id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
78,751,990 |
Therefore, considering the aforesaid, the order dated 17th September, 2016 calls for no interference.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,754,583 |
2. Deceased-Shanti Devi, was married with the petitioner No.1 Lavlesh Mishra six years before the incident.The dead body of the deceased was cremated.After 5 months of the death of Shanti Devi, on 01.11.2002 the father of the deceased lodged a complaint before the police Station Panwar District Rewa alleging that the demand of dowry was made by the family members from the deceased and she was subjected to harassment and cruelty.The deceased was murdered by administering poisonous substance.The investigation was conducted by the police.The statements of the family members were recorded and police filed a charge-sheet 2 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The peculiar facts of the case are that at the time of death of the deceased, Panchnama of the dead body was prepared.As per Panchnama, no definite opinion was made in regard to death of the deceased.The dead body was found beneath Mango tree in the field.It is further mentioned in the Panchnama that persons noticed some injuries of bite by insect.The institute in its report dated 11.10.2003 send to the SDO (P) Police Station Sirmour in it's report opined that earlier an opinion was given in regard to death of the deceased on 21.08.2002, the matter was further reviewed and it is found that as per Panchnama of the dead body which was prepared 3 at the time of death, no signs of any injury on the dead body was noticed.As per viscera report, there was no poison found.There were signs and injuries of bite insects near the left ankle.(Pronounced on 02.05.2017)The dead body was sent for post-mortem.A team of doctors performed the post-mortem submitted the following opinion."In our opinion, cause of death of wife of Lavlesh is due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of suspected poisoning, however, viscera and skin of suspended bite has been preserved for chemical analays to confirm the diagnosis."The Viscera, some part of skin of where there were signs of insects bite were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory Sagar.The Senior Scientific Officer of the laboratory submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police, Sagar on 02.08.2002, mentioning the facts that the articles sent by the CMO A, B and C were examined, those articles were of deceased.Articles A and B of particles of viscera and article C is the liquid containing Sault.As per result, no poison was found in the articles A, B and C. Thereafter, further opinion was sought from medico legal institute Government Medical College, Bhopal.The aforesaid fact was mentioned in the Panchnama of the dead body.In the post-mortem, a blood was also found from the aforesaid injuries, hence the death was caused due to insect bite and earlier opinion dated 21.08.2002 in which it has been mentioned that the death of the deceased was caused due to snake bite is correct.The family members of the deceased levelled allegations that poisonous substance was administered to the deceased.These allegations are false and baseless.On the basis of above principle of law, laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and subsequent judgment of the apex Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741 in my opinion, the criminal proceedings lodged against the petitioners are without any evidence and continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment to the petitioners.Consequently, the petition is allowed.The criminal proceedings vice case No.71/2005 pending against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class-I Teother District Rewa for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.(S.K. Gangele) Judge Pb 7 8 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele and M.Cr.C No.11127 of 2007 Lavlesh Mishra and others Versus.The State of M.P. and another .......................................................................................................................
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,755,427 |
Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled.We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.State of M.P.) administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicants to their house, and if their test is found positive then the applicants shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for their treatment as per medical norms.If the applicants are fit for release and if they are in a position to make their personal arrangements, then they shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the applicants have violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take them in custody and would send them to the same jail from where they were released.Matter is heard through video conferencing.I.A. No.11557/2020, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant for assisting the State Counsel, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Accordingly, Shri Sohit Mishra, learned counsel and his associates are permitted to assist the State Counsel.The applicants have filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicants have been arrested on 20/06/2020 by Police Station Civil Lines, Distt.Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.630/2019 registered for offence under Sections 452, 294, 323, 325, 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants- Rambabu Kushwah & Makhan Kushwah that the applicants have not committed any offence.They have falsely been implicated in this case.It is further submitted that one cross-case has also been registered against the complainant party by the present applicants, which is registered at Crime No.629/2019 at Police Station Civil Lines Morena, District 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.11528/2020 and co-accused Kamlesh Kushwah has been granted interim bail by this Court for a period of 60 days vide order dated 27/06/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.17017/2020, as he is the main-accused.The case of present applicants is on same footings as of co-accused Kallu @ Kartar.Hence, seeks parity with co-accused Kallu @ Kartar and prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Applicants further undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the application and have submitted that offence is registered against the applicants under Sections 452, 294, 323, 325, 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 of IPC, which is 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24827/2020 (Rambabu & another Vs.Hence, prayed to reject the bail application of the applicants.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case diary.The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.C. No.24827/2020 (Rambabu & another Vs.State of M.P.) or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.C. No.24827/2020 (Rambabu & another Vs.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants :-The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24827/2020 (Rambabu & another Vs.The applicants will not move in the vicinity of complainant party and applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andThe applicants will inform the SHO of concerned police station about their residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,755,967 |
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. No. 0448 of 2019, dated 07.12.2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 427, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Dariyabad, District Barabanki.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.We have considered the stand of learned counsel for the State.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
787,574 |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The appellants, two in number, who stood charged, tried and was foundguilty as below by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri atKrishnagiri in Sessions Case No.149/1999, have brought forth this appeal :Accused 1 and 2 were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code.(a) The appellants are brothers.P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 are the daughters ofPadavattammal, the deceased in this case.P.W.3 is the son of the deceased.D.W.2 Lakshmi is thesister of the appellants. P.W.3, on the false assurance of marriage,developed illicit intimacy D.W.2 Lakshmi, After an affair, he refused to marryher and therefore, quarrels arose between the families.(b) On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 25.07.1995 at about 12.30 pmP.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 proceeded to the cow shed to take the burnt sticks.D.W.2Lakshmi intervened and quarrelled with them.P.W.2 questioned her as to whyshe is quarreling, as she has already quarrelled with her on the previous dayand thereafter, Lakshmi went away from that place.At that time accused 1 and2 armed with koduvals, came to the occurrence spot and the first accused cutthe neck of the deceased.When P.W.2 intervened, accused 1 and 2 attacked heron her head, hand, knee and on her back.P.W.3, who came there questioned theaccused and he was cut by both the accused indiscriminately.P.W.1 wasattacked by the first accused when she intervened.The accused, thereafter,fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapons of the crime.P.Ws.2 and 3 were referred to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri for bettertreatment.(e) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the firstinformation report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 02.15 pm, made aninspection in the presence of two witnesses and prepared a mahazar, Ex.P.8 anddrew a rough sketch, Ex.He conducted inquest over the dead body of thedeceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdhars between 04.00 pm and07.30 pm and prepared Ex.P.23 inquest report.He recovered M.Os.3 to 5, bloodstained earth, sample earth and burnt sticks, from the place of occurrenceunder cover of mahazar, Ex.The bail bonds executed by the appellants shallstand cancelled.The fine amounts paid by the appellants/accused are directedto be refunded to them.Accused 1 and 2 were charged under Section 307 read with 34 ( 2counts) of the Indian Penal Code.Accused 1 and 2 were charged under Section 324 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code.The learned Sessions Judge, on trial, found the accused guilty ofthe charges, awarded life imprisonment along with a direction to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for threemonths, for the conviction under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode.For the conviction under section 307 read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode, the accused were awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and afine of Rs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment forthree months, for each count.The accused were also directed to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine ofRs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for threemonths, for the conviction under section 324 read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode.The said sentences were directed to run concurrently.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:(c) P.W.1 proceeded to the Palacode police station and gave an oralcomplaint to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, Palacode, at 01.15 pm, whichwas reduced into writing and which stands marked as Ex.P.W.14, on thestrength of Ex.P.1, registe a case in crime No.752 /1995 for the offencespunishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The deceased succumbed to the injuries.(d) The injured witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 were taken to the PalacodeGovernment Hospital, where they were examined by P.W.4, the doctor.P. W.4examined P.W.3 at 01.00 pm and found on him the following injuries:1.Incised wound right shoulder 10 cm x 10 cm x bone deep.2.Incised wound right elbow 10 cm x 5 cm x bone deep.3.Incised wound over right cheek 10 cm x 5 cm x bone deep.4.Incised wound right forearm 10 cm x 7 cm x bone deep.5.Incised wound left hand 15 cm x 10 cm x bone deep.6.Incised wound right side of chest 3 cm x 1 cm x depth not known.7.Incised wound left side of chest 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.He issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate for the injuries sustained by him.P.W.2was examined at 1.30 pm for her injuries by P.W.4, who issued Ex.P.5 notingthe following injuries found on her:1.Incised wound left forearm wrist 7 cm x 3 cm x bone deep.2.Incised wound occipital region 10 cm x 5 cm x bone deep.3.Incised wound left parietal region 7 cm x 5 cm x bone deep.4.Incised wound right arm 7 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep.P.W.1 was also examined by P.W.4 at 08.00 pm and the doctor gave woundcertificate, Ex.P.6, where he narrated the injuries found on P.W.1, which areas follows :1.Incised wound right middle finger 2 cm x + cm x muscle deep.2.Incised wound right ring finger 2 cm x + cm x skin deep.He issued Ex.P.2 requisition to the doctor toconduct autopsy on the body of the deceased.(f) P.W.4, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Palacodeconducted postmortem on the body of the deceased at 10.00 am on 26.07 .1995and found the following injuries on her :An incised wound with gapping over the back of neck 25 cm x 10 cm x 1 cm.Fracture and division of spinal column at C3 level with division of spinalcord.All the major vessels of neck both caroleds, jugular severed in thewound.Head is attached to the body only by trachea and a piece of neck infront of trachea.2.Incised wound over right side of back 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.He has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhaemorrhage and injury to vital organ like spinal cord.He issued Ex.P.3postmortem certificate.(g) Pending investigation, both the accused were arrested at 06.00 amon 27.07.2005 when they were standing near Palacode bus stand.The firstaccused gave the confession statement, the admissible portion of which ismarked as Ex.The second accusedalso volunteered to give a confession statement, which was recorded in thepresence of two witnesses.The admissible portion of that statement is markedas Ex.P.25, pursuant to which he produced M.O.2 knife was recovered in thepresence of the same witnesses under Ex.P.27, mahazar.Both the accused weresent to remand.All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the dead body and from the accused on production weresubjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Department, on a requisitionmade by the Judicial Magistrate concerned.On completion of theinvestigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.The case wascommitted to Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.The casewas taken up for trial before the trial Court.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theappellants/accused, 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Theprosecution relied on 27 exhibits and 18 material objects.On completion ofthe evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accused were questionedunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and theyflatly denied the same as false.Two witnesses were examined on the side ofthe defence, namely, D.W.1, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital,Palacode, who medically examined Lakshmi and the said Lakshmi was examined asD.W.2, and the wound certificate in respect of the injuries on D.W.2 wasmarked as Ex.Learned counsel for the appellants, while advancing his arguments,inter alia, would submit that though the prosecution has marched P.Ws.1 to 3,5 to 7 as eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.7 has turned hostile and allthe witnesses, who have supported the prosecution, are closely related.It isan admitted position that there was prolonged enmity between the families andthus the prosecution witnesses have come forward with a false versionimplicating the accused with the crime.She has narrated the occurrence and she has also sustained injuries.Though she has been medically examined by D.W.1, the doctor and the woundcertificate in that regard has also been marked as Ex.In the instantcase, the attack on Lakshmi by the prosecution witnesses and the allegedoccurrence, which is the subject matter of appeal before this Court, are partand parcel of the same transaction, but in a clever manner, the prosecutionhas projected the attack on Lakshmi as an independent transaction and has comeout with this case.It is also an admitted fact by P.W.16, the InvestigatingOfficer that a case came to be registered on the complaint made by the saidLakshmi in crime No.754/1995 and the case is also pending.But, the recordsin respect of crime No.754/1995 were not produced before the Court.So longas both the transactions are one and the same, a duty is cast upon theprosecution to produce the records enabling the Court to find out the truth ofthe matter, but the prosecution had miserably failed to do so and that wouldgo to show that the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by theprosecution.6. Added further the learned counsel, that the occurrence, accordingto the earlier version of the prosecution, had taken place at Melatheru, but,as could be seen from the evidence now available before the Court, theoccurrence had taken place at the fields of Mariappan and no explanation hasbeen brought forth in order to show how the discrepancy arose in respect ofthe place of occurrence.Apart from that, recoveries of the material objects1 and 2 should have been rejected by the lower Court out right, since P.Ws.10and 11, in whose presence the accused gave confessional statement, accordingto the prosecution, and who attested the recovery mahazars, have turnedhostile.The Court heard the learned counsel for the State on the abovecontentions, paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsomade thorough scrutiny of the available materials.In order to provethe same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, whoconducted postmortem, and Ex.P.3, postmortem certificate, issued by him, wherehe has opined that death would have occurred on account of shock andhaemorrhage.In order to substantiate the allegation against the appellants/accused, the prosecution examined number of eye witnesses.They are closelyrelated to the deceased.Even according to the prosecution, P.W.3 gave afalse assurance of marriage to D.W.2, Lakshmi, the sister of appellants 1 and2 and there was also an earlier occasion in which the said Lakshmi set fire tothatched shed of the deceased and on the date of occurrence when P.Ws.1 to 3and 5 went to take burnt sticks, on the way, when they questioned D.W.2 forher conduct of setting fire, a quarrel arose, in which Lakshmi was assaultedand beaten by the prosecution witnesses and in that regard, she went to thepolice station, gave a complaint and a case was registered in crime No.754/1995 and that occurrence took place at about 12.30 pm.In the instant case theoccurrence had taken place at 01.00 pm and at 01.15 pm the first informationreport came into existence.Therefore, it would be very clear that theoccurrence in crime No.752/1995 (subject matter of appeal) should have takenplace at or about the time at which the occurrence in crime No.754/1995 tookplace.According to the prosecution, when the prosecution witnesses went totake the burnt sticks, Lakshmi came over there and there was a quarrel betweenthem and at that time, the deceased, who went near them along with P.W.3 wasattacked by both the accused who came there armed with weapons, which showsthat Lakshmi was present at the place of occurrence and she was assaulted andin continuation to the attack made on her and in the same transaction thedeceased was attacked by the accused and P.Ws.1 to 3 were also injured in thecourse of same transaction.The case in crime No.754/1995 is that in thatoccurrence Lakshmi, D.W.2 sustained injuries.She was also examined by D.W.1,the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Palacode and Ex.D1 has alsobeen marked in which the following injuries are found noted :A lacerated injury over the left frontal region 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.2.A lacerated injury over the right parietal region of scalp 3 cm x 1 cm x 1cm.3.A lacerated injury over the left parietal region of scalp 3 cm x 1 cm x 1cm.4.A lacerated injury over the back of left elbow 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.5.A diffuse contusion over the back of left forearm 5 cm x 5 cm.6.A diffuse contusion over the back of right hand 5 cm x 3 cm.7.A skin coloured contusion over the back of right chest 5 cm x 5 cm.8.C/o pain over the back of left lower leg- no external injury.The injuries are lacerated and contused and it would be quite clear that theseinjuries could not have been caused without the aid of weapons, and once theattack on D.W.2 was a part of the transaction, a duty is cast upon theprosecution to explain as to how such an injury was sustained by D.W.2 at thattime.In order to escape such a situation, the prosecution has now comeforward with a case that at that time of occurrence D.W.2 was attacked and sheleft the place and subsequently another crime in crime No.752/95 has takenplace, but, the materials are otherwise, which would be indicative that boththe transactions are only one and the same.Apart from that, in the instant case, as rightly pointed out bythe learned counsel for the appellants that the first information reportregarding the occurrence in which D.W.2 was attacked, was not marked beforethe trial Court.Had it been filed before the Court, it would have enabledthe Court to find out the truth, but the prosecution has miserably failed todo so.The materials placed before the Court would indicate that the originof the occurrence was the attack on Lakshmi and in that regard, a case came tobe registered, but no documentary or oral evidence was placed before the Courtto prove it enabling the Court, to find out the genesis of the occurrence.Apart from that, in the instant case, the place of occurrence,according to the earlier version of prosecution is Melatheru, but, accordingto the prosecution witnesses when they were examined before the Court, theoccurrence took place at the fields of Mariappan and this discrepancy was notbrought to the notice of the Court.In the instant case witnesses are all closely related and theirevidence is discrepant.The prosecution has also not produced all thematerials before the Court enabling the Court to find the genesis of the caseand there is no explanation for the injuries sustained by D.W.2 and for thediscrepancy in the place of occurrence.Under such circumstances, it would behighly unsafe to rely on their evidence and find the appellants/accusedguilty, and the lower Court has not looked at their evidence or marshalled itproperly to find out the truth of the evidence, but has been carried away withthe cogent evidence of the prosecution witnesses in crime No.752/1995, whilethe case in crime No.757/1995 is pending and under such circumstances, thecontentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants have got to beaccepted and the benefits of these doubts have got to be given to theappellants/accused and they are entitled for an acquittal.Accordingly, theconviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused are set aside.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri2.The Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, through the Principal District &Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri3.The Judicial Magistrate, Palacode.4.The Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, through thethe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.The District Collector, KrishnagiriThe Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,764,950 |
17.09.13 Item No. 67 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 67And In the matter of: Badaroddin Sk. @ Kabran Sk. & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mondal For the Petitioners Mrs. Pushpita Saha For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Murutia Police Station Case No. 170 of 2013 dated 11.08.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and the Petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant.We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.Primarily the allegations are made against the Petitioner No. 1, Badaroddin Sk. @ Kabran Sk.ejected 1 Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.As regards the Petitioner No. 2, Kachhiron Bibi, there is no need for her custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,765,980 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opp.party no. 2 and one Jokhan Singh have filed a civil suit no. 996 of 2012 for permanent injunction with regard to a disputed property.Thereafter, the opp.During pendency of the complaint of opp.In fact, there is civil dispute in between the parties.Udai Narayan and others, under section 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Zamaniya District Ghazipur.Order Date :- 9.8.2017 Gss
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,767,169 |
1 There are four appellants before this Court.Appellants Babbu Alvi, Pankaj Kumar and Kamaldeep Narula have been convicted for the offence under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and each of them have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 6 months.The fourth appellant Gulshan Khan has been convicted for the offence under Section 489-D of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 1 year.The sentences were to run concurrently; benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.PC had been granted to the appellants.2 The version of the prosecution is that pursuant to a secret Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 2 of 26 information on 15.01.2003 at about 11:30 am SI Arvind Sagar (PW-11) was informed that Babbu Alvi and his associate would reach a place near Dwarka Mandir, Double Storey Quarters along with forged currency samples to show to his customers.A raiding party comprising of PW-11, HC Harpal (PW-6), HC Sunder Lal (PW-7), constable Dharmender (PW-8) and constable Dhiraj Singh (PW-3) was constituted.Ishtiyak (PW-5), the public witnesses was asked to join raid.At about 01:15 pm, Babbu Alvi and Gulshan Khan were overpowered and apprehended; this was at the instance of the secret informer.They were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.They were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-6/B) Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Gulshan Khan (Ex.PW-6/C), he led the police party to his house at C-463, Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi from where a machine (Ex.P-2) used for Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 3 of 26 preparation of forged currency notes along with printing material (Ex.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 2 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 3 of 263) were recovered.This was seized vide memo Ex.PW-6/E. 4 On 16.01.2003, pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Babbu Alvi (Ex PW-6/C), he led the police party to his residence from where he got recovered 22 currency notes of Rs.100/- each; out of these 22 notes, 6 currency notes had one number; 5 currency notes had one number, another 5 currency notes were also of same number and remaining 6 had only three numbers; they were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/F.5 On 17.01.2003 pursuant to the disclosure statement of Gulshan Khan and at his pointing out, accused Kamaldeep Narula was arrested.From his personal search, 34 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- each were recovered of which 11 notes had a number 4NG 025665; 10 bore the number 4NG 025664 and remaining 13 notes had a number of 4NG 0025666; they were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.15 The information of the incident was given in the local police station by a secret informer pursuant to which a raiding party had been constituted headed by PW-6. PW-8 had also joined PW-6 in this raid.PW-6 has deposed that on 15.01.2003 pursuant to this information which has been received in the local police station PW-11 directed PW-6 to reach the spot where as per the secret information, Babbu Alvi was to come along with his accomplice; they being involved in a fake currency racket.PW-6 along with PW-8 reached the spot at about 12:05 pm; constable Dharmender (PW-8) and constable Sunder Lal had also joined them.On their asking, PW-5 had agreed to join the raid.At about 01:15 pm two persons coming from the side of ISBT were identified by the secret informer; they were overpowered.On the search of Babbu Alvi, 6 currency notes were recovered from his right pant pocket of which 3 GC notes were having a number of 4NG 025667 and the Crl.PW-6 has further deposed that even on a face reading, the documents appeared to be forged as every note was having a picture of Mahatma Gandhi and the words Bhartiya Reserve Bank in Hindi and English were written upon it.These notes were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/A. From the personal search of Gulshan Khan, 4 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered; this was from his left pant pocket; all of them had the same number i.e. 4NG 025665; further deposition of PW-6 being that these notes also appeared to be evidently forged as all of them had a picture of Mahatma Gandhi and the words Bhartiya Reserve Bank was written in Hindi and English on these notes.These notes were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/B. The rukka was sent through constable Dharmender for the registration of the FIR which was registered through ASI Joginder (PW-1) at 03:00 pm.Further deposition being that the disclosure statement of accused Gulshan Khan (Ex.PW6/C) disclosed that he could get the printing machine recovered which was being used for printing these fake notes; he led the police party to his residence at C-463, Sector-1, Rohini, Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 10 of 26 Delhi; they reached the house of Gulshan Khan at 06:00 pm.Photographs of recovery which included Hewlett packard AC/DC adapter, head wire, blade/cutter, rubber stamp, handle, staple, scale stainless steel, black rubber gutka, HP Ink Jet print cartridge, paper cutter machine vide memo Ex.PW-6/E. The said articles were sealed after putting a seal of AS.Further deposition of PW-6 being that on 16.01.2003, he along with PW-11 reached the lock-up where Babbu Alvi and Gulshan had been kept.Pursuant to his disclosure statement, Babbu Alvi led the police party to his shop at A-1, 641, Sector-6, Rohini from where after opening the lock of his shop with the key, he got recovered 22 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- which were lying in a garam patti; they were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/F. On 17.01.2003, PW-6 along with PW-11 and PW-8 reached the police station.Accused Gulshan Khan had disclosed the name of his accomplice Kamaldeep.Further version of PW-6 being that Kamaldeep was apprehended and overpowered at Budh Vihar which was at the pointing out of Gulshan Khan and Babbu Alvi.In the instant case, PW-6, PW-8 and Investigating Officer PW-11 have all stated that a bare face look of the notes which were recovered from each of the four accused persons clearly showed to be fake and forged.An explanation had also been furnished by PW-6; PW- 6 has stated that they appeared to be forged on the face of it as each of them had a picture of Mahatma Gandhi with the words Bhartiya Reserve Bank written upon it both in Hindi and English; all these notes also had identical numbers.Out of 22 notes which were recovered from Babbu Alvi (from his shop), 6 notes were having the same number; Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 17 of 26 another 5 notes were also having the same number and the remaining 6 had only 3 numbers.All the 4 notes recovered from Gulshan Khan had the same number.Out of 34 notes recovered from Kamal (Ex.PW-6/G), 11 had the same number; another 10 also had the same number and the remaining 13 also had the same number.From Pankaj Kumar, 71 notes were recovered of which 25 currency notes had one number; 21 had another number; 23 bore another number as also one which has another number and the remaining notes also bore an identical number.What have you to say?35 Bail bonds are cancelled; sureties are discharged.PW-6/G.6 Complicity of Pankaj Kumar was revealed in the disclosure statement of Kamaldeep Narula.From his possession 71 currency notes of Rs.100/- each were recovered of which 25 notes bore No. 4NG Crl.These notes were also seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/L.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 4 of 267 In his disclosure statement, Pankaj Kumar had revealed that one note of Rs.100/- was spent on buying a cigarette packet from a shopkeeper (Pankaj Kumar S/o Ram Gopal examined as PW-10).This currency note was having a number 4NG025666 which was also seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/N. 8 The prosecution examined 12 witnesses of whom Deepa Verma (PW-12) had proved her report Ex.PW-12/A; after examining all the 138 notes which had been sent to her; they have been found to be forged.9 In the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, they had stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case; they are innocent.prosecution, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 5 of 2612 Arguments have been addressed in detail.On behalf of appellant Pankaj Kumar, arguments had been addressed by Mr. S.C. Bhuttan.On behalf of appellant Babbu Alvi, arguments had been addressed by Mr. I.A.Alvi, Advocate.On behalf of appellant Kamaldeep Narula, arguments had been addressed by Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate.Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court to the versions of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-11 pointing out the various discrepancies in their versions primarily on the place from where the accused were arrested; attention having been drawn to the arrest memos; submission of the learned counsel for appellant Pankaj Kumar being that this arrest was effected from the residence of Pankaj where his parents were also present but the signatures of his parents were not taken on the arrest memo and there is no explanation why the information of his arrest had not been given to his parents but has been given to his maternal uncle which is evident from his arrest memo.Further submission being that ingredients of Section 489-C of the IPC are not made out; the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons had knowledge of the fact that the notes in their possession were in fact counterfeit/forged; there is no such evidence of a conscious Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 6 of 26 possession.Further submission being that since the appellants have been acquitted of the substantive offence under Section 120-B of the IPC in the absence of any conspiracy between the accused persons, the individual charge under Section 489-C of the IPC is also not maintainable.On behalf of appellant Gulshan Khan, additional argument has been addressed.It is pointed out that the printing machine which is purported to have been recovered at his instance from his house has essentially to be disbelieved for the reason that the recovery memo Ex.PW-6/A bore the signatures of the public witness Ishtiyak (PW-5) who has not supported the version of the prosecution; he is hostile.There is no explanation as to why no other public witness had signed the aforenoted documents.Recovery was effected from the residence of Gulshan Khan where his family members were also present in the house but signatures have not been obtained; the recovery has necessarily to be disbelieved.Appellants are entitled to a benefit of doubt and a consequent acquittal.In the alternate it has been argued that the offence under Section 489-C is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years or fine; submission being that fine is also an alternate punishment which is engrafted by the legislature and keeping in view Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 7 of 26 the fact that all the appellants i.e. appellant Pankaj, appellant Babbu Alvi and appellant Kamaldeep Narula have already suffered incarceration for about 5 months and the offence relating to the year 2003 i.e. almost a decade old leniency should be awarded in the sentence.On behalf of appellant Gulshan Khan, the same plea has been set up; submission being that even in a case under Section 489-D of the IPC, there is no minimum sentence prescribed and appellant Gulshan Khan has also undergone incarceration for about 5 months; he should also be considered leniently on the point of sentence.For this proposition, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as MANU/DE/4687/2013 Feroz Khan Vs.13 Learned public prosecutor has refuted these submissions.It is pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution has fully established the conscious possession of the appellants qua the forged currency notes; the fact that they were forged has been answered by the CFSL in its report Ex.PW-12/A; public witness (PW-5) although hostile has yet supported the version of the prosecution to the extent that he had admittedly joined the raid where the appellants were involved.Reliance has been placed upon AIR 2013 SC 3344 Pramod Kumar Vs.State Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 8 of 26 (GNCT) of Delhi 1982 and Crl.L. J. 751 Om Parkash Vs.The State to support a submission that the police witnesses should not be treated with distrust and if their testimony is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the Courts can act upon it.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 6 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 7 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 8 of 26On his personal search, 34 notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide Ex.PW-6/G. Pursuant to Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 11 of 26 the disclosure statement of Kamaldeep (Ex.PW-6/J), he disclosed the complicity of Pankaj Kumar and led the police party to his residence at 1808, Outer Lane, Mukherjee Nagar, Kingsway Camp from where Pankaj was arrested and from his possession 71 currency notes of Rs.100/- were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/F. Further deposition of PW-6 being that on checking them, they were found to be counterfeit; the photograph of Mahatma Gandhi affixed on which Bhartiya Reserve Bank was written both in English and in Hindi.Disclosure statement of Pankaj Ex.PW-6/M was recorded.However, on 18.01.2003, pursuant to the disclosure statement of Pankaj and Kamaldeep, they led the police party to Mukherjee Nagar at betel shop of Pankaj (examined as PW-10) to whom one currency note had been given by Pankaj to purchase a cigarette.This note was taken into possession vide memo Ex.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 9 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 10 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 11 of 2616 PW-6 was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.He reiterated that Kamaldeep was arrested from Budh Vihar.Attention has been drawn to the cross-examination of PW-8; submission being that he has stated that Kamaldeep was arrested from Kingsway Camp.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 12 of 26 contrast with the version of PW-6 who has stated that Kamaldeep was arrested from Budh Vihar.PW-6 has categorically stated as on 17.01.2003, he had joined investigation with the accused persons and accused Babbu Alvi and Gulshan Khan had led the police party to Budh Vihar from where appellant Kamaldeep was overpowered.PW-8 has nowhere given a contrary version.PW-8 has explained that at the instance of Gulshan Khan and Babbu Alvi, the police party had reached Budh Vihar from where Kamaldeep was apprehended and after his arrest, he had led the police party to the residence of Pankaj which is at Kingsway Camp.This has been reiterated by PW-8 in two or three places; in one part of his cross- examination, he has stated that Kamaldeep was apprehended from Kingsway Camp; this is obviously due to an inadvertence.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 13 of 26 8 both coherently established that Kamaldeep was arrested from Budh Vihar; thereafter he had led the police party to the house of Pankaj which is at Kingsway Camp.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 12 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 13 of 2618 Version of PW-6 has been fully corroborated by PW-8 who was the other member of the raiding party.He has also deposed on the same lines.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 14 of 26 joined, recovery becomes doubtful is not applicable as public witness (PW-5) was admittedly joined in this case but he has not supported the version of the prosecution.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 14 of 2619 PW-10 Pankaj (son of Ram Gopal) was another public witness to whom (as per the version of the prosecution) one currency note of Rs.100/- was given by accused Pankaj for purchase of cigarette; Ex.PW-6/N is the documentary evidence substantiating this version of the prosecution that this currency note (later on found to be forged) had been handed over by PW-10 to the investigating team; PW-10 having received it from accused Pankaj.To this extent, PW-10 has supported the version of the prosecution.He had admitted that he was assisting his brother at his tea shop which was at the footpath; one customer had given him note of Rs.100/- to purchase cigarette which was counterfeit and the same note was then recovered by the police from him vide memo Ex.PW-6/N.20 PW-12 had proved the report Ex.PW-12/A detailing that all the 138 notes which had been examined by her pursuant to the instructions of her superior were fake and forged.The report Ex.PW-12/A evidences that these currency notes had been examined under different scientific Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 15 of 26 instruments, there was absence of intaglio printing, lack of ultra violet fluorescent numbers, absence of security thread, absence of water marks and absence of micro printing and different nature of hidden image of 100 in green strips indicating the fake nature of currency notes.The oral testimony of PW-6, PW-8 & PW-11 on this score was categorical that on a face look of the document itself, they appeared to be forged and fake; submission of the learned public prosecutor on this score being that the conscious possession qua the appellants thus becomes writ large.Report Ex.PW-12/A also recites that the number of the notes shows the absence of intaglio printing, lack of ultra violet fluorescent numbers, absence of security thread, absence of water marks and absence of micro printing as also different nature of hidden image of 100 in green strips thus being forged.This report further shows that 6 parcels had been sent for analysis and after examination of the notes which were recovered from each parcel, a report was sent disclosing that Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 18 of 26 all these 138 notes were counterfeit.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 16 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 17 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 18 of 2624 Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants on this report is that at serial No. (ii) of Ex.PW-12/A, 6 currency notes seized vide seizure memo (Ex.There is no doubt that in exhibit (ii) (in Ex.PW-12/A) all the 6 currency notes have been given the same number.It is not the case of the appellants that these 6 notes were not a part of this exhibit; parcel No. (ii) related to seizure memo Ex.PW-6/A which was opened by the expert and all the 6 notes contained in that parcel as per this report were fake notes.This is thus obviously due to a typing error.Argument of the learned counsel for the appellants on this score is thus without any merit.25 The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in this context is that no specific question has been put to the appellants about their conscious possession in their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC which again entitles the appellants to a benefit and for this purpose reliance has been placed upon the judgment of M. Mammutti (supra).26 The very first question put to all the appellants read herein as under:-A secret information was received to Insp."We have perused all these reported decisions relied upon by the learned Advocates for the parties and we see no hesitation in concluding that the challenge to the conviction based on non-compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. first time in this appeal cannot be entertained unless the appellants demonstrate that the prejudice has been caused to them.In the present case as indicated earlier, the prosecution strongly relied upon the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses and relevant questions with reference to this evidence were put to the appellants.If the evidence of these Crl.The State.It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and un-impeachability of their testimony.Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses.If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same.If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust.The accused had every intention to use them as genuine.PW-10 although hostile had admitted that one forged currency note had been given to him by one person which was later on recovered from PW-10; the recovery memo Ex.PW-6/N which was a proved document has recited that this forged note had been handed over to him by Pankaj Kumar.The judgment of Feroz Khan (supra) where the recovery was of 2 forged notes of Rs. 100 each and the offence relating back to 25 years would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case.Role of Gulshan Khan was still more acute.Accordingly, while maintaining their conviction but setting aside the imprisonment of RI for 4 years which has been imposed by the Sessions Judge on each of the aforenoted convicts, the appellants Babbu Alvi, Pankaj Kumar and Kamaldeep Narula are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 14 months each and to pay an additional fine of Rs.30,000/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months.Qua Gulshan Kumar, whose conviction has been maintained under Section 489-D of the IPC, Crl.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 25 of 26 while maintaining the conviction his sentence is modified from RI 5 year to RI 20 months with an additional fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of 4 months.Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. will be granted to the appellants.Appellants be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 23 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 24 of 26Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 25 of 26
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,770 |
the de facto complainant had taken his minor son to the chamber of Dr. Bimal Kumar Kundu who pushed Polio, DPT and HIB vaccine from his own stock inside the body of the child.After returning home the child became very sick and started vomiting and became seriously ill and he was taken to doctor known to the informant and after treatment the child was cured.On 17.10.02 the son of brother-in-law of informant was taken to same doctor for HIB vaccine and after Dr. Kundu pushed the vaccine it was found that in the said vial there was no mention of manufacturing date, batch No. and no price and only it contained expiry date.The informant learnt from Dr. Kundu that the said vaccine was supplied to him by one Sudip Ghosh, Senior Scientific Promotion Executive of M/s. Aventice Pasteur.Accordingly, the informant lodged a complaint on 27.10.02 before the O. C., Uttarpara P. S. alleging that the doctor has used expired vaccine by pushing into the body of minor child and on the basis of the said FIR Uttarpara P. S. Case No. 181 dated 27.10.02 under Sections 274 and 275 of IPC read with Section 27 of the Act was started.Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned Advocate in C. R. R. No. 2465 of 2003 contended that Dr. Kundu himself gave the vial of vaccine to the complainant.The doctor is innocent and that is why after pushing the injection into the body of the minor baby of the complainant he gave the vial to complainant.The said vials were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for opinion as to whether the vaccine contained in the seized vials are spurious or misbranded.If after receiving the injection on 8.10.02 the son of the complainant became ill, why the complainant again sent his brother-in-law's son to same doctor for pushing the same vaccine.did not send the vials to chemical examiner for testing and report.Section 16 of the Act defines standard quality of drugs and Section 17 deals with misbranded drugs, Section 17A deals with adulterated drugs and Section 17B deals with spurious drugs.Section 18 deals with prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics.JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.As the points involved in these two revisional applications are identical, I intend to dispose of the revisional applications by a common judgment and order.Both these revisional applications arose out of Uttarpara P. S. Case No. 181 dated 27.10.02 and chargesheet No. 97 dated 3.7.03 submitted in the said case and the order dated 9.7.03 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Serampore taking cognizance under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short Act) against the petitioners challenging which the two accused persons separately preferred these two revisional applications for quashing the chargesheet and criminal proceeding.
