. Learnedcounsel for the appellant in support of his submission relied onMoinuddin Mozumdar Vs.Let appellants be releasedon bail on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two reliablesureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./courtconcerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on them by the trialcourt.The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shallremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.6.1.2010Tripathi.I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties andperused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial courtalongwith the record of the appeal.Let appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personalbond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfactionof the C.J.M./court concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed onhim by the trial court.The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shallremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No. 275 of 1997(Crime No. 154 of 1994), .the appellantSatish has been convicted and sentenced to ten years R.I. along with afine of Rs.2000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergothree months additional imprisonment for the offence punishable underSections 304 I.P.C.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that theappellant has been falsely implicated in the case.That on the basis of theevidence available on record the offence for which the accused has beenconvicted is not made out.That the evidence adduced by the prosecutionin support of the prosecution case is not reliable one.It was furthercontended that as per prosecution version there was an altercationbetween the appellant Satish and deceased Buddha.That deceasedBuddha had given a Danda blow to Satish whereupon Satish had alsogiven Phanti blow to Buddha on 2.4. 1994 at 10 a.m. It has further beencontended that the deceased died on 3. 4.1994 at the house of one ShriRam.It has further been contended that in the post mortem reportligature mark on the neck of the body of the deceased was found and itwas not prosecution version that the accused caused this injury andthus, the death was not the result of the injuries allegedly caused to thedeceased by the accused-appellant.That the appellant was on bailduring trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misusedthe liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.Itreveals from the perusal of the record that as per prosecution versionaccused had given only one blow of Phanti to deceased Buddha,while atthe time of post mortem examination ligature mark was found on theperson of the deceased.The prosecution has not explained from wherethis injury was received by deceased.The death of deceased had alsooccurred on the next day of the incident at the house of one Sri Ram.Inview of the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to thenature of evidence,adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am ofthe opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during thependency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties eachin the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he 2deposits fine imposed by the trial court.The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remainsuspended during the pendency of appeal, thereafter.Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No. 359 of 2005), appellantSandeep Rawat alias Panta has been convicted and sentenced underSections 395,397 and 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to himunder Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with afine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergothree months additional imprisonment.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that theappellant has been falsely implicated in the case.That on the basis of theevidence available on record the offence for which the accused has beenconvicted is not made out.That the applicant is neither named in theF.I.R. nor he was put up for identification and there is no evidence toconnect him with the crime in question.That only evidence against himis the alleged recovery of golden bangles.It has further been contendedthat the alleged recovery is also doubtful as arrest of the applicant afterwhich recovery is said to have been made out was held doubtful in thejudgment of S.T.No.896 of 2006 wherein the appellant was acquitted.Itis also submitted that P.W.-1 Smt. Vinita Chandra has stated in herevidence that applicant was previously known to her but even thenapplicant was not named in the F.I.R. That the appellant was on bailduring trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misusedthe liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal.Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.The submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellanthave substance and as such having regard to the submissions and natureof the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and probabilityfactor of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be releasedon bail during the pendency of appeal by suspending sentence ofimprisonment.Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency ofappeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided the appellantdeposits fine imposed on him by the trial court.On furnishing therequired bonds and on depositing the amount of fine, the operation of thesentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency ofappeal.Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No.1167 of 2006(Crime No.359 of 2005), appellant Arifalias Modi has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395,397and 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three monthsadditional imprisonment.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellanthas been falsely implicated in the case.That on the basis of the evidenceavailable on record the offence for which the accused has been convictedis not made out.It has been contended by the learned counsel for theappellant that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant.Thatthe applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor he was put up foridentification and there is no evidence to connect him with the crime inquestion.That only evidence against him is the alleged recovery ofgolden chain.It has further been contended that the alleged recovery isalso doubtful as arrest of the applicant after which recovery is said tohave been made out was held doubtful in the judgment of S.T.No.896 of2006 wherein the appellant was acquitted.It was further submitted thatappellant Arif was allegedly arrested by the police on 8.9.2005 whiletelegram regarding his arrest was given on 6.9.2005, much earlier thedate of alleged arrest and recovery.It was also submitted that theappellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to showthat he has misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of successin this appeal.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.The submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellanthave substance and as such having regard to the submissions and natureof the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and probabilityfactor of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be releasedon bail during the pendency of appeal by suspending sentence ofimprisonment.Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency ofappeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided the appellant :2:deposits fine imposed on him by the trial court.On furnishing therequired bonds and on depositing the amount of fine, the operation of thesentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency ofappeal.:2:Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No. 359 of 2005), the appellantRaju has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395, 397 and412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three monthsadditional imprisonment.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that theappellant has been falsely implicated in the case.That on the basis of theevidence available on record the offence for which the accused has beenconvicted is not made out.It has been contended by the learned counselfor the appellant that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant.That the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and only evidence againsthim is the alleged recovery of mobile, which has not been described inthe F.I.R. and no Sim number of the mobile was given in the F.I.R. and itis common article.It was further contended that the appellant was put upfor identification before the three witnesses but none of them couldidentify him.That the appellant was on bail during trial and there isnothing on record to show that he has misused the liberty of bail and hehas every hope of success in appeal, so he deserves bail.Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.Inview of the above facts and circumstances of the case, having regard tothe nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, Iam of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during thependency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties eachin the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided hedeposits fine imposed by the trial court.The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remainsuspended during the pendency of appeal, on furnishing bail bonds anddeposit of fine.Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the prayer for bail,learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No.359 of 2005), the appellantsJaved and Sharik Hussain@ Poot @ Pootar have been convicted andsentenced under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. The maximum sentenceawarded to them under Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorousimprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment offine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that theappellants have been falsely implicated in the case.That on the basis ofthe evidence available on record the offence for which the accused havebeen convicted is not made out.That the evidence adduced by theprosecution in support of the prosecution case is not reliable one.It hasfurther been contended that the appellants Javed and Sharik Hussain @Poot @ Pootar were put up for identification before three witnesses butnone of them could identify him and there is no other evidence againstthem.That the appellants were on bail during trial and there is nothingon record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail and theyhave every hope of success in appeal, and as such they deserve bail.Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.Itreveals from perusal of the record that appellants Javed and SharikHussain @ Poot @ Pootar were put up for identification before threewitnesses but none could identify them and they were also not named inthe F.I.R. and no article is alleged to have been recovered from theirpossession.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and theprobability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be releasedon bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them apersonal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to thesatisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided they deposit fine imposedby the trial court.On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, theoperation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended duringthe pendency of appeal.Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No.82 of 1999 (Crime No. 80 of 1999, Police StationKotwali Nagar, Barabanki), the appellant Abhai Raj Singh has beenconvicted and sentenced under Sections 376 I.P.C. for a period of tenyears rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in defaultof payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a periodof one year.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that theappellant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliableevidence against the appellant.That prosecutrix is a married and majorwoman and the prosecution story as put forward is not probable.That asper prosecution version the prosecutrix was taken forcibly in a sugarcane field where the rape is alleged to have been committed but noexternal mark of injury was found at the time of medical examinationwhich belies the prosecution version.It is further submitted that theappellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to showthat he ever misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope ofsuccess in appeal, and as such he deserves bail.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.Admittedly, the prosecutrix is a major and married woman.At the time ofmedical examination, no mark of injury was found on her person, eventhough it is alleged that she was forcibly taken in the sugar cane field.In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard tothe nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, Iam of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during thependency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties eachin the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned providedthey deposit fine imposed by the trial court.On furnishing bail bonds anddeposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shallremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.29.1.2010Tripathi Hon'ble Vedpal,J.Heard the parties.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A onthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No.441 of 2008 (Crime No.171 of 2007), Police StationMakhi, District Unnao, the appellants Raj Kamal Singh, Chhanga Singh,Nan Singh and Gora Singh have been convicted and sentenced underSections 307/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded tothem is eight years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine ofRs.8,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment.Prayer for bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Raj Kamal Singh hasnot been pressed at this stage.Therefore, it is refused at this stage asnot pressed.In regard to appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and GoraSingh, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellantsthat they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliableevidence against the appellants.That the role of causing fatal injury toVinod Kumar by fire arm has been assigned to Raj Kamal Singh and norole of causing injury has been assigned to them.That it has further beencontended that there is no reliable evidence to connect the appellantswith the crime in question and their participation in the incident is notproved beyond doubt.That the appellants were on bail during trial andthere is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty ofbail and they have every hope of success in appeal, and as such theydeserve bail.Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has beenconceded that the role of causing injury to Vinod Kumar, has beenassigned to Raj Kamal Singh and role of causing injury was not assignedto the appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora Singh.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for theappellants.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. onthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.In S.T.No.752 of 2007 (Crime No. 257 of 2007,Police StationBiswan,Sitapur), the appellants Ramu and Kialsh have been convictedand sentenced under Section 304/34 I.P.C. to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and indefault of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorousimprisonment.Prayer for bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Ramu has not beenpressed at this stage.Therefore, it is refused at this stage as not pressed.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants thatthey have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliableevidence against them on the basis of which they could have beenconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. It hasfurther been contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution isnot reliable.He further submitted that appellant Kailash has beenassigned the role of catching hold only and the main role of causing fatalinjuries has been assigned to Ramu.That the appellant Kailash was onbail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he evermisused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appealand as such he deserves bail.Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has beencontended that Kailash has been assigned the role of catching hold andthe role of causing fatal injuries has been assigned to Ramu.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant thathe has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliableevidence against him on the basis of which he could have beenconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. It hasfurther been contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution isnot reliable.He further submitted that the prosecutrix has attained theage of discretion and is above 18 years of age and she in her statementhas deposed that she had relation with the appellant Ujagar since lastone month from the date of incident and, thus, the alleged offence is notmade out against the appellant and the appellant was on bail during trialand there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the libertyof bail and he has every hope of success in appeal and as such hedeserves bail.Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellant Munna Surti has been convicted inSessions Trial No 503 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 439 of 2002) for theoffence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and has beensentenced to undergo five months' s simple imprisonment alongwitha fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergofifteen days' imprisonment .Accused-appellant was on bail duringtrial and presently he is on interim bail.Let theabove appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal onfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amountto satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fineimposed upon him by the trial court.Summon the lower court record within three weeks and listthe appeal for hearing in due course.Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learnedA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension ofsentence also.Perused the impugned judgment and order.The accused-appellants Sri Nath, Kalika and Ram Bhawanhave been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1996 (Case Crime490 of 1996) for the offence punishable under Sections 323,506I.P.C. as well as under Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act .Themaximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. is oneyear's rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and indefault of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simpleimprisonment.Accused-appellants were on bail during trial andpresently they are on interim bail.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,082,038 |
Item No. 6Having heard the learned lawyer of the petitioner, I direct that the very first paragraph i.e. "In Re:- An application .................................... of the Indian Penal Code." as appearing in the order dated 10.04.2013 stands deleted and be replaced with the following paragraph:-In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09.04.2013 in connection with Murutia P.S. Case No. 40 of 2013 dated 01.04.2013 (G.R. Case No. 307 of 2013) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Necessary Certified copy be issued afresh according to rules.(Toufique Uddin, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,082,953 |
Malati, a Councilorof Nagar Palika, Kaij, District Beed.On the date ofthe proceeding, accused No.1 was the Chief Officer ofthis local body, accused No.2 was a Contractor to whomthe work was allotted by the local body, accused No.3was the President of this local body, accused No.4 wasthe Vice-President of local body, accused No.5 wasCouncilor of local body and accused No.6 was appointedby the local body as Engineer to supervise the work.DATE : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2018ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : T.V. NALAWADE, J.] :All the three proceedings are filed tochallenge the order dated 25.09.2017 made in CriminalRegular Application No. 38/2017 by learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed, who is ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 ::: 4 CriWP1672,1678/17 with CriApln6739/17appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988as a Special Judge for the Act. By this order, thelearned Special Judge has directed Anti CorruptionBureau to make investigation under Section 156 [3] ofCriminal Procedure Code.Both the sidesare heard.Learned A.P.P. supported the order made bylearned Special Judge.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 :::The proceeding before learned Special Judgewas filed by respondent No.2-Smt.The work was tobe executed for this Ward.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 :::The work was of construction of cement roadand drainage line by the side of the road and theconstruction was to be made between the house propertyof one Nakhate and house property of one Bhagwat Gund.The necessary procedure for execution of this work wasfollowed, and for this work, the amount of Rs.7.8 Lacwas sanctioned.The case of the complainant is that after fewmonths of allotment of the work, when she made inquirywith the local body, it was informed to her that thework was already completed.It isher case that accused Nos.3 to 5 had approved theproposal for making payment and then accused No.1 hadmade the payment for execution of the work order.Itis her case that she had given report to Police, butthe Police did not act on the said report, and so, shewas required to approach learned Special Judge.Theorder made by the learned Special Judge is challenged ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 ::: 6 CriWP1672,1678/17 with CriApln6739/17by the then President [accused No.3], the Councilor[accused No.5] and the past president of the localbody.The main contentions of the accused, who haveapproached this Court, can be summed up as follows:-::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 :::One Asad, employee of local body, after spotinspection, had given report about completion of workand on that basis, the account section of local bodyhad processed the bills and had prepared proposal formaking the payment.The report was submittedby Asad Khatil on 11.12.2015 itself.That when presentcomplainant gave report to police, the office wasagain asked by the applicants to verify the things.That other officer of the office informed that thework was not executed at the site mentioned in thework order.That action was taken by this accusedlike, asking the Contractor to deposit the amountwhich he had collected and removal of Engineer fromhis work.That the work of similar value was executedat other place, but from the same Ward, and so, therewas no misappropriation of public money.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 :::7 CriWP1672,1678/17 with CriApln6739/17In all the three proceedings, the impugnedorder is challenged on grounds like; absence ofsanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19of A.C. Act. One more point was tried to be raisedlike authority of learned Special Judge appointedunder A.C. Act to make order under Section 156[3] ofCr.P.C., but during arguments, the learned counsel forthe applicants conceded that the Special Judge hassuch powers.The rival contentions show that it is notdisputed that the work which was allotted to theContractor as per the approval given by the authorityand mentioned in the work order, was not executed bythe Contractor.It is also admitted that the amountwhich was agreed in respect of the said work wasactually paid to the Contractor.Though it wassubmitted that the Contractor subsequently returnedthe amount, this submission cannot be considered as aground of defence at least at this stage.Some stepswere shown to be taken, but they were taken aftergiving report to police by first informant.There isspecific procedure for allotment of funds by the Statein respect of particular work, allotment of work toContractor, ascertainment of execution of work andthen making payment in respect of the work to theContractor.As it is contended that after giving of ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 ::: 8 CriWP1672,1678/17 with CriApln6739/17the report to police, action was taken against both;the Contractor and the Private Engineer, it can besaid that the contentions made by complainant aboutnon-execution of work is not disputed by theapplicants.The question whether sanctionis necessary or not may have to be determined fromstage to stage." In the present matter, the relevant ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 ::: 9 CriWP1672,1678/17 with CriApln6739/17portion of allegations, the offences involved andadmitted facts are mentioned.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:50 :::P.C.before the learned Special Judge.::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:51 :::Present matters cannot be decided only on thebasis of aforesaid observations.Learned counsels for petitioners andapplicant requested for continuation of interim relieffor some time, but that is refused.[SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]SRM/6/9/18 ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2018 01:59:51 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
870,838 |
They were, however, acquitted of all other offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act along with other three accused persons.The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus-One Tanaji Koli was lodged in the prison at Amrawati as an under trial prisoner and he was to be brought from Amrawati to Mumbai for being produced in the court in Mumbai to attend one sessions case.It is the case of the prosecution that the said prisoner was taken to the court at V.T. by taxi to contact his advocate.Thereafter the prisoner was brought to V.T. Station along with police squad and boarded in Special Compartment adjoining to engine of Vidharbha Express.The train left the V.T. Station at about 7.35 p.m. Police Constable Nirapure, Police Constable Mankar and Police Head Constable Bhatkar alongwith the said prisoner were sitting in the compartment.There was nobody else in the said compartment.The prisoner was sitting by the side of luggage facing towards engine.Police Constable Mankar was sitting by the side of the said prisoner.Head Constable Bhatkar was sitting infront of the prisoner and Complainant Nirapure was sitting by the side of Police Head Constable Bhatkar holding a loaded stain-gun.The train reached at Kalyan Railway Station at about 9.00 p.m. at that time about 6/7 persons suddenly opened fire through the window at Tanaji Koli, who was sitting by the side of window.The prisoner was injured and fell in between two benches in the compartment.Head Constable Bhatkar and Police Constable Mankar also sustained bullet injuries.Complainant Nirapure-Police Constable ran towards the door of the compartment and was about to chase the assailants but they fled away.There was a commotion and some persons chased the assailants.The complainant could not open the fire since peoples were chasing the assailants.The assailants had fired for about a minute continuously.The Railway Police gathered there and Police Head Constable Bhatkar, Police Constable Mankar and prisoner and one of the assailant who was nabbed by the police were taken to the hospital.The assailant apprehended at the railway platform is shown as Accused No. 1 i.e. Deepak Naik.Police Head Constable Bhatkar, Police Constable Mankar and accused No. 1 were treated in the hospital and they were sent to Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar.Prisoner Tanaji Koli was declared dead by the medical officer.Head Constable Bhatkar also died while under treatment at the hospital.Thereafter Constable Nirapure went to Kalyan Police Station and lodged his complaint.P.I. Patil recorded the complaint and registered the offence and carried the investigation.The panchnama was drawn at the scene of offence by P.S.I Mulani, who conducted the Panchnama.He attached revolver, cartridges, etc. under panchnama.P.I. Patil drew the inquest panchnama on the dead body of Tanaji Koli.He attached clothes under panchnama.P.S.I. Mohite, attached to Kolsewadi Police Station who was allegedly on patrolling duty chased the accused No. 2 Nilesh Ajgaonkar, who was running from the scene of offence.Moreover, the very nature of the incident is reflective of the terror in the mind of those independent witnesses who were called to assist the investigation by working as panch witnesses, who have turned hostile to the prosecution while giving testimony before the court.However, the evidence of these hostile panch witnesses, in our considered view, has not caused damage to the prosecution case especially when their signatures on the said panchnama are duly proved on record through the respective officers, who have drawn the panchnamas at various times in the course of the investigation.With these aspects in mind, let us turn to the actual evidence on record.Therefore he along with his staff proceeded to Train and on making enquiry he came to know about the details.He gave instructions to his staff to shift injured Police Head Constable Bhatkar, Police Constable Mankar and victim Tanaji Koli to the Corporation Hospital.The Constable present on the spot informed him that the accused were running towards Kolsewadi at the distance of about one km. from Kalyan Railway Station, and therefore, Constables Katam, Oval and Bijapure were chasing them.He along with his staff also started chasing the assailants towards Kolsewadi.When he reached Kolsewadi Tunel No. 2 he found that police Constables Bijapure, Oval and Katam had caught hold of one of the accused.On making enquiry with them they had informed that two accused persons were dragging the said person but as they saw the Constables they left him and ran away.Therefore, the said accused person was taken into custody and he asked his constables to chase those accused who had ran away.He along with his staff brought the injured accused to Corporation Hospital.The injured accused i.e. Accused No. 1 Deepak was treated by the doctor and thereafter was taken into custody.He also attached belongings found on the person of accused No. 1 under panchnama.According to him, he was attached to Kalyan Railway Police Station in the month of September, 1993 and on 17.9.1993 he was on detection duty at the station.He along with other constables was standing on platform No. 4 near the office of ASK.They heard the noise and therefore went near the place and they were informed that there was firing on first bogie adjacent to the engine.They also found blood lying on the platform and one revolver was lying nearby.The passengers informed him that the persons who had fired had gone towards Kolsewadi.Therefore he along with other constables went in chase of the assailants.He saw that two persons were proceeding towards Kolsewadi dragging one person, however they dropped that person and ran away.Constable Bijapure and others reached near the injured person and took him in custody.In the meantime PSI Kamathe who had followed them came on the spot.In the meantime Kolsewadi Police staff had come from front side and caught the said person, who was running towards Kolsewadi main road.They reached the place where the person was caught by Kolsewadi Police.The evidence of PSI Mohite, P.W.12, shows that he was attached to Kolsewadi Police Station.According to him on 17.9.1993 he along with police head constable, Sapkal, Police constables Choudhari, Bhosale and Nigade and other staff was on patrolling duty from police station to platform No. 7 booking office of Kalyan Railway Station.At about 9.35 p.m. some people were found to be coming running from platform No. 7 towards Kolsewadi.He also came to know from other passengers that there was firing at Kalyan Railway Station.As they were proceeding onwards he saw one person coming towards them.He was found to be stained with bloods and therefore they suspected and surrounded him and took him in custody.In his personal search he was found with revolver at his waist along with five cartridges found in the said revolver, out of which four were empty and one was live.The belongings found on accused No. 2 were seized under panchnama, including the numbers of the empty cartridges, which were noted in the panchnama.This, entire evidence is again corroborated by testimony of Inspector Patil, who has stated that he was attached to Kolsewadi Police Station at the relevant time and he was present at the Police Station.On 17.9.1993 at about 9.30 p.m. PSI Mohite produced accused No. 2 before him and two panchas were called and personal search was made.The said person disclosed his name as Nilesh Shantaram Ajgaonkar and revolver was found at his waist.The said revolver with five cartridges, out of which four were empty and one was live, were seized along with other belongings under panchnama.This evidence of apprehension of accused Nos. 1 and 2 finds support by way of corroboration by PSI More, PW. 23, and station diary entries made by him of the entire process.PSI More stated that he was attached to Kolsewadi Police Station.On 17.9.1993 he was working as a PSO from 9 pm to 9 a.m of next day.He received the phone call from Kalyan Railway Police Station that firing had taken place at the station and the assailants had ran towards Kolsewadi area.He has further stated that at 9.05 p.m. he informed PI and ACP about the firing.ACP directed him to keep Bandobast and PSI Site and PSI Zadage were kept for bandobast along with police staff and accordingly entry at Sr.No. 42 was taken in the station diary.His evidence further shows that PSI Mohite submitted a report that they had caught accused No. 2 Nilesh Ajgaonkar at 9.35 p.m. and produced him at 9.43 p.m. He took the entry in the station diary at Sr.JUDGMENT Kakade, J.Both the appellants, original accused Nos. 1 and 2, have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1997, wherein they were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.After his apprehension accused was produced before P.I. Patil of Kolsewadi Police Station, who attached revolver, cartridges etc. from accused No. 2 under panchnama.P.S.I. Kamathe of Kalyan Railway Police Station, who had proceeded to platform No. 5 of Kalyan Railway Station immediately after the incident and who allegedly chased the accused, had given custody of accused No. 1, and he was shifted to the hospital.He attached belongings of accused No. 1 under panchnama or the very same day.On completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the court.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused persons for the impugned offences, to which they pleaded not guilty.The defence of the accused was that of total denial of any criminal liability.They have also denied any involvement in the incident.The prosecution led its evidence at length.On which basis the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence on record was sufficient to hold the accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of causing murder of Tanaji Koli and Police Head Constable Bhatkar and accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused in aforesaid manner for the impugned offences.Hence the appeal.We heard Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel for the Appellants and Mrs. Bhosale, the learned APP for the State.We have also perused the entire evidence on record.The very fact that the assailants proceeded to the first bogie of the train viz. Vidharbha Express, and opened the fire through its window on the inmates, would show the prior knowledge of the assailants that Tanaji Koli was travelling in the said train and compartment in Police escort.It also cannot be disputed that the circumstances under which the attack was made would show that the commuters present on the platform in the vicinity of first compartment of the train were naturally frightened and ran helter-skelter when they heard or saw shots being fired Inside the railway compartment and therefore, absence of actual eye witness to the incident, either from police or from people at large is very well explained.No doubt the complainant himself was one of the escorting party and has narrated the incident as per his bservation.However, the fact remains that there was no independent witness to the incident in general, or to identify the assailants.He also took entry in the station diary at 10.05 p.m. about interrogation of accused No. 2 at Sr.It is to be noted that railway police record from the police station was made available to the trial court and verified xerox copies were not on the record and the railway station diaries were returned to the police Station.This, in our considered view, is the clinching evidence, which inspires confidence in the testimonies of the said police officers, who had apprehended both the accused persons immediately after the attack on Tanaji Koli and others.The evidence of complainant Nirapure at Exh.87 provides further support to the prosecution case giving details as to how the incident took place.Therefore, the evidence on record has categorically established that Constable Bijapure, who had chased the accused persons and apprehended accused No. 1 in injured condition, who was dropped by his associates, and PSI Kamathe, who followed him and took him in custody from the spot.Similarly accused No. 2 who had ran away towards Kolsewadi main road also was caught while running by PSI Mohite and was produced before PSI Patil at Kolsewadi Police Station immediately after the incident.Accused No. 2 was found possessing revolver on his person with four empty cartridges and one live cartridge which were duly seized.In view of this factual matrix we have no doubt whatsoever that both the assailants were caught immediately after the incident by the said police personnel and there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were active participants in the commission of offence, which took place at Kalyan Railway Station.The defence of accused No. 1 is that he was travelling by Vidharbha Express on 17.9.1993 for Nasik.He had boarded the train at V.T. Station.He had got down from the train at Kalyan Railway Station for drinking water.He received some blow due to which he was fallen down and he was feeling giddiness.He could not understand what had happened.He regained consciousness in the hospital.The defence of accused No. 2 is.that he got down from local train at Kalyan Railway Station at about 9.30 p.m. to 9.40 p.m. for going to house of his aunt.He was going to the house of his aunt by the road by the Kalyan Railway Station and 7/8 policeman prevented him and asked his name and address and took him in custody.So far as accused No. 1 is concerned, there is no doubt whatsoever that he was found injured, and was being dragged by his two associates away from the place of incident but the police personnel chased them and as a result thereof his associates dropped him on the spot and ran away.Obviously accused No. 1 had sustained injures in cross firing while participating in the assault.So far as accused No. 2 is concerned the evidence on record shows that he was found with railway ticket from Mumbai to Nasik on his person, while he was apprehended.If at all he was proceeding towards place of his aunt at nearby placet the question remains as to why he was found with railway ticket to go to Nasik at the relevant time.Be as it may, the fact remains that the defence of both the accused persons is of no avail and prosecution evidence in that regard is sufficient to establish that both the accused were participants of the assault made at the said time on Tanaji Koli and other police constables.The entire evidence on record shows that in all five accused persons were put up for trial.However, accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were acquitted for want of sufficient evidence, especially for want of their identification in the crime.Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of identification parade is incomplete and therefore was not taken into consideration even by the trial court.It is true that holding of identification parade was considered but the record is conspicuously silent regarding that evidence.However? in our considered view, such lacuna would not prove to be fatal to the prosecution case especially when accused Nos. 1 and 2 were apprehended immediately after the incident and therefore, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they were the authors of the crime along with their unknown associates.The evidence of C.A. report has provided further corroboration to the prosecution case.The C.A. report Exh.100 mentions that Exh.2 which is one 5 chambered 0.38" revolver having body No. 33844 and markings transverse patent is a 5 chambered 0.38" calibre revolver in working order.The C.A. report further shows that residue of fired ammuniation nitrate was detected in the barrel washing of Exh.2 showing that the revolver was used for firing prior to its receipt in the laboratory.The C.A. report further mentions that bullets in Exhs. 4, 5 and 50A are fired from 0.38" calibre cupro-jacketed revolver bullets.Exhibit 4 is one deformed cupro jacketed bullet for rifling marks.Exhibit 5 is one deformed cupro jacketed bullets having rifling marks which have been attached from the scene of offence.Exh.50A is cupro jacketed bullet having rifling marks put in a phial labelled "P.M.x 5.48 Digamber Bhatkar 58 M.M. bullets".The empty Exh.14D is without premier cap and hence not suitable for comparison.Exh.14A, 14B and 14C are three 0.38" revolver empties having indentation on the cap and head stamp marking.C.A. report further mentions that detection of metallic copper and lead in absence of blackening and power residue around peripher of uncircled shot holes on plywood Exh.37 to 46 are consistent with the passage and wipe of cupro jacketed having been fired from beyond powder range of the weapon.It further mentions that Exh.22 is a holster seized from the scene of offence.Thus it is apparent from the C.A. report that the revolver found in possession of accused No. 2 was used for firing prior to its receipt in the laboratory.Therefore C.A. reports do provide corroboration to the entire evidence on record.Similarly the entire medical evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the death of Tanaji Koli and Head Constable Bhatkar are homicidal death due to injuries suffered due to firing made by both the accused persons along with others with revolvers in their possession.Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that though the incident took place on 17.9.1993, and, even though the police witnesses examined on record were available throughout the period? their statements were not recorded either till 6.10.1993 or later on, and therefore, such inordinate delay has not been explained by the prosecution and thus should prove to be fatal to the prosecution case.No doubt it is true that the statements of witnesses were not recorded immediately after the incident.Moreover, circumstances have also shown that both the accused persons were apprehended by police by giving chase to them and thus it was not likely that any independent witness would have occasion to witness the chase and apprehension of accused along with deserted railway line between Kalyan Railway Station and Kolsewadi in the track at about 9.00 p.m. Therefore we are of the view that in this particular case the evidence of police witnesses is the only available and possible evidence which is found to be acceptable and sufficient to inspire confidence.Thus, the evidence on record cannot be discarded on the ground that ail the witnesses are police personnel.Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel for the appellants also sought to bring to our notice various discrepancies and some contradictions in the course of evidence of prosecution witnesses.In the result the appeal stands dismissed.
|
['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.
|
870,860 |
In a very sensational incident which occurred in the intervening night of 2/3-09.2000 in Mohallah Vijay Nagar, Etawah, murders of four persons, namely Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar Advocate, his wife Smt. Shashi Prabha and their two Advocate daughters Smt. Indu and Km.Beena, were committed.The appellant-accused Sunil and co-accused Guddu @ Suresh Pal Singh, husband of the deceased Smt. Indu, were put on trial.The deceased Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar was a practicing lawyer in Etawah.He had only three daughters, out of whom the deceased Smt. Indu was married to the co-accused Guddu @ Suresh Pal Singh.Deceased Km.Beena and surviving daughter Km.Rekha Sengar (P.W.2) were unmarried.Since before the incident, Km.Rekha Sengar was living in Gautam Nagar, South Extension, New Delhi in a rented house bearing No. 216, in which telephone No. 6853693 was installed in the name of her landlord.In the fateful night also Km.The case of the prosecution as appearing from the First Information Report Ext. Ka 16, lodged by Km.Rekha Sengar (P.W.2) at P.S. Civil Lines Etawah, on 03.09.2000, in brief, is that on 02.09.2000 at about 11.00-11.30 p.m. in the night, Smt. Shashi Prabha, mother of Km.Rekha Sengar made a telephone call to her in Delhi and told her that her brother-in-law (Jeeja) Guddu and his friend have come to the house and they are demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her father and when her father declined to give money, they are becoming very angry.It was also told by the mother of Km.Rekha Sengar that these persons had come about ten days ago also and at that time also they had demanded money and when the money was not given to them, they had gone away in the night itself showing annoyance.On getting this news, when Km.Rekha Sengar talked to her brother-in-law Suresh Pal Singh @ Guddu on telephone, he told her that he is in great need of money and if rupees were not given to him, he can do anything.Rekha Sengar tried to passify her brother-in-law, but he made irrelevant talks and cut the telephone.After some time Km.Rekha Sengar made a telephone call at her house in Etawah, but there was no response.She again tried to have talks on the telephone from Delhi at her house in the morning at about 5.00 a.m., but again there was no response.On this, Km.Rekha Sengar departed from Delhi immediately to her house by taxi and when she reached in front of her house, she saw the huge gathering of people there.She immediately came to understood that his brother-in-law Guddu and his friend have committed some mishappening with her family.When she entered into the house, she saw that the dead body of her mother was lying in a room.The dead body of her sister Smt. Indu was also lying in another room.When she went to first floor of the house, she found that the dead bodies of her father and sister Beena were lying inside the room.The dead body of the bitch was also found lying near the dead body of her mother in the room of ground floor.It is further alleged by Km.Rekha Sengar in the FIR that murders of her father, mother, sisters and bitch have been committed in the night by her brother-in-law (Jeeja) Guddu and his friend.After seeing the dead bodies, Km.Rekha Sengar got the written report Ext. Ka 7 scribed from Shri Ravindra Singh Chauhan (P.W.3) and handed over the same at P.S. Civil Lines, Etawah, where the then head- moharrir Mahendra Pal Singh (P.W.8) prepared chik FIR Ext. Ka 16 and registered a case under Section 302 and 429 IPC at Crime No. 296/2000 on 03.09.2000 at 12.45 p.m. against Guddu, brother-in-law (Jeeja) of the complainant and his unknown friend.8. P.W.7 S.I. Ran Veer Singh was posted as Station Officer at P.S. Civil Lines, Etawah.At about 8.00 a.m. on 03.09.2000, constable Namwar Singh informed him that huge gathering of people is present in-front of the house of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar Advocate in Mohallah Vijay Nagar and the people are talking about some untoward incident.When on getting this information, S.I. Ran Veer Singh along with police force with a view to control the law and order situation reached the house of Sri Ranveer Singh Sengar, he came to know that murders of Sri Ranveer Singh Sengar, his wife and two daughters as well as the dog have been committed.The first information report was lodged in presence of S.I. Ranveer Singh.He himself took up the investigation and after recording the statements of Km.Rekha Sengar and Balvir Singh, he again went to the place of incident and after collecting blood stained and simple cement plaster and piece of bed-sheet, fard Ext. Ka 1 to Ext. Ka 6 were got prepared by S.I. Nanhu Mal Nigam, in presence of the witnesses Shiv Pratap Singh (P.W.1) and Ajay Bahadur.Thereafter, spot inspection was made by him (P.W.7) at the instance of Km.Rekha Sengar and site plan Ext. Ka 14 was prepared.On the direction of the investigating officer, P.W. 9 S.I. Nanhu Mal Nigam started inquest proceedings on the dead bodies of Sri Ranveer Singh Sengar, Km.Beena, Smt. Shashi Prabha, and Smt. Indu and prepared inquest reports Exts.Ka 18, Ext. Ka 23, Ext. Ka 28 and Ext. Ka 33 respectively.Present on the front and side of neck X trachea deep.Large vessels of neck were cut.The death was caused about 1 and 1/2 day prior to the examination due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.The death of the bitch was caused due to excessive haemorrhage as a result of the cut of neck region.During the course of investigation, S.I. Ran Veer Singh arrested the accused Suresh Pal on 04.09.2000 and pursuant to his confessional/ disclosure statement recovered a bag (material Ext. 1) containing blood stained Chhura (material Ext. 2), blood stained pant (material Ext. 3), belt (material Ext. 4), T-shirt (material Ext.5), two Baniyan (material Ext. 6 & 7), one lungi (material Ext. 8) one angochha khadi (material Ext. 9), one angochha (material Ext. 10), one comb (material Ext. 11), one underwear (material Ext. 12), one sando baniyan (material Ext.13), one pair of shocks of blue colour (material Ext. 14) and one pair of shocks (material Ext. 15) on the same day at about 5.00 p.m. on his pointing out from a rajwaha situated within the limits of village Nagla Aankhe in presence of P.W.4 Upendra Singh and other witnesses including police personnel.All these articles were taken into possession and recovery memo Ext. Ka 8 was prepared.On 03.09.2000, the then In charge field unit police office Etawah Shyam Lal Vimal P.W. 12 along with the then police proficient Field Unit Sri Ram Sewak P.W.11 and other employees of the field unit visited the house of Shri Ran Veer Singh Sengar, from where various photos were taken.Specimen of foot and finger prints of co-accused Suresh Pal Singh and appellant-accused Sunil were also taken on 05.09.2000 and 06.09.2000 respectively.On the basis of the negatives material Ext. 16 to Ext. 48, photos material Ext. 49 to Ext. 81 were prepared.From this statement of Km.Rekha Sengar, it is fully proved beyond any doubt that out of three daughters of late Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar, only Indu was married to the co-accused Suresh Pal Singh and his other daughters namely Km.Beena and Km.Rekha Sengar were unmarried at the time of incident.On the basis of this statement of Km.Rekha Sengar, this fact is borne out that P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh had no knowledge about the family of late Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar and it was for this reason that he had deposed in the trial court that out of three daughters of Sri Sengar, two were married.When two daughters of Sri Sengar namely, Beena and Rekha Sengar were unmarried, then there was no occasion for the co-accused Suresh Pal Singh to take part in the marriage function and to introduce the appellant Sunil to the witness Shiv Pratap Singh as his special friend in that marriage function.P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh has nowhere stated in his statement that the appellant Sunil was introduced to him by the accused Suresh Pal in his marriage function with Indu.In his statement, P.W.1 had certainly referred about the marriage of another daughter of Sri Sengar, in which he had participated from the side of Sri Sengar and husband of Indu had also participated in that marriage.JUDGMENT Vijay Kumar Verma, J.Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order dated 04.04.2007 passed by Sri S.P. Singh, the then Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etawah in S.T. No. 424 of 2000 (State v. Guddu @ Suresh Pal Singh and Anr.), whereby the appellant-accused Sunil has been convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the I.P.C.') and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 429 read with Section 34 IPC.Rekha Sengar was in Delhi on the aforesaid address.Connected papers Ext. Ka 19 to Ext. Ka 22, Ext. Ka 24 to Ext. Ka 27, Ext. Ka 29 to Ext. Ka 32 and Ext. Ka 34 to Ext. Ka 37 were also prepared and thereafter, all the dead bodies in sealed condition were sent through the constables Santosh Kumar and Ram Yash Verma for post-mortem examination.The post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of all the four deceased persons was conducted by Dr. Man Mohan Arya (P.W.5).Ante-mortem injuries as per details given below were found on the person of deceased:I. Ante-mortem injury of the deceased Ran Veer Singh Sengar (post-mortem examination on 04.09.2000 at 10.45 a.m.) vide postmortem report Ext. Ka-9:Incised wound of 12cm x 5cmx bone deep.Extending from (illegibile) right ear to the front of neck above the thyroid cartilage.Incised wound of 13cm x 4cm x muscle deep extending behind left neck, 3cm in front of the left angle mandible on left side of neck.Incised wound of 8cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep, front at the chin of left side of face,extending from 1cm below the lower lip.Incised wound 7cm x 0.5cm x skin deep, 4Cm above the left clavicle and left side of neck.Incised wound 6cm x 1cm x muscle deep, present on top of left shoulder.Incised wound of 2cm x 1cm x muscle deep present on left hand in between left thumb & left index finger.Incised wound of 2cm x 1cm x muscle deep present on the right hand in between right thumb and right index finger.Incised wound of 1.5cm x 1cm x bone deep distal phalynx of middle ring finger of right hand (illegible).Incised wound of 1cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep present of middle phalynx of right finger of right hand palm.Incised wound 1cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep present on (illegible) phalynx of little finger of right hand (illegible).Incised wound of 10cm x 0.5cm x skin deep present on right side of chest, 12cm below the right nipple.The death was caused about 1 and 1/2 day prior to the examination, due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Ante-mortem injury of the deceased Smt. Shashi Prabha (post-mortem examination on 04.09.2000 at 11.15 a.m.) vide postmortem report Ext. Ka 10:Incised wound of 18cm x 2cm.X trachea and (illegible) deep present front side of neck below the thyroid cartilage.Large vessels of neck were cut.The death was caused about 1 and 1/2 day prior to the examination due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Ante-mortem injury of the deceased Km.Beena (post-mortem examination on 04.09.2000 at 11.45 a.m.) vide postmortem report Ext. Ka-11:Incised wound of .13cm x 2cm x (illegible) and trachea deep present on frond of side of neck below the thyroid cartilage.Large vessels of neck were cut.Incised wound 4.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep 1cm lateral to injury No. 1 on right side of neck.Incised wound of 5cm x 0.5cm x skin deep present on side of neck, extending down from just below the left ear.Incised wound of 4cm x 0.5cm present on right shoulder x skin deep.Incised wound of size 4.5cm x 1.5cm x bone deep present on the middle side of right elbow joint.Incised wound 16cm x 1cm x S/C fat deep present on left side of abdomen 8cm away from the umblicus.Incised wound of 17cm x 1cm x S/C fat deep present on right side of abdomen 8cm away from the umblicus.Incised wound of 4cm x 1cm x muscle deep present on left hand on dorsal aspect in between left thumb and left index finger.The death was caused about 1 and 1/2 day prior to the examination due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Ante-mortem injury of the deceased Smt. Indu (post-mortem examination on 04.09.2000 at 12.40 a.m.) vide postmortem report Ext. Ka-12:Incised wound of size 10cm x 2cm.S.I. Ran Veer Singh during investigation obtained the telephone call details Ext. Ka 38 of the calls of telephone No. 52177 of the deceased Shri Ranveer Singh Sengar from the office of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Etawah.Call details Ext. Ka 38 have been proved by P.W. 10 Hari Narayan Verma, who was posted as Sub-Divisional Engineer in the telephone exchange Etawah.The photos and finger/ foot prints as well as other articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Lucknow for Examination.Statements of various other witnesses were recorded and after extensive investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka 15 was submitted against both the accused.On the case being committed to the court of session for trial, charge under Section 302 and 429 both read with Section 34 IPC was framed on 07.11.2000 against both the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined twelve witnesses in all.P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh is the witness of collecting blood stained and simple cement plaster and piece of bed sheet.It is also stated by this witness that on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. he along with Sri Pushkar Singh Chauhan was going to friends colony, Etawah, through Ram Nagar crossing (Phatak) and when they reached near the house of late Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar, he saw the accused Suresh Pal and Sunil knocking the door of Sri Sengar and calling him to open the door.It is further said by this witness that when he asked these persons as to why they have come at late night, Suresh pal Singh told him that he had some work with his father-in-law.This witness has further stated that both the accused were known to him and in a marriage function the accused Suresh Pal Singh had introduced Sunil as his special friend.P.W.2 Km.Written report Ext. Ka 7 has been proved by her in her statement.P.W. 4 Upendra Singh is the witness of the recovery of the bag and other articles material Ext. 1 to 15, which were recovered on the pointing out of the co-accused Suresh Pal Singh.Rest are the formal witnesses who have proved various papers in their statements as mentioned herein-above.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant Sunil has denied his participation in the alleged incident and he has stated that due to misunderstanding, he has falsely been implicated in this case.The following further statement has been made by the appellant in reply to question No. 12 of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.:lqjs'k iky ds lkFk muds xkao dk ukbZ gksus ds dkj.k eq>s bl dsl esa ?klhVk x;k eS Lo;a dHkh lqjs'k iky ds lkFk dHkh bVkok ugha vk;kA 'kknh esa Hkh ugha vk;kA igyh ckj fy, x;s fQaxj fizaV o QqV fizaV ?kVuk LFky ls fy, x;s fizaVksa ls blfy, esy ugha [kk;kA okfnuh i{k izHkko'kkyh gS] blfy, nqckjk fizaV ysdj iqfyl ls feydj gsjkQsjh djkuk pkgrs FksA igyh ckj ds fizsaV foospuk esa lg;ksx ds fy, iqfyl ds ikl FksA muds [kksus dh fjiksVZ nkf[ky ugha gqbZA gsjkQsjh dh otg ls fizaV nsus ls nqckjk euk fd;kA VsyhQksu foHkkx }kjk n'kkZ;s x;s okfnuh ds bVkok ds vkokl dk uEcj o fnYyh ds js[kk lsaxj dk uEcj eqdnesa dks jaxr nsus ds fy, xyr nkf[ky fd;s gSAAfter examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., opportunity was given to him to lead evidence in defence, but he neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence.We have heard Sri P.N. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Apul Mishra Advocate, appearing for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned judgment and entire evidence on record carefully.Admittedly there is no direct evidence about the incident of committing the murders of the deceased persons and bitch on the alleged date, time and place and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence.The learned trial court believing the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as mentioned in para one above.Before making comments on the testimony of prosecution witnesses,let us have a look on the legal position to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence.Let us now analyse the evidence in the background of the principles highlighted above.The learned trial court has relied upon the following circumstances and evidence to base the conviction of the appellant-accused Sunil.I. Statement of P.W.2 Km.Rekha Sengar, in which she has stated that on 02.09.2000 at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m. her mother Smt. Shashi Prabha (deceased) informed her on telephone that her brother-in-law (jeeja) Suresh Pal and his friend Sunil had come and they are demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her father and on declining to pay the money, they are quarrelling.Statement of P.W. 1 Shiv Pratap Singh, who has stated that he had seen the appellant-accused Sunil and co-accused Suresh Pal on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. knocking the door of the deceased Ran Veer Singh Sengar and calling him to open the door.In her statement, Km.Rekha Sengar has stated that on 02.09.2000 at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m., her mother Smt. Shashi Prabha had made telephone call to her in Delhi informing that her Jeeja(brother-in-law) Guddu and his friend Sunil have come and they are demanding Rs. 50,000/- and on declining to give the money, they are quarrelling.In the FIR, it is nowhere stated that Smt. Shashi Prabha had told the name of appellant Sunil on the telephone and it is only stated by Km.Rekha Sengar in her FIR that on 02.09.2000 at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m. her mother had told her on telephone that her Jeeja (brother-in-law) Guddu and his friend have come to the house and they are demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her father and on declining to pay the money by her father, they are becoming very angry.Name of the friend of Guddu is not mentioned in the FIR.Making improvement in the Trial court, P.W. 2 Km.Rekha Sengar has stated in her statement that on 02.09.2000 at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m. her mother Smt. Shashi Prabha had made a telephone call to her in Delhi from telephone No. 52177 and she had informed her that her Jeeja (brother-in-law) Suresh Pal and his friend Sunil have come and they are demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her father and on declining to pay the money, they are quarrelling.Rekha Sengar whether she had told the name of appellant Sunil to the investigating officer, but with a view to do the complete justice, exercising the power under Section 172 Cr.P.C. we ourselves have gone through the statement of Km.In parcha No. 1, the following statement is recorded in the case diary:Therefore, mentioning of the name of the appellant Sunil by P.W.2 Rekha Sengar in her statement recorded in trial court carriage no weight, being a deliberate improvement.Although on the basis of the telephone call details Ext.Ka 38 of telephone No. 52177, it is established that a telephone call was made from this telephone in Delhi on telephone No. 6853693 on 02.09.2000 at 11.28 p.m., but on the basis of the statement of P.W.2 Km.Rekha Sengar, it cannot be said to be proved that her mother had told the name of appellant Suhnil to her on the telephone, because the name of the appellant Sunil was neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the statement of Km.Therefore, no reliance can be placed on that part of the statement of Km.Rekha Sengar, in which she had stated that her mother had told the name of appellant Sunil on telephone on 02.09.2000 at about 11 or 11.30 p.m. as friend of her brother-in-law (Jeeja) Guddu @ Suresh Pal Singh.Had the name of the appellant Sunil was told to Km.Rekha Sengar on telephone by her mother, then his name ought to have been mentioned in the FIR itself or in the statement of Km.Rekha Sengar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer just after lodging of the FIR.But as we have mentioned above, it is nowhere stated either in the FIR or in the statement of Km.Rekha Sengar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased Smt. Shashi Prabha had told her the name of appellant Sunil on telephone on 02.09.2000 at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m. as now stated by Km.Therefore, in our considered opinion, this circumstance and evidence led by the prosecution in support thereof cannot be used against the appellant-accused Sunil to base his conviction for the murders of the deceased persons.On careful scrutiny of the statement of this witness, this fact is borne out that he is merely a chance witness and there was no occasion for him to know the name of the appellant-accused Sunil.In his statement P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh has stated that on 02.09.2000, he and Pushkar Singh Chauhan were going to Friends Colony Etawah through Ram Nagar Phatak (crossing) and when at about 10.30 p.m. they reached near the house of late Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar, they saw the accused Suresh Pal and Sunil (present in the court) knocking the door and calling Sri Sengar to open the door.Regarding knowing the name of the accused Sunil, he (P.W. 1) has stated that Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar had three daughters, out of whom two were married and one was unmarried and in a marriage ceremony he had participated from the side of Sri Sengar and in that marriage function, husband of Indu (deceased) also had participated.It is further stated by this witness that in that marriage function, Suresh pal, husband of Indu, had introduced Sunil as his special friend.From this statement of Shiv Pratap Singh, it seems that he had participated in the marriage ceremony of the second daughter of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar, in which co-accused Suresh Pal, husband of the deceased Indu, also had participated.While making aforesaid statement, the witness Shiv Pratap Singh was certainly not referring to the marriage of Indu, eldest daughter of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar, as it is specifically stated by him that in the marriage of the daughter of Sri Sengar in which he had participated from the side of Sri Sengar, the husband of Indu had also participated, meaning thereby that the witness Shiv Pratap Singh and husband of Indu had met in the marriage function of second daughter of Sri Sengar and in that function the co-accused Suresh Pal, husband of Indu, had introduced Sunil as his special friend.This statement made by P.W. 1 Shiv Pratap Singh is absolutely false, because out of three daughters of Sri Sengar, only Indu (deceased) was married and other two daughters including Km.Rekha Sengar were unmarried at the time of incident.In this regard, statement of Km.Rekha Sengar is relevant, in which she has specifically stated at page 54 of the paper book that they were three sisters and they had no brother.It is further stated by Km.Rekha Sengar that her sister Indu was the eldest, Been was second and she is youngest and out of three sisters, only Indu was married.When the marriage of any other daughter of Sri Sengar except Indu was not solemnized, then there was no occasion for P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh to know the name of appellant Sunil.Therefore, the statement of P.W.1 regarding knowing the name of Sunil on the basis of the introduction by co-accused Suresh Pal Singh in the marriage function of the daughter of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar is not at all worthy of reliance, because P.W.2 Km.Rekha Sengar, daughter of the deceased Ran Veer Singh Sengar, has specifically stated that her sister Indu only was married at the time of incident.Therefore, the question of the husband of Indu to take part in the marriage function of any other daughter of Sri Sengar and to introduce the appellant Sunil to P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh does not at all arise.It shows that aforesaid statement of Shiv Pratap Singh is fabricated and concocted story, which has been invented with a view to falsely implicate the appellant-accused Sunil in the alleged incident.In addition to the above mentioned falsehood in the statement of P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh, he is merely a chance witness.Admittedly the witness Shiv Pratap Singh was not residing in the mohallah where the house of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar was situated and house of this witness was situated at the distance of about 2 km. from the house of Sengar, as stated by this witness himself in his statement at page 36 of the paper book.In his examination-in-chief, P.W.1 has stated that on 02.09.2000 he was going to Friends Colony through Ram Nagar Phatak (railway crossing), but he has not stated as to why he was going there so late in the night.There was no special occasion for this witness to go to Friends Colony Etawah in the late night at about 10.30 p.m. On this basis it can very well said that P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh is got-up and chance witness.There must be some purpose for a person to go to other mohallah in the late night at about 10.30 p.m. after covering a distance of about 2 km. No person would go to other mohallah without any purpose so late in the night.The witness Shiv Pratap Singh has nowhere stated in his examination-in-chief as to why he was going to Friends Colony after covering a distance of about 2 km. from his house so late in the night.Therefore, being a got- up and chance witness also, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh.The conduct of P.W. 1 Shiv Pratpa Singh was also against human nature, as he remained silent till the evening on 03.09.2000 and did not disclose to any person that he had seen the accused Suresh Pal and Sunil on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. knocking the door of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar and calling him to open the door.Admittedly at that time S.O. P.S. Civil Lines S.I. Ran Veer Singh (P.W.7) along with police force had reached there to control the law and order situation, as stated by P.W.7 in his statement.At that time, P.W. 1 Shiv Pratap Singh did not tell S.I. Ran Veer Singh or any other person that he had seen the accused Suresh Pal Singh and Sunil knocking the door of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. This fact shows that P.W.1 had not seen the accused persons knocking the door of the deceased as alleged by him in his statement.Had P.W.1 seen the accused persons on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. knocking the door of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar and calling him to open the door, then he ought to have disclosed this fact to the police immediately after knowing about the murders of Sengar and his family members, but as told by P.W.1 in his statement, he did not disclose this fact to any person including the police personnel.P.W.1 has made following statement (page 33 of the paper book):ml jkr 10-30 cts tc eS lsaxj lkgc dk mijksDr nkekn o mldk lkFkh eq>s feys ;g ckr eSus QnZ dh fy[kk i<+h ds ckn 'kke dks ,l0 vks0 juchj flag dks crk;h FkhA mudks crkus ls iwoZ fdlh vU; dks ;g ckr crkuk mfpr ugha le>k FkkA lk;adky 7-00 cts fnukad 03-09-2000 dks ,l0vks0 lkgc dks ;g ckr crkbZ FkhAAt that time also he did not inform the investigating officer or any other police personnel that he had seen the accused persons on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. knocking the door of deceased Ranveer Singh Sengar and calling him to open the door.He remained silent till evening and he is said to have disclosed this fact for the first time at about 7.00 p.m. on 03.09.2000 at the time of recording his statement by the investigating officer.This conduct of this witness is against human nature, which shows that actually he did not see the co-accused Suresh Pal Singh and applicant Sunil at the door of the house of the deceased on the alleged dated, time and place as stated by him in his statement and false storey has been invented by the police with the help of this got-up witness.In addition to the above mentioned infirmities in the testimony of P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh, his statement does not find corroboration from any other evidence and hence on this ground also, it is not safe to place implicit reliance on his testimony.In his statement P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh has stated that on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. he was going to Friends Colony Etawah via Ram Nagar Phatak (railway crossing) along with his companion Pushkar Singh Chauhan and at that time, they had seen the accused persons standing out side the door of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar and calling him to open the door.Statement of Sri Pushkar Singh Chauhan was also recorded by the investigating officer, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, Sri Pushkar Singh Chauhan was not examined in trial court to lend support to the statement of Sri Shiv Pratap Singh.If actually both these persons had seen the co-accused Suresh Pal and the appellant-accused Sunil knocking the door of Sri Sengar on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m., then statement of Sri Pushkar Singh Chauhan might be helpful to the prosecution to corroborate the statement of P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh, but as mentioned above, Sri Chauhan has been withheld by the prosecution.The testimony of the sole witness Shiv Pratap Singh on the aforesaid fact is not worthy of credence for the reasons which we have mentioned above.Therefore, merely on the basis of the statement of P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh, it cannot said to be proved that the appellant-accused Sunil was seen on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. in the company of co-accused Suresh Pal at the door of the house of deceased Ran Veer Singh Sengar.The third circumstance, which has been relied upon against the appellant by the learned trial court is the recovery of the bag on the pointing out of the co-accused Suresh Pal on 04.09.2000, which allegedly contained some clothes etc. of the appellant Sunil.The co-accused Suresh Pal is shown to have been arrested by the police on 04.09.2000 in connection with the murders of his father-in-law Sri Ram Veer Singh Sengar and other deceased.It is said that after his arrest, the accused Suresh Pal made a confessional statement and in pursuance of that statement, a bag containing material Ext. 2 to 15 was recovered on 04.09.2000 on his pointing out in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. from a rajwaha.Ext. Ka 8 is the recovery memo of chhura and other articles, which are said to have been recovered on the pointing out of the co-accused Suresh Pal from the rajwaha.Although on the basis of the testimony of P.W. 4 Upendra Singh and P.W. 7 S.I. Ran Veer Singh, it is proved that after arrest of the co-accused Suresh Pal on 04.09.2000, a bag material Ext. 1 containing blood stained chhura material Ext. 2 and other articles material Ext. 3 to 15 was recovered from a rajwaha on his pointing out, but in our considered opinion, the evidence of recovery of all these articles, which was made pursuant to the confessional/discloser statement of co-accused Suresh Pal, cannot be used against the appellant-accused Sunil.Although the evidence of the recovery of the aforesaid articles could be relevant against the co-accused Suresh Pal under the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but we are of the considered opinion that the recovery of above mentioned articles cannot be read in evidence against the appellant-accused Sunil to establish his guilt for the murders of deceased Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar and his family members.The learned AGA could not show any authority or provision of any law, according to which the recovery made under Sections 27 of Indian Evidence Act in pursuance of the confessional/disclosure statement of co-accused, can be used against another accused.It is said that one pant, leather belt, sando baniyan, T-shirt, angocha, one purse having a currency note of Rs. 10/- and coin of 20 paise, three negatives, ten tablets and one pair of shocks, which were recovered from the bag, belong to the accused Sunil, as told by the co-accused Suresh Pal.In our considered opinion, the alleged confessional statement made by the co-accused Suresh Pal regarding aforesaid articles at the time of alleged recovery while in the custody of police is not relevant against the appellant-accused Sunil.Moreover, there is not even a iota of evidence to prove that the aforesaid articles actually belonged to the accused-appellant Sunil.The prosecution has not examined any witness to prove that these recovered articles belong to the appellant Sunil.P.W. 1 Shiv Pratap Singh is said to have seen the appellant-accused Sunil in the company of co-accused Suresh Pal on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. at door of the house of deceased persons.The prosecution by producing the pant material Ext. 3, leather belt material Ext. 4, and T-shirt material Ext. 5 before P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh at the time of his examination in trial court could prove that the accused Sunil was wearing aforesaid pant, belt and T-shirt at the time, when he was seen in the company of co-accused Suresh Pal on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. knocking the door of the deceased persons, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, these articles were not produced and shown to the witness Shiv Pratap Singh at the time of his examination in Trial court.P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh has stated in his statement at page 30 of the paper book that when he had seen the accused Sunil, then he was having one black leather bag in his hand.One bag material Ext.1 is said to have been recovered on the pointing out of the co-accused Suresh Pal on 04.09.2000 from the rajwaha.Therefore, for all these reasons the evidence of the recovery of the bag and other articles on the pointing out of the co-accused Suresh Pal is not relevant against the appellant Sunil and this evidence cannot be used against him to prove his complicity in the incident of the murders of Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar and his family members.The fourth circumstance, which has been relied upon by the learned trial court for convicting the appellant-accused Sunil for the murders of deceased persons is his refusal to give specimen palm impression in spite of the order of the court.On this basis adverse inference has been drawn by the learned trial court against the appellant.In our opinion, this circumstance alone is not sufficient to base the conviction of the appellant-accused in this case, because as mentioned above, other evidence and circumstances relied upon by the learned Trial court for convicting the appellant-accused for aforesaid murders are not worthy of reliance.From the order-sheet of S.T. No. 424 of 2000, it is seen that on 08.10.20002, both the accused were asked by the trial court to give their specimen palm impression.From the order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Etawah, it is revealed that the accused persons had declined to give their specimen palm impression.On this basis the learned Trial court had passed an order that necessary inference in this regard shall be drawn according to law.Consequently, at the time of passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has drawn adverse inference against the appellant-accused Sunil.In our opinion, drawing adverse interference and to make this circumstance as the basis of the conviction of the appellant is not justified.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant -accused Sunil has given explanation as to why he had refused to give specimen impression.We have mentioned herein-above extract of the statement of the accused-appellant Sunil recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view this explanation of the appellant for declining to give specimen palm impression, in our view, drawing the adverse inference against the appellant is not justified.Specimen of fingers and foot prints of both the accused were obtained during investigation.Various photos from some articles inside the house of deceased Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar were also taken.Those photos and specimen fingers/foot prints were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory Lucknow.This argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused is not without force.During trial, an application (paper No. 106Kha) was moved on 08.01.07 on behalf of accused Sunil through his counsel Sri D.D. Mishra, in which it is alleged that the complainant has political protection and her political leaders have approach in Central Laboratory Delhi and they can adversely affect the report, if the specimen impression are sent there for examination.It was prayed in that application that the accused is ready to give his foot and fingers print impression again on the condition that the same be sent for examination to some other laboratory and information thereof be not given to the State counsel or to the complainant counsel, so that they may not affect the report.That application was opposed by the Addl.Having regard to all these facts, in our opinion the learned trial court was not justified to draw the adverse inference against the appellant-accused Sunil due to his refusal to give specimen palm impression and to take this circumstance into consideration against the accused to base his conviction for the murders of deceased persons.Barring the above mentioned circumstance and the evidence led by the prosecution in support thereof, there is no other evidence worth relying to prove the complicity of the appellant accused Sunil in the murders of deceased persons.There was no eye-witness of the incident of these murders.The testimony of P.W.1 Shiv Pratap Singh is not worthy of credence for the reasons which we have mentioned above.He also had not seen the accused persons entering inside the house of deceased Sri Ran Veer Singh Sengar on 02.09.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. or thereafter.According to the FIR, the name of the appellant-accused Sunil was not told to the complainant Km.Rekha Sengar by her mother on telephone.In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation just after lodging the FIR, Km.Rekha Sengar did not name the appellant-accused Sunil as the friend of her brother-in-law (Jeeja) Suresh Pal @ Guddu.Hence, naming of the appellant Sunil for the first time in trial court by Km.The recovery of the bag material Ext. 1 containing blood stained chhura material Ext. 2 and other articles material Ext. 3 to 15 on the pointing out of the co-accused Suresh Pal on 04.09.2000 is not relevant against the appellant-accused Sunil and the evidence of recovery of these articles cannot be used against him for proving his complicity in the incident of these murders.Drawing adverse inference against the appellant due to his refusal to give specimen palm impression was also not justified for the reasons mentioned herein-above.Therefore, keeping all these facts in view, in our considered opinion, conviction of the appellant-accused Sunil for the offence with which he was charged is not sustainable.Consequently, both the appeals are allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,088,728 |
Heard on admssion.The applicant has challenged the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Karera, District Shivpuri, whereby the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the JMFC, Karera in criminal revision no.372/2006 was modified and the respondent nos.2 to 7 were discharged from the charge of offence under Section 458 of the IPC and trial Court was directed to frame the charge of offence under Section 452 of the IPC.The prosecution's case in short is that on 2.4.2006 at about 12:00 a.m. in the night, the victim Ranu Dubey was held by the respondent nos.2 to 7 in the market but he ran away and went inside his house and closed the doors.Thereafter, the respondent nos.2 to 7 had broken the doors and went inside the house and assaulted him.Initially, the police has registered the case for the offences under Sections 452, 327, 294, 506-B, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the incident took place in the midnight.It was not possible for him to close the doors after entering in the house and if the respondent nos.2 to 7 would have broken the doors then, the allegations made by this witness under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. should have been corroborated by other evidence.The police did not prepare any memo of damage caused to the doors.In spot map, it was not mentioned by the investigation officer that any doors was found broken.At the most, the offence under Section 452 of the IPC may constitute because the complainant could not prove that the doors were closed and the respondent nos.2 to 7 have committed an offence of house breaking.There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera.There is no reason to accept the present revision.Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant Ranu is hereby dismissed at motion stage.Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below for information.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,009,713 |
M.C. No.248/2019 Page 1 of 7 her husband (first petitioner), his mother (second petitioner), his uncle (third petitioner) and brother-in-law (fourth petitioner).The marriage ran into rough weather, the second respondent raised allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her stridhan, first information report (FIR) no.36/2018 having been registered on 19.01.2018 by police station Ranjit Nagar on her complaint involving offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the case being directed against Crl.By the said affidavit, she confirms the settlement of the dispute with the first petitioner and others, the parties having already ended their marriage by a divorce as per Muslim law on 19.12.2018, she having already withdrawn petition under Domestic Violence Act having received at that stage, Rs.5 Lakh from the first petitioner, this being the first instalment of the total amount of Rs.10 Lakhs which she has agreed to receive to forgo the cases and towards her full and final claim including on account of maintenance, dower, etc. Crl.Dasti to both sides.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 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.
|
103,010,378 |
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the Respondent-State.The petition is filed for quashing and setting aside FIR 243 of 2016 registered with Kurduwadi Police Station, Taluka-Mahad, District-Solapur at the instance of respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The subject FIR is already investigated and charge-sheet is filed in the Court N.S. Kamble page 1 of 2 33-wp-2467-2017of Competent jurisdiction.We have gone through the copy ofthe FIR annexed at Exhibit-A to the petition.The veracity of those allegations cannot be goneat this stage.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 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.
|
103,012,620 |
Mr.R.S.Kundu, Additional Standing Counsel for respondent No.1/State submits that respondent No.2 is present in the Court and she W.P.(CRL) 3567/2019 1 has been duly identified to be complainant of FIR in question on the basis of identity proof furnished by her.W.P.(CRL) 3567/2019 1Since the subject matter of the FIR in question is essentially matrimonial, which stands mutually and amicably resolved between the parties and decree of divorce has been already granted by the Family Court, no useful purpose would be served in continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR in question.In view of the above, FIR No. 623/2018, under Sections 498- A/406/377/34 IPC, registered at police station Shakar Pur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua petitioners.This petition stand disposed of accordingly.Pending application stand disposed of as infructuous.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,014,170 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.It is next submitted that co-accused, Mohd. Ameen and Mohd. Mubeen, having an identical role has already been granted bail by this Court on 8.9.2020 in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 22829 of 2020, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.The applicants have no criminal history to their credit and are languishing in jail since 21.05.2020 In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.Order Date :- 8.9.2020 Sartaj
|
['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.
|
103,014,614 |
Nobody appears for the appellant.Mrs. Khan, learned Advocate is requested to appear as Amicus Curiae in the matter.The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 17th March, 2007 and 19th March, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Trial No.6(1)/2006 (Sessions Case No.138 of 2005) convicting the appellant for 2 commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present:The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi And The Hon'ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj C.R.A. 447 of 2007 Nirmal Ch.It appears that the appellant has served out the sentence in the meantime.Hence, dispensing with the preparation of paper books, the appeal is taken up today for hearing.Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that the family of the victim was a tenant under the appellant and on 8.7.2005 while the parents of the victim were away, the appellant came to her room, bolted the room from inside and committed rape on her by pressing her mouth.On the written complaint of the father of the convict, Ranjit Sutradhar, Alipurduar Police Station Case No.133 of 2005 dated 9.7.2005 under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant.The appellant was arrested and charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri for trial and disposal.Charge was framed under Sections 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.The prosecution examined twelve witnesses in support of its case and exhibited number of documents.The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.It was the specific defence of the appellant that there was a dispute between him and the family of the victim over non-payment of rent and he was falsely implicated in the instant case.In conclusion of trial, 3 the trial court by judgement and order dated 17th March, 2007 and 19th March, 2007 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.Mrs. Khan, Amicus Curiae submitted that there was enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant over non-payment of rent.The evidence of the Doctor does not support the case of forcible rape.Hence, she prayed for acquittal of the appellant.Mr. Maiti learned Additional Public Prosecutor along with Mrs. Das appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of the victim is corroborated by other witnesses.Mere penetration without injury is sufficient to prove the offence of rape.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.The victim deposed that she was a student of Class IV at the time of occurrence.Her parents had been away.In the absence of her parents while she was playing with her younger brother, the appellant took her inside the room and bolted the door from inside.Thereafter, he misbehaved with her and she suffered irritation in her genital organs.She deposed that the appellant also touched her vagina at his penis.She identified the appellant.She made a statement before the Magistrate.The evidence of P.W.2 has been corroborated by her parents P.W.3 and P.W.5 respectively.P.W.5, her father also proved the First Information Report.He also proved the birth certificate of the victim.P.W.6, a Panchayat Member, was declared hostile.In cross-examination, he stated that there was a dispute relating to rent. 4P.W.10 examined the victim.He found the following injuries;He opined that in case of minor girl hymen may remain intact if there is only touch of penis.From the evidence on record, it appears that the version of the victim girl has been corroborated by her parents.In the light of the evidence of the Doctor it appears that there was slight penetration before ejaculation and therefore, there was no injury in her private parts.It is trite law that slight penetration is sufficient to prove rape.In view of the clear and consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I am unwilling to disbelieve the victim girl aged about 12 years on the stray statement of a hostile witness, P.W.6 that there was a rent dispute between her father and the appellant.For the aforesaid reason, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld.Accordingly, the appeal is, thus, dismissed.I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mrs. Zareen N. Khan, learned Advocate as amicus curiae in disposing of the appeal.Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (AS)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,015,113 |
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Ms.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail [a] by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.MP.No.593/2009 for the offence under section 379 IPC in Cr.No.26/2009 on the file of R-1 Mambalam Police Station; and [b] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.MP.No.2392/2012 for the offence u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.1960/2012 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station respectively.On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copies of the said bail applications in similar cases.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,813,348 |
C.R.M. 685 of 2014 In Re: Hedayatullah & Ors. ......Petitioiners.Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13-01.2014 in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No.11 dated 04.01.2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Ainul Haque............For the Petitioners.Arif Hossain............For the State.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Indira Banerjee, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,281,579 |
Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Rohit Mishra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 404 of 2019, under Sections - 302 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Khutar, District - Shahjahanpur, during pendency of trial.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:Instead of recording any statement of the applicant, who was injured person as is clear from the injury report disclosing firearm injury, the Investigating Officer has, for reasons best known to him, implicated the present applicant in the murder of his wife.Even that allegation is based on extra judicial confession before an ex- Village Pradhan namely Dr. Pradeep Shukla, who had stood trial for the murder of the applicant's grand-father.The father of the present applicant was eye-witness in that case.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,028,164 |
(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order ofdetention as against the petitioner, as the said authorityarrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenuis a Goonda and has to be detained under Section 3(1) of theTamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities ofBootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas,Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers andVideo Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).Challenging the abovesaid detention, the detenuhimself, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai, has come forward with the present Habeas CorpusPetition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for therecords pertaining to the detention order passed against himby the second respondent in proceedingsNo.335/BDFGISSV/2007, dated 16.7.2007, set aside the sameand to direct the respondents to produce him before thisCourt and to set him at liberty.The order of detention dated 16.7.2007 was passedbased on the ground case registered in Crime No.483 of 2007on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station for allegedcommission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 392 ,397, 307 and 506(2) IPC, complaint of which was lodged byone Kumaresan.According to the complainant, on 24.6.2007at 12.00 noon, while he was walking along Ambattur CTH Road,the detenu along with his associates wrongfully restrainedand threatened him by showing aruval and demanded to partwith his money and when the same was refused by thecomplainant, they assaulted him and took away Rs.2500/- cashand also two cell phones from his pocket.On hearing hue andcry of the complainant, public came to his rescue, whichwent in vain and the detenu and his associates made theirgood escape by threatening them at the point of aruval andalso pelted stones on the public, which created panic andterror situation in the area.During investigation, thedetenu was arrested and sent for judicial remand.The second respondent, taking note of the aboveground case and finding that the detenu came to the adversenotice of the authorities in five cases, two on the file ofT.3 Korattur Police Station in Crime Nos.73/2005 and 86/2005for the offence under Section 379 IPC and three on the fileof the T.1 Ambattur police station in Crime Nos.182/2006,473/2007 and 481/2007 for offences under Sections 379, 365,395 r/2 397, 392 and 506(2) IPC, having satisfied that thereis compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order toprevent him from indulging in such activities, which areprejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered hisdetention dubbing him as a Goonda.The learned counsel for the petitioner challengesthe impugned order of detention on the ground that whenthere is absolutely no material to show that the detenu hasmoved bail applications before the Court, since even in theSpecial Report submitted by the sponsoring authority it isstated that the detenu has not moved any bail applicationand he was not enlarged on bail and no bail application ispending before the Court, how could the detaining authoritywhile dealing with the real possibility of the detenu comingout on bail, able to mention that the detenu moved bailapplications and the same were dismissed and in the absenceof furnishing of copies of dismissal orders in such bailapplications, the detenu was deprived of his opportunity tomake his effective representation and hence, the order ofdetention gets vitiated.On perusal of the grounds of detention, we find thatin para 4, the detaining authority has stated that thedetenu has moved bail applications before the DistrictPrincipal Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1699/2007 for Cr.No.473/2007, 1700/2007 for 481/2007 and1697/2007 for 483/2007 respectively and they were dismissedand that no further bail application was moved.But, we areat a loss of understand as to how the detaining authoritycould able to mention those details, when there isabsolutely no corroborative material and as rightly pointedout by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even in thespecial report submitted by the sponsoring authority foundat page 100 of the paper book furnished to the detenu, it isstated that the detenu has not moved any bail applicationand he was not enlarged on bail and no bail application ispending before the Court.Hence, we are convinced thatthere is non-application of mind on the part of thedetaining authority and that the non-furnishing of thedismissal orders in the bail applications to the detenu,would obviously cause prejudice to the detenu while makinghis effective representation seeking to set aside the orderof detention.We are, therefore, inclined to allow thisHabeas Corpus Petition.In the result, the order of detention is set aside andthe Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detenu isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presenceis required in connection with any other case.sraTo:The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore Chennai.The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal Chennai.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,817,766 |
No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 09.09.2011 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Revision No. 71/2011 arising out of order dated 15.7.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia in Criminal Case No.667/2009 by which an application under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution for taking cognizance against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC was allowed.The prosecutions' story in short is that on 29.1.2009 at about 16:00, the dead body of an unknown boy aged about 18 years was found on the railway track.Information to police was given by one Ram Singh, the Gang Man, who was on patrolling.On the basis of the information given by Ram Singh, Dehati Merg Intimation was registered.The dead body was sent for postmortem.On 30.1.2009, Chandrabhan Singh, lodged a Missing Person Report in Police Station Kotwali, Daita.It was alleged that his younger brother had left the house for getting his pant darned.At the shop of Goswami, he came to know that his brother was beaten by Rinku Goswami and the applicant gave a telephonic information to the family members that Daulat Singh Dangi is sitting in his shop.After getting 2 MCRC No.6727/2011 information from his family members, he immediately went to the shop of Goswamiji, where he was informed that his brother has already left.On 29.1.2009 at about 4:00 PM the dead body of an unknown person was noticed by one Ram Singh, Gang Man working in Railway Department while he was on patrolling.4 MCRC No.6727/2011He immediately informed ASI who found that the dead body is lying on the railway track.Naksha Panchnama was prepared.As the body was unidentified therefore the clothes of the deceased which were found at about a distance of 100 meters from the place where the dead body was found were seized.After getting the postmortem done, the dead body was buried.On 30.1.2009 Chandrabhan Singh made a written report to the police alleging that on 29.1.2009 at about 11:00 AM his younger brother Daulat Singh Dangi had left the house at 11:00 in the afternoon for getting his pant darned jQw After sometime, he came to know that his younger brother has been beaten by the co-accused Rinku Goswami and the applicant had given an information on phone in his house that Daulat Singh Dangi is sitting on his shop.The said telephonic message was communicated by the members of his family to him and when he went to the shop of the applicant, then he was told that his brother had already left.Search was made for his younger brother at bus station and railway station etc. but whereabouts could not be known, therefore, a Gum Insan Report was made.On 31.1.2009, an application was made by one Virendra Singh that the clothes and the shoes which were seized by the police from the spot are that of his nephew Daulat Singh Dangi and, therefore, the dead body may be handed over to him after digging out the same.On 1.2.2009 the dead body was digged out and the same was identified by Virendra Singh and Chandrabhan Singh on the basis of body built up.The statements of the 5 MCRC No.6727/2011 witnesses were recorded.5 MCRC No.6727/2011The bones of the dead body were sent for DNA test along with blood sample of Malkhan Singh and Rajeshwari Devi parents of the deceased.As per the DNA test report, the dead body was of the biological son of Malkhan Singh and Rajeshwari Devi.Thus the prosecution succeeded in proving that the dead body which was recovered from the railway track on 29.1.2009 was that of Daulat Singh Dangi.During investigation the police recorded the statements of Virendra Singh who stated that he is working on the post of teacher in Government Secondary School, Visalpura.On 29.1.2009 while was on his duty, at about 12:30 in the afternoon, he received a telephonic call on his mobile from his village Khiriya Dhabu.The said call was of his elder brother who informed that the applicant has informed him on telephone that Daulat Singh Dangi is sitting in his shop and he had teased a girl of their family and, therefore, he has been beaten.Virendra Singh in his turn informed his nephew to go to the shop of Manoj.At about 3:00 PM while he was going to the shop of the applicant, he met with his nephew Chandrabhan Singh.They jointly went to the shop of Manoj Goswami (applicant) where the shopkeepers informed that the co-accused Rinku and the applicant have beaten one boy and both of them i.e. co-accused Rinku and the applicant had taken the boy on their motorcycle.They searched for Daulat Singh Dangi and ultimately on 30.1.2009 at about 2:30 in the afternoon a Gum Insan report was lodged.At about 5:00-6:00 PM the applicant called this witness and extended the threat as they have lodged a report against the applicant, therefore, 6 MCRC No.6727/2011 now he would lodge a report against this witness.On 31.1.2009 while they were searching for Daulat Singh Dangi, his brother Rajendra Singh Dangi informed that a dead body has been recovered from the Railway track.The clothes of the dead body were shown by ASI which were identified by this witness.The dead body was later on digged out after obtaining due permission from the Executive Magistrate and the same was identified.One Kishore Dangi and Balbir Dangi who are known to this witness have informed that on 29.1.2009 they had seen the applicant and the co-accused putting the body of the deceased on the railway track as a result of which this witness has full confidence that after killing the deceased, the dead body was thrown on the Railway track.6 MCRC No.6727/2011Thereafter, they searched for Daulat Singh Dangi at various places, however, his whereabouts could not be known.Therefore, a Missing Person Report was lodged.Later on, Virendra Singh identified the shoes, clothes belonging to the deceased as that of his nephew Daulat Singh (deceased).At the request of Virendra Singh the dead body was digged out.Thereafter Chandrabhan Singh identified the dead body as that of his brother Daulat Singh.DNA test of the dead body was also got conducted and according to DNA test report the deceased Daulat Singh was Biological son of Malkhan and Rajeshwari.2 MCRC No.6727/2011After conducting the Merg Enquiry a FIR was registered against co-accused Rinku Goswami and the applicant.It was found that the deceased had committed suicide by jumping in front of running train.Charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was filed against co-accused Rinku Goswami on the ground that the deceased has committed suicide because of the beating given by co-accused Rinku Goswami.No charge sheet was filed against the present applicant on the ground that he was not present on the spot at the time of alleged beating.An application was filed before the Court of Magistrate under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., praying that the cognizance against the present applicant be also taken for offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC.However, the said application was rejected on the ground that as the offence is triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the application is not 3 MCRC No.6727/2011 maintainable.A criminal revision was filed which was allowed and the matter was remanded back for decision afresh on the application under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.3 MCRC No.6727/2011By order dated 15.7.2011 the Magistrate took cognizance against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC.The said order was challenged before the Revisional Court.The Revisional Court dismissed the revision.Being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC would be made out.Balbir Singh had also stated that while he was going towards the Pagdandi Gadariya Chowki he found that the applicant and co-accused Rinku were putting the dead body of a boy aged about 17 years on the Railway track and thereafter this witness went away from the spot.Ram Kishore has stated that on 29.1.2009 he had seen that the applicant and co-accused Rinku Goswami were taking the deceased Daulat Singh Dangi on their motorcycle.Akhilesh Gupta has stated that on 29.1.2009 at about 7 MCRC No.6727/2011 12:30 in the afternoon one boy had given a letter to the daughter of Kamlesh who is aged about 12 years.After hearing the shouts of the girl the shopkeepers came there and caught hold the boy.On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Daulat Singh Dangi.When they saw the letter they found that it was a love letter.All the shopkeepers scolded Daulat Singh Dangi and enquired about the phone number of his house and thereafter somebody made a telephonic call to his family members.After sometime the brother of Daulat Singh Dangi namely Chandrabhan Dangi came there along with two friends and when he was informed by the shopkeepers about the fact of giving of a love letter to the girl then Daulat Singh Dangi was also scolded by Chandrabhan Dangi and he took away Daulat Singh along with him.The statement of Rajesh Raikwar, Ashok Sahu and Sanjay Gupta are also to the same effect.7 MCRC No.6727/2011Chandrabhan Singh had stated that he is a student of B.Sc.IIIrd Year and his younger brother Daulat Singh Dangi is a student of Class 11th.On 29.1.2009 at about 11:00 AM, Daulat Singh had left the house for getting his pant darned jQw.He received a phone of his grandfather Surat Singh who informed that the applicant has informed that Daulat Singh is sitting in his shop and this witness was asked to go and check the situation.This witness along with his relatives Rohit Dangi and Sanjeev went to the shop of the applicant where he came to know that the co-accused Rinku Goswami had beaten Daulat Singh.The shopkeepers told him that Daulat Singh has already left the shop.8 MCRC No.6727/2011He identified the clothes and after the dead body was digged out, the same was identified by Virendra Singh.The statements of Rohit Dangi and Sanjeev are also to the same effect.Marut Nandan Upadhyay has stated that on 29.1.2009 at about 3:30 he had suffered a gunshot in the village Suketa and he gave this information to the applicant on his mobile.The applicant was in Jhansi at the relevant time.He made all the necessary arrangements in the hospital for the treatment of this witness and on the next day the applicant had also visited the hospital at Jhansi.Lakhan Singh Yadav has stated that on 29.1.2009 he had gone to Jhansi along with the applicant.20. Munna Khan and Jaswant Singh have stated that they had seen one boy committing suicide, by jumping in front of running train.Thus, from the appreciation of the evidence which has been collected by the police during investigation it appears that the deceased Daulat Singh Dangi had given a love letter to the daughter of Kamlesh and on alarm being raised by the girl, the deceased was scolded by the shopkeepers and thereafter the deceased committed suicide by jumping in front of running train.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance.It appears that the deceased was afraid of his family members because a complaint was already made to his family members about the conduct of the deceased of handing over a love letter to a girl.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,028,204 |
JUDGMENT S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 19-3-1973 acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them.The respondents were convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code and also other sections of I.P.C. As the Sessions Judge had sentenced Brahmdeo Prasad and Had Lal Prasad to death, a reference was made to the High Court for the confirmation of the sentence of death.Mr. D.P. Singh, Counsel appearing for the State took us through the judgment of the High Court as also to the evidence of the main identifying witnesses.The High Court has detailed the infirmities which were found in the identification of the accused and has acquitted the respondents mainly on the ground that the identification of the accused was not free from doubt.Admittedly the occurrence took place during night and all the identifying witnesses appeared to have seen the accused from quite a long distance.Some of item did not know the accused and identified them in the Court for the first time.Other witnesses who know the accused did not disclose their names before the S.D.O at the first opportunity.There were other set of witnesses who failed to identify the respondent at a T I. Parade and identified them for the first time by face in the Court.The High Court has in a very scientific fashion categories to the identification of witnesses and given cogent reasons for not setting upon the identification of witnesses.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,827,661 |
hy Shri Ram Kripal Sharma, counsel for the objector.ad Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the M petitioner Golu Rathore in crime no.370/2017 of registered by P.S.-Kamla Nagar, District-Bhopal under Sections 294, 323, 324, 327 and 506 read with Section 34 of the rt IPC.ou As per the prosecution case, at about 11:25 p.m. on C 08.06.2017, petitioner Golu Auto Wala told victim h Mayank Padolay that one Umesh was calling him.ig Thereafter, in front of Baaglay Kirana Shop, Umesh H asked the victim and his companions as to where were they going? Thereafter, co-accused persons Umesh and Bunty asked Rs.500/- from the victim.When the victim refused, they filthily abused him and insisted on payment of money.They started to beat victim Mayank with belt, fisticuffs and kicks.When Virendra and Pranay interceded on behalf of the victim, the accused persons also beat him.Petitioner Golu pulled out his waist belt and hit victim Virendra Sharma with the same, as a result, the pinna of his ears got injured and he suffered partial loss of hearing.sh Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the victims have suffered any bony injury.Allegation with e regard to demand for money is concocted.Therefore, it has Pr been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State a hy as well as learned counsel for the objector have opposed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner ad has criminal antecedents and there are as many as 9 M criminal cases registered against him.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,028,297 |
This is second round of hearing.Prosecutrix is minor, when she complained of regarding her health, she was taken to Government Hospital at Bhopal, where it was found that she is pregnant, then she revealed to the concerned doctor and other persons about the offence of rape committed over her.Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 18/03/2019 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior; whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.Looking to the period of custody of appellant, he may be released on bail.Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed.On the basis of such allegation as crept in the appeal, therefore, he may be released on bail.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,832,010 |
He had stated that he resides in Mangol Puri and is employed as a Field Executive in Apeksha International Footwear, Udyog Nagar, Delhi.He stated that on 26.12.2018 at about 02:15 pm, he had come on his motorcycle to ICICI Bank, Lawrence Road for remitting money through RTGS.He stated that after doing so, he left the bank to go to his office on his motorcycle.He stated that as he reached the underpass of Lawrence Road, two boys came on a motorcycle and hit his motorcycle by their motorcycle.The person, who was sitting pillion, took out a pistol in his left hand and showed it to him.He threatened the complainant that he would shoot him if he did not hand over his bag.The complainant stated that under the threat he handed over his bag, which contained a laptop, to the boy who was holding a pistol in his hand.He described the age of that boy to be about 25 to 30 years.He stated that his bag contained his duplicate driving license, original RC of his motorcycle, four ATM cards, passbook of SBI Bank, one mobile phone (Black coloured Nokia having no SIM), keys to his house, some blank cheques and cash of about 2,500/-.The complainant stated that when the boys were about to leave, he asked them to return the bag and told them there was nothing in it.The said boys told him not to follow them otherwise they would shoot him.Signing Date:19.09.2020 CRL.P. 283/2020 Page 2 of 1321:51:17 person riding a scooter came to his aid and the boy who had a pistol in his hand asked him to run away from the spot.However, the scooter rider did not comply.The IO then proceeded to the given address and apprehended one boy named Mithun.On interrogation he stated that he had three other accomplices, namely, Sonu, Sagar @ Rahul and Tinka @ Sumit (the petitioner herein) who were also involved in the said incident.The disclosure statement of Mithun was also recorded.He stated that he was married five years ago and he has a daughter aged about four years.He stated that he was on temporary duty with MCD and he is engaged in cleaning work.He stated that his salary is about 12,000/-.He had also subscribed to two chit funds and he was required to pay monthly installments of 10,000/- and 8,000/- respectively.He stated that he could not meet his ends on his salary Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location:Signing Date:19.09.2020 CRL.P. 283/2020 Page 3 of 1321:51:17 and was in perpetual need of money.He stated that he fulfils his needs by either borrowing or by committing petty offences.He further stated that he was friends with Sagar @ Rahul, Sonu and Tinka @ Sumit (petitioner) since the past ten years and they are also residents of JJ Colony, Wazirpur.He stated that all of them met in the morning on 26.11.2018 to make a plan for committing a robbery (loot paat).According to their plan, he and Tinka (the petitioner) would position themselves near Lawrence Road, Branch of ICICI Bank and they would look out for any person who would exit the bank with money.They would then indicate the same to Rahul and Sonu who would then rob that person of his money.He stated that Sonu also possessed a pistol (katta) which could be used to scare the victim.He stated that on the date of the incident, they were on two motorcycles.The petitioner was riding one motorcycle and he was riding pillion.The second motorcycle was being ridden by Rahul @ Sagar and Sonu was riding pillion with him.He stated that he and Tinka had positioned their motorcycle at the beginning of the underpass, while Rahul and Sonu positioned themselves at some distance behind.At about 02:15 pm, one person exited ICICI Bank with a bag and he gave an indication to Sonu and Rahul who were also positioned on a motorcycle at some distance away.He stated that Rahul and Sonu came on their motorcycle from behind and rammed into the motorcycle being driven by the complainant.Sonu who was riding pillion snatched the complainant's bag by threatening him with the katta.However, the victim had raised Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location:P. 283/2020 Page 4 of 13One person riding the scooter was passing by and he turned his scooter towards Sonu.He stated that Sonu became anxious (ghabra gaya) and in his anxiety pointed the katta towards that person and fired.The bullet struck the scooter rider and all of them (Mithun, Sonu, Tinka and Rahul) fled from the spot.He stated that as per the plan they all met near Mukundpur Chowk.The petitioner was already present at the spot.He stated that all the boys were scared because of the incident of firing and, therefore, they did not go back home.They checked into a hotel (Blue Diamond Hotel, Shah Alam Bandh Road).He stated that on examining the bag they had found 2,500/- which he removed from the bag and threw the bag near Punjabi Bagh.He also confirmed that in accordance with their plan, they all met at Mukundpur and he handed over the katta to Tinka (the petitioner herein).Sonu also disclosed that about twenty-twenty five days prior to the said incident that he along with Tinka, Rahul @ Sagar and one Neeraj had robbed 20,000/- from a shop on a gunpoint.Sonu stated that he knew the usual haunts of Tinka and he could assist in apprehending him.The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts in FIR no. 563/2018 under Sections 392/397/302/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered with PS Keshav Puram.The court had, accordingly, framed charges against the petitioner for committing the said offences.Mr Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is palpably erroneous as there are no grounds Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location:Signing Date:19.09.2020 CRL.P. 283/2020 Page 1 of 1321:51:17 to charge the petitioner for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/34 of the IPC or Sections 302/34 of the IPC.The FIR in question was registered on a statement made by one Mukesh Kumar (hereinafter the complainant).He stated that he raised an alarm and started running behind the two boys.In the meantime, one Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location:At that stage, the person who had a pistol in his hand, fired upon the said scooter rider and both the boys fled on their motorcycle along with the complainant's bag.The complainant stated that he called PCR and the PCR van took the injured (the scooter rider who had come to the aid of the complainant) to the hospital.The said scooter rider was identified as Vinod Kumar Garg.He was declared brought dead by the hospital.It is the case of the prosecution that the IO received secret information that one of the boys, who had given effect to the incident of murder and robbery at Lawrence Road Underpass, was present in a house at JJ Colony, Wazirpur.21:51:17 an alarm.He stated that the bag that was snatched by Sonu contained only 2500/- which were spent on paying the hotel bill and for their boarding (khane peene me).Subsequently, Rahul and Sonu were also apprehended and their disclosure statements were also recorded.Sonu also narrated the manner in which the said robbery was effected.A final Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location:Signing Date:19.09.2020 CRL.P. 283/2020 Page 5 of 13PC (Chargesheet) was filed against the accused Sonu, Mithun, Uma and Sagar @ Rahul.The petitioner was not apprehended at the material time and, therefore, a supplementary chargesheet was filed subsequently.The learned ASJ heard arguments on Order on Charge and by an order dated 02.08.2019 directed that charges under Sections 392/397/34 IPC and Sections 302/34 IPC be framed against Sonu.Charges under Sections 392/34 IPC and 302/34 IPC be framed against Sagar @ Rahul.Charge under Section 212 IPC was framed against Uma.The accused Mithun was discharged as it was found that there was no evidence against him except CDR call records which established that he was at the vicinity of the incident at the material time.However, the call records indicated that he had not made any calls on the phones used by the other accused.The learned ASJ was of the view that sufficient material was not available on record to proceed against accused Mithun.The petitioner also made a disclosure and his statement was recorded.In his disclosure statement, the petitioner stated that Sonu had handed over the katta to him at Mukundpur Chowk and he had buried the same in the bushes near his house.He disclosed that he had stolen the motorcycle from Jahangir Puri.The disclosure statement was recorded Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location:Signing Date:19.09.2020 CRL.P. 283/2020 Page 6 of 13It is alleged that at the instance of the petitioner, the pistol (katta) used in commission of the offence was recovered.It is further stated that the report received from FSL has confirmed that the said shell which was recovered from the site of the incident was fired from the same pistol that was recovered at the instance of the petitioner.Thus, according to the prosecution, it is established that the pistol recovered at the instance of the petitioner was the weapon that was used in committing the offence and the petitioner was in possession of the same.Mr Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner and his three accomplices had used two motorcycles.While the petitioner was riding one motorcycle with the accused Mithun sitting pillion, the other motorcycle was ridden by Rahul @ Sagar and, Sonu was riding pillion.He submitted that the offence of snatching the bag from the complainant and firing on the deceased was done by Sonu along with Rahul @ Sagar.He submitted that the petitioner and the accused Mithun were not involved in the incident and there was no material to proceed against them and, therefore, the learned ASJ had discharged the accused Mithun and even the prosecution did not appeal against the said decision.In view of the above, there were no grounds to proceed against the petitioner as well.He contended that the charge of committing an offence under Sections 392/34 and 302/34 IPC could Signature Not Verified Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Location:Signing Date:19.09.2020 CRL.P. 283/2020 Page 7 of 1321:51:17 not be framed against the petitioner and at the most a charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act could be framed on the basis of the alleged recovery of the weapon.However, since the petitioner was not riding along with Rahul @ Sagar and Sonu, the charges for committing an offence under Section 392/34 and Section 302/34 IPC were not sustainable.Mr Tyagi also referred to certain photographs filed along with the present petition in support of his contention.The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,838,618 |