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
78,771,477 |
On 23.11.2004, at about 11.45 PM, Duty Constable Rajinder informed Police Station Patel Nagar on telephone that Sushil Chand, resident of Z-19, West Patel Nagar, Delhi had been brought by his wife to the hospital, after he had been injured in a quarrel.The information was recorded vide DD No. 67B and the copy of the said DD was given to ASI Kanhiya Lal for investigation.The aforesaid police officer reached house No.Z-18, West Patel Nagar, where Head Constable Karan Singh was present.No eye- witness met him on the spot.He then went to RML Hospital, where Sushil Chand was found admitted.He was not fit for statement.His wife Smt. Crl.A. No.43/2010 Page 1 of 10 Kamlesh, however, was present there.Her statement was recorded by the police officer.She told him that on 22.11.2004, at about 10.30 PM, a quarrel had taken place between Prakash Malik who was previously known to her and some other persons in which her husband Sushil Chand Goyal had intervened.Thereafter, Prakash Malik had threatened her husband.At about 8.00 AM, Prakash Malik came outside their house and exhorted her husband to come out.He, however, left after some time.The complainant further stated that at about 10.00 PM on that day one person namely, Sharma, who was known to her since he used to visit their shop, came to their shop and enquired about her husband.In the meanwhile, her husband came there and asked the aforesaid persons as to what the matter was.Mrs Sharma thereupon took her husband aside, towards urinal.The complainant at that stage noticed Prakash Malik with Mr Sharma.After about 5-7 minutes, Sharma came to their shop with her husband and asked her to take care of him and left.She found her husband bleeding from the left thigh and left side of the stomach.He told her that Prakash Malik had given knife blows on his thigh and stomach, while he was held by Sharma.A. No.43/2010 Page 2 of 10During the course of investigation, the appellant Prakash Malik was arrested and he allegedly got recovered a knife from near Vivek Cinema Bus Stand, near Metro Station.The aforesaid knife was found stained with blood.The other accused Narender Kumar Sharma was also arrested and both Prakash Malik as well as Nareinder Kumar Malik were charge-sheeted under Section 307/34 of IPC.Both the accused were charged under Section 307/34 of IPC.Since they pleaded not guilty to the charge, sixteen (16) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.No witness was examined in defence.The husband of the complainant Shri Sushil Chand came in the witness box as PW2 and inter alia stated that on 22.11.2004, he had intervened in a fight which Prakash Malik had with another person, whereupon Prakash Malik had threatened to see him on the next day.On 23.11.2004, at about 8:00 a.m., Prakash Malik came outside his house, but left after standing there for a while.The same night, when he was present at his shop along with his wife, Narender Sharma came to his shop and enquired about him.He came out of the shop, whereupon Narender Sharma took him near the urinal.While they were talking, Prakash Malik came Crl.A. No.43/2010 Page 3 of 10 there with a knife.Seeing the knife when he tried to run back to his shop, Narender Sharma caught hold of him, whereas Prakash Malik stabbed him four (4) times on the left side of his stomach as well as on his thighs and legs.Narender Sharma then brought him to his shop in his lap and left him there, asking his wife to take care of him.His wife then took him to hospital.A. No.43/2010 Page 3 of 10Smt. Kamlesh Sharma came in the witness box as PW1 and corroborated the deposition of her husband as regards the appellant Prakash Malik coming to their house in the morning of 22.11.2004, calling her husband and then leaving after a while.She also deposed with respect to Narender Sharma taking her husband near urinal and bringing him back after 2-3 minutes.PW8 Constable Ram Kishore inter alia stated that on 26.11.2004, he joined investigation of this case with S.I. Jitender Tiwari.On that day, Prakash Malik led them in front of Vivek Cinema, Patel Nagar and pointed towards a knife lying near the road patri.The knife was handed over by him to IO and was seized vide memo Ex.She brought her husband to RML Hospital in the car of her neighbour Ajay Kumar.On her statement, an FIR under Section 307 of IPC was registered.A. No.43/2010 Page 2 of 10A. No.43/2010 Page 1 of 10PW8/B after it had been sealed with the seal of JT.He identified the Ex.P1 as the knife which the appellant is Crl.A. No.43/2010 Page 4 of 10 alleged to have been recovered.A. No.43/2010 Page 4 of 10PW12 is an official from RML Hospital who has proved the MLC of Sushil Chand Ex.PW12/A.PW16 S.I. Jitender is the IO of this case who inter alia stated that on 24.11.2004, the appellant Prakash Malik was arrested by him.According to the witness, Prakash Malik made a disclosure statement Ex.PW16/A after which his police custody for one (1) day was obtained.He thereafter led them to the side of the road near Vivek Cinema Metro Station and got recovered a knife lying between the road and the footpath.Some blood stains and mud was found on the said knife.In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the appellant Prakash Malik denied the allegations against him and claimed to be innocent.Vide impugned judgement dated 19.12.2009, the appellant Prakash Malik was convicted under Section 307 of IPC, whereas Narender died during the pendency of trial.Vide impugned Order on Sentence dated 21.12.2009, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo SI for two (2) months in default.A. No.43/2010 Page 5 of 10 Being aggrieved from his conviction and the sentence awarded to them, the appellants are before this Court by way of this appeal.A. No.43/2010 Page 5 of 10In order to succeed the prosecution was required to prove (i) that the death of Sapan was attempted, (ii) that his death was attempted to be caused by or in consequence of the act of the appellant and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injuries as the appellant knew to be likely to cause death or were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Although the nature of injury may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances.What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section.The intention of the assailants can be gathered from the motive for the crime, nature of weapon used, number of blows given by him, severity of blow and the parts of the body where the injuries are inflicted and other surrounding circumstances, if any.The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that from the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under Section 307 Crl.A. No.43/2010 Page 6 of 10 of IPC is made out and at best the appellant can be convicted under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.I find some merit in the contention.A perusal of MLC of the injured Sushil Chand Ex.PW12/A would show that he had the following injuries on his person when he was examined in the hospital:A. No.43/2010 Page 6 of 10(i) Stab wound 3 cm on stomach, left side, deep penetration(ii) Left thigh antrolalaterally, upper 3 cm, muscle exposed(iii) 0.5 cm stab wound on left Though the injury was opined to be dangerous by Dr. Deepak, the aforesaid doctor has not been produced in the witness box and the MLC has been proved by another doctor namely PW12 - Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta.As a result, the appellant did not get an opportunity to cross examine the doctor who gave the aforesaid opinion, as to on what basis and on account of which injury, he was of the opinion that the injuries sustained by PW2 - Sushil Chand were dangerous.Out of the three injuries found on the person of PW2, one was on his leg and the other one was on his thigh.Only one injury was on his abdomen.Had the intention of the appellant been to commit murder of PW2, he would not have chosen non-vital parts such as thigh and leg of PW2 to cause Crl.A. No.43/2010 Page 7 of 10 injuries to him and would rather have given more than one injuries either in the abdomen or on some other vital parts of the body.This is more so, when the injured was helpless, he having been held by Narender Sharma, co- accused of the appellant.A. No.43/2010 Page 7 of 10The MLC does not indicate the depth of the stab wound found in the abdomen which indicates that the injury was not very deep.Though it was stated to be of deep penetration, the extent of penetration has not been indicated in the MLC.Had the intention of the appellant been to commit murder of PW2, he would have given stab blows in the abdomen with a much greater force, which, in turn, would have resulted in quite a deep stab wound.In these circumstances it would be difficult to say that the appellant- Prakash Malik caused injuries to PW2 - Sushil Chand with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by those injuries had caused death of Sushil Chand, he would be guilty of murder.The appellant, in my view, committed offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC since he caused injuries to PW2 Sushil Chand using a sharp weapon for the purpose.For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appellant is convicted under Crl.Therefore, he is granted benefit of probation and is released on furnishing a bond of peace and good conduct in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of three years.During the period of bond, the appellant shall maintain peace and good conduct and shall refrain from committing any crime.He shall remain present if and when directed to receive the sentence awarded to him.In the event of default in paying the compensation and/or furnishing the bond of peace and good conduct in terms of this order, the appellant shall undergo RI for three years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or to undergo SI for three months in default.In that case, the trial court will issue summons to the injured and disburse the compensation to him.A. No.43/2010 Page 9 of 10A. No.43/2010 Page 8 of 10A. No.43/2010 Page 9 of 10The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.One copy of this order be sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary record.Trial court record be returned, alongwith a copy of this order.V.K. JAIN, J MARCH 21, 2014 BG Crl.A. No.43/2010 Page 10 of 10A. No.43/2010 Page 10 of 10
|
['Section 307 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.
|
96,635,650 |
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:"A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide adequate security of at least four armed police personnel equipped with suitable weapons to the petitioners and their families, during the pendency of trial of S.T. No. 304 of 2009 ( State Vs.Brijesh Singh) in M.P./M.L.A. court at Allahabad in connection with case crime no. 251 of 2001 under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 302, 120B of IPC police station Mohammadabad District Ghazipur."2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that two persons were killed on the spot and petitioner no.1 was caused injuries.Thus, an F.I.R. was lodged in case crime no. 251 of 2001 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,427 I.P.C. and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act , P.S. Mohammadabad District Ghazipur.While referring to Annexure -6 to the writ petition, he further submits that in the aforesaid case the main accused is one Brijesh Kumar, who is a history sheeter and about 28 criminal cases, including the cases of heinous nature, are pending against him.Trial of the aforementioned case has been transferred to the court of Special Judge MP/MLA at Allahabad in the year 2018 and the petitioners are star witnesses.They have to come to Allahabad for recording their statements on the date fixed by the court.He further submits that since the accused persons, who are the hardened criminal, are extending threats from the Jail to their life on account of lodging of the aforementioned F.I.R. and being the witnesses in the case, the petitioners are apprehending danger to their lives and properties and, therefore, they had applied for providing adequate security before the trial court and the concerned authorities but since no action was taken, the petitioners were constrained to file a writ petition, being Writ-C No. 11301 of 2019, Isarail and another Vs.State of U.P and others, which was disposed of by this court on 2.4.2019, with certain directions, which, inter alia, runs as under:Till the decision is taken by the District Level Committee on the application for grant of security to the petitioners, the respondent no.3 is directed to immediately provide security to the petitioners and ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is safeguarded.The directions are being issued in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent.The respondent no.3 is further directed to send the compliance report indicating as to what security has been provided to the petitioners in terms of this order within a period of ten days from today by means of communication addressed to the Registrar General of this Court.The Registrar General is directed to keep the said compliance report on record in this case.We grant liberty to the petitioners to approach in case the compliance as done by the respondent no.3 as directed above.The writ petition is disposed off in terms of the said directions.Learned standing counsel is directed to communicate this order to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police District Ghazipur over Telephone."From perusal of the record, it transpires that the respondent no.3 in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 2.4.2019 withdrew the security of the petitioners and provided security only on the date when they are called to give their evidence by the trial court.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order threat to the security to the petitioners even though has been accepted, still the decision has been taken to provide security to the petitioners only on the date when they are called by the trial court to give their evidence.The impugned order has been passed in a very mechanical manner without considering the relevant provisions of the "Witness Protection Scheme, 2018" approved by the Apex Court for providing security to the witnesses of heinous crimes.It was further submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents of District- Ghazipur, whereas the trial has been transferred to Allahabad, as such for giving evidence they have to come from Ghazipur to Allahabad, making them more vulnerable.The main accused is a sitting Member of Legislative Council of U.P., whereas his nephew Sushil Singh is Member of Legislative Assembly from Saiyad Raja, District-Chandauli, as such the main accused are politically very resourceful and influential.It was further submitted that the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order, has failed to consider & evaluate the threat perception to the petitioners and their family vis-a-vis the gravity of offence of which they are witnesses and the notoriety of the main accused in eliminating the witness of the offences committed by him.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Govt. Orders dated 09.05.2014 & 01.01.2016 with regard to providing security are general in nature and does not specifically deal with the protection of witnesses, whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Chawla Vs.Union of India & Others: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2679, decided on 05.12.2018 has specifically approved the special scheme for the protection of the witness, as such the respondent no. 3 ought to have followed the scheme as approved by the Apex Court by providing the adequate security to the petitioners during trial.It was further submitted that under the witness protection scheme 2018, the Superintendent of Police of District Police has only role to submit the threat analysis report keeping in mind the imminent threat.10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Kritika Singh, learned Addl.Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.From perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioners are the star witnesses in case crime no. 251 of 2001 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307,427 I.P.C. and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act , P.S. Mohammadabad District Ghazipur in which the main accused is Brijesh Kumar, who is a history sheeter and about 28 criminal cases, including the cases of heinous nature, are pending against him.The record further reveals that the trial of the aforementioned case has been transferred to the court of Special Judge MP/MLA at Allahabad in the year 2018 and the petitioners being the witnesses in the case have to come to Allahabad for recording their statements on the date fixed by the court.The accused persons are alleged to be hardened criminal as several criminal cases of 302 I.P.C. are pending against them and the petitioners have received threats from the Jail to their life.The petitioners are apprehending danger to their lives and properties and, therefore, they had applied for providing adequate security to the concerned authorities but since no action was taken, the petitioners were constrained to file a writ petition, being Writ-C No. 11301 of 2019, Isarail and another Vs.The aforesaid impugned order passed in pursuance of the order dated 2.4.2019 shows that one security personal was provided to the petitioners only on the date when they are required to appear before the trial court to give evidence.From the perusal of the judgment passed in the case of Mahendra Chawla (supra), it is evident that the Central Government after taking inputs from various States and Union Territories , has finalised the Scheme and filed it before the Apex Court on November 06, 2018 supported by its affidavit with regard to providing security to the witnesses.It is notable that all the States and Union territories including the State of Uttar Pradesh were also impleaded in the said writ petition.The Witness Protection Scheme , 2018 is based on the inputs received from 18 States/Union Territories, Five States Legal Services Authorities and open sources including civil society, three High Courts as well as from police personnel.It comes into effect forthwith.(ii) The Union of India as well as States and Union Territories shall enforce the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in letter and spirit.As such, the said Scheme shall be applicable and binding on the State of Uttar Pradesh."2(c) Competent Authority" means a Standing Committee in each District chaired by District and Sessions Judge with Head of the Police in the District as Member and Head of the Prosecution in the District as its Member Secretary.2((l) "Witness Protection Application" means an application moved by the witness in the prescribed form before a Competent Authority for seeking Witness Protection Order.It can be moved by the witness, his family member, his duly engaged counsel or IO/SHO/SDPO/Prison SP concerned and the same shall preferably be got forwarded through the Prosecutor concerned."
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,636,399 |
Criminal Application is allowed.The First Information Report bearing Crime No119/2014 dated 18.09.2014, registered with the non-applicant no.1 Nandura Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 376[2][n], 366, 354A[2], 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by the Non-applicant no.2 Smt. Sharda, the Charge-sheet and consequential ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:26:21 ::: Judgment apl325.15 6 Criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside, in respect of the applicant - Amol Haridas Kandelkar, only.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:26:21 :::In view of above, Criminal Application (APPA) No. 1075/2015, stands disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:26:21 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
966,535 |
The Judge also convicted the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Act 2 of 1947 but passed no separate sentence thereunder.The prosecution case was briefly as follows: One V. G. Doraiswami, a retired railway employee, set up a firm at Vizianagram known as Commercial Claims Bureau for dealing with claim cases of the public against the then B.N. Railway now amalgamated with the Eastern Railway.He had several cases pending from 1949 and as there was delay in final settlement, he came down to Calcutta Head-quarters of the B.N. Railway in.October 1951 and met H. Chatterjee, Assistant Commercial Superintendent of the B.N. Railway in connection with claims that he was dealing with and on that occasion he was introduced to the appellant Indu Bhusan Chatterjee who was then acting as Assistant Supervisor of claim cases of B.N. Railway, Vizianagram section.The appellant then had power to deal finally with claims upto Rs. 75/- and he had to report on other claims to his superior Officer, the Assistant Commercial Superintendent.In October 1951, Doraiswami met the appellant at Calcutta and according to Doraiswami the appellant then asked for some gratification for speedy and favourable disposal of the cases and Dorai swami then paid the appellant a sum of Rs. 10/-, and also dictated the numbers and other details of the claim cases that he was dealing with.Doraiswami again came to Calcutta in January 1952 and again met the accused in his office and then at the Coffee House in' front of the Hindus than Buildings on the Central Avenue, after some discussion, Doraiswami paid another sum of Rs.15/- to the appellant for expeditious disposal of the claim cases pending with the appellant Indu Bhusan Chatterjee and belonging to Vizianagram section.Doraiswami then left for Vizianagram and from there he carried on some correspondence with the appellant.In the meantime on receipt of secret information the Deputy Superintendent of Police, of Special Police Establishment at Puri, directed Inspector G.N. Brahma of the Special Police Establishment then attached to Puri to go to Vizianagram and contact Doraiswami in connection with the alleged report of dishonesty by Railway Officials.Brahma accordingly went to Vizianagram and on 29-4-1952 he met Doraiswami and had a discussion with him and Doraiswami filed a complaint with some letters purporting to have been written by the appellant.Brahma asked Doraiswami to meet him in Calcutta on 10-5-1953 where he would contact other Officers of the Special police Establishment of the Calcutta section and take further steps.At Calcutta, Inspector Brahma met the Superintendent of the Special Police Establishment Calcutta section and other Officers, and Inspectors K.C. Mukherjee, and N.K. Mukherjee were deputed to take up the investigation.Doraiswami met the appellant in Calcutta and it was settled between them that Rs. .100/- would be paid by Doraiswami to the appellant at about 6 P.M. on 12-5-1953 at the Indian Coffee House where the parties were to meet.Doraiswami informed the Police Officers about this arrangement, and the Police Officers noted the numbers of the ten-rupee notes in which payment was to be made to the appellant by Doraiswami.It was also arranged that alter the payment had been made, Doraiswami would make a signal by placing his hand behind his head.Accordingly, from before 6 P.M. on 12-5-1952, the Police Officers lay in wait at the entrance to the Coffee House Building, while Doraiswami was Standing near the gate of that building.Shortly before 6 P.M. the appellant arrived there and Doraiswami met him and they both went inside and sat at a table where coffee was ordered by Doraiswami Sri G.N. Gnash, Assistant Director of Postal Services, and some Police Officers also followed Doraiswami and the appellant into the Coffee House and took: their seats at tables 'adjoining the table at which Doraiswami and the appellant sat.At the table there was talk between Doraiswami and the appellant over expediting the claim cases and Doraiswami gave a list of claim cases which he was dealing with and the appellant put the list in his own pocket.Doraiswami then handed over the bundle of ten-rupee notes which the appellant took and put In the left upper-pocket of his shirt.Thereafter the accused and the appellant- both stood up and Doraiswami gave the pre-arranged signal by placing his hand behind his head.Thereupon Inspectors N.K. Mukherjee and S.B. Mitra rushed into the Coffee House, and other members of the party, e.g., Sri G.N. Ghosh and Brahma who were at neighbouring tables also went up to the table at which Doraiswami and the appellant were seated.The Police Officers disclosed their identity and challenged the appellant saying that he had received the ten ten-rupee notes as bribe and asked him to bring out the amount.The appellant remained silent for a time and then brought out the ten-rupee notes together with the list of pending claim cases which had been handed over to him by Doraiswami.The numbers of the notes were checked and it was found that the numbers were the same as had been noted before by Sri G.N. Ghosh and the Police Officers.Thereupon a seizure list was prepared and the appellant was taken to his house.His house was searched but nothing objectionable was found at the dwelling house of the appellant.Sri N.K. Mukherjee took up the investigation and completed the same and a case was started.The case was allotted to the file of Sri J.C. Lodh by a Government notification.The appellant was then summoned and placed on his trial.The appellant pleaded not guilty.He stated when questioned under Section 342, Criminal P.C., that he took his seat at a table in the Coffee House and within a minute Doraiswami came and sat at the same table.After paying for the coffee, as the appellant was moving for going home Inspector N.K. Mukherjee intervened and wanted him to produce his purse.He produced Rs. 43 which he had in the purse from the breast pocket of his shirt and which he had received as refund of the special provident fund contribution which had been discontinued.He stated that he had not received Rs. 100/-as alleged from Doraiswami nor cud he received the list Ext. 4/1 oi claim cases with which Doraiswami was dealing, that alter he had produced Rs. 437- from the breast pocket of his shirt, Inspector N.K. Mutherjee put his hand quickly into the appellant's breast pocket, brought out his hand again and then disclosed the ten ten-rupee notes and the list Ext. 471 in his hand.In other words, according to the appellant the ten ten-rupee notes and the list were planted by Sri N.K. Mukherjee and had never been received by the appellant from Doraiswami at the Coffee House or elsewhere.The defence therefore was that the police in conspiracy with Doraiswami had falsely implicated the appellant.The learned Special Judge discussed the evidence and the points of law urged before him in detail and came to the conclusion that the charges under Section 161, Penal Code, and Section 5(2), read with Section 5(1)(d) of Act 2 of 1947 had been sufficiently proved against the appellant and he therefore convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as described already.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,666,109 |
2.On 24.09.2013 at about 05.10 P.M, the second respondent who is the Village Administrative Officer, Kinnimangalam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk heard a loud explosion.He came to know that a major accident had occurred in the factory premises of Anandham Fire Works.Two persons had died and 20 others had suffered grievous injuries.The defacto complainant was informed that due to non adherence to the safety standards and mishandling of fire works, the occurrence had taken place.This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C No.313 of 2015 on the file of the 4th Additional District Judge, Madurai.She is the sole accused.He lodged information before the Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani Police Station.Crime No.375 of 2013 was registered.The matter was investigated and final report was filed beforehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti.Cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.It was taken on file in S.C No.313 of 2015 and made over to the 4 th Additional District Judge, Madurai.To quash the same, this criminal original petition has been filed.Ramchandra Rabidas and Ors.) The question that arose in the said case was whether the Gauhati High Court was justified in issuing directions that road traffic offences shall be dealt with only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that prosecution under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is without sanction of law.The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no conflict between the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the MV Act. Both the statutes operate in entirely different spheres.The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other.The penal consequences provided under both the statutes are alsohttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 independent and distinct from each other.In fact, a similar issue arose before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1993 3 LLJ 581 (Y.P.Mehrotra vs. State of U.P).The facts in the said case in brief ran thus : an employee was found dead in the factory premises.Petition was filed before the High Court for quashing the proceedings.All the other contentions and defences of the petitioner are left open.The petitioner is a woman.Therefore, her personal appearance before the court below is dispensed with.Of course, she has to appear on those occasions when her presence is directed by the learned Trial Judge.26.02.2020 Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Skm Tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 131.The Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani Police Station, Madurai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.Skm Crl OP(MD)No.9191 of 2016
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,662,098 |
The train was stopped near Godhra which is a town situated at a distance of about 80 to 90 kilometers from Vadodara and a mob of muslim men burnt the entire bogie and did not permit innocent kar sevaks who were mostly men, women and which also included number of children to get out of the 22/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 ::: 23 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 train.Since these people could not get down of the bogie about 56 people were harmed to death and another 46 people were seriously injured.When news of this carnage was spread, it resulted into a back-clash and riots spread throughout the State of Gujarat.Bad news generally spreads like a wild fire and a mob of Hindu men came on the streets and riots erupted at several places in Vadodara and other parts of Gujarat.Prosecution case is that some of the members of the mob took away some of the articles in the Best Bakery viz Ghee, Flour (maida) and other articles and then set the timber which was stocked in the basement on fire.It is alleged that, thereafter, this mob started throwing stones, soda water bottles, the bottles which were filled with kerosene and which were set on fire, on the terrace.The said incident of arson, looting and stone throwing continued for some time and, according to the prosecution, two persons were left behind and they were assaulted with swords and other lethal weapons.According to the prosecution, police jeep came near the scene of offence between 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. and when the said jeep came there, all rioters fled away.Prosecution case is that two other people were tied and were set on fire during night and, in the morning, at about 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. approximately, these victims trapped on the terrace pleaded to the mob on the ground floor that they should be allowed to go away.They were informed by the mob that they would get them down and after giving few slaps and beating them a little, they would be allowed to go.In view of the assurance given by the mob and the accused, initially women folk were brought down on a ladder.Some of the witnesses have used the term "double sidhi" and some of them have said that it was a bamboo ladder.After women folk were brought down, the servants and other family members of Habibulla family were brought down and, thereafter, an old lady who was the owner of the Bakery was finally brought down alongwith a small goat.At this stage, it would be relevant, briefly, to state that the Best Bakery was owned by one Habibulla who had expired few months before the incident had taken place and, after his death, the bakery was run by one Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh (P.W. 31).After the death of Habibulla, his family consisted of his wife Saherunnisa Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.40), his son Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.31), three sisters viz Zahirabibi Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.41), Saherabanu Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.35) and Sabira Habibulla Shaikh and also one another son Nasibulla Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.30).Alongwith the said 25/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 ::: 26 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 family members, servants who were working in the Bakery and who also stayed in the said Best Bakery were also there viz Taufel Ahmed Habibulla Siddiqui (P.W.26), Raees Khan Nankau Khan (P.W.27), Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan (P.W.28).Baliram, Raju and Prakash along with son of Nafitulla, his wife Yasmin (P.W.29) and their small daughter almost of about 2 to 3 months old also resided there.On the date of incident, alongwith these people, family members of Aslam viz his wife and two children aged between 3 to 8 also had taken refuge in their house were present.After the men were brought down, they were tied and assaulted with sticks, swords and other lethal weapons.An attempt was also made to set them on fire.According to the prosecution, female folk were taken to bushes with an intention to commit rape on them.Prosecution case is that news about incident at Best Bakery was received at Panigate Police Station some time between 9.45 and 10 P.M and, initially, Police Inspector Himmatsingh Baria (P.W.72) asked PSI Rathod (P.W.63) to go to the scene alongwith constables and other Officers.Accordingly, PSI Rathod was the first Police Officer who came to the scene alongwith ambulance and the prosecution case is that three women and other people narrated him the incident.Soon thereafter, Baria arrived at the scene and 26/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 ::: 27 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 took over the investigation.One other Police Officer Piyush Purshottamdas Patel (P.W.67) of the rank of DCP also arrived there soon thereafter.These three persons were Baliram, Prakash and Raju who were admittedly Hindu servants who were working with Habibullas.The injured witnesses Taufel (P.W.26), Raees Khan (P.W.27), Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan (P.W. 28) and Sailum Hasan Khan Pathan (P.W.32) were treated in the hospital.Two doctors examined these patients viz Dr. Dilip Choksi (P.W.62) and Dr. Meena Robin (P.W.46).According to these doctors, Raees Khan was the only person who was conscious and others were unconscious and others regained consciousness after few days.P.W. 48 - Dr. Beejaysinh G. Rathod was attached to SSG Hospital who performed postmortem and he has given his opinion on the postmortem notes after the postmortem which was performed on Sabira at Exhibit-198, Shabnam at Exhibit-199, Prakash at Exhibit-201, Firoze at Exhibits 202 and 203, Nasru at Exhibit-204 and 205 and he also gave a Yadi at Exhibits 200 and 199 which contains postmortem notes in respect of Rukshana wife of Firoze.P.W. 49 - Dr. Kishore P. Desai was attached to SSG Hospital.He was the Corporator of the said area at the relevant time.P.W. 75 - R.C. Dave was another PSI attached to DCB, Crime Branch, Gujarat, who was assisting P.W. 74 - Kanani and was a junior Investigating Officer who acted on instructions of Kanani and he drew a panchanama dated 22/3/2002 in respect of vakhars which were burnt in the right and the said panchanam is at Exhibit-25 Defence has examined five witnesses.D.W.1 - Kumar Swami who was at the relevant time working as Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Vadodara City.The second point is answered accordingly.Two dead bodies were found in the bushes at a little distance from the Best Bakery.Their hands and legs were 105/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 ::: 106 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 tied and they were practically burnt.The bodies of Kausarali Shaikh and Arshad @ Lulla Hasanbhai Shaikh were not found, though the bones were found.It could not be proved that these bones were of Kausarali Shaikh and Arshad @ Lulla Hasanbhai Shaikh.Dr Meena Robin (P.W.46) has stated in her evidence about the injuries received by these witnesses and other persons as follows:-So far as P.W. 27 - Raees is concerned, P.W. 46 - Dr. Meena has stated that on examination, the patient was found to be conscious and following injuries were noted:-PW -31, Nafitulla, (Pg.Nos. 1910,1911, 1913, 1924, 1941, 1956, 1957-1958, 1977, 1978, 1981, 2005, 2009)My maternal uncle- Kausar- was called by us to look after the bakery.The servants working in the bakery at that time were Sailum, Shehzad, Taufel, Raees, Prakash, Baliram and Rajesh.We had gone to reside in our house at Hauman Takdi, about 6 months prior to the time of riots.He has further stated that after the curfew was relaxed, he went to see his godown on 9/3/2002 and he noticed that everything was burnt and nothing was left.He has further stated in his evidence that he has seen Dinesh, son of Phulchand who were owners of Mamata Bakery.Her testimony, therefore, would be taken into consideration at a subsequent stage.P.W. 26 - Taufel Ahmed Habibulla Siddiqui has stated in his evidence that he came from U.P and he was residing in Village - Navgadh, District Siddharth Nagar, U.P and he came to Vadodara and he was working in Best Bakery and he was also residing there.He has further stated that he was residing in Vadodara since about one and half years to two years before the riots had taken place.According to him, first the women got down and they were Zahira, her mother and the mother's mother and rioters tied the hands of these women and they were taken in a room.He has then stated that Shehzad also got down with him and Sailum also got down with him.He has stated that, thereafter, Baliram then Prakash and then Guddu @ Nafitulla got down and, thereafter, Nafitulla's brother Raju got down.P.W. 26 - Taufel has stated that he sustained injuries on the backside of his head, on both the sides of the chest and left arm and his right leg was burnt.He has stated that a blow of sword was given on his left leg and he then stated that he would be in a position to identify the sword and he had seen some of the persons who were known to him and that he could identify those persons.He has then stated that he did not know the names of these persons.Further, he has stated that he can identify the persons who had assaulted him and asked him to come down.He has stated that he knew some of them well but he did not know their names.He has stated that one Rahimbhai brought him to Mumbai and he knew Rahimbhai since his daughter was given in marriage in their village.He has further stated that Rahimbhai told him that his case had started in Mumbai and he should give evidence.He has then stated about the work he used to do in late Habibulla's bakery.ig He has given the particulars of family members of late Habibulla and the particulars of workers who were working with him in the bakery.He has then stated about the incident.Then he pointed out to original Accused No.16 - Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria and stated that he was present there and he was having a sword in his hand.He then pointed out to Accused No.4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai and stated that he was also there.He (P.W.27) has then stated that others viz Shehzad, Sailum, Taufel, Baliram, Guddu, Raju, Kausarbhai and Lulla were also assaulted.He (P.W.27) has then categorically stated that he 158/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 ::: 159 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 does not know the names of the accused persons whom he had identified.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::He (P.W. 27) has then stated that he was taken to the hospital and he was admitted in the hospital for about 15 to 20 days and the police had come to meet him in the hospital and they have asked him the name, address etc., and also obtained his thumb impression and they had come to him on 4/3/2002 also and he had told them whatever was true.He, however, stated that whatever was recorded was not read over to him.He then stated that after he was discharged, he went to his native place.WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 2 Went up - saw - Kausar & Lulla (K Om 266 & L) talking to rioters - Rioters put fire to bakery 3 Set fire to vehicles, wood, Aslam's Om 267 room 4 Who were on terrace & in the room Om 268 on the first floor 5 Rioters - thoda bahut marenge - Om 269 we begged - made us get down - 2 ladders - women and then we also got down - Guddu's grandmother -2 Went up - saw - Kausar & Lulla (K Om 2663 Set fire to vehicles, wood, Aslam's Om 267He, however, stated that whatever was stated in the police statement might have been wrongly recorded and he could not say whether there was any conflict between him and the Police Officer.He, however, stated that he was not fully conscious at that time.So far as others are concerned, he has stated that he does not know their names.Thereafter, he pointed out to A-20 and stated that he was Lala.P.W. 29 - Yasmin in the first place was not 216/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 ::: 217 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 examined by the prosecution in the Trial Court in Gujarat.After giving names of her family members of late Habibulla, she has also mentioned the names of workers viz Taufel, Raees, Shehzad, Sailum, Baliram, Raju and Prakash and has further stated that her husband's maternal uncle - Kausarali and one Nasru were also staying there.She has stated the reason why the riots took place in Vadodara after the incident of train burning at Godhra.She has stated that the incident took place at about 9.00 p.m. on 0/1/03/2002 and she was prepared to go to sleep and their servants were sitting below on a cot and, at that time, they noticed number of persons coming from all directions and the said mob was carrying swords, rods and mashals and they were giving slogans that muslims should be killed.She has stated that there were about 1200 to 1500 rioters.She has further stated that she saw the mob assaulting Kausarali and Lulla by swords.According to her, all of them went to the terrace and, at that time, Aslambhai's family viz his wife, his brother- Firoz, Firoz's wife and four children also were in the house.She has given their names.She has also stated as to who were there on the terrace alongwith her.Then she has stated that rioters were throwing stones towards them and 217/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 ::: 218 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 they were also throwing bottles and bulbs filled with kerosene.She has stated that they set fire to the bakery and the fire was set at the place where wood had been stored for the bakery and also to the whole building.Then she has stated that rioters had dragged away Kausarali and Lulla from the first floor and they were thrown in the fire.She has stated that rioters were there throughout the night and she knew some of the persons who were in the mob of rioters in the night and she also knew their names.She has stated the names of Sanjay Thakkar (A-11), Jayanti Chaiwala (A-6), and Painter (A-5).According to her, these persons were leading the mob and telling them to set the fire by pointing out the locations.She has stated that she knew Sanjay Thakkar, Jayanti Chaiwala and Painter who were residing at that time.She has stated that Sanjay Thakkar was residing in Ganeshnagar, Jayanti Chaiwala was residing behind their house near Dudhiya Talao and Painter was residing in the line of their house, in front of the shop of one Sindhi.She has further stated that Jitu and Jagdish were threatening to rape women and Jagdish and Jitu were saying that they would rape women one by one.She has stated that she knew Ravi and she has further stated that he had snatched the chain which she was wearing around her neck.She has stated that she knew Mafat and Munna.She stated that it was possible that Painter was among the accused but she was unable to identify him.She then stated that Jayanti Chaiwala, Mafat, Munna and Rinku were not found among the accused persons, who are present in Court.She has then stated that she was staying in Chhota Udaipur alongwith her parents and that she was not called as witness in the Court at Vadodara.She has then stated that she went back to Vadodara and that she was residing in the Best Bakery premises.She has then stated that rioters were having swords like the swords which were shown to her and also similar pipes.Whether the death of 14 In the affirmative people in the incident which took place at Best Bakery was homicidal?Whether a mob of 1000 to 1200 people thrown stones, soda water bottles and bottles filled with kerosene In the affirmative.APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012Whether, after the victims viz. P.W.26 - Taufel, P.W.27 -Prakash were tied by the setting them on fire is not established.DATES: 4/7/2012, 5/7/2012, 9/7/2012 & 10/7/2012 (Judgment dictated in open Court) ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) ig 04/07/2012All these appeals and applications taken out therein are being disposed of by this common judgment.For the sake of convenience the appellants shall be referred to as accused by their original numbers.2. Appellants who are the original accused are challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict Accused No. 1 - Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria, Accused No.4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai, Accused No.11 - Sanjay @ Bhopo Ratilal Thakkar, Accused No.12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan, Accused No.14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput, Accused No.15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar, Accused No.16 - Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria, Accused No. 18 - Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi and Accused No.20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava for an offence punishable under section 14/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 ::: 15 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 143 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs 500/- each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.They were also convicted for an offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, and also to pay a fine of Rs 1000 each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.They were also convicted for an offence punihshable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs 5000/- each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for five months.They were also convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs 5000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 ::: 16 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 five months.They were also convicted for an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 :::Trial Court was also pleased to convict Accused No. 4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai, Accused No.11 - Sanjay @ Bhopo Ratilal Thakkar, Accused No. 12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan, Accused No. 15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar and Accused No. 20 - Suresh @ Lalo Divjibhai Vasava for an offence punishable under Section 435 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs 5000/- each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for five months.They were also convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 436 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, and also to pay a fine of Rs 10,000/- each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for ten months.They were also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs 500/- each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 They were also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs 500/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.They were also convicted for an offence punishable under section 449 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs 500/- each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.They were also convicted for an offence punishable under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs 500/-each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.They were also convicted for an offence punishable under section 451 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs 500/- each, in default, each of them was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.Trial Court was also further pleased to convict Accused No. 11 - Sanjay @ Bhopo Ratilal Thakkar, Accused No.12 -::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan, Accused No.15 -These appeals were admitted by this Court on 17/7/2006 and Division Bench of this Court by its order was 18/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 ::: 19 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 pleased to direct that applications which have been filed by Teesta Setalvad and P.W.29 - Yasmin may be heard alongwith the appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 :::BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:There is a chequered history in respect of this trial which is now known as Best Bakery Trial.The Apex Court observed that the investigation made by the Investigating Officer was tainted and several reasons were given by the Apex Court while coming to this 19/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 ::: 20 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 conclusion.One of the reason given was that the prosecution had examined relatives of the accused in support of the prosecution case.The Supreme Court also observed that, though, under normal circumstances, whenever reinvestigation has to be done, by way of courtesy to the Court, permission has to be obtained for the purpose of reinvestigation in view of section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.It observed that such a permission may not be necessary since the Apex Court itself had granted permission for reinvestigation and, therefore, liberty was given to the Investigating Officer to start reinvestigation without formally seeking further permission 20/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 ::: 21 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 from the Trial Court.The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court entrusted the matter to the Sessions Judge, Mumbai and the trial proceeded, therefore, afresh before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 :::It is necessary to point out, at this stage, another relevant fact which had taken place during pendency and thereafter of the trial.The prosecution witness who had turned hostile in the Sessions Court in Gujarat and who had made a grievance before the Apex court that she was coerced to turn hostile, again, in the Sessions Court, Mumbai did not support the prosecution case and she was once again declared hostile by the prosecution.An application was, therefore, filed by Smt. Teesta Setalvad in the Apex Court for taking action against her for giving false evidence on oath and for convicting her for having committed the contempt of the Supreme Court.In the application, It was urged that the statement was made by her on oath in the Apex Court and in spite of the said statement she had again resiled from the 21/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 ::: 22 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 earlier statement which she had given before the Apex Court and before the Investigating Officer who recorded the statement.The Apex Court took a serious note about this fact and was pleased to convict the said witness Zahirabibi under the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced her to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year.The said witness has already undergone the said sentence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:20 :::One of the incidents which took place was at the Best Bakery which is situated within the jurisdiction of Panigate Police Station.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 :::The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 8 P.M. to 8.30 P.M and 9.30 P.M. in the evening on 1/3/2002, members of the family who were running the Best Bakery after completing their evening prayers had their food and, at that time, a mob of about 1000 to 1200 people marched towards the Best Bakery from all directions.According to the prosecution and the witnesses, this mob was carrying torches (mashals) and swords, iron rods, sticks and other lethal weapons and the persons from this mob were giving slogans that the properties of muslims should be torched and they should be killed and burnt.The version which is given by the prosecution witnesses is that some of the witnesses were siting on a cot which was kept outside the Best Bakery and when they saw this mob, all of them went inside and rushed to the terrace.Some of the women and children went 23/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 ::: 24 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 to the first floor and bolted the door from inside and others went to the terrace.According to the prosecution, some of the members of the said mob directed other members to set the Bakery on fire.The version given by the prosecution witnesses is that after they were assaulted, they all came out and dragged these two people to the first floor.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 :::Prosecution case is that the said Police Officer did not know the location of the Best Bakery and he, therefore, came there and after the crowd dispersed, he went away with his jeep.Unfortunately for the victims they were not rescued and, as a result, saga of stone throwing and throwing of bottles filled with kerosene continued till morning.