The petitioners, who are facing their trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Court, Katwa in connection with G.R. Case No.212 of 2007 on a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 IPC, have now come up before this Court seeking transfer of the said trial from the court, where it is now pending, to any other competent court within the sub-Division of Krishnanagar Sadar.The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the entire cause of action arose within the 2 territorial limit of Krishnanagar Sadar, where the matrimonial home of the de facto complainant is situated.He further submitted that to create a jurisdiction, so far as the court, where the case is now pending, the de facto complainant made some false allegations.He further submitted that both the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the parents-in-law of the de facto complainant, are petty old persons and they are suffering from various diseases and if they are now to travel all the way from Krishnanagar, where they are presently residing to Katwa, where the case is now pending, they have to suffer extreme inconvenience and immense hardship.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,917,062 |
CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 1 of 11The allegation in the FIR is that on 19.04.2010, injured Dharmesh was going to attend the ring ceremony of his sister with his friend.It is stated that on the way when they reached in front of House No.I-58, Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi, the accused Parmod, Seema, Harpal, Suresh and Ashok pulled him into the house No.I-58 and started beating him with hockey, wooden sticks and bat.After beating the victim they threw the victim in a vacant plot.The injured/victim was taken to the hospital.Police came to record the statement of the injured/victim, and he identified the petitioner herein.i. PW-l (Dharmesh) is the injured/victim.PW-2 is the father of the injured.He stated that he received information from SGM Hospital that Police brought his son to the hospital and he has been badly beaten up.PW-7 Retired SI Rameshwar Dass has deposed that on 19.04.2010, at about 09:25 P.M, he received DD No.35A for investigation which was regarding quarrel.He went to the spot i.e. I-58, Adhyapak Nagar, Near Chand Pradhan Chowk, Nangloi where he came to know that the victim has been admitted to SGM Hospital.He deposed that no eye-witness was found by him.He went to SGM Hospital and came to know that injured Dharmesh has been admitted to the hospital and is unfit for statement.PW-8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra was examined to prove and exhibit his opinion on MLC.PW-9 SI Dinesh Chandra deposed that on 30.10.2010, after registration of FIR, further investigation was handed over to him by the order of the then SHO.On 31.10.2010, he went to the house of complainant/Ashok Kumar and made inquiry from him.He states that at that time, injured/victim namely Dharmesh was not at home.He recorded the statement of complainant Ashok Kumar.On 20.12.2010, he collected the opinion on the MLC of Victim/injured Dharmesh regarding the name of injury from the concerned doctor.After going through the MLC on which the doctor stated that the injuries were grievous he added section 325 IPC.He enquired the victim/injured Dharmesh, recorded his statement and prepared the site plan.On 26.02.2011, he arrested accused Pramod, Seema and Harpal Singh (now deceased) and prepared their arrest memos.This revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 09.10.2018, passed by the Additional Session Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.77/2017 where by the Additional Session Judge has confirmed the judgment dated 17.12.2016, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, convicting the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 342, 325 and 34 IPC.By order dated 20.02.2017, the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.They were also directed to deposit compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rs.50,000/-each ) to be paid to the injured/complainant.In default, the accused have to undergo CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 1 of 11 simple imprisonment for three months.Harpal passed away during the course of the investigation itself and the other two accused namely Suresh and Ashok could not be identified and therefore were not taken into custody.Proceedings were initiated against the accused.In order to prove the guilt, prosecution examined 9 witnesses.PW-3 Head Constable Somveer was examined to prove the FIR.PW-4 Constable Kuldeep was examined to prove the arrest memo of the accused.vi. PW-6 Dr. Vijay was examined to prove the discharge summary as well as the MRI report.CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 2 of 11As the offences under investigation were CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 3 of 11 bailable, the accused were released on bail.He recorded the statement of Constable Kuldeep and examined Shashi (the sister of the victim) and recorded her statement.He states that he could not find out the two other accused persons viz. Suresh and Ashok.He states that after the completion of investigation, charge-sheet was prepared and filed in the court.CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 3 of 11After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were taken and they denied all the allegations and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.Accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defence.Accused Seema got herself examined as DW-l.In her defence she stated that the victim/Dharmesh had entered into her house on 29.03.2010 and caught hold her hand and started misbehaving with her.She also stated that the victim/Dharmesh slapped her and he also hit her on her head with brick.She stated that an FIR bearing No.68/2010, dated 13.04.2010, under Sections 323/354/506/504/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar against the victim/Dharmesh.She also stated that the statement of the victim was recorded.She also stated that on the fateful day i.e. 19.04.2010, Dharmesh came to the house of the accused.It is stated that the accused Seema gave a call to the Police and called beat officer Suresh and when the beat officer reached the spot and asked Dharmesh to accompany him to the Police Station, victim/Dharmesh started running to the rear portion of the street which was closed where there was a boundary wall.She stated that Dharmesh tried to flee from the spot by jumping the wall, but fell down as he was drunk.She states that people gathered at that place and someone CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 4 of 11 called Police.CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 4 of 11The Trial Court found that the testimony of PW-1/victim Dharmesh was reliable and trustworthy, even though weapons had not been recovered.The injuries inflicted on the victim were grievous in nature.The Trial Court did not believe the statement of the accused Seema.The Trial Court found that the testimony of DW-1/Seema is uncorroborated.The trial Court therefore held that the petitioners herein are guilty under Section 342, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.They were directed to deposit compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- each) within 30 days from the date of the Order, to be paid to the injured/victim Dharmesh.In default, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The appellate Court after going through the material on record upheld the judgment of the Trial Court.The appellate Court also found that the defence taken by the appellants is a sham defence.9. Heard Mr. Navjot Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Kusum Dhall, learned APP appearing for the State.Mr. Navjot Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the injuries sustained by the victim are not corroborated by the statement made by the accused.He contends that the MLC of the victim would show that the victim had only suffered injuries on his face.He states that it is the version of the victim that he was beaten by five persons armed with bats, sticks, etc. and it is not possible that all these injuries would only be inflicted on the face of the victim and not on the entire body.He would therefore CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 5 of 11 state that the story of the victim is completely false.He states that the version of DW-1 that Dharmesh had come to the house of the accused on 19.04.2010 and then the accused called the beat Officer, on seeing the beat officer Dharmesh fled from the spot and in an attempt to climb the wall, since he was drunk, fell flat on his face and therefore suffered injuries on his face is more probable.CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 5 of 11Mr. Navjot Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the FIR No. 68/2010, dated 13.04.2010, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar for offences under Sections 323, 354, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.He would contend that the victim/Dharmesh used to tease accused Seema.Mr. Navjot Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the final report filed in the FIR No.227/2010, and he would rely on the statement of the IO in the present proceedings which is recorded in the charge-sheet.The relevant portion on which reliance is placed reads as under:He further submits that after receiving the call the police party reached at spot and on seeing the police Dharmesh tried to flee away from the spot and as he was already drunken state.He fell down when a cot came in his way CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 6 of 11 and collided with wall and sustained some injuries on his person.He futher submits that he has recorded the statement of eye-witnesses and they have not supported the version of the complainant."CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 6 of 11Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State states that the scope of High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.She would state that both the courts below have found the evidence of the injured complainant as trust worthy.The High Court also committed further error in not examining several items of evidence relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction of the respondent.In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law and we, accordingly, set aside the same.The conviction and sentence of the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is confirmed.This appeal is allowed.The respondent must surrender to serve the sentence."CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 8 of 11(emphasis supplied)The arguments of Mr. Navjot Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that on the fateful day the victim had come to the house of the accused and when the accused called the Police, Constable Suresh came to the site and on seeing him the victim, who was drunk, fled and in an attempt to cross a wall, fell down on his face and thereby sustaining injuries only on face, cannot be accepted at this juncture because nothing prevented the petitioners to move an application to summon Constable Suresh to examine him.The deposition of Dharmesh, who was examined as PW-1 has been found to be trustworthy and reliable by the two courts.The judgment dated 09.10.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.77/2017 is sustained.The accused are husband and wife.CRL.REV.P. 913/2018 Page 10 of 11Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of in the above mentioned terms.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,918,503 |
Briefly stated, the prosecution's case is that on 7 th March, 2001, at about 4:20 am, police was informed through a PCR call that someone had thrown a body in Ghungroo wali Gali, Ramesh Nagar and this information was recorded in DD No. 30A (Ex. PW-5/A).Upon receiving this information, the investigating officer - Inspector Babu Lal (PW-16) reached the spot and found that the dead body of Bhupender Singh was lying outside the gate of House No. 97A, Single storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (house of the deceased) and the deceased had several injury marks on his body.1. Accused used to reside in H. No. 97A Single Storey Ramesh Nagar, Delhi with his father, mother and younger sister.There are two bedrooms in the house, one was used by the deceased and the other by the accused and other members of the family.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 2 of 33In the bedrooms of the deceased blood spots were found on walls, doors and some portion of the floor.Blood stained pair of shoes and handkerchief were recovered from the said room.Deceased was an alcoholic who used to quarrel with his wife, members of the locality and used to borrow money for liquor and never returned the same, thereby eye-brows were raised against the deceased and his family members, which gave motive to the accused to commit ghastly crime.Dead body of deceased was found lying outside the house with a trail of blood thereby suggesting that his dead body was dragged upto that spot.A telephone call was given to PCR in order to pass off that someone had murdered the deceased and thrown his dead body there.Accused made a disclosure statement and got recovered cot-arm and cable wire from sun-shed of the said house.Cot-arm was having blood over it.Accused got recovered clothes from central verge of Najafgarh Road which were stained with blood.Autopsy surgeon opined that cot-arm could have been used in causing injury on the person of the deceased, including the fatal blow.Autopsy report opined that death of deceased was caused on account of head injury.Cable wire recovered at the instance of the accused could have been used to cause ligature mark present over the dead body, opines autopsy surgeon.Blood sample and clothes of the deceased were seized.Plaster was broken from walls, seized and sent to FSL.Blood sample and clothes of the deceased were having blood of human origin and of AB Group.Clothes recovered from central verge Najafgarh Road near Basaidarapur at the instance of the accused were having blood of human origin and of AB Group.The maximum width .5 cm.It is deficient on posterior and right posteriro lateral aspect of neck.Dissection under the ligature mark.No corresponding bruise under the skin and subcutanous space.Sternocladomastoid muscle.Hhoid bone cricoid cartilage thyroid cartilage and tracheal rings are normal and intact.The jugular and carotid vessels are normal and intact.The information regarding the present case had been received through a PCR call which was recorded vide DD No. 30A (Ex. PW-5/A).Thereafter, the investigating officer-Inspector Babu Lal (PW-16) had reached the spot.On 7-3-2001 I was posted at P.S. Kirti Nagar as S.H.O. On that day after receiving D.D.No.30A by ASI Maharaj Singh I was also informed I went to place of incident 97A, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar.I found one dead body of a Sikh male person whose name revealed later on Bhupinder Singh aged about 52 years was lying in front of door of H.No.97A. I inspected the place of incident.The blood was coming out of the dead body.No eye witness met me there........ I inspected the house of the deceased i.e. place of incident and I found the floor of the house clean, but I noticed blood on the walls and doors of the room of the house in which deceased used to sleep.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 11 of 33Accused met me there and I interrogated him and during interrogation he disclosed about the commission of the offence and I arrested accused present in the court............The accused took us to the Chhajli' of his house and got recovered one blood stained cot piece (Sheru).The length of the cot piece was 3'3 and the same was sealed in pullanda with seal of BL and accused also got recovered cable wire of black colour.On which Kent Cable was written.The cable wire was also sealed with the same seal and both these articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/B and accused also signed the same at point A'.The accused took us into the house and got recovered his pant having blood stains under the almirah and the paint was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of BL and was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C and accused also signed the same at point A'.After that accused took us to another room where the incident had allegedly committed and then I took blood stained plaster, blood stained floor and blood stained doors and cable wire fixed with T.V. From that wire the other wire was cut by accused and blood stained shoes and one handkerchief and these articles were sealed in pullandas with seal of BL and were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/D..... (emphasis supplied)Blood could not be detected on exhibits 3', 7b', 10' and 11e'.Report of serological analysis in original is attached herewith.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 19 of 33 wire had been recovered after he had prepared the said site plan.The scaled site plan (Ex. PW-11/A) that was prepared subsequent to the recoveries shows the presence of these weapons i.e. wooden cot piece and cable wire........After that accused led us to Najafgarh Rod, Central Verge opposite Yateen Motors, Basai Dara Pur and got recovered one pullanda of clothes which was concealed by him under the tree of Kaner.The pullanda was opened and it was found to contain one piece of bed sheet having blood stains of orange colour designdar, one piece of another bed sheet blood stains of black and yellow colour, one shirt having blood stains of black and white checkdar and one shirt of blue check having blood stains, one shirt of blue check having blood stains, one underwear and CRL.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 21 of 33 one piece of cloth of blue colour blood stained.All these clothes were put in a gunny bag and were sealed with seal of BL and were seized vide memo Ex.Exhibit 11e' : One bluish shirt.Exhibit 11f' : One bluish shirt having brown stains.Exhibit 11g' : Blue cloth piece having brownish stains.Blood could not be detected on exhibits 3', 7b', 10' and 11e'.3.Report of serological analysis in original is attached herewith.xxx xxx xxx xxx (DR.DHRUW SHARMA) Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi Cum Ex Officio Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (emphasis supplied) B. FSL Report Ex. PW-15/B FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY GOVT.MANMOHAN, J:Present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict challenging the judgment dated 11th December, 2003 and the order on sentence dated 19th December, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 82/2003 arising out of FIR No. 120/2001 registered with Police Station Kirti Nagar, whereby he had been convicted under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 1 of 33CASE OF THE PROSECUTIONThe investigating officer - Inspector Babu Lal (PW-16) examined the house of the deceased and he observed that the floor had been cleaned.Upon suspicion, he questioned the son of the deceased i.e. appellant-convict, who made a disclosure statement.The Trial Court had framed charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC against the appellant-convict.FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURTThe Trial Court after a full trial held the appellant-convict guilty.To sum up, prosecution could bring the following circumstances against the accused :-Cement plaster piece seized from wall of the deceased was having blood of human origin and of AB Group.Cot arm was having blood over it of human origin.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 3 of 33Cable wire recovered from sun-shed as well as seized from the bedroom of the deceased were of similar texture, design, diameter and markings etc. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxIn order to cause disappearance of evidence of murder, the accused had cleaned floor of the room and had thrown the dead body of his father outside the house.It was so done by him intentionally in order to screen himself from the offence of murder.Telephone call was given to PCR to pass of that his father was murdered by someone and had thrown his dead body outside the house.All these instances are sufficient to conclude that the accused caused disappearance of evidence and sent wrong information to police control room in order to screen himself from punishment.Therefore, it is clear that he has also committed an offence of causing disappearance of evidence of murder.The circumstances brought over the record are sufficient to announce facts in favour of the prosecution.Accused has failed to raise even an iota of doubt in the case, not to talk of explaining the circumstances brought over the record.Therefore, the accused is held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under section 302 and 201 of the Penal Code.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICTMr. Mukesh Kalia, learned counsel for the appellant-convict stated that in the present case there were two sets of recoveries i.e. one made from the place of incident and the other made from Najafgarh road.He contended that the first set of recoveries was doubtful inasmuch as the only independent witness to those recoveries namely Surjeet Singh (PW-2) had not supported the case of the prosecution.He pointed out that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. recovered wooden cot piece and the cable wire were not shown in the site plan made by the investigating officer (Ex. PW-16/D).A. Nos.69/2004 Page 4 of 33Learned counsel for the appellant-convict further contended that the second set of recoveries (from the Najafgarh road) was made from a public place which was accessible to all and further, no public person had been made a witness to the said recoveries.He submitted that since the aforesaid fact (i.e. the nature of injuries) had not been established, the essential ingredient of Section 302 of IPC was not fulfilled and at best, the present case would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC.Learned counsel for the appellant-convict contended that there was no evidence on record to attribute any motive to the appellant-convict.He stated that the only evidence regarding an alleged motive was the disclosure statement of the appellant-convict but the same was not admissible in law and therefore, cannot be relied upon.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 5 of 33He pointed out that the mother of the appellant-convict as well as the younger sister were living in the same house as the appellant-convict yet neither of them had been examined by the prosecution.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATEPer contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, stated that as per the post mortem report of the deceased (Ex. PW-1/A), there were seven injuries on his body and the time since death was about one and a half days which comes out to be early morning of 7th March, 2001 and the doctor had opined Death due to head injury.SCHEDULE OF OBSERVATION A-GENERALName Sardar Bhupinder Singh S/o Gurbux Singh Age 52 yrs Sex MAddress R/o 97A, Single Storey, Ramesh NagarHeight 5'7 Weight -- Physique Well built xxx xxx xxxInjuries (briefly but accurately describe all) (State whether injuries are ante-mortem with reasons):One larcerated wound on right tibial shil 12 cm.below right knee size 6 cm X 2 cm.muscle deep.One larcerated wound on right ring finger dorsil aspect of discal phelanx on medial aspect of nale size 2 cm.x .5 cm into muscle deep.3. Contusion on left forehead 4 cm.above left eyebrow size 2 cm x 1 cm.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 6 of 33Two contusions on left shoulder size 2 cm x .5 cm and second one .5 x .5 cm.One stellate type (star shaped) wound seen on the left temparo-parietel region comprising of five larcerated wounds communicating with each other at one central point situated at 1 cm.above a left ear pinna and 15 cm.from left eyebrow.1. 3.5 cm x 1 cm.x muscle deep2. 2 cm x .5 cm.x muscle deep.3. 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm.x muscle deep.2 cm.x .5 cm.x muscle deep.5. 4 cm.x .5 cm.x muscle deep.One triangle shape wound seen 2 cm.right to injury no.5 having three lacerated wounds communicating with each other at one central point.1. 1.5 cm x .5 cm x skin deep2. 1 cm x .5 cm.x skin deep3. 1.5 cm.X .5 cm.One transfer ligature mark abraded one seen on the neck crossing its front at the upper level of thyroid cartilage.On left side it is going backward horizontally for 14.5 cm.and on left side it is going backward horizontally for 6.5 cm.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 7 of 33She contended that since the post mortem report was silent about the fact whether the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, the same would have to be determined from the facts of the present case.She emphasized that the subsequent opinion of the Doctor regarding the recovered weapon of offence had also opined that the injuries caused to the deceased were possible by the wooden cot piece and the cable wire.Consequently, according to her the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Learned APP for the State stated out that the reason why the recovered wooden piece of cot and the cable wire had not been shown in the Site Plan (Ex. PW-16/D) had been explained by the investigating officer - Inspector Babu Lal (PW-16) in his deposition wherein he had deposed that the recoveries had taken place after the site plan had been prepared.She emphasised that these articles had been shown in the scaled site plan (Ex. PW-11/A) which was prepared after the recovery.The relevant portion of the testimony of the investigating officer - Inspector Babu Lal (PW-16) is reproduced hereinbelow:-It is correct that in the scaled site plan at point F the cable wire and wooden piece of cot were recovered and that place has not been shown in site plan prepared by me.(Vol.I had prepared the site plan before seizing the exhibits but later on when the draftsman visited the spot I had pointed out the place from where cable wire and wooden piece were recovered).I had seized the wooden piece of cot and the cable after preparing site plan Ex.P.W.16/D. At the spot I had prepared first of all rukka.And then I recorded CRL.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 8 of 33 statement about identification of dead body and then conducted inquest proceedings.Then I prepared memo about lifting of blood, control earth and blood sample of the dead body from where the dead body was lying.Thereafter I recorded disclosure statement of the accused.Thereafter I had lifted exhibits from the room and seized them.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 8 of 33In the disclosure statement of accused there is reference of cable and piece of cot.The site-plan was prepared earlier to that.It is correct that I might have omitted to point out the place from where the cable and piece of cot were recovered.It is incorrect that I concocted the story of cable and cot piece later on at P.S. It is incorrect that accused was falsely implicated in this case after fabricating the evidence.Learned APP for the State contended that the deceased was an alcoholic who used to quarrel with his wife as well as his family and other members of the locality and was in the habit of borrowing money for liquor without ever returning the same.COURT'S REASONING THE LAW RELATING TO A CASE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCEThe present case is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence as there is no eyewitness to the incident.It is pertinent to mention that the items recovered from the house of the deceased i.e. shoes, handkerchief, cement sample etc. were sent for FSL examination and they were found containing human blood.The 'bloodstained cemented concrete' even had the blood of the deceased i.e. blood group 'AB'.The relevant portions of the FSL reports (Ex. PW-15/A and Ex. PW-15/B) are reproduced hereinbelow:-Police Complex, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 xxx xxx xxx xxx CRL.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 12 of 33 DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL xxx xxx xxx Exhibit 2' : Cemented concrete having dark brown stains described as Blood stained earth.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 12 of 33Exhibit 3' : Cemented concrete described as Sample earth.Exhibit 4' : Pieces of cemented plaster described as Blood stained plaster.Exhibit 5' : Cotton wool swab having brown stains described as Blood stained cotton.Exhibit 6' : Cemented concrete pieces having brown stains described as Blood stained floor.Exhibit 10' : One pants described to be of accused.Blood was detected on exhibits 1', 2', 4', 5', 6', 7a', 8', 9', 11a', 11b', 11c', 11d', 11f', 11g', 11h', 12a', 12b', 12c'and 13'.xxx xxx xxx xxx (DR.DHRUW SHARMA) Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi Cum Ex Officio Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (emphasis supplied) CRL.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 13 of 33 B. FSL Report Ex. PW-15/B FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI Police Complex, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 BIOLOGY DIVISION xxx xxx xxx xxx Portion of exhibits as detailed in the main Biology Report have been examined using various serological techniques.The results obtained have been analysed as given below:A. Nos.69/2004 Page 13 of 33Species of ABO Group/ Remarks Exhibits Origin xxx xxx xxx 2' Blood stained cemented concrete Human AB' Group No 3' Control cemented concrete -reaction 4' Blood stained plaster Human No reaction 5' Cotton wool swab Human No reaction 6' Blood stained concrete Human No reaction 7a' Pair of shoes Human No reaction 8' Handkerchief Human Inconclusive 9' Wooden stick Human No reaction xxx xxx xxx (DR.DHRUW SHARMA) Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi Cum- Ex Officio Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (emphasis supplied)In view of the aforesaid, it is proved that the deceased was killed in his house and then his body was dragged outside.IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT-CONVICT WAS RESIDING AT THE PLACE OF INCIDENT.HOWEVER, HE HAS FAILED TO THROW ANY LIGHT UPON FACTS WHICH WERE SPECIALLY WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE AND WHICH COULD NOT SUPPORT ANY THEORY OR HYPOTHESIS COMPATIBLE WITH HIS INNOCENCE.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 14 of 33CONSEQUENTLY, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT-CONVICT'S FAILURE TO ADDUCE ANY EXPLANATION IS AN ADDITIONAL LINK WHICH FORMS A PART OF THE CHAIN OF EVENTS.It is an admitted fact that the appellant-convict was residing in House No. 97A, Single storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (i.e. the place of incident).It is not the appellant-convict's case that he was not at home or was elsewhere when the incident had occurred.MM NARNAWARA (PW-1) HAD OPINED THAT INJURIES MENTIONED IN THE POST MORTEM REPORT OF THE DECEASED COULD BE POSSIBLE FROM THE WEAPONS RECOVERED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT NAMELY A BLOOD- STAINED WOODEN COT PIECE AND A CABLE WIRE.Two weapons were recovered (vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B) at the instance of the appellant-convict namely a blood-stained wooden cot piece and a cable wire, as mentioned in the aforesaid testimony of the investigating officer-Inspector Babu Lal (PW-16).FSL examination had confirmed that human blood was present on the wooden cot piece.Both these weapons were sent for subsequent opinion to Dr. MM Narnawara CRL.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 15 of 33 (PW-1) who had opined that injuries mentioned in the post mortem report of the deceased could be possible from these weapons.The relevant portion of the subsequent opinion (Ex. PW-1/B) of Dr. M.M. Narnawara (PW-1) is reproduced hereinbelow:-A. Nos.69/2004 Page 15 of 33On opening one packet, one wooden-cot piece was found inside the packet.The injuries Serial No.1 to 6 could have been caused from this weapon.On opening second packet a cable wire (Black colour) was found inside the packet.The injury No.7 could have been caused from this ligature material.Both the items resealed with LKB seal and handed over to I.O.Dr. M.M. NARNAWARE CMO (N.F.S.C.) Deptt.Of Mortuary DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar.(emphasis supplied)The cable wire recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict from the chajjli/ balcony, which was opined to have caused injury number seven to the deceased, was found to be similar to the cable wire that was recovered from the room of the deceased.FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI POLICE COMPLEX, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110017 REPORT No. FSL 2001/B-1038/P-166/2001 Dated 19.11.2001 xxx xxx xxx Exhibit 14 : One black colour cable wire measuring approximately two meters in length having connecting plug at one end.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 16 of 33Examined the cable wires in Exhibit-14 and Exhibit-15 physically and under magnification.They were found to be similar in respect of colour, texture, design, diameter of cable, diameter of inner white plastic core, diameter of copper wires, design of the shield wires, markings on the cable and microscopic appearance.Note: Exhibits sent to this division for examination have been sealed with the seal of S.V.-FSL-DELHI.As requested by the State counsel, we verified the said panchnama which is available in the paper book (vide p. 2081) which is an application form bearing No. 001351 of A-1 Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Vaghani with his residential address was found wherein he applied for a loan of Rs. 60,000 for the purpose of purchasing rickshaw and on the said form also bloodstains were found.In view of the same, the said form was recovered while preparing panchnama of the scene of offence.This document is one of the circumstances against A-1 about his presence at the time of occurrence at the place of incident.This evidence can be relied upon to show that A-1 was present at the place of offence at the relevant time.In the same manner, though panchas of several other panchnamas in respect of recovery of handkerchief, seat of motorcycle and other articles with bloodstains have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, those panchnamas were exhibited during the examination of the investigating officer and for a limited purpose, therefore, they can be relied upon.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Evidence of the investigating officerAn argument was advanced about reliance based on the evidence of investigating officer.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 19 of 33......Then accused led the police party to Najafgarh Road opposite Basai Dara Pur and from central verge of the road accused got recovered one Potli' containing four shirts, two pieces of bed sheet, the bed sheet of which Potli' was made.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 20 of 33All clothes were blood stained and same were sealed with seal of BL and seized vide memo Ex.PW14/C. Then accused was brought to P.S.......xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx .......It is also incorrect to suggest that accused had not got recovered four shirts two pieces of bed sheet and one from the Najafgarh road.It is also incorrect to suggest that I was not alongwith the SHO in this case and only joined the proceedings with him in the PS....... (emphasis supplied)PW14/C...... (emphasis supplied)A. Nos.69/2004 Page 21 of 33Consequently, the articles that were recovered from central verge of the Najafgarh road were not ordinarily visible to the public and the place of recovery was within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant-convict.Exhibit 11h' : One brown underwear having dirty stains.Blood was detected on exhibits 1', 2', 4', 5', 6', 7a', 8', 9', 11a', 11b', 11c', 11d', 11f', 11g', 11h', 12a', 12b', 12c'and 13'.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 24 of 33OF NCT OF DELHI POLICE COMPLEX, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110017 BIOLOGY DIVISION xxx xxx xxx xxx Portion of exhibits as detailed in the main Biology Report have been examined using various serological techniques.The results obtained have been analysed as given below:Exhibits Species of Origin ABO Group/ Remarks xxx xxx xxx 11a' Dari Human AB' Group 11b' Cloth piece Human AB' Group 11c' Curtain Human AB' Group 11d' Shirt Human AB' Group 11f' Shirt Human AB' Group 11g' Cloth Piece Human AB' Group 11h' Underwear Human AB' Group Xxx xxx xxx (DR.DHRUW SHARMA) Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi Cum- Ex Officio Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (emphasis supplied) CRL.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 25 of 33 THIS COURT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED APP THAT IN VIEW OF THE MONEY BORROWING AND DRINKING HABIT OF THE DECEASED, THE APPELLANT-CONVICT HAD SUFFICIENT MOTIVE TO COMMIT THE CRIME.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 25 of 33It is settled law that motive is not a sine qua non for the conviction of an accused person, yet it is a relevant factor in a case based upon circumstantial evidence.In the present case, the appellant-convict had admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that his deceased-father was an alcoholic who used to fight everyday with everyone in the mohallah and sometimes with outsiders.KEEPING IN VIEW THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, ESPECIALLY THE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, WHICH IS OF CONCLUSIVE NATURE, THIS COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS COMPLETE.Considering the aforesaid findings, the following circumstances have been proved and they form a complete chain of events:-A. The appellant-convict had admitted that he used to reside at the place of incident i.e. House No. 97A, Single storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi along with his family members which included his deceased-father.B. The appellant-convict had admitted that his deceased-father was an alcoholic who used to fight everyday with everyone in the mohallah and sometimes with outsiders.This proves that appellant-A. Nos.69/2004 Page 26 of 33convict had motive.C. On 7th March, 2001 i.e. the date of the incident, at about 4:20 am a PCR call was received and the caller had informed that someone had thrown a body outside House No. 97A, Single storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (house of the deceased) and DD No. 30A regarding the said information was recorded.D. Upon receiving the information vide DD No. 30 A, the investigating officer - Inspector Babu Lal (PW-16) had reached the place of incident and examined the spot.He had noticed bloodstains on the walls of the room of the deceased and other bloodstained articles were recovered from the same room.This proves that the incident had taken place inside the room of the deceased and thereafter, the body had been dragged outside.E. Though the appellant-convict was at home when the incident had occurred, yet he failed to adduce any explanation as to how his father had died.F. Appellant-convict was arrested on 7th March, 2001 vide arrest memo Ex. PW-14/A and the weapons of offence namely a bloodstained wooden cot piece and a cable wire were recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B.G. Other materials (plaster sample from the room of the deceased, shoes, handkerchief etc.) were also seized from the place of incident and they were also found to be bloodstained.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 27 of 33H. Thereafter, a bundle of clothes (bedsheet, curtain, shirt etc.), which were concealed under a tree near the central verge of Najafgarh road, were also recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict vide seizure memo Ex. PW-14/C. These clothes were found to have blood of the deceased i.e. blood group 'AB'.I. On 8th March, 2001, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted.J. As per the subsequent medical opinion (Ex.PW-1/B), injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report of the deceased were possible by the recovered weapons of offence i.e. bloodstained wooden cot piece and a cable wire.K. FSL report (Ex.PW-15/A) confirmed that human blood was present on the recovered bloodstained wooden cot piece.L. FSL report (Ex. PW-15/C) confirmed that the cable wire recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict from the chajjali/balcony was similar to the cable wire recovered from the room of the deceased.M. The investigating officer had observed that the floor of the room of the deceased (where the incident had taken place) was cleaned and the body was dragged outside, where it was lying on a dari/cloth piece.HOWEVER, THIS COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ATTRACT THIRD CLAUSE OF SECTION 300 OF THE IPC AND THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE DECEASED HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE SUFFICIENT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH.CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLANT-CONVICT HAD CAUSED INJURIES TO HIS FATHER AND RESULTANTLY COMMITTED AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304 PART I OF IPC.MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J FEBRUARY 28, 2020 js/rn CRL.A. Nos.69/2004 Page 33 of 33A. Nos.69/2004 Page 33 of 33
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,918,683 |
P.Sathasivam,J.2) Brief facts:(a) The marriage of Vijayalakshmi (the deceased) and Thiruselvam wassolemnized on 06.09.2001 at Murugan Nagar, Zerinakadu, Yercaud, Tamil Nadu.After the marriage, she was staying at her matrimonial home in a jointfamily consisting of her husband, Krishnan (father-in-law), Chellammal(mother-in-law) and Kumar-the appellant/accused, brother-in-law of thedeceased.After one year of the marriage, a baby girl was born out of thesaid wedlock.(b) It is the case of the prosecution that after the birth of the girlchild, the deceased was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws tobring money from her parents in order to take care of the baby.On severaloccasions, she was forced and even harassed to arrange money from herpaternal home in order to fulfill the demand of dowry.In addition tothis, her brother-in-law, Kumar (the appellant-accused) had bad intentionstowards her.(c) On 15.08.2003, at 2.00 p.m., the deceased called her brother –Chandrabose (PW-1) over phone and informed him that her husband and in-lawsare torturing her for the money and asked him to bring the moneyimmediately, within one hour, failing which, she would kill her and herchild.Since she disconnected the phone immediately, PW-1 tried to contacther but he could not get it.Thereafter, he spoke to his sister-in-law -Mariyayi (PW-3) about the same and asked her to visit the house of thedeceased.At 3.30 p.m., PW-1 got a call from his elder brother thatVijayalakshmi and her baby died due to burn injuries.At the relevant time,she was working as an Assistant of Nutritious Meal in Mungagambadi School.According to her, she knows the deceased Vijayalakshmi and her child as herneighbours.She also identified the accused in the Court.She narratedthat on 15.08.2003, when she was having lunch at her home, the appellant-accused called her and asked for some Kerosene for cleaning the machine.As requested, she handed over the Kerosene available in a 10 litre can.Within 10 minutes, when she came out of the house, she saw the appellant-accused standing on the rear side of the house who asked her to come byaction.When she went there, the accused called her inside the house whereshe saw that Vijayalakshmi and her daughter lying without any sign of life.After seeing this, she asked the appellant-accused “You sinner.What didyou do to her?” The appellant-accused told her not to shout.Thereafter,he told her that he had an eye on his sister-in-law.She further deposedthat the accused informed her that since nobody was there in the house, heembraced her but when she did not agree for the same, he took a woodenruler used to make ‘poorikattai’ and gave a blow on her head due to which,she became unconscious and fell down.Thereafter, he raped her and he alsoinformed PW-2 that he will make it as if she had committed suicide.Healso said that he punched the baby on her nose who was playing nearby andwhen the child cried, he put the child also near to his sister-in-law.Thereafter, the accused squashed her neck and threatened her not to tellthis matter to anyone, otherwise, he will kill her also.On his direction,PW-2 made a call to the elder brother of the deceased over phone.In herevidence, she further deposed that at about 2.00 p.m., she ran from thereand again returned to their house at 4.00 p.m. and saw that lot of personswere gathered at the spot.She further noticed from the kitchen thatVijayalakshmi and her child were burnt and lying in the hall.On the same day, PW-1 registered a complaint with the Yercaud Police Station which wasregistered as Crime No. 350/2003 under Sections 498A and 304B of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”).Taking note of the death of a 13months’ old baby along with her mother by burning in the matrimonial home,the Superintendent of Police, Yercaud, himself took up the investigation.After one week of the said incident, it was published in the newspapersthat the deceased had not committed suicide but it was a case of murder.(d) During investigation, the role of the appellant-accused came to lightwhose intention was to rape her sister-in-law and, on the fateful day, whenshe was alone, he even attempted to have sexual intercourse with her.WhenVijayalakshmi resisted him, he struck a blow with ‘poorikatai’ on her headdue to which she fell unconscious.Taking undue advantage of hercondition, the appellant-accused had sexual intercourse with her.Immediately thereafter, he attacked her 13 months’ old baby-Srimathi whowas playing nearby by giving a forcible punch on her face on account ofwhich she also became unconscious.(e) It was further revealed during investigation that the appellant-accused with the intention of causing disappearance of evidence and inorder to show it a suicidal case, caused death of Vijayalakshmi and herdaughter by pouring kerosene and set them on fire.It was also revealedduring investigation that the appellant-accused arranged kerosene for thesame from one Selvi (PW-2) - the neighbour, on the pretext of cleaning amachine.He also narrated the whole incident to her and even threatenedher to give a call to PW-1 impersonating the deceased, which she did.(g) The Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 30.07.2007,convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 376, 302, 302 read with 201and 506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 7years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RIfor 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.He wasfurther sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year for the offenceunder Section 302 of IPC.Further, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 2years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to further undergo RIfor 1 month for the offence under Section 201 of IPC for screening theevidence of rape and murder.He was further sentenced to RI for 7 yearsalong with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for one yearfor the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC.(h) Challenging the said order, the appellant-accused filed CriminalAppeal No. 792 of 2007 before the High Court.By impugned judgment dated23.04.2008, the High Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed theconviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused by the trialCourt.(i) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-accused has filed thisappeal by way of special leave before this Court.(iii) The inconsistent stand of PW-3, particularly, at the time of incidentand after a gap of 2 months, makes her evidence wholly unreliable.(iv) Inasmuch as PWs 4-8 were examined after a period of 10-15 days, theirstatements are not reliable.(vi) Finally, the offence under Sections 376, 302 and 302 read with 201IPC has not been proved with the aid of medical evidence, beyond reasonabledoubt, therefore, the conviction and sentence under these sections have tobe set aside.5) Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for theRespondent-State while rebutting the above contentions submitted as under:-It is further submittedthat it is clear from the above that the accused threatened her to deathdue to which she did not disclose anything to Thiru P. Kannuchamy (PW-17)on 16.08.2003, the very next day after the alleged incident.Hence, thesame would not make her evidence unreliable as she is the only witness whosaw the deceased and her child in the kitchen before the incident and inthe hall after they were burnt to death.(iii) With regard to the contention regarding delay in examining PWs 4-8,learned AAG submitted that PWs 4-8 only spoke about the movement of theaccused just prior to the occurrence, immediately thereafter and at theplace of occurrence.Inasmuch as they are not eye-witnesses, even thedelay in examining them would not make their evidence unbelievable.(iv) As regards the claim that it is a case of suicide, learned AAGsubmitted that while explaining the extra-judicial confession made by theaccused, PW-2 had explained that the accused had an eye over the deceasedand since the deceased refused to heed his wish, he hit the deceased on herhead and when she fell unconscious, the accused committed rape on her.PW-2 also witnessed the deceased and her child lying in the kitchen beforebeing burnt and in the hall after they were burnt to death.He furthersubmitted that in view of the above, it clearly establishes the motiveunder Section 302 and 376 IPC.(v) In reply to the contention regarding deposition of more carbonparticles in the kitchen in comparison to the hall supported with the factthat the tiles were removed from the kitchen only and also the evidence ofthe brother of the deceased (PW-1) who had stated that the deceased calledhim and stated that she would commit suicide if he did not reach her placewithin one hour with money, it was submitted by learned AAG that in view ofthe deposition of PW-2 coupled with the certificate (Exh. P-25) issued byDr.R. Vallimayagam (PW-20), who examined the accused and the evidence ofTmt.Kamalatchi (PW-11), the Scientific Officer, who examined the brief(M.O. 15) and detected semen in it as per the Chemical Report (Exh. P-8),there is no doubt about the role of the appellant-accused in committingrape and double murder.6) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perusedall the materials relied on by both sides.7) Inasmuch as the extra-judicial confession made by the accused is amaterial evidence for prosecution, let us discuss its reliability andacceptability.On16.08.2003, she was examined by Revenue Divisional Officer but she did notdepose much to him.On 17.08.2003, when she was examined by the DeputySuperintendent of Police, she deposed all the details to him.Similarly,on 19.08.2003 and 25.08.2003, she was examined by Superintendent of Policeand the Magistrate Court respectively and she deposed the entire truthbefore them.10) The analysis of the evidence of PW-2 clearly shows that the extrajudicial confession was made by the accused to her, who is a neighbour.Itis also clear from her evidence that the accused had taken kerosene fromher house stating that it was required for cleaning the machine andthereafter, when PW-2 came out, she was called by the accused to his housewhere she witnessed the deceased and her child lying unconscious in thekitchen.When she questioned the accused about the same, he admitted toher about the occurrence and compelled her to speak to PW-1 impersonatingthe deceased by threatening her.It is also clear that among all theprosecution witnesses, PW-2 was the only witness who saw the deceased andher child in the kitchen before being burnt and in the hall after they wereburnt.Her statement beforethe Court and confession made by the accused before Shri T.P. Rajesh (PW-28), the District Revenue Officer corroborates each other.Even in cross-examination, PW-2 reiterated what she deposed in the examination-in-chief.There is no reason to disbelieve her testimony, on the other other hand,the same is acceptable if we consider other circumstances.11) Apart from the extra-judicial confession made to PW-2 by the accused,who is a neighbour, the prosecution heavily relied on variouscircumstantial evidence.12) While discussing the evidence of PW-2, this Court noted her statementthat the accused threatened her to call the brother of the deceased (PW-1)as if that the deceased was calling him by putting her saree on thereceiver of the phone.In fact, PW-2 spoke to PW-1 as threatened by theaccused that she had been tortured for money and asked him to come withinone hour, otherwise, she would commit suicide.He is the brotherof the deceased and residing in Mettupalayam and at the relevant time, hewas working as a clerk in Kerala Transport Office.It is also informed byhim that the accused is brother of his younger sister’s husband.In hisevidence, he deposed that the deceased called him over phone and asked himto come with money within an hour, otherwise, she would commit suicide.Thereafter, PW-1 contacted at his brother’s residence as well as his sister-in-law (PW-3) and informed about the demand made by the deceased over phoneand asked PW-3 to visit the place of the deceased and apprise him.Hisevidence further disclosed that he hurriedly reached his sister’s housearound 7 p.m., where he saw that his younger sister and the child wereburnt to death and were lying on the back of the floor.Thereafter, healong with his elder brothers-Thangavelu and Balasubramaniam, went toYercaud Police Station and informed the incident.Though Mr.Krishnamurhty, learned senior counsel for the appellant raised a doubtabout the phone call by showing the telephone number and other details, ifwe consider the evidence of PW-1 along with the evidence of PW-2, there isno reason to doubt the veracity of their evidence.She is a resident of Vellakkadai,Yerkaud, Tamil Nadu.Her husband is running a grocery shop.According toher, the deceased was her sister-in-law.She narrated about the marriageof her sister-in-law and the child born to her.In her evidence, she alsostated that PW-1 called her and stated about the demand raised by thedeceased over phone.We have analysed the evidence of PW-3 with that ofPWs 1 and 2 and we are satisfied that the evidence of PW-2 is corroboratedby the evidence of PW-1 in respect of the phone call by PW-2 impersonatingthe deceased, hence, all the three witnesses support the case put forth bythe prosecution.15) As regards the offence under Section 376 of IPC followed by death isconcerned, in the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW-2, hehad stated that when he hugged the deceased, she refused to accept andwanted to wriggle out of it, hence, he hit on her head with ‘poorikattai’(M.O. 11) due to which she fell unconscious.The wound certificate (Exh. P-25) supports the case of the prosecution viz., that the simple injurymight be due to finger nail scratch.In addition, the Chemical Report(Exh. P-8) stating that the brief (M.O. 15) contained semen also supportsthe claim made by the prosecution about the offence under Section 376 ofIPC.No doubt, there is no medical evidence about the same, however, ShriS. Neelamegan (PW-24), the doctor who conducted the autopsy, had statedthat due to extensive burns over the front part of the body, he could notnoticed any symptom for the commission of offence of rape.In view of theexplanation offered and also if we consider the evidence of PW-24, there isno difficulty in accepting the case of the prosecution that the accusedcommitted rape before setting fire on her body.When PW-2 explained about the extra-judicial confession made by theaccused, she informed the court that the accused had an eye over thedeceased and since nobody was in the house on the date and time of theincident, he intends to utilize the same.Since the deceased refused toaccede to his wish, he forcibly committed the offence of rape by pushingher down.This aspect has been corroborated by PW-3 in categorical terms.17) Apart from this, PW-3, in her evidence also explained the complaintmade by the deceased about the conduct of the accused and his behaviourtowards her.PW-3 has also stated in her evidence that when her husband came toknow about this he scolded her, in fact, he slapped her for not informingthe same at the appropriate time.It is noted in the Post Mortem Certificate (Ex. P-46) thatextensive second degree burns were found on the front side of the wholebody except the crown of head, the back head, backside, buttocks and thebottom of the foot.As rightly pointed out by the prosecution that if thedeceased had committed suicide, naturally, she would have poured keroseneon her head which would have spread on all over her body and on settingfire, all parts of the body would have got burnt.As pointed out above,the post mortem report shows differently.The way in which she was lyingon the floor and the throwing of can containing Kerosene in the houseitself undoubtedly establish that the deceased had not committed suicideand it is a case of murder.The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 amply provevarious circumstances as pleaded by the prosecution.The prosecution hasestablished all the links including the fisting of child and laying hernearby the deceased when she became unconscious and thereafter, burningboth of them to death by pouring kerosene.Likewise, the prosecution hasalso proved the other circumstances, namely, threat to PW-2 with direconsequences and making her to speak to PW-1 over phone impersonating thedeceased, to make it a suicidal case.As rightly analysed by the trialCourt and the High Court, we have no hesitation in arriving at a conclusionthat the deceased has not committed suicide but it is a case of homicide bythe accused and the prosecution has established the offence under Section302 IPC.We are also satisfied that not only the accused had the knowledgethat he had committed the heinous crime but he also caused disappearance ofevidence and had the intention to screen the offence by burning the body ofthe deceased and her child, hence, the prosecution has also established theoffence under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC.19) We are satisfied that the trial Court, after exhaustive considerationof the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, rightly foundthe appellant-accused guilty of all the charges and passed the order ofconviction and imposed the appropriate sentence.The reports submitted bythe Scientific Officers, viz., PWs 11 and 16, coupled with the post mortemcertificate and the evidence of the Medical Officer, establish beyond doubtthat this is a clear case of murder.20) As discussed earlier, the extra-judicial confession made to PW-2 hasbeen rightly accepted by the trial Court as the same is within theparameters of law and withstood the test of reasonableness and credibility.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,928,890 |
No.1/ State.Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the record of the trial Court including the deposition of the prosecutrix and other available evidence and exhibited documents of the charge-sheet along-with the impugned judgment, so also in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs. State of MP reported in (2006)11 SCC 615, the impugned approach of the trial Court extending acquittal to the respondent No.2 from the aforesaid charges requires reconsideration and re-appreciation at this stage.Consequently, by allowing this petition, the leave to appeal, as prayed on behalf of the applicant, is hereby granted.Pursuant to it, the connected Criminal Appeal No.704/2015 filed on behalf of applicant- complainant under the proviso of Section 372 of CrPC is taken up for admission.Office is directed to keep copy of this order in the record of Criminal Appeal No.704/2015 and record of this M.Cr.C be also kept along-with such Criminal Appeal till disposal of such Criminal Appeal.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,937,389 |
The allegations are that during the check period of 6.8.1978 to 31.08.2014 the appellant No. 1 had amassed moveable and immovable properties in his own name and in the name of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who are his wife and son.The appeal under Section 11 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 takes exception to order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jabalpur dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the appellant as to tenability of an application under Section 3 of 1944 Ordinance filed at the instance of the prosecution for attachment of moveable and immoveable property.An objection is raised on behalf of the respondent as to tenability of present appeal.