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 :::The victims who were assaulted and who were alive were taken to the hospital alongwith Zahira and other injured women.Statement of Raees Khan (P.W.27) was recorded and, later on, in the trial which took place before the Sessions Court, his statement was treated as an FIR.The three servants who were on the terrace alongwith P.W.26, P.W. 27, P.W. 28 and P.W. 32 succumbed to the injuries before they were admitted in the hospital.Statements of these five injured persons who were working as servants with Habibullas were recorded by Police Inspector Baria (P.W.72) and after they were discharged, according to the prosecution, they went to their native places in U.P. and were not available.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012After the Fire Brigade came on the scene, they extinguished the fire and went to the first floor and found the dead bodies of women and children on the first floor.They found two bodies on the ground floor in the bushes and in all 14 people died in the said incident.Postmortem was performed of all the people who had died in the said incident and a report was given by the doctor who had performed the postmortem.Mr. Baria (P.W.72) who was initially appointed as Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation till about 10/3/2002 and later on the investigation was transferred to Police Inspector Kanani (P.W.74) taking into consideration the seriousness of the said offence.Mr. Kanani was working with CID, Gujarat and was a Senior Officer.PI Baria recorded the statement of most of the injured witnesses and other persons including Zahira and PI Kanani, thereafter, took over the investigation.According to the prosecution, investigation was promptly carried out by PI Baria as well as PI Kanani and efforts were made to trace the accused.However, said efforts were futile since accused were not found at their residence.Prosecution case is that, ultimately, on 27/2/2002 accused Nos. 1 to 5 were arrested.Thereafter, on 1/4/2002 28/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 ::: 29 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 accused Nos. 6 to 12 surrendered.On 15/4/2002, accused Nos. 13 to 16 were arrested and on 17/4/2002, accused Nos.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 :::The arrest panchanama was prepared and after statements of all the witnesses were recorded, charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution and the accused were tried before the Learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara, Gujarat State.It is an admitted position that the injured servants who have now been examined in the Trial Court at Mumbai viz P.W. 26, P.W.27, P.W. 28 and P.W. 32 were not examined in the Sessions Court at Gujarat.In the Sessions Court at Gujarat all members of Habibulla family turned hostile and amongst other witnesses namely pancha witnesses also turned hostile.Against this order of the Trial Court, Gujarat, Saherabanu Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.35) filed Revision Application in the Gujarat High Court.Similarly, State of Gujarat also filed an appeal against acquittal in the High Court.Affidavits were also filed by members of Habibulla family in which they alleged that they were threatened and coerced to give false evidence.The Gujarat High Court, however, proceeded to examine the material which was on record and did not consider the affidavits which were filed by 29/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 ::: 30 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 the members of Habibulla family and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:21 :::As pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court then remanded the matter to the Sessions Court, Mumbai.In the Sessions Court at Mumbai, the prosecution, apart from examining four injured servants who were working in the Best Bakery also examined Yasmin Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.29) who is the wife of Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.31).She, however, was examined in the Sessions Court, Mumbai and she supported the prosecution case.In the Sessions Court at Mumbai, one person Pankaj Shankar Sharma (P.W.73) appeared in person and informed the learned Trial Judge that he had taken interviews of several persons after the incident had taken place and it was contended that he would like to produce the CD in support of the prosecution case.The Trial Court accepted his application but, at the same time, directed the prosecution to record his statement and further directed that he should be examined as prosecution witness and the CD which was taken by him interviewing the members of Habibulla family was brought on record.After the charge-sheet was filed in the Trial court in Gujarat, no reinvestigation was made by the Investigating 30/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 31 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Officer, nor any new Investigating Officer was appointed though permission to that effect was granted by the Apex Court and the prosecution relied on the same charge-sheet which was filed along with the documents.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the charge was framed by the Trial Court, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::The evidence against them, however, was recorded after an order was passed under section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Prosecution, in all, examined about 75 witnesses in the Trial Court, Mumbai.He was working as Maintenance Surveyor and he was called by the prosecution to prepare the said plan.P.W.2 - Chandrakant Kesurbhai Patel was Nayab Mamlatdar 31/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 32 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 who signed the said plan.P.W. 4 - Kalumiya Aminmiya Shaikh was a second panch in respect of the said panchanama.P.W. 5 - Vijaybhai Thakurbhai Waghela was a panch in respect of the inquest panchanama which was prepared on 2/3/2002 which had been brought on record at Exhibit-22 and at Exhibits 16 to 21 and 48 to 53 in respect of bodies of various victims in the said incident.P.W.6 - Mukhtyar Mohammad Hussein Shaikh was also a panch witness in respect of the panchanama dated 22/3/2002 in respect of bones which were found near the Best Bakery and the said panchanama had been brought on record at Exhibit-24 and Exhibits 25 to 35 are slips.P.W. 9 - Dayaram Ramnivaj Pal was a leading fireman from the Fire Brigade Department who arrived at Best Bakery on 2/3/2002 and who has stated about the steps taken by him after he reached there.P.W. 10 - Kiritbhai Dayabhai Patel and P.W. 11 - Ishwarbhai Mohanlal Suthar 32/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 33 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 also are from the Fire Brigade and who have stated about the action taken by them after they reached at the site of the incident.P.W.12 - Satish Hiralal Rawal also was working in the Fire Brigade as driver and he carried the dead bodies of Firoze and Nasru.P.W. 15 - Fakirabhai Punabhai Patil, A.S.I.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::who assisted P.I. Kanani and acted on the instructions of Kanani (P.W.74) has brought on record Exhibit-55 which was a letter written to P.W. 74 and Exhibit-58 was a receipt.P.W.16 - Rameshbhai Vajubhai Rathwa was working as ASI attached to the SSG Hospital and who had given vardi at SSG Hospital and who passed on the vardi as per the dictation given by Dr. Meena (P.W. 46), which is brought on record vide Exhibits 57/1, 2, 3 which were entries in the Casualty Police Register.- Dinubhai Ambalal Patel was the Chief Fire Officer who had produced the registers maintained by the Fire Brigade 33/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 34 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Department, which are brought on record at Exhibits-62 to 64 i.e. entries in X-7 Fire Register, X-8 Dead Body Log Book and X-9 Vehicles Register.P.W. 22 - Devendra Ranmalsinh Thakor and P.W.23 - Avdhoot Rajendra 34/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 35 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Nagarkar were the panchas.P.W. 22 - Devendra was a recovery panch in respect of panchanama dated 4/4/2002 regarding recovery of sword, iron rod.P.W. 23 -::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::Avdhoot was a recovery panch in respect of panchanama dated 22/5/2002 which panchanama is brought on record at Exhibit-85 regarding recovery of bamboo stick (R-20) and Exhibit-86 is the slip signature (X-13).P.W. 25 - Sureshchandra Vithaldas Sithpuria was the Assistant Director of FSI Biology Department who has given expert opinion regarding blood stains.Exhibits- 95, 96, 99 and 102 are reports tendered by him.P.W. 26 - Taufel Ahmed Habibulla Siddiqui is an injured eye witness.P.W. 27 - Raees Khan Nankau Khan who is also an injured eye witness.P.W. 28 - Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan is also an injured eye witness.All these three persons were working in the said Best Bakery.P.W. 29 - Yasmin Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh is also an eye witness who 35/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 36 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 is wife of Nafitulla (owner of the best Bakery) who was examined for the first time in the Sessions Court, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::She was not examined in the Sessions court at Gujarat.P.W. 30 - Nasibulla Habibulla Shaikh is a son of Habibulla and a brother of Nafitulla and he is the co-owner of the Best Bakery and he was examined as an eye witness who turned hostile.P.W. 31 - Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh who was the owner of the Best Bakery was examined as an eye witness by the prosecution.He, ig however, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.P.W. 32 and P.W. 26 to 28 were not examined by the prosecution in the trial in Gujarat.P.W. 33 - Mohammad Ashraf Mohammed Haroon Shaikh is the brother of Aslam who was present at the Best Bakery at 7.30 P.M. and relative of one of the victims who has given evidence which is mostly in the nature of hearsay evidence.P.W. 34 - Sharjanhan Kausarali Shaikh is also a wife of Kaushar Mama who had died in the said incident and her evidence also is hear-say evidence.P.W. 35 - Saherabanu Habibulla Shaikh is the sister of Zaheera and was examined as an eye witness.She, however, turned hostile.P.W. 36 - Lal Mohammed Khudabaksh Shaikh Is the owner of godown whose property viz godown was burnt.He was present in the locality in the residence of one of the accused.P.W. 37 - Abdul Samin 36/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 37 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Abdul Gani Mansuri is the second panch in respect of recovery panchanama dated 22/5/2002 which is at Exhibit-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::The said panchanama is in respect of recovery of bamboo sticks.He has also brought on record Exhibits-129 and 128 which is a slip of the panchanama signed by him.P.W. 39 - Iqbal Ahmed Ali Ahmed Ansari was also a witness carrying on bakery business and who is a leader of muslim community.His evidence is mostly hear-say evidence.P.W. 40 -Saherunnisa Habibulla Shaikh is the mother of Zahirabibi and wife of late Habibulla who was examined as an eye witness but who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.P.W.-41 - Zahirabibi Habibulla Shaikh is a witness whose statement has been treated as first information.She is the sister of Nafitulla (P.W.31) who was examined as an eye witness.She, however, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.P.W. 42 - Aslambhai Haroonbhai Shaikh is a relative of the victim whose wife and children died on the first floor of the Best Bakery.P.W. 43 - Jyotsnaben Maheshchandra Bhatt is a neighbour of Nafitulla and who was examined as an eye witness.However, she turned hostile.P.W. 44 - Kanchanbhai Punjabhai Mali is 37/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 38 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 one of the neighbours of Nafitulla and was examined as an eye witness.This witness, however, did not support the prosecution case.He however, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.P.W. Nos. 46, 47, 48 and 49 are doctors who have been examined by the prosecution.P.W. 46 - Dr. Smt. Meena Robin was attached to SSG Hospital, Vadodara who has issued injury certificate and has given history in the vardi.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::He has performed postmortem and has given opinion regarding the cause of death in respect of Babli and Baliram, which is 38/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 39 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 brought on record at Exhibits-207 and 208 P.W. 50 - Paresh Tribhuvan Brahmbhatt, P.W. 51 - Habibbhai Dawoodbhai Arab, P.W. 52 - Razakbhai Noorbhai Vora and P.W. 53 - Rajesh Shantilal Rana were panchas in respect of arrest of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::P.W. 59 - P.I. Rajendra K. Chavan was attached to Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai who recorded the statement of Zahirabibi in Mumbai after Vododara trial.P.W. 60 - Dr. Jagdish Sitaram Soni was examined as an expert witness.He was working as Assistant Professor of Anatomy and has given opinion about the bones.P.W. 62 - Dr. Dilip Bhalchandra Choksi was attached to SSG Hospital and he has examined the victims.P.W. 63 - Balwantsinh Udesinh Rathod was the Police Officer who was attached to Panigate Police Station and particularly to Mobile-1 Unit of the said Police Station and he was the First Police Officer in point of time to reach the Best Bakery site on 2/3/2002 before Baria (P.W.72).P.W. 65 - Parimal Keshabhai Velera was the Dy.Commissioner of State Intelligence who sanctioned Bill for video shooting which was done at the site and at other 40/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 41 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 places where riots had taken place.P.W. 66 - Abhaysinh Fatabhai Patel was the ASI who recorded the police statement of P.W.27 - Raees Khan.P.W. 67 - Piyush Purshottamdas Patel was at the relevant time DCP, South Zone and he also arrived at the scene of offence at Best Bakery immediately on 2/3/2002 after Rathod and Baria had reached there.P.W. 70 - Jagdishbhai Diwanjibhai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::Chaudhari is the PSO attached to Panigate Police Station who made entries in the Station Diary about FIR.P.W. 71 - Dr. Hiren N. Judal was a resident doctor attached to SSG Hospital and he has proved endorsement at Exhibit-262 which is a letter recording statement of Raees.He has given an opinion that Raees Khan was not fit to give his dying declaration.P.W. 73 41/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 ::: 42 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:22 :::He was examined by the defence for the purpose of proving contradictions in the statements of Yasmin (P.W.29).D.W. 2 - Deepak Swaroop was the then Commissioner of Police, who was examined for the purpose of lock-up register.D.W. 3 - Ramjibhai Jagjibhai Pargi was ACP at the relevant time and he was examined for the purpose of proving omissions and contradictions in the statements of Yasmin (P.W.29).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 D.W.4 - Mrs Khyati Pandya was working as CEO in News Plus Channel and she has produced a CD which is at Exhibit-38 and the transcript of the CD is at Exhibit-514 collectively.D.W. 5 - Ajay Jasubhai Patel was a video photographer who had taken shooting and interview of Yasmin (P.W.29) when she had returned to reside at Best Bakery after the accused in Gujarat Trial were acquitted.During trial, when the said CD and video tape were shown to the Trial Court, permission was obtained to bring on record the individual photographs of the CD and they have been brought on record at Exhibit-380 collectively.26 Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants candidly submitted that the appellants are not challenging the incidents which took place on 1/3/2002 and 2/3/2002 at night or in the morning.He submitted that the appellants, however, have challenged their involvement in the said incidents.POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:The following points are, therefore, framed for determination:-(1) Whether the death of 14 people in the incident which took place at Best Bakery was 43/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 ::: 44 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 homicidal?::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 :::(2) Whether in the night of 1/3/2002 and in the morning of 2/3/2002, the incident of riot, arson, looting of the Best Bakery had taken place as alleged by the prosecution?(3) Whether a mob of 1000 to 1200 people had come to the Best Bakery from all directions and had set the Bakery on fire and had caused death of women and children viz Jainabibi Hasanbhai, Shabnambibi @ Rukhsana Aslam, Sabira Habibulla, Cipli @ Saili Aslam Shaikh, Babli Aslam Shaikh, Mantasha, aged 3 years, daughter of Firoz Aslam Shaikh and Subhan, aged 4 years, son of Firoz Alsam Shaikh, who were inside the room on the first floor and had looted the Bakery and had taken away Ghee, Flour (Maida) and other articles which were in the Bakery and, thereafter, set it on fire?(4) Whether a mob of 1000 to 1200 people thrown stones, soda water bottles and bottles filled with kerosene which were set on fire and were thrown as missiles on the terrace of the said Bakery.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 (5) Whether the victims viz P.W. 26 - Taufel, P.W. 27 - Raees , P.W. 28 - Shehzad, P.W. 29 -Yasmin and P.W. 32 - Sailum and the grandmother of Nafitulla were made to get down from the terrace with the help of a ladder?(6) Whether, after the victims viz P.W. 26 -Taufel, P.W. 27 - Raees , P.W. 28 - Shehzad, P.W. 29 - Yasmin and P.W. 32 - Sailum and the grandmother of Nafitulla were brought down from the terrace, women folk were taken behind bushes with intention to commit rape on them by the accused?(7) Whether the hands and feet of P.W. 26 -Taufel, P.W. 27 - Raees, P.W. 28 - Shehzad and P.W. 32 - Sailum and Ramesh, Baliram and Prakash were tied by the accused and kerosene was poured on them and they were set on fire and they were also assaulted with swords, sticks and iron rods?::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 :::WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 responsible for the death of 14 people viz (1) Jainabibi Hasanbhai, (2) Shabnambibi @ Rukhsana Aslam, (3) Sabira Habibulla, (4) Cipli @ Saili Aslam Shaikh, (5) Babli Aslam Shaikh, (6) Mantasha Firoz Aslam Shaikh, (7) Subhan Firoz Aslam Shaikh, (8) Baliram Shamlal Verma, (9) Prakash Ugroo Dhobi, (10) Raju @ Ramesh Baijnath, (11) Kausarali Shaikh, (12) Arshad @ Lulla Hasanbhai Shaikh, (13) Firoz Pathan and (14) Nasroo Hasan Khan Pathan, and were also responsible for causing grievous injuries to P.W.26 - Taufel P.W. 27 - Raees, P.W. 28 -Shehzad , P.W. 32 - Sailum, P.W.30 - Nasibulla and P.W. 31 - Nafitulla?(9) Whether the appellants/accused had committed the said offences which had taken place at night of setting the Best Bakery on fire?unlawful assembly and had caused injuries to P.W. 26 - Taufel, P.W.27 - Raees, P.W. 28 -Shehzad, P.W. 32 - Sailum, P.W.30- Nasibulla and P.W. 31 - Nafitulla and had assaulted 46/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 ::: 47 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Baliram Shamlal Verma, Prakash Ugroo Dhobi and Raju @ Ramesh Baijnath?::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 :::We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Adhik Shirodkar for the appellants/accused and Mrs Manjula Rao, learned Senior Counsel appointed as Special Public Prosecutor appearing for State of Gujarat at length.They have also taken us through the judgment and order of the Trial Court and the notes of evidence.We have also seen the CD which was prepared from the video tape which was photographed by P.W. 69 - Gautam Chavan and also the CD which was produced by P.W. 73 - Pankaj Sharma and also the CD produced by D.W. 4 - Khyati Pandya.INITIAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT BEFORE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:It is an admitted position that most of the panch witnesses have not identified the accused persons at whose instance the said weapons were recovered and they have only identified the weapons.One or two pancha witnesses have turned hostile.The members of Habibulla family viz , Zahirabibi (P.W. 41), Saherunnisa (P.W.40), Nasibulla (P.W.30), Nafitulla (P.W.31) so also Saherabanu (P.W.35) who had filed Revision Application against the order of acquittal in the Gujarat High Court and who are owners of 47/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 ::: 48 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 the Best Bakery have turned hostile except Yasmin Nafitulla Shaikh (P.W. 29), the wife of Nafitulla.The crucial aspect in this case is regarding identity of the persons who had committed the said offence.The appellants have come up with the case that they were not the persons who were responsible for commission of the said offences.Therefore, the only relevant evidence which needs to be considered in this case is the evidence of four injured witnesses viz P.W. 26::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 :::- Taufel, P.W. 27 - Raees , P.W. 28 - Shehzad, P.W. 29 -Yasmin and P.W. 32 - Sailum since these five witnesses are examined as eye witnesses and four of these witnesses were injured in the morning after they were brought down as alleged by the prosecution and they have claimed to have identified the accused - appellants herein in the court for the first time.So far as other evidence is concerned, since appellants have not disputed the occurrence of the incidents on 1/3/2002 and 2/3/2002, it will have to be examined whether the prosecution has proved case against the appellants herein in respect of commission of the said offence which was committed in the night of 1/3/2002 and 2/3/2002 and, therefore, testimony and creditworthiness of these witnesses becomes very relevant.Another crucial aspect which needs to be considered is regarding the testimony given by Yasmin (P.W.29) particularly in view of the applications filed by her in this 48/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 ::: 49 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Court in which she has stated that she was compelled to give evidence at the instance of certain persons and she has made request in her applications that there may be a fresh re-trial and that her evidence may again be recorded.The tenor of the affidavit and the applications which have been filed on her behalf clearly reveals her intention of resiling from the evidence which has been given by her on oath in the Trial Court in Mumbai.Apart from that, it will have to be also considered whether without taking into consideration the said applications which she has filed in this Court, even otherwise, her evidence is trustworthy since much emphasis has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants on the interview which was allegedly given by her to D.W. 5 - Ajay Jasubhai Patel after she returned to the Best Bakery and started residing there and the interview was taken by all the Channels in which she allegedly exonerated all the appellants and on the basis of the said CD, it was sought to be urged that the said interview which was given prior to her evidence being recorded in the Court assumes importance and her testimony in the Court, therefore, created a doubt regarding her creditworthiness.It has also been strenuously urged that her presence in the Best Bakery in the night of 1/3/2002 and 2/3/2002 was doubtful on account of various circumstances which have been narrated at great length by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Adhik Shirodkar during the course of his submissions.It 49/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 ::: 50 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 has also been submitted that Zahirabibi (P.W.41) whose statement was recorded as an FIR does not mention the presence of Yasmin (P.W.29) and it has also been urged that P.W.29 in her cross-examination had given the real reason for attack on the Best Bakery.It has been submitted that the real reason was abduction by Nafitulla (P.W.31), the husband of Yasmin of the Hindu girl who was converted and who was residing with Nafitulla and she gave birth to a male child and that was the real reason for the attack on the Best Bakery and it was not as a result of the Godhra incident which had taken place.For all these reasons, it has been urged that her testimony should be discarded.This aspect also will have to be considered at the relevant stage.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::The Trial Court did not accept this submission and proceeded to accept the testimony of these five witnesses by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Baladin vs. State of UP1 and on the another judgment of the Apex Court in Dana Yadav vs. State of Bihar2 and also on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in Prem alias Santosh S/o Jivandas Satija vs. The State of Maharashtra3 The Trial Court, therefore, on the basis of the said judgments was of the view that it was open for the Court to rely on the testimony which is given by the witnesses for the first time in the court where they have identified the accused in the open Court for the first time though no test identification parade has been held and thereafter it proceeded to examine the testimony of these five witnesses and after having accepted their identification of the accused in the Court, acquitted eight accused viz Mahendra Jadhav (A-2), Harish Gosai (A-3), Yogesh Verma (A-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::1 AIR 1956 SC 181 2 AIR 2002 SC 3325 3 1993(2) Bom.C.R. 252 51/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 ::: 52 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::5), Pratapsinh Chauhan (A-10), Yasin Khokhar (A-13), Tulsi Tadvi (A-17), Kamlesh Tadvi (A-19) and Ravi Chauhan (A-21) and convicted nine accused viz Rajubhai Baria (A-1), Pankaj Gosai (A-4), Sanjay Thakkar (A-11), Bahadursinh Chauhan (A-12), Jagdish Rajput (A-14), Dinesh Rajbhar (A-15), Shanabhai Baria (A-16), Shailesh Tadvi (A-18) and Suresh Vasava (A-One other aspect which has been seriously urged by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Adhik Shirodkar is that the statement of Zahirabibi (P.W.41) was recorded at about 1 P.M. and earliest information which was received by the Police Station was given by Chandrakant Shrivastava (P.W.58) on telephone which was recorded at about 10 a.m. to 10.10 a.m. and further statement was given to Rathod (P.W.63) by three women and also to Baria (P.W.72) and other Police Officers when they went to the scene of offence.It has been further urged that even if the said statements could not be recorded because the Police Officers went to the hospital directly from the scene of offence, in that event, the first statement which was recorded first in point of time was of Raees Khan (P.W. 27).It has been urged that two doctors viz. Meena Robin (P.W. 46) and Dr. Dilip Choksi (P.W.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/201262) have stated in their evidence that Raees Khan was the only conscious person when he was admitted in the hospital and his statement was recorded by Baria and, therefore, the said statement alone could be treated as an FIR and not the statement of Zahirabibi (P.W.41).The another aspect which was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel 53/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 ::: 54 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 appearing on behalf of the appellants is regarding the procedure which was adopted by the Trial Court in respect of admission of the CD which was produced by the witness who had suddenly appeared before the Court and who was treated as prosecution witness, though no opportunity was given to the prosecution to verify the genuineness of the CD which was produced by him.It has been submitted that the said evidence was inadmissible and could not have been taken on record by the Trial Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::Sixthly, it was contended that the statement of Raees Khan was wrongly allowed to be exhibited and treated as an FIR by the Public Prosecutor and, lastly, it was contended that no attempt was made to secure the presence of five injured witnesses viz. P.W. 26 - Taufel, P.W. 27 - Raees , P.W. 28 - Shehzad, P.W. 29 - Yasmin and P.W. 32 - Sailum and the Trial Court without issuing notices and summons, had accepted the pursis of the prosecution dropping them as witnesses.It was also urged that Shehzad Khan was wrongly dropped as eye witness on the ground that he was of unsound mind.It was contended that the Trial court ought to have got the said witness examined from the Civil Surgeon or Doctor from Psychiatric Department, particularly because Dr. Meena had not stated in her evidence that he was mentally unfit.The sum and substance of what was urged before the Apex court was that 56/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 ::: 57 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 there was no fair trial and that the effort was made during trial to see that the accused were acquitted and that the Investigating Agency had helped the accused and that the Court was merely acting as onlooker.The grievance was also made that the High Court had erred in not accepting or taking into consideration the affidavits which were filed by Zahira and others and that though nomenclature of the said affidavits and the grounds taken by the State did not refer to provisions of section 391 or section 311, in fact, the State has made prayers for acceptance of certain evidence under section 391 of the Code read with section 311 of the Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::Courts have always been considered to have an over-riding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice -::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:24 :::After 64/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 ::: 65 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Zahirabibi (P.W.41) turned hostile, an application was filed in the Apex Court bringing this fact to the notice of the Apex Court and the Apex Court was distressed by the fact that Zahirabibi (P.W.41) had earlier filed an application in the Apex Court complaining of coercion and since the Apex Court was convinced about the plea taken by her in her affidavit, it had not only set aside the judgment of the Trial Court but also of the Gujarat High Court after passing strictures against the judiciary in Gujarat in general and when this application was filed, the Apex Court in Criminal Misc.Petition Nos. 6658/2004 to 6661/2004 by its judgment and order dated 8/3/2006 directed that a judicial inquiry be made and the parties were permitted to file their statements before the Inquiry Officer.Pursuant to the directions given by the Apex Court in the said case, the inquiry was conducted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::SUBMISIONS OF THE LEARNED SR.COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED AND THE LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE ABOVE APPEALS.Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused submitted that neither in the Trial Court nor in the appellate court, the defence challenged the unfortunate incident of burning of Best Bakery premises and other premises or unfortunate death of persons who were inside the Building.It is submitted that this was done deliberately to suppress the fact that witnesses could not have seen any thing from the terrace or from the first floor.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::He submitted that from the evidence, it could be seen that the plan was not made according to scale and certain important aspect which ought to have been highlighted were deliberately glossed over by the witnesses when the plan was prepared.He submitted that P.W.1 - Ratilal Variya had prepared the plan as per directions of P.W.2 - Chandrant Patel and that P.W.2 - Chandrakant Patel had signed it.He submitted that apart from the fact that the plan was not drawn through scale, P.W.1 has admitted that he had not gone beyond the first floor and he also admitted that measurement of the bakery was approximate and not accurate.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the witness in cross-examination admitted that it was possible to draw the plan according to scale but he had not done so because more paper and more time would have required and, therefore approximate distance was given and he did not have panchanama with him.He also admitted that he did not know the term 'gradient'.He further submitted that the witness has admitted that there was narrow passage and one had to go side ways to go to the first floor and the passage was so small that only one person could enter.He 67/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 ::: 68 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 also submitted that the witness had admitted that he did not go to the first floor.He submitted that so far as P.W. 2 is concerned he admitted that the police had asked him to draw a plan and that the sketch was made by P.W.1 and he had merely signed it.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that P.W.2 further admitted that he was not from the Survey Department but was from the Revenue Department and he had no experience in drawing plans.He, therefore, submitted that P.W.1 and P.W. 2 had miserably failed in performing their functions.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::He then invited our attention to the testimony of P.W.9- Dayaram, P.W. 10 - Kiritbhai and P.W. 11 - Ishwarbhai.He submitted that the these fire fighters also did not state as to whether the room in which all women and children had died was bolted from inside or outside.He submitted that P.W. 10 in his cross-examination has admitted that on the ground floor, timber had been kept and that much heat was generated because of burning of timber and wood and that there was no outlet for the heat and, therefore, the fire had gone to the first floor.He submitted that P.W.10 also admitted that ghee was highly inflamable and when ghee and timber burnt together, there would be some smoke and that the smoke usually goes upward.He submitted that these three witnesses have admitted that it was very hot and they had to take efforts to cool down the place by spraying 68/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 ::: 69 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 water.He submitted that these witnesses have admitted that there was much smoke on account of fire.He further submitted that thereafter application was made before the Trial Court for the purpose of taking site inspection and the application filed by the accused was allowed and the court had thereafter taken the site inspection.It is however submitted that the site inspection could never replace the necessity of producing appropriate and proper site plan.He submitted that the prosecution had deliberately produced improper plan.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 5/7/2012 AT 11It was possible that evidence which they had given in court was a truthful account of what actually happened or, in the alternative, it was possible that they had turned hostile on account of external influence.He submitted that the reason why and under what circumstances and who was responsible for witnesses to resile from their earlier statements is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the fate of the appellants herein and those circumstances are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal.He submitted that the case of the defence was that NGO - Citizens for Justice and Peace and its members were responsible for tutoring the witnesses and had threatened them and they had, therefore, approached the independent organization who had given 71/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 ::: 72 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 them protection.He submitted that, in either case, testimony of theses witnesses was not reliable and even if certain facts were brought on record in their cross- examination by the prosecution, on account of conduct of these witnesses, the evidence which was given by them in the Court was inherently defective and untrustworthy.He submitted that the Trial Court had erred in permitting the cross-examination of these hostile witnesses upon unwarranted aspect ig and that the material which was brought on record in their cross-examination was totally irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants then submitted that the prosecution had examined five eye witnesses viz Taufel (P.W.26), Raees (P.W. 27), Shehzad (P.W. 28), Yasmin (P.W.29) and Sailum (P.W. 32).He submitted that if the evidence of each of these witnesses is taken into consideration, there were several lacunae and individually and collectively testimony of these witnesses was insufficient and no reliance could be placed on their evidence.Firstly, he submitted that in the statements of P.W.26, P.W. 27, P.W.28, and P.W. 32 which were recorded by police, these witnesses had not given names of the appellants/accused nor their description.They had also improved their statements and had given totally new version in the evidence which was given by them in the Court.He 72/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 ::: 73 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 submitted that the defence had brought on record omissions made by these witnesses which were in the nature of material contradictions and if the omissions and improvements made by these witnesses in the testimony before the Court are taken into consideration, their evidence would only reveal that they were on the terrace through out the incident and, thereafter, they were brought down.He also submitted that their identification of the accused in the Court for the first time could not be relied upon.He further submitted that though these witnesses were available and were in the hospital atleast for 10 to 15 days, no steps were taken for conducting the identification parade by the Investigating Officer.He submitted that neither Baria (P.W.72) nor Kanani (P.W.74) had taken any steps whatsoever for holding the identification parade which was necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether the accused who were arrested after 24/3/2002 were real assailants and this exercise was necessary for the purpose of lending assurance to the Investigating Officer that the persons who were arrested by him were the same persons who were perpetrators of the crime.He then submitted that these witnesses appeared in the Court under mysterious circumstances.He submitted that in the cross-examination most of these witnesses had admitted that no summons was issued by the Trial Court and they had appeared on their own and they had further admitted that they had met Mrs. 73/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 ::: 74 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Teesta Setalvad, a member of NGO - Citizens for Justice and Peace.He submitted that, therefore, under these circumstances and in the manner in which the evidence was given by them, it was apparent that they were tutored or atleast there was an ample opportunity for tutoring them.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::He invited our attention to the relevant questions which were asked to these witnesses on this aspect.He submitted that, however, this document was not produced in the court, nor inspection of the said document was given nor was it annexed to the charge-sheet.He submitted that it was the duty of the prosecution to have examined the doctor or to get the said witness examined either by Psychiatrist or by mental hospital and to obtain certificate that he was mentally unfit to depose in the Court.He further submitted that the said witness had not given answers to the questions which were asked and he had given irrelevant answers to the pointed questions which were asked by the defence in the cross-examination.He submitted that, therefore, from the answers which were given by this witness it was possible to draw an inference that this witness was 74/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 ::: 75 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 mentally unfit either to understand the questions which were asked to him or to give answers to the to the questions.He also submitted that even Sailum (P.W.32) was not a dumb witness as observed by the Trial Court but from his answers also it was possible to draw an inference that he was not in a proper frame of mind and mentally fit to depose before the Court.He submitted that it is a matter of record that both these witnesses (P.W. 28 and P.W.32) in their evidence have stated that it was taken a long time for them to remember everything and, Sailum (P.W.32), on the other had, it is submitted, had stated that even now he did not recognize number of persons from his village.He submitted that under these circumstances apart from the fact that they had improved the case, it was not possible to rely on their testimony.He submitted that, in the present case, the accused were made to stand in the court, not according to their serial number but they were made to stand together and these witnesses pointed out the accused.He submitted 75/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 ::: 76 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 that, therefore, even otherwise, the said identification of accused made by these witnesses for the first time in Court was improper.He, therefore, submitted that merely mentioning the names of accused by the witnesses was not sufficient if they were unable to identify the accused by pointing out that so and so were the accused who were standing in the row XYZ by giving their names.He submitted that viewed from any angle, it was not possible to rely on the testimony of these four witnesses.So far as Yasmin (P.W.29) is concerned, it is submitted that she had, in fact, filed an application and had made a statement on oath that the evidence which was given by her in the court was false since she was pressurized by certain persons whose names have been mentioned in the application and the affidavit which she has filed.He submitted that, therefore, testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon under any circumstances, apart from other discrepancies in her statement including omissions and the improvements which are made by her and the material contradictions which have been brought on record.He further submitted that all these witnesses had given evasive 76/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 ::: 77 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 answers and either not answered to the pointed questions which were asked to them or had given certain excuses for the purpose of justifying their improvements made by them in evidence given by them before the Court.He submitted that therefore there was a method in their madness and this clearly suggested that they were tutored.He submitted that all these witnesses, essentially, were rustic witnesses since they were illiterate, ignorant and in spite of that when, at the relevant time, on a question being asked, they had evaded the answers.He submitted that threefold strategy was adopted by them and after the first witness P.W.26 was examined, subsequent witnesses thereafter had given other answers.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::He submitted that, therefore, since the leave was given by the Apex Court, it was open for Kanani or Baria to record the statements of eye witnesses who were examined in the Sessions Court, Mumbai.Though this opportunity was there to the Investigating Officer, no steps were taken.He submitted that, therefore, observations made by the Apex Court in Baladin's 1 AIR 1956 SC 181 78/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 ::: 79 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 case would not apply to the facts of the present case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::Our attention is also invited to the testimony of Piyush Purshottamdas Patel (P.W.67) who was DCP of that area and who had come to the scene of offence.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that the said Officer had come their immediately after Rathod (P.W.63) and Baria (P.W.72).His statement was recorded on 24/3/2002 nearly after a lapse of 22 days.He submitted that in the cross-examination this witness had stated that he had on his own asked the Investigating Officer to record his statement.The Counsel for the appellant submitted that, in his statement, for the first time, P.W.73 had mentioned the names of the accused and it was alleged that these names were given to him by the three women who had rushed to meet him.He submitted that this was a very serious lacuna because, ordinarily, if names of the accused were made known to a Senior Officer who was in charge of the Zone, he would promptly direct that the persons whose names were mentioned should be immediately arrested.He submitted that no such directions were given either by Piyush Patel (P.W.67) or by Kanani (P.W.74) or by Baria (P.W.72).He submitted that these witnesses merely stated that they had started combing operation.He submitted that the fact of merely mentioning the names of accused by these witnesses in the statements which were allegedly recorded, could not 79/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 ::: 80 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 be used as corroborative evidence.He further submitted that names of the three women who had allegedly given the names to this witness (P.W.73) also have not been mentioned by him or by any other Police Officer viz Baria (P.W.72) or Kanani (P.W.74).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::Our attention was also invited to the evidence given by Dr Dilip Choksi (P.W.62) and Dr Meena Robin (P.W.46) in which it has been stated that some of these witnesses regained consciousness in a couple of days and that Raees Khan (P.W.27) was the only person who was conscious when he was admitted in the hospital.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants then submitted that it was not possible for the witnesses to recognize any one in the mob which attacked the Best Bakery at night.He submitted that it is inconceivable that when a mob of 1000 to 1200 people was throwing stones and soda water bottles and burning missiles of bottles filled with kerosene, any witness would come forward and dare to look down at the crowd and that naturally an attempt would be made to go to safe place and farthest corner of the terrace from which place it was not possible to see or identify any person in the crowd.He submitted that theory of the witnesses being sitting on the cot is made up as an afterthought only in order to give credence to their story that they had seen some of the accused at the time when the mob attacked the Best Bakery.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 He then submitted that apart from all the inherent inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses, these witnesses have identified the accused for the first time before the Court without naming the accused and without giving their description.Their further statements were not recorded by police.There was no identification parade and even names of the accused were not given to the Officers and, therefore, testimony of these witnesses had to be discarded.So far as the video tape which was taken by Gautam Chavan (P.W.69) is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the CD which was taken from that tape was only of about 13 minutes.He submitted that it could be seen that certain clips were taken from the entire video.He submitted that this was deliberately done in order to remove the clips which were inconvenient for the prosecution.He, therefore, submitted that this CD was doctored.He, therefore, submitted that this clearly indicated that the prosecution already was in possession of this CD and on the 81/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 ::: 82 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 basis of this CD various questions were asked to Zahirabibi (P.W.41) in her cross-examination.He submitted that Zahirabibi's cross-examination was over on 31/1/2005 and in this cross-examination all the questions which were asked could be seen from the CD including inconsequential things such as grandmother of Nafitulla, wife of Habibulla, mother of Nafitulla being brought down along with a goat.He submitted that this was a clear indication that these facts were already known to the prosecution and that they had already seen the CD.He submitted that application for bringing on record this tape was filed belatedly on 29th/30th March, 2005 on account of the statement made by Yasmin (P.W.29) in her evidence that all the facts stated by her could be seen from the video which was taken by the photographer.He submitted when the presence of Yasmin (P.W.29) was questioned by the defence in their cross-examination on account of various circumstances, in order to protect their star witness Yasmin (P.W.29), an attempt was made to bring this video tape on record but this was done only after removal of the portion which could be helpful to the defence.He submitted that, therefore, this CD was doctored.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::So far as the other photographer Pankaj Sharma (P.W.73) is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that no reliance could be placed on the said CD since the said CD apparently was 82/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 ::: 83 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 doctored and the Trial Court had erred in not following the procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code which was required to be followed for examination of the said witness.He submitted that the Court had not asked the prosecution to investigate regarding the CD which was produced by this witness and no expert witness had been examined to prove that the CD which was produced by him was genuine.He submitted that, therefore, evidence of this witness has to be discarded in its entirety.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/accused also placed reliance on the evidence of defence witnesses Particularly D.W.1 - Kumar Swami, D.W.4 - Khyati Pandya and D.W.5 - Ajay Patel.No reliance was placed on the evidence of D.W.3 - Ramjibhai Pargi.He submitted that, however, though this was the only reason why this witness was examined and the defence was constrained to examine him because the prosecution has not 83/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 ::: 84 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 either admitted the said statements or rejected them.He submitted that, however, this witness was cross-examined at length by the prosecution and the Court had asked various questions running into about 23 pages.He submitted that so far as D.W.4 and D.W.5 are concerned, they have brought on record the CD which was duly proved which clearly establish that, Yasmin (P.W.29), after she had returned home, had in terms stated that the persons who were in the mohalla were not responsible for the carnage.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::ig He submitted that in the cross-examination of Yasmin she had admitted most of these facts.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in support of his submissions has relied upon various judgments.He has also tendered written submissions.His detailed submissions would be taken into consideration when evidence of the said five eye witnesses and other witnesses is taken into consideration.Mrs Manjula Rao, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the prosecution firstly submitted that contention of the defence that motive behind the burning of the Best Bakery was an affair between Nafitulla (P.W.31) and Kailas @ Heena is not correct.She invited our attention to the evidence of Kanani (P.W.74), the Investigating Officer.She submitted that his evidence regarding origin of the riots 84/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 ::: 85 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 which had erupted in Gujarat and in Vadodara after Godhra carnage was unchallenged.She submitted that Prakash Pathak (P.W.64) ASI, Special Branch had issued Notifications which are at Exhibits-253, 254 and 255 immediately after Godhra incident.She submitted that evidence of P.W.64 that preventive measures were taken on account of the said riots which were erupted after Godhra incident was not challenged.She submitted that number of witnesses had, in terms, mentioned about the Godhra incident and also given motive for the riot which had erupted at Best Bakery.She submitted that 58 cases of ghastly riots were registered at Panigate Police Station and a curfew was imposed.She further submitted that 80 messages were received by the Control Room regarding damage caused to the properties of muslims by Hindu mob.She submitted that, therefore, submission made by Mr. Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defence that incident which had taken place in the Best Bakery was not account of retaliation after Godhra incident but was on account of marriage of Nafitulla (P.W.31) with Kailas @ Heena is not correct.The learned Special Public Prosecutor urged that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable 85/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 ::: 86 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 doubt against the appellants and no appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court was filed since the prosecution felt that there was no reliable evidence against those accused who were acquitted.She submitted that the prosecution had already acted in fair and impartial manner and had not acted in a vindictive manner and this fact was evident because no appeal against acquittal was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.She submitted that the prosecution would establish the case against the appellants/accused not only from the evidence of four injured witnesses and P.W. 29 (Yasmin) but also by relying on the testimony of hostile witnesses in respect of those statements and admissions which were given by the hostile witnesses which had an effect of corroborating evidence of five eye witnesses which were examined for the first time in the Court.She submitted that cogent reasons were given by the Trial court for the purpose of relying on those statements and also by relying on section 6 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of accepting the testimony of the witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::Reliance has been placed in support of the said submission on the following judgments:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:26 :::She submitted that there were 22 cases recorded at Panigate Police Station and there was insufficient police force available at the Panigate Police Station and, therefore, it was not possible for the Investigating Officer to investigate the 1 1975 CRI.L.J. 290 2 AIR 1997 SC 1654 3 AIR 1998 SC 1251(1) 4 (2011) 3 SCC 654 88/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 ::: 89 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 case as is done in the normal criminal case.Secondly, she submitted that the Court had to take into consideration physical and mental condition of these witnesses who were in a state of shock not only because of the incident but also on account of injuries which were inflicted by the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::She submitted that though doctors had opined that Raees Khan (P.W.27) was conscious when he was admitted in the hospital that would not mean that he was fully fit and conscious to remember minute details about the incident.She submitted that Raees Khan (P.W.27) was, in fact, discharged on 16/3/2002 which clearly indicated that his condition was very serious and if the witness was really fit he would have been immediately discharged.She submitted that, therefore, though doctors have opined that some of these witnesses have regained consciousness or that Raees Khan (P.W.27) was conscious when he was admitted in the hospital, the said consciousness had to be understood in the context of the condition in which they were admitted.She further submitted that Baria (P.W.72) also had other important things to do apart from recording statements of the witnesses since there were several other incidents which had taken place.She submitted that Baria (P.W.72) had from time to time made inquiries with the doctors and some of the witnesses were unconscious for number of days.She submitted that, therefore, merely because the names of the accused and their description and description of the weapons 89/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 ::: 90 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 is not mentioned in the police statements, their testimony in the Court could not be discarded on that ground alone.She submitted that the Apex Court in several cases has observed that identification of the accused by witnesses in the Court is a substantive piece of evidence and merely because the test identification parade is not held, on that ground their substantive evidence of identification of the accused in the Court cannot be discarded.Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dana Yadav vs State of Bihar 1 and on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in Prem alias Santosh S/o Jivandas Satija vs. The State of Maharashtra2::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::1 AIR 2002 SC 3325 2 1993(2) Bom.C.R. 252 90/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 ::: 91 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::The learned Public Prosecutor then submitted that D.W.1 - Kumar Swami was cross-examined at length because he had been examined by the defence to give sanctity to the video cassette which was prepared by D.W. 4 - khyati Pandya and D.W. 5 - Ajay Patel.She submitted that, therefore, in this context the learned Trial Court had deemed it necessary to put questions to the witness under section 165 of the Evidence Act. Further detailed submissions of the learned Special Public Prosecutor would be considered and referred to when the evidence of these witnesses are taken into consideration.Before taking into consideration the rival submissions made by both the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defence and the prosecution, in our view, it would be relevant to first deal with the applications which have been filed by P.W. 29 - Yasmin Shaikh (name of this witness is shown in the applications as Yasmeen Banu Ismail Sheikh) and Mrs. Teesta Setalvad.SUBMISIONS ON THE APPLICATION NOS 571/11, 572/11 AND 573/11 FILED BY YASMIN SHAIKH.60 P.W. 29 - Yasmin Shaikh has filed three applications; one application each in three appeals which have been filed 91/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 ::: 92 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 before us and in the said applications she has filed her affidavit, copy of which has been sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and in these applications she has prayed that there should be re-trial in view of the averments made in the applications under section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code.In the applications she has made various allegations against Smt. Teesta Setalvad and has stated that she was compelled to give evidence.In the said applications, affidavit of one Raees Khan is also annexed in which the said Raees Khan also made allegations against Mrs. Teesta Setalvad, alleging that, at her instance, an amount of Rs 50,000/- each was deposited in the Bank Account of four eye witnesses who were examined in the Trial Court, Mumbai and that all these eye witnesses were tutored.Certain reference also has been made to the learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Majula Rao, alleging that she had also tutored the witnesses.Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, the learned Senior Counsel who is appearing on behalf of Yasmin, at the outset, submitted that he did not wish to press the allegations which were made in the applications against Mrs. Manjula Rao and further he submitted that, in any case, if the applications are perused, there is no direct allegation made as such against the learned Special Public Prosecutor.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 REASONS FOR DISMISSING APPLICATION NOS.571/11, 572/11 AND 573/11 FILED BY YASMIN SHAIKH.These appeals have been pending in this Court almost for a period of six years and only when the matter was fixed for final hearing, at that time, these applications have been filed.The Apex Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another vs. State of Gujarat and others 1 has taken into consideration the provisions of section 311 and section 391 1 AIR 2004 SC 3114 93/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 ::: 94 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 of the Criminal Procedure Code and has also taken into consideration the settled position in law in respect of the said provisions and has observed that the Court cannot act as a silent spectator if certain facts are brought before the court which would show that the trial is not conducted in a fair and impartial manner.It has to be remembered that the said observations were made on account of an affidavit and appeal being filed by Zahira Sheikh who has been examined as P.W.41 in this case who stated on oath before the Apex Court that she had given evidence in the Trial Court in Gujarat under coercion.Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Mumbai Criminal Court and the Trial was conducted in Mumbai and now these applications have been filed after a lapse of six years.There cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court from time to time in respect of the scope of power of the appellate court while deciding the applications which are filed under section 311 and 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code.However, the Court also cannot loose sight of the fact that if such type of applications are allowed then there would not be any finality to any proceedings and various parties at various stages, either in civil or criminal proceedings, would then take a 'U' turn and try to resile from the evidence which 94/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 ::: 95 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 is given by them on oath.The most disturbing feature of these applications is that the witness had deposed against the accused in the Trial Court.The witness was very well aware that Zahira who is her sister-in-law was convicted by the Supreme Court for committing the contempt of the Supreme Court because she had resiled from the statement which was given by her on oath.She was also aware that Zahira and others were convicted for perjury by the Trial Court and in spite of knowing these facts, she has filed these applications along with affidavit obviously with an intention of again changing her evidence which she had given on oath.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::It cannot be forgotten that, in this case, the victims particularly members of Habibulla family, not only lost their near and dear relatives in the riot and in the carnage that took place after Godhra incident, but later on, their property and their business and they could not stay in the premises for a very long period of time and even thereafter, Yasmin, after she returned back to stay there, is now being faced with various difficulties including we are told applications being filed by various persons including second wife of Nafitulla claiming right over the said property.This Court, therefore, is not expected to venture into this area of finding out the circumstances under which these applications have been filed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::We do not, therefore, think it right, proper and just to order any further inquiry much less to order re-trial or re-examination of this witness Yasmin.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::She has stated that she may be permitted to intervene in the hearing of the trial particularly in view of the applications which have been filed by P.W. 29 Yasmin.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::SUBMISIONS ON THE APPLICATION NOS 198/12, 199/12 AND 200/12 FILED BY MRS TEESTA SETALVAD.Mr. Mihir Desai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant - Mrs. Teesta Setalvad submitted that if the allegations made against the applicant - Mrs. Teesta Setalvad are taken into consideration, an opportunity will have to be given to the applicant to respond to the allegations made against her in the said applications.Similarly, an independent right has been given to a victim to file an 101/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 ::: 102 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 independent appeal directly against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court under three categories of cases.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::However, it has to be noted that during trial stage, even the victim is not given a right to interfere in the trial.Shri Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused fairly contended that the defence has not disputed the unfortunate and ghastly incident which had taken place on the said day and, as such, in our view, it has been established by the prosecution by examining various witnesses that after the incident of burning of kar sevaks who were travelling in one of the coaches of Sabarmati Express on 27/2/2002 there was spread of riots throughout the Gujarat State and throughout the City of Vadodara and on 1/3/2002 in the evening at about 8 P.M. to 8.30 P.M a unruled mob of 1000 to 1200 people rushed towards the Best Bakery armed with torches (mashals) and lethal weapons such as swords, guptis, iron rods, sticks and set on fire the warehouse of one Lal Mohammad and vakhar which were near the Best Bakery and Best Bakery itself and also residential house of the members of the Habibulla family.It is not seriously disputed that in all 14 people viz (1) Jainabibi Hasanbhai, (2) Shabnambibi @ Rukhsana Aslam, (3) Sabira Habibulla, (4) Cipli @ Saili Aslam Shaikh, (5) Babli Aslam 104/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 ::: 105 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Shaikh, (6) Mantasha Firoz Aslam Shaikh, (7) Subhan Firoz Aslam Shaikh, (8) Baliram Shamlal Verma, (9) Prakash Ugroo Dhobi, (10) Raju @ Ramesh Baijnath, (11) Kausarali Shaikh, (12) Arshad @ Lulla Hasanbhai Shaikh, (13) Firoz Pathan and (14) Nasroo Hasan Khan Pathan, died in the said incident.It is not in dispute that three women viz. Jainabibi Hasanbhai, Shabnambibi @ Rukhsana Aslam, Sabira Habibulla, and four children viz Cipli @ Saili Aslam Shaikh, Babli Aslam Shaikh, Mantasha Firoz Aslam Shaikh, ig Subhan Firoz Aslam Shaikh, died on the first floor of the residential house of the family members of late Habibulla.Out of these 7, a wife and two children of Aslam Khan were there and wife of Firoze and his two children and Sister of Zahirabibi viz Sabira also died.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:27 :::On the next day, all the people who were on the terrace and survived the attack by the mob who were throwing stones and other missiles were asked to come down after the assurance was given to them that they would be let off after little beating was given to them and thereafter women members were taken towards the bushes and the hands and legs of the men were tied and they were assaulted with sword and sticks on their heads and an attempt was made to set them on fire.The bodies of Firoz Pathan and Nasroo Hasan Khan Pathan were also found on the backside of the Best Bakery.They were found in the burnt condition.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::Amongst the people who were brought down, Prakash Ugroo Dhobi, Baliram Shamlal Verma and Raju @ Ramesh Baijnath were dead and Baliram died before he was admitted in the hospital.i) First to second degree burns on right upper limb, left arm and on back,ii) C.L.W. (Contused Lacerated Wound) on right 106/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 ::: 107 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 pariato occipital region, size 10cm X 2cm X scalp deep,::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::iii) 2 C.L.W.s on occipital region - out of these, one was 5cm X 0.5cm X 0.5 cm and the other was 2 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm, She has stated that the patient was admitted in the hospital and X-Rays were taken.Antero Posterior and lateral view of left elbow and skull was taken.ig She has stated that there was no evidence of any fracture and the diagnosis was of head injury with first and second degree flame burns.She has stated that the patient was discharged on 16/03/2002 at 11.30 a.m. She has stated that the injuries were simple if there were no complications.P.W. 46 - Dr Meena then stated that she examined Sailun Hasan Khan Pathan (P.W.32) and she has stated that the patient was found to be unconscious and she noted the following injuries on his person:-i) Incise Wound (I.W.) on left parietal region, size was 10 cm X 2 cm X scalp deep,ii) 2 C.L.W. On left parietal - the first of 2 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm and the second of 1cm X 0.5cm X 0.5 cm,iii) C.L.W. On the left ear, size was 1 cm X 107/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 ::: 108 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 0.5cm X 0.5 cm.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::She has stated that the diagnosis was of head injury with small haemorrhagic contusion in left temporal region with sub-arachnoid haemorrhage.P.W. 46 - Dr Meena has then stated that she examined Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan (P.W.28), aged 25 years and noted the following injuries on his person:-i) I.W. on left fronto pariental, size 10cm X 2cm X 1cm,ii) I.W on left post auricular region, size 5 cm X 1 cm X 0.5 cm,iii) I.W on behind injury at sr.no. ii) above, size 2 cm X 1 cm X 0.5 cm,iv) I.W behind injury at sr.no. iii) above, size 2 cm X 0.5cm X 0.5cm,v) 2 C.L.W.s on right temporal occipital region, size 2 cm X 1cm X 0.5 cm,vi) C.L.W on chin, size 2 cm X 0.5cm X 0.5 cm.She has stated that the diagnosis was head injury and C.T. Scan of left side head, multiple linear fracture on the left side 108/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 ::: 109 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 of skull.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::P.W.46 - Dr. Meena then stated that she examined Nasibulla Habibulla Shaikh (P.W.30), aged about 25 years and she has stated that the patient was found to be unconscious.He has a head injury and 3 I.W.s on left occipital parietal region which were as follows:-i) Size - 15cm X 2 cm X scalp deep,ii) Size - 10cm X 2 cm X scalp deep,iii) Size - 8cm X 2 cm X scalp deep She has further stated that the patient had burn injuries on both lower limbs.She has further stated that the patient was unconscious till 3.00 P.M. The diagnosis was head injury with depressed occipital fracture with 6 to 8 percent second to third degree flame burns on both lower legs.P.W. 46 - Dr. Meena then examined Taufel Ahmed (P.W.26).She has stated that in the EPR, the history was of 'assault by unknown object by public at 10.00 a.m at bakery' and he was found unconscious.She has stated that the following injuries were found on his person:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012i) I.W. on left occipital region, size 10cm X 2 cm X 0.5cm,ii) I.W on parietal occipital region - ie the back of the head -, size 15cm X 2 cm X 0.5cm,iii) Burns on both lower limbs.She has stated that the patient became conscious at 1.00 P.M. She has stated that X-Rays were taken of cervical spine but no abnormality was detected.She has also stated that C.T. Scan was taken.P.W. 46 - Dr. Meena also examined Nafitulla (P.W.31).The EPR history was given as 'assault by unknown weapon (very sharp cutting) by unknown persons at 10.00 a.m at Daboi Road Bakery.' She has stated that on examination the patient was found unconscious and following injuries were noted on his person:-i) I.W. from left side occipital to the mandibular region, size 15cm X 2cm X 1cm,ii) I.W. on occipital region, size 4cm X 2cm X 0.5cm,iii) I.W. on right leg, size 3cm X 1 cm X 0.5cm.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 She has stated that the patient was discharged on 08/03/2002 at 5.00 P.M. She has stated that injuries were found to be simple and the patient was conscious at 1.00 P.M. on the same day.From the evidence of Dr Meena (P.W.46), therefore, the prosecution has established that these witnesses P.W.26, P.W.28, P.W.32, P.W.30 and P.W. 31 had suffered grievous injuries as a result of assault with lethal weapons.The prosecution has examined residents of the Best Bakery who were close relatives of late Habibulla.All these witnesses, however, turned hostile viz. P.W. 30 Nasibulla, P.W. 31 - Nafitulla, P.W. 35 - Saherabanu and P.W. 41 -Zahirabibi Shaikh.It has been submitted by Mrs. Manjula Rao, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the prosecution that though these witnesses have turned hostile, admissions given by them in the cross- examination and in examination-in-chief would still be relevant and can be relied upon by the Court.All these five witnesses have been extensively cross-examined by the prosecution and all the omissions and contradictions have been brought on record after they were proved.Mrs. Manjula Rao, the learned Special Public Prosecutor 111/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 ::: 112 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 submitted that the following statements of P.W. 30 - Nasibulla, P.W. 31 - Nafitulla and P.W. 40 - Saherunnisa would be relevant and could be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of injured eye witnesses.In respect of P.W. 30 - Nasibulla who was declared as hostile witness, she has given a written note in respect of the admissions given by him and the said written note reads as under:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::PW-30-Nasibulla -Admissions of Hostile witness (Page Nos.1887-1888 and 1852-1858) a. It is correct that out of the said two accounts, in the one which is in my individual name, during the period from 11/11/2003 to 20/02/2004, amounts of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only), Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only), Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), by cash have been deposited from time to time.b. I have not deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::c. I do not remember whether as on today, in both these accounts together, there is credit balance of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lac eighty thousand only).It is correct that during the period when the amount have ig been credited in these bank accounts, I was earning Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) a week.My total income per month during the relevant period was Rs.4500/- and this amount of Rs.500/- referred to by me, used to be given to me by my Seth 'Rajubhai' on every Sunday.It is not correct to say that the amount credited in the said account was received by us for giving false evidence.When the riots were going on , Sabira was in the room on the first floor.Aslam's wife and his children had also gone into the same room.I do not know whether 113/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 ::: 114 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 anybody else was also there in that room at that time.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:28 :::Ques:- Where is Sabira?Ans.- She is no more.She died in the riots.Ques.- Do you know how she died?Ans.- How can I know? I was on the terrace.She was in the room below.We went to the terrace because the rioters were coming in a big number.The entire area surrounding our house was filled with rioters.The rioters first set fire to Lalmohammed's 'wakhar'.Then they went to Aslam's room and set fire to that room also.Then they came to our house and set fire to the wood that was kept below.Then rioters started throwing stones.The stones were coming to the terrace of our building.[witness volunteers, "we pulled the mattresses which were there, over heads, so that the stones would not hit us'].The mattresses had been kept there, as our servants used to sleep on the terrace.I do not know who others were injured in the incident.[Witness volunteers, 'I had pulled 'rajai' over my body.It was dark and there was smoke'].Burning glass bottle were being thrown towards the terrace.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012I know one Thakkar who stays in our locality and who was my father's friend I knew father of Thakkar.The riots took place because of the incident of train 115/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 ::: 116 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 burning at Godhra.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::It was burnt by a mob of thousands of people.It was burnt at 9.00 p.m. when the rioters were burning the bakery, we were hiding ourselves on the terrace.By 'we', I mean Raees, Taufel, Prakash, Baliram.Rajesh, Shehzad, Sailum and members of my family - i. e. my mother, my 2 sisters and my brother.Ques.- How did you sustain injuries?3. Ans.- Because ["kyon ki"] we were hiding ourselves and from below, stone etc., were being thrown.I went to madar mohalla, in Vadodara.I married Heena @ Kailas, one year after the riots.We married at my native place.I was not residing with Heena @ Kailas, at any time, prior to my marriage with her.Heena used to reside in Ganeshnagar.I came to know her after the riots, and not before that.Our family got the compensation from the government, for the loss caused to us on 116/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 ::: 117 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 account of the riots.I do not know whether we also received any compensation from our community ['jamat'].::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::This injury must have suffered by me on account of the bottles which were being thrown on the terrace, from below.This injury was caused to me after I had lost consciousness.It did happen that the mob was coming from Ganeshnagar Zopadpatti but the mob was coming not only from that direction and was coming from other direction also.The mob was coming from all the 4 direction.I cannot say whether the mob consisted of Hindu persons.The mob was shouting, "Jalao, Jalao".I do not know whether the persons in the mob were shouting "Maaro Maaro".In this case the F.I.R. Was lodged by Zahira.I learnt about Zaheera having filed the F.I.R. after about 1 to 1.1/2 months, from the day on which she had lodged it.I had seen the accused person in this case, when I had gone to the Court in Vadodara, for giving evidence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012I had no quarrel or dispute with any of the persons residing in the neighbourhood of our house adjacent to the Best Bakery, at any time.Even after my marriage with Kailas, there was no dispute or quarrel between me and any of the persons residing in the neighbourhood, in connection with my marriage with Kailas.Ques.- Tell the Court, what you saw and what you heard when the C.D. was played over to you now?Ans.- I saw that I was saying what was tutored to me.I am seen saying about Jayanti Chaiwala, Sanhay, Santosh, Mafatia, Shana, Painter, etc. I was told to speak a danger story, That's all."So far as P.W. 40 - Saherunnisa is concerned, she has relied upon her following statements in her evidence as given in the note submitted by her and which are as under:-"III.PW-40 Saherunnisa Habibulla Shaikh (Pg. 2632, 2693 to 2695) a. It was morning time.It was about 11.00 a.m. 118/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 ::: 119 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 throughout the night, I was on the terrace only.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::b. "He was saying regarding the change of our statement ("zaban palte na, uske bare mein bol raha tha").I told that I had no strength for fighting ("mere me ladne ki taaqat nahin hai, mere koi aage peeche nahin hai, ig mereko case mein matlab nahin hai"), but he said that I would have to fight.He said that I would have to fight for the community".Ques.- You said, 'humne zabaani palte' whom do you mean by 'humne'?Ans.- My family.Ques.- What do you mean by your family?Ans.- I, Nafitulla, Zaheera, Sahera and Nasibulla.it is correct that I am talking about 'changing the testimony' (Zabaani palte).I am talking about 'changing the testimony' in the Court at Vadodara.Question by the court:- That means you have 119/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 ::: 120 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 changed your testimony in the Vadodara Court ("Matalab Vadodra court mein aapne apni zabaani palti thi?") Ans.- What else could be done? "Mere aage peechhe koi nahin tha.Mera aadmi nahin tha, ladki nahin thi, Jab kamaanewala nahim tha, to kya case karen, kis par case karen."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::Ques.- since there was nobody to back you up ['tumhare aage koi nahin tha, peechhe koi nahin tha"], you changed your testimony out of fear?Ans.- No, not out of fear.I did not want to fight the case at all.[Witness volunteers, "Judgesahab, jab wahin rehena tha to dushmani kya leni kisi se?"] Ques.- With whom you did not want enmity?Ans.- I did not want enmity with anyone; neither with 'Gujaratwalas' nor with 'mumbaiwalas'.After our bakery and the house was burnt; I had been there only once.It was recently - i.e. about 10 to 120/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 ::: 121 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 15 days back.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::Ques.- Can you explain what was the reason for not going to your house at Hanuman Tekdi prior to that?Ans.- we were running here and there out of fear.I was afraid of everybody.I was afraid of myself also.I was afraid that somebody would be after me."So far as P.W. 41 - Zahirabibi is concerned, she again turned hostile and apart from bringing on record the contradictions with reference to her previous statements, the witness was asked certain other questions.This witness in her cross-examination has stated that she was forced by one Raees Khan at the instance of Mrs Teesta Setalvad to implicate the accused.She has also stated that she was practically kept under house arrest and she was not allowed to go away.She has stated that some people of Mrs Teesta Setalvad had threatened her with revolver and was told that she would be shot dead if she did not state before the Court what they wanted her to say in the evidence.She stated that under these circumstances, she came back to Vadodara and took the help of one Organization viz Janadhikar Samiti who gave her protection and she, therefore, gave a press conference.She has denied all suggestions which were put to her by the learned Public Prosecutor.P.W. 35 - Saherabanu has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case 121/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 ::: 122 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 in any manner.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused submitted that evidence of all these witnesses had to be discarded.Before taking into consideration the rival submissions in respect of these hostile witnesses, it will be necessary to briefly take into consideration the settled legal position.The law on the point, is quite well settled.If the prosecution witness turns hostile and if permission is taken by the prosecution for cross-examining the witness after declaring him as hostile and omissions and contradictions with reference to his previous statements are brought on record, the testimony of the witness has to be discarded because he is proved to be uncreditworthy since he has resiled from the previous statements.It has, 122/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 ::: 123 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 however, been held that in the event in cross-examination, the witness sticks to his earlier version then, to that extent, the Court can rely on that part of his testimony and also on the admission which has come in the cross-examination wherein he reiterates what he has stated in his previous statement.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::P.W. 40 - Saherunnisa has admitted that certain amounts were received.This particular admission also does not establish that the amount was paid at the instance of the accused and the circumstances and the reasons why the witnesses turned hostile is totally irrelevant for the purpose of determining the identity of the accused who had alleged to have committed heinous offence.Similarly, P.W. 41 - Zahirabibi has been cross-examined at length.In fact, her cross-examination runs into almost 540 pages.In the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 examination, the witness has been grilled regarding the role played by Janadhikar Samiti.It has been urged that this clearly established that this Organization was responsible for persuading the witnesses to turn hostile.It is not possible to accept the said submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the prosecution.The evidence of Zahirabibi (P.W. 41) will have to be discarded in its entirety.Firstly, her conduct does not inspire any confidence.It is a matter of record that Zahirabibi turned hostile in the trial before the Gujarat Trial Court.She filed an appeal and application in the Apex Court and in the affidavit which was filed in the said application, she had stated that she was threatened and coerced to turn hostile and several other allegations were made by her against the Trial Court as also Gujarat High Court and, therefore, relying on her sole affidavit, the Apex Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court and also of Gujarat High Court and had passed strictures both against Gujarat Trial Court and Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court was constrained to make these observations since it relied on the statement of Zahirabibi Shaikh (P.W.41).The application and the appeal filed by Zahirabibi Shaikh was allowed only on account of the sole affidavit filed by her and the Supreme Court was, therefore, on the basis of the said affidavit came to the conclusion that 124/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 ::: 125 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 the prosecution had failed to provide protection to her and also blamed the Trial Court, Gujarat and Gujarat High Court for not ordering re-trial when revision application was filed by Saherabanu (P.W.35) and affidavit was also filed by her.The Supreme Court, relying on the affidavit of Zahirabibi felt that under these circumstances application filed by the State praying for re-examination of witnesses under section 311 and 389 of the Cr.P.C ought to have been taken into consideration and should have been allowed instead of not considering those affidavits and dismissing those applications.The very same Zahirabibi, however, again turned hostile when the matter was transferred to the Sessions Court, Mumbai and had shown audacity of giving a press conference in Vadodara during pendency of trial before the Trial Court, Mumbai.On account of the false affidavit which was filed by her in the Supreme Court she was convicted by the Supreme Court and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs 50,000/- was also imposed upon her and it was further observed that in default of payment of fine within two months, she would undergo simple imprisonment for one more year.The Trial Court also took a serious view of the witness turning hostile and convicted her for the offence of perjury.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:29 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012Before we consider the testimony of the injured witnesses, in our view, there are certain other aspects which need to be looked into.He has further stated that interviews were telecast on March 19 and 20, 2005 and he has stated that he wanted to produce the original cassette of the interviews along with video CD of the programme "Zahira Ki Sacchai".The Trial Court has 127/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 ::: 128 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 recorded the said fact in the roznama dated 11/5/2005 and observed that the application should be exhibited as Exhibit-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 :::386 and copy of the application be furnished to the Special Public Prosecutor and copy of the cassette was also directed to be given to the Special Public Prosecutor.Trial Court further stated that she should view the cassette and then decide whether the person should be examined as witness and whether the cassette should be taken on record.The learned Special Public Prosecutor, thereafter, informed the Court that the witness was a material witness and the Prosecution would like to get the said witness examined.The order was passed on the next day i.e. on 12/5/2005 and the Court observed that no prejudice was likely to be caused to the accused by his examination since opportunity would be given to cross-examine the witness.The Court, therefore, in para 12 of its order observed as under:-Under these circumstances, instead of examining the applicant as court witness and as the prosecution wants that he should be examined, applicant is allowed to be examined as prosecution witness."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 :::When a query was made by this Court to the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Adhik Shirodkar appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused as to whether they had taken any objection for examination of this witness, he submitted that they had taken a formal objection.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012P.W. 73 - Pankaj Shankar Sharma has stated that he is a journalist by profession and he was working with Doordarshan News as Assignment Consultant and he was working since last 4 months and prior to that he was working as a Freelance Journalist and he used to prepare documentaries for private T.C. Channels.The said interviews were taken in the Vadodara City.He has stated that all the four persons viz Zahira Shaikh, her mother and her two brothers were ready to talk and willingly spoke to him and he asked them as to how the incident had taken place.He has stated that from 18/4/2002 till 11/5/2005 the cassette was in 133/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 ::: 134 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 his possession.He has further stated that other cassettes concerning Gujarat riots have a total footage of about 60 hours and this cassette was only one of the several cassettes.He has further stated that the cassette was telecast by Doordarshan and that he was not in a position to give the date on which it was telecast by Doordarshan since, for that purpose, he would have to refer to the paper which was in his possession.After referring to the date, he has stated that the cassette was telecast on 30/03/2005 at 10.00 a.m. and again it was re-telecast on 02/04/2005 at 9.30 a.m. He has further stated that whenever a programme is to be edited, the whole footage has to be dumped in the 'Edit Suite'.The C.D. which was tendered by him was marked as Exhibit 389/A.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 :::We have already observed that the Trial Court should have been more circumspect and cautious before directing the prosecution to examine the witness as prosecution witness, particularly when the prosecution itself was very reluctant to treat him as their own witness.The Trial Court, in fact, has clearly erred in permitting this witness who is obviously a person from media who has tried to use the court as a forum for the purpose of advocating his views which should not have been permitted by the Trial Court without first ascertaining the authenticity of the 135/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 ::: 136 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 cassette and without finding out the antecedents and intention of this person.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:30 :::9/7/2012 AT 11The learned Special Public Prosecutor had also relied on the statements of some of the neighbours in support of the prosecution case.She submitted that though some of these witnesses have turned hostile, testimony of these witnesses corroborate the testimony of the injured eye witnesses.She has relied on the statements of P.W. 43 - Jyotsnaben Bhatt, P.W. 44 - Kanchanbhai Mali, P.W. 45 - Veersingh Zala and also on the testimony of P.W. 36 - Lal Mohammed Khudabaksh Shaikh and P.W. 33 - Mohammad Shaikh.So far as P.W. 43 - Jyotsnaben Bhatt is concerned, she was declared hostile witness and she was permitted to be cross-examined by the Trial Court.In her examination-in-chief she has stated that communal riots had taken place near the Hanuman Tekdi and the mob had gone there and she had heard noise of the riots and, thereafter, she closed the doors and she heard various slogans.She has stated that her house is situated in front of Best Bakery.She has stated in her examination-in-chief that she learned about the things which have transpired at the Best Bakery.The witness was declared as hostile witness and even in cross- examination, the witness has not resiled from her earlier 136/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 137 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 testimony.She has admitted that from her residence she cannot see the Best Bakery.She has stated that her house is situated opposite the Best Bakery.She has stated that she had provided help to Yasmin by providing food and money for medical expenses.Testimony of this witness, therefore, does not assist the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::P.W. 44 - Kanchanbhai Punjabhai Mali has stated that he has been residing in the said locality since last 12 years and that one Jyotsnaben and one Pratap were his neighbours and the Best Bakery building was situated opposite his house at a distance of about 40 ft.He has given description about the Best Bakery and the persons who owned it and has also narrated the incident which took place on 1/3/2002 at 8.30 to 9.00 P.M. He has stated that a mob of 1000 to 1200 persons had assembled and it was moving slowly towards the Bakery and persons from the mob were shouting slogans and that these slogans could be heard.He has stated that hearing these slogans, he was frightened.He went inside the house alongwith the children.He has stated that some stones had been thrown on the tin of his roof also.He has stated that he heard that persons who were in the bakery building were throwing stones, soda-war bottles etc from the upstairs.He has stated that police came there and the members of the mob dispersed.He has further stated that after police van 137/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 138 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 went away, at about 12.00 midnight to 1.00 a.m., the mob again assembled there.He has stated that he did not personally see anything.He, however, came to know on the next day what had happened.At this stage, the witness was declared as hostile and cross-examined.In the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::Prosecution has examined P.W. 45 - Veersingh Chandrasingh Zala.He has stated that he is a Tempo Driver and he drives a 3 wheeler tempo since about last four years and he is residing in the said locality for about 40 years.He has, however, stated that he came home on the date of incident at about 11.00 P.M. and went to sleep and woke up in the morning at about 10.00 to 10.30 A.M. He has stated that he had asked one Bharatbhai to make a telephone call to police and that after some time after Bharatbhai had telephoned to police, police came and, thereafter, Fire Brigade and ambulance had also arrived at the scene.This witness was also declared as hostile witness after some time.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 The learned Special Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross- examine this witness.This witness also, therefore, does not help the prosecution for establishing the identity of the accused and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his testimony.P.W. 45 in his cross-examination has admitted that from his house, Best Bakery cannot be seen and that there is no terrace to his house as it has a tin sheet roof and that his house is not situated on the main road but in the lane which is inside from where Best Bakery cannot be seen.He has stated that even if one were to come on the main road, it would not be possible to see the Bakery.This witness, therefore, does not take the case of the prosecution any further so far as establishing the identity of the accused is concerned.The prosecution has also examined P.W. 36 - Lal Mohammad Khudabaksh Shaikh.He has stated that he is residing in Vadodara since last about 17 to 18 years at Hanuman Tekdi area.He has narrated the incident which had transpired after the incident of burning of the railway coach at Godhra.He has stated that his godwon was burnt and the bakery was also burnt.He has stated that he and his family members escaped from the rear door of their house at 12.30 midnight.He has further stated that he then went ahead when Munna and his mother took them to their house and they were there till 5.30 A.M. He has stated that he 139/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 140 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 along with his five sons and two daughters, two daughters-in- law, three grandchildren, his nephew, one Sohrab - partner of his son and one Habib - they all stayed in Munna's house till 5.30 A.M. He has stated that his son went and brought a car of Rahimtulla and brought all of them at Ekta Nagar and there they stayed with one Husseinbhai.He has further stated that in Shraddha Bakery which is situated in the neighbourhood and run by one Iqbalbhai, there were 25 Muslim persons in that night and Ashraf and Aslam - who had their house by the side of the Best Bakery - had come to Shraddha Bakery for meeting Iqbalbhai and were trapped and they also went along with him to Ektanagar.He has stated that on the next day it was learnt that his godown was burnt, Best Bakery was burnt and that several persons had died and were injured in the Best Bakery.He has stated that all the accused in the dock were from their locality and he has further admitted that Munna and his family protected all of them throughout the night and his mother had given milk to his grandchildren and that the rioters had not come towards Munna's house.He has stated that from the accused present before the Court, neither Jayanti, nor his son - Rinku 140/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 141 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::- nor his nephew Mafat nor Munna attacked him or the persons with him.Testimony of this witness, at the highest, mentions about the presence of Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar (accused No.15) at the scene of offence.No role has been attributed by him to Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar.Surprisingly, he has stated that Munna who is accused No.9 in this case who is now absconding, in fact, had helped him and his family members and other Muslim persons by protecting them in his house and his mother also ig had served his grandchildren and had given them food.This witness is not of any assistance to the prosecution for identifying all other accused, nor has he attributed any role to the accused in commission of the said offence.Since Munna was absconding during trial, effect of testimony of this witness so far as the role played by Munna, therefore, is of no consequence so far as these accused are concerned.P.W. 33 - Mohammed Ashraf Mohammed Haroon Shaikh has stated that at the time of riots, he was residing at Hanuman Tekdi, Vadodara and he has his own house besides Best Bakery.He has sated that his brothers Aslam, Arshad, his sister-in-law Shabnam, Sibli and and her sister Babli - Aslam's children, one Firoz, Firoz's wife and their two children, all were residing with him in the same house with him.He has given details of Habibulla family.He has mentioned the names of members of late Habibulla family 141/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 142 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 and workers who were working in the Best Bakery who were known to him.He has stated that he has left Vadodara because his own family was killed.He has stated that on the date of the incident, he had seen rioters with swords, rods etc and he realized that if he went to Best Bakery, he would be killed.He has stated that, therefore, he escaped from a lane and went to Sharda Bakery and telephoned the police and informed them about the incident.He has stated that he stayed in Sharda Bakery and at 10.00 a.m, he came out and noticed that rioters were going towards Ganeshnagar from Hanuman Tekdi and, thereafter, he and his brother went o Ektanagar by auto rickshaw when he learnt that the dead bodies of his bhabhi and the children and also the dead bodies of Firoz and Guddu's sister were brought there.He has stated that, thereafter, when the bodies reached Ektanagar, they performed the burial of these bodies and then he went to his native place.He has given the description of the seven dead bodies and further stated that, after the incident, he did not meet Kausar and Lulla.He has stated that their dead bodies were not found.He has stated that houses of Shana, Pratap, Haresh, Dinesh, Ravi and Lala were situated near his house and they were residing by the side of their Mohalla.He has, however, not given description or names of the members of the mob.He has further stated that, initially, no inquiry was 142/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 143 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 made by the police with him and his statement was not recorded.He has stated that, however, after the case in Vadodara was over, police from Panigate Police Station had recorded his statement.To the question asked by the Court as to how many statements were recorded by the police, he mentioned that only three statements were recorded.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused asked the Public Prosecutor to produce the three statements of the witness recorded by the police.However, the Special Public Prosecutor stated that only one statement was recorded.In his cross-examination, P.W. 33 has admitted that he has not mentioned to the Police that Sanju Thakkar and Dinesh Thakkar were at the Police Station.In our view, testimony of this witness (P.W.33) does not assist the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever, apart from stating that Sanju was not there but his elder brother Dinesh was there and he has not attributed any role whatsoever to them.In the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::examination, he has admitted that he has not mentioned to the Police that Dinesh was also present there.Since the defence has disputed the identity of the accused in respect of commission of the offence, it is not necessary to go through the evidence of Panch witnesses who have proved various panchanamas such as inquest panchanama, seizure panchanama, recovery panchanama and CA reports in respect of opinion given by the experts on 143/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 144 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 the bones and other relevant matters.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::The crucial aspect, therefore, is : whether the injured eye witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have proved beyond doubt the identity of the accused and whether the appellants/accused who have filed these appeals are the persons who have been identified by the eye witnesses or whether reliance can be placed on their testimony.Keeping in view the well settled position as laid down by various judgments of the Apex Court, it is necessary to examine the statements of the injured eye witnesses viz P.W. 26 - Taufel, P.W. 27 - Raees, P.W. 32 - Sailum so also the eye witness P.W. 29 - Yasmin who was not injured.P.W. 30 - Nasibulla and P.W. 31 - Nafitulla are also injured witnesses.However, both these witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore, in our view, their testimony is not relevant for the purpose of establishing the identity of the accused.The detailed reasons as to why evidence of these witnesses cannot be taken into consideration will be considered at a subsequent stage.Though P.W. 29 - Yasmin Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh, was not an injured witness, she was on the terrace 144/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 145 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 alongwith other witnesses and she has alleged that she had seen the incident, particularly the incident in the morning and she has identified number of assailants.In our view, so far as evidence of P.W. 29 is concerned, it will not be possible to rely on her testimony.Her testimony will be taken into consideration if necessary, after the evidence of the four injured eye witnesses is taken into consideration.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::P.W. 29 has filed applications in these appeals and she has annexed an affidavit wherein she has stated that she had given evidence in Trial Court, Mumbai under coercion and, she has stated that she may be permitted to give fresh evidence.We have indicated that the circumstance of this witness filing an affidavit which is contrary to the statements given by her on oath, will be considered as one of the circumstances after her evidence is taken into consideration later on.He has stated that 145/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 146 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 on the date of incident, after his dinner, he was sitting on a cot ('Charpaee') in front of the Bakery and Shehzad, Raees, Sairul, Baliram and Ramesh who were with him in the Best Bakery, were also sitting with him at that time.He has stated that one Kausarali was also with them so was one Prakash.He has narrated the incident and has stated that rioters came there holding mashals, swords and they were giving slogans.According to him, rioters were about 400 to::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::He has stated that he and others ig started going upstairs.However, Kausarali and Lulla remained behind and these two were assaulted by swords and they fell down.He has stated that he and others lifted them and they were taken to the first floor of the house.He then stated that rioters set the house of one Aslam on fire and, thereafter, they set on fire 3 vehicles belonging to the Bakery, 2 auto rickshaws and 1 motor-cycle.They have also set on fire the Wakhar which was in front of the Best Bakery, belonging to one Lal Mohammed.He has stated that house of their Seth was also set on fire.He has further stated that below the house, there was timber and the bakery was of tin sheets and the house of their Seth was situated by the side of the bakery and it was on pillars and it was ground plus one floor and the timber was below the pillars.He has stated that after keeping Kausarbhai on the first floor, they went to terrace and Shehzad, Raees, Sairul, Baliram and Prakash were also with them.He has stated that Zahira, her elder 146/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 147 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 sister Saira and her mother, one Raju and Nafitulla were also on the terrace.He has stated that the rioters had set fire to the ground floor and Kausar and Lulla were made to sleep in one room on the first floor.He has stated that three women and four children were also on the first floor.He has stated that they thereafter remained on the terrace throughout the night since fire had been set by the rioters on the ground floor.He has further stated that rioters had come at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. and they were throwing bottles filled with kerosene towards them on the terrace.