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,039,450 |
The complainant, Major Gurcharan Singh Sodhi (Retd.) is the owner of house No. C-80, defense Colony, New Delhi.On account of his military service at various family and non-family stations, he never occupied his house.After his retirement, he went to Madhya Pradesh and engaged himself for transport purposes in the mining area.In July, 1979, respondent No. 1, Shri Suresh Kumar Jain approached the complainant and offered to take his house on rent for a limited period of three years at at rental of Rs. 1300/- p.m. besides Rs. 100/- per month as hire charges for fittings and furniture.During the course of the tenancy, the complainant had instructed Shri Suresh Kumar Jain to deposit the amount of Rs. 1400/- per month in his Savings Bank account with the Bank of India, Rajindra Place, New Delhi.Those instructions were duly complied with.It is the case of the complainant that by letter dated 29-6-1982, he informed Shri Suresh Kumar Jain that the tenancy period would expire on 3-7-1982 and that he should vacate and hand over the possession of the house to him on or before the date fixed.Shri Suresh Kumar Jain failed to hand over the vacant possession of the house and after the fixed period, the complainant filed an application under Section 21(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in the court of the Rent Controller, Delhi.Shri Jain contested the application.However, on his request, he was granted time till 30-6-85 to vacate the house.To this effect, he gave an undertaking to the court and also agreed not to transfer the premises in question to anybody else.He contrived of a plan to create a false evidence of a fresh tenancy inasmuch as he agreed to and created between the complainant and his father Shri Des Raj Jain a new tenancy at an enhanced rate of Rs. 2000/- per mensem of which he had no knowledge.On 1-3-84, the complainant contacted Shri Suresh Kumar Jain and asked for the pay-in-slip for the payment of rent for the months from December 1983 to March, 1984, Shri Suresh Kumar Jain handed over two pay-in-slips for the months of December 1983 and January 1984, each for a sum of Rs. 1400/- and agreed to pay the remaining two pay-in-slips on the next day which were lying at his office.Those pay-in-slips were collected by the complainant from the office but later, on verification, he found a cheque for Rs. 2000/- bearing the signature of Des Raj Jain.On 6-3-1984, the complainant went to the bank and there he discovered that on 11-2-84, an amount of Rs. 2000/- stood credited to his account.Thereafter, he closed his bank account with a view to stop the respondents from depositing further amount.On these facts, Gurcharan Singh Sodhi lodged a complaint to the Home Secretary, Delhi Administration, praying for the registration of a case under Section 420 read with S. 34, I.P.C. against Shri Suresh Kumar Jain and his father Shri Des Raj Jain.From the perusal of the record, I find that this complaint was forwarded to Police Station Cannaught Place and a case FIR No. 630, under S. 420, I.P.C. was registered and marked to Roshan Lal, Sub-Inspector for investigation.The Police immediately swung into action and numerous documents concerning this case including the lease deed, the undertaking given by Suresh Kumar Jain as well as the order of the Addl.Rent Controller, the notice given by the complainant and the reply received through the counsel for the respondent, were taken into possession.Statements of number of witnesses were also recorded after the completion of the investigation and challan under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was filed in court of Shri K. S. Khurana, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognisance of the case and issued summons to the accused persons for their appearance.The accused were supplied the copies of the documents as required under Section 107, Cr.P.C. The learned lower court on consideration of the material before him and after hearing argument of the learned counsel for the accused and A.P.P. for the State, came to the conclusion that prima facie no case against any of the accused persons under Section 420, I.P.C. read with S. 120-B, I.P.C. is made out.As such both the accused persons were discharged and their bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled.It is against this order the complainant has filed the present revision petition.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,395 |
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of theMadhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, holding the appellant guiltyof offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC').The appellant was sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.The appeal filed by accused Nanhe Lal wasdismissed while the appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed alteringhis conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section34 IPC to one under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.Similar was theposition in respect of co-accused Jagdish.Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:A few months before the incident dated 28.12.1987, Dropadibai,daughter of Gayaprasad was molested by accused Prabhu about which hewas facing prosecution in the court.Accused Prabhu Dayal was in thiscontext trying to pressurize deceased Shankar, brother of Dropdibai, toamicably settle the matter, but finding that he did not budge, the accusedpersons who were related started bearing a grudge against Shankar.On28.12.1987 at about 9.00 in the morning, Shankar had gone out in thevillage.At 11 O' clock Gayaprasad (PW-5) had gone to call his ploughmanfollowed by Rishiraj (PW-9).No sooner that they reached SoryanaMohalla, they heard the call of Shanker that he be saved.Both Gayaprasadand Rishi Raj rushed to the place and they noticed that the three accused 2 were beating Gayaprasad.Accused Nanhelal was armed with Katarna (asharp instrument for cutting) while the other two were armed with lathis.Itis alleged that all of them administered several blows with their respectiveweapons and caused severe injuries and thereafter ran away towards thejungle.The report of the incident Ext.P-12 was lodged by Gayaprasad (PW-5).Fourteen external injuries were found on the body of the deceased.Asper the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the death of the deceased wascaused due to extensive hemorrhage on account of shock due to injury No.8mainly and injury Nos. 13 and 14 causing hemorrhage.They were incisedwounds.Since accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held.Each of theaccused persons was convicted as noted above.Appeals were filed beforethe High Court.So far as the appellant is concerned, it was submitted thathe could not be convicted in terms of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPCas only accused Nanhe, according to the prosecution, caused incisedwounds.The appellant was holding only a stick.The High Court relied onthe evidence of two eye-witnesses PWs 5 and 9 and held that the appellantcannot be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 IPC.It was held that the prosecution has not proved that each ofthe participating culprits had the same intention and each one shared the 3 intention of the other.The High Court noticed that the accused Prabhu andJagdish had caused lacerated wounds and, therefore, the knowledge whichcan be inferred from the said acts is that they intended to cause grievoushurt.Accordingly, the conviction as noted above was altered.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,953,066 |
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-22031-2018 (DR.JAGAT RAWAT Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) 1 Jabalpur, Dated : 14-06-2018 Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Jagat Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the State.The applicant seeks parity with ou co-accused S.N.Vijaywargiya passed in M.Cr.C.No.15282/2018 (S.N.Vijaywargiya Vs.CBI) dated C 20.04.2018; wherein, direction was issued while rejecting the h application for anticipatory bail, for his medical examination ig in the event of his arrest and for proper treatment, if H required.The applicant has filed a document in support of the aforesaid contentions stating that he has been suffering from heart ailment, he has filed Annexures-A-5, 6 certificate of CHL Apollo Hospital issued by Dr. Nitin Modi dated 08.06.2018 and other test reports.Keeping in view the same, his application for anticipatory bail is dismissed with the observations that in the event of the arrest of the applicant, his medical examination be conducted and proper treatment, if required, even as the indoor patient shall be provided to the applicant in accordance with the law.Certified copy today.Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.06.15 01:00:48 -07'00' Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,808,720 |
Shri Anshu Gupta, learned counsel for complainant.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 Basoda, District Vidisha in connection with Crime No. 421/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 306/34 of IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant along with co-accused persons had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment, due to which, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,810,519 |
This is repeat application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 390/2014, registered at P.S. Damua, District- Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376-Gha, 392, 506-B of the IPC Section 25 of Arms Act and 3(2)(v), 3(1) (xii) of the SC/ST Act.The Statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded before the trial court.She deposed as under:-^^02 vkt ls ,d lky igys jkr ds 10%30 dh ckr gSA eSa vkSj esjk NksVk yMdk ?kj ij lks;s FksA vkjksihx.k us njokts dks /kDdk nsdj mls [kksyk Fkk ftlls esjh uhan [kqy x;h FkhA eSaus iwNk dkSu gS rks dkfnj us dgk fd pqi jgks eknjpksn ugh rks ekj Mkysxs dgk rFkk pkdw vMk fn;kA vkjksih dkfnj ds lkFk tQj] fpaVw Hkh FksA vkjksih tQj us esjs diMs mrkj dj esjs lkFk xyr dke fd;kA vkjksih tQj us esjh bTtr ywVhA blds ckn ,d ,d djds vkjksih tQj] fpaVw] mQZ fouksn rFkk dkfnj us esjh bTtr ywVhA vkjksihx.k us esjh iSj dh iSj iV~Vh] >kys] lksus dh pSu] rFkk diMs vkfn dqy lkB lRrj gtkj :i;s ds lkeku ywV dj ys x;sA vkjksihx.k us eq>ls dgk fd rw ;gka ls tkuk ugh ugh rks tku ls [kre dj nsxsA nwljs fnu lqcg vkjksih dkfnj rFkk tQj nksuks vk;s Fks vkSj eq>s eknj pksn dh xkyh nh Fkh rFkk eq>s ?kj ls fudyus ds fy;s cksy jgs FksA^^ The prayer for bail is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer.Another accused Jafar Khan has been granted by this Court vide order dated 01/03/2016 passed in M.Cr.Prima-facie there appears to be parity between the present applicant and another co-Accused Jafar Khan.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,811,618 |
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Vijay Sharma in Crime No.145/2017 registered by Police Station Indwar, District Umariya under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.He fraudulently recorded 7,800/- stacks of Tendu leaves in the name of his wife Geeta Sharma and 17,028/- stacks of Tendu leaves in his own name and fraudulently received a payment of Rs.31,000/-.As such he embezzled aforesaid amount.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence was committed about an year and a half ago.The petitioner is prepared to deposit the amount of Rs.31,000/-; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application and has contended that the petitioner is not even entitled to conditional bail in view of the nature of the offence.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in order to secure the amount embezzled from the collectors of Tendu leaves, in the opinion of this Court petitioner deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Vijay Sharma, is conditionally allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on depositing Rs.31,000/- before the trial Court and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The amount along with interest shall be payable to the person found to be entitled thereto in the judgment delivered by the trial Court.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE taj
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,038,117 |
Appellant No. 1 (for short A-1) was an arrack contractordoing liquor business inter alia within the territorialjurisdiction of Police Station Indukurpet, District Nellore,while Appellant No. 2 (for short, A-2) was a Sub-Inspectorof Police in-charge of this Police Station, The appellants and one other person were tried by theFirs Additional Sessions Judge Nellore on charges underss.120-B, 366, 376, 302/34., 201, 218, 468/34, 324, PenalCode relating to the abduction, rape and murder etc. Of twosisters, named Kalarani and Chandrika Rani of Nellore.TheSessions Judge acquitted the three accused of all thecharges.The facts of the prosecution case, as they emerge fromthe record" arc as follows:Kalarani and Chandrika Rani deceased were two of thesix daughters of PW1, a legal practitioner of Nellore.Kalarani was aged 21 and a graduate from the local Women'sCollege, Nellore.She used to be the President of theCollege Union and as such was well known.Chandrika Raniwas, aged 17 and a B.A. student in that very college.on 6-6-1971 in the morning the deceased girls along with theirparents and other sisters attended a marriage in the houseof a family friend (P.W.2).In the afternoon they went awayfrom the marriage house saying that they were going out tohave coca-cola.At about 4 p.m. they boarded a bus bound forMypaud which is a sea-shore resort at a distance of 11 milesfrom Nellore.At about 5.40 p.m. they were seen alightingfrom the bus as Mypaud and then proceeding towardsSagarvilla, a Travellers' Bungalow situated near theseashore.Shortly there after,P.W. 18, a rickshaw puller was attracted to the seashore bythe outcry of a woman.When be proceeded in hat direction,Chandrika Rani came running to him for help.P.W. 18 saw 4persons including A-1 and A-2 carrying away Kalarani who wasgroaning.On seeing P.W. 18, A-1 and A-2 turned on him.A-1first slapped and then stabbed P.W. 18 on his right arm witha pen knife, while A-2 gave blows on his back.Out offright, P.W. 18 took to his heels while Chandrika Rani wasdragged away by the appellants.On 6-6-1971 Chamundeshwari Festival was beingcelebrated in Gangapatnam and neighbouring areas at about 9p.m. It was a bright moonlight On learning that the deadbody of a girl had been seen on the beach of Pallipalemwhich is a hamlet o Gangapatnam, many persons went there.an employeeof the Electricity Department were also among those persons.It was the body of a girl, aged about 21 or 22 years, offair complexion and stout built.Blood was oozing from areddish abrasion on the forehead.There was a gold ring witha red stone on the finger of the body.Next morning, P.W. 23went to P.W. 26, the Sarpanch of Gangapatnam and informedthe later about the corpse on the seashore.P.W. 23 and P.W.26 then went to the village Karnam (P.W. 27) as they foundthe village Munsiff absent.The Sarpanch signed it and sent itat about 7-30 a.m. through a bus driver (P.W. 29) to thePolice Station, Indukurpet.the Sub-Inspector was away.The HeadConstable (P.W. 34).read the report and returned it toP.W. 29 with the objection that the bearer should fetch areport drawn up on the printed form and signed by thevillage Munsiff.Within a few minutes606of the return of the report, between 8-30 and 8-45 A.M., A-2returned to the Police Station.Just at this juncture P.W.49, a Personal Assistant to P.W. 38, a cine actor of Madras,and A-1, arrived there in Car No. M.S.V. 1539, driven by amotor driver.The car had met an accident on the 4th Junewithin the jurisdiction of this Police Station.The car wastherefore at least theoretically-in the custody of thePolice.A-1 was a mutual friend of A-2 and of the owner of thecar.P.W. 49 therefore, had brought A-1 to the PoliceStation to help the former in getting the car released.A-1introduced P.W. 49 to A-2. A-1 then asked A-2 if he knewthat the dead-body of a girl was found floating on the sea-shore. A-2 then asked the head Constable (PW 34) if anyreport regarding the dead body was received.The HeadConstable replied that a report from the Sarpanch about thedead body seen on the sea-shore at Pallipalem had beenreceived but had been returned, as it was not from thevillage Munsiff. A-2 said some person might have drowned asit usually happened on the seashore.The Head-Constable andA-1 told A-2 that the body found on the shore was said tohave been wearing drawers and might be of a person of high-class family. A-2 said that he himself would go and enquireabout it.A-2 asked P.W.4 to take him in his car to thespot.Thereupon" A-1, A-2, P.W. 49, two constables and twoothers in addition to the driver, proceeded in the car.After going some distance, the two "others" got down.A-1and A-2 had a talk with them.The car was then taken toRamudupalem.There at about 11.30 A.M., A-1 and A-2 met theSarpanch (P.W. 26) and asked him to follow them toPallipalem.The car was then taken to Gangapatnam.There theConstables were dropped.They left a message for the Karnamof the village to reach Pallipalem.Thereafter, theyproceeded to the sea-shore of Pallipalem.The car was leftat the canal before the sea.A-2, A-1, P.W. 49 and P.W. 26; then at about Noon, wentto the beach where the dead body lay.P.W. 23 and P.W. 25were guarding the deadbody.It was the body of a fair, stoutgirl aged about 20 years, who was wearing brassiers, blouse,striped drawers and a white petticoat.1 searched for them at the railway station, bus stand and lodges.When I was inquiring at Atmakur Bus Stand I came to know that the girls went by Mypaud bus at 4.30 p.m. I went to Mypaud and enquired.It was learnt that the two girls went towards north of Pattapulalem and entered the sea at 6 p.m. Having learnt that the body of Vijaya was washed ashore I went and saw the dead body.She had died and appears to have committed suicide.It was also learnt that the second girl also committed suicide but her dead body was not washed ashore.Other facts about them are not known.Sd/- N. Subbarao Taken down by me, read over to the person and admittedby him to be correct.H.C. 1212 Issue F.I.R. u/s 174, Cr.P.C. and send copyto me for investigation.Sd/- B. Manoharan, S.I. E-3, Camp Mypaud dt. 7-6-1971."The dead-body of the other girl, Chandrika Rani was notwashed ashore.But in the morning of 7-6-1971, P.W. 36, afisherman saw the dead-body of a girl agled 16 or 17 yearsfloating in the sea at a distance of about 21 or 3 mils fromPallipalem, P.W. 36 saw a piercing wound on the left arm andblack marks indicating throttling, on the neck of thedeadbody.P.W. 36 removed a wrist watch, a ring and an ear-ring from the deadbody and allowed it to drift away.Thesearticles were later handed over by P.W. 36 to theinvestigating officer and were identified to be of ChandrikaRani.The disappearance of the deceased girls caused asensation.The local-newspapers took up the matter.Representations were made to the Home Minister to get thematter investigated by the C.I.D. The Superintendent ofPolice directed P.W. 59, a Probationer D.S.P., toinvestigate the matter.On 18-6-1971, at the request of P.W.59, the Tehsildar (P.W. 40) proceeded to exhume the deadbodyof Kalarani.A-2 wasalso present there.On digging the bit only some clotheswere found in it.But close to609it, was found a skeleton.They took theirmeals in the marriage house.Thereafter, they came happily to Mypad.He intentionally indulged insuppressio veri and suggestio falsi at every step.He hadbeen informed by the Head Constable (PW 34) at about 8 or 8-45 A.M. in the Police Station that a report from theSarpanch had been received about the dead-body of a girlbearing injuries, found washed ashore near Pallipalem.Thisin formation which was passed on to A-2 and on receivingwhich he proceeded from the Police Station forinvestigation, was the real I.R. It was the duty of A-2 toenter faithfully and truly the substance of this informationin the Station Diary and to record further that he wasproceeding for investigation on the basis thereof.Insteadof doing so, he intentionally suppressed the factum andsubstance of this first information and the real purpose ofhis departure from the Police Station in the recordsprepared by him or by his subordinates in his immediatepresence or under his supervision.Instead of retrieving thewritten report that had been first received at 8 A.M. in thePolice Station and was, returned by the Head-Constable tothe Sarpanch, he fabricated the document Ex. P. 25,purporting to be the F.I.R. given to him at Mypad by one N.Subba Rao.The false story contained in this document hasbeen substantially repeated in the inquest report, Ex. P.25.614 P.Ws. 23, 25, 27 and 49 discount the presence of anysuch person, named N. Subba Rao either at the inspection ofthe dead-body in the sea-shore by A-2 or at the 'Temple,where according to A-2, he prepared the inquest report.P.W. 27 testified thatafter the inquest, Al" A2, P.W. 26 and "a new person"implying PW 49, met him and thereafter all the five(including PW 27) got into the car and proceeded to thevillage.P.W. 27 did not vouch the presence of a sixth manin the car.Only PW 26 has stated that R2 had recorded thestatements of witnesses including that of a per son named N.Subba Rao.PW 26 had reason to tell a lie on this point.PW26 admitted that at the time of the inquest, he was anaccused in a criminal case of Indukurpet Police Station.PW 26 therefore appears to have deviatedfrom truth in regard to the presence of N. Subba Rao, underthe influence of the accused.It didnot see the light of the day till the 11th June. A-2 did notsend it to the Police Station for registration before thatdate.It is in the evidence of P. W. 55, who at the materialtime was a Head Constable posted in this Police Station,that after his departure in the morning of the 7th, A-2returned to the Police Station on the 10th evening and itwas then that he handed over this document to the witnesswith the direction that the latter should enter that reportin the relevant register, dating it as the 7th June, 1971.The Head Constable after slight hesitation615agreed and inserted this report in the blank space meant forthe entries of the 7th June, and thereafter, as required byA2, handed over to the latter, a copy of that report.A-2also made an entry (Ex. P 34) in the General Diary of thePolice Station, dated 10.6.1971 on 11.6.1971 at 2 A.M. Itreads:"Returned to P.S. after leaving it on 7.6.71 at 9.30 a.m. visited Mypadu en route to Gangapatnam at 11- 00 hours at 11-30 a.m., recorded statement of N. Subba Rao, sent to Police Station for issuing First Information Report u. sec.174 Cr.P.C. then visited Pallipalem at 12-30 p.m. investigated, held inquest over dead body of K. Vijaya.At 20-30 p.m., left village reached Mypadu at 21.30 hours, made enquiries in Cr. 48/71 and halted.On 9.6.71 visited Gangapatnam detailed duties for bandobust and visited Ravur, investigated into Cr. 47/71, visited Nellore at 12-30 hours" did bandobust for festival and halted for the night.On 9.6.71 visited Mypadu for petition enquiry and investigated into Cr. 48/71, 41,42 and 44/71 and hailed.On 10-6-71 visited Gangapatnam, supervised and did bandobust for car festival at 00.-30 hours, received First Information Reports in Cr. 49 to 51/71 at 00-45 hours, left the village with men and reached Police Station."A mere glance at this report betrays its falsity.He knewthe deceased.He saw injuries on her deadbody.He did not send for the relations of the deceased.In response to thequeries made by the Karnam, A2 made false excuses.P. Basi Reddy and G. Narasimhulu, for the appellant, A, S. Mulla, T. V. S. N. Chari and P. P. Rao, for therespondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J.-This appeal is directed against a judgmentof the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, converting-on appeal bythe State the acquittal of the appellants into conviction.Against the acquittal of the appellants only theState preferred an appeal.The High Court partly allowed theappeal, set aside the acquittal on charges 7, 8, 9 andconvicted A-2 and A-I. under ss, 201, 201b34, Penal Code andsentenced each of them to five years rigorous imprisonment.A-2 and A-1 were further Convicted under S. 218 and 218/109,Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment,each.They were also convicted under605s. 468 and 468/34, Penal Code and sentenced to two yearsrigorous imprisonment each.The sentences on all the countswere directed to run concurrently.Their acquittal on theremaining charges, including those of abduction, rape andmurder, was upheld.P.W. 23 handed overthe ring M.O.9 to A-2 after removing the same from the body.On being directed by A-2, P.W. 23 washed ' the face of thecorpse.There was a mark on the forehead from which bloodwas oozing out.There was a reddish abrasion on the thighand blood marks on the drawer of the dead body.On seeingthe blood marks on the drawer, A-2 said that she might be inmenses.A-2 further remarked that the body appeared to be ofa girl from a high class family who had been out of doors.A-2 did not hold any inquest there on the dead-body.He didnot prepare any record there.He directed the village vettis(menials) to bury the dead body forthwith while he himselfproceeded along with his companions towards the village.Inthe distance they saw the Constables coming towards them.A-2 signalled them not to come near the dead body but toproceed to the Travellers' Bungalow at Mypad, while A-2 andparty went to Mahalaxamma Tample in village Pallipalem.There A-2607secured the signature of P.W. 25, P.W. 26, P.W. 28 and A-1on a blank sheet of paper. A-2 and his companions then wentto the car.The Karnam (P.W. 27) was there.A-2 reproachedthe Karnam for coming late and added that he had finishedall the work for which he (Karnam) had been sent for.Hefurther told the Karnam that he had got the body buried.Thekarnam asked as to why A-2 did not send the body for post-mortem examination A-2 replied that the body was of aprostitute who had committed suicide and that he did notsuspect any foul play and so he ordered burial The Karnamthen enquired if any relation of the deceased had come.A-1replied "yes", while A-2 pointed towards P.W. 49 and saidthat he was the person connected with the deceased. A-1, A-2, P.W. 26, P.W. 27 and P W. 49 then got into the car andproceeded.P.Ws. 26 and 27 were dropped near their houses.On the way P.W. 49 asked A-2 as to why he had representedhim (P.W. 49) as a relation of the deceased.A-2 assuredP.W. 49 that there was nothing to worry.Inspite ofit in the inquest report (Ex P-11) which was not prepared onthe spot but sometime later, A-2 wrote That the body was ofa prostitute, named Koppolo Vijaya, daughter of Crhandravya,Baliya by caste of Ongole Town who had on 6.6.71, come toMypad along with her prostitute friend Nirmala by Bus A.P.N.1400 at 5.45 P.M. and thereafter both these girls committedsuicide by entering sea at about 6.30 P.M. A-2 ended thereport with an emphatic note:"It is conclusive that the deceased (Koppulu Vijaya) died due to drowning".Despite the presence of injuries noticed on the deadbody A-2 recorded: "There are no injuries on the dead body".In order to support his version as; to the cause of death A-2, according to the prosecution falsely noted that the"stomach is bloated due to drinking of water".The prosecution case further is that A-2 fabricatedsome time after the burial of the deadbody, a false report(Ex.P-25) purporting to have been made to him on 7.6.1971 byone Nuthalapati Subba Rao who despite the best efforts ofthe investigators has remained untraced and is believed tobe a fictitious person.As this report has an importantbearing on the points for determination, we will reproduceit in extenso:"Statement of Nuthalapati Subbarao, son ofVenkateswarlu, aged about 30 years" Vysya of Patha-Guntur:Being an orphan for about 1 years, I have been doing brokerage in supplying extras in the cine field.Day before yesterday i.e. On Friday at Chirala near Lodges two girls Koppulu Vijaya d/o Sundrayya of Ongole and Paranjapi Nirmala d/o Raghavayya of Chilakaluripeta were met by me.I came to know that they live by prostitution.When I told them that I would join them in Cinema they believed me608 and came with me.On Sunday i.e. On 6-6-1971, in the morning we came to Nellore and stayed in Venkateswara Lodge till 3.30 p.m. Their demand came for the girls.I booked two males for these two girls.Afterwards dispute arose between me and the girls in respect of my broekerage, sharing of the money got by such prostitution out of the money collected.They scolded me in an angry tone and went away crying and weeping and saying that I took them away from their places promising to join them in Cinema, cheated them and committed rowdyism without giving them money due to them.They had only wearing apparel with them.Vijaya is short, stout and fair.Nirmala is lean, tall and fair.They did not come back.I waited for a long time.No marks of violence were detectedon the skeleton by the Medical officer, P.W. 45, whoexamined it at the spot.The skeleton was sent to P.W. 44,Professor of Forensic Medicine.Who opined that it was of afemale aged between 18 to 25 years.Further investigation ofthe case was taken over by P.W. 60, the C.I.D. Inspectorwho, after completing it laid the charge-sheet against A-1,A-2 and one other person in the court of the Magistrate.A-1 pleaded that he had been falsely implicated.Hestated that he knew nothing about the deceased girls.Headded that on 7-6-1971, he was in the Travellers' Bungalowat Mypad and went away from that place in the afternoon.Headmitted that he had accompanied, P.W. 49, to the PoliceStation on 7-6-1971 to assist the latter in getting the carrelease, and from the Police Station both of them (A-1 andP.W. 49) on being asked by A-2, went with the latter in thecar to the spot.The plea of A-2 was that he had duly made an inquiry asto the cause of the death and prepared the inquest reportEx.He denied that there were injuries on the deadbody.Pleading alibi for the 5th and 6th June 1971, he saidthat on these dates he was away on casual leave to attendthe marriage of a cousin at Chiraja which at a distance ofabout 100 miles from Indukurpet.He said that he hadproceeded to Chiraja in a car on the 5th morning., and afterattending the marriage returned to Nellore on the 6th by 5-30 p.m. and then on the morning of the 7th June, resumedduty at Indukurpet Police Station.On receiving informationabout the corpse of a female washed ashore, he went to Mypadand enquired about a person named Nathalapati Subba Rao.Thelatter gave the information, Ex. P.25, which he (A-2)reduced into writing and then held the inquest in thepresence of this Subba Rao and other Panchaitdars at thespot.He did not know if Vijaya and Nirmala mentioned in Ex.P. 25 and Ex. P. 11 were fictitious persons.He furtheradmitted that he was unable to produce this Subba Rao inresponse to the memo dated 15-6-1971, issued by the D.S.P.(P.W. 59) during the stipulated time of 48 hours.The Additional Sessions Judge held that the dead bodiesfound floating near the sea shore were of Kala Rani andChandrika Rani.He further found that PW 18, who claimed tobe an eye-witness of the occurrence, was not worthy ofcredit, and consequently, the charges of abduction, rape andmurder had not been proved against the accused.floating in the sea, two miles awaywas of Chandrika Rani deceased, has not been disputed beforeus.Second, that theirdeaths were accidental.Third, that they were done to deathby some person or persons.We, therefore, do not feel the necessity ofembarking upon a reappraisal of the entire evidence.Itwould be sufficient to survey and consider the salientcircumstances bearing on the alternatives posed above First, we take up the possibility of suicide.Mr. Reddysubmits with reference to the statement of PW1, the fatherof the deceased girls.It is wrong toassume that these girls were very unhappy in their parentalhouse, or their relations with their parents were estranged.Thisshows how in his anxiety to suppress the truth he tried toreinforce and cover up one falsehood with another.In thisconnection, it may be noted that the D.S.P. persistentlypressed A-2 to send the copies of the F.I.R. and the InquestReport. A-2 was unable to supply any copy of the F.I.R.before the 12th of June, when the D.S.P. himself came to thePolice Station and collected it.The D.S.P. (P.W. 59)testified that on the 11th June, 1971, he had questioned A-2about the First Information Report and the inquest report.Despite these efforts,the D.S.P. did not receive whose records on that day.on15.6.71, he issued a memo.to A-2 directing the latter toproduce immediately the complaint of N. Subba Rao, theinquest report and the case diaries.It was only then thatA2 produced the persistently requisitioned records.Of course PW 26 stated that A2 had recordedstatements of witnesses and had prepared the inquest reportat the Temple.He had a motive to favour A2.Moreover, his version stands inferentially falsified by thecircumstances including the unusual delay in registering thereport Ex. P 25 in the Police Station and in sending thecopies of the records to the D.S.P.Section 174, Cr.P.C peremptorily requires that theofficer holding an inquest on a deadbody should do so atthe spot.Simultaneously, A-1 said ."Yes".This concerted conduct of A-1 in fraudulently representingPW 49 to be a relation or the deceased, when he knew that PW49 was not such a relation, clearly marks him out as anintentional abettor and a guilty partner in the commissionof the offence under sec.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,812 |
JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.Both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment dated 12.12.2000 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1996 and they are being decided by this common judgment.There were five accused-Jagmohan and his brother Nohar as also three sons of Nohar, namely, Ganga, Jamuna and Shiv Prasad.The incident took place on 25.4.1995 at about 6 A.M. in village Narkhoriya within P.S. Sonha at a distance of about 11 kms.from the police station.Tameshar (uncle of Panchu) and Somai-brother of Panchu lost their lives in the incident and Akalpati PW 2 wife of Somai sustained injuries.A criminal litigation was pending between the prosecution side and the accused when this incident took place.On the fateful day and time, the two deceased with their family members were carrying the harvested foodgrains from their field to their barn (Khalihari).Because of the enmity owing to litigation, the five accused allegedly came with lathis and assaulted Somai and Tameshar therewith.They sustained a number of injuries and were rendered unconscious at the spot itself.Akalpati also sustained injuries at the hands of the accused.Somai and Tameshar were admitted in hospital and the report was lodged by Panchu.The information regarding the death of Tameshar was received from the hospital the same day at 10.45 A.M. Initially, Tameshar, Somai and Akalpati were examined by Dr Arun Kumar Gautam PW 7 on 25.4.1995 at P.H.C. Bhanpur.The two injured had received blunt weapon injuries including on the head.He (Tameshar) had died at 7.50 A.M. Somai was referred to District Hospital and was admitted there on 25.4.1995 at 11.50 A.M. He also died there at 12.50 P.M. The injuries of Akalpati were also of blunt object in the form of two contusions.Both of them were simple.Jagdish Singh S.I. PW 8 was the Investigating Officer.Nohar died during the pendency of the trial and as such the remaining four faced the trial.The trial court convicted all of them under Section 147 I.P.C. with a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- (in default of payment of fine one month's further simple imprisonment has to be undergone); seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 2500/- (in default of payment of fine six months' additional simple imprisonment has to be undergone) and under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. with six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- (one month's additional simple imprisonment has to be undergone in default of payment of fine).All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The State has preferred the appeal for enhancement of sentences whereas the represented appeal is directed against the conviction and sentences passed by the trial court.The prosecution examined in all the nine witnesses including three Doctors, 'Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses.The defence of the accused was of denial.We have heard Sri P.N. Misra, learned counsel for the accused and Miss Usha Kiran, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State.The record has been received which was perused.So far as the State appeal for the enhancement of sentences is concerned, we are of the view that the plea for enhancement of sentences is not at all sustainable and justified.With regard to the death of Tameshar and Somai, the accused had been charged also only under Section 304 I.P.C. The weapons of offence were allegedly lathis and it could not be inferred on the scrutiny of the evidence that the death of any of them had been intended.So, the State appeal has no merit at all and is liable to be dismissed.We now take up the represented appeal against conviction.On one side there were Madhav, Sorhai, Ram Narain and Siyaram and on the other Nohar, Jag Mohan, Shiv Prasad and Ganga accused.This factum was undisputed.It is to be noted that she was medically examined by Dr Arun Kumar Gautam PW 7 at P.H.C. Bhanpur on 25.4.1995 at 8.30 A.M. Two Contusions had been found on her person as visible injuries.Panchu PW, 1 has stated in his testimony before the court that Akalpati PW 2 sustained injuries at the hands of the accused in the same incident.It was also stated by him that Akalpati PW 2 had not bled.It is clear from her injury report also because she had sustained contusions.The injuries sustained by her were of course, of burnt object which could have been caused by lathi blows dealt with by the accused.The Doctor had found her injuries to be fresh which could have been sustained within the duration of preceding 2-3 hours.The version of Panchu PW 1 is supported by the testimony of Akalpati PW 2 herself in all material particulars.She being herself an injured, her presence at the spot is not at all to be doubted.It is also to be borne in mind that as per the testimony of the eyewitnesses i.e. Panchu PW 1 and Akalpati PW 2 (injured), at the time of the incident, they (these witnesses), the two deceased, Vidyawati, Madhav and Madhav's wife Kalawati were engaged in carrying the harvested foodgrain from their field to their barn (Khalihan) when the accused appellants launched assault with lathis injuring Tameshar, Somai and Akalpati.It is common knowledge that able bodied members of the family including ladies take part in such operations in rural areas.To come to the point, the presence of Akalpati PW 2 at the spot and the fact of her having sustained injuries in the same incident at the hands of the accused cannot be doubted.The perplexed state of mind of the informant Panchu PW 1 at the time he lodged the F.I.R. can very well be visualized.His entire attention was engaged and focussed on seriously injured persons, namely, Somai and Tameshar.Both of them died, too, of the injuries sustained by them at the hands of the accused.He immediately took two badly injured persons Somai and Tameshar as also Akalpati PW 2 through jeep to P.H.C. Bhanpur for their medical treatment.Tameshar and Somai were both unconscious.He then hurriedly went to police station and lodged the F.I.R. Returning back to P.H.C. Bhanpur, he found that Tameshar had died.Somai was taken to Basti Hospital by the police and he also died there the same day.Somai was brother of the witness Panchu PW 1 and Tameshar was his uncle.Judging in right perspective, no valid criticism can be made because of non-mention in the F.I.R. of the fact that Akalpati PW 2 also sustained injuries in the same incident.Thirdly, the learned counsel for the accused appellants urged that no independent witness was examined in support of the prosecution case.The learned counsel urged that Wazid Ali and Jhabbar were mentioned in the F.I.R. as independent witnesses of the incident.Despite that, none of them was examined and the prosecution relied only on the testimony of the partisan and interested witnesses.We should say that the prosecution had made an application before the trial court that both these witnesses had crossed over to the side of the accused.These witnesses themselves made affidavits on 10.6.1999 and 24.6.1999 that they be exempted from giving evidence.The fact that they themselves gave affidavits indicated that they had been won over by the accused.Normally, no witness comes forward on his own to make such affidavit.Further, it is common experience that generally the people keen themselves away from courts unless it is inevitable as they do not want to invite trouble themselves.No stigma can be attached to the testimony of Panchu PW 1 and Akalpati PW 2 on the ground that the independent witnesses did not come to support the prosecution case.True, Panchu PW 1 and Akalpati PW 2 are interested witnesses but that can be no ground to reject their testimony.The only requirement is that their statements should be scrutinized with care.We find that both of them stood the test of cross-examination firmly.One of them, namely, Akalpati PW 2 was an injured also of the same felony.The other, namely, Panchu PW 1 was an eyewitness who had lodged the F.I.R. with promptitude at 7.30 A.M. regarding the incident of 6 A.M. after firstly taking the victims to P.H.C. Bhanpur through jeep and then hurriedly going to police station to lodge the F.I.R. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 11 kms.There was hardly any time for any concoction, fabrication or deliberation.The accused appellants had wielded lathis in hitting the victims and the medical evidence was completely in harmony with ocular version.On proper analysis, we reject the criticism founded on the non-examination of the independent witnesses.It has next been argued for the accused appellants that Panchu PW 1 described Somai and Tameshar as dead at the spot itself.Jo quote, he stated: "Do laash khet main padi thee.Jeep sarak par khadi thee aur dono laash laadkar Jeep par pahucha diya.Jeep par sath main Akalpati, Madhav aur Kalawati gayee thee.Both Somai and Tameshar were found to be unconscious at P.H.C. They were nearly dead at the spot itself, a number of lathi injuries having been caused to them by the accused including on their heads.The statement of a rural rustic witness is to be interpreted logically, and not literally to find fault with it.We see no merit in this argument.The learned counsel for the accused appellants then argued that the incident might have taken place sometime in the night and there was possibility of the accused appellants having been roped in falsely.Our attention has been invited that digested food was found in the stomach of Tameshar as per the post mortem report and the stomach of Somai was empty.The counsel referred to the statement of Panchu PW 1 that the two deceased and other family members had set out from their house for the field at about 5 A.M. without eating anything.It has been urged that the digested food could be there in the stomach of Tameshar if the incident had taken place in the night.It appears to us that Panchu PW 1 unthoughtfully made the above statement under the stress of cross-examination.Tameshar was an old man aged about 70 years.He had to do physical hard work at the field.It is not uncommon amongst the villagers to partake stale food (cooked the previous day) quite in early hours before leaving for work at the field.Tameshar, an old man, might have eaten something before leaving his house for the field to sustain himself.Moreover, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Ram Bali v. State of U.P. [2004(49)ACC 453] that the medical science is not yet so perfect as to be able to tell the precise time of death of the deceased in a computerized mathematical manner on the basis of stomach contents.The time taken normally for digesting food would also depend upon the quality and quantity of food as well, besides others.The time also varies according to the digestive capacity.The process of digestion is not uniform and varies from individual to individual and the health of a person at a particular time and so many other varying factors.So, it is not possible to doubt the prosecution case and the evidence because of the stomach contents of Tameshar.Addressing ourselves to all the arguments advanced at the bar, we find the conviction of the accused appellants to be well sustainable.Lathi injuries had been inflicted on the heads (vital part) of both the deceased.While convicting the accused appellants inter alia under Section 304 I.P.C., the trial judge ought to have specified whether it was under Part I or Part II.The five accused (Nohar deceased and four appellants) participated in the crime striking Lathi blows including on heads (vital part of the two deceased) and it has to be imputed to them that the death was caused with the intention of causing such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death.Therefore, they committed the offence of Section 304-Part I, I.P.C. in causing the death of Tameshar and Somai besides the other offences as held by the trial judge.We shall, therefore, dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 3356 of 2000 with this clarification.In default of payment of fine, each of them shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.(b) Six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 200/-.In default of payment of fine, each would undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.Judgment be certified to the lower court.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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.
|
103,821,398 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest relating to crime No.112/2015 registered at Police Station Babai, District Hoshangabad for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old person of 65 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the co-accused Chhote Shah that he assaulted the victim Manmohan on his head by a sword, causing a fracture.There is no allegation against the applicant that he assaulted the victim by any weapon.According to the FIR, he was standing with the co-accused.By mere presence, common intention of the applicant cannot be presumed with co-accused Chhote Shah.No offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Sections 34 or 149 of IPC.Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant for bailable M.Cr.C.No.6158/2015 offences.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.C.No.6158/2015 desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period, so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider his application under Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,822,557 |
The applicants are in custody since 05.12.2017 in connection ad with Crime No.100/2012 registered at Police Station Palera, District M Tikamgarh (MP) for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 294, 506-B, 148, 332/149, 333/149 and 353/149 of the IPC.of Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants rt are on bail in ST.No.147/2013, Jatara, District Tikamgarh, but due to ou some unavoidable circumstances, they were not appear on 27.11.2017, they have been found their counsel to file an application, but he could C not filed an application.Due to that order of non-bailable warrant was h passed, but later on within a week the applicants themselves appeared ig before the trial Court on 05.12.2017 and filed the bail application, but H the trial Court has been dismissed this application and they were taken in custody and since that date they were sent in jail.He further submits that they will appear and cooperate with the prosecution in future.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Per-contra, learned Government Advocate for respondent-State opposes the bail application.After hearing arguments of the parties, looking to the whole facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to release the applicants on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, application of the present applicants, namely, Dibbu @ Devendra, Munna Lal Jaiswal, sh Raghvendra @ Ragghu Pal, Rameshwar Prasad, Raghunath e Yadav, Pushpendra Jaiswal, Manoj Kushwaha under Section 439 ad of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable.ou Certified copy as per rules.C h (H.P. SINGH) ig JUDGE H sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2017.12.23 11:42:59 +05'30'
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,038,382 |
It would speak volumes of unworthyconduct forsaking their responsibility as dutiful citizensdriving the prosecution to fall back upon the circumstantialevidence.Mr. Jhala, the Assistant Commandant, Special ReservedPolice, PW-4 and I.B. Shekhawat, PW-58 another officer onduty from the same force, displayed high degree ofresponsibility, courage and sense of duty in assistance ofthe prosecution by swinging into action immediately.PW-4caught the culprit; PW-58 secured the weapon of the offence,lodged the FIR and handed over the accused and the weaponwith material particulars mentioned in that behalf in theFir to the Station House Officer.Everyone needs to takeleaf out of their books of service.It is seen that in somecases of recent origin terror by the accused or at hisbehest, has instilled in the mind of the weightiness theinstinct of self-preservation and inclined them to avoidtheir extermination or reprisal.The state should extendprotection to them.The substratum of the prosecution case against therespondents was that on August 15, 1988, in SagramsinghjiHigh School, Gondal, flag hoisting ceremony (State function)was performed by PW - 38, J.P. Dave, the Deputy Collectorand sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondal; when distribution ofthe prizes was about to conclude, suddenly at about 9.30a.m.a sound of cracker was heard from behind the deceasedwho was siting next to J.P. Dave.People got panicky andstarted running helter-skelter.PW-4 who was sitting left tothe deceased got up on the chair and looked around and sawthe Accused No. 1 attempting to run away.He jumped overthe chair and caught him.PW-58, I.B. Shekhawat saw thatsome arm wrapped in handkerchief was thrown over his headfrom behind.He ran into that direction and caught hold ofit; he found it to be a pistol.he took them intopossession, By the time, he came back, Jhala handed overAccused No.1 to Shekhawat and asked him and A.N. Tiwari, PW-46 PSI to go to the police station, lodge a complaint andhand over Accused No.1 and the pistol (Ex. 1-4) to thepolice.since the deceased had fallen by the side with bloodprofusing from his head, he was taken to Rajkot Hospitalwhere he succumbed due to the head injury, later in the dayShekhawat, PW-58 went to the police station at about 9.55a.m.Therein, the had narratedthus:THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 1997Present:WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1919 OF 1996 O R D E R Delay condoned.Leave granted.Every criminal trial is a voyage in quest of truth forpublic justice to punish the guilty and restore peace,stability and order in the Society.Every citizen who hasknowledge of the commission of cognizable offence has dutyto lay information before the police and cooperate with theinvestigating officer who enjoined to collect the evidenceand if necessary summon the witnesses to give evidence.order and progress.Popatbhai, a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly wasdone to death in the public gaze when full ceremonialIndependence Day function was in progress.The Chiefdignitary of the event, the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mr. J.P. Dave who was sitting besidethe deceased, witnessed the occurrence of shooting ofdeceased, witnessed the occurrence of shooting of deceasedfrom behind; however, when culprit was caught, it would beobvious that he saw him, yet he has turned hostile to theprosecution and even refused to identify the respondent inthe Court sabotaging the prosecution case.Thus, he betrayedhis duty as a reasonable officer and as a worthy citizen andhas denied himself to hold an office of trust andresponsibility.this case is a classic illustration ofhow the prosecution case gets sabotaged by the materialwitnesses turning hostile and creating a disbelief in theefficacy of criminal justice system which needs urgentattention and appropriate remedial action on the part of thelegislature and the executive, in that behalf.This appeal under Section 25 of the Terrorist andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987) (for short,the "TADA ACT" ) arises out of a charge laid against twoaccused, namely, Anirudhsing Mahipat Singh Jadeja, residentof Rabidly Ta."I was present with may SRP Group along with officers at Sangramsingji High Saheb, Mamlatdar Saheb and other important persons were present.During Jhalasaheb, Dy.S.P. etc. were Government officials, After the parade programme for school was going on when bursting of a fir cracker from behind at where we have seated which was believed to have been done by boys from behind.But on people running helter, skelter, during that I felt some arm thrown or my head, i want towards and a handkerchief with it.That pistol was loaded and trigger was raised which I immediately took in my possession and other officers who were there apprehended one person who were there apprehended one person who had thrown this pistol and who when asked his name replied that he was Anirudhsingh Mahipatsingh Jadeja of Ribada.At this time, Popatbhai Sorathyiya was bleeding from his head, immediately he was laid in Jeep and sent to hospital.I and other officers have brought this Anirudhsing to the police Station at this time an produce a loaded pistol with this.with me are A.M. Tiwari of SRP, R.S. Sharma , and the driver of Government Jeep 9929, hence this complaint to do as per law."This first information report was received by theMagistrate at 12.15 p.m. on the same day.Rawat the seniorInspector had initiated the investigation and at around12.30 p.m. Bhattacharya, DIG had arrived at the scene andtook over the investigation and recorded the statements ofthe witnesses, conducted the investigation and then laid thecharge sheet against the respondents for the charge sheetagainst the respondents for the charges referred tohereinbefore.At the trial, many witnesses were examined ofwhich 45 witnesses turned hostile including J.P. Dave; ChiefOfficer of the Municipality, D.P. Taraiya, PW-40; V.P.Sojitra, PW-37, local leading doctor, the Mamlatdar etc. Thetrial Court found that there is no direct evidence adducedinculpating the respondents into the crime.Thecircumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is asunder:" The extra-judicial confession made by Accused No. 1 to Jhala, PW-4; S.R.P.; apprehending of Accused NO.1 on the spot; recovery of the firearm (Ex.A-1) and the handkerchief (Ex-18) thrown by Accused No. 1 the homicidal death of the deceased due to the firing of the of the fire arm behind his head."The Designated Court after considering the entireevidence reach the conclusion that:the prosecution has totally failed to prove that Accused No. 1 was present at the place of incidence with the pistol:the prosecution has failed to prove that Accused No. 1 had thrown the muddammal pistol and handkerchief from the left back side of the sitting eminent persons immediately after the incidence:the prosecution has failed to prove as to at what distance Accused No.1 was standing from the chair of the deceased;the prosecution has also failed to produce any circumstantial evidence regarding Accused No.1 firing at the decease.The learned Judge observed thus;with the crime."Thus, he has given the benefit of doubt to the accused.Thus, this appeal.But will assume the person seen in theuniform to be the police officer.So he remained on duty tillin the evening until the DOSP had come and startedinvestigation and thereafter he left the place.it would beseen that as a dutiful officer on duty, he had performed theduty as a higher officer of the division in the parade and,therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that he was aninvestigating officer.The question, thus, would emerge: whether Anirudhsing,the first respondent had made any confession to Jhala, PW-4?In this behalf, we have to state that in the FirstInformation Report lodged by I.B. Shekhawat there is asentence made that the Accused No. 1 made a statement to PW-4 that he had committed the crime.We think on the evidence, if available on record.However, wecannot shut our eyes to the realities like the presentghastly crime and would endeavour to evaluate the evidenceon record.Therefore, it is the duty of the trial judge orthe appellate Judge to scan the evidence, test it on theanvil of human conduct and reach a conclusion whether theevidence brought on record even of the turning hostilewitnesses would be sufficient to bring home the commissionof the crime.Accordingly, we under take to examine theevidence in this Case.Theyhappened to present at the scene by virtue of their duty.At the outset, we would notice the contention of ShriSushil Kumar that the entire record of the prosecution hasnot been prepared and a copy has not been given to theaccused and that therefore, he was handicapped to placebefore the Court certain aspects relating tot heinvestigation conducting by Rawat and Bhattacharya.In theabsence of scene of offence marked in two sketches and theevidence of witness, Kuber Singh in proof of fire arms;omission to examine other medical evidence and the relevantphotographs wherein the first respondent could be properlyidentified to be the person at the scene of offence.We hadgiven direction to the designated Judge to send the recordduly translated; he sent a report stating that it is avoluminous record and would take considerable time fortranslation and accordingly he sought time.We havecarefully scanned the evidence of the witnesses which isalready on record with the assistance of the counsel for thestate and the accused and have gone through the relevantportions relied upon; thereafter we have ourselves minutelyexamined the evidence.Though PW-38, the Deputy Collector and executiveMagistrate has spoken of the accident and also that AccusedNo.1 was caught, as admitted in cross-examination, we werenot relying upon that evidence for the reason that he actedas an Executive Magistrate and issued remand order to theaccused.In that perspective, we are not placing anyreliance on the evidence of that witness, PW-36, A privatepractitioner, through he turned hostile, has also given theevidence that at the scene of offence Anirudhsing was caughtby the police.Similarly, PW-40, the Chief place immediatelyafter the prize distribution was over and while PW-46 wasannouncing that some more programme was in the offing.Let us first see whether the three circumstances,namely, the homicidal death of the decease popatbhai, theapprehension of the first respondent at the scene ofoccurrence and recovery of pistol and handkerchief said tohave been thrown over the head of PW-58, have been proved tothe satisfaction of the Court before considering whetherthese proved facts are sufficient to bring the offencebeyond reasonable doubt against the first respondent.It is seen that PW-58, I.B. Shekhawat, was the firstinformant, who gave the report.We don notaccept the contention of Shri Sushil Kumar as correct.It isseen that under Ex. 203/1, FIR, the offence charged is underSection 307 but not under Section 302 and the FIR hasalready reached the judicial magistrate at 12.15 p.m. Theinformation conveyed by the doctor under Ex. 201 was theintimation of the death of the deceased.Under these circumstances,the FIR given by Shekhawat under Ex. 203/1 was the firstinformation report.As extracted earlier, it does containwealth of material particulars regarding the apprehension ofAnirudhsingh on the spot.As regardsthe factum of apprehension of the first respondent on thespot, his identify and name, being brought by PW-58 , PW-46and others find place in the first information reportitself.The first question at the outset is dealt with thisthat whether the prosecution has proved that the deceaseddied due to homicidal death.Dr. Buch who conducted thepost-mortem examination along with Dr. Trivedi had given hisocular evidence and he has sated as per the post-mortemreport as under:" External Injury., Wound of entry:- roughly rounded 1-1/2 c.m. in diameter, Rugged and irregular border with charring around wound inverted situated 1 inch postero superior to right mastoid tip.No smell or deposition of gun powder.No signeing of hair.Haetoma underneath; dark red in colour, No wound of exit, Vane section both lower limbs and venu puncture both upper limb.These were treatment wounds.Buch and Dr.The omission to examine Dr. Trivedi isnot of relevance.In this regard, it is also contended byShri Sushil Kumar that the prosecution has failed to Connectthe injury caused by the fire arm, EX.1A. There is a disputewhether the pistol produced before the Court is the one thatwas seized by PW-58, I.B. Shekhawat when it was alleged tohave been thrown and it was not established beyond doubtthat it was the same weapon that was used in the commissionof the crime.another officeron duty and also spoken to by PW-46, another officer on dutyand also spoken by PW-4, Jhala, As regards the pistol whichwas seized, we have unimpeachable evidence on record ofBharat Virji S/o Kapilari Mistry, Senior Scientific ForensicOfficer, PW-55, wh had done the analysis after the receiptof the pistol from the ballistic expert, that it is thepistol that was placed before the Court.In his evidence,PW-55 in Ex. 217 has stated in examination-in-chief that hereceived a pistol wrapped with hand-kerchief and he analysedit; and when he was subjected to cross-examination, he hasspecifically stated that the pistol was found wrapped in acover.He opened it in his presence and in the presence ofhis servant; opened it and found iron rusting on the hand-kerchief.Iron rusting was also analysed.In that behalf, agreat deal of extensive cross-examination was conducted bythe defence counsel but nothing came out to suggest it wasweapon other than the one that was sent to him forexamination.In this evidence, PW-4 has categorically statedwhich has also remained unchallenged in the cross-examination, that the pistol that was produced in the Courtwas the one that was seixed at the place of occurrenceimmediately after it was thrown.Thus it could be held thatthe prosecution has established that the weapon which wasthrown over the head of PW-58, I.B. Shekhawat, was the onethat was seized by him and placed before the police underFIR, Ex. 203/1; mention thereof was made in the custody ofthe court immediately at 12.15 p.m. on that date.Thus theprosecution has conclusively proved that the firm-arm Ex. 1-A, was recovered from the scene.It is true that the emptycartridge was discharged from the pistol It is also true, aspointed out by Shri Sushil Kumar, that the magazinecontained an empty one and one loaded cartridge was found inthe chamber but it depends upon the velocity with which itis used.It is in the evidence of PW-4, Jhala and PW-58 ,I.B. Shekhawat, that they heard the sound like cracker frombehind them and immediately they saw the people runninghelter-skelter and when PW-4 got up on the chair and lookedaround, he saw Anirdusingh, Accused No. 1 attempting to runaway.As a consequence, he immediately jumped from the chairand caught him.He has stated in his evidence thus:"I and Shekhawat stood up and I saw on my left a weapon wrapped in cloth being thrown from my left side to right side.Shri Shekhawat went to the right side where the weapon was thrown towards temple side and I stood up on my chair and to may left side behind where many people were standing.one person was trying to run away, hence.I jumped from the chary and caught hold of this suspected person.At that time, I saw popatbhai bleeding from his nose and he lay on right side with his head below".In Paragraph 7, he stated thus: " I and Shekahawat took the apprehended boy next to the stage where P.S.I. Rawat and other police officials were standing.The boy whom I apprehended is present in the court and is accused No. 1 whom I identify.Muddamal article no.1 A pistol, and handkerchief, article no.2 are shown to me, but if they are two or there I cannot identify.In the cross-examination, though he was subjected togruelling in the cross-examination, he withstood the cross-examination, he withstood the cross-examination and statedthus:"It has happened when I stood up at that time Shekhawat ran towards the direction where the thing was thrown up which appeared to have been wrapped in a cloth .It is true that i saw the thing thrown wrapped in a cloth as pistol when Shekhawat came to me with it.I saw Shekhawat running at a distance of 10 to 15 feet away.The thing thrown up passed opposite me from the upper side.This landed in the front line of chair.if it were a case that there is a time gapbetween the time of occurrence and of the recovery,certainly that would be a matter to be established withreference to the identify of the place at which the articleswere thrown and the place from which they were thrown.WhenPW-58 and PW-4 were present at the scene of occurrence, itwas their duty to swing into action as dutiful citizens andofficers; to catch hold of the pistol without being blowncausing damage to the others; and PW-58 had taken them intocustody.As regards photographs, their relevance will be consideredwhile examining the evidence of Anirudhsingh having beencaught on the spot.Instead, thefirst respondent having committed the offence of murder ofPopatbhai, is convicted under Section 302, IPC and issentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.Since more thannine years have elapsed from the date of the commission ofthe crime, we do not think it appropriate to impose capitalsentence of hanging, through he has committed an heinous anda gruesome crime of killing a responsible Member ofLegislative Assembly who was attending flat hoistingceremony on the Independence Day.He is alls convicted foran offence under section 5 of the TADA Act and is sentencedto undergo imprisonment for three years, Both the sentenceare directed to run concurrently.The appeal against thefirst respondent is allowed accordingly Appeal against thesecond respondent is dismissed.Bail bond of the first respondent stands cancelled.TheSuperintendent of Police, Rajkot is directed to take thefirst respondent into custody immediately to serve out thesentence.He is also directed to report compliance of thesaid direction to the Registry of this Court.The bail bondof the second respondent is discharged.Before parting with the matter, we place on record ourappreciation for the excellent and efficient servicerendered by Mrs. N. Anapurna, Senior Stenographer who hasalways taken long dictation of heavy matters in the Courtand transcribed accurately as was dictated to her.Accordingly, we place on record our commendation for herexcellent work.