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::P.W.26 - Taufel then stated that in the morning, rioters asked them to come down and they promised that they would allow him and others to go.He has then stated that there were about 500 to 600 rioters and he has further stated that the rioters tied two wooden ladders together so as to make the ladder reach upto the terrace and they got down from that ladder.He has stated that rioters tied their hands behind and also tied their legs 147/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 ::: 148 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 and they started assaulting them.He has stated that they started assaulting him and also Prakash, Shehzad, Sailum, Baliram and Raees and they also started assaulting Guddu @ Nafitulla and his brother Raju.He has stated that thereafter rioters put wooden sticks over their bodies, poured kerosene over that wood and set them on fire.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:31 :::He then stated that he would be in a position to identify the sword with which he was assaulted.He then identified the two swords.The Court, thereafter, asked the accused persons to stand in a row at random and not according to the serial numbers given to them.P.W. 26 - Taufel was then allowed to leave the witness box and to identify and point out if he 148/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 ::: 149 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 could, any of the accused persons as the assailant/assailants.P.W. 26 - Taufel pointed out 7 accused out of the 17 accused before the Court.He pointed out to original accused No.11 - Sanjay Ratilal Thakkar as a person who was seen by him in the morning.He has attributed role to him and he has stated that he was a person who had asked them to come down from the terrace and, thereafter, had tied hands and legs.P.W. 26 - Taufel then pointed out to original accused No. 21 - Ravi Rajaram Chauhan.He has stated that this person had also asked them to come down from the terrace.He then pointed out to original accused No. 15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar.He has stated that he was holding a sword and Mashal in his hands and he was giving slogans.Then he pointed out to original accused No.12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan and stated that he was running towards the bakery by holding Mashal and a sword in his hands.Then, he pointed out to original Accused No. 16 - Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria as a person who had asked them to get down from the terrace and was tying hands and legs of the persons and started assaulting.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::He then pointed out to accused No.19 - Kamlesh Bhikhabhai Tadvi whom he had seen near the Bakery when he was just standing.He then pointed out to accused No.20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava as a person who was seen running towards the Bakery holding mashal and sword.Then he stated that wooden sticks were put over their bodies and 149/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 ::: 150 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 kerosene was poured and they were set on fire and, thereafter, they were taken to the hospital after the police came and others were also admitted in the hospital along with him.He has stated that when police contacted him in the hospital, they made inquiries with him and he gave information to the police.He then gave the description of the bakery; number of rooms on each floor and he has given description of the people who died in the fire.He has then stated that after he was discharged from the hospital, he went to his native place in U.P. He came back within 10 to 15 days.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::It has to be noted that this witness (P.W.26 -Taufel) has not named any of the accused but only pointed out to them when they were made to stand in a row at random and not according to the serial numbers given to them in the charge-sheet and has attributed a role to the accused whom he has identified not by name but by pointing out.This witness (P.W. 26 - Taufel) has been extensively cross-examined and it has been brought on record that the witness has made number of improvements and contradictions in his statements.The defence also has established that theory of these witnesses sitting on a cot ('Charpaee') is an improvement which has been brought on record after the Investigating Officer was examined and it is established that these witnesses have tried to introduce a case that they were sitting on a cot ('Charpaee') when rioters approached them.The defence also has established that though the Investigating Officer had an ample opportunity to record the further statements of these witnesses, no explanation has been given by the prosecution or by the Investigating Officers Baria (P.W.72) and Kanani (P.W.74) as to why further statements were not recorded particularly in respect of identity of the accused or in respect of description of the accused since the witness had an ample opportunity to see the assailants and, as a natural conduct of the Investigating Officers, they should have recorded the names of the assailants or the appellants/accused, their description and also the description of the weapons used by them.Following omissions and contradictions have been brought on record by the defence in respect of this witness (P.W.26 - Taufel).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Taufel (P.W.26) Sr.Subject Om/Contr Exhibit No No. .1 Bakery's work -contd on 28th, closed Om in the evening.2 He & others - sitting upstairs & chit Contr 3573 Mob -1000 - 2000 Contr 35811 Zahira had already lodged Contr 359::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 19 Rioters - put wooden sticks over our Om bodies - poured kerosene over that wood and set us on fire 20 Description of the persons known to Om me.This witness (P.W.26 - Taufel) was extensively cross-examined as to how they had taken bodies of Kausarali and Lulla to the first floor and the witness has admitted that these two persons had sustained very serious injuries and they were already dead when he and others lifted them and took them in house and blood was coming out from their bodies and they were not bleeding profusely.He has stated that the blood coming out from their bodies had, naturally, come in contact with their clothes.This witness has stated in the cross-examination that his statement which was recorded by the Police was never read over to him by the police.He has also admitted that the swords which were identified by him were seen by him for the first time in Court.He has also stated that he had identified the said two swords on the basis of similarity in their appearance in view of the swords seen by him at the time of incident.He has further stated that he had seen three accused in the night and four in the morning.He has admitted that he could not describe 153/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 ::: 154 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 features of the accused persons without looking at them and also he could not state about their built, height etc without looking at them and also could not give their complexion without looking at them.He has further stated that he did not know whether the police at the time of recording his statement had asked him to state whatever had happened.Further, he has stated that he does not remember whether he had given description of the accused.He has further admitted that since he could not give description of those persons he must not have given their description to the police.After cross-examination of this witness was over, it was observed by the Trial Court that when Shri Shirodkar the learned Senior Advocate was concluding the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::When the Court asked question as to whether he wishes to say anything more, to which he answered in the negative.The learned Special Public Prosecutor then stated that in view of the statement made by the witness, the Court should question him as to who were those four persons.This was vehemently opposed by the learned Senior Counsel 154/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 ::: 155 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 appearing on behalf of the defence on various grounds.The Court, however, overruled the said objections and asked this witness (P.W.26 - Taufel) whether he knew the names of four of 7 accused since prior to the incident and could he state who they were and he gave names of four persons viz.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::ig The Court then permitted the defence to cross-examine the witness.When he was asked in the cross-examination whether he had given false statement to the Court, the witness admitted and stated that due to fear he had made that statement.He also agreed that he had spoken lie to that effect but it was due to fear.He also admitted in the cross-examination that he did not give names of four persons when his statement was recorded by the Police since due to injury on his head it did not occur to him what he stated and he has further stated that he might have given names but police might not have recorded the names.The effect of evidentiary value of the testimony of this witness (P.W. 26 - Taufel) will be taken into consideration alongwith the testimony of three remaining injured eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012P.W. 27 - Raees Khan Nankau Khan has stated in his evidence that he came to Mumbai about 15 to 20 days and he was residing at Mumbai Central.He has stated that at about 8.30 to 9.30 p.m., he and other workers of the bakery were sitting on a cot (Kahtal) in front of the bakery and that time 15 to 20 persons came there and started throwing stones on them.After police came there, those persons ran away.He has stated that he went to the terrace and Kausarbhai was coming down.According to him, at that time, he peeped outside from the 'Jaali' and saw that some persons had assembled there with Mashals and swords in their hands and he saw that Kausar and Lulla were talking to those persons.However, rioters put fire to the bakery and to the vehicles and they also set fire to the wood that was in the bakery and they also set Aslam's room on fire.He has stated that workers of the bakery and Habibulla's sons, his two daughters, his wife, 156/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 ::: 157 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Guddu's wife, Guddu's grandmother were on the terrace and three women and four children were in the room below.He has also stated the names of the workers viz Taufel, Nasru, Sailum, Prakash and Shehzad.Then he has stated that rioters were throwing glass bottles towards the terrace and they were also throwing stones towards the terrace.They were also throwing glass bottles containing kerosene and after setting fire to those bottles and, throughout the night, they continued to do this and harassed them.He has then stated that the rioters again came in the morning at about 9.00 to 10.00 a.m. and asked them to get down.He has practically repeated what P.W. 26 - Taufel has stated in his examination-in-chief, though this portion is proved to be an omission by the defence Counsel.He has then stated that their hands and legs were tied and the ladies were taken to bushes and, thereafter, rioters started assaulting them with swords and sticks and then they put timber on their persons and set them on fire.He has stated that he received injuries on the backside of his head and both his hands were burnt and his back was also burnt.He has stated that he could identify the persons who assaulted him and set him on fire.He has stated that he sustained injuries on his head as he was assaulted by the sword and he would be able to identify the sword.Thereafter, the Court, like previous witness (P.W.26), asked the accused persons to stand in a row at random and not according to the serial numbers and the witness (P.W.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::27) was allowed to leave the witness box and to identify and point out, if he could, any of the accused persons as the assailant/assailants.This witness then pointed out to original Accused No. 18 - Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi and stated that this was the person who had tied hands and legs.He then pointed out to Accused No.15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar and stated that this person was having a sword and was assaulting.This witness (P.W. 27) was also cross-examined at length and the defence has successfully brought on record several omissions and contradictions in the evidence of this witness.The following omissions and contradictions have been brought on record by the defence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::4 Who were on terrace & in the room Om 2685 Rioters - thoda bahut marenge - Om 269on terrace 6 Hands & legs tied - ladies - bushes- then assault by swords & sticks -timber on person - set on fire 7 Did not happen - on 2/3/2002 - Contr 264/3 when thumb impression obtained -I was fully conscious 8 Description of some of the rioters (I Om can identify the persons who assaulted me) 9 15-20 persons - Hindu like - came Contr 265/5- pelted stones - set bakery on fire- when police vehicles used to come - people used to flee 10 Did not happen - 15-20 persons set Contr bakery on fire 11 "this is my statement" & thereafter Contr gave thumb impression - Never said so.12 8.30 - 9.30 pm - we were sitting Om on a "kahtal" in front of bakery.20 persons came - stone throwing- police came etc. Portion "N"13 Peeped out of 'Jali' - saw - persons Om assembled with Mashals and swords 160/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 ::: 161 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 14 Habibulla's 2 daughters & his wife Om were on terrace 15 3 women & 4 children in the room Om below 16 A ladder made by joining 2 ladders Om 17 Description of some of the rioters Om ( I can identify the persons who assaulted me) 18 Did not state - 1000-1200 persons Contr Exh 360 from Ganesh Nagar Zopadpatti 19 Sticks Om 20 Rioters put timber on our persons and set us on fire Om 21 Did not state - Rioters poured Contr kerosene and petrol in the room where ladies and children were sleeping and put the room on fire 22 "This is my statement" Contr Exh 362::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::From the cross examination P.W. 27 - Raees Khan Nankau Khan, it can be seen that entire testimony of this witness regarding sitting on 'Kahtal' after meal in the evening alongwith others and the fact that no names were given to police by him has been clearly brought on record.He has admitted that he did not know the names of the persons seen by him in a mob of rioters and, even today, he does not know the names of any of the 161/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 ::: 162 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 accused pointed out by him today in Court.The witness, however, has stated during his cross-examination that no other questions were put to him by the police at that time and volunteered that at that time he was not in a condition to say anything.He has stated that he was conscious but not fully.In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that 'Ghee' used to be kept in the rooms below and that there used to be about 50 to 60 tins of 'Ghee' and each tin might be of about 20 to 25 kgs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::ig Further, he has given description about iron gate which was bolted from outside and deposed that it used to be kept bolted except while taking the goods inside.He has also stated that there was a passage to go upstairs by the side of the gate and stair case was estimated to be about 2.1/2 feet in width.He has further given description about the furnace on the ground floor and narrated this in his cross-examination.The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Adhik Shirodkar wanted to bring omission on record in respect of aspect of the witness sitting on the 'Kahtal' in front of the bakery.It has also been brought on record that certain statements which were made by him in Court were not recorded by the police.All these omissions have been brought on record.However, he has stated that he does not know why it was not recorded.He further admitted that what was recorded was not read over to him.He has stated that since his condition was very bad, he had no recollection of what he had stated and what he did not on that day to the police.He then stated that he was badly injured.He has also admitted that he has seen accused persons whom he has identified for the first time in Court and he had no occasion to see any of them after the incident.This witness was asked, after he had stated that he would not forget the faces of the assailants, that if he had not forgotten the faces of the assailants, whether he could give description of the assailants without looking at them and this witness has stated that he would not be in a position to give description without looking at them.He has stated that how he could give their description without looking at them and when he was asked as to how descriptions of the rioters were not found in his statement, he has stated that it is possible that 163/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 164 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 he had given the descriptions but the same were not recorded by the police.He then stated that he was assaulted from behind and he had identified two swords in the Court from the four swords shown to him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:32 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::The witness (P.W.27) was then examined as to how he had appeared in the Trial Court in Mumbai.The witness has stated that his father and one Rahimbhai were with him when he came to Mumbai and he was residing with the said Rahimbhai in his house.He has stated that Rahimbhai has told him that he had read in newspapers about this case.He further admitted that he was working in Country Bar at Ulhasnagar for about 5 to 6 or 7 to 8 months.He was then asked details about what he used to do in Country Bar at Ulhasnagar and these details were given by him.He then stated that he did not receive any summons to appear as a witness in Court.He also stated that he came to know about the date on which he was to appear in the Court and give evidence from Teesta Madam and he identified her when she was sitting in Court.He has further admitted that he knew Teesta Madam for 10 to 12 days and she was introduced to him by Rahimbhai and that she had helped him in bringing him to court.He has further admitted that he used to meet her in her office and they used to have talks about this case.In the further cross-examination this witness (P.W.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/201227) admitted that bakery was set on fire by rioters but he did not know who were the persons who set the bakery on fire nor the mode or manner in which the bakery was set on fire.He has stated that he did not know who were the persons who set the vehicles on fire and the manner and mode in which they were set on fire.He further volunteered that they were in the room and they were fully trapped.He further admitted that nobody could enter inside the room and nobody could come out from there.He then admitted that he met Teesta Madam on one or two occasions only in her office and the taxi driver used to take him to the said destination and then take him back.Like other witness, from the cross-examination of this witness, it can be seen that this witness has made lot of improvements and that he has not given names or description of the accused to the police when his statement was recorded and the explanation which is given by him is that he was injured.A suggestion has been made to this witness (P.W. 27) that he was brought to Bombay at the instance of Mrs Teesta Setalvad and attempt is also made to 165/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 166 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 show that there was ample opportunity of tutoring this witness by the said Mrs. Teesta Setalvad.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::It has also been argued that Raees Khan (P.W. 27) was the only witness who was fully conscious on that day and his statement was recorded first in point of time.The evidence of Dr. Meena (P.W.46) and Dr. Choksi (P.W.62) was also read over in support of the said submission.P.W. 28 - Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan has stated that he came to Mumbai with one Raees Khan of Ahmedabad.He further stated that he was staying in Vadodara since last about 15 years and he was working in Janata Bakery for about 12 months and, thereafter, started working in Best Bakery at Anusaya Nagar, Hanuman Tekdi which was opened by Habibulla.He has stated that Habibulla had one wife and three daughters and there was one 'Nani'.He has stated that Sailum, Raees, Taufel, Kausarbhai, Baliram and also Guddu and Raju were working with him in the Best Bakery.He has stated that, however, he did not know the names of three Hindus who had died.He has then stated that he used to sleep on the terrace and the Bakery and residential house are adjoining to each other.He then stated that the incident in question took place on 1 st which was a Friday and they were having food and sitting in front of the bakery on a cot ['Palang'] and Sailum, Baliram, 166/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 167 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Kausarbhai, Lulla, Guddubhai, Raju were all sitting on cot with him.He was asked "who else was there with you?".An objection was raised.However, it was overruled and then the witness mentioned the name of Taufel also when he was asked again.Then he has narrated as to how rioters came there with swords and mashals and they were shouting slogans 'kill the muslims'.He has stated that there were number of rioters and he has mentioned that Kausarbhai and Lulla were trying to pacify the crowd when they were assaulted by rioters with swords and that he, Taufel and Baliram brought Kausarbhai and Lulla and made them sleep in the room and then they had gone to the terrace.He has stated that rioters set fire to the bakery and to the wakhar of Lal Mohammed and also Aslam's house and they set on fire the vehicles of the bakery.Tempo and two vehicles were set on fire.He has also stated that rioters were throwing on the terrace bricks, stones, kerosene and petrol and he has given names of persons who were on the terrace and of the persons who were on the first floor.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::He (P.W. 28) has then stated that, in the morning, he begged those persons with folded hands and asked them to allow him to go away.He has stated that in the morning, all of them were made to get down; first, the women and then 167/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 168 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 men.This witness then has stated as under.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::"Thereafter, Sanju tied my hands and even took away the amount of Rs 5,000/- that was with me.The hands of others were also tied.I can identify that Sanju now.I knew Sanju since prior to the incident.It is because he is a big man and stays opposite Shraddha Bakery."The witness (P.W.28) identified Sanju by pointing out the accused who was in the dock.He then pointed out to the original accused No. 12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan and said "He is Jitu".He also identified original accused No. 16 - Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria and said that "He is Shana".He then pointed out other nine accused who were standing in the dock.He then identified original Accused No. 15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar and said that he knew Dinesh also by name.He then pointed out original Accused No. 20 - Suresh Devjibhai Vasava.He, however, stated that "I know the name of this person, but I do not remember it now." He then pointed out to other accused who were in the dock viz Accused No.1 - Raju Dhamirbhai Baria, Accused No 2 - Mahendra Vishwasrao Jadhav, Accused No. 4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai, Accused No. 14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput, Accused No.18 - Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi, 168/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 169 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Accused No. 19 - Kamlesh Bhikabhai Tadvi and Accused No.21 - Ravi Rajaram Chauhan.He has then attributed a role to these accused.He has stated that Dinesh assaulted him by a sword.Sanju took away his money.All the five Accused viz Accused Nos. 11, 12, 15, 16 and 20 were having swords with them at the time of the riot, so the other accused whose names he did not know were having a danda with them, a curved shaped sword and he sustained injury by the sword on his head and also on the back of left shoulder.He has stated that he had seen the accused in the night and in the morning also.He has stated that he received injury on his face near the left ear and on his back and has also sustained burn injuries on his right leg.He has stated that he sustained these injuries on Saturday the 2nd and that he had fallen unconscious and burn injuries were sustained when rioters had placed wood on his leg and set fire to it.He then stated that after he sustained injuries by sword, in order to save his brother Sailum, he threw his body over his body and then he was taken to hospital and he was there for about a month.He has stated that he regained consciousness after four days and when the police made inquiry with him he has stated whatever had happened to the police.He has also stated that he would be in a position to identify the weapons which 169/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 170 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 rioters were carrying if the said weapons were shown to him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::He (P.W.28) then stated that he was called as witness in the Court of Vadodara.He has stated that he had been called there for giving evidence and he was to give evidence regarding assault on him and the injuries sustained by him.However, it was declared that he was of unsound mind and asked to go away.ig He then stated that he had come to Mumbai about an year ago alongwith Raees Khan and Akbar Seth and he went to meet 'Didi', who asked his name and his thumb impression was taken on a piece of paper in which it was written that he was declared as of unsound mind.He was asked "Whatever was written was correct?" and he answered in the affirmative.The witness (P.W. 28) in cross-examination was asked whether events were fresh in his mind, when he had informed that whatever happened was told by him to the Court.When he was asked as to whether he told the Police that he was not fully conscious, he answered in the negative and stated that he did not say so.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 He then stated that the Police asked him as to what had happened.He has stated certain things and the police recorded it and went away.The defence brought on record the omissions from evidence of this witness (P.W.28) in respect of sitting on cot ('Palang') and also other omissions and contradictions which are as under:-Shehzad (P.W.28) Sr.Subject Om/Contr Exhibit No. No. 1 Did not state "these are my facts" Contr 363 2 Rioters shouting "Musalmanone Om mari nakho"3 Did not happen - "on 1-3-02, after Contr 364meals we went to first floor and were sitting 4 Hit on head by a stone and fell Contr 365 unconscious4 Hit on head by a stone and fell Contr 365This witness (P.W.28) was asked whether stone throwing was going on only in the night and not in the morning and he answered this question in the affirmative.He was then asked whether he fell unconscious because he was hit on his head by stone.The witness, however, stated that he was hit on head by a sword and thereafter had fallen unconscious.Then the witness was shown the statement 171/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 172 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 which was recorded by police which stated that he became unconscious since the stone hit him on his head.He has stated that this portion was not correctly recorded.He has also stated that he had seen the weapons for the first time in the Court after he had seen them on the date of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::He has also admitted that he could not have given the description of the weapons even at the time when his statement was recorded by the police or he could not give any speciality or special identification marks in respect of any of the weapons identified by him in the Court.He was then cross-examined in respect of accused he had identified and was asked whether he could give full names of the four accused.He, however, stated that he could not give full name of Jitu, or full name of Sanju or that of Dinesh.He, however, stated that Dinesh used to stay in Mamata Bakery.So far as Dinesh is concerned, he has further stated that he knew his father owned a bakery and he knew him since childhood and he also knew that Dinesh was his son and the name of bakery of Dinesh's father was Mamata Bakery.A question was then asked to him that since he knew Dinesh since his childhood and when he saw him at the time of the riots in the mob, did he realize that he was Dinesh known to him and the witness answered that he did not know Dinesh and then the Court explained to him about his previous answer.The witness, however, stated that he could not say when he came to know that his name was Dinesh, whether 172/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 173 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 one month or two months prior to the incident.He, however, stated that he knew the name of Dinesh since prior to the riots.So far as Sanju is concerned, when he was asked in the cross-examination, he reiterated that he knew him prior to the riots.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::So far as accused No.16 is concerned, when he was asked since when prior to the incident he knew Accused No.16 as Shana, the witness answered that his house was just by the side of the bakery and he knew him since prior to the riots, though he could not say how many days prior to the riots.The witness (P.W.28) admitted that he did not state to the police about Dinesh, Shana and Jitu being in the mob of rioters or that some of the rioters were from the same locality.The witness also admitted that he had not given description of the accused and the witness and when he was asked the same question, he has stated that he could not have given description of those persons to the police and, even today, he could not give description without looking at them.In the cross-examination, a question which was asked to this witness is as under:-"Q: Where did you start staying in Vadodara?"The witness had given the following answer:-Ans: I started residing there.Police came to 173/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 174 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 me.I was told that I will have to give evidence in a Court of Law.In the Court, there were many persons.There was one hefty person.I was told to say that I was assaulted from behind and that, thereafter, I had fallen down.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::I was asked to state that I had not seen anyone.I was asked to place my hand on my forehead and not to speak anything.I did accordingly.People started laughing.ig I was declared mad ['Paagal'].The Judge said that I would be treated and then my statement would be recorded."The Court observed that witness had not given answer to the question which was asked.The witness was asked some questions again and then he gave a reply that he started residing with Akbar Seth in his bakery after he returned to Vadodara.The witness (P.W. 28), thereafter, was asked as to how he came to Mumbai and the witness answered that he was sent to Mumbai by Akbar Seth and he was residing at Bandra and he had been sent to Mumbai for meeting 'Didi' and that he was introduced to 'Didi' by Raees Khan.He then stated that 'Didi' had read over something that had been written to him and that his thumb impression was obtained 174/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 ::: 175 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 on that writing.It was in connection with the fact that he was declared of unsound mind and the writing was sent to Delhi.The witness has stated that he did not know the name of 'Didi' but admitted that the name of 'Didi' was Teesta Madam and he also informed the Court that she used to be in the Court-hall.When a question, however, was asked where he was staying for about 15 days, he gave answer that he was residing with persons from his native place at Bandra but he could not give their names or locality or part of Bandra where he was residing or name of building where he was residing or place where he was residing.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:33 :::So far as this witness (P.W.28) is concerned, again, omissions and contradictions have been brought on record.It was inter alia urged that the witness was not in a position to understand the question and the question had to be repeated.It has been also submitted that the witness had been tutored at the instance of Teesta Setalvad and his evidence, even otherwise, is not reliable in view of various omissions and contradictions which have been brought on record.He submitted that his evidence is liable to be discarded since he had not given names or 175/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 176 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 description of the accused to the police and even his further statement was not recorded.It has been submitted that even after the matter was sent back by the Supreme Court and there was an opportunity to the Investigating Officer to record his statement, his statement was not recorded and, therefore, testimony of this witness for the first time in Court is not reliable and the said testimony is a tutored testimony.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::It has to be noted that out of these four witnesses, two witnesses viz P.W. 28 - Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan and P.W. 32 - Sailum Hasan Khan Pathan have identified the accused by name.P.W. 27 - Raees Khan Nankau Khan, however, has not given names of accused Nos.1 to 4, 15, 20, 19 and 21 and he has identified by pointing out to the Court the following accused viz Accused No. 18 -Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi, accused No.20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava, Accused No.15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar Accused No.16 - Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria and Accused No.4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai and he did not give their names and he has also attributed role to these accused.P.W. 32 has also identified the accused by giving their names.P.W. 32 has identified Sanju i.e. Sanjay Thakkar - Accused No.11, Dinesh - Accused No.15, Lalo - Accused No. 20 and has attributed role to Accused No.12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan and has given his address as Gajrawadi.The other two injured eye witnesses viz P.W. 27 176/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 177 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 and P.W. 28 have only pointed out the accused and have identified them in the Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::The chart showing the identification of Accused Nos.11, 15, 12, 16, 1, 18, 4, 14 and 20 by P.W. Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 and 32 and also showing the role attributed to them is as under:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Accused Nos. Identified by Role attributed A-12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu P.W.26 Seen him running Chandrasinh Chauhan towards bakery with mashal and sword.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 A-18 Shailesh Tadvi P.W.26 Nil P.W.27 Identifies the accused as person who tied hands and legs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::This view was diluted and over a period of time the Apex Court has held that, under exceptional circumstances, and if the accused are known to the witnesses then identification is not necessary.This is evident from the observations made by the Apex Court in the following cases viz Simon & Ors vs. State of Karnataka1, Malkhansingh and Others vs. State of M.P. 2 and in Munshi Singh Gautam (Dead) and others vs. State of M.P. 3::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::Their testimony regarding injuries received by them has been corroborated by the doctors who have examined them viz. Mrs. Meena (P.W.46) and Mr. Choksi (P.W.62) who have stated about the injuries received by these witnesses as shown below:-Injuries received by P.W.26 - Taufel Ahmed Habibulla Siddiqui.1 2004 SCC (Cri) 646 2 (2003) 5 SCC 746 3 2005 SCC (Cri) 1269 181/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 182 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 "i) I.W. on left occipital region, size 10cm X 2 cm X 0.5cm,::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::ii) I.W on parietal occipital region - ie the back of the head -, size 15cm X 2 cm X 0.5cm,iii) Burns on both lower limbs."Injuries received by P.W. 27 - Raees Khan Nankau Khan."i) First to second degree burns on right upper limb, left arm and on back,ii) C.L.W. (Contused Lacerated Wound) on right pariato occipital region, size 10cm X 2cm X scalp deep,iii) 2 C.L.W.s on occipital region - out of these, one was 5cm X 0.5cm X 0.5 cm and the other was 2 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm,"Injuries sustained by P.W. 28 - Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan "i) I.W. on left fronto pariental, size 10cm X 2cm X 1cm,ii) I.W on left post auricular region, size 5 cm X 1 cm X 0.5 cm,iii) I.W on behind injury at sr.no. ii) above, size 2 cm X 1 cm X 0.5 cm, 182/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 183 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::iv) I.W behind injury at sr.no. iii) above, size 2 cm X 0.5cm X 0.5cm,v) 2 C.L.W.s on right temporal occipital region, size 2 cm X 1cm X 0.5 cm,vi) C.L.W on chin, size 2 cm X 0.5cm X 0.5 cm."Injuries sustained by P.W. 32 - Sailum Hasan Khan Pathan."i) Incise Wound (I.W.) on left parietal region, size was 10 cm X 2 cm X scalp deep,ii) 2 C.L.W. On left parietal - the first of 2 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm and the second of 1cm X 0.5cm X 0.5 cm,iii) C.L.W. On the left ear, size was 1 cm X 0.5cm X 0.5 cm."Dr. Choksi (P.W.62) also has referred to the injuries and that, in fact, he has examined these witnesses.The oral and ocular testimony of these witnesses so far as injuries sustained by them is concerned, the same has been corroborated by the evidence given by the doctors regarding injuries received by them.Apart from that, these witnesses have stated that they have been residing in the locality for about one and half to two years and P.W. 26 - Taufel and P.W. 27 Raees have stated that faces of the accused were 183/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 184 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 familiar to them whereas P.W. 28 - Shehzad Khan and P.W. 32 - Sailum have stated that they knew these accused since they were residing in the locality near the Best Bakery and some of them used to come to Bakery for purchasing biscuits, toasts and other articles and have also given description and addresses of some of the accused.All the witnesses have corroborated each other's testimony in respect of the assault by four of the accused viz. Accused No.11 - Sanjay Thakkar, Accused No.15 - Dinesh Rajbhar, Accused No.12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan and Accused No.16 - Shanabhai Baria, though in respect of others viz Accused No.1 - Rajubhai Baria, Accused No.18 - Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi, Accused No. 4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai, Accused No. 14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput and Accused No.20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava, the said corroboration is not complete and some of the witnesses have only mentioned their presence at the place without attributing any role to them but so far as A-11, A-15, A-12 and A-16 are concerned all these witnesses have corroborated each other's testimony to a very large extent in respect of the role attributed to them and also in respect of their presence and their active role in the morning after the witnesses were asked to come down.The defence has not seriously challenged the incident which took place at night or in the morning and has mainly stressed on the identification by these witnesses of the appellants/accused 184/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 185 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 for the first time in Court and it has been urged that these witnesses have not given names of any of the accused to the police and they have given these names for the first time in Court at the instance of third parties who brought them to Mumbai and had kept them there and, therefore, they have been tutored.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::So far as A-11 - Sanjay Thakkar is concerned P.W. 26 - Taufel has stated that he tied his hands and legs in the morning.P.W. 27 - Raees has not attributed any particular role to this accused.P.W. 28 - Shehzad has stated that he took Rs 5000/- from him and he was carrying a sword and he tied his hands.P.W.29 has not attributed any role to this accused.P.W. 32 - Sailum has stated that he knew the name of this accused and he identified Sanju i.e. A-11 and Dinesh -A-15 by name and Lala i.e. A-20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava.When a question was put to him (P.W. 32) as to whether he knew the persons who made them get down in the morning, he answered that he would be in a position to identify them and then he informed the Court the names of Sanju and Dinesh.In his examination-in-chief, P.W. 32 has stated that the persons who made them get down tied their hands and they were assaulted with sword and he here has stated that all men 185/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 186 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 who were there were injured by the sword.Then he has given injuries which were caused to them.In this context, therefore, he has attributed specific role to Sanju and Dinesh and he has stated that they were assaulting with sword after tying hands.He has also stated that Sanju had taken his brother's money.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::So far as A-15 - Dinesh Rajbhar is concerned, P.W. 26 - Taufel has stated that he was seen at night with sword and mashal and was shouting and giving slogans.P.W. 27 - Raees has stated that he was a person having a sword.28 - Shehzad has stated that he had a sword and knew his name.P.W. 29 had identified him and stated that she had seen him in the morning.P.W. 32 - Sailum had identified him and attributed a role to him.So far as A-12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan is concerned, P.W. 26 - Taufel has stated that he has seen him running towards the bakery with mashal and sword.P.W. 27 - Raees has identified him.P.W. 28 -Shehzad has identified him with sword and also identified him by name.P.W. 29 has stated that she had seen him in the morning.P.W. 32 attributes role to Jitu and gives his address as Gajrawadi.So far as A- 16 - Shanabhai Baria is concerned, 186/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 187 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 P.W. 26 - Taufel has stated in his evidence that he made them get down from terrace, tied their hands and legs and assaulted.P.W. 27 - Raees has stated that he was a person present there with sword but he has not identified the accused by giving his name.P.W. 28 Shehzad, however, named the accused and stated that he had a sword.P.W. 29 identified the accused and has stated that she had seen him in the morning.P.W. 32, however, did not identify, name or point out towards this accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::So far as these four accused viz. A-11, A-15, A-12 and A-16 are concerned, therefore, there is inter se corroboration about their presence, their role in assaulting and/or their role in tying up hands and legs in the morning and they have been either identified by name by some of them or they were pointed out while identifying them in the Court.Apart from corroboration to the injuries which are caused to the injured eye witnesses by examining doctors who had examined the said four injured eye witnesses, all these four witnesses have given graphic account of the entire episode which had taken place right from the evening of 1/3/2002 from 8 P.M. to 8.30 P.M. onwards and have given sequence of events.So, practically, on all aspects regarding occurrence of event, there is corroboration by each of these 187/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 188 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::It has to be noted that entire incident will have to be divided in two parts; one which took place at night and the other which took place in the morning.In respect of the incident which took place at night, it is alleged that mob of 1000 to 1200 people came there from all directions, burnt Best Bakery and also put timber which was lying on the ground floor on fire and rioters also burnt wakhar of Lal Mohammed and vehicles which were in compound and other houses.All of them have stated that they were throwing soda water bottles and the bottles filled with kerosene set on fire and that they were throwing stones and they were also shouting slogans.It has been vehemently urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused that if the topography of the Best Bakery is taken into consideration and sequence of events as narrated by the witnesses is considered then, in such circumstances, it was physically impossible for these witnesses to have seen the faces of the assailants.It has been submitted that it was brought on record that the story put up by these witnesses that they were sitting on cot ('Charpaee') after their meal was over, is an improvement and has been done so as an afterthought so that it could be said that they had an occasion to see the faces of the assailants in the mob.It has also been submitted that if 188/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 ::: 189 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 stones are thrown continuously on the the ground floor, the natural conduct of any person would be to go to the safest place on the terrace and it would not be possible to peep either from jally or from the terrace wall to see the faces of accused.There is much substance in the said submission.If the evidence of P.W. 1 - Ratilal Variya, P.W. 2 - Chandrakant Patel and the evidence of P.W. 69 - Gautam Chavan who is the videographer, as also CD which showed the aftermath of the incident where residential quarters of late Habibulla and the adjoining Bakery are clearly visible, is taken into consideration it can be seen that once the person goes on the terrace, the only way to look down would be to bent over the terrace wall which, in our view, is certainly impossible.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:34 :::Taking into consideration the testimony of those witnesses who have stated that there was a crowd of 1000 to 1200 people who were throwing stones , soda-water bottles and the bottles filed with kerosene and which were put on fire and used as missiles, the testimony of the witnesses who have stated that they were sitting on a cot therefore will have to be discarded as an afterthought.It is also not probable that these witnesses have also brought Kausarali and Lulla on the first floor after they were assaulted because had their story been true, their clothes would have been stained with blood.It is an admitted position that blood- stained clothes of these injured witnesses were not seized by 189/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 ::: 190 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 police nor were they sent to CA.The story of these witnesses having seen the assault on Kausarali and Lulla, therefore, cannot be believed and, in all probability, soon after hearing shouts of the mob which was approaching the Best Bakery, they all went to terrace and were their till morning.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::a.m to 8.30 a.m in the morning and, therefore, they were in a position to closely observe the assailants and, therefore, they were in a position to identify the assailants.It has been strenuously urged that the testimony of these four witnesses has to be discarded in toto on account of omissions and contradictions which have been brought on record.It has been submitted that in view of the improvements which have been made by these witnesses there creditworthiness has been successfully assailed and, therefore, their testimony needed to be completely discarded.It has also been submitted that these witnesses were rustic witnesses and in view of their consistent improvements, it has been established that they 190/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 ::: 191 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 had deliberately made false statements and in such cases therefore their entire testimony has to be discarded.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::It has also been submitted that these witnesses had not given names of the accused to the police nor their description.They had also not described weapons.It has been submitted that the Investigating Officers both, Mr. Baria (P.W.72) as well as Mr Kanani (P.W.74) had an opportunity to record the further statements of these witnesses.However, this has not been done.It has also been submitted that even after the Apex Court had remanded the matter and after opportunity was given by the Apex Court to re-investigate the case, both the Investigating Officers had not taken any steps in respect of re- investigation.It has been submitted that it was open for them to have recorded the statements of these witnesses so that lacunae, if any, in their statements would have been easily wiped out.It has been submitted that purpose of recording statement of the witnesses by the police at the earliest point of time is to ensure that when they give evidence for the first time in Court, their testimony can be tested in the light of the version given by them to the police at the earliest point of time.It has been submitted that if the said statement is not given to the Police at the earliest point of time, it would create a serious doubt about truthfulness of 1 AIR 1956 SC 181 191/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 ::: 192 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 the statement made by the witness in the Court.It has been submitted that if witnesses are allowed to identify the accused for the first time in Court without naming them before the police, would be nothing but giving them a license of stating whatever they wanted to say for the first time in Court.It has been submitted that the fact that for the first time all these statements have been made by these witnesses who were not summoned by the prosecution but appeared on their own, probably at the behest of some third parties and at the behest of Teesta Setalvad, clearly indicated that they were tutored and, therefore, they had given this testimony for the first time in court.It has been submitted that, therefore, even if those names were given by P.W. 26, it would not be of any consequence and, therefore, the said disclosure of 192/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 ::: 193 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 names would not help the prosecution.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that this witness (P.W.26) has, in terms, stated in his examination-in- chief and in cross-examination that he did not know names of any person.It has been further submitted that, Kanani (P.W.74), when asked by the defence Counsel as to whether he thought it necessary to carry out further investigation, had given a reply that he did not think it necessary to further carry out any investigation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::All of them were immediately taken to the hospital.Except Raees (P.W.27), all others were unconscious and regained consciousness at various points of time.Even Raees, though he has been said to be conscious by the two doctors, he had received serious injuries on his head and other parts of his body.The other witnesses regained consciousness after some time.The other witnesses were also kept in the hospital between 10 to 20 days.Under these circumstances, taking into consideration the injuries which were received by these witnesses, it cannot be said that they were in a position to give complete details of the incident when their statements were recorded.In our view, it was the duty of the police to have recorded their further statements after ascertaining whether they were in a fit condition to give their statements.It is a matter of record that all these witnesses originally belonged to UP and immediately after they were discharged they went to their native place.Another fact which cannot be overlooked is that it is possible that all these witnesses, though they were in the hospital were in a state of fear and shock and possibly were keen in recuperating and going back to their native place.Under these circumstances, therefore, in our view taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances of the case, they cannot be faulted for not having given the names or description of the accused or role played by them.It was the duty of the police to have ensured that their proper statements are recorded.In fact, all these witnesses in their evidence have stated that what was told by them to the police was not read over to them.This is a fault on the part of the Investigating Agency and these witnesses cannot be blamed for that purpose.In fact, it was the duty of the police to have ensured after the opportunity was given by the Apex 194/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 ::: 195 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Court to re-investigate and permission which is normally required to be taken formally for further investigation under section 173(8) was done away with by the Apex Court and an opportunity was given to them to further investigate, if necessary.In spite of that Mr. Kanani (P.W.74) chose to state in the cross-examination that he did not think it fit or necessary to carry out any further investigation.It is possible that whoever was in charge of the investigation after the matter igwas remanded, was confident that Zahirabibi Shaikh (P.W.41) and other members of Habibulla family who had complained about coercion before the Gujarat Trial Court, would not turn hostile and would support the prosecution case and under this super overconfidence, they chose not to carry out any further investigation.Unfortunately Baria (P.W.72) also was not asked as to whether he had read over the statements which were given by these four eye witnesses after they were recorded and no explanation was sought from Baria as to whether their statements were read over or not and, if not, for what purpose.It is possible that after seeing that these witnesses were not in a position to give any further statements the same might not have been recorded at that point of time looking at their condition.But, in any case, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to have kept a watch on these witnesses so that before they were discharged from the hospital, their further statements could have been recorded.However, merely because there was a lapse on the part of Investigating Officer in not taking further statements of these witnesses, their testimony in the Court which is a substantive evidence cannot be ignored or discarded even if they have made certain improvements and there are certain major contradictions in their testimony.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::So far as the other accused are concerned, either it is alleged that these accused were seen at night or were only present in the morning when incident took place and no 197/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 ::: 198 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 specific role has been attributed to them and, therefore, benefit of doubt will have to be given to all these accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::So far as Accused No.1 - Rajubhai Baria is concerned, P.W. 26 - Taufel has not named him nor pointed him out in identification.P.W. 27 - Raees also does not mention his name.P.W. 28 - Shehzad also does not mention his name but only points out the accused and does not describe his role.P.W. 29 has stated that he was present there with the sword but she has not named the accused.P.W. 32 - Sailum also does not mention his name.It is, therefore, not possible to convict this accused merely on the testimony of P.W.28 who merely without attributing any role points out to him in the witness box when he was asked to identify the accused.This accused is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt.So far as Accused No. 18 - Shailesh Tadvi is concerned, P.W. 26 - Taufel does not identify him and name him.P.W. 27 - Raees identifies him as person who tied his hands and legs.P.W. 28 - Shehzad points out the accused but does not know his name.P.W. 29 has identified the accused and she has not attributed any role to this accused.P.W. 32 - Sailum does not mention his name.The evidence of P.W. 27 and 28 so far as this accused is concerned does 198/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 ::: 199 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 not inspire any confidence, particularly when P.W. 28 only points out at the accused and does not mention his role and P.W. 27 also does not name him but only says that he is a person who tied hands and legs.It is, therefore, under these circumstances, difficult to accept testimony of these two witnesses (P.W. 27 and P.W. 28) for the purpose of convicting him and he is entitled to benefit of doubt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:35 :::identify him or name him.P.W. 27 - Raees says that he was present there.He does not attribute any role whatsoever to him and does not name the accused.Even P.W. 28 -Shehzad does not name the accused though he has named the other four accused and only points out the accused and says that he was present in the morning.P.W.29 has identified the accused but she has not attributed any role to this accused.Accused No. 4 is, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of doubt.So far as Accused No. 14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput is concerned, P.W. 26 - Taufel, P.W. 27 - Raees and P.W. 32 - Sailum do not identify him, do not mention his name and also do not attribute any role to him or give his description.P.W.28 - Shehzad does not name but points out finger at this accused.He does not, however, attribute any role to this 199/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 ::: 200 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 accused.It has to be remembered that P.W. 28 has remembered names of certain accused and has identified them and he has also attributed role to certain accused towards whom he has pointed out the finger in the identification.P.W. 29 has identified the accused but she has not attributed any role to this accused.[So far as this accused is concerned, he does not attribute any role to him.] That being the position accused No.14 is entitled to get benefit of doubt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 :::So far as Accused No. 20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava is concerned, P.W. 26 - Taufel, P.W. 27 - Raees do not identify him.It cannot be forgotten that when an appeal was filed by Zahira in the Supreme Court against the judgment and order of Gujarat High Court and in the said appeal Mrs Teesta Setalvad who was a member of the NGO - Citizens for Justice and Peace, was also a party.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 :::This witness was travelling in the first bus and had 203/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 ::: 204 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 received injuries.PW 65 who was travelling in the second bus also identified Accused 18 and::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 :::through the testimony of PW 63::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 :::He was also a member of the Special Task Force.The learned counsel has on similar grounds assailed the testimony of all the witnesses who have identified the appellants.Further, learned counsel for the appellants submits that PW 89 who at the relevant time was working as the Forest Guard had wrongly identified all the appellants except Simon.It is contended that this star witness of the prosecution who is alleged to have pointed out and shown the appellants to the other witnesses who identified them in court having himself wrongly identified all accused except Simon, the testimony of other witnesses deserves to be discarded on this ground itself and this is said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.The conviction, it is contended, 204/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 ::: 205 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 based on identification of such witnesses cannot be sustained."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 :::In this contention, it has to be kept in view that PW 97 knew the accused as stated hereinbefore.The question of identification arises when the accused are not known.Since the appellants were known in the manner abovestated, the holding of a test identification parade on the 205/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 ::: 206 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 facts of the case would have been wholly unnecessary.As already noticed, out of fifty accused, PW 97 deposed only about presence of four appellants who were earlier known to him."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:36 :::The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character.L.J. 305 Para 14 2 AIR 1975 SC 1814 : 1975 Cri LJ 1553 3 (1996) 8 SCC 630 4 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 5 (1979) 1 SCC 31 6 (2000) 1 SCC 358 7 2005 SCC (Cri) 1269 211/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 ::: 212 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 this Court.The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::Apart from that, two other witnesses have stated that they knew the accused by name viz. P.W. 28 - Shehzad and P.W. 32 - Sailum.Since they knew the accused by name, the question of test identification does not arise.Even the other two witnesses viz P.W. 26 - Taufel and P.W. 27 - Raees have stated in their evidence that they had seen the accused and they were known to them, though they did not name some of them.The said submission of Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused, therefore, cannot be accepted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::Even if it is established that they were present, we have examined the case of each individual accused to see whether they were mere spectators who had not joined the assembly and who were unaware of its motive.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::She has also not given names of any of the accused in her statement which was recorded by the police.In her evidence she has stated that she got married to Nafitulla on 19/11/2000 and she had one daughter from the marriage.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::Further, she has stated that, in the morning, she alongwith others pleaded with rioters that they should be allowed to go and they apologized to them.She has stated that the rioters told them that they may come down and they would be allowed to go after giving them a little beating.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::Accordingly, the rioters brought a bamboo ladder and they were asked to get down from that ladder.The rioters first allowed the women to get down and then the men.They, thereafter, tied hands and legs of the men and dragged ladies towards the bushes and, at that time, according to her, she saw rioters assaulting men with swords.According to her, at that time, police came and after noticing the police, rioters ran away.She has stated that she saw rioters assaulting her husband Nafitulla, and also to Raju, Taufel, 218/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 ::: 219 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Baliram, Raees, Nasibulla, Prakash, Shehzad and Sailum.She has stated that Firoz's wife, Aslam's wife and four children and her sister-in-law Sabira were burnt in the night when they were on the first floor.She has then stated that they saw the condition of the injured persons.She has stated that apart from this, she has also seen some other persons alongwith rioters and that she knew names of some of them and she also knew the faces of all these persons.Then she has stated that among the persons who were making them get down from the terrace in the morning were Dinesh and Shanabhai and Dinesh was having a sword and Shanabhai was tying hands and legs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::She has further stated that they were also involved in rape and Jitu, Jagdish, Mafat and Munna were discussing among themselves as to who should rape the women first.She has then stated that 219/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 ::: 220 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Rinku - Jayantibhai's son, Harish and Pankaj were setting fire to the wood inside the bakery and Shailesh and Raju were involved in the act of catching hands, when the men were assaulted.She has stated that even women were injured and she has sustained an injury on her leg and Zahira had an injury on her face near forehead.She has further stated that her daughter was of 4 months and she had sustained an injury on her waist, on being hit by a stone.She has further stated that apart from burning Best Bakery, rioters had also set fire to the Wakhar of Lal Mohammed and also burnt 2 tempos, 1 'Suzuki', 1 scooter and 1 'Sunny'.She has further stated that she could identify the persons whom she named as persons who were among the rioters.Thereafter, the Court asked the accused to stand in row but not in accordance with the serial order but in random and this witness pointed out to Accused No.11 and identified him as Sanjay Thakkar.She identified Accused No.4 as Pankaj, whose full name is Pankaj Virendragir Gosai.She then identified Jagdish by pointing out to him who is Accused No.14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput.She then pointed out to Accused No.16 and said that he was Shanabhai whose full name is Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria.Then she pointed out to Accused No.18 and said that he was Shailesh, whose full name is Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi and then she pointed out to Accused No.21 and said that he was Ravi, whose full name is Ravi Rajaram Chauhan.She however stated that she did not 220/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 ::: 221 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 know the name of the accused who was standing next to Ravi on his left.She stated that she knew him as he was residing in the lane in front of their house.She then pointed out to Accused No.1 and said that he was Raju, whose full name is Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria.She then stated that the accused on his left side was Dinesh - Accused No.15 whose full name is Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar.Then she pointed out to Accused No.13 and said that he was Yasin, whose full name is Yasin Alibhai Khokhar.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::ig She then pointed out to Accused No.3 and gave his name as Haresh, whose full name is Haresh Virendragir Gosai.She then stated that she came to Mumbai 221/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 ::: 222 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 about 15 days back and summons had been issued to her to appear as witness and she was staying with her maternal uncle in Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::The defence in cross-examination has brought on record several omissions and contradictions of this witness (P.W.29).It has been brought on record that the witness did not state the names of all the accused in her statement and that she had also not stated that Dinesh and Shana were among the persons who had asked them to get down or Dinesh was having sword with him.She had also not stated in her police statement that Shana was tying hands and legs of men who got down in the morning.The threats given by Jagdish and Jitu about rape also do not figure in her police statement and same is the case with the allegation that Mafat, Munna, Jitu and Jagdish were discussing among themselves as to who would rape the women first.Similarly, her statement regarding snatching of her chain by Ravi is also not mentioned in her police statement.It is also not mentioned in her police statement that Rinku - Jayantibhai's son, Harish and Pankaj were setting fire to the wood in the Bakery and Shailesh and Raju were involved in the act of catching hands.The statement that her daughter had sustained injury being hit by a stone has not been mentioned by her in her police statement.Similarly, she did not state that social worker Thakkar from their zopadpatti area was 222/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 ::: 223 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 present in the mob in the night.Then there is omission in her police statement regarding servants sitting below on a cot by the side of the Bakery and this improvement has been brought on record.The statement regarding rioters carrying swords, rods and mashals also does not figure in the said police statement.Her statement that she saw rioters assaulting Kausarali and Lulla by sword is also not found in her police statement and it is also not stated in her police statement that Kausarali and Lulla returned upstairs after talking to rioters.Similarly, following statements also have been proved to be either contradictions or omissions.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:37 :::Lulla - one of the persons on first floor Om 370Did not state - after meals - went to Contr 371::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 When mob tied down limbs of my Contr 372 husband and others - mob was telling -When mob tied down limbs of my Contr 372they would allow us to go after beating us a little - Not correct Injured burnt by putting burning wood Om over their bodies These names (accused) given to Jt.C.P. Om Whether on refusal to follow Contr Exh.507 instructions of mother-in-law and sister- in-law Zahira to give false names of Falia, got beaten by her husband -reason - not this.Shaherunnisa and Sahira - staying with Contr Exh.508 Shabana Azmi and Javed Akhtar in Mumbai Do not know whether T.N.N had taken Contr Exh.509 my interview.Did not state - T.N.N had taken my interview on 19/09/03 in which facts given by me about the Best Bakery incident are true and correct.Not correct - I told Jt.C.P. - my Contr Exh.510 statement was read over to me in Gujarati and Hindi, explained to me, was correct and that I put my signature Did not happen - on very next day I Contr Exh.499 went to Chota Udaypur That I was beaten by my husband is Contr Exh.500 true but not on this issue that means for opposing Sheherunnisa and Zahira to give false names of the Falia as accused in this case Did not state before T.V. Channel that I Contr Exh.514/1 wanted to disclose whole truth therefore Zahira and my mother-in-law did not get my name recorded in FIR 224/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 225 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Did not happen that I told the Contr Exh.514/2 interviewer - Assault by taking name of Kailas - though he was muslim, he touched her and kept her as his wife.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::Did not state - Kailas gave birth - male Contr Exh.514/2 child - unrest in Mohalla - by saying this- persons - beating gents.culprits were from outside.(contr.Is in respect of willingness to state the above fact in Surpeme Court)The witness (P.W. 29) has been cross-examined at length and it has been suggested by defence that Yasmin was never present during night or in the morning when the incident of assault had taken place but had arrived later on.It has been submitted that her presence has not been mentioned by Zahirabibi in her statement which was marked 225/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 226 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 as Exhibit with Charge-sheet which was filed, copy of which was supplied to the defence.It has been further submitted that P.W. 29 in her cross-examination had further come out with a new theory about motivation for the assault.It has been submitted that in cross-examination, she had stated that reason for rioters assaulting and setting the bakery on fire was that Nafitulla (P.W.31) her husband got married a Hindu woman Kailas and since he converted her as Muslim and since a male ig child was born to her, the mob had attacked the house.It has been further submitted that Yasmin had given interview to all TV Channels soon after the acquittal of all the accused by the Trial Court in Gujarat and in the said interview, she had categorically stated to all the Channels that the accused were not responsible for the attack but outsiders were responsible and she was not called to give evidence in trial because she had stated that she did not want to take names of the persons of their Falia who were neighbours in the Mohalla and, for that she was beaten up through her husband by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law - Zaheera who had stated that it was necessary to mention the names of Falia people residing in the locality since if those names were not taken, Government would not pay compensation.It has been submitted that D.W.4 - Khyati Pandya and D.W. 5 -::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Ajay Patel who had taken video had shown the said video on all the TV Channels' news.It has been submitted that evidence of defence witnesses D.W. 4 and D.W. 5, therefore, clearly established that the testimony which was given by her in the Trial Court was totally false testimony and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on it.It has also been submitted that no injury was caused to this witness (P.W. 29) and it has been further urged that from the CD/tape which was shown by the prosecution after the incident had taken place, it could be seen that clothes of this witness Yasmin were fresh and it did appear that she had arrived there in the morning after the incident had taken place and that, therefore, further gives credence to the defence version that she was not present.It has also been submitted that the same witness has now filed applications on oath alongwith an affidavit stating therein that she was made to give evidence under coercion and was compelled to give names of the accused.In our view, even without taking into consideration the affidavit which has now been filed, it is difficult to rely on the testimony of this witness (P.W. 29).It is surprising that this witness has not received injury in the entire incident and she has made improvement that her daughter was also injured as a result of stones which were thrown and the said omission has been brought on record.This witness has not 227/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 228 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 been examined by the prosecution in the Trial Court at Gujarat.No explanation has been given as to why she was not examined in the Trial Court at Gujarat and why for the first time she was examined in the Trial Court at Mumbai.Further, the prosecution had an ample opportunity to record her statement after the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court with the express direction, directing the Police to re-investigate, if necessary and to carry out investigation without seeking permission from the Court under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. In spite of this specific opportunity which was given, the prosecution chose to examine this witness, though there was lacuna of witness not stating the names of the accused before the police.It is surprising that even the Trial Court did not ask the prosecution as to what was their stand in respect of specific direction which was given by the Supreme Court directing the Polilce, Gujarat State to re-investigate the matter, if necessary and to take further steps in that direction.Ordinarily, Trial Court ought to have noticed the said directions which was specifically given by the Supreme Court and should have asked the prosecution regarding their stand on the direction which was given by the Supreme Court and it was the duty of the Trial Court to have recorded the stand of the prosecution before commencement of the trial.However, it appears from the record that no such question seems to have been asked and even if it is asked, it has not 228/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 229 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 been brought to our notice from the roznama during hearing of these appeals.Normally, whenever the mater is remanded by the Apex Court with specific directions, it is the duty of the Trial Court to ensure that those directions are complied with and also to record the submissions of the prosecution in respect of the said directions which were given by the Apex Court.Moreover, another distinction which can be drawn between the prosecution witnesses viz P.W.26, P.W. 27, P.W. 28 and P.W. 32 and P.W.29 - Yasmin is that those four witnesses were assaulted and were grievously injured and they were in the hospital under that condition for a very long time.Some of the witnesses were unconscious for almost 10-15 days and, thereafter, they went to their native place.That cannot be 229/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 230 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 said about Yasmin who was very much there and was residing with her parents in Chhota Udaypur.Apart from the fact that she was not injured, there was no reason why her additional statement could not have been recorded by the police immediately after her first statement was recorded.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::Viewed from any angle, therefore, testimony of this witness becomes very doubtful and will have to be discarded in toto.Reliance also was placed by the prosecution on the testimony of two other injured eye witnesses who have turned hostile and the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given list of admissions which have been given by P.W. 30 - Nasibulla and P.W.31 - Nafitulla.It has been submitted that though these witnesses have turned hostile, on the basis of these statements it was possible to rely on their testimony.Reliance was also sought to be placed on the interview which was taken by P.W. 73 - Pankaj Shanker Sharma of these witnesses in support of their submission that the said version given by them in the interview was an independent 230/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 231 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 corroboration and that should be relied upon.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::So far as the interview which was taken by P.W. 73- Pankaj Sharma is concerned, we have already observed that the evidence of this witness is not acceptable and similarly authenticity of the CD which was recorded by this witness not being tested by the expert witness and seriously disputed by the defence, it will not be possible to rely on the said statements of these two witnesses (P.W. 30 and P.W.31) when they have given interview.Possibility of doctoring these CDs also cannot be ruled out and, therefore, unless authenticity of the document viz. CD is proved through expert, it is very risky to rely on the testimony of such persons who suddenly pops up their head 231/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 232 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 in the midst of the trial.It will, therefore, be not possible to rely on the interviews given by P.W. 30 - Nasibulla and P.W.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::31 - Nafitulla to P.W. 73 - Pankaj Sharma as recorded in the said CD.Apart from that, the so-called admissions, the list of which has been given by the learned Special Public Prosecutor also, in our view, cannot be treated as admissions and the said statement do not assist the prosecution case in establishing independently the identity of the assailants.Apart from that, both these witnesses have turned hostile and have been extensively cross-examined by the prosecution to discredit their testimony.It has been strenuously urged by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Adhik Shirodkar appearing on behalf of the defence that the Trial Court had erred in treating the statement of Zahira as an FIR.It has been submitted that her statement was recorded at 1.00 P.M. in the hospital.It has been further submitted that the first information which was received by the police in the Panigate Police Station was at about 10.00 A.M. and pursuant to the information which was received, Baria (P.W.72), Kanani 232/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 233 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 (P.W.74) Piyush Patel (P.W.67) and Rathod (P.W.63) rushed to the scene of offence.It has been submitted that even assuming that the said information which was received was a telephonic information and even if the said information is not treated as an FIR, the first information which was received and recorded by the police was the statement of Raees Khan (P.W.27), after he was admitted in the hospital.It has been submitted that both, Dr. Meena (P.W.46) and Dr. Choksi (P.W.62) in their statements have categorically emphasized that this witness was the only witness who was fully conscious.It has also been submitted that he (P.W.27) in his evidence has stated that he regained consciousness in the hospital and inquiry was made by the police after he regained consciousness.It has been submitted that, he has given details about the said incident and, as such, his statement being earlier in point of time ought to have been treated as an FIR.It has been submitted that even the vardi which was given by P.W. 16 and 17 and which has been brought on record, clearly states that the statement of Zahira was recorded at 1.00 P.M. Under these circumstances, therefore, in our view, Trial Court clearly erred in treating Zahira's statement as an FIR.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::It appears that the prosecution was interested in treating the said statement as an FIR since in the said statement, names of the accused had been mentioned.In our view, Trial Court committed serious error in treating the statement made by the witness as res gestae and relying on the said statement in the FIR as a corroboration to the testimony of the eye witnesses.Even assuming that the said statement was correctly treated as an FIR even then the approach of the Trial Court is erroneous.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::The next question which falls for our consideration is regarding evidence of P.W. 69 - Gautam Chauhan.This witness was a Videographer and he was asked by Gujarat Police to videograph various incidents which had taken place and he had stated that he had taken video tape of the incident at Best Bakery after the incident was over and he had videographed entire scene of the bodies being brought down from the first floor and the witnesses being taken in Ambulance to the hospital.We have, with learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defence, seen this CD in the judges' Conference Hall with the assistance of our technicians and technicians of the prosecution.It is an admitted position that so far as this CD is concerned, the said CD has been taken after the main 234/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 ::: 235 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 incident was over and, therefore, at the highest, it can be used for the purpose of understanding the topography of the Best Bakery and the residential premises and also the manner in which Fire Brigade people brought down the bodies.The defence, however, has strenuously urged that the said CD was doctored.It has been submitted that this was evident from the time which was shown on the said CD and since there were gaps between the various incidents, it was evident that certain clips had been whittled and it has been urged that these clips were omitted possibly because they were in favour of the defence.It has been submitted that the explanation given by the prosecution that because the battery of the computer was very slow there was a time gap, is not technically possible and, therefore, an inference which could be drawn was that though copies of the CD were taken on court computer and supplied to the defence, appear to have been copies of the CD which were taken out earlier by the prosecution.It has been further submitted that cross-examination of Zahira ended on 31/1/2005 that is about two months prior to the application being made for direction of CD itself was an indication that sequence of events in the CD were asked to 235/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 ::: 236 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Zahira, the hostile witness.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 :::In our view, the submission of defence cannot be accepted that copies of the CD were deliberately taken out earlier because the prosecution had an advantage of being helped by Baria and Kanani and it is possible that Baria and Kanani might have instructed the prosecution and, therefore, the said submission is not acceptable.Even otherwise, nothing turns on this aspect, since it was a piece of evidence which was with the prosecution and the fact that they had seen it earlier would be inconsequential.However, the fact remains that from CD it does appear that there were certain gaps in time which has been displayed on the said CD and it does appear that certain clips have been removed; whether it was done deliberately or otherwise is difficult to ascertain but, factually, it will have to be noted that certain clips appear to have been removed.In any case, the said CD/video tape recorded by Gautam Chauhan (P.W.69) does not assist the prosecution in any manner since it pertains to the time after the said incident had taken place.We are unable to agree with the said observation made by the learned Trial Court.In the first place, so far as Piyush Patel (P.W.67) is concerned he has stated in his evidence that he was DCP of the entire Zone in which the Panigate Police Station is situated and was an immediate superior Officer who had arrived at the scene immediately after Baria (P.W.72), Kanani (P.W.74) ig and Rathod (P.W.63) had reached the scene of offence.In his evidence, he has stated that three women came and met him and narrated the entire incident.He has stated that those three women had given names of the accused and he has narrated names of these accused in his substantive evidence before the Court.The witness has been cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 :::It is a matter of record that statement of this witness has been recorded on 24/3/2002, almost after a lapse of about 22 days.Normally, a high ranking Officer who was a DCP of the Zone and if he had come to know about the names of the accused, he would have promptly given a direction to the Investigating Officer to first record his statement.Surprisingly, he has not given such direction.He was unable to give any explanation as to 237/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 ::: 238 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 why his statement was not recorded earlier and that he did not give any direction to arrest the accused whose names were narrated to him by three women.This witness also does not mention the names of three women who have given this information to him.Even Rathod (P.W.63) who has also stated that three women came and met him does not state that these women had given names of accused.It is also curious that though videographer was present at the scene of offence alongwith Baria and thereafter Piyush Patel arrived at the scene, surprisingly the said scene where three women met Piyush Patel (P.W.67) has not been recorded by Gautam (P.W. 69) and this, therefore, creates doubt about the names of the accused being given immediately by these women to this Police Officer because had these names been given, ordinarily, the immediate reaction of this Officer would have been to take steps to arrest the accused.There is no material on record to indicate that any such steps were taken.This being the position, Trial Court clearly erred in relying on section 6 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of relying on the testimony of this witness and more particularly regarding names of the accused which were given by this witness.The said findings, therefore, deserve to be set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 :::He invited our attention to the following observations made by the Trial Court against him and the team of defence:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 :::475) - 'This has been done apparently to cover the points which though initially not thought of, but the significance of which was realized as the arguments progressed.(4955) OBSERVATION 5 :- The defence had 240/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 ::: 241 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 challenged the evidence of p.W.67 D.C.P. Piyush Patel on various grounds.OBSERVATION - 8 -:- ( Volume 36 -page 8882 -para321) It is only on being assured of their support on this issue, the challenge to Yasmin's presenc~ appears to have been taken .... However that this assurance was felt before the hostile witnesses were examined in Court.None of the hostile witnesses were examined 241/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 ::: 242 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 before Yasmin was examined ... ...This is rather strange.OBSERVATION - 12 :- (volume 36 page from page 8918 to 8932 - paras 375 to 390) (a) Kumar Swami proved to be an unreliable, (b) tried to avoid answering questions, on realising that it was not at all necessary to record Yasmin's statement.(c) 242/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 ::: 243 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Page 8924 - This clearly shows that Kumar Swami was not interested in actually finding out the truth, but only in giving an official sanction to the statements made by Yasmin during the interview given to T.N.N. Channel."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 :::It has been also submitted that the Trial Court had exceeded in its authority in asking the questions under section 165 of the Evidence Act, more particularly to the defence witness D.W. 1 - Kumar Swami who had been called only to bring on record the contradictions in respect of testimony of Yasmin (P.W.29).It has been submitted that the Trial Court had asked questions to this witness which were running into 23 pages when it was totally irrelevant and not necessary to ask these questions since the witness was called only to prove the contradictions.Judge's power to put questions or order production.- The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in 243/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 ::: 244 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:39 :::There is a clear indication of collusion between the accused or somebody interested in affecting the prosecution case on one hand and Nafitulla and the other hostile witnesses on the other hand."At the same time, we feel that Trial Court should have been more circumspect while making any observations regarding cross-examination and submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the defence and, in our view, the observations which are made and which are introduced 247/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 ::: 248 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 hereinabove are clearly uncalled for.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012Whether a mob of 1000 to 1200 people had come to the Best Bakery from all directions and had set the Bakery on fire and had caused death of women and children viz ig Jainabibi Hasanbhai, Shabnambibi @ Rukhsana Aslam, Sabira Habibulla, Cipli @ Saili Aslam In the affirmative.Shaikh, Babli Aslam Shaikh, Mantasha, aged 3 years, daughter of Firoz Aslam Shaikh and Subhan, aged 4 years, son of Firoz Aslam Shaikh, who were inside the room on the first floor and had looted the Bakery and had taken away Ghee Flour (Maida) and other articles which were in the Bakery and, thereafter, set it on fire?::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012which were set on fire and were thrown as missiles on the terrace of the said Bakery?Whether the victims viz P.W.26 - Taufel, P.W. 27 -Raees, P.W. 28 - Shehzad, P.W. 29 - Yasmin and P.W.32 In the affirmative.- Sailum and the grandmother of Nafitulla were made to get down from the terrace with the help of a ladder ?::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::accused and kerosene was poured on them and they were set on fire and they were also assaulted with swords, sticks and iron rods?::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012Whether the appellants/accused were members of unlawful assembly and were responsible for the death of 14 people viz. (1) Jainabibi Hasanbhai, (2) Shabnambibi @ Rukhsana Aslam, (3) Sabira Habibulla, (4) Cipli @ Saili Aslam Shaikh, (5) Babli Not proved.However, A-11, A-15, A-12 and A-16 Aslam Shaikh, (6) Mantasha were responsible for Firoz Aslam Shaikh, (7) causing grievous injuries to P.W.26 - Taufel, P.W.Subhan Firoz Aslam Shaikh, 27 - Raees, P.W.28 -(8) Baliram Shamlal Verma, Shehzad and P.W. 32 -Sailum, P.W.30 - Nasibulla (9) Prakash Ugroo Dhobi, (10) and P.W.31 - Nafitulla.Raju @ Ramesh Baijnath, (11) Kausarali Shaikh, (12) Arshad @ Lulla Hasanbahi Shaikh, (13) Firoz Pathan and (14) Narsoo Hasan Khan Pathan, and were also responsible for causing grievous injuries to P.W.26 - Taufel, P.W. 27 -Raees, P.W. 28 - Shehzad, 253/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 ::: 254 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 P.W.32 - Sailum, P.W. 30 -::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::injuries to P.W. 26 - Taufel, In the affiramtive so far as P.W. 27 - Raees, P.W. 28 - A-11, A-15, A-12 and A-16 are concerned and in the Shehzad, P.W. 32 - Sailum, negative so far as other P.W. 30 - Nasibulla and accused are concerned.P.W.31 - Nafitulla and had assaulted Baliram Shamlal Verma, Prakash Ugroo Dhobi and Raju @ Ramesh Baijnath?For the reasons stated hereinabove, A-1 - Rajubhai Baria, A-18 - Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi, A-4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai, A-14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput and A-20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and their appeals are allowed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012In the incident involved in this case, 14 people died and there has been a chequered history regarding this case.It was first tried in the Gujarat Trial Court and thereafter against its judgment appeal was made to Gujarat High Court.It was then carried upto Supreme Court which then remanded it to the Bombay High Court requesting Hon'ble Chief Justice to fix up a Court of competent jurisdiction and again from Trial Court, Mumbai, this case has come to this Court by way of these appeals.The fact remains that victims in this case have suffered the most and injury mental as well as physical suffered by them cannot be compensated in 255/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 ::: 256 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 terms of money.However, we cannot ignore the fact that the legislature has taken into consideration this aspect and has amended the Code of Criminal Procedure by introducing the provisions of section 357-A by Amendment Act No.5 of 2009 which was inserted with effect from 31/12/2009 which states that every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of crime and who require rehabilitation.It is also mentioned in the said added section that whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District and Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::A discretion, however, is vested in the Trial Court to make recommendation for compensation if it feels that compensation under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation.Sub-section (6) of section 357A also mentions that the State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority may deems 256/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 ::: 257 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 fit.The High Court also can direct the compensation should be paid apart from making recommendation under sub-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::In the present case, we are informed that State of Gujarat has awarded compensation of Rs 2000/- to these victims who survived viz P.W.26, P.W. 27, P.W.28 and P.W. 32 and compensation of Rs 1,50,000/- has also been paid to relatives of deceased viz. Raju @ Ramesh and Prakash, Similarly, compensation to the tune of Rs 1,50,000/- is also paid to the relatives of Shabnam Aslam Shaikh and Sabira Daughter of Habibulla.Legal heirs of Baliram were not found and therefore no compensation was paid to his legal heirs.In our view, the compensation paid to these four injured eye witnesses viz. P.W. 26 - Taufel Ahmed Habibulla Siddiqui, P.W. 27 - Raees Khan Nankau Khan, P.W. 28 -Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan and P.W.32 - Sailum Hasan Khan Pathan Habibulla Shaikh is inadequate, taking into consideration the injuries which have been suffered by them and the ordeal which they have undergone.We are also of the view that P.W. 29 - Yasmin Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh also is entitled to get the compensation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:40 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012In our view two persons viz Kausarali Shaikh and Arshad @ Lulla Hasanbhai Shaikh who were killed in the said incident but their bodies were not found till today, and, therefore, wife and children of these two deceased persons also will be entitled to get the compensation.It is desirable that this work should be undertaken by the State Governments and not by any NGO or private party since there is always a possibility of allegation being made by either party about interference by such third parties.Time has therefore come for the State Governments to have a witness protection programme so 258/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 ::: 259 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 that witnesses get protection and are not left to the mercy of either side i.e. the accused or complainant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 :::In this case, victims of the said incident particularly members of Habibulla family, not only lost their house but some of their relatives also died in the incident.We would not like to make any observation as to who is responsible for the said witnesses turning hostile but the fact remains that the State could not give adequate protection to these members of Habibulla family.The surviving members of the Habibulla family have been convicted by the Trial Court.The appeals/revisions which have been filed against the said order have not been placed before us.We have also dismissed the applications fled by Mrs. Teesta Setalvad for intervention.We have not made any observation against her in this case and we have observed that third parties have no right to intervene in appeal or even during trial and with these observations her applications are disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 :::189 Before parting with this judgment, we must state that we will be failing in our duty if we do not express our gratitude towards the assistance given by Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel and Advocates Mr. D.S. Jambaulikar, Mr. V.D. Bichu, and Mr. Mangesh Pawar appearing on behalf of the defence and also towards Mrs. Manjula Rao, the learned Senior Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat and Advocates Mr. J.P. Yagnik and Mr Anoop Pandey.We must mention here that without the assistance of both these Senior Counsel, it would not have been possible for us to decide these appeals expeditiously.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 :::APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT:In the result the following order is passed:-ORDER Appeals filed by Accused No.1 - Rajubhai Baria, Accused No. 18 - Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi, Accused No.4 - Pankaj Virendragir ig Gosai, Accused No.14 -Jagdish Chunilal Rajput and Accused No.20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava are allowed.They are acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 324 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 and 188 I.P.C.The fine amount paid by these accused, if any, be refunded to them.A-14 - Jagdish Chunilal 261/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 ::: 262 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 Rajput has already been released on bail on medical ground.His bail bond stands cancelled.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 :::Appeals filed by accused No.11 - Sanjay Thakkar, Accused No.15 - Dinesh Rajbhar, Accused No.12 -Bahadursinh Chauhan and Accused No. 16 - Shanabhai Baria are dismissed.Their conviction under sections 143, 147, 324 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 and 188 I.P.C. is confirmed.Further, the conviction of Accused No.11, Accused No.12 and Accused No.15 under following sections viz sections 435 r/w 149, 436 r/w 149, 395, 448 r/w 149, 449 r/w 149, 450 r/w 149, 451 r/w 149, 144 and 148 of I.P.C is also confirmed.We also direct that all these accused whose conviction has been confirmed by this Court shall be kept in prison in State of Gujarat and not in State of Maharashtra.All the three Criminal Applications viz Criminal Application Nos. 571 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.583 of 2006, 572 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.584 of 262/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 ::: 263 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 2006 and 573 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2006 taken out by the applicant Yasmeen Sheikh are dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 :::We also direct the State of Gujarat to pay compensation of Rs 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs only) to each of the following victims viz (1) Nasibulla Habibulla Shaikh, (2) Sailum Hasan Khan Pathan, (3) Taufel Habibulla Shaikh, (4) Raees Khan Nankau Khan (5) Shehzad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan, (6) Yasmin Nafitulla Habibulla Shaikh so also to the wife and children of two deceased persons viz Kausarali Shaikh and Arshad @ Lulla Hasanbhai Shaikh whose bodies were not found till today.The amount of compensation 263/264 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 ::: 264 APEAL 583/2006, 584/2006 & 585/2006 WITH APPA 571/2011, 572/2011 & 573/2011 WITH APPA 198/2012, 199/2012 & 200/2012 which is directed to be paid to these victims be deposited by the State of Gujarat in this Court within 8 weeks from today and these victims are allowed to withdraw the said amount, after producing a proof of their identity.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 :::All the observations which are made by the Trial Court against the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Adhik Shirodkar and his team are expunged.All these Criminal Appeals and Criminal Applications taken out therein are accordingly disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:45:41 :::
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,667,632 |
Jay Pee Exports Limited had availed of credit facilities under a consortium agreement with Canara Bank and Bank of Baroda.They had executed documents, furnished guarantee bonds, deposited title deeds, securities etc. The two consortium banks initiated proceedings for recovery Rs. 15,47,06,412.7/- before the Debt Recovery tribunal (DRT).Pursuant to One Time Settlement (OTS) and on payment of Rs.550 lacs towards full and final settlement, the claims of the banks were settled and the recovery proceedings before the DRT were withdrawn.On 18.10.2005 the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Canara Bank for return of the collateral security in the form of seven Kamdhenu receipts or FDRs for Rs. 3,52,132/- .It was stated that as per the terms of the Crl.M.C. 2562/2007 Page 1 settlement, these FDRs should be returned or the amount be paid.As there was no response, a legal notice dated 11.11.2005 was issued.By their letter dated 7.12.2005, Canara Bank disputed the claim of the petitioner and denied their liability to pay Rs. 3,52,132/- or release the FDRs in terms of the OTS.The petitioner, relying upon their proposal for OTS and the terms thereof as stated in their letter dated 24.11.2004 and the acceptance by the Canara Bank by their letter dated 7.1.2005 filed a criminal complaint.It was alleged that the respondent bank have committed breach of trust under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) by not returning the collateral security i.e. seven Kamdhenu receipts/FDRs.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
966,712 |
JUDGMENT Wanchoo, J.This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Banaras in respect of an order passed under Section 522, Criminal P. C., by a Magistrate of the Second Class of Banaras and confirmed on appeal by the Additional District Magistrate of that district.The facts of the casa are as follows.Plots Nos. 1160/37 and 1160/60 belonging to Raja Baldeo Das Birla were under the 'cultivation of one ShilSaran, tenant.On 30th July 1946, Baijnath and eight other accused persona forcibly ploughed the said plots.Shiamdhari Singh, servant of Shilsaran, went to the spot and remonstrated with the accused and tried to stop them from ploughing the field, but the accused did not listen to him.On 3lst July 1946, Bhiamdhari Singh lodged a complaint against the accused charging them under Section 447, Penal Code, for having committed criminal trespass and under a, 352, Penal Code, foe having assaulted him.The accused pleaded "not guilty" to the charges.Five of the accused stated that they had no concern with the plots, but the remaining four claimed that the land had been in their possession for the last four years and that they had been paying rent to the zamindar.On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate who tried the case found that accused (were?) guilty be to under Section 447 and under Section 352, Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced them to pay certain amount of fine.Ha also passed an order under Section 522, Criminal P. C, for the restoration of the possession over the plots to the complainant.The accused appealed against this order.The Additional District Magistrate of Banaras, who heard the appeal held that the plots had been in possession of Shilsaran and that the appellants bad committed criminal trespass by entering upon them and cultivating them, and that, therefore, the charge under Section 447, Penal Code, was fully proved.He observed as follows ;As regards Section 352, Penal Code, Shyatmdhari Singh, P. W, 1 has simply stated that when he tried to stop them the accused got ready to fight.Jawahir P. W. 2 has deposed that when Shyamdhari Singh went and tried to Stop them they did nit listen.Basawan P.W. 3 has deposed that Shyamdhari Singh went and protested but the accused refused to listen.No further overt act has been assigned to the appellants and thus, in my opinion, no case under Section 352, Penal Code, has been made out against them.The accused then filed an application in revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Banaras.