|
['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,838,920 |
As per the grounds of detention dated 29.11.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :-Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law1P.6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Cr. No.196/2009341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. @ 147, 148, 302 r/w 120(b)P.3 Vyasarpadi Police Station Cr.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.(V.D.P.,J.) (G.C.,J.) 17.06.2014Index:Yes/No sbiTo2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,026,364 |
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal impugns the order dated 7th July, 2010 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Miscellaneous Case No. 891 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2010, whereby the 2 High Court has granted bail to the respondent Manoj Kumar Pradhan, a sitting M.L.A., who has been convicted under Sections 147, 326 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.The trial Court found that at the time of occurrence, the present respondent along with others obstructed the deceased and his family members at Barepanga.Thereafter, the rioters arrived there being called by them.The trial Court observed:"They became part of the unlawful assembly after the arrival of the rioters.At that time the members of the unlawful assembly were armed with deadly weapons like tangia (axe), knife etc. which, used as weapons of offence is likely to cause death.Some members of the unlawful assembly started assaulting the deceased brutally and mercilessly immediately arriving there.Thereafter, some members of the mob burnt him there.Arrival of several persons of ore than five at the place of occurrence, armed 3with deadly weapons, being called by the accused persons and assaulting the deceased with various weapons clearly indicate that the common object of such unlawful assembly was to show criminal force or to cause violence and to commit hurt to the deceased with such weapons which endangered his life which amounts to cause grievous hurt.From their behaviour and conduct at the spot the same is apparent.While assaulting the deceased, some members of the unlawful assembly exceeded their power and brutally killed the deceased at the spot beyond the common object of the unlawful assembly.Thereafter, some members of such unlawful assembly set fire to him.After killing him, some members of the unlawful assembly thought it prudent to wipe out the evidence of murder and accordingly they buried the burnt dead body of the deceased...All the members of the unlawful assembly including the present two accused persons ... can be held guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149, IPC as they shared the common object of the unlawful assembly to cause grievous hurt to the deceased...After critical evaluation of the entire materials and the position of law, it is found that both the accused were involved for commission of the offence of rioting punishable under Section 147, IPC on the day of occurrence at the spot....with the same materials they are found guilty for commission of the offences punishable under Section 147 and 326/149, IPC not under Section 302/149, IPC and I convict them there under".The trial Court also made a separate order of sentence which is as under:"Convict Manoj Ku.Pradhan is a responsible person of the locality and he is also a public representative.Commission of riot by him with others can not be considered lightly.The crime committed by the convicts was not only against the individual victim but also the same was against the society at large.It is required under the law that punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should be conformed to and being consisted with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated.Keeping in view such principle and the circumstances under which the offence was committed if the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence under Section 326/149, IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Section 147, IPC it will meet the ends of justice.Both the convicts are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 326/149 and to undergo rigorous 5 imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 147, IPC.Substantive sentences are to run concurrently".The respondent along with another convict preferred Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2010 in the High Court of Orissa against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.The appeal was taken up for admission on 7.7.2010 by the High Court and on the same day the High Court directed release of the respondent herein.The said order reads as under:"Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner No.1 is a sitting M.L.A. of G.Udayagiri constituency, I directed that on petitioner's furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ad hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Phulbani, Kandhamal, they shall be released on bail.It is further directed that the petitioners shall not threaten the witnesses examined.Mr. Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the informant states that since the petitioner No. 1 is an influential person, he may tamper with the evidence in other cases pending against him.He further states that security may be given to the informant Kanak Rekha Naik.6 Considering the above submission, I direct the Superintendent of Police, Kandhamal to provide adequate protection to her, if she applies for the same".The above order is challenged on various grounds in this appeal.Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court committed serious error in directing the release of the respondent who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 326 read with Section 149, IPC.It was also submitted that during the trial, the appellant was on bail which is one of the important aspect to be taken into consideration.10.We have heard both the learned senior counsel at a considerable length.For the purposes of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to recapitulate all the findings recorded by the trial Court as against the respondent for his conviction under Section 326 read with Section 149, IPC.Of course, the same is under challenge in the criminal appeal preferred by him before the High Court.Secondly, we have granted permission to the appellant to file the appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the High Court.It is for the High Court to decide as to the circumstances and the person who could be permitted to intervene while hearing the applications seeking suspension of sentence filed by the convicted person.It is a matter of exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court.But if for any reason, the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended, every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases.The appellate Court is required to record reasons in writing for suspending the sentence and release of a convict on bail pending the appeal.Therefore, the only question that falls for our consideration in the instant case is whether the High Court has taken into consideration all the facts and recorded any reason directing the release of the respondent pending the appeal preferred by him challenging his conviction by the trial Court?2 (1999) 4 SCC 421 11
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,637,732 |
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of their family members and well wishers.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Mr. Sachin Basoya, Mr. Tarun Singh Chaudhary, Mr. Preet Indervir Singh, Mr. Birpal, Mr. Yash Pal and Mr. Sunil Nagar for quashing of FIR No.260/2015 dated 25/07/2016, under Sections 143/147/148/149/308/326/506/120B IPC registered at Police Station Lodi Colony on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Sh.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant and respondent nos. 3 & 4, present in present in the Court have been identified to be the other victims by their counsel in the FIR in question.M.C. 2128/2016 Page 1 of 7The factual matrix of the present case is that the Respondent no. 2 is a 3rd year student of Physics (Hons.) in Dayal Singh College, Delhi.On 25.07.2015 he went to college as usual and at about 1 pm when he was sitting in front of Principal's office, respondent no. 3 went to drink water, where he saw that petitioner no. 1 carrying a stick and a pistol like thing on his waist and was with petitioner nos. 2 to 6 and some other boys, who were also carrying rods and knives with them.There were 15-20 other boys also, who were outsiders and upon spotting Respondent no. 2, they started shouting out that respondent no. 2 needs to be taught a lesson by them as he was supporting DUSU.Petitioner no. 1 picked up a pot and threw it at Respondent no. 2 and thereafter the other boys followed him due to which Respondent no. 2 got grievously injured and respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were standing there, also got injured due to this.The college property was also damaged by the Petitioners.Thereafter, the complainant got lodged a complaint, following which the FIR in question was registered against the accused persons.The parties thereafter, arrived at a compromise and settled the matter peacefully.Statements of the respondent nos.2 to 4 have been recorded respectively in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioners and have settled all the disputes with them.M.C. 2128/2016 Page 6 of 7In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statements made by the respondent nos.2 to 4 respectively, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.260/2015 dated 25.07.2016, under Sections 143/147/148/149/308/326/506/120B IPC registered at Police Station Lodi Colony and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.This petition is accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,642,575 |
(i)The accused/ appellant and the deceased Shenbagavalli were lovers.They have become life partners.They have set up their separate family.They have children.(ii)On 06.03.2009, at about 8 p.m., Shenbagavalli was brought to the Government Royapettah Hospital with extensive burn injuries.P.W.8 Doctor noticed several burn injuries on her.(Ex.P4 Accident Register Copy).She was admitted an in-patient.P.W.10 Sub-Inspector of Police, received intimation from the said Hospital.He went to the hospital and received Ex.P8 complaint from the accused.P9 F.I.R.).He took up his investigation.He went to the scene of occurrence.Prepared Ex.P10 Observation Mahazer in the presence of witnesses.Drew Ex.P11 Rough Sketch.In the presence of witnesses, he also recovered plastic can (M.O.1) and match box (M.O.2) under Ex.P12 Mahazer.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.On 12.03.2009, he received death intimation from the hospital that Shenbagavalli had passed away.(iii)P.W.11 Inspector Ramalingam took up further investigation.He changed the Section of Law to Section 306 of I.P.C. (Ex.P13 Alteration Memo).On 20.03.2009, he arrested the accused.P.W.9 Kaja Mohideen, P.A.(General) to Collector, Chennai conducted enquiry.His report is Ex.The post-mortem Doctor conducted post-mortem.A.No.420 of 2015 And M.P.No.1 of 201508.02.2016The sole accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Chennai in S.C.No.189 of 2010 challenges his conviction and sentence.2.The said Judge while acquitting him from a charge under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act convicted and sentenced him as under:(i) 498(A)3 years R.I.(ii)306 I.P.C.He recorded the statement of witnesses.P.W.11 obtained Ex.P14 - Post-Mortem Certificate.Concluding his investigation, P.W.11 filed the final report for offences under Section 306 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act before the concerned Court.4.After all the formalities were complied with, the appellant was charged for offences under Section 498 A, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and under Section 306 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty.5.To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.6.On the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the offences.He did not examine any witness nor produce any document on his side.7.Appreciating the above evidence and considering the submissions of both sides, the Trial Court while acquitting the accused from the charge under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act convicted and sentenced him under two counts as stated in para 2 supra.8.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that absolutely there is nill incriminating evidence as against the accused.The evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.2 or other witnesses does not substantiate the charges.The RDO ruled out any dowry harassment.9.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 9 establishes the charges framed against the accused.The suspicion of the accused caused the death of his wife.P.W.9 RDO also recorded the statement of P.Ws.1 and 2, which contains many incriminating evidence against the accused.Thus, the learned Judge has rightly convicted and appropriately sentenced him.10.I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the Trial Court's judgment and also the evidence and other connected materials on record.11.Now the question is whether the charges under Sections 498 A I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C., have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.12.Both the accused and the deceased were lovers.Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that suspecting the character of his wife, the accused had continuously tortured her and on 06.03.2009 also he had harassed her, his conduct was so unbearable that she had committed suicide.For a charge under Section 306 I.P.C., two ingredients must be established.The other one is abetment to commit suicide.13.In this case, the Criminal law was set in motion by the accused himself.P.W.1 Devi, the mother-in-law of the accused had stated that her son-in-law used to entertain doubt on her daughter and harassed her, thus on the fateful day her daughter attempted suicide.In her cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that she has not witnessed any such occurrence.Her evidence also would not disclose any incriminating evidence as against the accused.She had also started improving her evidence.There is complete variance in her evidence before the Court and in her statement to police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. She had also stated that the accused had harassed her sister on suspicion.But she says that it was told by her sister's daughter.However, that girl was not examined.15.P.W.9 is a Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.).R.D.O. Enquiry is to find out apparent cause of death when a married woman dies within seven years of her marriage.It is a previous statement.Such a statement is like a statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Such statements are not recorded in the presence of the accused.It is a statement recorded outside the Court.They cannot be substantive evidence.What is substantive evidence is evidence adduced before the Trial Court.The statements given to R.D.O. can be used by the defence to test the veracity of the evidence of a witness.It cannot be used to record a conviction.16.P.W.3 Govindasamy is a neighbour of the deceased.He is an after occurrence witness.His evidence is not useful to the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused.His evidence is complete hearsay evidence.P.W.4 Viswanathan is the brother of the deceased.17.P.W.5 Mani is residing in the house opposite to the house of the accused.He stated that there used to be quarrel between the accused and his wife.He used to hear daily lot of sounds from their house.He used to pacify them.He did not know the reasons for their such quarrel.It is a matter of common knowledge that spouses quarrels for so many reasons.P.W.5's evidence is vague.It is general.It does not pin the accused to the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C.18.P.W.8 Dr.Senthil first seen the deceased on 06.03.2009, when she was brought to the hospital.When enquired she told him that she had self-immolated on that day and her husband tried to save her.P.W.8 had also recorded her said statement in Ex.P4 Accident Register.P.W.8's such evidence remains unchallenged.19.Thus, the prosecution evidence does not goes to establish the charges framed against the accused.What remains is suspicion and surmises.Suspicion and surmises, however, strong may not take the place of legal proof.No legal and acceptable evidence is available to record a conviction against the accused.Prosecution has throughly failed to establish both the charges framed against the accused.20.Thus, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.The conviction under Sections 498 - A and 306 of IPC and the sentences imposed on the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chennai in S.C.No.189 of 2010 on 26.02.2015 are set aside.He is acquitted from both the charges.The Superintendent, Central Prison I, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to set him at liberty, if he is no longer required in connection with any other case or proceedings.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.08.02.2016priIndex: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ NoTo1.The Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Chennai.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.3.The Inspector of Police, E3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai.4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.DR.P.DEVADASS,J.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,642,779 |
Prosecution case in brief is that on 14/07/2020 at 5:30 pm, complainant Hatim Bohra was sitting in his shop with his employees Sunil and Jagdish.Suddenly, 2 young boys came on the motorcycle, one of them barged into his shop, fired at him twice or thrice and escaped right away.The complainant sustained gunshot wounds on his thighs which were bleeding.During investigation, brother of Hatim, Yusuf informed the police that about a month prior, on 17/06/2020, some unknown caller had demanded Rs. 25 lacs under the threat of his life.Ajhar and Shahanwaj further disclosed that Arbaj and Roshan are the master minds of the crime.They hatched the conspiracy and hired them to demand Rs.25 lacs under the threat of life from Yusuf and when he did not respond or adhere to their demand, Arbaj and Roshan directed them to fire at his brother Hatim.Only on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons, he is being implicated in the crime.Several other persons joined them willfully and consciously.They also explained map of the city and the routes to them.They stood by their side and helped them flee from the spot after the deed was done.Call details of the people involved very well corroborate the fact disclosed by the co-accused persons as well as by the petitioner himself.It is a deep rooted conspiracy of extorting money by creating a reign of terror.In furtherance of the conspiracy, the two hired shooters fired only at the thighs of the complainant which shows that it was executed simply to create terror and retaliate as his brother did not respond to their call for extorting Rs.25 lacs.Such crimes are against the society at large and makes the life of law abiding persons miserable.Main conspirators Arbaj Lala and Roshan Lala are still absconding, therefore, he be not granted bail.As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application under section 439 Cr.P.C.He recorded the call but didn't take it seriously.After the incident he handed over the recording to the police.The police, who had registered the crime earlier under Sections 307, 450, 34 of IPC & Section 25, 27 of Arms Act, added Sections 384 & 120-B of IPC and started investigation on this aspect of the crime also.On the basis of CCTV footage, the police first identified and arrested Ajju @ Ajhar and Shahnawaz and on their disclosure arrested (i) Aslam @ Haddi S/o Ahmad Ali, (ii) Shadab S/o Yusuf Khan, (iii) Arshad S/o Aarif Khan Mev, (iv) Deepak Malviya, (v) Iqbal S/o Ajij Khan, (vi) Saddam @ Kalu S/o Ajij Shah and (vii) Manmmu @ Shadab S/o Gul 2 Mohammad Mev.The duty assigned to the petitioner Kalu @ Saddam and Iqbal was to guide Ajhar and Shahanwaj to the route for escape after the firing.Prior to the crime, they also visited Arbaj, who provided them the pistol and cartridges and Rs.1000/- cash, which they then handed over to Ajhar and Shanawaj.The police collected CDR of mobile No.97528-83539, 70003- 76490 and 80059-57810 of Iqbal, Arbaj, Shahnawaz and Saddam, which disclosed that at the time of the incident, they were all at the same location and there was frequent interaction between all of them.The bail is pleaded on the ground that the petitioner has no connection with the crime.Allegation against the petitioner is that he convened a meeting between the co-accused Ajju @ Ajhar and Shahnawaz at the one end who shot fire on the spot and Arbaz lala and Roshan lala at the other hand who provided information regarding the worth of the victims.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,643,532 |
sm c.no.29 CRR No.1558 of 2018 In the matter of:- Patriach Developers Private Limited & Ors. ... Petitioners.The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that due to inadvertence, the defacto complainant in this case, D. Motani, was not made a part to this proceeding.He submits that the petitioners may be granted liberty to add the defacto complainant as an opposite party.Leave is granted to amend the cause title to that effect.The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that this is an application for quashing of a proceeding under Sections 403/406/417/418/ 420/465/467/468/471/120b of the Penal Code.He submits that the case relates to certain share transactions and the entire dispute regarding the same has been settled by the private parties.The learned Advocate for the petitioners refers to three (3) settlement agreements entered into between one or more of the parties.He submits that the parties would like to file a joint compromise application in connection with this application and pray for quashing of the proceeding on the ground of compromise.He supports the contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the matter has been settled and the parties would like to file a joint compromise application for quashing of the proceeding.2 Let the petitioners serve a copy of this application upon the State through the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta and upon the defacto complainant, added opposite party, by speed-post with A/D, within a week.An affidavit-of-service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.Let this matter appear under the same heading Listed Motion after three (3) weeks.The petitioners are at liberty to pray for stay.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertaking.(Jay Sengupta, J.)
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,026,448 |
We have to consider the case in the backdrop of the fact that accused Sunil used to harass deceased Krishna Bai as he had illicit relationship with a "Sindhi" girl with whom he wanted to perform marriage.He used to give threat of "Chhor Chhutti" a customary form of divorce, he used to beat Krishna Bai.On the date of incident after having the food she came in the bed room where Sunil was lying in the bed, at that time some altercation and exchange of hot words with respect to relationship with the "Sindhi" girl appears to have taken place.On that as per version of deceased, accused Sunil poured kerosene oil on her, Sushila Bai caught hold of her, Reeta brought the match box and she was set ablaze by Sunil by lighting match-stick.JUDGMENT Arun Mishra JThe three appeals have been preferred by 3 appellants Sunil, Sushila and Reeta.They have been convicted for committing offence u/s 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default of payment of fine they have to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.Apart from that accused Sunil has been convicted for committing offence Under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine he has to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of deceased Krishna Bai was performed with accused Sunil 4 years before the incident.Sunil had illicit relationship with a "Sindhi" girl with whom he wanted to perform marriage and leave the deceased Krishna Bai.There used to be disputes between deceased Krishna Bai and accused Sunil, Krishna Bai was ill-treated.On the date of incident i.e.21.2.96 Sunil poured kerosene oil on Krishna Bai, Sushila caught hold of her, Reeta brought a match-box handed it over to accused Sunil and Sunil set ablaze the clothes of Krishna Bai.Her brother-in-law Anil put a blanket over her to extinguish the fire.She was referred to Victoria hospital.Her 3 dying declarations were recorded.Initial dying declaration (Ex.P.18) was recorded at 4:30 p.m. Second dying declaration (Ex.P.9) was recorded at 8:45 p.m. Third dying declaration (Ex.P.12) was recorded in the form of "Dehati Nalishi" at 9:20 p.m. Krishna Bai succumbed to the burn injuries on 10.4.96 after 48 days of the incident.Spot map (Ex.P.3) was prepared.Certain articles -kerosene oil bottle, match-box, piece of blouse were seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P.4).Post-mortem was performed.Accused were charge-sheeted.3. Accused abjured their guilt and contended that they had been falsely implicated, they were innocent.Sunil was not in the house at the time of incident.When he came back in the evening, he was informed by his sister Babita that Krishna Bai caught fire accidentally while cooking the food.Anil had saved her.In defence also evidence has been adduced.The prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses.In defence 2 witnesses had been examined Anil Kumar and Jagdish.The trial court had convicted the accused persons and sentenced them in the aforesaid manner.Consequently the appeals have been preferred by them.Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr.with Shri Manish Mishra, for appellants, has submitted that 3 dying declarations were recorded, out of them in the first dying declaration name of the accused Reeta was not mentioned that she has participated in commission of offence in any manner.In later 2 dying declarations her name had been mentioned.Learned Sr. counsel has further submitted that Reeta has taken the deceased to hospital.She was residing nearby.Her marriage stood performed, on date of incident her conduct indicates towards innocence, otherwise she would not have accompanied Krishna Bai to the hospital, thus, she ought to have been acquitted.There was no allegation of harassment against her, only after the incident has taken place such an allegation has come for the first time as an after thought.He has further submitted that with respect to role played by Sushila, mother- in-law of deceased, though her name finds place in the dying declaration but there is contradiction with respect to role played by her while the deceased was set ablaze.He has further submitted that role attributed to Sushila Bai in that she poured kerosene oil or caught hold of deceased Krishna Bai but no smell of kerosene oil was found in the hair nor kerosene oil was found at the spot of incident or in the clothes of Krishna Bai, absence of kerosene oil indicates that implication of Sushila Bai to be false and renders dying declaration to be doubtful.He has further submitted that as against the accused Sunil prosecution case stands falsified due to the improvement made in dying declarations and absence of kerosene oil renders the dying declarations and entire story to be unreliable.The deceased Krishna Bai had caught the fire accidentally while she was cooking food as stated by defence witnesses.Consequently, the appellants be acquitted.He has relied upon certain decisions to be referred later.Shri T.K. Modh, learned Dy.Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent-State, has submitted that no case for interference in these appeals was made out.After 4 years of marriage accused Sunil got rid of deceased Krishna Bai.He wanted to perform marriage with a "Sindhi" girl and due to that reason used to harass deceased Krishna Bai.It has come in the evidence of witnesses that even Sushila and Reeta assisted to the husband and meted cruel treatment to the deceased.The dying declarations were reliable.In the initial dying declaration (Ex.P.18) omission of name of Reeta did not cause any dent the prosecution case, as later 2 dying declarations were consistent, they had been recorded on the same day in close proximity of time and there was no chance of tutoring the deceased Krishna Bai, consequently dying declarations (Ex.P.9 & P.12) were reliable, beside there was evidence of oral dying declaration made by Krishna Bai.Consequently trial court has rightly convicted the appellants.Thus, appeals deserve dismissal.Krishna Bai was taken for treatment initially to Dr. Anil Dubey.Considering the extent of burn injuries Dr. Anil Dubey advised to take Krishna Bai to the Victoria hospital, where she reached at 2:30 p.m. as apparent from bed-head ticket.In Victoria hospital she was examined by Dr. A.K. Jain (P.W.5), he has mentioned in the bed-head ticket (Ex.P.7) that arrangement be made for recording her dying declaration.It appears that police had set in the investigation on receiving information u/s 174 of Cr.P.C.First dying declaration (Ex.P.18) was recorded by Prem Singh, Head constable of concerned police station.This document was admitted by the prosecution as stated by concerned AGP before trial Court on 13.2.98, when prayer was made by defence counsel to call Prem Singh, Head constable, it was opposed by the prosecution stating that prosecution admits the document i.e. dying declaration (Ex.P.18), consequently it was marked as exhibit and read in evidence being an admitted document.It is not in dispute that Reeta had accompanied Krishna Bai initially to Dr. Anil Dubey and also to the Victoria hospital.Coupled with this fact when we go through the initial version in first dying declaration (Ex.P.18) recorded at 4:30 p.m., there was total absence of name of Reeta, this statement had been signed by Krishna Sonkar, the deceased.Time 4:30 p.m. and date has also been mentioned in the statement (Ex.P.18).It was mentioned in the dying declaration by Krishna Bai that her husband abused her and also beaten her with stick and stated that she should obtain "Chhod-Chhutti" (divorce), her husband caught hold of her, Sushila Bai, mother- in-law, poured kerosene oil on her and Sunil set her ablaze with the help of the match stick.When she cried, Baby wife of Laxman, Laxman, Omwati D/o Banshilal and others came to the house.Her brother-in-law Anil put a blanket on her to extinguish the fire.She was taken to the hospital by her father- in-law and sister-in-law.Not even the presence of accused Reeta has been mentioned in (Ex.P.18) at the time of incident.Then, we find on record yet another dying declaration (Ex.P.9) recorded subsequently on the same day.It was recorded at 8:45 p.m. Doctor had certified that Krishna Bai was in a fit condition to give statement.In her second dying declaration (Ex.P.9) Krishna Bai has mentioned that Sunil had kept one "Sindhi" girl and wanted to obtain divorce with Krishna Bai and used to close the door and after playing tape- recorder to suppress the noise and used to beat her.She had cooked the food by 12'0 clock in the noon and completed other work, when she came to room her husband was lying in the bed, started abusing her.Her mother-in-law Sushila Bai poured kerosene oil, her sister-in-law Reeta brought the match-box and thereafter her husband Sunil set her ablaze.Anil her brother-in-law had put the blanket over her.She was having a son of 2 years.Name of "Sindhi" girl was Indrana.Her marriage was performed prior to 4 years.She could not even write a letter to their parents.Earlier too also she had been badly beaten.She was not allowed to visit her parental house.In this statement (Ex.P.9) she has assigned the specific role to all the 3 accused persons, role was assigned to Reeta Sonkar that she brought the match-box.This dying declaration (Ex.P.9) was recorded in presence of Dr. Smt. Chandralekha Jain (P.W.8).Dr. Smt. Chandralekha Jain (P.W.8) has also stated that aforesaid dying declaration was recorded and patient was conscious and was in a position to give the statement and her dying declaration had been recorded by Executive Magistrate cum Naib Tehsildar in her presence.We find on record yet another third dying declaration (Ex.P.12) in the form of "Dehati Nalishi" recorded at 9:20 p.m. by I.O. Jayant Temre (P.W.13) in which deceased Krishna Bai has stated that her husband had relationship with the "Sindhi" girl with whom he wanted to perform marriage.At about 12'0 clock her mother-in-law Sushila Bai, sister-in-law Reeta, her husband Sunil and brother-in-law Anil were in the house.Anil was sleeping.Sunil started quarreling and beating her with stick.Sunil poured kerosene oil on her.Sushila Bai caught hold of her.Reeta brought the match-box and handed it over to Sunil, Sunil set her ablaze, due to that she has suffered burn injuries.Anil had put a blanket in order to extinguish fire.Several persons assembled.Reeta and others took her to Dr. Anil Dubey, thereafter she was taken to the Victoria hospital.In view of the aforesaid dying declarations, it is apparent that deceased Krishna Bai had been consistent with respect to accused Sushila Bai, her mother-in-law and Sunil, her husband.It was Sunil who set her ablaze, there was discrepancy in the statements, whether Sunil or mother-in-law poured kerosene oil or caught hold of deceased.Whatever that may be, this kind of discrepancy was not enough so as to give any benefit of doubt to the accused Sushila and Sunil, as we find that statements of Krishna Bai with respect to them were quite reliable, however, when we consider the omission of name of Reeta in (Ex.P.18)and also considering the fact that her marriage stood performed at the time of accident, she was residing separately, there was no evidence on record of the period before incident to suggest that she used to harass or beat the deceased, no such complaint was ever made by deceased Krishna Bai to any one before the incident as against Reeta; she was residing separately, absence of her name in initial dying declaration (Ex.P.18) was significant and created a doubt as to the complicity of Reeta in the case itself.Deceased Krishna Bai was fully conscious when her initial statement (Ex.P.18) had been recorded, she was conscious at the time when her second dying declaration came to be recorded at 8:45 p.m., she was also conscious when her third dying declaration had been recorded at 9:20 p.m. There is no reason whatsoever why she would spare accused Reeta in case she had played the role in setting her ablaze.There was no whisper in the first dying declaration (Ex.P.18) that Reeta was present on the spot.It appears that Rajtilak Sonkar (P.W.1), cousin of deceased Krishna Bai reached in the Victoria hospital in the evening after receiving information as to the incident.He initially went to Dr. Anil Dubey's place and thereafter to Victoria hospital, thus, it appears that Rajtilak (P.W.1), cousin of deceased Krishna Bai had reached by the time when her second and third dying declarations were recorded and later on an improvement had been made in the story that Reeta had also assisted in setting her ablaze by bringing a match-box.Even otherwise, there was no reason for the different persons to bring kerosene oil and match-box in order to set ablaze Krishna Bai.There was possibility of improvement made in second and third dying declarations after talking with relatives and a doubt is created as to the complicity of accused Reeta in the instant cases.Recording of aforesaid three dying declarations has not been disputed at bar.One of dying declaration had been admitted to be recorded as Ex.Two other dying declarations had been proved by evidence of Jayant Temre (P.W.13) and J.L. Ahte (P.W.14), beside Dr. Smt. Chandralekha Jain has stated that dying declaration (Ex.P.9) was recorded in her presence.Dr. G.K. Upadhyay (P.W.7) has stated that deceased suffered with 35% of burns at the time when she was admitted in the ward, intimation was given to police, that supports the investigation set up u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. in the course of which dying declaration (Ex.P.18) came to be recorded by Prem Singh, Head constable of concerned police station.Rajtilak Sonkar (P.W.1) has stated that when he reached Victoria hospital, he was informed by Krishna Bai that her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were responsible to set her ablaze.She has stated about the demand of dowry.He is close relative of deceased Krishna Bai.Tulsiram Sonkar (P.W.3) has also stated about the demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-, however, he has admitted in cross-examination in para-5 that he had not informed the police about the demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-.He did not disclose this fact to the police till her daughter was alive.He was unable to give any reason for not disclosing the fact of demand of dowry to the police till the death of Krishna Bai, though she survived for 48 days.He has not levelled any specific allegation against accused Reeta and Sushila with respect to demand of dowry.Sewakram (P.W.4), brother of deceased, has also stated about the oral dying declaration made by deceased in which he had named Sunil, mother-in-law Sushila Bai and sister-in-law Reeta but that was made after several days of the incident and with respect to role of Reeta, her statement could not be said to be reliable, he has given the reason for incident that husband of deceased used to beat her on the issue of a "Sindhi" girl.He has not stated about the demand of dowry.Victim in second dying declaration before Investigating Officer not only named her husband but also her mother-in-law.The conviction of accused husband u/s 302 of IPC was held to be proper and mother-in-law was given the benefit of doubt in view of inconsistencies between two dying declarations.In one of dying declaration it was indicated to be an accident.The Apex Court observed in para-18 that the investigating officer P.W.8 committed grave irregularity in omitting to send the burnt clothes and other incriminating material for chemical examination to lend corroboration to the evidence.Mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of the investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account.The Apex Court also considered the attempt to screen the offence by destroying the evidence.Consequently, dying declarations of deceased which had been found to be reliable with respect to husband and mother-in-law could not be overlooked.Thus, we find that prosecution had been able to establish guilt of Sunil and Sushila beyond reasonable doubt, however, accused Reeta for the aforesaid reasons was entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.Resultantly, We dismiss the appeals (Cr.A.No.565/98 & Cr.A.No.566/98) filed by accused Sunil and Sushila and allow the appeal (Cr.A.No.559/98) filed by Reeta Sonkar and acquit her for commission of offence Under Section 302 of IPC.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,265,043 |
/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 9(b)(ii) of the Indian Explosives Act.And In the matter of: Md. Kurban ...Petitioner.Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee ...for the petitioner.The learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier granted bail by the learned court below on December 7, 2011 while deciding the application, being C. M. C. No. 1634 of 2011, although the said petitioner was not released for non-furnishing the bail bonds in terms of the said order passed by the learned court below.The learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that subsequently another application for bail was filed, which was ultimately rejected by the learned court below on May 26, 2014 and thereafter the present application has been filed before this Court.The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody for three years and two months and the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has already been submitted.The learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that two other chargesheeted co-accused persons have already been granted bail.The aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner are not disputed by the learned advocate for the State.Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the State and considering the materials available in the case diary and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for three years and two months and the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has already been submitted and further considering the fact that two other chargesheeted co-accused persons have already been granted bail, we are of the opinion that further detention of the accused/petitioner is not necessary.Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely, Md. Kurban, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, District- North 24 Parganas.The application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,651,953 |
It is further stated that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, the prosecutrix corroborated her previous statement.Present Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.PC for grant of interim bail for two months in FIR No. 186/2017 under Sections 342/363/366A/368/370/370A/372/34/109 IPC and Sections 3/5/7 ITP Act and Section 17 of POCSO Act, PS Kamla Market.Interim Bail is sought on the ground that the Applicant delivered a baby boy on 21.06.2017 and was soon thereafter taken into custody.Since she was a single mother and there was nobody to take care of one month old child, the child was brought along with her to Jail.At present, the child is over 3 years of age and on account of COVID-19 virus, is susceptible/vulnerable to the infection.Mr. Mukesh Kalia learned counsel for the Applicant has argued that the Applicant should be released on interim bail on compassionate and humanitarian grounds as there is a high risk to the life of the child and the present occupancy of jail exceeds the optimum capacity.During the pendency of the present Application, Mr. Mukesh Kalia had also pointed out that the child was suffering from some medical ailments.On account of this, a medical report was called from the Medical Officer of the concerned Jail.Status Report has been filed in which it is stated that the prosecutrix is a native of Nepal and after her parents died in an earthquake she was being looked after by the Gram Vikas Samiti of the Village.She was brought to Delhi by one native of Nepal for getting her a job but instead she was sold to a lady namely Sita who took her to Kotha No. 56 GB Road and sold the prosecutrix to the Applicant herein who forced her into sexual relationships with customers after administering intoxicating injections.On 21.07.2017 however, the prosecutrix managed to escape and an FIR was registered against the Applicant.She also submits that there is a separate creche for the child and the health of the children is constantly monitored by visiting Paediatricians.The child was also examined by the Doctor on 27.09.2020 for Anal Pruritus and the Doctor has prescribed oral medicines.Mr. Mukesh Kalia per contra submits that the child of the Applicant is suffering from multiple medical issues which is clearly evident from a reading of the Medical Report.In fact, the report shows that perhaps there is no clarity on the aspect whether the child is suffering from Leukaemia or Anaemia and the fact that the child does have repeated abdominal pain and has been diagnosed with Anal Pruritus, requires the child to be removed from the environment of the Jail so that the Applicant can have the child examined in Private Hospitals for correct diagnosis and treatment.I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State.By the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, Section 439 Cr.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,026,541 |
The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of sale of agricultural land against the defendant.The sale price was fixed at Rs. 1,31,000/- and the advance paid was Rs. 20,000/-.In the agreement to sell, there was no mention of delivery of possession.The land involved was Khasra No. 24 mentioning 5.40 acres in village Kapsi.The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit on 30th September, 1996 for specific performance of contract further urging that in May, 1995, he had paid Rs. 30,000/- further without receipt and at that time he had obtained possession of land also and was in cultivation of the land.ORDER R.P. Gupta, J.This appeal by plaintiff-appellant has been filed against the order dated 5-11-1996 passed by 4th Addl.The plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction also under Order 39, Rules, 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code praying that the defendant be restrained from interfering with his possession during the pendency of suit.He, however, admitted the execution of agreement to sale and receipt of advance of Rs. 20,000/-, but urged that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract in paying the rest of the price and so the agreement has become discharged.He claims possession in himself and also asserted in reply to the application for interim injunction that the plaintiff wants to grab possession illegally in the garb of obtaining interim injunction and that he be restrained from doing so while the suit was pending.By the impugned order, the plaintiff's application for interim injunction was dismissed, and at the same time it was held that prima facie the defendant was in possession of the land and was entitled to retain its possession during the pendency of suit.It was directed that the plaintiff would not interfere in the possession of the defendant during the pendency of suit.So, not only the plaintiff's petition for interim injunction was dismissed, but, the defendant's counter prayer for injunction against plaintiff was granted.In this appeal, the appellant-plaintiff has challenged both parts of the order.The counsel for appellant asserts that there was sufficient material on record to show that even as far back as in July 1995 the plaintiff-appellant was in possession of the suit land.He had sown, the crop of Soyabin in that season.The defendant lodged a complaint Under Sections 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code against him with Police.The Police investigated and filed a challan.That complaint is on record which is Annexure A-3 before the trial Court.A revision against that order was filed by the respondent before the Sessions Judge and the same was dismissed.It is argued that Patwari had narrated that in fact this appellant had sown the crop, although the entry was made by him in favour of respondent in the Khasra entries because no order of change of entry had been obtained by that time from the revenue authorities and that he docs not make a change without orders.These documents were not even discussed in the order refusing injunction.Thus, the argument is that the trial Court has failed to consider material documents and has reached an arbitrary conclusion.It was not a suit of the defendant and even if the plaintiff's petition for interim injunction was to be dismissed, it does not mean that a counter injunction in favour of defendant was to be issued against the plaintiff.There was no such counter claim made by the defendant in his written statement to the plaint.The plaintiff refuted the allegations by his reply through his counsel, dated 30th May, 1994 and demanded that demarcation be made by some Patwari within 15 days as it was for the defendant to get the demarcation done as precondition of the sale deed, and the plaintiff pleads that thereafter in May, 1995, the defendant approached the plaintiff personally for compromise and as a result of compromise Rs. 30,000/- was further paid by plaintiff to defendant and possession of the land was given by the defendant to the plaintiff and then he cultivated the land.The narration of events in these pleadings of plaintiff clearly suggests that the plea regarding compromise and payment of Rs. 30,000/- without receipt cannot be accepted.When this was the sort of the contention between the parties that one was forfeiting the earnest money and the other was claiming subsistence of right to get sale deed executed, there could not have been any payment without receipt.If payment had been made the ordinary conduct of plaintiff would have been to obtain renewal of contract by a specific writing and to get an acknowledgment that the possession had been given.These pleas have been refuted by the defendant and the denials stand to reason.On this, a case nder Section 447 was registered against plaintiff.The simple and natural interpretation of this complaint is that the plaintiff had with a tractor tilled the land while crop of the defendant had already been sown and existed and there was theft of the crop or its destruction and unlawful trespass on land.District Judge, Ujjain, modifying injunction order of the trial Court.Before trial Court, the plaintiff had filed suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in his possession in respect of particular agricultural land.The applications for temporary injunction were filed by plaintiff and defendant also filed similar applications.The trial Court issued an ad-interim injunction in favour of defendant about the entire land holding that prima facie defendant was in possession.In appeal, the Additional District Judge modified the order saying that it would be operative only in respect of 1/3rd share in the land as prima facie the title of the plaintiff was only to that extent.The defendant had approached the High Court in writ and supervisory jurisdiction against the order of this District Judge.