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,672,369 |
Shri D. N. Raj, Town Inspector, Hanumana, district Rewa is present in the person.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Surya Pratap Dwivedi in crime no. 359/2017 registered by P.S.- Hanumana, District-Rewa under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 465, 466 and 120-B of the I.P.C.As per the prosecution case, on 26.09.2017, co-accused Pannalal Mishra, who was seller, co-accused Triveni Prasad Kewat, who was buyer and co-accused Bhola Prasad Tiwari and present petitioner Surya Pratap Dwivedi approached Sub- Registrar, Tehsil, Hanumana for execution of the Registry of Survey No.736/1 ad-measuring 0.186 hectare of village, Bhuari.At that time, Nayab Tehsildar, Mudrika Prasad, Advocate Shri Bhavani Shankar and Akhilesh Mishra filed a written application informing that Rin Pustika, which has been filed for execution of the sale deed by co-accused Pannalal, is forged.When the Rin Pustika filed by co-accused Pannalal was compared with the revenue record, it was found that 0.103 hectare of land comprised in Survey No.736/1 is in the name of his brother Harivansh Prasad Mishra and remaining 0.093 hectare is in the name of co- accused Pannalal.The signature and seal of Tehsildar on the Rin Pustika was also found to have been forged.On inquiry, co- accused Pannalal told that aforesaid Rin Pustika was got prepared THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.12061/2018 Surya Pratap Dwivedi Vs.State of M.P.by present petitioner Surya Prasad Dwivedi, who had charged Rs.3,000/- for the same.Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that co-accused persons Pannalal Mishra, Bhola Prasad and Triveni Prasad Kewat have been released on bail.The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had got a forged Rin Pustika prepared at the instance of Pannalal.It has been submitted that apart from bald statements of the co-accused, there is nothing against the present petitioner Surya Pratap Dwivedi on record.He has been in custody since 12.3.2018 and the charge sheet in the matter has been filed.learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application; however, he has conceded that there is no indication in the case diary that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Surya Pratap Dwivedi, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge ahd Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD Date: 2018.07.02 22:09:36 -07'00'
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,644,982 |
Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 06.04.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.363/95 by Additional Sessions Judge, Barwaha, district West Nimad whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC for causing death of his wife and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.The prosecution case in brief is that on 31.07.1995 at about 7:30 in the morning Police Station, Sanvad received an information regarding death of Sevantibai.The Police registered Merg No.24/95 u/s 174 Cr.P.C and started enquiry.It was revealed during the enquiry that the accused used to suspect his wife on her character.On 29.07.1995 heThe accused requested Jugal to help him to take dead body of his wife to his house by his Jeep, as she died while he was taking her to a Ojha/shaman for treatment of jaundice.He further narrated that she fell down from cycle and died.He hired jeep of Jugal and with the help of Nanu and Sohanlal brought the dead body to the house but after keeping the dead body in the house, he ran away.(Delivered on 07.11.2017)-2- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.711/2005 beat her up with a stick.On 30.07.1995, he was taking her on cycle to a shaman for treatment due to complaint of chest pain.He proceeded at about 4 in the evening but instead of taking her to the hospital he took her towards village Badood and on the way near bricks kiln he again thrashed her and caused injuries on her head and neck due to which she died at about 6 p.m. Bhuvaniram and other passerbyes have seen the accused beating the deceased.Nemubai, Ambaramnath, Rajaram and Namu also reached the spot.One Dhannalal Rathore informed the Police.The Police registered a crime u/s 302 IPC and after investigation filed the charge sheet.The accused was charged and punished as stated in para-1 above.From the statement of witnesses examined by the prosecution no inference can be drawn that the appellant had murdered his wife.Learned trial court did not consider the fact that the wife of the appellant was suffering from jaundice and he was taking her for treatment on his cycle and on the way she slipped from the cycle and sustained some injuries.Learned trial Court also committed mistake in holding that the circumstances have proved and the chain of circumstances is complete while there is total lack of evidence against the appellant and none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case, therefore, it is prayed that the judgment and order of the trial court be set aside.Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the case of the prosecution and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.We have considered rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record.The prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove guilt of the accused.Out of these-4- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.711/2005 witnesses Nathibai (PW/2), Dhannalal (PW/3) and Totaram (PW/4), Chetram (PW/5), Prakash (PW/6), Nanakram (PW/7), Bhairam (PW/9) and Shankar (PW/16) have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile.Ishwarsingh PW/10 and Jaswant PW/14 are brothers of the deceased and they have not made any allegation against the appellant rather Ishwarsingh has admitted that the accused was keeping his sister (the deceased) well and was taking her proper care.Jaswantsingh has stated that once they have stayed with them and at that time behaviour of the appellant with the deceased was normal and also the appellant was not having any bad habits.They have stated that on 30.7.95 at about 9.30 pm in the night, the appellant had come on the garage of Sohanlal, where he was getting the jeep repaired at workshop of Jugal kishore.He requested them to help him to take the dead body of his wife to his home.According to these witnesses appellant revealed before them that due to jaundice he was taking her to exorcist.On the way she fell down from the cycle.She requested for water.He went to take water but when he came back by that time she had died.They helped him and brought the dead body to his house by their jeep.Nothing is there in the statement of-5- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.711/2005 these witnesses which can be used against the accused to prove the offence alleged against him.Fattu PW/13 has stated that apart from sailing boat he also treats jaundice by traditional methods/treatment.He gives armlet/periapat.He further stated that appellant had never brought his wife to him for treatment but the appellant has never stated that he was taking his wife to Fathu for traditional treatment.Otherwise also it has come in evidence that before reaching the concerned person for treatment, the deceased fell down from the cycle and died; therefore, this statement of Fathu cannot be used to prove the guilt of the accused.Lastly in post mortem, doctor Shrivastav PW-1 had found many contusions on the face and abrasions on the neck and on the arms of the deceased.It was further found by Dr. Shrivastava that C-3 and C-4 vertebrae were dislocated and fractured and third, fourth and fifth ribs of the deceased were also fractured.Haematoma 3x4 cm in size was present on left frontoparietal region.According to Dr. Shrivastava the cause of death was profuse bleeding due to injury caused on the head and the death was caused within 24 hours of the examination.Shrivastava has denied that these injuries cannot be caused by mere falling from the cycle.But only this evidence is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for causing death of the deceased.-6- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.711/2005The burden lies on the prosecution to bring home the charge by producing cogent evidence.When there is nothing on record as to who has caused the injuries to the deceased then merely on the basis of surmises or conjunctures, it cannot be presumed that the accused has caused these injuries.Sole statement of Dr. K.K. Shrivastava creates a doubt but however strong it may be doubt cannot take place of the proof.Therefore, in absence of any corroborative evidence, charge levelled against the accused cannot be held proved.It is the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that as per the admitted position revealed from the statement of Jugal Kishore and Sohanlal that the accused was last seen alive in the company of the deceased and the death of the deceased was homicidal coupled with the conduct of the accused that after assuring Dhannalal he did not return back with the essential material for funeral proved the guilt of the accused.But nothing has come on record that the relations between the accused and the deceased were sour or tattered.On the contrary it has come on record that they were living together peacefully and there was nothing wrong in their relation.Both the brothers of the deceased have endorsed that the accused was properly taking care of the deceased and their relations were normal.Dhannalal has stated that as a lot of time had gone by and the appellant did not return and his children were getting scared due to-7- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.711/2005 the dead body which was lying in the house in front of them; therefore, he informed the police.He has not stated that due to any doubt regarding death, he had informed the police.Further he has stated that he did not sit at the house of the appellant for full night and so he does not know whether the accused returned in the night or not.Nothing is on record that somebody else had performed last rituals of the deceased.The accused has given an uncontroverted explanation that he was taking his wife for treatment to Badood and she fell down from the cycle.Admittedly the accused went to Jugal and Sohan to seek their help to take the dead body home.If there would have been any malafide intention then he would have thrown the dead body and would have easily run away.This explanation and situation has two fold meaning and both in favour of the appellant.We have reasons to doubt the opinion expressed by the learned trial court.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,651,222 |
(iii) the applicant has a criminal history of six cases.Out of six cases, four cases have been lodged by the informant;4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the present bail application, who would submit that the applicant has duped the informant about Rs. 98,70,000/- by practising cheating.Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The 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.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.The order reads thus:
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,652,165 |
P.W. 7, Bikash Ghosh is the injured witness.He deposed that he had come to the Tea stall of Ratan Mallick to take tea on 05.08.2017 at about 7.15 a.m. At that time while he was drinking tea the appellant suddenly appeared and demanded Rs.500/- from him.The appellant threatened that if the money was not paid he would meet the same fate as his father who had been murdered by the appellant.The witness refused to part with the money and thereupon the appellant started assaulting him with a 'daa'.The appellant tried to kill him by giving a blow on his head with the 'daa'.The witness tried to resist by raising hands and sustained bleeding injuries on both his hands and back.P.W. 5, Pratick Pan and P.W. 6, Isrile Khan shifted him to Naihati Hospital and thereafter to Kalyani JNM Hospital.He was admitted in the hospital.He identified the weapon of the offence as well as his blood stained vest in Court.He also deposed that the appellant had killed his father earlier.The evidence of the injured witness is corroborated by P.W. 4, Ratan Mallick.Ratan stated that on 05.08.2007 around 7.15 to 7.20 a.m. Bikash 4 Ghosh came to his stall to take tea.At that time appellant came to his stall and demanded Rs.500/- from Bikash.Bikash refused to give the money and an altercation ensued.The appellant took out a 'daa' and started assaulting Bikash.The appellant tried to hit Bikash on his head.convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.I have perused the evidence on record.In order to save himself, Bikash raised his hands and sustained injuries on both his hands.He raised alarm and people gathered at the place.The appellant was caught from behind by the local people.Isrile and Pratik shifted the injured to Naihati Hospital and thereafter to Kalyani Hospital.P.W. 5, Pratick Pan and P.W. 6 Isrile Khan have corroborated the evidence of the victim Bikash (P.W. 7) and Ratan (P.W. 6), as aforesaid.P.W. 3 a local fish vendor and P.W. 8 another tea stall owner of Panpur market arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and found the victim in bleeding condition.The victim narrated to them that he was assaulted by the appellant with a 'daa'.P.W. 3 was also a witness to the seizure of the weapon of offence by the police and signed on the seizure list marked as Exbt.He identified the 'daa' in Court.Similarly, P.W. 14 was a witness to the seizure blood stained vest of the victim in the hospital.P.W. 2 is the mother of the victim and de facto complainant in the instant case.She heard the incident from para people and came to Naihati General Hospital to meet his son.Bikash narrated the incident to her and accordingly she lodged written complaint which was scribed by Gour Karmakar, P.W. 1. 5P.W. 11, Dr. Tushar Kanti Ghosh was attached to Naihati State General Hospital at the time of occurrence and he treated the victim.On examination he found the following injuries :"incised wounds, dorsal aspect of right wrist joint-2' X ' skin, bones and tendon.Medium aspect of the right forearm 2' X '.Dorsal aspect of the right middle finger just below the metacarpo phalyngeal joint ' X ' skin, soft tissue and bones.Outer aspect of left upper arm 2'X '.Left elbow joint 'X '.Right forearm 'X '.Left parimer aspect oblique wound 2'X '.Injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon, grievous wound." He proved the injury report marked as Exbt.He deposed that the patient was referred to Kalyani JNM Hospital for better treatment.P.W. 10, Anup Kumar Das is an employee of Naihati State General Hospital.He produced the injury report marked as Exbt.P.W. 13 is the investigating office in the instant case.He visited the place of occurrence and prepared draft sketch map with index marked as Exbt.He examined witnesses.He seized the weapon of offence as well as blood stained wearing apparels of the injured under seizure lists.He arrested the accused.He filed charge-sheet.He further deposed that during investigation he learnt that the appellant had murdered the father of the victim and a criminal case being 6 Jagatdal P.S. Case No. 178 dated 12,05.2004 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered for investigation.From the aforesaid evidence on record particularly that of the victim, P.W. 7 and other eye witnesses like P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, I have no doubt in my mind that the grievous injuries on the victim were caused by the appellant.Exhortation of the appellant at the time of assault and his intention to hit the victim on the head as transpiring from the evidence of the victim and other witnesses also leaves no doubt in my mind that the intention of the appellant was to cause death of the victim.Fortunately, the victim survived due to timely intervention of the local people and prompt medical treatment.The evidence of the eye-witnesses are corroborated by the injuries found by the doctor P.W. 11, who treated the victim at the hospital.Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Coming to the issue of sentence, I find that the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life which is the maximum sentence which may be awarded for the said crime.No doubt, criminal case had been recorded against the appellant for the murder of the father of the victim, however, it appears from the record that he had been acquitted of the said charge.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,653,675 |
Shri S. Vyas, Advocate for the objector.Applicant - Abhishek Dubey, is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.991/2016, registered at police station - Dewas Distt.Dewas for the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC .As per documents charge - sheet filed by the applicant on 18.4.2017, the allegation against the present applicant that he sold Mercedes Bench Benz C220 CDI bearing registration No.MH 14 CE 0077 to one Heena M. Rao at Mumbai, for consideration of Rs.18.00 lacs, out of which 1.00 lac has been deposited in the account of complainant and thereafter, he failed to pay rest of the amount of Rs.17.00 lacs to him.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 19.4.2017, time was granted to the State to inform the court whether the Car in question was subsequently sold to third person or not.Today Mrs. Shandilya, Dy.After investigation charge - sheet has been filed.The allegation against the present applicant is that he sold the vehicle in question to one Ms. Heena at Mumbai by forged documents.The car was sold at Pune (Maharashtra) and there is no prima facie material that the present applicant cheated the complainant and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned Dy.Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer and prays for it's rejection.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,653,937 |
(14-06-2018) The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of F.I.R. registered at Crime No.59/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 406 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5-A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act), as well as consequential proceedings.Precisely the prosecution case is that respondent No.2/complainant Smt. Pushpa Jatav lodged the report at Police Station A.J.K., Morena alleging inter alia that she got the part of the land from Nirpati Rawat for cultivation.On 19.10.2016 when the crop of Bajra was being taken at that time she harvested and taking out the Bajra with the help of one Bharat Jatav then due to the quantity of bags, dispute arose with Nirpati Rawat.The said dispute culminated into verbal altercation and physical force by which the petitioner pushed the complainant resulting into her falling down and she was beaten by kicks and fists and abusive language indicating caste of respondent No.2 were hurled over her.During the incident, Renu Jatav and Priyanka Jatav came there and 2 M.Cr.C.No.2313/2017 saved the complainant.Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No.59/2016 has been registered against the applicant for the offences referred above.Thereafter, petitioner was arrested.Statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet was filed.2 M.Cr.Since the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. as well as the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. the narration of event indicates that it was only on the basis of distribution of millet crop, therefore, it cannot be said that any incident took place with the complainant, being a member for Scheduled Caste but complainant/respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner.Respondent No.2 registered the case against the petitioner only on the basis of some verbal altercation took place between the parties with regard to distribution of millet crop and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any incident against the complainant.Therefore, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner is abuse of process of law, hence liable to be quashed.Alleged incident has taken place only on the basis of distribution of millet crop and therefore, it cannot be said that the incident committed by the petitioner with the respondent No. 2 to insult, intimidate and humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste because prosecution case does not involve any piece of evidence.The civil transaction is being converted into criminal case.In fact, respondent No.1 has registered the case against the petitioner under Section 406 of IPC also.It appears that respondent No.2 has not produced any cogent 3 M.Cr.C.No.2313/2017 evidence against the petitioner for constituting the alleged offence.3 M.Cr.Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,656,750 |
Case diary perused.This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail to the applicant.The first bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated 01.04.2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.72/2018, registered at Police Station Bandol, District Seoni, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 34 of IPC.The allegation of prosecution is that in the intervening night of 8-9th April, 2018 at about 2:50 am five unknown persons have looted a sum of Rs.35,975/-, 3 mobile hand sets from M/s Rakesh Pal Singh Petrol Pump situated at village Chaurgarthiya under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bandol, District Seoni and fled from the spot.Report of the incident was lodged by Monu Janghela.On that basis aforesaid crime against unknown persons has been registered.It is alleged that during the course of investigation applicants and other co-accused persons have been taken into custody.They have admitted the commission of crime and on the information of applicants and co-accused persons some of the looted money, mobile phones and other incriminating articles were recovered.The trial will take a long time to conclude.C. No.3617/2019 order dated 01.04.2019, has been rejected on merit but in the changed circumstances when the applicant is suffering from decease in Seoni jail, where the proper treatment of AIDS is not possible.In this situation without expressing any opinion on merits of the case in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 05/07/2019 02:08:53
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
496,721 |
Heard on IA No.11219/2010, an application for urgent hearing.Since the case diary is available, the application is allowed.Also heard both the parties.As per prosecution, 15 to 20 persons were quarrelling at a polling booth and restraining the voters from voting on 21/1/2010 at about 1:30 PM.On receiving information, the police force including ASI Raikwar visited at the spot but those 15 to 20 persons assaulted the police force with the help of farsa and other dealy weapons.Learned public prosecutor for the State opposes the application mainly on the ground that in the FIR name of Har Narayan is not mentioned, whereas name of the present applicants are mentioned in the FIR.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the custody period of the applicants, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which bail may be granted to the applicants Bihari Patel and Chandra Bhan Patel.They be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,978,560 |
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:10.0pt;<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">This is an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to petitioner for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and later on u/s 302 of IPC in connection with Crime No.260/2014 of Police Station %u2013 Hanumana, District-Rewa.</span></p> <p class="MsoTitle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";text-decoration:none;text-underline: none">According to prosecution, on 23.8.2014, petitioner and three other accused persons assaulted Beni Madhav who died as a result thereof.</span></p> <p class="MsoTitle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";text-decoration:none;text-underline: none">Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in this case because she is wife of main accused Rajbali.</span></p> <p class="MsoTitle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";text-decoration:none;text-underline: none">In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a lady house wife having no criminal antecedents.</span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="text-indent:.5in;line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">Considering the aforesaid and in view of the fact that petitioner is a lady accused and is in custody, it is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.</span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="text-indent:.5in;line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">Petitioner <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Sunita Saket </b>will be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in a sum of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Rs.30,000/- </b>with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court for her appearance in the trial court on dates to be fixed by that court during trial.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">This bail shall continue during the pendency of the trial.In the event of jumping the bail, this facility will be withdrawn from petitioner.</span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">C.C. as per rules.</span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU"> </span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU"><span style="mso-tab-count:4"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">(Tarun Kumar Kaushal)</b></span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="line-height:normal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family: Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU"><span style="mso-tab-count:6"> </span>Judge</span></b></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">Irf</span></p> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;mso-style-noshow:yes;mso-style-parent:"";font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:#0400;mso-fareast-language:#0400;mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font>
|
['Section 506 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.
|
49,979,075 |
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused including the applicant were assigned general role of assaulting the deceased with Lathi and Danda, but subsequently the statements of witnesses were recorded, who have assigned the role of causing injuries to the deceased by Lathi, on the applicant.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute with the aforesaid facts.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.Let the applicant Dhruv Pandey, involved in Case Crime No. 101 of 2015, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,979,494 |
After the death of her husband she was living with her two children in HMD Colony, Shahdara, Delhi and the accused started visiting her house and became close to her and her children.Taking advantage of that closeness the accused started asking the deceased that they should live as husband and wife but she rejected that proposal.The accused, however, instead of dropping the idea of marrying her from his mind threatened her that he would deform her face and body with acid to such an extent that she would not be liked by anyone.On the night of 17th May, 2000 at about 10 p.m. the deceased was lying with her twelve years old daughter Sonia(PW-1) in the balcony of her house on the first floor.At that time the accused came to the balcony scaling the wall near the staircase and poured acid on her and Sonia from a bottle which he was Crl.A. No. 496-2003 2 having in his hand.The deceased and her daughter felt burning sensation on their bodies and so they raised alarm upon which the accused threw the bottle in the room near the balcony and ran away.It was also the case of the prosecution that Aruna had tried to save herself by trying to prevent the accused from throwing acid on her and in that process some acid had fallen on the accused also.Both the mother and daughter poured water on their bodies and came down weeping and shrieking with pain.On hearing their shrieks their relative Tejpal(PW-12), living in the neighbourhood, rushed to their house and took both of them to GTB Hospital in Shahadara.The deceased when examined by the doctor(PW-3) at the GTB Hospital was found to be conscious and oriented.On being asked by the doctor examining her she informed the doctor that somebody had thrown acid on her half an hour back.The doctor made a note of that in the MLC Ex.PW-3/A. The doctor noticed burn injuries on different parts of the body of Aruna covering approximately 55% area of her body which included whole of her face, part of the back, chest, both arms, part of forearms and part of left thigh.Aruna was declared fit by the doctor for making her statement and so PW-16 recorded her statement Ex. PW-16/A. Smt. Aruna stated that her husband had died two years ago and she alongwith her daughter Sonia and son Pankaj was residing in HMD Colony, Delhi.After the death of her husband, Udai Singh(the accused) started visiting her residence and became close to her family.A week ago he had started asking her to live with him as husband and wife but she had told him that she was to marry her children and in case she would live with him she and her children would have no respect in society and nobody would marry her children.Udai Singh on her refusal to live with him told her that he liked her too much and in case she would not agree to his proposal he would deform her face and body to such an extent that she would not be liked by anyone.She further stated that during that night at about 10 p.m. she alongwith her daughter Sonia was lying on the floor of the balcony of her house and at that time they were alone in the house as her son after taking Crl.A. No. 496-2003 4 meals had gone out to purchase Gutka.Udai Singh came to the balcony by scaling the wall near the staircase and poured something on her and on Sonia from a bottle brought by him because of which they felt burning sensation on their bodies.On their raising alarm, Udai Singh threw the bottle and ran away.She and her daughter poured water over themselves and came down crying and shrieking with pain and that on hearing the noise their relative Tejpal, living in the neighbourhood, brought them to GTB hospital in a three wheeler and got them admitted there.On the basis of aforesaid statement of Aruna FIR under Section 307 IPC was registered at about 12.30 a.m. As per the further prosecution case the accused was arrested on 22/6/2000 when he had gone to GTB Hospital to see the injured Aruna.After his arrest he was got medically examined and at the time of his medical examination the doctor(PW-17) noticed multiple burn scars on the back of elbow, middle of fore-arm and left wrist of the accused which appeared to be more than 21 days old.The doctor recorded in the MLC Ex. PW-17/A that those burns were likely to have been caused by acid.The doctor also recorded the history of the burn scars to be due to falling of acid.Since the family Crl.A. No. 496-2003 5 members of Aruna were not satisfied with the treatment which she was getting in Delhi she was removed from GTB Hospital and taken to Dehradoon on 06-07-2000 and was got admitted in Doon Hospital there.Her dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination by PW-18 Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak at the Doon Hospital.PW-18 noticed that there were superficial to deep burn injuries involving whole body except right side of face, scalp, right and left hand, anterior abdominal wall and some parts of thigh.Slough was also present over burnt areas over chest and neck.As per post-mortem report Ex.In view of the death of Aruna and the post-mortem report regarding the cause of her death Section 302 IPC was also invoked by the Delhi Police against the accused.During the course of investigation the police had sent one broken glass bottle which had been seized from the spot and sealed on the night of the incident to Forensic Science Laboratory(FSL) where on examination by the chemical expert that bottle was found to Crl.P.K.BHASIN, J:In this appeal the appellant assails his conviction and the sentences awarded to him by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for his having killed a young widow, who had spurned his advances for marriage after the death of her husband, by throwing acid on her and also for having caused acid burn injuries on her twelve years old daughter.The facts leading to the trial and conviction of the appellant(hereinafter to be referred as the accused) may first be noticed.Similarly, acid burns to the extent of approximately 20% were noticed on the body of Sonia by Crl.A. No. 496-2003 3 the doctor who examined her.A. No. 496-2003 2A. No. 496-2003 3A. No. 496-2003 4PW-18/A the cause of death of the deceased was opined to be shock and secondary infection due to burn injuries.A. No. 496-2003 5A. No. 496-2003 6 contain a drop of sulphuric acid.One pillow and some clothes in burnt condition seized from the place of incident were also sent to FSL where on examination sulphate ions were detected on the same.On the completion of investigation the accused was charge- sheeted and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him for the murder of the deceased Aruna and another charge under Section 307 IPC was framed in respect of the injuries caused by him to Arunas daughter Sonia.The prosecution examined 24 witnesses.After the prosecution evidence was over the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and while refuting the correctness of the incriminating circumstances put to him he pleaded false implication by the police.Thereafter he examined three witnesses in defence, two of whom were examined to establish that at the time of the incident he was not at the place of occurrence.Third witness examined to show that the burn injuries noticed on his body by the doctor at the time of his medical examination after his arrest were, in fact, caused because of falling of some chemical on his body on 10-5- 2000 while working in a cable factory at Shahdara.A. No. 496-2003 7A. No. 496-2003 6A. No. 496-2003 7PW-1 Sonia was examined as an eye witness of the occurrence but she did not support the prosecution case.He was examined by the prosecution to show that after he came back from the market just after the occurrence his mother had told him that Udai Singh had thrown acid on her and Sonia.This witness also did not support the prosecution case.PW-12 Tej Pal, who had taken the deceased and her daughter Sonia to hospital was examined as the deceased had told him on the way to hospital that accused Udai Singh had thrown acid on her but he also did not support the prosecution.PW-9 Raja Ram is the brother of the deceased and he was examined by the prosecution since the deceased had told him when he had met her in Doon Hospital that accused Udai Singh had thrown acid on her.This witness had supported the prosecution.The trial Court relied upon the statement of the deceased Aruna made to PW-16 SI Sanjay Kumar on 17-5-2000, Ex. PW-16/A, as her dying declaration and also on the statement of the brother of the deceased PW-9 Raja Ram and whatever he claimed to have been told to him by the deceased was also treated as another dying declaration of the deceased.The learned trial Judge found the said two dying declarations of the deceased Crl.A. No. 496-2003 8 duly corroborated also from the presence of acid burn injuries on the body of the accused at the time of his medical examination after his arrest.The evidence of all the three defence witnesses was not found to be of any help to the accused.Vide separate order dated 25/03/03 the accused was awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.3,000/- and one years rigorous imprisonment for his conviction under Section 323 IPC.In this appeal the appellant has assailed the correctness of the decision of the trial Court.A. No. 496-2003 8Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. D.N. Bhalla, at the outset stated that he was questioning the correctness of the prosecution case and the findings of the learned trial Judge that it was the accused who had thrown acid on the deceased and her Crl.A. No. 496-2003 9 daughter.Mr. Bhalla further submitted that there is no reliable evidence to show that Smt. Aruna was in a fit condition to make any statement in the hospital and so the so-called dying declaration of the deceased in the form of her statement to PW- 16 SI Sanjay Kumar could not be relied upon as her dying declaration.It was also contended that when the deceased was brought to hospital and was examined by the doctor and had asked her as to how she had got burn injuries she had told him that somebody had thrown acid on her and had not named the accused at that time which fact also shows that the statement Ex.PW-16/A was not a genuine document and had been fabricated by the police and that was also evident from the fact that even the children of the deceased examined by the prosecution including her injured daughter(PW-1) had not supported the prosecution case.As far as the statement of the deceased allegedly made to her brother PW-9 Raja Ram, which has also been relied upon as the dying declaration of the deceased by the trial Court, is concerned, Mr. Bhalla contended, the same cannot be relied upon since he had not claimed in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased had told him that the accused had thrown acid on her.Alternative Crl.A. No. 496-2003 10 submission put forth by the learned counsel was that even if it is accepted that the accused had thrown acid on the deceased and her daughter then also in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was as a result of the acid burn injuries caused by him since the deceased died about two months after the incident and that too because of some infection.It was also contended that if this submission is also not accepted and this Court holds that the death of the deceased was in fact as a result of the burn injuries caused by the accused still the offence would not amount to murder and at the most it could be said that this is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and that too, punishable under the second part of Section 304 IPC.In the end, Mr. Bhalla also prayed on behalf of the accused that if the conviction of the accused for the death of the deceased is altered to Section 304(II) IPC the sentence of imprisonment for that offence may be restricted to the period which he has already spent in jail considering the fact that he is in jail for over eight years as also the fact that he was during the lifetime of the deceased visiting her in the hospital to enquire her welfare which is evident from the fact that he was, as Crl.A. No. 496-2003 11 per the prosecution case itself, arrested from GTB Hospital when he had gone there to meet the deceased.A. No. 496-2003 9A. No. 496-2003 10A. No. 496-2003 11As far as the fact that the deceased and her daughter had sustained acid burn injuries is concerned the learned counsel for the accused did not Crl.A. No. 496-2003 12 dispute the same before us.A. No. 496-2003 16 its correctness.A. No. 496-2003 16He has deposed that before recording the statement of Aruna he had confirmed it from the doctor on duty that Aruna was fit for making statement and further that it had been recorded so even in the MLC of Aruna.In cross- Crl.He had no reason to fabricate a document purporting to be the statement of the deceased Aruna as was suggested to him in cross-examination.PW-3 Dr. Jaswant Singh had initially examined the deceased Aruna when she was brought to GTB Hospital.He has deposed that she was conscious and oriented and her cardio vascular system was also normal and she was fit for making statement and he had mentioned so in the MLC Ex. PW-3/A. In cross-examination also he claimed that she was in a fit statement of mind.We are, therefore, of the view that Ex. PW-16/A was the statement made by the deceased Aruna when she was fit for making the statement.As far as the allegations made by her against the accused in this statement are concerned, we have already noticed the same in the earlier part of this judgment.She had clearly alleged that it was the accused who had thrown acid on her and on her daughter Sonia because of her having spurned his advances.PW-1 Sonia and PW-2 Pankaj, who are the children of the deceased, had both claimed in their evidence that the accused was on visiting terms with them and he used to come to their house.This part of their evidence was not challenged in their cross-examination on behalf of the accused.A. No. 496-2003 19A. No. 496-2003 17A. No. 496-2003 18A. No. 496-2003 19There is no doubt that when the deceased Aruna was examined by PW-3 Dr. Jaswant Singh she had claimed that somebody had thrown acid on her and had not named the accused as the culprit but, in our view, that would not show that her statement Ex.PW-16/A was fabricated one and not genuine.If the doctor had asked her as to who had thrown acid on Crl.A. No. 496-2003 20 her she might have named the accused.It could have been elicited from the doctor only as to whether he had asked her as to who had thrown acid on her.That was, however, not done when he was being cross-examined.Whenever a patient with any kind of injuries is brought to the hospital the primary concern of the doctor attending on the patient is to inquire as to how injuries had been sustained and not that who was responsible for those injuries.It is not really the concern of the doctor to find out from the patient as to who had caused injuries on his person.That is the job of the police officer who is entrusted with the investigation of the crime.In this regard we may make a reference to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court which is reported as 1970(6) DLT 566, "Sudershan Kumar v. State" wherein also the accused had thrown acid on some lady who subsequently died because of burn injuries and when she was examined in the hospital the name of the accused was not recorded in the case history sheet prepared at that time by the doctor.That argument was repelled by the Division Bench by observing as under:A. No. 496-2003 20A. No. 496-2003 21A. No. 496-2003 22So, the dying declaration Ex.PW-16/A in the present case cannot be rejected since in the MLC of the deceased Aruna the name of the accused was not mentioned as the person who had thrown acid on her.The deceased in the present case was brought to the hospital by her neighbour and when her statement was recorded by the police officer none of her relatives was present at that time Crl.A. No. 496-2003 23 and this was elicited from PW-16 SI Sanjay Kumar in his cross- examination.So, even tutoring or prompting of the deceased to make such a statement against the accused is also ruled out.PW-16 had no reason to fabricate the statement of the deceased in order to falsely implicate the accused.We, therefore, reject the argument that Ex. PW-16/A should not be relied upon since the deceased Aruna had not named the accused as the culprit when she was being examined by the doctor at the time of her admission in the hospital.A. No. 496-2003 23The prosecution is also relying upon the evidence of PW-9 Raja Ram who is the brother of the deceased living in Dehradoon.He had deposed that when he had met his sister Aruna in the hospital in Dehradoon she had told him that Udai Singh had thrown acid on her.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of this dying declaration was that PW-9 had admitted in cross-examination that he had not told the police when his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded that his sister had told him that it was the accused who had thrown acid on her and, therefore, it was clear that this witness had made an improvement on a material aspect while giving evidence in Crl.A. No. 496-2003 24 Court and so his evidence should not be relied upon.For the reason put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant for not taking into consideration the statement of PW-9 Raja Ram we are inclined to exclude his statement from consideration but the accused would still not get any benefit from that exclusion since the statement made by the deceased before PW-16 has been found by us to be wholly reliable and by itself sufficient to sustain the decision of the learned trial Court to the effect that it was the accused who had caused acid burn injuries to the deceased as well as her daughter Sonia.A. No. 496-2003 24That circumstance is the presence of healed acid burn scars on the person of the accused at the time of his medical examination after his arrest.He was examined by PW-17 Dr. T.R. Ramtek at GTB Hospital on 23-6-2000 and at that time his MLC was also prepared and the same is Ex. PW-17/A. As per this MLC there were multiple old burn scars which were opined to be more than 21 days old found on the person of the accused and the doctor Crl.A. No. 496-2003 25 was also of the opinion that those burns were likely to have been caused by acid.When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was put the circumstance of find of acid burn marks on his body as mentioned in his MLC Ex. PW-17/A he completely denied having received any burn injuries because of acid and his answer to question no. 25 was "It is incorrect".The explanation sought to be offered through DW-3 was, thus, clearly an afterthought and a false plea.In these circumstances, it can be safely said that the accused must have received burn injuries at the time of incident in question and the acid must have fallen on him also because of the deceased making an attempt to prevent him from throwing acid on her .A. No. 496-2003 25A. No. 496-2003 26A. No. 496-2003 26The said plea of alibi was, however, not taken by the accused himself when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is, thus, clear that by examining two witnesses to establish alibi he had attempted to introduce a false defence and that is evident also from the fact that even the two defence witnesses examined by him have not been able to even probabilise the absence of the accused at the place of occurrence.On the point of alibi of the accused he made a wholly vague statement that generally Udai Singh used to come back to his house from his job at about 7 p.m. and that on 17-5-2000(which is the date of the incident) Udai Singh was present at his(accuseds) quarter.This witness did not claim that the accused was present in his house at the time when the incident in question had taken place and merely on the basis of vague statement of this witness to the effect that on 17-5-2000 Crl.A. No. 496-2003 27 the accused was present in his house it cannot be said that it stands established or even probabalised that at the time of occurrence in question he could not be present at the place of the incident.A. No. 496-2003 27This witness has deposed that on 17-5-2000 he was present at his shop and the accused was also with him upto night.The evidence of these two defence witnesses is, thus, totally contradictory inasmuch as according to DW-1 the accused was present in his house on 17-5-2000 while according to DW-2 the accused was with him that day at his shop upto night time.In any case, even DW-2 did not give the exact time upto which the accused was with him.Therefore, the evidence of DW-2 also does not establish that the accused could not be present at the scene of crime when the incident in question had taken place.Thus, making an attempt on the part of the accused to raise a false plea of alibi through defence witnesses also shows his guilty mind.We are, therefore, of the firm view that it was the accused only who had thrown acid on the deceased Aruna and her daughter Sonia(PW-1) and no fault can be found with the findings Crl.A. No. 496-2003 28 of the learned trial Judge in that regard and the appellants challenge to the findings of the trial Court holding him responsible for the acid burn injuries caused to the deceased Aruna and her daughter must fail.A. No. 496-2003 28We, however, do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.As per the post-mortem report which was proved on record by the autopsy surgeon himself who was examined as PW-18 there were superficial to deep burn injuries involving whole body of the deceased except some portions of the body and the Crl.A. No. 496-2003 29 cause of death was opined to be "shock and secondary infection due to burn injuries".The prosecution case as deposed to by the investigating officer PW-24 SI Manoj Kumar is that the accused was arrested on 22-6-2000 from GTB Hospital where he had gone to see the deceased Aruna.This witness had further deposed that on 6-7- 2000 injured Aruna was taken to Doon Hospital in Dehradoon for further treatment.Even in his cross-examination PW-24 had stated that the deceased Aruna was removed from GTB Hospital on 6-7-2000 and then was admitted in Doon Hospital at Dehradoon.PW-9 Raja Ram, the brother of the deceased, had also deposed that the deceased was brought to Dehradoon where she was given treatment for about 8 days and then she had expired.It is the prosecution case and which has also not been disputed by the accused that the deceased expired on 13-7-2000 in the hospital at Dehradoon.It, thus, stands established that ever since the Crl.A. No. 496-2003 30 date of the incident the deceased Aruna had remained hospitalized till the date of her death.Taking into consideration this fact as also the medical evidence to the effect that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and secondary infection due to the burn injuries which she had sustained on the night of 17-5- 2000 as a result of the accused throwing acid on her it can be safely accepted that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused in throwing acid on her body because of which 55% of her body had got burnt.A. No. 496-2003 29A. No. 496-2003 30A. No. 496-2003 31A. No. 496-2003 32A. No. 496-2003 38A. No. 496-2003 39 SC 2267 wherein the Honble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 299 and 300 IPC and the effect of absence of any plea of the accused for giving him the benefit of any of the five exceptions under Section 300 IPC observed in para no. 13 as under:A. No. 496-2003 39A. No. 496-2003 40A. No. 496-2003 41In this case, we have already noticed that the first doctor(PW-3) who had examined the deceased on the night of the incident when she was brought to GTB hospital had noticed in the Crl.A. No. 496-2003 42 MLC Ex. PW-3/A that the burn injuries sustained by the deceased were to the extent of 55% approximately.In the cross-examination of PW-3 Dr. Jaswant Singh this fact was not challenged.Similarly the evidence of the autopsy surgeon to the effect that at the time of post-mortem examination of the deceased he had found superficial to deep burn injuries involving whole body except right side face, scalp, right and left hand, anterior abdomen valve and some parts of thigh was not challenged in his cross-examination.However, none of these two doctors gave any opinion as to whether the burn injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, benefit of which omission on part of the doctors as well as the failure on the part of the prosecutor to elicit their opinion when they were being examined by the trial Court is being sought to be derived by the convicted accused.The first judgment to which we would like to refer is that of "Bunnilal Chaudhary v. State of Crl.In this case the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination had not opined the injury found on the body of the deceased to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and so it was held that the offence of murder for which the accused had been found guilty by the Courts below was not made out.A. No. 496-2003 42A. No. 496-2003 43In "Kishore Singh and Anr.A. No. 496-2003 44 as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death in view of the discrepant opinions of the doctors the conviction of the accused under section 302 IPC could not be sustained and the same was altered to 304(I) IPC.A. No. 496-2003 44A. No. 496-2003 45A. No. 496-2003 46 or 304(II) IPC.A. No. 496-2003 46A. No. 496-2003 47 depend on its answer.The punishment for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is prescribed in Section 304 of the IPC which reads as follows:A. No. 496-2003 47The accused had gone to the house of the deceased at night time by scaling the wall.He was carrying with him a bottle of acid which he threw on the deceased and her daughter.A. No. 496-2003 48A. No. 496-2003 49" In these circumstances there can be no escape from the conclusion that the accused threw acid on the deceased with the intention of causing injuries which were likely to cause her death.A. No. 496-2003 50In the result, this appeal succeeds only partly.While maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 323 IPC as well as the sentence awarded to him for the injuries caused to PW-1 Sonia, we convert his conviction for causing the death of the deceased Aruna from Section 302 IPC to Section 304(I) IPC.We are, however, not at all inclined to take a lenient view on the point of sentence.The appellant-accused deserves no leniency.In this nation of great traditions and cultures it is believed from ancient times that where woman is given respect only in that place God resides but the appellant-accused has shown least respect for the deceased woman who was a widow and not only that he took undue advantage of her being a widow by first extending her a helping hand and then becoming devilish towards her.The appellant-accused is directed to undergo rigorous Crl.A. No. 496-2003 51 imprisonment for ten years for causing the death of the deceased Aruna and also to pay fine as directed by the trial Court.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.A. No. 496-2003 51A. No. 496-2003 52
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.