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,657,264 |
By the present revision petition, the Petitioner lays a challenge to the order dated 5th March, 2008 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he did not frame a charge under Section 376 IPC against Respondent No.2 and sent the matter back for trial to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the prosecutrix Chanchal and Respondent No.2 Manoj were engaged on 25 th January, 2005 with the consent of the families as they were in love with each other.However, since the parents of Manoj were not satisfied with the dowry articles they broke off the engagement.Thereafter Manoj visited the prosecutrix and told her that he was still in love with her and will marry her very soon.Believing Manoj the prosecutrix had sexual relations with him.P. 366/2008 Page 1 of 5The prosecutrix then continued to pressurize him to marry her and therefore on 16th May, 2007 Manoj married the prosecutrix.Manoj continued to have sexual relations with the prosecutrix but did not take her to the matrimonial home.The prosecutrix therefore on the same day made a written complaint to the police and vide DD No. 13-A, FIR was registered against Manoj under Sections 376/493/494/406 IPC.The prosecutrix was medically examined on that very day.After completion of investigation the Police filed charge-sheet on 30th August, 2007 before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate who committed it to the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 5th March 2008 held that from the facts of the prosecution case, no case for framing a charge against Manoj under Section 376 IPC is made out.The said order is impugned in this petition.The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondent No.2 had dishonest intention at the time of having sexual intercourse with the Petitioner as he did not intimate her of his earlier marriage and therefore the said act falls under the fourth description in prescribed Section 375 IPC.He states that the sexual intercourse even prior to the marriage was obtained by promising to marry the Petitioner and therefore her consent was also obtained by fraud under misconception of facts invalidating the consent obtained.The learned counsel places reliance upon Nikhil Parasar Vs.The State Govt. NCT of Delhi Bail Application No. 1754/2009, Salekha Khatoon Crl.P. 366/2008 Page 2 of 5 Vs.State of AP (2007) ACR 43 SC, Sanatan Ghosh Vs.State 1987 (1) Crimes 157, Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kr.Verma Vs.State of Bihar 2007 (4) RCR (Cr.) 51, State of Rajasthan Vs.Kishan Lal 2002 SCC (Cr.) 1149, Jayanti Rani Panda 1884 CrlLJ 1535 (Cal).P. 366/2008 Page 2 of 5Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that whether the intention of the Respondent No.2 was malafide or bonafide can only be determined after appreciation of evidence led during trial.To show the intention of the Respondent No.2, learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Respondent No.2 had declared himself to be a bachelor in the marriage certificate annexed.2001 (90) DLT 548, Mathura Dass & Ors.State 2003 (3) JCC 639, Farida Dar Vs.He states that there had been an engagement, but it was broken and thereafter they lived in a new house.Further, even if it is taken that the Respondent No.2 had promised to marry the Petitioner, at a later stage he fulfilled the promise by marrying her.P. 366/2008 Page 3 of 5 established that accused from the very beginning had no intention to marry the prosecutrix.He argues that since the Respondent No.2 in fact married the Petitioner he cannot be held guilty of committing rape.P. 366/2008 Page 3 of 5I have heard learned counsels for the parties.It may be noted at this stage that Respondent No.2 has not disputed the fact that there were sexual relations between him and the Petitioner.In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had remitted the case back to the High Court to deal with the matter more elaborately.Their Lordships observed that in a case where the accused had no intention to marry the prosecutrix from very inception an offence under Section 376 IPC is made out.Even in the present case, from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, prima facie it is apparent that Respondent No.2 had no intention to marry the Petitioner and married the Petitioner only after marrying someone else.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,266,581 |
C. No. 10582/19 seeking quashment of FIR dated 27/10/18 bearing crime No. 150/18 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana District Gwalior so far as it relates to the offence punishable u/S. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alongwith all the consequential proceeding emanating from the impugned FIR.Petitioners are both sisters-in-law (nanad) of prosecutrix.It is pertinent to point out that prosecution launched against the petitioners was initially in respect of offences punishable u/S. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This court vide order dated 19/2/19 passed in M.Cr.The allegations against the petitioners is that alongwith her husband, father-in-law and mother- in-law, both the petitioners also demanded dowry.There are two instances revealed in the FIR.The first took place prior to marriage when planing and arrangement of marriage was discussed by the rival parties where presence of petitioners is alleged and the other instance is that large amount of cash and jewelry of precious metal was gifted by the father of prosecutrix to the husband and in-laws on the insistence inter alia of the petitioners.The omnibus allegation of demand of dowry is alleged by the prosecutrix inter alia against the petitioners at the time of marriage which is said to have compelled the father of prosecutrix to part with an amount of Rs. 35 Lacs, jewelry, A.C., T.V. and household utensils in favour of husband and in-laws as dowry.C. No. 10582/19 demand of dowry appear to be made out.The definition of demand of dowry is couched in generic and wide language and is not as exhaustive and restrictive in it's scope, sweep and application as the definition of cruelty contained in Section 498-A of IPC.The reason seems to be obvious.Legislature had kept the contours of "dowry demand", flexible and inclusive, so as to avoid any instances of dowry demand from going un-investigated, un-tried and if found proved un-punished.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,268,107 |
It is further submitted that even if the accused would have been convicted, he might have completed his sentence but due to the non- conclusion of the trial, he is forced to remain in jail, therefore, he be granted bail.As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The petitioner who is in jail since 19.09.2016 for committing loot of Rs.13,00,000/- has come before this Court for granting bail.Besides the arguments that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized the period of custody and referred direction of this Court dated 1.11.2019 issued in M.Cr.C No.43701/2019 preferred by the co-accused Ramiz to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within six months.It is submitted that even after this direction, the trial could not be completed and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the same in near future due to the lockdown imposed owing to the spread of Covid-19 Pandemic.The objection of the learned panel lawyer is that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.He was identified in TIP.Four identical cases bearing crime nos.978/2015 under section 394 IPC, crime no.443/2015 under section 394 IPC, crime no.454/2016 under section 392, 397 IPC and crime no.287/2016 under section 392 IPC had been registered against the petitioner.In all four cases, the looted property was recovered and the petitioner was identified.This shows that the petitioner is a habitual criminal, therefore, the possibility of his absconding 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.32466/2020 Vasim Vs.cannot be ruled out and all this dis-entitles him for bail.Despite the direction of the Court, the trial could not be completed as just after one date of hearing, lock-down was imposed due to the spread of he Covid-19 pandemic but now almost all prohibitory orders have been withdrawn and in all possibilities regular functioning of the Court may be resumed in near future, therefore, the petitioner be not granted bail.I have considered rival contention of the parties and have gone through the record.The learned trial Court has dismissed the application observing that 28 witnesses have been examined and it is likely to pass final judgment in the case.At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press the petition on merits if a similar direction is issued as has been issued in the case of Safiq vide order dated 28.08.2020 passed in M.Cr.Looking to the facts that 28 witnesses have already been examined and the trial Court itself has observed that it is likely to pass the final judgment and direction to conclude the trial has already been given in the case of the co-accused, repetition of such direction is not required.However, the trial Court is expected to adhere to the direction issued vide order dated 28.08.2020 passed in M.Cr.C No.25892/2020 (Safiq Vs.the State of MP).With the aforesaid, the present petition stands dismissed.(Virender Singh) Judge sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2020.10.07 14:06:52 +05'30'
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,427,301 |
PRONOUNCED ON : 02/12/2019JUDGMENT:(Per B. P. Dharmadhikari).The case of prosecution in short is deceased Baban was relativeof complainant, a vegetable seller.One Harilal Yadav was murdered in thearea.Complainant's sister by name Padma and her two sons were in jail inconnection with this murder.This murder occurred on 23/8/2008 andaccused No.2 Vishwas happens to be relative of Harilal.Accused No.1resided infront of house of complainant Nanda Patole.Nanda Patole witnessed accused persons catching hold ofdeceased and taking him infront of house of Baban in open space.AccusedNo.1 had wooden danda whereas accused No.2 had one iron pipe.AccusedNo.2 gave blow of iron pipe on head of deceased while accused No.1 gaveblow of wooden danda on legs and on thigh of deceased.Accused No.2 wasshouting allegedly to cut legs and hands of deceased.Accused gave blow ofwooden danda on Baban's hand.Complainant in order to save his cousinfell on his body.She sustained injury on her back.Her sari was stained withblood.One person by name Shain present there also requested accusedpersons not to beat.Due to noise Alka and Anita i.e. two sisters of deceasedBaban came out.The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions CaseNo.33/2009 and 12/2010 decided on 26/4/2012 by Extra Joint Ad-hocAdditional Sessions Judge, Thane.Both have been convicted under section302 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.They ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 ::: rsk 2/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.docare also found guilty under section 324 read with 34 of IPC but no separatesentence is awarded for it.Both accused persons have been given thebenefit under section 428 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::They also saw both accused persons beating Baban.AsBaban was seriously injured she with the help of Baban's sisters brought ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 ::: rsk 3/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.dochim to Shivaji Hospital, Kalwa where he was declared dead.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::The short contention of learned counsel for the appellants isdeceased had threatened accused persons not to depose against therelatives of deceased who were accused in case of murder of Harilal Yadav.Present accused persons were therefore threatened by deceased Baban notto depose against Padma and her two sons who were in jail in connectionwith murder of Hari Yadav.In that context deceased Baban gave abuses inthe name of sister of accused No.2 which enraged accused Nos.2 and 1.Because of this abuse loosing self control and at the spur of moment theyhit deceased and he died.As such their convictionshould be altered to under section 304(II) with suitable modifications inpunishment.He has pointed out that on1/10/2010 in the night deceased Baban gave abuses to his sister Gudduand hence he and accused No.2 tried to pacify him and asked him not toindulge in such abuses.He was not in mood to listen and altercation ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 ::: rsk 4/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.docensued.Therefore he with wooden stick and accused No.2 with iron rod betBaban on legs, hands and head.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::Type of weapon described byher has not been seized by police.For this purpose he draws our attentionto evidence of PW-10 Investigating Officer Patil.He further states thataccording to PW-1, Bablu and accused No.1 are different persons while asper story of prosecution he is one and the same person.He further submits that as per evidence of PW-3 Dr. MangeshGhadge though there were total 13 injuries only four were on head/face,stab injury or puncture wound injury at Serial No.11 and 12 has not beenexplained by prosecution.He has accepted that there is no correspondingexternal injury insofar as vital organs found to be damaged in post mortem. ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::rsk 5/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.docThis Doctor has also stated that injury No.11 and 12 are not possible bymuddemal object No.2 i.e. wooden stick.9. Learned APP on the other hand states that the incidentoccurred at about 11.30 p.m. on 1/10/2008 and FIR has been recordedimmediately thereafter.In present facts according tohim accused persons have not raised any such defence during crossexamination of any prosecution witnesses or even while recordingstatement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::In brief reply arguments, accused have invited our attention todeposition of PW-2-Anita to show that she could not explain why theincident occurred.Not only this, PW-10has also admitted that contents of this statement at Exhibit 17 are true andcorrect.Thus, the fact that deceased Baban gave abuses to sister of accusedNo.1 has been admitted by the prosecution.The only question is whether it constitutes murder under section 302 of IPCor then because of provocation given by deceased Baban as accusedpersons lost control, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The facts that present accused persons were being threatenedand pressurized not to give evidence against sister of PW-1 by name Padmaand her two sons in the matter of murder of Harilal Yadav dated23/8/2008 are not in dispute.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::rsk 7/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.docPerusal of evidence of Dr. Mangesh Ghadge (PW-3) reveals thatthere were total 13 injuries and his evidence does not show that stab injuryor puncture wound at Serial Nos.11 and 12 could not have been caused byiron pipe.These 13 injuries are as follows:Multiple abrasions over head right fronto-patiretal region, size ranging from 3 cm x 1.5 cm to 1 cm x 0.3 cm.Stitched wound over left parietal region over head 6 cm x 1 cm with 7 stitches, stitches intact.3. Abrasion just above right zygoma near outer canthus of eye, of size 2 cm x 1 cm.Abrasion over right ear pinna inner side 2 cm x 0.8 cm.Contunsion over right arm lower part 10 vm x 8 cm.Contusion over left arm whole surface.Abrasion over right arm lower part laterally 2 cm x 1 cm.Abrasion over left maxilla 2 cm x 1 cm.Multiple small abrasions over bilateral shoulder joint, of size 1 cm x 1 cm and 0.5 x 0.5 cm.Abrasion over right arm laterally 3 cm x 2 cm.Stab injury over left leg anteriorly midpart 2 cm x 2 cm bone deep.Puncture wound circular 0.5 cm.X 0.5 cm., 1 cm above injury No.11, muscle deep.Contusion over bilateral thighs lower part extending to upper ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 ::: rsk 8/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.doc part of leg.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::Evidence also shows that injuries are on vital part andsufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.Doctor has deposedthat these injuries can result in instant death.There is no cross examinationand challenge in this respect.Kidney, heart, pleura were damaged and thoughthere were no external injury, it is not the case of accused persons thatthese internal injuries were not on account of their beating.Ribs werefound fractured.The evidence of PW-1 has been assailed only by Atibul whenshe deposes as if Bablu and Atibul are different persons.Sothis cannot result in any benefit to accused persons.The contention that Baban gave abuses in the name of sister ofaccused No.1 appears only in disclosure memorandum under section 27 of ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 ::: rsk 9/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.docthe Evidence Act. This disclosure Memorandum is recorded on 7/10/2018.The trial Court has not underlined or bracketed its strictly admissibleportion in terms of section 27 of the Evidence Act. PW-10 Patil has statedthat whatever is recorded as memorandum on 7/10/2008 is true andcorrect.Trial Court has marked this entire memorandum as Exhibit 17.This does not mean that the prosecution has admitted correctness or truthof story of abuses disclosed by accused No.1 in it.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::However, accusedNo.2 does not speak of any abuses by deceased to sister of accused No.1 orto anybody.In this backdrop when cross examination of PW-1-Nanda isseen, there is no attempt to bring on record any such abuses.Perusal ofquestions put to accused No.1 is question Nos.3, 4 and to accused No.2 isquestion Nos.3 and 4 in section 313 examination shows that they aredenying the entire incident.While answering question No.27 they couldhave taken defence of abuses to sister by deaceased, but there is no sucheffort.Both of them have stated that they are falsely involved in the matter.Thus, as a matter of fact, defence of abuse in name of sister of accused No.1 ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 ::: rsk 10/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.docby deceased Baban was never raised and has not been established.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::Stray sentences appearing in disclosure memorandum Exhibit17 therefore cannot be allowed to be utilized to build such defence inpresent facts.Here accused Nos.1 and 2 were armed with weapon danda andiron pipe at odd hours in the night.It is not their case that abuse enragedthem and they used wooden stick or iron rod lying on spot to hit deceased.The shouts ofprovocation given by them at the time of assault are also not in dispute asthere is no cross examination about it.This error is not fatal in the presentmatter.This brings us to consideration of two judgments mentionedsupra.In the case of Murli vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Hon'ble ApexCourt has taken note of fact that appellant Murli has a shop in the bazzar.The deceased also belonged to same place.The deceased was a man ofviolent nature terrorizing people by use of force and violence.He was ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 ::: rsk 11/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.docconvicted and sentenced in several matters relating to gambling and therewas also proceedings under Gunda Act. On the date of incident deceasedwent to shop of appellant and began to hurl abuses, enraged accusedinflicted some stab injuries with knife on deceased and proceeded to policestation.On the way he met PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7 and confessed them thathe had finished an unsocial element.He went to residence of the Policeofficer and on his direction, the accused proceeded to police station.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::In paragraph 11 Division Bench has found thataccused stated in first information report that he was refused food andthere was quarrel between the couple when he questioned about themissing amount from house.He had stated that his wife bite him andthereafter he lost control and assaulted his wife.Division Bench of HighCourt found that evidence of Investigating Officer lends credence to thisstatement.Bite marks were found on accused.Both judgments therefore show that only statement in FIR hasnot been accepted as extenuating the circumstances to constitute thedefence.The Hon'ble Apex Court or Division Bench of this Court foundsome other evidence on record which corroborated that statement.In factsbefore us there is no such material.Except for one line in memorandumunder section 27 at Exhibit 17, there is no whisper anywhere of the factthat deceased Baban used any abuses against the sister of accused No.1.The above judgments therefore do not help the appellants in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::rsk 13/13 J-APEAL-656-358-15.docIn the light of arguments advanced, we find no case made outby the appellants warranting intervention.The appeals are thereforedismissed.(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2019 23:02:00 :::
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,291,590 |
Accused No. 1 Shrikrushna (acquitted) is real brother of deceased Arun whilst accused No. 2 Ravindra (appellant) is son of Shrikrushna.Accused No. 3 Ranjana (acquitted) is daughter of accused No. 1 - Shrikrishna.Accused were residing adjacent to the house of deceased.A temporary partition was built in dry cotton stems in between both the houses.On 11th June, 2011 around 06.00 p.m., informant - Padma returned to her house from field, and saw that Shrikrushna was abusing over dispute regarding partition wall.At that time, appellant - Ravindra jumped from the wall, entered the informant's courtyard and dragged deceased Arun out of the house.Thereafter, co-accused Srikrushna and Ranjana came and caught hold the hands of deceased Arun.Appellant - Ravindra ran into the house and came with a sickle.He immediately inflicted sickle blow on the chest of Arun because of which Arun sustained bleeding injury and consequently, succumbed to the injuries.Padma - Wife of deceased went to the concerned Police Station and::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 ::: 3 201jgAPL480.17 .odt lodged report (Exhibit 30).Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- with stipulation of default.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::The prosecution case is briefly stated as under:-Deceased Arun Ingle was living with his family at Pimpari (Purna).The informant - Padma Arun Ingle is wife of deceased.After completion of investigation, the final report came to be filed against three accused including appellant - Ravindra.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::Charge came to be framed against the appellant - Ravindra, co-accused - Shrikrushna and Ranjana under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant and co-accused did not accept the guilt to the said charge and claimed for trial.The defence of appellant is of total denial and false implication.The prosecution has adduced evidence of eight witnesses to prove the guilt.The learned Sessions Judge, recorded statement of accused in terms of Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant - Ravindra for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whilst acquitted rest from the very charges.Though the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused No. 1 - Shrikrushna and accused No. 3 - Ranjana, the State has not challenged their acquittal therefore, the said aspect no longer remains for consideration.5. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant, learned APP for the State and gone through the record and reported judgments cited by both sides.Though prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses,::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 ::: 4 201jgAPL480.17 .odt the prosecution case solely depends on the evidence of three eye- witnesses i.e. PW-1 - Padma (Informant), PW-2 - Vishal (son of deceased) and PW-8 - Manik (turned hostile).::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::PW-1 - Padma in her evidence at Exhibit 29 stated that recently a temporary wall was built in between both the houses.The accused had replaced the partition by constructing brick wall.She stated that on the day of incident i.e. on 11th June, 2011 at around 05.30 p.m. on her return, she saw that appellant - Ravindra alongwith his father hurling abuses from their house itself.Deceased Arun was also talking with them from his house.After few exchange of words, appellant - Ravindra jumped over the brick wall and dragged Arun out of his house.Thereafter, both co-accused caught hold of Arun whilst appellant went inside the house, came with sickle and dealt a sickle blow on the chest of Arun leaving him bleeding injury.Similar is the evidence of PW-2 - Vishal with minor variations.Both the witnesses withstood to the searching cross-examination, meaning thereby the defence was not able to bring anything so as to discard their consistent testimony.Both witnesses have specifically stated the role of appellant that at relevant time, appellant went to his house, came with sickle and dealt a blow on the chest of deceased.Their testimony is natural and consistent.The learned prosecutor has relied on some reported judgments to impress that the consistent evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be rejected merely::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 ::: 5 201jgAPL480.17 .odt because they are relatives of the deceased.We do not find it necessary to refer these judgments since the prosecution case is well intact as regards to the role of appellant - Ravindra .::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::The injury found on the chest of deceased was an incise wound about 2 ½" x 1" deep/ towards heart.The said injury corresponds to the weapon namely sickle and it strengthens the evidence of eye-witnesses.The learned Sessions Judge has appreciated said evidence in proper perspective.There is no reason to discard ocular evidence of these natural witnesses about the assault by accused No. 2 - appellant which needs no interference.The prosecution has ably proved that appellant - Ravindra assaulted on the chest of deceased by means of sickle.Though there existed another head injury to the deceased, however, as per postmortem notes and evidence, the said injury was by fall on the roadside gutter.Therefore, it is the case that the appellant gave a single blow by means of sickle on the chest of deceased which proved to be fatal.In the circumstances, it is to be seen whether the act of accused amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or offence of any other nature.For the objective enquiry, one has to revert to the facts of the case.Each and every circumstance has to be taken into account while drawing::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 ::: 6 201jgAPL480.17 .odt particular inference.It is the prosecution's case, rather it emerges from the evidence that at the relevant time, there was oral altercation in which the appellant ran into the house, came with sickle and dealt a blow on the chest of the deceased.Medical evidence discloses that there was a single incise wound on the chest of deceased.We have already noted that the head injury was by way of fall.The cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to rupture of left lungs and hemorrhagic shock as a result of head injury.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::It emerges from the evidence that at relevant time, accused were hurling abuses from their house itself and it was retaliated by deceased from his house.It is specific evidence that appellant/accused dragged deceased out of the house and thereafter, he returned to his house, brought sickle and gave a blow on the chest of deceased.There is no evidence, rather it is not the prosecution's case that appellant came out of his house with sickle, jumped over the wall and dealt sickle blows.It assumes great significance that initially appellant did not carry any weapon but he entered into the house of deceased without arm.Thereafter, during quarrel, he returned to his house and brought sickle which is generally found in the house of every agriculturist.It is evident that during quarrel, the accused/appellant lost his temper, returned to his house and picked up the article which he found, and in the heat of the moment, gave blow by sickle.These facts carry::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 ::: 7 201jgAPL480.17 .odt importance because they rule out the possibility of pre-arranged plan or determined intention to eliminate Arun.The incident occurred as of sudden on some minor issues which unfortunately, turned to be fatal.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::Murder, is gravest form of culpable homicide which has its peculiar characteristics required to be proved, before the person is held guilty for committing murder, as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.The existence of one of four conditions turns culpable homicide into murder while the special exceptions reduce the offence of murder again to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The Advocate for appellant strenuously argued that prosecution has not proved the intention or knowledge, but there cannot be specific evidence on said point.The intention and knowledge are the mental features which have to be gathered from the act of accused and related circumstances.The intention to cause requisite type of injuries is a subjective enquiry and then there would be further enquiry whether::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 ::: 8 201jgAPL480.17 .odt injury was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::The learned APP submitted that the intention of accused is to be gathered by attending circumstances like nature of weapon used, placement of injuries, force used etc. For this purpose, he relied on the reported cases of Vilasgiri S/o Vitthalgiri Goswami Vs.State of Maharashtra, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 246 and Yunusshah Yakubshanh Vs.True, while assessing the intention of accused, variety of factors like above and all other relevant circumstances have to be taken into account.There are certain features of the case namely, there was no prior enmity between accused and deceased, accused was not carrying deadly weapon nor the act was premeditated, and the occurrence was a sudden affair on some trifle issue.The appellant dealt sickle blow on the chest of the deceased and left him in injured condition.Notably, at the inception, he had not carried the weapon which shows absence of predetermination.These circumstances indicate that there was no definate intention of accused to cause death of Arun.The chain of incident as emerges from evidence clearly conveys that the incident occurred in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel.The act of appellant was without predetermination.The isolated blow is not instance of cruel and unusual act.It is apparent that::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 ::: 9 201jgAPL480.17 .odt everything happened as a result of sudden quarrel.The appellant lost control and in heat of passion dealt a blow by sickle which he found in his house at the relevant time.It assumes significance that initially accused was armless and the incident was result of unplanned sudden quarrel.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::Considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that act of accused squarely falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of The Indian Penal Code and appropriate conviction would be under Section 304, Part I of The Indian Penal Code, instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, we maintain the findings of trial Court that accused has committed the act of causing injury by means of sickle to deceased however, we set aside the findings of trial Court that the act constitutes an offence punishable under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code.In view of that, appeal deserves to be partly allowed hence, the following order:-(I) The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 10th June, 2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 76/2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur is modified as below:-(i) Appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of The Indian Penal::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 ::: 10 201jgAPL480.17 .odt Code instead of Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::(iv) Muddemal property be dealt with as per order of trial Court after the appeal period.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:36:36 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,043,056 |
He has also testified about her turning out from the house.ORDER B.K. Sharma, J.This is a revision against the order dated 16-7-1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in complaint case No. 338 of 1998, Anjana Srivastava v. Prasoon Srivastava whereby he directed the summoning of the accused-revisionists for the offences under Sections 498A/504, I.P.C.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The facts leading to this revision are that Smt. Anjana Srivastava wife of Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (opposite party No. 2) filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh on 3-6-1998 against the revisionists.Prasoon Kumar Srivastava, Revisionist No. 1, is the elder brother of the husband of the complainant opposite party No. 2; Smt. Neeta Srivastava, revisionist No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant while Triloki Nam Srivastava, Revisionist No. 3, is the father-in-law of the complainant.The allegations made in the complaint were that the complainant Smt. Anjana Srivastava was married to Pradeep Srivastava on 1-12-1995 according to Hindu Customs and went in Biato the house of the accused-revisionists that in the marriage her father had spent money beyond his means and even given Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused-revisionists 1 and 3 for the purposes of getting a computer school opened by her husband but even after receiving the said money, they kept on treating her with cruelty; that on 13-11-1996, a daughter was born to her; that the accused-revisionists started pressing her to bring one lack rupees from her father otherwise she would be beaten and turned out from the house; that on 10-4-1998, at about 4.00 p.m., when her husband was not in the house, the accused-revisionists asked her to telephone her father to give Rs. 1 lack whereupon she said that her father had already given Rs. 2,50,000/- to them on the pretext that they would get a computer school opened for her husband and that they have committed breach of trust with her father and they (the revisionists) are now demanding the money again; that on this, she was badly beaten by the accused-revisionist and was turned out from the house along with her infant daughter and at that time, she was threatened that in case she would come back, she would be killed.She further claimed in her complaint that she had given information about the occurrence to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh personally but since there was no hope of getting justice from the police, she filed the complaint in Court.In support of her complaint she repealed the allegations on oath besides herself, she examined her husband Pradeep Kumar Srivastava and one Sri Umesh Lal Srivastava under Section 202, Cr.P. C. Her husband Pradeep Kumar Srivastava in his statement on oath under Section 202, Cr. P. C. claimed that his father-in-law had given Rs. 2,50,000/- at the asking of his elder brother Prasoon Kumar Srivastava, accused-revisionist No. 1, for opening of a computer school but that money was digested by his father and a breach of trust was committed; that after birth of a daughter, they started harassing her and demanded one lack rupees more and threatened her.He also testified in his statement that she was turned out from the house by the accused-revisionists.Umesh Lal also supported her case about the demand of dowery of Rs. 2,50,000/- for getting a computer school opened for her husband; digesting of money by her father-in-law Triloki Nath Srivastava, revisionist No. 3 and also about the harassment and ill-treatment to her.It was said in the affidavit that Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the husband of the complainant was already running a computer school before the marriage; that the advertisement which had been published in newspaper about the same, itself said that he was running a computer school; that the complainant did not pay the electricity bill of the school and misbehaved with the revisionists and in this regard, a report has also been made to the police.It was also claimed in the affidavit that the allegations made in the complaint were totally false and the evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. in support thereof was also false.The stay order dated 26-10-1998 stands discharged.Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Magistrate concerned within a week from today by the registry by FAX/registered post A/D for information and taking further proceedings according to law.
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,307,029 |
It was alleged that the complainant and his friend Ajay Patil had gone to Rankala Lake on motorcycle.The description of the assailants is mentioned in the complaint.The friend of the complainant, Ajay, was also assaulted.He has named the assailants.This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.498 of 2019, registered with Juna Rajvada Police Station, Kolhapur for the ofence punishable under Section 304 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short).They approached the ice cream vendor.The ice cream vendor refused to provide them ice cream.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 :::rpa 2/5 908-aba-109-2020.doc The vendor told them that they should wait till his employer comes.The complainant and his friend left the place.While they were proceeding, they were assaulted.The complainant fell down on the road in an injured condition.He saw two persons with sharp weapons.One of them was aged about 50 years and the other was a young boy.The young boy threatened them that he would not spare them alive.He assaulted Ajay by giving blow of weapons on his head.Ajay fell down.Other person assaulted complainant by sharp weapons on his head.The complainant prevented the attack, but, sustained injury behind his ear.Both of them fell on the road in an injured condition.Subsequently, FIR was lodged.The other accused had surrendered to the police.3 Applicant preferred an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which has been rejected.4 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of political rivalry.The said footage, was not very clear, however, the persons seen in the said footage were not holding any weapons.It is further::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 ::: rpa 3/5 908-aba-109-2020.doc submitted that the victim had sufered minor injuries and the ofence under Section 307c would not be attracted.Considering the nature of injuries, the ofences, which could be made out against the applicant, could be at the most under Section 324 of IPC, which is bailable.He pointed out the injury sustained by the complainant and his friend.He further submitted that the other accused is in custody and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.There was no motive for the applicant to assault the complainant and his friend.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 :::Both of them were armed with sharp weapons.The injured persons were assaulted by weapons.The manner in which they were assaulted would attract Section 307c of IPC.This is not the stage to evaluate the evidence to determine what ofence is made out against the accused, as it would be a matter of trial.6 I have perused the FIR.Statements of complainant, injured Ajay and the vendor who was selling the ice cream were::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 ::: rpa 4/5 908-aba-109-2020.doc recorded.The vendor in his statement has stated that there was altercation between him and the accused.The accused pulled the cart and asked him who is owner.The vendor, therefore, called the accused, who came to the place of quarrel.Thus, there is motive for the applicants to commit crime.I have perused the injury certifcate of complainant and his friend Ajay Vilas Patil.Swapnil Patil had sustained three injuries.There was contusion lacerated wound with sharp weapons.There was contusion lacerated wound in occipital region and there was contusion laceration.The reason for the said injuries was blow by sharp and blunt object.The injury certifcate of Ajay Vilas Patil also mentions that he has sustained CLW on forehead and lambda region with sharp and blunt object.The injured persons were admitted in hospital and subsequently discharged.7c The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that assuming that the role attributed to the applicant is accepted, the injuries are simple in nature, and therefore, Section 307c would not be attracted.He submitted that the ofence under Section 324 of IPC is bailable.In the present case, the accused were armed with sharp weapons.It is stated by the injured and the complainant that they were assaulted by::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 ::: rpa 5/5 908-aba-109-2020.doc sharp weapons on the head.There are injuries on occipital region as well as the injury behind ear.Considering the manner and the weapons by which the victims were assaulted, this is not the stage to evaluate as to what ofence is made out.The co-accused were arrested and knife was recovered from their possession.Considering the factual matrix of the case, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to applicant.Hence, anticipatory bail application is rejected.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 :::8 Learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, submits that the applicant may be granted one week time to surrender.In view of the submissions, the applicant is permitted to surrender before the investigating oficer on 24 th January, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2020 21:07:53 :::
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,315,775 |
The applications are filed for bail, suspension ofsubstantive sentence given to the Applicants in Sessions Case No.48of 2016, which was pending in the Court of learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar.The Appellants areconvicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with149 of the Indian Penal Code and for other offences.This Court has already admitted both theappeals.The submissions made show that Accused Nos.1 and 7 werein jail right from beginning and they are behind bars for more than twoyears now.The remaining Accused, Accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 wereon bail and statement was made that they have surrendered to theirbail bonds and they are in jail for undergoing sentence.::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2018 02:09:25 :::against the Appellants.There is evidence on motive, there is directevidence and there is other substantial evidence.The injury certificateshows that there were incised wounds, but they were on head.Allegations are made that knife was used in the incident and attemptwas made on life of the injured by attempting to set him on fire.Allegations are made that petrol was poured on him, but fire was notset to him.No burn injury was noticed.3 In view of the nature of evidence given against all theAppellants and as it is not certain as to how much time will be requiredfor disposal of the appeals, this Court holds that bail needs to begranted to all the Appellants including Accused Nos.1 and 7, who werein jail right from beginning.In the result, the following order is passed:O R D E R I. Both the applications are allowed.The Applicants are to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. & S.B. of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) by each of them with one or more solvent sureties.::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2018 02:09:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2018 02:09:25 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,328,490 |
The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under :-They had two sons by names Ganesh and Gokul.accused is an agriculturist as well as carpenter by avocation.During the relevant time of the incident he was residing along with his family.The appellant-accused is in habit of taking liquor and at times he used to quarrel with his wife Shobha.According to the case of the prosecution on 5.1.2003 one Onkar, cousin brother of Shobha, received a telephone call from Ganesh, son of the appellant.On said telephone call, Ganesh informed that his father - the appellant-accused, had assaulted his mother and she was in a serious condition, even not able to take water.This call was made at 6:30 pm.This call was followed by another call at 7:30 pm and at that time Ganesh informed that his mother Shobha had died.One Sukhdeo, another brother of Shobha was also informed about the death.Onkar and Sukhdeo came to the house of the appellant-accused.2 /9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 ::: judgment in appeal 936-04.doc They found dead body of Shobha lying in the house.JUDGMENT (PER A.R.JOSHI,J):-By the said impugned judgment and order the appellant-1 /9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:36 ::: judgment in appeal 936-04.doc accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer further RI for three months.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:36 :::There were injuries on her head and face.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 :::It is also the case of the prosecution that on the next date of the incident at early hours, the appellant-accused visited the house of the brother of police patil of the village and informed said Balasaheb Patil (PW No.1) that he had quarrel with Shobha and Shobha has died.On this intimation received through the appellant-accused, PW No.1 along with other persons visited the house of the appellant-accused and found dead body of Shobha.Information was given to the police.In fact, report was given by PW No.1 mentioning that the appellant-accused revealed that he had quarrel with his wife and she had died.During investigation spot panchnama was conducted.Inquest panchnama was conducted on the dead body and it was sent for postmortem.Medical Officer Dr Dipak PW No.4 conducted the postmortem.Sukhdeo, brother of victim Shobha, lodged complaint.It was treated as FIR.Then the appellant-accused was put under arrest sometime on 23.1.2003 as till then he was absconding.Also, according to the prosecution, during investigation, the appellant-accused made a statement to produce the wooden plank by which the victim was assaulted.Said wooden plank was recovered under the panchnama.Statements of witnesses were recorded.3 /9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 ::: judgment in appeal 936-04.doc::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 :::It must be mentioned that this was the only point emphasized on behalf of the appellant-accused as to the appellant-accused had not murdered his wife but had assaulted her in a fit of anger in a sudden quarrel.Considering the above submission as to diluting the offence from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 (Part II) of IPC, certain factual position, as appearing in the case, can be narrated as under.Said acceptable circumstances are as under :-(a) Victim Shobha died a homicidal death and suffered 4 /9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 ::: judgment in appeal 936-04.doc injuries which are contusions and abrasions and died due to intra cerebral haemorrhage due to blunt trauma over the skull.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 :::On this aspect the substantive evidence of PW No.4 Dr Dipak who performed the postmortem on the dead body is as under :-"I found round soft tissue swelling of 4 cms in diameter over left parietal region of scalp, second injury was linear contusion having size 3 x 5 cms over right maxillary region.Injury No.3 : Contusion with clotted blood over lower lip.Injury No.4 : Superficial abrasion of 3 x 1 cms over lateral 1/3rd of right clavicle.Injury No.5 : Superficial abrasion over whole rights scapular region, extending up to the nap of the neck.Injury No.6 : Superficial abrasion having size 2x5x1 cm over left scapular region.Injury No.7 : Two contusions of 4x1x5 cms and 2.5x1 cms over the chin.Injury No. 8 :- Contusions three in numbers of size 2x1 cm old dorsal spine.Clotted blood was found on the vulva.All these injuries were ante mortem in nature.On opening the body I found internal injuries.Two extra cranial haemotoma under the scalp having size 3x1 cm and 2x2 cm seen respectively below frontal aspect of scalp and over left lateral parietal aspect of skull.Haemotoma of size 2x1 cm over frontal lobe of the brain due to intra cerebral bleed.Haemotoma of size 4 x 2 cm seen over left parietal lobe of brain due to intra cerebral haemorrhageIn my opinion Mrs Shobha died because of intra cerebral haemorrhage, due to blunt trauma over the skull.Death was caused before about 24 hours of postmortem.I prepared the postmortem 5 /9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 ::: judgment in appeal 936-04.doc notes.Postmortem notes now shown to me is the same.It bears my signature.The injuries seen on the person of Shobha are possible by the blows of any hard and blunt object.The injuries were possible by blow of wooden plank Art-4."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 :::(b) Wooden plank has been used as a weapon of offence.(c) There was a quarrel ensued on that evening of fateful day and during which the appellant-accused assaulted his wife Shobha with the help of wooden plank.(d) On the next day morning the appellant-accused went to the house of PW No.1 and informed him regarding death of his wife and quarrel ensued between him and his wife prior to her death.Bearing in mind the above factual position and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-6 /9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 ::: judgment in appeal 936-04.doc Exception 4 to Section 300:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 :::Exception 4 :Explanation:- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault".In our considered view, the matter falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC as mentioned above for various reasons, namely appellant-accused had not used any sharp edged weapon or any other deadly weapon and instead used the wooden plank which was available.In other words, it can be said that it is a fit case of sudden fight and in a heat of anger the appellant-accused assaulting his wife with available implement i.e. a wooden plank.Secondly, there was admittedly quarrel between the victim Shobha and the appellant-accused and that time he assaulted the victim with wooden plank.Thirdly, immediately on the next day he informed PW No.1 brother of police patil of village regarding the incident and death of his wife followed by the quarrel between him and the victim.Apart from the above, it is also brought to our notice by the learned Advocate for the appellant that there was no motive brought on record by the prosecution 7 /9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 ::: judgment in appeal 936-04.doc for which the appellant was desirous of murdering his wife.It is further pointed out that the marriage between the appellant and his wife took place much earlier sometime in the year 1983 and both had apparently living happy married life with two children and there was nothing brought on record that habitually the appellant was ill-treating and assaulting his wife.By pointing out the above circumstance, it is argued that there was no intention of the appellant to kill his wife and it was in fact an unfortunate incident of assault in a heat of anger out of sudden quarrel.It is also argued that the appellant-accused had not acted in cruel manner.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 :::We have carefully gone through the substantive evidence of prosecution witnesses and the substantiate evidence of PW No.1 and also of the first informant Sukhdeo.Considering the circumstances as narrated above, it must be said that the present matter can be brought down under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.Thus, we set aside the conviction for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and instead convict him for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC.In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed with the following order.8 /9 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 ::: judgment in appeal 936-04.doc ORDER.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 :::Appeal is partly allowed.The order of conviction and sentence passed by II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 70 of 2003 dated 4.6.2004 under Section 302 of IPC is set aside by converting the same to offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC.The appellant is sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for three months.Registry to intimate the Jail authorities accordingly.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:32:37 :::
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,331,166 |
Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,332,896 |
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.98/2014 registered at Police Station, Umri, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 224, 225, 353, 332, 333, 186, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.As per prosecution case, the complainant along with police force gone in search of the accused in Crime No.47/2014 and when they reached Lahroli they searched and accused Dhampe found and he was taken into custody, in the meantime Tahsildar Singh armed with Farsa, Ravude armed with Katta, Rajpal Singh, Janved Singh and Sonu Singh armed with lathi and stones started beating the police party.Ravude fired at Satyendra Singh, Tahsildar Singh gave a farsa blow which hit above the eye brow of Satyendra Singh and they flew Dhampe, thereafter Sonu Singh gave a lathi blow on the Dhanendra Singh, Tahsildar Singh gave a farsa blow on the Vishan Singh, Rajpal Singh gave a lathi blow on Mukesh and Janved Singh also gave a lathi blow on Mukesh.Wife of Tahsildar Singh has pelted stones on Constable Sandhya and Dhampe Singh gave a lathi blow on Trivendra.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that M.Cr.C.No.7312/2014 (Janved Singh Vs.State of M.P.) 2 applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.He has not committed any offence.The allegation against the applicant is that he gave a blow by means of lathi on the shoulder of Mukesh, but Mukesh has not sustained any injury.The applicant is 90 years old person.Trial likely to take time.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the applicant has named in the FIR and he caused injuries to the police personnel.As per the medical report of Dhanendra he has received bruise on left index finger, Satyendra Singh Rajput has received one lacerated wound over anterior side of left eye brow, Vishan Singh has received one abrasion over right fore arm, Mukesh has received two bruises.Mukesh has also received fracture on right clavicle region.All the injuries have been reported to be simple in nature.Considering that the nature of injuries which has reported to be simple in nature coupled with the fact that applicant is old aged person of 75 years age as per the arrest memo and looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the M.Cr.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,334,587 |
The informant R.K. Sharma then posted as officer in charge in Police Station-Sipari, District-Jhansi was busy in search of wanted accused and patrolling duty along with other Police personnel.While their duty in that area Police party had seen a black colour Appe Tempo coming in high speed from the side of Baudh Nagar.On suspicion when they tried to check the vehicle, the driver and persons sitting in that Tempo stop the Tempo and began to run.Police party chased them.On exhortation by the accused appellant, other accused persons opened fire on Police party with intention to kill them but none of the Police party received any injury.Three of them namely, Appu @ Nafees, Bablu @ Rahmat Ali and Shaheed were apprehended by the Police at 4.30 A.M. at a distance of 50 paces from crusher of Banni Babu but the accused/appellant was successful in running away from the spot.On personal search of three arrested accused persons illegal, objectionable articles were recovered from Appu @ Nafees and Shaheed.From the Appe Tempo siezed from the spot, stolen utensils used in worship were recovered which were kept in three 'gunny bags'.The utensils recovered were identified by the informant of the Case Crime No.342 of 2008 (Session Trial No.95 of 2009) to be stolen property of aforesaid case crime number which were stolen by unknown person from 'puja store' of the Temple.The siezed Appe Tempo was also found to be stolen property.Recovery memo was prepared on the spot in light of torch and electric by Ram Autar Singh S.I. on direction of informant R.K. Sharma, it was signed by informant, other Police personnel and arrested accused person.On the basis of recovery memo F.I.R. as Case Crime No.368 of 2008, u/s 307 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. Nil of 2008 u/s 411 I.P.C. and in other sections were registered in Police Station Sipari, District Jhansi on 13.03.2008 at 7.30 A.M.After investigation charge sheet were submitted in Case Crime No. 368 of 2008, u/s 307 I.P.C., Case Crime No. Nil of 2008, u/s 411 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.342 of 2008, u/s 380, 411 I.P.C. by the concerned I.O. of the aforesaid cases.Case Crime No. Nil of 2008, u/s 411 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 342 of 2008, u/s 380 and 411 I.P.C. being connected with aforesaid session trial were also committed to sessions Court and numbered as Session Trial No. 71 of 2009 and Session Trial No. 95 of 2009 respectively.Later on aforesaid all the three session Trials were tranferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) for trial.The concerned Court of Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned in the impugned judgement that aforesaid all the three session trials were based on same recovery memo, therefore, he has tried and disposed all the three sessions trial jointly.The charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellant who denied from the charges and claim to be tried.Apart from documentary evidence prosecution has examined PW-1 H.C.P. Samthar Singh and Head Constable Raj Kumar Gautam (PW-2).PW-1 H.C.P. Samthar Singh has deposed that on 07.02.2008 he was posted as Constable Mohrir in P.S. Sipari, District Jhansi.He has registered the F.I.R. and has proved the F.I.R. and copy of the G.D. of Case Crime No. 342 of 2008, Section 380, 411 I.P.C.PW-2 Raj Kumar Gautam has deposed that at the time of incident, he was posted as Constable in P.S. Sipari, Jhansi.The Investigating Officer of this case had also been posted with him in that Police Station.PW-2 has deposed that he was well acquinted with the hand writings of the I.O. He has also stated that he had signed on recovery memo and at the time of incident he was a memeber of the Police party of the informant.After completion of evidence of the parties, the statement of the accused appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant has admitted the prosecution version and has stated that the witnesses of prosecution had given correct statements.He has confessed his guilt and has stated that the cases had rightly been registered against him.He has also stated that he was very poor person.After hearing the argument advanced by the counsel for the parties and perusing the lower court record, by its impugned judgement and order dated 03.08.2018 the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid in paragraph first of the judgement.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement and order of the trial Court the appellant has preferred this appeal.Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.This appeal has been filed only on the point of punishment awarded by the Trial Court.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,434 |
JUDGMENT Dixit, J.Three accused persons including the present appellant, who was accused No. 1 in the Court below, were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, for an offence of murder of one Bapu Tukaram Patil, the charge against the three accused persons being that on or about 18-9-1955, in Shaha-pur village they and one Shankar Nalavade, 'since absconding, in furtherance of a common intention of all intentionally caused the death of Bapu Tukaram Patil of Kodoli and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.At the trial, the learned Judge acquitted Nos. 2 and 3, hut convicted accused No. 1 under section 326 read with section 34 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.Accused No. 1 now appeals from his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him.The order of conviction runs as follows:"In the result, I acquit accused No. 1 of the charge under Section 302 but convict him under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the charge and they are set at liberty".Now, the charge against the three persons including the present appellant was a charge of murder of Bapu.The prosecution case against accused No. 1 was that on 18-9-1955 accused Nos. 1 and 2 and one Shankar Nalavade hid themselves in a streamlet & they asked accused No. 1 to post himself in such a way that when Bapu passed by the road, accused No. 1 should give a signal to accused Nos. 2 and 3 anil Shankar.In this case, the prosecution relied neon several pieces of evidence.Reliance was then placed upon dying declarations and also upon a confessional statement made by accused No. 1 which was subsequently retracted by him.Shantabai's evidence was rejected on the ground that she did not mention the assailants who took part in the assault upon Bapu.As regards the dying declarations, it was recognised that the declarations constituted a weak piece of evidence and without corroboration, it would not be safe to act upon them.With regard to the confessional statement, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that there was enough corroboration to the confessional statement.It may be pointed out that the confessional statement was retracted and in order to rely upon a confessional statement which is retracted, it must be proved that the confessional statement is a voluntary statement and a true statement.So far as the circumstantial evidence in the case is concerned, that evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to convict an accused person charged with a serious offence of murder.On this appeal by accused No. 1, what one has to consider is, therefore, the evidence furnished by the dying declarations and the confessional statement.According to the confessional statement, accused No. 1 was asked to sit near a hillock.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 sat in hiding in a streamlet and they told accused No. 1 that when Bapu Tukaram came that way, he should make a sign to them by show of hand.He says he saw Bapu Tukaram coming and he signalled to them by show of hand.He says Shankar and accused Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted Bapu Tukaram with axes and spear.They then came up to him and asked him to go wherever he liked.Mr. Gumaste appearing for the State argues that the confessional statement, though retracted, is enough to sustain the conviction.He says that there is corroboration as regards the confessional statement.Corroboration to the confession is sought from the evidence of Appaji and Police Patil Shankar who say that accused No. 2 went to the chavadi to obtain extracts of the record of rights.Next, the corroboration is sought from the evidence of Shantabai who says that four persons were involved in the incident and, finally from the evidence of Pandu who says that he saw accused No. 1 going to Shankar shortly before the commission of the offence.He became liable for the act of another in that he shared the intention entertained by the other persons i.e. the three persons having been animated by a common intention.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,043,423 |
These are two independent powers.According to Shri Khurana he had sold goods worth Rs. 8 to 9 lakhs only to Shri Parasmal.When the charge of purchasing the foreign exchange is not proved, then the charge of making payment of the said amount would automatically fail.JUDGMENT S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule.Returnable forthwith.Shri Salvi appearing for respondent No. 1 waives notice.By consent heard finally.In these applications the questions arising for consideration are common, arguments are identical and therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgement.These criminal applications invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Sessions Court and the Metropolitan Magistrate taking a view that exoneration of the applicants in adjudication proceedings, would not be a bar for prosecuting them for offences punishable under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ("FERA" for short).In other words, although, in adjudication proceedings the issue of liability to pay duty/tax and dependent upon it imposition of penalty may also have been considered, but that would not permit quashing and/or closing of criminal prosecution for offences alleged under the same Enactment under which duties have been demanded and penalties purported to be imposed.Are these proceedings identical in nature or one is independent of the other, is therefore, the core issue.If they are not, still, exoneration in one would mean continuation of the latter an abuse of the process of the Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case.The factual background is as under.Some time in June 1993 information came to be received by the Department of Enforcement that applicant in Criminal Application No. 1793 of 2003 was engaged, on large scale, in the making of compensatory payments.Pursuant thereto on 25th June 1993 his residential premises and office premises were searched and certain documents were seized from both premises.On 25th June 1993 and 26th June 1993 his statement came to be recorded by the Officer at their office, in which Shri Jain made certain admissions that he was importing pharmaceutical drugs from one Anand of Singapore, whom he has met at Lugano through Preetam Khurana.Statement of Raichand Jain was recorded on the same day.On this day Parasmal and Raichand Jain came to be arrested.Statements of other persons were also recorded by the Department.All of them replied to the said show cause notices.Criminal Case No. 16/C.W./99 came to be filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai by Shri Surendra Prasad, Chief Enforcement Officer for offences punishable under sections 56(1)(I) read with Sections 9(1)(d), 8(1) and 8(2) of the FERA.On 25th January 2002 discharge application came to be filed by the applicants, which was rejected by the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai.Shri Parasmal Jain and Raichand Jain filed Criminal Revision Application No. 213 of 2002 and 269l of 2002 respectively in the Court of Sessions, Greater Mumbai.On 1st January 2003 the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai rejected the criminal revision applications.On the other hand, Shri Salvi appearing for respondents supports the order under challenge.After the orders of exoneration, the applicants' preferred applications for discharge in the criminal cases.The applications have rightly been rejected by the Courts below after observing that criminal proceedings and adjudication proceedings are two separate proceedings.It is not disputed that the applicants are being prosecuted on a complaint filed by the Chief Enforcement Officer alleging offences under section 56(1) R/W Sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(c), 9(1)(d) and Section 8(1) as well as Section 8(2) of the FERA.. They filed applications for discharge after the order of the Special Director of Enforcement exonerating Page 730 them of the charges levelled in the show cause notices.It is also not disputed that ground on which discharge is sought, is that in view of their exoneration by the Tribunal constituted under FERA in adjudication proceedings, now, on same/identical charges, they cannot be prosecuted in a criminal case.There was a full and final settlement of the tax arrears.A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court praying that the said complaint be quashed.The said petition was dismissed.Now coming to the charge under Section 9(1)(c) of FERA, 1973 in the SCN-I, wherein it is alleged that Shri Parasmal Jain had acknowledged a debt of US$ 320822 in favour of Shri Anand of Singapore, a person resident outside India, against pharmaceutical drugs/ raw materials purchased from Shri Anand, which were smuggled to India, the said charge is primarily based on the entries appearing in page 5 of bunch 'D' of the documents seized from Shri Parasmal Jain and his statement.As already discussed earlier, the entries appearing in the said documents and the statement of Shri Parasmal Jain are not corroborated at all by independent evidence.In the SCN No. III Shri Parasmal is alleged to have made payment of Rs. 2,57,000 to Shri Randhir Jain on the instructions of aforementioned Shri Anand and Shri Franco Sartori who are indicated to be persons resident outside India, in violation of section 9(1)(d) ibid.for receiving the said payment.As already discussed in the earlier part of this order the relevant entry in the seized document i.e. page 5 of bunch 'D' of the document seized from Shri Parasmal and his statement are not corroborated by the statement of shri Randhir Jain.alleged in SCN-IV against Shri Parasmal and Shri Babulal @ Raichand Jain would fail.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,343,555 |
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a written report, Ex. Ka-1 scribed by the informant, Ajay Kumar Rai (PW-1) was lodged at the Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur with the allegations that on 22.11.2001 at 8 O'clock in the morning, he was at his shop, situate at Chandi (Colony).At that time, he received a telephonic call from his uncle's son, Anil Kumar Rai that something untoward had happened at the house of Rakesh situate in Shivaji Nagar Colony, and that therefore, they should come over at once.On this information, he along with his family members reached the house of Rakesh situate at Shivaji Nagar Colony, and saw that the main door was bolted from the inside.They made a lot of effort to open the door, but to no avail.Then they gained entry into the house by scaling a wall on one side.Once inside, they saw that all the doors were ajar, and upon reaching the kitchen, they found the dead bodies of Rakesh Chandra Rai, Chandra Shekhar Rai and Anoop Kumar Rai lying there, and in the Poojaghar abutting the Kitchen, they found Smt. Leelawati wife of Rakesh Chandra Rai and Renu Rai daughter of Rakesh Chandra Rai lying injured, while in the northern Bedroom, the dead bodies of Bobby, Vikki and Vibhu Rai, all sons of Ranjit Rai, lay.All the attaché-cases and trunks carrying belongings of the inmates had been broken open, and contents were strewn all over the place, giving an impression that the victims had been murdered and their valuables looted.The injured Leelawati Rai and Renu Rai were sent to the Hospital for medical aid.(injury) area 5 x 3cm on whole of Lt. eye;(2) Contusion area 3.5x3 cm on the nose clotted blood present.kept U.O. Advised X-ray.(3) Contusion area 5x0.5 cm on Rt.ear bleeding from Rt.ear kept UO & Advised X-ray.Advise referred to ENT Surgeon and Surgeon.Thereafter, she was referred to the K.G.M.I., Lucknow considering the serious condition of the injured, Renu Rai, where she was admitted to the Gandhi Memorial and Associate Hospital of K.G.M.I., Lucknow.On 22.11.2011, the injured Renu Rai was admitted to the Gandhi Memorial and Associate Hospital of K.G.M.I., Lucknow, where Dr. Amit Sharma attended on her.The cause of death is due to coma as a result of AM Head injury.Deceased Vikki Ante-mortem injuries (1) Contused swelling 13cm x 6-1/2 cm over Lt. side head, extending from frontal to occipital region underlying profuse haematoma & frontal & parietal Lt. bone fractured.The cause of death is due to coma as a result of AM Head injury.Deceased Vibhu Ante-mortem injuries (1) Contused swelling 11-1/2cm x 7-1/2 cm over upper part of the head, on cutting profuse Haematoma & multiple pieces of vault of skull present.Brain matter contused, mannings torn.The cause of death is due to coma as a result of AM head injury.According to the prosecution, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer and other police personnel on 12.12.2001 at 12.30 hours were inquiring from the appellants and one Rajesh Mali, who were arrested in connection with an NDPS Case, about certain items of jewelry recovered from three of them.At that time, Smt. Renu Rai (injured in the present case) along with her relatives, Ajay Kumar Rai and Anil Kumar Rai arrived there, and upon seeing the appellants, she turned hysterical and assaulting the appellants, crying aloud, identified them as the robbers who had entered her father's house on the night of occurrence, committed loot and done the entire family to death.On identification of the appellants by the injured Renu and recovery of proceeds of the dacoity, they were taken into custody in connection with the present crime, apprising them of the offence under Section 396 IPC made out against them.The appellants led the way and getting off the main road, walked into the grove of one Arjun, wherefrom under the foliage of a bush, they produced a rexine bag, brownish in colour with print bearing the label 'VIP', made of metal with two black zippers and a stick from a guava tree.Upon opening the bag, were found inside a black coloured wallet, that carried an identity card with a photograph of Rakesh Chandra Rai issued by the Income Tax Commissioner, Allahabad, two small diaries with the name of Chandra Shekhar Rai, scribed on it.Upon seeing the bag and wallet, Renu Rai said that the identity card in the wallet was her father's whereas the diary was her brother's.(3) PW-3, Renu Rai, injured witness;(4) PW-4, Dr. R.A.L. Gupta, conducted autopsy;(5) PW-5, Dr. Mahendra Singh, Superintendent, District Hospital, Gorakhpur, who gave primary medical attention to injured Renu Rai, admitted her and referred her to K.G.M.I., Lucknow;(6) PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh, drew up inquest reports and other documents regarding investigation;These three criminal appeals arise out of a judgment and order of Sri P.K. Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.4, Gorakhpur, dated 29.10.2003 passed in Sessions Trial no.177 of 2002, State of U.P. vs. Shyam @ Sambhal and others (arising out of Case Crime no.883 of 2001), under Sections 396, 412 IPC, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.By the aforesaid judgment and order, each of the five appellants, have been convicted by the learned Trial Judge of commission of an offence punishable under Section 396 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Life, besides being ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each.In default of payment of fine, the concerned appellant has been ordered to suffer one year's R.I. Appellants, Shyam @ Sambhal, Rinku Kumar Chaudhary and Raju Mali have also been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 412 IPC and sentenced to suffer ten years' Rigorous Imprisonment, besides being ordered to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-.In the event of default, the said appellants, have been ordered to suffer seven months' R.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Criminal Appeal no.293 of 2003 has been heard as the leading case.The written report closed with a request to register a case and initiate appropriate action.On 22.11.2001, the injured Renu Rai was admitted to R.D.M.O. District Hospital, Gorakhpur.PW-11, Dr. S.K. Srivastava, Medical Officer, examined her and found the following injuries on her person:(1) Contused ir.On 22.11.2001, PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh prepared inquests of the deceased, Rakesh Chandra Rai, Anoop Kumar Rai, Chandra Shekhar Rai, Bobby, Vikki and Vibhu, and after completing necessary formalities, sent their corpses for autopsy to the District Hospital, Gorakhpur.The said document is Ex. Ka-42, proved by PW-8, SI Amrendra Kumar Rai.On 22.11.2001, PW-4, Dr. R.K.L. Gupta conducted autopsy of all the seven deceased and drew up postmortem reports, the material part of each of which are as under:Deceased Rakesh Chand Rai Ante-mortem injuries (1) Contused swelling 12cm x 8 cm on occipital region, more on Lt. side;(2) Contused swelling 5cm x 4cm on Lt. orbital region;(3) Contused swelling 9cm x 6cm on Lt. side frontal region.On cutting surface haemotoma present.The cause of death is due to coma as a result of AM head injury.Deceased Chandra Shekhar Rai Ante-mortem injuries (1) Contused swelling 5cm x 4 cm over Lt. orbital region;(2) Contused swelling 12cm x 8cm on Lt. side of face;(3) Lacerated wound 2cm x 1-1/2 cm x bone deep on inner part of chin, underlying Haematoma & mandible fracture present;(4) Contused swelling 5cm x 6cm on Lt. temporal region on cutting Haematoma present.(5) Contused swelling 15-1/2 cm x 10 cm on front of neck & upper part of chest, on cutting profused Haematoma & carotid vessels ruptured & thyroid bone fractured.The cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.Deceased Lila Rai Ante-mortem injuries (1) Lacerated wound 3cm x 1-1/2 cm x bone deep on front of chin, underlying Haematoma & mandible fractured;(2) Contused swelling 12cm x 5cm on Lt. side of face, on cutting Haematoma present.(3) Contused swelling 10-1/2 cm x 6cm over front of neck, on cutting profuse Haematoma found.Both carotid vessels ruptured and Hyoid bone fractured.The cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.Deceased Anoop Kumar Rai Ante-mortem injuries (1) Lacerated wound 6cm x 1-1/2 cm on Lt. side chin;(2) Contused swelling 15cm x 8cm on Lt. side face upto forehead;(3) Contused swelling 6cm x 4 cm on Rt.Side forehead;(4) Contused swelling 6cm x 5cm on Rt.(5) Contused swelling 12 cm x 8 cm on Lt. side of head, just above ear, on cutting profuse Haematoma present.The cause of death is due to coma as a result of AM head injury.Deceased Bobby Ante-mortem injuries (1) Contused swelling 7cm x 5 cm on Rt. side of forehead, 3cm above from Rt.eyebrow, on cutting Haematoma & underlying frontal bone fracture present;(2) Contused swelling 8cm x 4cm on Lt. side of head, just above the Lt. ear, on cutting Haematoma present.Since the recovered jewelry were case property, the same were sealed in separate containers.According to the prosecution, the appellants confessed to their crime and said that they along with their companions, Vishram and Kalu, entered the victims' house via the roof and after battering the inmates, looted the house.They further said that the stick (Danda) used in the crime and a looted bag carrying diaries, wallet etc., they had thrown under the foliage for fear of identification.According to the prosecution, the appellants volunteered to get the stick (Danda) and the bag thrown away in the bushes nearby, recovered in case the police were willing.The police acting on the aforesaid disclosure, proceeded along with the appellants and the injured victim Renu Rai, together with her relatives, Ajay Kumar Rai and Anil Kumar Rai, to the place where the weapon of offence and the bag were said to have been thrown away by the appellants.The stick (danda) bore blood stains and measured the length of about a hand and a three quarters (the manner the dimensions are described in the recovery memo).The police on the basis of this case and material, charge sheeted the appellants vide charge sheet dated 01.03.2002, Ex. Ka-54, submitted by the Investigating Officer Ravi Chandra Mishra, PW-9, praying that the appellants be summoned and punished for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 396 & 412 IPC.After committal to the Court of Session, the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court no.3, Gorakhpur, before whom the case came up for framing of charges, proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties, and framed a charge for an offence punishable under Section 396 IPC against all the appellants, and against the appellants Shyam @ Sambhal, Raju Mali and Rinku Kumar, framed a charge for an offence punishable under Section 412 IPC.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to prove their case, the prosecution have examined the following witnesses:(7) PW-7, HC 138 Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, registered the FIR in Case Crime no.883 of 2001, under Sectins 302, 306, 394 IPC and also made entry in GD about the case;(8) PW-8, SI Amarendra Kumar Rai, prepared inquest of Smt. Leela Rai and also drew up other documents for her postmortem;(9) PW-9, IO Ravi Chandra Mishra, investigated the case and submitted charge sheet;The prosecution have relied on the following documents:No. Exhibit No. Exhibited documents with brief particulars 1 Ex. Ka-1 Written report dated 22.11.2001 lodged with the Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur and proved by PW-1, Ajay Kumar Rai 2 Ex. Ka-2 Recovery memo dated 12.12.2001 with regard to the weapon (danda) used in the crime and a rexine bag belong to the victim family, proved by PW-1, Ajay Kumar Rai 3 Ex. Ka-3 Recovery memo dated 12.12.2001 with regard to stolen articles, proved by PW-2, Anil Kumar Rai 4 Ex. Ka-4 Postmortem Report of Rakesh Chand Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-4, Dr. R.K.L. Gupta 5 Ex. Ka-5 Postmortem Report of Chandra Shekhar Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-4, Dr. R.K.L. Gupta 6 Ex. Ka-6 Postmortem Report of Smt. Lila Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-4, Dr. R.K.L. Gupta 7 Ex. Ka-7 Postmortem Report of Anoop Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-4, Dr. R.K.L. Gupta 8 Ex. Ka-8 Postmortem Report of Bobby Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-4, Dr. R.K.L. Gupta 9 Ex. Ka-9 Postmortem Report of Vikki, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-4, Dr. R.K.L. Gupta 10 Ex. Ka-10 Postmortem Report of Bibhu, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-4, Dr. R.K.L. Gupta 11 Ex. Ka-11 Referral letter of Renu Rai, dated 22.11.2001 to KGMI Lucknow, proved by PW-5, Dr. Mahendra Singh 12 Ex. Ka-12 Inquest Report of deceased Rakesh Chandra Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 13 Ex. Ka-13 Photo Nash of Rakesh Chandra Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 14 Ex. Ka-14 Police Form no.33, dated 22.11.2001 for autopsy of deceased Rakesh Chandra, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 15 Ex. Ka-15 Form no.13, dated 22.11.2001 of deceased Rakesh Chandra, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 16 Ex. Ka-16 Letter written to CMO dated 22.11.2001 for PM examination of Rakesh Chandra, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 17 Ex. Ka-17 Inquest Report of deceased Anoop Kumar Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 18 Ex. Ka-18 Photo Nash dated 22.11.2001 of Anoop Rai, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 19 Ex. Ka-19 Challani (Form no.13), dated 22.11.2001 of deceased Anoop Rai, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 20 Ex. Ka-20 Police Form no.33, dated 22.11.2001 for PM examination of deceased Anoop Rai, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 21 Ex. Ka-21 Letter written to CMO dated 22.11.2001 for PM examination of Anoop Rai, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 22 Ex. Ka-22 Inquest Report of deceased Chandra Shekhar Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 23 Ex. Ka-23 Challani (Form no.13), dated 22.11.2001 of deceased Chandra Shekhar, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 24 Ex. Ka-24 Police Form no.33, dated 22.11.2001 for postmortem examination of deceased Chandra Shekhar, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 25 Ex. Ka-25 Photo Nash of Chandra Shekhar Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 26 Ex. Ka-26 Letter written to CMO dated 22.11.2001 for PM examination of Chandra Shekhar Rai, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 27 Ex. Ka-27 Inquest Report of deceased Bobby, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 28 Ex. Ka-28 Photo Nash of Bobby, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 29 Ex. Ka-29 Challani (Form no.13), dated 22.11.2001 of deceased Bobby, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 30 Ex. Ka-30 Police Form no.33, dated 22.11.2001 for postmortem examination of deceased Bobby, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 31 Ex. Ka-31 Letter written to CMO dated 22.11.2001 for PM examination of Bobby, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 32 Ex. Ka-32 Inquest Report of deceased Vikki, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 33 Ex. Ka-33 Photo Nash of Vikki, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 34 Ex. Ka-34 Challani (Form no.13), dated 22.11.2001 of deceased Vikki, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 35 Ex. Ka-35 Police Form no.33, dated 22.11.2001 for postmortem examination of deceased Vikki, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 36 Ex. Ka-36 Letter written to CMO dated 22.11.2001 for PM of Vikki, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 37 Ex. Ka-37 Inquest Report of deceased Vibhu, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 38 Ex. Ka-38 Photo Nash of Vibhu, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 39 Ex. Ka-39 Challani (Police Form no.13), dated 22.11.2001 of deceased Vibhu, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 40 Ex. Ka-40 Police Form no.33, dated 22.11.2001 for postmortem examination of deceased Vibhu, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 41 Ex. Ka-41 Letter written to CMO dated 22.11.2001 for PM examination of Vibhu, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh 42 Ex. Ka-42* Inquest Report of deceased Leela Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-8, SI Amrendra Kr.Rai Ex. Ka-42* Chik FIR dated 22.02.2001 43 Ex. Ka-43** Police Paper no.33, dated 22.11.2001 for postmortem examination of deceased Leela Rai, proved by PW-6, SI Virendra Pratap Singh Ex. Ka-43** Carbon copy of the G.D. Entry no.21, Time 9.30, dated 22.11.2001 relating to Case Crime no.883 of 2001, under Sections 302, 307, 394 IPC, proved by PW-7, HC 138 Awadhesh Kumar Pandey 44 Ex. Ka-44 Photo Nash of Leela Rai, dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-8, SI Amarendra Kr.Rai 45 Ex. Ka-45 Challani (Police Form no.13), dated 22.11.2001 of deceased Leela Rai, proved by PW-8, SI Amarendra Kr.Rai 46 Ex. Ka-46 Letter written to CMO dated 22.11.2001 for PM examination of Leela Rai, proved by PW-8, SI Amarendra Kr.Rai 47 Ex. Ka-47 Letter written to RI dated 22.11.2001 for PM of Vibhu, proved by PW-8, SI Amarendra Kr.Rai 48 Ex. Ka-48 Site Plan of the place of incident dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-9 49 Ex. Ka-49 Memo regarding recovery of blood stained clothes, proved by PW-9, SO Ravi Chandra Mishra 50 Ex. Ka-50 Memo regarding recovery of blood stained and plain earth, proved by PW-9, SO Ravi Chandra Mishra 51 Ex. Ka-51 Memo regarding recovery of jewellaries, proved by PW-9, SO Ravi Chandra Mishra 52 Ex. Ka-52 Memo regarding recovery of blank containers of jewellaries, proved by PW-9, SO Ravi Chandra Mishra 53 Ex. Ka-53 Memo regarding recovery of shoes/ slippers, proved by PW-9, SO Ravi Chandra Mishra 54 Ex. Ka-54 Charge sheet, proved by PW-9, SO Ravi Chandra Mishra 55 Ex. Ka-55 Surgery Cases Sheet of injured Renu Rai dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-10, Dr. J.D. Rawat 56 Ex. Ka-56 Photostat copy of Injury report of Renu Rai dated 22.11.2001, proved by PW-11, Dr. S.K. Srivastava 57 Ex. Ka-57 Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P., Lucknow dated 17.08.2002 58 Ex. Ka-58 Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P., Lucknow dated 17.08.2002 * Ex. Ka-42 is assigned to two documents, apparently by clerical error ** Ex. Ka-43 is assigned to two documents, apparently by clerical errorThereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and relied upon the following documents:(1) True copy of the Chik FIR;(2) True copy of the site plan;(3) True copy of the statement of PW-3, HC Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, (4) True copy of the statement of PW-9, Ravi Chandra Mishra, Investigating Officer of the case.The Trial Court after hearing both the parties and discussing the evidence and material on record found the appellants variously guilty of offences under Sections 396 and 412 IPC and sentenced each of them as above detailed, by the impugned judgment and order.Aggrieved, the convicts have preferred these appeals.Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for all the appellants, Shri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajendra Rai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.20. Learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, has assailed the prosecution case as one engineered by the police.According to him, the appellants have been framed by the police, either at the instance of the true offenders who might be acquaintances of the family or their kinsmen, or the prosecution is the result of an easy solution to a complicated crime that the police have contrived.To all this end, learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn the Court's attention to some early signs of doubt about the prosecution case.It is pointed out by him that the First Information Report in this case was lodged by Ajay Kumar Rai, after an information he received from Anil Kumar Rai over telephone that some untoward incident had happened at the house of the informant's cousin, Rakesh Chandra Rai.He points out that Anil Kumar Rai is a cousin of the informants.The informant was at his shop in a village 25 kilometers away at the time he received this information, at 8 o' clock in the morning.He proceeded to the house of Rakesh Chandra Rai along with other members of the family, where they found a congregation of people outside the entrance door, that was bolted from within.Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that discovery of the crime thereafter, by Ajay Kumar Rai and others is quite another matter.What is intriguing, according to Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra is the fact that Anil Kumar Rai, who was himself a cousin of Rakesh Chandra Rai did not move in with the aid of all those who were present there to discover what had befallen the inmates of the house, all of whom were his relatives.In a display of conduct, highly unnatural to meet a suspected emergency, he called another cousin of his, that is to say, Ajay Kumar Rai to come over and find out what had befallen the family.Moving further with his submission that the prosecution story is suspect at its inception, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that it is not just that, that Anil Kumar Rai called up Ajay Kumar Rai to come all the way over to the place of occurrence to find out what had happened to the family who became victims of the crime, but he chose to call the first informant over in the face of an emergency, though the informant was located at a distance of about 25 kilometers from Gorakhpur in Village Chandi Gaon.It took Ajay Kumar Rai some 40 - 45 minutes to reach Gorakhpur, and some more to reach the place of occurrence.Once at the house of Rakesh Chandra Rai, the informant found Anil Kumar Rai and his brother Pramil Kumar Rai present, along with a big crowd of unrelated persons.Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there was no earthly reason for Anil Kumar Rai or Pramil Kumar Rai, both of whom were cousins to Rakesh Chandra Rai, not to have acted swiftly and moved in with the others present to find out whatever had happened inside Rakesh's house, when everyone present suspected some mis-happening.In this regard, learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of the Court to the evidence that figures in the cross-examination of Ajay Kumar Rai at page 63 of the paper-book.Dwelling further upon the suspicious circumstances attending the earliest steps taken by the family to discover the crime leading to the First Information Report, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Ajay Kumar Rai who deposed before the Trial Court as PW-1, has said in his examination-in-chief (as well as his cross-examination) that he and Anil Kumar Rai, on finding the main door to the house bolted, gained entry via the house of one H.N. Singh, located to the north of Rakesh's house.They did so after moving in to H.N. Singh's house through his main-gate and scaling the wall dividing the two premises.Learned Counsel for the appellants has placed much emphasis on the fact that H.N. Singh, who would be the earliest independent witness about the manner of crime, or atleast its discovery, was never examined by the police, and of course, never examined as a prosecution witness.It is submitted, thus, in substance by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the First Information Report does not at all disclose the true and the earliest account about discovery of the crime that has been perpetrated in a very different manner, and by assassins, completely unrelated to these convicts.The First Information Report is a prelude to a complete story of falsehood that the prosecution witnesses have lateron come up with; including the story that the injured witness, Smt. Renu Rai, PW-3 has given out falsely on oath in her testimony.Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. and Sri Rajendra Rai, learned Counsel for the complainant, have refuted the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants.They have said that the First Information Report is a very natural depiction of the behaviour of close relatives, where a number of their family members became victims of a heinous crime of this nature.There is nothing unnatural about the First Information Report, or to harbour suspicion about the prosecution case on its basis.This Court would consider a little later in this judgment, this and the other submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.It would be more profitable to record those submissions together with the prosecution's response before moving in to analyze the worth of the prosecution case.There is then a whole lot of scathing criticism about the manner of the appellants' arrest and, more fundamentally, how these appellants came to be connected to the crime.Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the manner in which the appellants have been shown to be arrested in connection with an NDPS Case near a place called Baudh Sangrahalaya on 12.12.2001, and then shown to be identified by Renu Rai, the sole survivor of the crime and an injured witness, who was passing by, riding pillion with PW-1, Ajay Kumar Rai and Anil Kumar Rai on way to the hospital, ex facie, makes it look like a foisted case.The arrest and the identification, both, that are said to have happened spontaneously, connecting the appellants to the crime, is hard to believe.Learned Counsel for the appellants has laid particular emphasis about the prosecution case to the effect that on 12.12.2001 at 12.30 p.m., the surviving and injured witness, Renu Rai was accompanying PW-1, Ajay Kumar Rai and PW-2, Anil Kumar Rai to the hospital and as they approached a place called Baudh Sangrahalaya, they found near one Arjun's grove a large crowd of people.Upon seeing the crowd, they moved to the grove and there found the appellants in police custody.It is the prosecution case that they were arrested in connected with recovery of Narcotics (Ganja) and certain items of jewelry, that were until then not connected to any crime.Upon seeing the appellants, Renu Rai immediately identified them as the men who had pulled the dacoity at her home and brutally murdered her family members."इसके बाद पुलिस घटना स्थल पर पहुंची। दिनांक 12.12.2001 को करीब साढ़े बारह बजे दिन में मै रेनू राय व अनिल कुमार राय के साथ अपने मामा के घर से रेनू को दिखाने अस्पताल जा रहे थे तो बौद्ध संग्रहालय के पास रामगढ़ परियोजना में बाई पास रोड के बगल में अर्जुन के बाग के पास भीड़ देखकर हम लोग वहां गये तो वहां हम लोगों ने देखा कि मुलजिमान हाजिर अदालत को पुलिस ने पकड़ा हुआ है उनके पास से गाजा और मेरे भाई राकेश चन्द्र राय के घर से हत्या कर लूटे हुये दो मंगल सूत्र, चांदी की बिछिया, और एक 1901 का सिक्का बरामद हुआ था जिन्हे रेनू ने पहचाना था और अभियुक्तों को देखते ही उसने कहा था कि यही वे लोग हैं जो मेरे घर लूट पाट किये थे और हत्या किये थे।"He has laid particular emphasis on the testimony of PW-3, Renu Rai, the injured and sole surviving witness, who also speaks in identical terms in her examination-in-chief about a wayside and spontaneous identification of the accused by her and their ensuing arrest.The part of deposition of PW-3, referred to by the learned Counsel, recorded on 05.09.2002, reads to the following effect:"12.12.2001 को दस बजे दिन में अनिल चाचा और अजय मौसा आये और वहां से सवा बारह बजे के करीब निकले डाक्टर के यहां जा रहे थे।"He was tipped off by an informer that some criminal elements were about the place at Tara Mandal (near Baudh Sangrahalaya).He has said that acting on the said tip off, he arrested the appellants on 12.12.2001 from Tara Mandal.He has specified their number to be five in the first instance, and has lateron, modified it to a figure of six.These men were arrested in connection with a case of recovery of narcotics.The recovery of narcotics had led to recovery of some unconnected items to the narcotics case that were pieces of valuable jewelry.While the Investigating Officer was interrogating the six men arrested in connection with the narcotics matter, more about the additional recovery, PW-3 arrived there along with PW-1 and PW-2, and identified the six men present as perpetrators of the present crime spontaneously.It is emphasized that in the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it has again been admitted that no member of the public witnessed the recovery, except the Rai Family.The relevant part of the evidence of the Investigating Officer, upon which account Sri Mishra has laid great emphasis, is reproduced infra:"दिनांक 11.12.01 तक कोई भी मुलजिम प्रकाश में नहीं आया था। रेनु राय से मेरी मुलाकात 9.12.01 को आजाद नगर में अजय राय वादी मुकदमा के घर पे हुआ था। फिर कहा कि रूस्तम पुर ढाल पर बयान लिया था। दिनांक 9.12.01 को रेनु का बयान लेने के बाद दिनांक 12.12.01 को मुलजिमान को तारा मण्डल से हम लोगों ने गिरफ्तार किया था। कुल पांच मुलजिम पकड़े थे। मेरे खास आदमी मुखबिर ने सूचना दिया था कि कुछ अपराधिक किस्म के आदमी तारा मण्डल के पास है। जिस व्यक्ति ने तारा मण्डल के पास कुछ अपराधिक व्यक्ति के बारे में होने का सूचना दिया था मैं उसका नाम नहीं बता सकता।अजखुद कहा कि 6 मुलजिमानों को पकड़ा गया था। जिस व्यक्ति ने सूचना दिया था उसका नाम बताना उचित नही है। यह सूचना मुझे 10 बजे दिनांक 12.12.01 को मिली थी। यह सूचना मुझे राय गढ़ ताल चौकी पर मिली थी। इस सूचना पर तुरन्त हम लोग तारा मण्डल पहुंच गये और 6 व्यक्ति वहां बैठे मिले। मौके पर पब्लिक के काफी लोग वहां पहुंच गये थे। वहां मौजूद पब्लिक में से मुलजिमान की गिरफतारी का साक्ष्य नही है। बरामदगी का कोई साक्ष्य राय परिवार के अलावा वहां मौजूद काफी लोगों में कोई गवाह नही है। मुलजिमान हम लोगों को देख नहीं पाये होगें इसलिए भगे नही।"Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is not about the fine details of the prosecution account coming from these three witnesses, pitted against the contradictions here and there about this account in their cross-examination that he emphasizes.According to him, this story about the surviving and injured witness, PW-3, Renu Rai, proceeding to the hospital or a Doctor along with her uncles Ajay and Anil in connection with her treatment, and suddenly on seeing the police or a crowd of people in a grove, close to the Baudh Sangrahalaya, abandoning course and moving in to find out what was afoot there, is inherently unbelievable.He submits that it is beyond comprehension that a vulnerable and shaken person, like Renu Rai, proceeding to a Doctor for a checkup, would suddenly change course on seeing the police or a crowd; to do so is not in keeping with normal or even a slightly variant standard of human behaviour.It is urged by him that on seeing the police along with a crowd, the natural tendency of any peace-loving and law abiding citizen is to move away as sights like these are in the common experience of men of ordinary prudence, sources of brooding trouble.No one wishes to barge into a crowd mixed up with the police to find out what has happened.According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, this is almost a universal reaction of persons circumstanced as the three prosecution witnesses.To add to it is the fact that they were a family, hardly emerged from the trauma of a big crime and tragedy.PW-1 and PW-2, according to their consistent account, had moved out with PW-3 to seek medical consultation.It is in these circumstances preposterous to suggest much less believe, in the submission of Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra that all three of them would move out to a sight that in common perception of men no source of attraction, recreation or curiosity.The account of identification and arrest given by the Investigating Officer in his evidence, in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, is also to its face, shaky and unreliable.In particular, he submits that the fact that the Investigating Officer has spoken about arresting in the first instance five accused in connection with the narcotics case, and lateron correct himself to make it a figure of six, makes the entire prosecution case a riddle about the sixth man apprehended.This is so because the charge sheet in the case has been filed against five men alone, and there is no explanation in the submission of Sri Mishra as to what happened to the sixth man apprehended.The absence of a cogent explanation by the prosecution as to why the sixth man apprehended was not put up for his trial, renders the prosecution seriously doubtful.It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Investigating Officer has said in his cross-examination, dated 09.05.2003 at the instance of appellants, Shyam @ Sambhal and Rinku that the arrest took place a little before 12.30 p.m., whereas recovery of narcotics and other articles was made at 12.30 p.m. (on 12.12.2001).The arrest of all the appellants in connection with the narcotics case that were registered as five separate crimes against them was shown at 10.30 a.m. This according to the learned Counsel for the appellants shows that the time of arrest is not certain, which furthers the appellants' case that their implication in the crime was the result of manipulation done by the police in order to do a face saving exercise.The appellants have merely become scapegoats.Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the account of identification can either be utter falsehood or one that came about in a preplanned manner on a tip off from the police.He also submits that the possibility of this manner of identification and arrest being utterly false, never to have taken place that way is very high, bearing in mind the fact that about this identification and arrest, which involves some recovery also, no witness of the public has been associated; much less examined before the Court.On this part of his submission, Sri Mishra says that the absence of a public witness about this wayside and fantastic identification followed by arrest shows it to be the result of a concocted story conjured up by the police, in connivance with the first informant and the two other prosecution witnesses.There is no independent witness to corroborate it.It is urged that this kind of an inherently unbelievable identification and arrest, in the absence of some independent and corroborating evidence, makes the prosecution story unbelievable.It is also emphasized that since this identification and arrest is a very relevant fact, on the basis of which the appellants have been connected to the crime, the failure of the prosecution to prove it, knocks the bottom out of their case.The next submission of Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellants is closely connected to the one about the manner of identification and arrest.It is about recovery of some case property and the weapon of offence.It is urged on behalf of the appellants that it has clearly figured in the deposition of PW-1, that when he along with Renu Rai and Anil Kumar Rai reached the place where the accused had been arrested and they were identified by Renu Rai spontaneously, the police showed them some recovered articles of dacoity that they had already recovered from the accused.There is no witness to this recovery, either from the complainant's family or amongst the public.This recovery was shown by the police to have been made along with the recovery referable to the NDPS Case, in connection whereof the accused were shown to be falsely arrested from the grove near the Baudh Sangrahalaya.The recovered articles are attributed to a chance recovery, along with the recovered narcotics.It is only lateron, when the victim of the crime, PW-3 along with PW-1 and PW-2 arrived at the scene of occurrence and PW-3 is said to have spontaneously identified them, that they were shown the recovered articles of loot, which Renu Rai PW-3 is said to have identified.In this connection, learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-1 during his cross-examination, dated 13.08.2002 at the instance of the appellants, Raju Mali and Jeewan Mali.This deposition is extracted below:"रेनु अभियुक्तों को देखते ही पहचान गई और आवेश में आकर के उलझने लगी। पुलिस ने अभियुक्तों के पास से पहले से बरामद सामान दिखाया, ये सामान दरोगा जी रखे थे। दो मगंल सूत्र चांदी का जिसमें एक मगंल सूत्र टूटा हुआ, दूसरा मगंल सूत्र जिसमें चांदी के लाकेट में सीकड़ में सोने का पानी चढ़ा हुआ था और चांदी की बिछिया, टूटे मगंल सूत्र में मोती के दाने लगे थे जो काले रंग के थे और एक ज्ञान (हथौड़ी) भी बरामद हुआ था। साथ ही एक चादी का सिक्का 1901 का बरामद हुआ था जिसे रेनु ने पहचाना था।"Likewise, PW-1 in his deposition dated 14.08.2002, that is part of his cross-examination at the instance of the appellants, Shyam @ Sambhal and Rinku has said to the following effect:"मेरे सामने पुलिस के द्वारा कोई मंगल सूत्र या चाँदी का सिक्का बरामद नहीं किया था और मैं यह भी नहीं बता सकता कि किस अभियुक्त के पास से कौन सा सामान बरामद हुआ था। यह कहना गलत है कि मेरे सामने मुलजिम की निशान देही पर कोई सामान बरामद नहीं हुआ।"Learned Counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the deposition in the examination-in-chief of Anil Kumar Rai, PW-2, relating to recovery of the articles of loot.The aforesaid deposition recorded on 20.08.2002 reads as follows:"हम लोगों के पहुँचने के पूर्व पुलिस ने इन बदमाशों के पास से दो मंगल सूत्र जिसमें एक मंगल सूत्र काले रंग की गुड़िया और चांदी का लाकेट व सिकड़ी जिस पर सोने का पानी चढ़ा था, दूसरा मंगल सूत्र जिसमें काले रंग की मोतिया और चार सोने की गुड़िया गुथी हुई थी और टूटा हुआ था। एक चांदी का सिक्का जिस पर 1901 अंकित था। बिछिया एक अदद बरामद किये गये थे।"Again, on the following day, that is to say, on 21.08.2002, PW-2 spoke about the recovery of these articles in the following words:"जो सामान दरोगा जी बरामद किये थे वह सब डिब्बों में अलग अलग मेरे सामने सील किये थे। वह सामान सील्ड हालत में अलग अलग डिब्बों में मेरे सामने है। जिसकी सील मुहर दुरूस्त है। न्यायालय की आज्ञा से वकील मलजिमान को दिखा कर सील खोला गया। सील खोलने पर एक डिब्बें में से काले रंग की मोतियों की माला (मंगल सूत्र) व चार सोने की गुरिया निकली मगंल सूत्र का धागा टुटा हुआ है। दूसरे डिब्बे से मंगल सूत्र मय लाकेट जिस पर सोने का पानी चढ़ा है मय सिकड़ी चांदी की जिस पर सोने का पानी चढ़ा हुआ है, व तीसरे डिब्बे में से एक जोड़ा चांदी की बिछिया व 1901 का एक सिक्का चांदी का निकला। जिन पर क्रमशः वस्तु प्रदर्श 1 ता 4 डाला गया। बरामदशुदा इन सामानों को देखकर रेनु ने कहा कि यह सब सामान उसके है। इस सामानों को पुलिस ने इन मुलजिमान हाजिर अदालत से बरामद किया था। बरामदशुदा सामानों की लिखा पढ़ी हुई थी इसी स्थान पर हुई थी जिस पर मैने भी हस्ताक्षर बनाये थे वह फर्द मेरे सामने है जिस पर प्रदर्श क-3 डाला गया।"Learned Counsel for the appellants has also laid emphasis on the deposition of PW-3, Smt. Renu Rai who has spoken about this recovery of the looted articles by the police from the arrested men, in her examination-in-chief on 06.09.2002, thus:"जब मै चिल्लाने लगी और रोने लगी तो पुलिसवालों ने मुझे कुछ सामान दिखाया। दो मगंल सूत्र दिखाये व एक चांदी का सिक्का व एक जोड़ा बिछिया था जो पुलिस वालों ने मुझे दिखाया जो मेरा था। एक लोहे का हथोड़ा दिखाया। बरामद शुदा सामान जो डिब्बे में सर्व मुहर है खोला गया। बरामद शुदा सिक्के पर सन 1901 अंकित है।"Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the recovery is in two different parts, both of which are not only different about the nature and character of the articles recovered, but the legal incidents thereof.He submits that so far as the recovery of looted articles of property attributed to the appellants is concerned, this recovery from the evidence of the three witnesses of fact, as well as the recovery memo dated 12.12.2001, Ex. Ka-3, is not at all referable to a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This recovery is one that the police claim to have been made from the appellants on the wayside, while they were being searched in connection with the NDPS Cases.That search had led to recovery of Ganja from their possession, and along with it, one or the other of the looted articles from three of the appellants as a matter of chance.It was not the kind of recovery that was made at the instance of the appellants who disclosed it ahead of the recovery, which then was made at their pointing out.The recovered articles according to the recovery memo, distinct and separate from the narcotics recovered, were shown to PW-3, Smt. Renu Rai, when these were already in the hands of the police, claimed by them to be recovered from the appellants.These articles were identified by Smt. Renu Rai as part of the looted property, but Smt. Renu Rai or for that matter PW-1 or PW-2 are not witnesses of this recovery.Sri Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellants points out that a perusal of the recovery memo dated 12.12.2001, Ex. Ka-3 shows that it is signed by the accused, the police party, besides Ajay Kumr Rai, Anil Kumar Rai and Smt. Renu Rai.It is submitted by Sri Mishra that this recovery memo is a document, that is hardly of any worth.According to him, the reason is that this recovery was made by the police in connection with the NDPS Case, and, in fact, that the recovery of these articles was also shown in the NDPS Case Recovery Memo.Once the injured, PW-3 identified the appellants, as claimed by the prosecution, recovery memo, Ex. Ka-3 was drawn up, assigning the claimed articles of loot to the present crime.PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who have signed the recovery memo, have not witnessed the recovery.He submits that these articles of loot were picked up from the scene of crime, where a lot of jewelry lay strewn and foisted upon the appellants.Learned Counsel for the appellants has also referred to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, which according to him, consistently shows that the police claimed to have already recovered these articles as part of the NDPS Case apprehension of the appellants and investigation.PW-3 lateron identified them as perpetrators of the present crime.The evidence of the three witnesses, thus, clearly shows that they were shown the claimed articles of loot, what the police had already recovered.None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that these articles of loot were recovered from the appellants in their presence.Also, the recovery of these articles is not endorsed by any other member of the public.The submission, therefore, of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the entire recovery of the claimed articles of loot is planted.We may now refer to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants regarding second part of the recovery.It comprises the weapon of offence, a stick made of guava tree wood, a rexine bag carrying a label of its make described as 'VIP' and the contents of the bag, that revealed a black coloured wallet with an identity card of Rakesh Chandra Rai, bearing his photograph issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad and a small diary, bearing the name of Chandra Shekhar Rai and his address.The bag aforesaid carried another small diary, also bearing the name of Chandra Shekhar Rai.In the submission of Sri Mishra, this recovery is distinct and different from the first, not only about the contents, but the manner in which it has been made and its legal incidents.This recovery is shown to have been made after the appellants were identified by PW-3, Renu Rai.The appellants are then said to have made a disclosure and led way to the place where they had hidden these articles.It is claimed that they led the police along with PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 to a place, where they left the main road and went into Arjun's grove.There, from under a shrub they recovered the rexine bag and the guava wood stick.The contents of the rexine bag carrying the wallet with an identity card of Rakesh Chandra Rai and the diaries of the other deceased Chandra Shekhar Rai, were identified by Renu Rai as those of her fathers and brothers.The recovered stick is claimed to be smeared with blood, one hand and a three quarters in length.All these articles are shown to be sealed on the spot with the recovery memo being thumb marked by the appellants, signed by the police party, besides Ajay Kumar Rai, Anil Kumar Rai and Smt. Renu Rai.Learned Counsel for the appellants points out that this recovery memo is not signed by any member of the public, who were around and available in abundance.The recovery memo also does not mention that members of public were invited to sign the recovery memo which they declined.It is urged that the recovery memo also does not say that members of the public went along with the police party and witnessed the recovery.Sri Mishra submits that the entire recovery, on a reading of this recovery memo, Ex. Ka-2, is to its face a product of falsehood and part of a design to frame the appellants.In this connection, apart from the contents of the recovery memo, through which we have been taken, Sri Mishra has drawn the attention of the Court to the examination-in-chief of Ajay Kumar Rai, dated 24.07.2002, where about this part of the recovery, that is subject matter of Ex. Ka-2, it is said by Ajay Kumar Rai, PW-1:"मुलजिमानों ने कहा था कि पकड़े जाने के भय से हत्या में प्रयुक्त डण्डा व बैग झाड़ी में फेक दिया है आप कहे तो चल कर दे देवे। पुलिस इन अभियुक्तों को तथा हम लोगों को साथ लेकर झाड़ी के पास गई और अभियुक्तों के निशान देही पर हत्या में प्रयुक्ति अमरूद का डण्डा व बैग निकाल कर दिया जिसकी फर्द बनाई गई वह फर्द मेरे सामने है इस पर मेरा भी हस्ताक्षर है इस पर प्रदर्श क-2 डाला गया।"Learned Counsel for the appellants has further laid emphasis about the testimony of this witness in his cross-examination at the instance of appellants, Raju Mali and Jeewan Mali, dated 13.08.2002, where he has said:"जहाँ पर अभियुक्त पकड़े गये थे वहीं बगल से बाग के बाहर झाड़ी में से डंडा और एक बैग बरामद हुआ था। डंडा ढाई हाथ का था जो अमरूद का था। वहां जनता के काफी लोग एकत्र हो गये थे। पुलिस वालों ने मेरे सामने जनता के किसी आदमी की गवाही नहीं लिया था, मै रेनु व अनिल गवाह थे। इस सम्बन्ध में करीब 40-45 मिनट का समय लगा था। दरोगा का नाम आर0 सी0 मिश्र था और पुलिस के करीब 4-5 लोग थे, फिर वहीं से हम लोग डा0 संजीव श्रीवास्तव के अस्पताल चले गये।"Likewise, learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to the deposition in the examination-in-chief of PW-2, Anil Kumar Rai, dated 21.08.2002, where about this part of the recovery, he has said:"मेरे अलावा और किसने इस पर दस्तखत बनाया मुझे नहीं मालूम इसके बाद पुलिस ने मुलजिमान से पूछताछ की पूछताछ करने पे मुलजिमान ने पुलिस से कहा कि हत्या में प्रयुक्त डण्डा व बैग पकड़े जाने के भय से यही झाडी में फेंक दिया है कहिये तो चल कर दे देवे। इसके बाद मुलजिम आगे आगे उसके बाद पुलिस उसके बाद हम लोग व जनता गये और मुलजिमान ने अमरूद का डण्डा खून लगा हुआ और एक बैग निकाल कर दिया उस बैग को देखकर रेनु ने कहा कि यह मेरे भाई का है। बैग को दरोगा जी ने खोला जिसमें से दो डायरी एक आइडेन्टीटी कार्ड निकला डायरी चन्द्र शेखर राय का था और आइडेन्टीटी कार्ड राकेश चन्द्र राय का था।"Learned Counsel for the appellants submits about this recovery that though this recovery, and not the one that relates to looted articles, is referable to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is as much false and the result of planting as the earlier one.However, the recovery memo is signed by the police party, the first informant, PW-1, the victim, PW-3 and PW-2, but by no member of the public.There is no earthly reason assigned, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, why not even a single member of the public has signed this recovery memo, claimed as it is to be a recovery made within their sight.Learned Counsel for the appellants again emphasizes that the recovery memo does not carry any remark to the effect that members, one or more from the public present, were asked to sign and they refused.It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that according to the prosecution based on the account of the surviving victim, Renu Rai, PW-3, one of the appellants, Shyam @ Sambhal alone was armed with a stick (danda).The other accused were not armed at all.He points out that a solitary stick (danda), according to the prosecution account, was shown recovered at the pointing of the appellants.However, on reference to the F.S.L. for serological examination of the blood smeared recovered stick (danda), the F.S.L. Examination Report, Ex. Ka-57, dated 17.08.2002 shows that the blood was disintegrated.He submits that there is no evidence of human blood being found on the recovered, alleged weapon of offence.He emphasizes that the recovered stick (danda) is admittedly the only weapon employed to bludgeon the victims, five of whom show that they died of head injuries.It is urged on the basis of the aforesaid evidence by the learned Counsel for the appellants that: the prosecution story is inherently unreliable, inasmuch as, it is beyond imagination that six or more assailants would enter a house to commit dacoity as scantly armed as the appellants here, where one of the entire group was carrying a stick (danda) with all others going bare handed; secondly, though the prosecution version based on an eye witness account by PW-3 shows it to be mostly an assault by a stick (danda), two of the seven victims died of throttling, about which there is no explanation.It strongly suggests that the crime was perpetrated in some other manner and by someone else, than that testified to by PW-3; and, thirdly, that the F.S.L. Report, dated 17.08.2002, reported the blood found on the sole weapon of offence, shown to be recovered from the appellants to be disintegrated.The said stick (danda) cannot be connected to the crime.Also, it suggests strongly that the recovery was fake, false and planted.Learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the testimony of injured witness, Smt. Renu Rai, PW-3 as a product of an illegal identification.He submits that the appellants were shown to Smt. Renu Rai on 09.12.2001 at the Police Station illegally, three days ahead of their arrest in a fake NDPS Case, followed by a sham and spontaneous identification by PW-3 on the wayside.It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellants were already in illegal custody of the Police, some days before their arrest in connection with the present crime or even the NDPS Case.No test identification parade was ever organized, so as to ensure a true and forthright identification of the offenders by the injured witness.Rather, these men were virtually introduced to Smt. Renu Rai on 09.12.2001 at the Police Station, and three days later, they were shown arrested in connection with the NDPS Case only to be fantastically identified by Smt. Renu Rai, as she was passing by.It is urged by Sri Mishra that the identification of the appellants on 12.12.2001 near the Baudh Sangrahalaya, where they were shown to be arrested in connection with the NDPS Case, was no identification at all.It is, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, a pre-planned and scripted story by the police to connect the appellants to this heinous crime, after showing their arrest in an NDPS offence.In this connection, our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellants to the testimony of Smt. Renu Rai recorded on 18.09.2002, that figures as part of her cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, Raju Mali and Jeewan Mali.This testimony reads to the following effect:"जब मै लखनऊ अस्पताल से वापस आई तो मुझे पुलिस थाने ले गई थी। पुलिस ने मुझे वहां आठ नौ बदमाशों को दिखाया वहां पर मुलजिमान हाजिर अदालत नही थे पुलिस मुझे आठ या नौ बजे दिन में ले गई थी। इन बदमशों में मेरी पट्टीदारी या रिश्तेदारी का कोई नही था। उसी दिन फिर मुझे रात के आठ नौ बजे पुलिस थाने ले गई और वहां नौ दस बदमाश थे और ये हाजिर अदालत मुलजिमान भी थे। दिन में ये मुलजिमान वहां नही थे रात में थे। मै वहां पर इन सारे बदमाशों को पहचानी थी और कहा था कि इन्ही बदमाशो ने मेरे यहां कान्ड किया है। उस रात मेरे साथ मेरे मौसा अजय कुमार राय और मेरे चाचा दुर्गेश राय थे। बौद्ध संग्रहालय मै जब गई थी उसके एक दिन पहले नौ तारीख को मुलजिमान को पहचाना था। उस रात में एक मुलजिम थाने में और था और जो मेरे घर में हुये घटना में शरीक था। परन्तु आज वह न्यायालय में नही है नौ तारीख को दरोगा जी ने पहचान के बाद मेरा signature करवाया था । मेरे अलावा और किसी का signature नही कराया था । थाने पर रात में नौ तारीख को मै बीस पच्चीस मिनट रही थी। फिर मै अपने चाचा मौसा के साथ घर चली आई। नौ तारीख के बाद फिर पुलिस मेरे यहां नही पहुची। दरोगा जी ने मेरा कोई बयान नही लिया। दरोगा जी ने वारह तारीख को मेरा बयान लिया था।"Learned Counsel for the appellants has also drawn the attention of the Court to the deposition of this witness recorded on 19.09.2002, next following what has been extracted above.On the said date, her statement to the police that she was proceeding to the Hospital, along with Anil Kumar Rai and Ajay Kumar Rai from Shivaji Nagar Colony, was put to her.In response, she said in her cross-examination thus:"मैने दरोगा जी को यह बयान नही दिया था कि "दिनांक 12-12-2001 को मै शिवाजी नगर कालोनी से अपने परिवार के अनिल कुमार राय व अजय कुमार राय के साथ अस्पताल जा रही थी"। यदि दरोगा जी ने मेरे बयान में उपरोक्त बातें लिखी है तो मै इसकी कोई वजह नही बता सकता।"It is on the strength of this testimony of PW-3 that the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there was absolutely no identification of the appellants on the wayside, near the Baudh Sangrahalaya.Nothing of the kind as said by the prosecution witnesses about identification, including PW-3, ever came to pass.The appellants were got identified by the police on 09.12.2001 at the Police Station, and lateron, shown to be arrested in Arjun's grove, near the Baudh Sangrahalaya in a fake NDPS Case.They were then foisted with illegal and fake recoveries said to be proceeds of the dacoity, as also weapons of the crime and some other articles.They were shown to be arrested on a chance identification, that never happened.A bogus statement of Smt. Renu Rai, PW-3, was shown to be recorded on 12.12.2001, post the appellants' fake arrest.It is, in particular, emphasized by Sri Mishra that it is for this reason that none of the recovery memoranda bear signatures of members of the public, except those of Smt. Renu Rai, Anil Kumar Rai and Ajay Kumar Rai.It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the entire evidence of Smt. Renu Rai, PW-3, who is the prosecution's star witness, collapses under the weight of the fact that all the appellants were introduced to her as the offenders, prior to their sham arrest in the present crime and the antecedent arrest in the NDPS Cases.It is emphasized by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned Counsel for the complainant that Smt. Renu Rai does not know the appellants or has any kind of acquaintance with them.She has no reason to falsely implicate them in a heinous crime.We have carefully considered rival submissions advanced on behalf of both sides.It would be convenient to consider under definitive heads the facts in issue or relevant facts that have been the subject matter of contention before us.(1) The First Information Report and circumstances attending itThe submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the sequence of events and circumstances, leading to discovery of the crime and registration of the First Information Report, shows it to be a false account and a coverup for what was the truth about it, is to be seen with reference to the circumstances in which the First Information Report was registered.No one was moving there and the door was bolted from within.Sensing trouble, the neighbours along with these two kinsmen of Rakesh Chandra Rai had assembled outside his entrance, where the gate or the main door was bolted from within.Neither the neighbours or Anil or Pramil moved in to see what had happened to the inmates.Instead, he called up over telephone, Ajay Kumar Rai, who is somewhere described as a cousin of Rakesh Chandra Rai, but is in fact his brother-in-law (husband of wife's sister).He conveyed to Ajay Kumar Rai the circumstances that led him and others gathered outside Rakesh's premises to believe that something untoward had happened to the inmates.Anil Kumar Rai asked Ajay Kumar Rai to come over immediately.Anil Kumar Rai waited for Ajay Kumar Rai to come over instead of moving in himself, along with others to render assistance to inmates of the house, whom everyone present believed to have suffered some ill-happening.Ajay Kumar Rai was located in a certain village Chandi Gaon, some 25 kilometers away from the Gorakhpur Headquarters.On receiving information, he immediately moved with other family members, but reckoning the distance between the village Chandi Gaon and Gorakhpur Headquarters, it took him about 45 minutes to reach Gorakhpur, and some more time to reach Rakesh Chandra Rai's house.It was, upon Ajay Kumar Rai's arrival that Anil Kumar Rai along with Ajay Kumar Rai, gained entry to the house of Rakesh Chandra Rai, after scaling a wall, separating his premises from those of one H.N. Singh, whose house the two entered through the main-gate.It is this conduct of Anil Kumar Rai and Pramil Rai, that has been the subject matter of scathing criticism about the First Information Report being the narrative of a false account and a coverup.To our understanding, there is nothing unnatural about it all.The conduct of men on encountering a particular situation is to be evaluated going by the prevalent circumstances in a society.It is not that the conduct of Anil Kumar Rai, his brother Pramil Rai, in awaiting arrival of Ajay Kumar Rai before moving in to the house has to be judged with reference to some copy-book model of ideal behaviour.And, then every departure or a serious departure from it viewed as a circumstance casting suspicion over their conduct, or the first information they lodged.In contemporary times, and times not so contemporary also, the dis-motive of false implication by the police, or at least spending a torturous time being interrogated as a suspect outweighs the motive of ordinary and respectable men to rush in and rescue their fellowmen, or even relatives who might have become victims of a suspected crime or an accident.Under the circumstances, if Anil Kumar Rai or his brother, Pramil Rai thought that they better await the arrival of Rakesh Chandra Rai's brother-in-law, before anyone moved in to see what had happened, the conduct cannot be castigated as unnatural.It must be remarked that due to the fact that anyone who comes close to a suspected or potential scene of crime has to spend quite an unpleasant time, going by the hard handed, high handed and stereotyped investigation by the police, applying outmoded methods, many a life is lost, that could be saved by any good spirited and respectable man.In these circumstances, Anil Kumar Rai or his brother, Pramil Rai did not do anything unnatural in waiting for Ajay Kumar Rai's arrival, along with other members of the family.It would be noticed that our assessment of the situation is in no way a hyperbole, if one were to look to the fact that even unconnected men who had congregated, may be neighbours or just passers by, also did not venture in to take the risk of finding out what had happened to the inmates of the house.No one ventured in until the closest of relatives to the family had arrived, so as to be all differently placed and sufficient in number to bear the brunt of an expected, rustic investigation by the police.In our considered opinion, the conduct of Anil Kumar Rai, his brother, Pramil Rai, all members of the public who had collected outside the house where the crime occurred, as well as that of Ajay Kumar Rai is not at all blameworthy or one that creates any doubt about the First Information Report, carrying a truthful account.So far as criticism of the First Information Report based on non-examination of H.N. Singh is concerned, through whose main door Ajay Kumar Rai and Anil Kumar Rai went inside his house to gain access to the wall separating H.N. Singh's premises and those of Rakesh Chandra Rai, it may be a lapse of investigation on the part of the police, but in no way does it detract from the veracity of the First Information Report.(2) The manner of arrest and connecting the appellants to the crime on its basisAbout this relevant fact, this Court has heard elaborate arguments on both sides.These articles were, thereafter, spontaneously identified by PW-3, who appeared on the scene per chance.In the circumstances, according to the learned Counsel supporting the prosecution, there is no possibility of these recovered articles of loot being planted on the appellants.So far as the recovery of weapon of offence is concerned, it is submitted for the prosecution that the recovery is clearly one made in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, after a disclosure made by the appellants and on their pointing out.The recovery of proceeds of dacoity attributed to the appellants is very different from recovery of the weapon of offence and certain other belongings that were recovered at the pointing of the appellants.The looted items of jewelry are said to be recovered from the appellants.It attributes the recovery of a mangalsutra from the appellant, Shyam @ Sambhal with black coloured guria carrying a silver pendant in a gold polished chain, described as sikri.The appellant, Raju Mali was shown to be in possession of another mangalsutra, that carried black coloured beads with four gold gurias entangled in it.It is said to be in a dismembered state.Likewise, the recovery memo shows that from the appellant, Rinku a silver coin bearing the year of mint as 1901 was recovered, that bore the image of the King Emperor, besides two silver bichhia (a pair).It is mentioned in the recovery memo that these already recovered articles of jewelry when shown to PW-3, Smt. Renu Rai were identified by her immediately as her belongings and looted on the night of occurrence.A perusal of the deposition of PW-1, dated 13.08.2002, that is part of his cross-examination at the instance of Raju Mali and Jeewan Mali extracted hereinbefore, clearly shows that these articles said to be recovered from the appellants, were shown as recoveries already made by the police.Likewise, PW-1 in his cross-examination on 14.08.2002 has categorically said that the police did not recover the mangalsutra or the silver coin in his presence.He could not say what article was recovered from each of the appellants.To the same effect is the deposition of PW-2 recorded on 20.08.2002, where he has clearly said that before the prosecution witnesses reached the place of arrest, the two mangalsutra, the gold coin and the bichhia (a pair) had already been recovered by the police from the appellants.Smt. Renu Rai, PW-3 who is said to have identified the accused on 12.12.2001, in the circumstances already detailed, has said about the recovery of this jewelry that belongs to her family in her examination-in-chief on 06.09.2002, that as she wailed and cried (upon identifying the appellants), the police showed her the two mangalsutra, the gold coin and a pair of bichhia, besides a hammer made of iron.They have signed the recovery memo, Ex. Ka-3 because the police gave them to understand that these articles were recovered from particular appellants, assigning them possession of different articles.It would have to be proved in accordance with law.It has figured in the cross-examination of PW-1, dated 13.08.2002 at the instance of Raju Mali and Jeewan Mali that at the scene of crime, much articles of jewelry lay strewn.For reasons that we shall presently indicate, we do not find this recovery of looted jewelry from the appellants made by the police, unwitnessed by any member of the public, to be at all reliable.Regarding these recoveries, a separate recovery memo, Ex. Ka-2, also dated 12.12.2001 has been drawn up.These recoveries have been made pursuant to a disclosure statement by the appellants recorded in the recovery memo, Ex. Ka-3, where the disclosure statement has been recorded in the following words:We have doubted the manner in which these appellants were spontaneously identified by a passing Renu Rai, along with her two uncles, while on way to the Doctors when she came across a crowd of people with the police there.He has also said that he met Renu Rai on 09.12.2001 at the Azad Nagar Home of the first informant, Ajay Kumar Rai.He has said thereafter that he arrested the five appellants on 12.12.2001 from Tara Mandal, acting on a tip off from an informer.This bears reference to the incident, where he arrested the appellants in connection with a narcotics case, and later, Renu Rai suddenly appeared to identify the appellants.The appellants were, thereafter, also arrested in connection with the present crime.Thus, the consistent stand of the prosecution is that the appellants were arrested for the first time on 12.12.2001, and it was in connection with a narcotics case from a place, called Baudh Sangrahalaya, near the Tara Mandal, precisely at the grove of Arjun.Soon thereafter, Renu Rai appeared at the scene of occurrence, in the circumstances indicated and spontaneously identified the appellants.Surprisingly, Renu Rai in her cross-examination, dated 18.09.2002, extracted in paragraph 51 (supra) has said in no uncertain terms that after she came back from Hospital, the police took her to the station.The police made her see about 8-9 suspects, but the appellants were not amongst them.This happened about 8-9 in the morning.The same day at about 8-9 in the evening, the police again took PW-3, Renu Rai to the station, where she was brought face to face with a total of about 9-10 suspects.She has said there that these appellants were amongst them.In the morning, they were not there.In the night, they were amongst the men who were shown to her.She has then gone on to say categorically that she identified all the appellants, who had pulled the dacoity at her home.That night, her uncles, Ajay Kumar Rai and Durgesh Rai were with her at the Police Station.It is then said in a very startling turn to her testimony that before she went to the Baudh Sangrahalaya (bearing reference to the claimed and sudden identification on 12.12.2001), a day before on 9th of that month, she had identified the appellants.It is also said that, that night there was one more of the perpetrators at the police station, who was particeps criminis, but was not present in Court.It is also said in no uncertain terms that on the 9th of the month, the Sub-Inspector after identification of these appellants had taken her signatures.She has also said that she had stayed at the police station on the 9th for a period of about 20-25 minutes.It is then said that after the 9th, the police never came to her.The Sub-Inspector took down her statement on the 12th.Upon being recalled, this witness said in her evidence thus:"जिस दिन यह घटना हुई थी उसके बाद मुलजिमान को दिनांक 12-12-01 को देखा था।"None of the appellants chose to cross-examine PW-3 about this stand of hers on 11.02.2003, upon recall.To our understanding, Smt. Renu Rai, PW-3, may be the worst of sufferers of a heinous crime and a seriously injured witness, but her testimony about the circumstances relating to a sudden identification and arrest of the appellants near the Baudh Sangrahalaya on 12.12.2001, when she was passing by, is false to its face.She has said in no uncertain terms that she was taken to the Police Station on 09.12.2001 twice - once in the morning at about 8.00 a.m., and then in the evening at about 8.00 p.m. She was shown the suspects privately and illegally, without holding a test identification parade on both occasions.She did not find any of the appellants amongst the suspects in the morning, when she went to the Police Station.But, in the evening, she found six of them, including the five appellants.She identified them to the police, and was made to sign some papers.Her testimony during cross-examination on 18.09.2002 shows that PW-3, Renu Rai was not tricked by any shrewd cross-examiner into making a stray admission unwittingly and caught off guard.She has been emphatic and categorical that she identified the appellants on 09.12.2001 during her evening visit to the Police Station, in no uncertain terms.Once this is her stand, the story about the arrest of the appellants in connection with an NDPS Case near the Baudh Sangrahalaya, close to the Tara Mandal by the police, turns to utter falsehood.We must remark here that this fact that the appellants were unlawfully got identified by the police, two days ahead their arrest being shown, at the Police Station by PW-3, privately and unlawfully without holding a test identification parade, is no lapse of investigation as the learned Counsel appearing for the prosecution want us to accept.This Court fails to understand what prevented the police from holding a test identification parade, if they had some suspects in hand and a surviving and injured witness to identify.There was no reason for the Police to go about this exercise in a clandestine and unlawful fashion and then come up with a bogus case of implicating the already identified appellants, while detained as suspects in an NDPS Case, attributing to them recovery of some articles, claimed to be proceeds of the dacoity.And, to weave around this bogus arrest in the NDPS Case, a fantastic story of spontaneous identification by Renu Rai as she was passing by the Baudh Sangrahalaya, renders the story untruthful beyond redemption.With this testimony of Renu Rai in the witness box on 18.09.2002, the entire story about the appellants' identification and arrest on 12.12.2001 becomes false to its face.We must also remark here that the learned Sessions Judge on being encountered with this gaping flaw in the prosecution case, has chosen to describe the testimony of PW-3, Renu Rai recorded on 18.09.2002 as a "mistaken slip of tongue".The categorical stand of Smt. Renu Rai in her cross-examination on 18.09.2002 is cast in too certain and detailed a description of the events at the Police Station on 09.12.2001 to pass off as a slip of tongue of any kind.It is on account of this irreconcilable flaw about Smt. Renu Rai's evidence, relating to identification of the appellants and the manner of their arrest that we have looked upon the recovery shown from the appellants, apart from other discrepancies, to be unreliable and untrustworthy.Her presence at the scene of crime and her account about it, cannot be doubted.But, her evidence about the appellants is eclipsed by a grave shadow of doubt.To add to it, her conduct in testifying to a false story of identification and arrest of the appellants on 12.12.2001 deprives her of the privilege of being an absolutely truthful witness, and her evidence of its character as sterling.On this kind of evidence, in our considered opinion the identity of the appellants and their connection to the crime is under a shadow of serious doubt.Upon a consideration of the totality of evidence, we find and hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt, and it would be unsafe to uphold their conviction.In the result, the appeals succeed and are allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.4, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial no.177 of 2002, State of U.P. vs. Shyam @ Sambhal and others, under Sections 396, 412 IPC, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted.The appellants are in jail.They shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case and subject to fulfilling the requirements under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.A copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur for information and necessary compliance.Judgment be certified and placed on record.Order Date :- 5.3.2020 Anoop
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,387,422 |
The present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short 'CrPC'), seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.39/2016 under Sections 489B/489C IPC and Section 120B (added later on) registered at Police Station- Crime Branch (West).As per the case of the prosecution, counterfeit currency has been recovered from the co-accused of the applicant and they have disclosed that they received the said counterfeit currency through the applicant herein.BAIL APPLN.1112/2016 Page 1 of 6Mr Rai, would lastly submit that the BAIL APPLN.1112/2016 Page 2 of 6 offences as alleged against the applicant are not made out from a plain reading of the subject FIR and that he has been falsely implicated at the behest of the IO in the subject FIR, in order to coerce the applicant to reveal the whereabouts of Munna, who is a co-accused in the subject FIR.In this behalf it has been stated that the charges framed against the applicant in FIR No.46/2013 under Sections 489B/479C/120B IPC (titled as State v. Arjun Sharma) are the consequence of a personal vendetta that the IO in the subject FIR has against him, since the IO in the subject FIR was a part of the Prashant Vihar Police Station, which caused the charge-sheet to be filed in the earlier case against the applicant.BAIL APPLN.1112/2016 Page 2 of 6On the contrary, Ms Radhika Kolluru, learned APP appearing on behalf of the Police, invites my attention to the disclosure statement of Harish Kumar to urge that the co-accused has clearly implicated the present applicant and specifically elaborated on the modus operandi used by him to distribute and traffic fake Indian currency.1112/2016 Page 3 of 6BAIL APPLN.1112/2016 Page 3 of 6It is observed that the applicant has been charged under sections 489B and 489C in another FIR being FIR No. 46/2013, and has committed the offence as alleged in the subject FIR while he was on bail in the other FIR.In view of the foregoing, it is observed that the applicant does not have clean antecedents and has a demonstrated propensity to commit similar or other offences if enlarged on bail.Furthermore, the circulation of fake Indian BAIL APPLN.1112/2016 Page 5 of 6 currency notes, which is rampant in the recent times, is a cause of grave concern as it represents a serious threat to the Indian economy.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,392,082 |
(i) The deceased, in this case, one Madathatchi, was a dry fish vendor.She is the first wife of one Chellakannu of Perumalpettai.She used to stay at Needur for five days in a week for selling dry fish and in the remaining two days, she used to go to Perumalpettai.At Needur, she used to stay in the veranda of P.W.6's mother's house.The appellant/accused in this case, a native of Needur, once misbehaved with the deceased and hence she beat him with chappel.On 28.02.2005, at about 7.00 p.m, in order to take revenge, the accused along with two other persons assaulted the deceased with wooden log.She became unconscious and therefore they took the deceased in a fish cart to a nearby bore well shed, there the accused smothered and caused her death and took away gold ear stud one pair, gold nose screws one pair and also a chain from her, and thereafter threw the dead body in a sugar cane field owned by one Balasubramaniam at Manancheri.(ii) On 01.03.2005, P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer, Kallapuliyur, received information that a dead body of a woman, in a gunny bag is found in a sugar cane field.Immediately, he rushed to the spot, saw the dead body and lodged a complaint before the respondent police.On receipt of the complaint, (Ex.P1), P.W.12, Sub Inspector of Police, working in Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.414 of 2005 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared an FIR Ex.He sent the first information report to the Judicial Magistrate Court and copies of the same to the higher officials.(iii) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, working in the Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, after receipt of the FIR, commenced investigation.He visited the scene of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar, (Ex.P3), drew a rough sketch, (Ex.P23) and also recovered M.O.1, 2 gunny bags, M.O.2, Jute rope, under Ex.P3 seizure mahazar.He examined some witnesses and recorded their statements.Further, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatars in the scene of occurrence, prepared Ex.P24, Inquest report and made arrangement to have the body of the deceased photographs.Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, for postmortem.(iv) P.W.10, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries.Internal Injuries: Thorax ribs #, Lungs Rt 450 g; lt 400g c/s congested.Heart - 200 g - Chambers empty.Abdomen - stomach distended with gas contains partially digested rice particles.Intestine distended with gas yellow.Liver - 1500 g c/s congested.Spleen - 75 g c/s congested.Kidney 120 g each c/s congested.Bladder - empty, Uterus - 7 x 4 x 3 cm thick myometric empty.Head and neck.Hyoid bone intact.Scalp Antemortem due over subcutaneous place and Lt temple clot 30 ml.No underlying # inside.Skull - no #membrane intact.Brain 1550 g friable, the evidence of haemorrhage within and outside brain matter.He issued postmortem certificate, Ex.After post mortem, since nobody claimed the body, the dead body was buried by the respondent police.(v) Since the deceased did not return to her native place, namely, Perumalpettai, P.W.5, second wife of the Chellakannu and her son, searched for her and gave a complaint before Poraiyar Police Station.Subsequently, one Natarajan belonged to her village, showed the photographs of the deceased to P.W.5 and informed her that Kumbakonam Taluk Police were making enquiries about the death of the deceased.Then, P.W.5 and her son went to Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, identified the photos of the deceased and also identified the dresses worn by the deceased.P.W.5 informed the respondent police that the deceased already told her that the appellant/accused misbehaved with her and she beat him with her chappel and therefore expressed her suspicion on the appellant/accused.On such arrest, the appellant/accused voluntarily gave a confession and based on the disclosure statement, Ex.P7, P.W.13 seized the jewels stolen from the deceased, namely, M.O.9, gold ear stud, M.O.10, gold nose screws, pledged in a pawn broker shop, namely, Jain Jewellers at Sirkali, under Ex.P10 seizure mahazar and also seized M.O.12, a fish cart and M.O.13, wooden log under Exs.P11 seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses.P.W.13 examined some witnesses and recorded their statements.During Investigation, P.W.13 came to know that occurrence had taken place at Vaitheeswarankovil Bus stand, within the jurisdiction of Mayiladuthurai Police Station in Nagapattinam District and hence he made a requisition to higher authorities to transfer the case to Mayiladuthurai Police Station, for further investigation.(vii) P.W.15, Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, after receiving case records, commenced further investigation.In the meantime, the 3rd accused, namely, Vadivelu, surrendered before the Magistrate Court.On coming to know the same took A-3 into police custody and on enquiry, A-3 gave a voluntary confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.Based on the said disclosure statement, P.W.15 visited the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P29, drew a rough sketch, Ex.P30 and recovered M.O.11, gold coins [two numbers] under Ex.P31 seizure mahazar.Thereafter, P.W.15 sent the 3rd accused to Judicial custody.In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 31 documents and 13 material objects were marked.Out of the above witnesses, P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer of Kallapuliyur Village, has stated that he received an information that a dead body of woman was found in a sugar cane field and immediately, he rushed to the spot and lodged a complaint Ex.P1 before Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station.P.W.2, Photographer has stated that he took photos of the dead body.P.W.6 is a resident of Needur.According to him, in the veranda of his mother's house, the deceased used to stay and he has also spoken about the motive stating that when the accused misbehaved with the deceased, the villagers of Needur caught hold of the accused and the deceased beat him with chappal.P.Ws.8 and 9 have turned hostile.P.W.10 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate, Ex.(Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.Bharathidasan, J.) The appellant in this appeal is the first accused in Sessions Case No.46 of 2011, on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.There are three accused in this case.Since A-2 and A-3 were absconding, case against them was spilt up and A-1 alone faced the trial.He stood charged for an offence under Sections 201, 404, 302 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC.The Trial Court by judgement dated 30.08.2013 convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 302 of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and convicted him under Section 404 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also imposed a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and convicted him under Section 201 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also imposed a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this appeal.Further, P.W.15 examined the Doctor who conducted postmortem and other witnesses and recorded their statements.After completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed charge sheet against the accused.Since A-2 and A-3 were absconding, case against them was spilt up and A-1 alone faced the trial.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the appellant/accused denied the same as false.P.W.3,van driver, after postmortem, took the dead body for burial.P.W.4 is the Head Constable and according to him after the post mortem, he took the body for burial to Perumandi burial ground, Kumbakonam.P.W.5 is the second wife of Chellakannu, who was living along with the deceased at Perumalpettai.Her evidence was that the deceased was engaged in selling dry fish and she used to stay at Needur for five days in a week and in the remaining two days, she used to stay at Perumalpettai and she was found missing and hence she given a complaint before Poraiyar Police Station, where, a women missing complaint was registered by P.W.14 and thereafter, she came to know that Kumbakonam Taluk Police was searching for the identity of the deceased and hence, she went to Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station and on seeing photos by saree and aluminium bangles shown to her.She identified these articles as that of the deceased.Later, she identified two gold ear studs, nose screws of the deceased, which were pledged by the accused after the occurrence.She also spoken about the motive and stated that the deceased informed her that the accused misbehaved with her and she beat him with chappel.P.W.11, is the Assistant Director, working in the Forensic Department, Thanjavur, who examined the material objects and issued a report, Ex.P.W.12, Sub Inspector of Police, working in the Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station has stated that he received the complaint, registered the case in Crime No.414 of 2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and sent the first information report to the higher officials and to the Judicial Magistrate Court.P.W13 is Inspector of Police, working in Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, who conducted investigation, examined witnesses and recorded their statements, arrested the accused, recovered the material objects and sent the case records to the Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station.P.W.14 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Poraiyar Police Station, on receipt of the complaint Ex.P6 from P.W.5 and registered a case in Crime No.230 of 2005 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, who, after receiving the case records from P.W.13, continued the investigation, examined the Doctor who conducted postmortem and other witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested A-3, recovered the material objects and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate Court.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.He did not examine any witness nor marked any documents.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences, as stated in first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court.We have heard Mr.A.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.He further submitted that except the above, there is no evidence available to prove the guilt of the accused and hence he prays for allowing this appeal.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances relied upon, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused.He further submitted that P.Ws.5 and 6 have spoken about the motive.In her evidence, P.W.5 has stated that the deceased informed her that on one occasion, the accused misbehaved with her and hence she beat him with chappel.P.W.6, a resident of Needur Village.In his evidence he has stated that the deceased used to stay in the veranda of his mother's house at Needur.P.W.7 is a witness to the said recovery.P.W.5 has identified the said jewels as that of the deceased.In the above said circumstances, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.In fine, this appeal is dismissed.The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.46 of 2011, dated 30.08.2013, by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, stands confirmed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,392,846 |
It was alleged that on 3.2.2014, she was married to the applicant No.1 who is the resident of Rewa and dowry to the tune of Rs.10 lacs was given.Immediately after the marriage, the applicants started saying that the applicant No.1 is working as Assistant Professor and her parents have not given anything.They were also saying that they have got one Maruti Wagon-R financed and, therefore, her parents should give Rs.3 lacs.She stayed in her matrimonial house at Rewa for about 10 days and, thereafter, came back to her parents' house.On 22.03.2014, the applicant No.1 came to Gwalior in order to take her back, at that time also, he had quarreled with her parents.However, the respondent No.2 was sent along with the applicant No.1 to Bhopal.At Bhopal 2 M.Cr.C.No.2682/2016 (Abhishek Sharma & Ors.v. State of M.P. & Ano.) also, the behaviour of the applicant No.1 did not improve and he used to beat her and she was treated with cruelty, as a result of which, she fell ill and was admitted on 31.03.2014 in ICU of R.K. Hospital, Bhopal.She remained in hospital for about 3 days and thereafter her parents took her back to Gwalior.For about 5 months, she remained in her parents' house and the applicants did not try to contact her.On the Deepawali festival of the last year, her parents after talking to her in-laws send her to Rewa where again a demand of money was made and she was mentally and physically tortured.Her ornaments were kept by the applicants and she was sent back to Gwalior and said that now she should not come and they were also talking about divorce.In their over enthusiasm and 10 M.Cr.From thereafter she is residing in her parents' house and in the meanwhile her parents went to Rewa and Bhopal on two occasions for convincing them but they misbehaved with her parents, as a result of which, she was forced to make a complaint in Mahila Police Station, Gwalior and the applicants were called for conciliation proceedings.On 25.10.2015, the applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 came to Mahila Police Station.When no result could be achieved in the conciliation proceedings, the applicant No.1 & 2 after coming out of the police station quarreled with the complainant and her parents and said that now they would not keep her in their house and would take divorce.Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that before the reconciliation proceedings which took place between the parties at Gwalior, the applicant No.1 3 M.Cr.C.No.2682/2016 (Abhishek Sharma & Ors.Even referring to the reconciliation proceedings which took place on 25.10.2015 at Mahila Police Station, the counsel for the applicants submitted that although the parties were advised to live peacefully with each other but the respondent No.2 was not ready to reside with the applicant No.1 whereas the applicant No.1 is ready and willing and ready to keep the respondent No.2 as his wife.It was further submitted that the respondent No.2 has filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the basic intention of the respondent No.2 is to somehow obtain divorce from the applicant No.1 and because of that she has made false allegations against the applicants.The counsel for the State submitted that even in the reconciliation proceedings which took place at Mahila Police Station, the respondent No.2 had specifically alleged that she is being harassed mentally and physically because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and even on the first night of the marriage, the applicants had picked up a quarrel with the respondent No.2 on the question of inadequacy of dowry.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition.In the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that the respondent No.2 is being harassed physically as well as mentally because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.Even in the reconciliation proceedings which took place on 25.10.2015, the respondent No.2 has specifically stated that she was being harassed mentally as well as 4 M.Cr.C.No.2682/2016 (Abhishek Sharma & Ors.v. State of M.P. & Ano.) physically because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.Because of the unnatural conduct of the applicant No.1 she is afraid of him and she cannot live with applicant No.1 and she wants her Stridhan back.It is not expected of a girl to stay back in her matrimonial house in spite of mental and physical torture because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry as well as inspite of unnatural conduct of her husband against the consent of the wife.Under these circumstances, if the respondent No.2 had expressed her unwillingness to reside with the applicant No.1 then it cannot be said that it is the respondent No.2 who is at fault.Similarly, pointing out the cruelty and harassment at the hands of her in-laws if the respondent No.2 has filed a petition for divorce then it would not mean that since the respondent No.2 wants divorce from the applicant No.1, therefore, false allegations have been made.On the contrary, the filing of petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent No.2 prima-facie establishes and substantiates her allegations made in the FIR.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,395,939 |
G. FIR No. 65/2014 dated 03/04/2014, registered at Purna Police Station, Purna, Dist.H. FIR No. 64/2014 dated 03/04/2014, registered at Purna Police Station, Purna, Dist.I. FIR of Crime No. I-267/2014 dated 21/10/2014, registered at M-Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, isUmesh Malani Page 37 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.Heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.It would not be out of place to state here that in all thesepetitions and applications an identical/common issue is involved, as such,the petitions and applications are tagged together and accordingly aretaken up for hearing and disposal.By consent of the parties CriminalWrit Petition No. 1027 of 2015 is taken up as lead petition.Brief facts giving rise to the petitions and applications andUmesh Malani Page 9 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docthe sequence of facts are briefly stated as below:-a.The police authorities have lodged first information reportsagainst the Petitioners/applicants at respective police stations forcommission of offences under the provisions of Food Safety andStandards Act, 2006 (for short "Act of 2006") as well as under theprovisions of Sections 272, 273, 188 and 328 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short "IP Code").It would not be out of place to state here thatfirst information reports are sought to be quashed initially, butsubsequently as the charge-sheet was filed in the Competent Court, theproceedings arising out of the charge-sheet are also sought to be quashedby seeking leave and by amending the petitions and applications.b.The sum and substance of the first information report is aninformation received by the officers of Respondent No. 5 herein aboutapprehend of certain vehicles, namely, Tempo/Trucks.The driver of thevehicles fled away from the spot and it revealed that those vehicles werecarrying large quantity of gunny bags containing the packets of Gutkaand Pan masala and the packets of tobacco.The bags were unloaded inthe office of Joint Commissioner of Food and Safety Department,Osmanabad.One Mr. S K Shaikh approached the Respondent authoritiesUmesh Malani Page 10 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docdisclosing that he is resident of Hyderabad and is possessing State permitfor transport.On finding that Mr Shaikh escaped, who was possessingthe State permit having the registration number of vehicles apprehendedwas carrying the articles which were prohibited under the notificationissued by the State of Maharashtra.Offences, namely, Sections, 26(2)(4)and 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and underSection 272, 273, 188 and 328 of Indian Penal Code were registeredagainst Mr S K Shaikh.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::c. Various grounds were raised in the petitions and applicationschallenging the action of registration of offences.The petitions and applications were extensively heard and byjudgment and order dated 04th March, 2016, the Division Bench of thisCourt (Coram : A V Nirgude and Indira K Jain, JJ) was pleased to allowthe writ petitions and applications.The action initiated against thepetitioner by the police authorities in the nature of complaints/reportsUmesh Malani Page 11 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docwas declared to be illegal and resultantly, the complaints/reports werequashed.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::e. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order in Writ PetitionNo.1027 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as in the matter of GaneshPandurang Jadhao and Others Versus The State of Maharashtra andothers for the sake of ready reference) and other connected petitions andapplications, the State of Maharashtra preferred special leave petitionbefore the Hon'ble the Apex Court.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::g. The Hon'ble the Apex Court by order dated September 20,2018 was pleased to grant leave and the parties were permitted toapproach before this Court for considering the contentions afresh whichwere not argued before this Court.Resultantly, the matters were remittedback to this Court.WP.1027.2015+.docon 18th July, 2013, the prohibitory order issued by the authority,judgment and order passed by the Division bench of this Court in thematter of Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao and Others Vs.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::Learned Counsel Mr Mantri vehemently submitted that thejudgment of the Division bench at principal seat in Criminal WritPetition No. 3607 of 2019 in clear and unambiguous words hold thatSection 328 of the IP Code is not at all attracted and lodgment of FIR forthe offences under Section 328 and 188 of IP Code against thepetitioners is an abuse of process of law.The Division bench in orderUmesh Malani Page 15 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docdated 29th November, 2018 also referred to the order of the Apex Courtin the matter of State of Maharashtra and Ors V/s.Syed Hassan andOthers and ultimately Criminal Applications were dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::It is also submitted by the learned Counsel Mr Mantri thatthe statement of object and reasons for repealing the old Act by the newAct is mainly the achieve an objective of controlling the trade andintroducing / fixing civil or penal liability.Mr Mantri invited ourattention to section 30 to submit that as per the provision under Section30, Commissioner of Food Safety is a competent authority to performvarious functions and is the competent authority to issue necessaryorders or notifications.The orders issued by the competent authoritydated 18th July, 2013 and notification dated 15th July, 2014 are placed onrecord at annexures C and D respectively.Learned Counsel Mr Mantri then submitted that Act of 2006provides various compliance, such as, food articles be tested fromlaboratory so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the food article isharmful or substandard or adulterated.It is the submission of learnedUmesh Malani Page 16 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docCounsel Mr Mantri that the Respondent authorities have not forwardedthese food articles for any laboratory test and only on assumptions andpresumptions the offences are registered against the petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::It was an attempt of the learned Counsel Mr Mantri tosubmit before this Court that order dated 29th November, 2018 is perincuriam.Mr Totla, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicantsadopted submissions of learned Counsel Mr Mantri.Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed petitions andapplications.By inviting our attention tothe relevant clauses i.e. D and E of the order dated 18 th July, 2013 alsoclauses of notification, learned APP vehemently submitted that foodarticles which were found in the vehicle apprehended were bannedarticles and there was a prohibitory order for storage, distribution or saleof these banned articles i.e. Gutka or Pan Masala.Learned APP byinviting our attention to the notification dated 15 th July, 2014 submittedthat under the scientific research and study it clearly revealed that thetobacco and other products like Gutka or Pan Masala consumption ofsuch articles is seriously harmful and leads to serious ailment like cancer.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::Learned APP then submitted that a scientific studies further revealed thatconsumption of the banned articles i.e. Gutka or Pan Masala lead to oralsub-mucous fibrosis and there is constant increase in numbers of suchpatients.It was furthersubmission of learned APP that as the prohibited articles were to be soldin open market for the consumers and as such the activity of sale andtransport was done by the petitioners/applicants within the stipulatedperiod of the order issued by the respondent authority and thenotification issued by the State of Maharashtra, as such the petitioners /applicants have committed offence under Section 188, 328, 272 and 273of the IP Code.We find considerable merit in the submission of learned APPthat competent Authority had issued the order dated 18 th July, 2013 andas per clause G of the order the activities, such as manufacture, storage,distribution or sale of Gutka or Pan Masala, containing either tobaccoand/or nicotine or Magnesium Carbonate as ingredients, by whatsoevername these are available in the market and any other products marketedseparately to constitute as Gutka or Pan Masala etc. as final products.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::We find considerable merit in the submissions of Mr Mantrithat even by taking the facts on fact on it as referred to in the firstinformation report no offence under Section 328 is made out against thePetitioners.Mr Mantri was also justified on placing heavy reliance on theUmesh Malani Page 20 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docjudgment of the principal seat.The Division bench at principal seat dealtwith all the relevant factors coming in play for attracting Sections 188and 328 of IP Code.We may refer to these relevant observations of theDivision bench at principal seat as under:::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.--Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with Section 328 of the IPC in case of Joseph Kurian Philip Jose (supra).The criminal appeals placed beforeUmesh Malani Page 21 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.doc the Apex Court arose out of a phase of sporadic incidents referred to as "Punalur Liquor Tragedy" where certain persons died and others received injuries due to consumption of poisonous adulterated arrack, ethyl alcohol adulterated with methyl alcohol.Cases under Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC and Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act were registered.On recording a finding of guilt against A-1 and A-4, the Sessions Court imposed sentence.The remaining accused were found guilty of offences punishable under the Abkari Act and were imposed nominal sentences of fine only.The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of A-1 and conviction of A-4 came to be set aside and he was convicted under Section 109 for abetting the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC.In the backdrop of these facts, the Apex Court was called upon to decide the applicability of Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC against the said Accused.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::Now on that basis it has to be seen whether A-1 had any role to play in directly administering to or causing to be taken the poisonous liquor by Sreedharan Pillai deceased, who had purchased and consumed liquor from a retail shop, with intent to cause hurt to him or knowing it to be likely that it would cause hurt to him.This has to be solved remaining cognizant that Sections 272 and 328 are separate offences described in the Indian Penal Code."::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::There was no question of licence of any kind with the applicants and from the huge quantity which is recovered, it can be said that they had the intention to sell these articles as food articles."::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::In Writ Petition No. 3607 of 2019, the Division bench atPrincipal seat was pleased to observed that the first information reportlodged against the petitioners leads only storage and there is nothing inthe first information report attributes any other act to the petitioners i.e.of manufacture, distribution or sale.The Division bench at Principal seatthen further observed that disobedience of the promulgated order underSection 188 of the IP Code if it causes or tends to cause danger to humanlife.The section do not use the term 'likely to cause', conveying thatthere has to be a positive evidence of causing or tends to cause danger tohuman life and in absence, Section 188 is not attracted.The good willhave to be moved beyond the store to be sold.We may state here that, we are in respectful agreement withthe view expressed by the Division Bench at principal seat in so far as theapplicability of Section 328 of IP Code against the petitioners in theUmesh Malani Page 32 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docpresent matter.As stated above, in WritPetition No. 3607/2019 the Division bench at principal seat was pleasedto observed that the Writ Petition only refers to the storage of food articleGutka or Pan Masala but in the present matters the first informationreports specifically refers to transportation of large quantity of theprohibited articles i.e. Gutka or Pan Masala.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::It would not stand for either reason or logic that such a largequantity referred to in the first information report i.e. nearly 200 gunnybags of the Gutka or Pan Masala was for the personal consumption of thepetitioners.The report further refers to approach of Mr S K Shaikh to therespondent authorities disclosing that he is possessing transport permitand is the claimant of the articles, meaning thereby large quantity ofarticles loaded in the vehicles was for the sale purposes.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::In so far as the other offences, namely, Sections272 and 273 of the IP Code is concerned, Sections 272 and 273 boththe provisions referred to sale of prohibited articles.As stated above,there is positive material against the petitioners/applicants to show thatthe large quantity of prohibited articles were being transported from oneplace to another and statement in first information report on face of itconstitutes offences under Sections 188, 272 and 273 of IP Code.In so far as Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2015 is concerned, it isfiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and generaldirections have been sought for in prayer clauses B and C. The prayerclauses B and C reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::C) By issuing of appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature that, authorized officer under the Food Safety standards act 2006 be directed to Act strictly according to the provisions of the Act and not to filed any prosecution, unless confirmed by the appropriate lab that, the sample seized by the authority is ban in Maharashtra under this act.Though the petitioners have placed on record copy of thefirst information report dated 05th February, 2013 lodged at RahuriPolice Station and copy of charge-sheet, there are no specific prayersseeking quashment of the same.In other companion petitions whereinquashment is sought for and separate order has been passed.In the backdrop of above facts, there is no need to pass anyorder in this Petition.Hence, Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.On hearing of the learned Counsel appearing for therespective parties and on going through the judgment delivered at theprincipal seat in Writ Petition No. 3607/2019, we are of the opinion thatlearned Counsel for the petitioners and applicants made out case forallowing the Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications partly.Hence, wepass the following order:::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::A. Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications are partly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::K. Proceedings of Sessions Case No. 14 of 2015 pending before the Ld.L. Charge-sheet bearing No. 06 of 2014 arising out of the FIR vide Cr. No. B-1/14 dated 09.01.2014 registered with Police Station Railway, Nanded (Dist.M. Respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed against the Petitioners/Applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272 and 273 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 26 and 30 of the Food Safety and StandardsUmesh Malani Page 38 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 ::: Cr.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::The State ofMaharashtra and Ors.(Criminal Writ Petition No. 3607/2019) was thesubject matter in a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.8224/2020 preferred before the Hon'ble the Apex Court and an interimorder is passed in the said special leave petition.In view of this fact, MrYawalkar learned APP prayed for sometime to take appropriate steps andalso prayed for an interim order in the nature of stay to this order for aperiod of 8 weeks.Considering the oral submission made by the learned APPthat above mentioned special leave petition is pending before theHon'ble the Apex Court and stay has been granted therein, we, therefore,grant stay to this order for a period of 6 weeks only.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:49 :::
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,401,691 |
C.C. as per rules.Learned counsel for the respondent - State has has read out the statements available in the case diary.He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.It has been stated that total cheating and forgery is amounting to Rs.67,93,932/-.However, he has fairly stated that so far as present applicant is concerned, the allegation against him is only of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1,58,000/-.This Court has carefully gone through the statement available in the case diary and is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly hereby allowed.Applicant Ganpat Gir is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1.00 lac (Rs. One lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.Certified Copy, as per Rules."This Court in light of the aforesaid order and keeping in view the fact that the entire loan amount has been paid by the applicants, is of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9986/2018 (Devkaran and another Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (-3-) It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court for their appearance before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the concerned trial court.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,403,579 |
A 'Merg' was registered in this regard.This is a petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), calling in question the legality, correctness and properiety of order dated 20/10/2016 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 164/2016 whereby charge with regard to offences under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3 / 4 'Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam' have been framed against the petitioners.As per prosecution, on 19/02/2016 dead-body of one Anil Mali was found lying on Mhow-Neemuch Highway.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,405,782 |
1 18.06.2019 Item No.57 Ct.No.42 dc.Allowed C.R.M. No. 4322 of 2019 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17/04/2019 in connection with Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 174 of 2016 dated 27.03.2016 under Sections 186/353/333/332/307/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Prosanta Singha ... Petitioner.Mr. Amitabha Karmakar, Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick ... For the Petitioner.Mr. Binay Panda, Mr. Subham Bhakat ... For the State.The petitioner has been implicated in a case under Sections 186/353/333/332/307/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard both the sides.(TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.) (MD.MUMTAZ KHAN, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,541 |
He stated that the local Editor had enquired of the truth of news published as per Annexure P/1 before it was published in the Paper.Not a whisper has to be read in his evidence of any malice as nothing in that regard was suggested to him.On the other hand, it has come in his evidence that he had no personal knowledge about the incident and did not know by name or face plaintiff Madhusudan and Mahesh.D.W. 2 is Editor of Dainik Naranjan who stated that from Police Control Room, information about the incident reported in news-item, published as per Annexure D/5 was gathered and that was verified from Thana.That news was published in public Interest.His evidence is also that the news published as per Annexure P/1 was received by him from Police Control Room and he had verified that from Morar Thana from in charge Vidya Shankar Dubey.The news was published in public interest.The same news was published in other local papers, such as Daily Niranjan and Jawarhar ke Lal.He proved Ex. P/1, reply to plaintiffs' notice, Ex. P/2 and stated that no "clarification" as contemplated, was received from the plaintiffs.He did not personally know plaintiffs Madhusudan and Mahesh and had never met them.JUDGMENT T.N. Singh, J.This is defendants' appeal who are aggrieved by the judgment awarding damages against them in a defamation suit, indeed to plaintiff/respondent No. 1 only.On 2-11-1972, in a local newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar, at page 6, Cols.2 and 3, a news item was published which gave rise to the cause of action for the suit.The offensive statement is extracted in para 3 of the plaint and in para 4, it is stated that the extracted news item was false and baseless.Publication thereof had given mental pain and suffering to the two plaintiffs and they had been lowered in public estimation as they had been portrayed as persons belonging to abominable character and conduct.yM+fd;ksa ds uaxs QksVks dk Cysd esyj fxjrkj gFkdM+h yxkdj Hkjs cktkj /kqek;k x;kA Xokfy;j 1 uoEcj vkt eqjkj iqfyl us eqjkj esa Hkkxao LVqfM;ks ds ekfyd jke izlkn HkkxZo mQZ eqUuk rFkk e/kqlwnu HkkxZo dks gFkdfM;ka Mkydj ljs cktkj esa ?kqek;kA iqfyl us bu nksuksa ;qodksa dks dqN yMfd;ksa ds uaxs fp= j[kus rFkk ,d ;qod dks pkdw fn[kkdj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsus rFkk ekjihV djus dk vkjksi gSA crk;k tkrk gS fd vkt izkr% esjh tksu uked ,d ff'p;u ;qod viuh cfguksa ds fp= ekaxus LVwfM;ks x;k rks LVqfM;ks ds ekfyd us QksVksa nsus ls vkuk dkuh dhA blh dks ysdj ckr c<+ xbZ vkSj LVqfM;ksa ds ekfyd tku ls ekjus ij vkeksnk gks x;sA ff'p;u ;qod Jh esjh tksu us ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ iqfyl esa fy[kokbZ vkSj ri'khy us ?kVuk dh iwjh tkudkjh nhA iqfyl us rRdky LVqfM;ks ij Nkik ekjdj ryk'kh yhA ryk'kh ds nkSjku LVqfM;ks ls dbZ yMfd;ksa ds uaxs rFkk vkifktud fp= cjken gq;sA yksxksa esa ppkZ gS fd LVqfM;ksa ds ekfydksa }kjk yM+fd;ksa ds QksVks xzkQjh ls vkifktud QksVks cukdj muls Cysd esy fd;k tkrk gSA uxj esa tc bu vijkf/k;ksa dh cktkj esa 'kksHkk ;k=k fudkyh xbZ rks ukxfjd iqfyl dh iz'kalk dj jgs FksA*Defendants filed a joint written statement.First defendant (Ramesh Chandra Agarwal) was impleaded in his capacity of Chief and Publisher and third defendant Jagdish Chandra Jaiswal) as the local Editor.They pleaded justification and claimed that the information published as a news item was true.They also pleaded that due care and caution was exercised while doing so and that there was no malice on their part in publishing the news item in public interest.It is the duty of the newspaper to inform public matters of public interest for public good.They also pleaded additionally that they had made an offer of correction at the earliest to the plaintiffs, but the latter did not respond.It is necessary to examine only the case of plaintiff/respondent Madhusudan Bhargava as decree is passed in his favour only and that is challenged.In the forefront of his argument, Shri P. L. Dubey, counsel for appellants, has flawed the pleadings and evidence to submit that nothing has been pleaded and proved as would merit decree being passed against the defendants.He has also contended that law of defamation has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court to evaluate the worth in that context of the pleadings and evidence and as a result, the conclusions reached by the trial Court are not sustainable in law.A bald allegation in the plaint that in its entirety, the news item was false, cannot be made foundation of cause of action for libel.Counsel cited para-graphs 81, 82, 85, 135, 145, 146, 153 and 155 of Fourth Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, in support of his contentions.About the deficient pleading, I shall express my views later.It is necessary to look first at evidence which the plaintiff adduced to make up the deficiency.Plaintiff Madhusudan Bhargava deposed as P. W. 1 and stated that he was employed as a Sub-Engineer in Public Works Department at Gwalior.He proved the offensive news-item, Article P/1 and also proved the order of acquittal passed on 8-10-1974 by Magistrate First Class, Gawlior (Ex. P/8).Reading the order, I find that Madhusudan Bhargava (plaintiff No. 1) and Ram Prasad had been booked for the offence under Sections 147, 149 and 506, I.P.C. Madhusudan Bhargava was tried under Sections 322 506, I.P.C. and he took the defence that Merik John was drunk at the time of occurrence and he assaulted both accused.The prosecution case, as stated in the order, was that Merik John had approached accused Ram Prasad on 1-11-1972 for returning to him nude photographs of his sister which he had taken, but both accused threatened him with dire consequences and refused to return the photos to him.Both of them assaulted Merik John.The verdict of acquittal was rendered on the ground that complainant Merik John's evidence was non-corroborative.His evidence was discussed.He deposed against Madhusudan attributing to him assault with a stick and the fact that he had reported the matter as per Ex. P/1 to Police Station.Evidence of Doctor (P.W. 2) is also discussed who deposed that on 1-11-1972, he had examined Merik John, Madhusudan and also Ram Prasad and found injuries on their person.The accused were given benefit of doubt.What plaintiff Madhusudan (P.W. 1) did admit in his cross-examination is noteworthy.That there was a police report against him and that he was booked for an offence under Section 506, I.P.C. He admitted and he further admitted that he had been suspended on that ground.Although he denied that in regard to the facts stated in the news-item, published in Dainik Bhaskar, any action was taken against him, records of the disciplinary enquiry in which suspension order was passed were not called for and that fact he admitted in his cross-examination.At para 17, he admitted that in 1972, Ram Prasad was a student of Class V11I or IX and he was his brother.His other brother Mahesh Prasad, plaintiff No. 2 was employed in J.C. Mills.He admitted that in para 3 of the notice (Annexure P/2) which is served on the respondents, claiming damages for defamation, it was stated that the news-item was published with the connivance of the police.He slated that S.H.C. Hindolia's intention was to blackmail him and that officer had involved him in other cases.He proved Ex. D/1, reply of the defendant/appellants to his notice.In para 24, he admitted that he did not annex affidavit to the "clarification" which he wanted Dainki Bhaskar to publish in regard to the news-item, while stating that he had personally met defendant/respondent, Editor Jaiswal for that purpose.He also admitted that he was arrested and was released on bail.He staled that in Seizure Memo (Ex. P/4), it was incorrectly written that from his brother RAM PRASAD, the police seized one negative ot a nude photograph of a girl along (sic) deposed that he was handcuffed when he was arrested by S. H. Hindolia and from the place of his arrest, he was made to walk in handcuffed condition when a crowd gathered there.He was confronted with the case news-item published in Daily Niranjan and Jawahar ke Lal (both local papers), but he denied having read those.Ex. D/2 is cutting of the news-item, published in Dainik Niranjan on 2-11-1972 in which "Ram Prasad Bhargava alias Munna and his elder brother Madhusudan" were stated to have been arrested in connection with offence of assaulting Merik John and is also stated that from Ram Prasad's possession, on search, obscene photographs were recovered and seized.It is not necessary to refer to the evidence of the other two witnesses examined by him.P.W, 2 has deposed only about the effect of publication of the offensive news-item.However, even he deposed (despite admitting, that he was once tenant of the plaintiffs), that the photo studio of the plaintiffs was in a part of their own house.He also deposed that in that house, Mahesh, Ram Prasad and Madhusudan lived together.P.W. 3 gave evidence of good character and conduct of the plaintiffs and their reputation being tarnished as a result of publication of the news-item.He too, however, admitted that plaintiffs lived together and they had their Photo Studio in their house though he denied having seen Ram Prasad and Madhusudan attending the Studio which, according to him, was managed by Mahesh Prasad.Ramesh Chandra, Chief Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, deposed as D.W, 1 and asserted in his cross-examination that the news-item (Ex. P1) was true and he could not help if plaintiffs' reputation was affected.They never came to him for publication of any rejoinder.He deposed that "offer of correction" was made to the plaintiffs in reply to their notice asking for the affidavit to be submitted along with correction to be published, but no reply was received.D.W. 4 is resident of the locality and he knew owners of Bhargava Studio.Three brothers lived together jointly in the same house in which the Studio was located.Ram Prasad was Studio's owner.He deposed about the incident that at the Studio, there was a big commotion as there were arguments in regard to obscene photographs taken of Merik John's sister.There was quarrel going on with Ram Prasad when police arrived at the spot.Madhusudan also reached the spot in the meantime.Police seized some negatives from the two and took both brothers with the negatives, hockey stick and knife, to the Police Station.The crowd followed them.He proved his signature on Panchanama, Ex. D/7 and the statement therein that in presence of the witness and another, from Ram Prasad, recovery was made of one negative and of a nude photo of a girl.He stated also that in the Studio, other brothers of Ram Prasad, namely Madhusudan and Mahesh also used to sit.Separate shop for photography was run for the last three years by Mahesh.He was an eye-witness of the occurrence and he saw Merik John and many other persons hear the shop where the altercation was going on.The Police Station was at a distance of about 250 to 300 feet and as the crowd increased, the police came to check up.The police arrested Madhusudan and Ram Prasad at the shop and took them to Thana.The crux of plaintiffs' case is based evidently on assumption and presumptions and not on the tera firma of solid pleadings and evidence.It has to be assumed, according to Shri Mangal, learned counsel, appearing for the plaintiffs/ respondents, that the plaintiff Madhusudan being a Government servant, he could not be involved in the incident and he could not also own the Bhargava Studio.He has been falsely described in news-item along with Ram Prasad, as owner of Bhargava Studio.Counsel's last-mentioned contention, I propose to dispose of first.The plea of "fair comment" was rejected as on facts it was found that the alleged defamatory statement could not be proved to be true.On facts, it was also found that the offending article was per sc defamatory.The impugned judgment and decree are accordingly set aside.The suit stands dismissed with costs.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,741,150 |
Moreover, the detenu/petitioner has faced only a solitary case that has been registered for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C r/w 201 I.P.C.This, according to him, would vitiate the impugned detention order.4.In reply, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that it is not 19 days delay, as erroneously pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which would warrant interference from this Court to quash the impugned order.Therefore, between 28.11.2019 and 14.12.2019, there were 4 intervening holidays.Hence, there was a delay of only 15 days.Thus, he prayed for confirmation of the impugned detention order.http://www.judis.nic.in 55.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.On the question of delay also, the impugned order also vitiates.Therefore also, the impugned order has to be set aside.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 T.RAJA, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,751,500 |
Learned Government Advocate submits that original aforesaid offence was registered only under Sections 376 and 506-A of the IPC; however, later, it was learnt that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Tribes, who had married a Yadav boy.In these circumstances, offence under Sections 3 (1) (w) (i) and 3 (2) v of the SC/ST Act has also been added in the offence.Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment to move an appropriate application to convert this M.Cr.Let the aforesaid application be filed before the next date of hearing.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,751,633 |
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.185/2014 registered at Police Station Vishwavidyalaya, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B/34 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, on 25.5.2014 at about 11:00 PM Anoop, Vimal Joshi and Chunnu Joshi entered in the house of complainant and started abusing with Urmila who is wife of the complainant and when Urmila objected then Anoop gave a Danda blow on the head of Urmila and when complainant tried to save Urmila, Vimal kicked him and Chunnu gave a lathi blow on Urmila on head and both hands.The wife of complainant Urmila climbed on the roof of the house then accused also followed Urmila and Urmila fell down from the roof and sustained injuries.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.He has not committed any offence.Charge-sheet has been filed.Trial is likely to take time.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.Case diary perused.Considering the allegation against the applicant is that after M.Cr.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.