|
49,982,383 |
Accordingly, case has been registered against the present applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case.None of the cattles of applicant's ownership were being caught by them and hence there was no occasion to pick up fight or to cause physical assault on the complainant.Having perused the case diary and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.One Lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court during the pendency of trial.Certified copy as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Arun/-Arun Nair 2017.11.28 18:23:45 +05'30'
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
499,867 |
In April, 2001 the second respondent filed nomination papersfor four constituencies in respect of the general election to be held tothe Tamil Nadu Assembly.On 24th April, 2001 three nominationpapers were rejected on account of her disqualification under Section8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by reason of herconviction and sentence in the two criminal cases.The fourthnomination paper was rejected for the reason that she had filed hernomination for more than two seats.The correctness of the orders ofrejection was not called in question.On 13th May, 2001 the results of the election to the TamilNadu Assembly were announced and the AIADMK party, which hadprojected the second respondent as its Chief Ministerial nominee, wonby a large majority.On 14th May, 2001, consequent upon the result ofthe election, the AIADMK elected the second respondent as itsleader.WithW.P.(C) No. 245 of 2001, W.P.(C) No. 246 of 2001, W.P.(C)No.& C.A. No. 6589 of 2001 @ S.L.P. (C) No.11763 of 2001JUDGMENTPATTANAIK, J.Leave granted.A question of great constitutional importance arises in thesematters, namely, whether a person who has been convicted of acriminal offence and whose conviction has not been suspendedpending appeal can be sworn in and can continue to function as theChief Minister of a State.In respect of thattenure in office she was (in CC 4 of 1997 and CC 13 of 1997)convicted for offences punishable under Section 120B of the IndianPenal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the offence under Section409 of the Indian Penal Code.She w as sentenced to undergo 3years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000 in the firstcase and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine ofRs.5000 in the second case.The fine that was imposed in both cases was paid.The second respondent preferred appeals against her convictionbefore the High Court at Madras.The appeals are pending.In S.P. Anand, Indore Vs.H.D. Deve Gowda and Others [1996(6) SCC 734], the first respondent, who was not a member ofParliament, was sworn in as Prime Minister.Reference was made to the earlierjudgments.It was held, on a parity of reasoning if a person who isnot a member of the State Legislature can be appointed a ChiefMinister of a State under Article 164(4) for six months, a person whois not a member of either House of Parliament can be appointed PrimeMinister for the same period.At the time of his appointment as a Minister Tej Parkash Singhwas not a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.He was notelected as a member of that Assembly within a period of six monthsand he submitted his resignation.During the same legislative termSardar Harcharan Singh Barar was replaced as Chief Minister by Smt.To alleviate these consequences and in the interest ofthe administration of the State and its people, who would have actedon the premise that the appointments were legal and valid, we proposeto invoke the de facto doctrine and declare that all acts, otherwiselegal and valid, performed between 14th May, 2001 and today by thesecond respondent as Chief Minister, by the members of the Councilof Ministers and by the Government of the State shall not be adverselyaffected by reason only of the order that we now propose to pass.We are of the view that a person who is convicted for a criminaloffence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less thantwo years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State underArticle 164(1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such.We, accordingly, order and declare that the appointment of thesecond respondent as Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu on14th May, 2001 was not legal and valid and that she cannot continue tofunction as such.In the light of this order, the other writ petitions, the appeal andthe transferred writ petition stand disposed of.No order as to costs.Itreads as follows:-The original common-law writ of quowarranto was a civil writ at the suit of the crown,and not a criminal prosecution.It was in the natureof a writ of right by the King against one whousurped or claimed franchises or liabilities, toinquire by what right he claimed them.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,998,757 |
This is first application made by the accused/applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.473/2018 registered at Police Station - Badgonda, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 489-A, 489-B, 489-S of IPC.AG appearing on behalf of the respondent/State opposes the bail application.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.Accordingly, the applicant - Abdul Vahab S/o Abdul Rehman is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 2 Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before that Court during the pendency of trial.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['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.
|
49,991,135 |
The accused no. 1 told the complainant and his kins that he already had discussion with his parents to marry the complainant, and since then he used to meet her very frequently at the Mecheda Railway Station while the complainant was in her way to Bagnan college and the accused tried to have physical relation with the complainant and wrote a number of letters seeking her permission for co-habitation, and that, one evening in July, 2005 while the complainant was alone in her home, the accused no. 1 came to complainant's paternal house and promised the complainant to marry her very soon and induced her to have physical relation with him, and that, though the complainant was not agreeable till the marriage is completed the accused no. 1 could impress her that the marriage with her was only a matter of days and she should rely upon him and have physical relation with him at that moment, and that as the complainant relied upon the promise of the accused no. 1 exploited the advantages and had co-habitation with the complainant on several occasion in her paternal house while her parents were absent, and that after that incident the complainant urged the accused no. 1 to finalize the date of marriage as early as possible, and that, being afraid of the aforesaid co- habitation without the knowledge of the parents the complainant asked her parents to have a dialogue on the proposal of wedlock with the parents of the accused no. 1 at the earliest, and then the father of the complainant contacted the parents of the accused, accused no. 2 and 3; and after negotiation the parents of the accused no. 1 along with him came to the house of the complainant on 15th August, 2005, and thus the parents of the complainant met the accused no. 2 & 3, the parents of accused no. 1, and invited them to come to the paternal house of the complainant to finalize the date of marriage, and that on 28th August, 2005 Sunday the parents along with their son, the accused nos. 2,3 & 1 came to the paternal house of the complainant while the complainant, her parents, complainant's father's sister & her husband, aunt and her husband were present and told them that the complainant is their only choice to take her to their house as the wife of their only son but told the complainant her parents and other kins that as they were to remodel their house, the date of marriage will be fixed in January/February, 2006, and that after the aforesaid meeting of both the sides, the accused no. 1 would very often come to the paternal house of the complainant and as complainant's parents took him as their son-in-law, the accused no. 1 along with his photographer friend came to stay at the paternal house of the complainant.The complainant taking the accused no. 1 as her husband during the absence of her parents and at the instance of the accused no. 1 had intercourse with him on several occasion and at the request of the accused no. 1 a good number of photographs of the close posture of the complainant and accused no. 1 were taken.This continued for months, and in February, 2006 the complainant and her parents asked the accused no. 1 to fix up a date for a meeting with their parents to finalize the date of marriage but the accused no. 1 tried to evade.Her father and her aunt's husband went to the paternal house of the accused no. 1 on 26-02-2006 and as per their previous assurance requested the parents of the accused no. 1 to fix up a date of marriage while the accused no. 1 was also present but to their surprise the accused nos. 1,2 & 3 denied having made any promise of marriage In this situation the complainant along with her father's sister and her husband met the accused no. 1 at Mecheda the complainant asked the accused no. 1 the reason for denial of the proposal of marriage in between them.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side.The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Partha Sakha Datta CRR No. 1329 of 2008 Pranay Jana Vs.State of West Bengal & Ors.By this application prayer is made for quashing of a proceeding being Tamluk P.S. Case No. 86 of 2006 dated 06-05-2006 under Section 417/420/376 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 302 of 2006 now pending before learned CJM, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk.The complainant told him that she would prosecute further studies and her negotiation for marriage would only be done by her parents and guardian and that, at the instance of the complainant the accused no. 1 met her father's sister and her husband who are the witnesses No. 5 & 6, and the accused No. 1 agreed to her proposal for the wedlock with the complainant.Both her father's sister and her husband advised the accused no. 1 to meet the parents of the complainant and advanced the proposal of marriage with the complainant and that during that period, the accused no. 1 wrote a good number of love letters to the complainant and in July 2003, the accused no. 1 met the parents of the complainant in the presence of her father's sister and her husband, her aunt and that of her husband and proposed to them to marry the complainant.The parents and other kins told the accused no. 1 to have a dialogue with his parents before finalizing the proposal.The complainant also asked him why the accused no. 1 on the plea of promise marriage fraudulently enjoyed her and had intercourse with her on occasion and took photographs in closed postures with her.Learned CJM sent the petition to the police for investigation under Section 156(3)The parents of the petitioner by filing a revisional application being CRR No. 2683 of 2008 prayed for quashing of the proceeding as against them and this court by order dated 15 of February, 2008 quashed the proceeding as against them only.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,090,665 |
A criminal complaint case was lodged on 14.11.2011 by the a hy complainant Smt. Suman Patel against the petitioner Damodar and other family members alleging that on 10.11.2011, marriage of the ad petitioner was solemnized with the complainant and immediately after M the marriage, dispute arose and the complainant Smt. Suman Patel was thrown out of the house for not fulfilling the demand of dowry and of since then she has been living at her matrimonial home.This rt complaint has been filed under Section 498-A, 294, 506 B & 323, 420, ou 416 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.It is claimed that the complainant again on the same facts lodged C the report at Police Station-Garhakota, which has been registered as h Crime No.264/2017 for offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry ig Prohibition Act and Section 498 of IPC.It is contended that when the H respondent/wife is living separately since 2011, no occasion arose for the petitioner to live with her, therefore, no fresh cause of action has been arisen.The FIR dated 31.5.2017 is, therefore, is a vague one.Respondent No.2 be noticed by ordinary as well as RAD mode on payment of PF within three working days, returnable in four weeks.In the meanwhile, proceeding of Criminal Case No.117/2017 pending before JMFC Garhakota District-Sagar is stayed till the next date.Case be listed after four weeks.Certified copy as per rules.sh (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE e ad Pr a nd hy Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI ad Date: 2017.11.30 16:40:21 +05'30' M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,091,009 |
The deceased had nine months old son at the time of her death.The autopsy was performed on the dead body of the deceased and no ante-mortem injury was found.The present revision has been filed by the complainant against the judgement and order dated 5.2.2000 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Session Trial Nos.108 of 1985 and 695 of 1996, whereby the accused have been acquitted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IOC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.First Information report was registered on 31.3.1994 at Police Station Sandila against five accused on a written compliant by father of the deceased i.e. P.W.-1, Gendan Lal Maurya alleging that the deceased Sunita, who was married to accused, Naresh S/o Shyam Lal two and a half years before the date of incident, was killed by the accused on 30.3.1994 for dowry demand.VISCERA was persevered for examination.However, a six months female fetus was present in the womb of the deceased.On examination of VISCERA, Aluminum Phosphate was found.Thus, the death of the deceased was caused due to consumption of poison, Aluminum Phosphate.In his examination, he had said that he got the report written by himself and gave it at the police station, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered against the accused.It is important to mention here that the complainant did not mention any specific demand in the written report, however, in his statement before the Court, he said that the accused were demanding Rs.25,000/- cash and Rajdoot motorcycle.He had further said that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given including cash and a Moped.Shyam Lal and Smt. Rekhana, who were father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, are no more.Hemraj is elder brother of Naresh and Kamla Devi is wife of Hemraj.Two charge sheets were filed; one against Naresh, husband of the deceased and Shyam Lal, father-in-law and Smt. Rekhana, mother-in-law and another charge sheet was filed against Hemraj and his wife Kamla Devi.On the basis of the evidence adduced in defence of Hemraj and his wife, the trial court had concluded that Hemraj and his wife were not living with Naresh and other co-accused and they were living at Tehsil Headquarter.On 30th and 31st March, 1994, Hemraj was on duty and was not present at the place of incident.The trial court after analysing the evidence, has recorded a finding that the demand of dowry could not be established inasmuch as there was contradiction in the statement of P.W.-1 and in the F.I.R. version.Therefore, the trial court did not believe the prosecution story of the demanding dowry of Rs.25,000/- and motorcycle particularly when the Moped was already given at the time of marriage, which took place two and a half years back.The trial court after scrutinizing the evidence closely, came to the conclusion that once the prosecution had failed to prove the case of dowry demand and there was no ante-mortem injury found on the body of the deceased, the prosecution could neither prove the demand of dowry nor torture by the accused to the deceased for dowry demand and, therefore, it had acquitted the accused.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record."113B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).]"A conjoint reading of Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 113B of the Indian evidence Act makes it clear that there is burden on the prosecution to substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113B of the Evidence Act against the accused.Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative is sine qua non to draw the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the evidence Act. If the prosecution fails to prove by cogent and persuasive evidence to prove the ingredients of dowry demand and cruelty therefor, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C.The Supreme Court in the case of Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor, (2013) 3 SCC 684 while dealing with the ingredients of Sections 304B and 498-A I.P.C. held as under :-We have perused the evidence of PW 1 and PW 4, the father and mother of the deceased respectively.We find that PW 1 has stated that at the time of marriage, gold, silver articles, ornaments, TV, fridge and several other household articles worth more than Rs 2,50,000 were given to the appellant and after the marriage, the deceased joined the appellant in his house at Kagaziguda.He has, thereafter, stated that the appellant used to work in a xerox-cum-typing institute in Nampally and in the sixth month after marriage, the deceased came to their house and told them that the appellant asked her to bring Rs 50,000 from them as he was intending to purchase a computer and set up his own business.Similarly, PW 4 has stated in her evidence that five months after the marriage, the appellant sent her away to their house and when she questioned her, she told that the appellant was demanding Rs 50,000 and that the demand for money is to purchase a computer to start his own business.Thus, the evidence of PW 1 and PW 4 is that the demand of Rs 50,000 by the appellant was made six months after the marriage and that too for purchasing a computer to start his own business.
|
['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.
|
49,092,977 |
"Envy is the desire to have what someone else has.Jealousy is the fear of losing what you have.The more insecure you are about yourself or your relationship, the more jealous you are, because you are afraid to lose your significant other to someone else."Present is a glaring example of another brutal inhuman attack with acid on a young girl of hardly 25 years of age, out of jealousy giving rise to the present appeals.2. Simran @ Meena Khan (hereinafter referred to as "A-1") and Raju @ Qayoom (hereinafter referred to as "A-2") assails the judgment dated 15.01.2011 in Session Case No. 49/10 arising out of FIR No.1036/04 PS Lajpat Nagar by which appellants were held Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 2 of 41 guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 326/120B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).Appellants were absolved of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.4.1 Annu Mukherjee (hereinafter referred to as victim) a young girl aged 25 years, worked as a dancer in Rajdoot Hotel, Bhogal.A-1 also worked there as a dancer with other girls.About one month prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between victim and A-1 as latter was envious of the former as the former was more beautiful and was a good dancer.During that quarrel A-1 threatened her that if she quarreled with her she would get acid thrown at her and would get her killed.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 3 of 414.2 According to prosecution on 19.12.2004, as usual victim left her house and boarded her regular autorickshaw at about 7 P.M. to attend the work at Rajdoot Hotel.According to her, A-2, brother of A-1 was already standing near the TSR covering himself with the shawl.As the auto driver started the vehicle.A-2 removed his shawl and threw acid on her head and face from a glass.On falling of that liquid (now proved to be Sulphuric Acid) she received severe burn injuries on her face.When she cried out due to pain, first she was taken to Shahi Hospital then to Apollo Hospital and lastly to Safderjung Hospital.4.3 While victim was under treatment at Apollo Hospital, on receipt of DD No.12 Ex.PW10/A from security supervisor Apollo Hospital regarding admission of Annu Mukherjee in injured condition due to acid attack, Ct.Balwant Singh (PW9) alongwith ASI Vedpal (PW15) reached Apollo Hospital and recorded the statement of injured (Ex PW1/A) which culminated in registration of First Information Report (Ex.4.4 During the course of investigation, statement of TSR driver Parvez Alam was recorded.Footmat of TSR, Pant and shirt of Parvez Alam were seized.Pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/C, he got recovered one shawl, one jeans and pant from H.No.WZ-666 Padam Basti, Nangal Rai.He further got recovered a plastic bottle containing very little quantity of acid from garbage bin of gate no.2 near Esckon Temple, Garhi.On 07.01.2005, Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 4 of 41 brother of injured produced a grey colour jersey, one chunni, pyzama and suit belonging to Annu Mukherjee.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 5 of 41 Section 326 IPC.Accordingly, he sentenced the appellants/accused persons, as noted above.The First Information Report, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses especially the evidence of the doctors PW17, PW18, the evidence of the victim PW1, evidence of injured eyewitness PW5 and evidence of another eyewitness PW4 who came to spot immediately after the incident, beyond any doubt shows that on the date of incident victim did receive acid burns on her person and clothes.It is also not much in dispute that due to the burns, her entire face was burnt and has become Crl.A.1393-12 Page 7 of 41Incidentally, the fact that A-1 and PW-1 Annu Mukherjee knew each other and worked together in Hotel Rajdoot where they used to work as dancers although is disputed by A-1 but PW1 has deposed so and there is no challenge to her testimony in this regard.Even otherwise, PW7 Kamal Sharma, Manager, Hotel Rajdoot deposed that A-1 and Annu Mukherjee were working as dancers in the Hotel.A.1393-12 Page 8 of 41 thrown at her and would get her killed.She further stated that on 19.12.2004 in the evening she left the house and boarded her regular autorickshaw of one Parvez Alam (PW-5).A-2 was already standing near the TSR covering himself with the shawl.As the auto driver started the vehicle, A-2 after removing his shawl threw acid on her head and face from a glass.She received injury on her face and has lost her vision of both eyes and her face has been disfigured due to injuries.She identified voice of both the accused persons after having short conversation with both of them on the direction of the court.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.He stated that on 19.12.2004 he had gone to pick up Annu Mukherjee Crl.He went to Apollo Hospital where his MLC Ex.It is significant to note that the incident took place at about 7.00 pm.He arrived at the hospital at 7.50 pm and immediately after the incident, aforesaid history was given when there was no time of deliberation or embellishment.It was PW5 Parvez Alam only who removed victim to Apollo Hospital as is recorded in her MLC Ex.PW16/C. Her MLC Ex.PW16/C was prepared wherein following history was noted:"25 years old female reported to Apollo Triage with alleged history of Acid burns on face involving both eyes and forehead.Incident happen today at about 7 pm while going to job in three wheeler (Riksha) near her home East of Kailash.Patient reported to Apollo Triage at about 8.10 pm."Local examination revealed:Area affected burn over face, upper jaw, both cheeks, both eyes and forehead.Small burn over left arm.On the same day, she was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital with alleged history:"sustaining acid burns while she was coming out of her house, someone (as stated by the patient 'Raju' brother of Simran/Meena Khan) threw Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 15 of 41 acid over her.Injuries were opined to be grievous.Moreover, PW-5 admits that his clothes i.e., Pant Ex.The educational institutions, research laboratories, hospitals, Government Departments and the departments of Public Sector Undertakings, who are required to keep and store acid, shall follow the following guidelines:(i) A register of usage of acid shall be maintained and the same shall be filed with the concerned SDM.(ii) A person shall be made accountable for possession and safe keeping of acid in their premises.(iii) The acid shall be stored under the supervision of this person and there shall be compulsory checking of the students/personnel leaving the laboratories/place of storage where acid is used.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of plastic surgeries and other corrective treatments.Having regard to this problem, learned Solicitor General suggested to us that the compensation by the States/Union Territories for acid attack victims must be enhanced to at least Rs. 3 lakhs as the after care and rehabilitation cost.The suggestion of learned Solicitor General is very fair.We, accordingly, direct that the acid attack victims shall be paid compensation of at least `3 lakhs by the concerned State Government/Union Territory as the after care and rehabilitation cost.of this amount, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh shall be paid to such victim within 15 days of occurrence of such incident (or being brought to the notice of the State Government/Union Territory) to facilitate immediate medical attention and expenses in this regard.The balance sum of Rs. 2 lakhs shall be paid as expeditiously as may be possible and positively within two months thereafter.The Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of the UnionTerritories shall ensure compliance of the above direction.Insofar as the proper treatment, aftercare and rehabilitation of the victims of acid attack is concerned, the meeting convened on 14.03.2015 notes unanimously that full medical assistance should be provided to the victims of acid attack and that private hospitals should also provide free medical treatment to such victims.It is noted that there may perhaps be some reluctance on the part of some private hospitals to provide free medical treatment and, therefore, the concerned officers in the State Governments should take up the matter with the private hospitals so that they are also required to provide free medical treatment to the victims of acid attack.The decisions taken in the meeting read as follows: The private hospitals will also be brought on board for compliance and the States/UTs will use necessary means in this regard.No hospital/clinic should refuse treatment citing lack of specialized facilities.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 40 of 41 ensure that victim be provided with such help and rehabilitation as per the guidelines provided in Laxmis case.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE M AY 27, 2016 mb Crl.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Vide order on sentence dated 19.01.2011, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs 1 Lac; in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.Further, it was directed that 80% of total fine i.e Rs. 2,00,000/- be released to the victim as compensation for her welfare.The victim has also filed an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C, praying for enhancement of the sentence under Section 326 of IPC being inadequate, grant of adequate compensation and other reliefs.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 2 of 41Since all the three appeals are arising out of a common judgment hence, all are taken up together for consideration and being disposed of by this common judgment.PW13/A) against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, and investigation was taken up.During the course of investigation, exhibits were sent to FSL.After completing investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 307/326/120B IPC.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 4 of 41P.C but they pleaded innocence and alleged false implication in the case.They did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.On considering and appreciating the entire evidence and after hearing arguments on both the sides, the trial Court held that though the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused/appellant who threw acid on victim resulting in severe acid burn injuries on her person, the offence does not fall under Section 307 IPC, as put forth by the prosecution because the concerned doctor who prepared the MLC could not be examined due to non-availability, moreover, accused had no intention to kill her but only wanted to hurt her by doing such an act due to which she could not look better and dance better than her but one punishable under Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 7 of 41 totally scarred and both eyes were damaged.Although both of them were not regular employee but they used to perform dance in the restaurant as and when needed and they were paid for their performance for number of days.Hence, it was established that A-1 and Annu Mukherjee (PW-1) were working as dancers in Hotel Rajdoot.The moot question before me is as to who caused the injuries on victim with acid and more importantly I have to see whether prosecution has succeeded in proving that it is the accused persons alone who did it.The star witness of prosecution is the victim herself.In her evidence she has stated that she was working as a dancer in Rajdoot Hotel, Bhogal where accused (A-1) was also working as a dancer with other girls.Prior to this incident about one month back, a quarrel had taken place between her and A-1 as she was envious of her and was more beautiful and was a good dancer.During that quarrel, A-1 threatened her that if she quarreled with her, she would get acid Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 8 of 41At the outset, it is to be noted that this victim has withstood the exhaustive and searching cross-examination by the accused persons in spite of her present physical condition.The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he/she has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 9 of 41 this lends support to his/her testimony that he/she was present during the occurrence.Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence.Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his/her evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.She had quarrel with Simran one month back and she (Simran) was giving warning for the same since last month."A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 15 of 41It was observed "loss of vision B/L eyes/pain".PW5/A1 and shirt Ex.PW5/AW were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He also admitted that seizure memo of shawl of Annu Mukherjee Ex.PW5/A bears his signatures.That being so, it is clear that for some ulterior reasons witness did not identify the accused being assailant of the crime although in his auto rickshaw the entire incident took place and it was he who removed injured to hospital.Similarly, PW4 although did not identify the accused but deposed that the girl was crying that "Raju had thrown acid on her."Further, on receipt of DD No.12 Ex.PW10/A from Apollo Hospital regarding admission of injured with acid burns, ASI Vedpal alongwith Constable Balwant reached the hospital.Injured was declared fit for statement.Her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded wherein she gave not only the details of entire incident but also named the assailants which resulted in registration of FIR Ex.PW13/A. It is to be kept in mind that incident took place at about 7.00 pm.Statement of victim was recorded by 10.55 pm on the same day and FIR was registered at 11.15 am.Early reporting of the incident by victim with all vivid details regarding the incident and assailants gives an assurance regarding truth of the version.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 16 of 41Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version.A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question."Apart from this, the evidence of the seizure witness and Investigating Officer shows that clothes of the accused used on the day of incident were seized on information of the accused himself.Clothes of victim were handed over by his brother and clothes of TSR driver and paidan of autorickshaw were also seized and same were subjected to forensic investigation.As per report of Dr.Madhulika Sharma, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Lab, sulphuric acid was found on shawl, paidan of autorickshaw, shirt, jeans and clothes of victim.These are sufficient circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question.Last but not the least, A-1 has taken a false plea by denying the fact that Annu Mukherjee was working as a dancer in Rajdoot Hotel, Bhogal where she was also working as a dancer with other girls as is reflected from her answer, was pursuant to question nos. 3 and 4 of Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 17 of 41 her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, it is amply proved from the testimony of the victim duly corroborated by the record brought by PW7 Kamal Sharma, Manager of Hotel Rajdoot that this accused and the complainant were working as dancers and used to perform dances as and when required and they were paid for their performance for number of days.It has been held time and again that when an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference against him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused.In this regard, reference can be made to Peresadi v State of U.P., Manu/SC/0100/1956 (1957) Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 17 of 41The Trial Court has considered all these aspects in proper perspective and even on reappreciation of the entire evidence, there is no reason to differ with the view taken by the Trial Court that prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond any reasonable doubt that A-1 was envious of victim and one month prior to incident had threatened her of dire consequences and with that end in view, entered into a conspiracy with her brother A-2 who poured acid and caused acid burns injuries to PW-1 resulting in extensive burns especially on her face and loss of eyesight.That being so, the Appeal Nos.179/2011 and 461/2011 filed by A-1 and A-2 being, bereft of merit, stand dismissed.Now coming to Appeal No.1393/2012 filed by the victim she seek enhancement of sentence to the maximum prescribed for offence Crl.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 18 of 41 under Section 326 IPC, enhancement of compensation, rehabilitation by bearing the entire treatment amount and compensate her adequately to live a human like life in the society.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 18 of 41Counsel for the complainant, challenging the leniency in sentence and meagre compensation awarded to the complainant submits that by their heinous act of acid attack, the accused persons have made the face of a poor, young and beautiful girl of hardly 26 years of age hideous and blind in both eyes.She has been reduced to mangled flesh and has become a prisoner in her own house.The court has ignored the lifelong plight of complainant causing a grave miscarriage of justice to her as well as the society.Disability certificate has been placed on record to show that there is 100% blindness of both eyes.She further submits that on seeing her pathetic condition on television, some Supreme Court Judge got her some employment but she is getting only Rs.18,000/- per month.A.Nos.179 & 461-11 & Crl.A.1393-12 Page 19 of 41On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant submits that A-1 is a widow and has two children.A-1 has already undergone a period of four months in detention where A-2 initially remained in jail for 18 months and thereafter for eight months.Antecedents of A-2 are clear.A-1 was although booked for offence under Section 302 IPC but has been acquitted.b) specifies the reason/purpose for procuring acid.Inter alia, this Section provides for preparation of a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.We are informed that pursuant to this provision, 17 States and 7 Union Territories have prepared 'Victim Compensation Scheme' (for short "Scheme").A.1393-12 Page 33 of 41Apart from the mental and physical damage caused to the victim, its effect on her family were grave.She was beautiful and talented.She remained a top dancer in the hotel for four years.With that end in view A-1 entered into conspiracy with A-2 and on the fateful day, A-2 committed the gruesome crime.As per record, the sentence of A-1 and A-2 was suspended vide order dated 04.08.2011 and 23.09.2011 respectively and they were released on bail.The appellants are directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 04.06.2016 failing which, learned Trial Court would take steps for getting the appellants arrested for serving the remaining period of their sentence.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
49,095,384 |
She became terrified after seeing A-1 there and saw her son pleading with A-1, A-2 and A-3 with folded hands to allow him to eat two meals a day with dignity.She deposed that she had suspected that the accused might do something untoward with her son and therefore, asked Narender to accompany her back to their CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 9 of 28 house but A-1 caught hold of Narenders hand and made him sit.When she kept standing there, A-3 caught hold of her hand and took her outside and assured her that they will cause no harm to her son.She came back to her house and sat down on the stair case of the office of her son, Narender and when her husband (PW-13) came back home, she narrated the entire incident to him.This letter was seized from the room of the deceased on 21.11.2000, vide seizure memo, Ex.CW1/A belongs to Suman and is in her handwriting.On 23.11.2000, a country made pistol .315" and two 8mm/.315" cartridges were recovered subsequent to the disclosure statement of A- 1 (Ex.Hence, the factum of this pistol and cartridges being sent to the FSL for a ballistic examination is no consequence in the present case.The burden lies on the prosecution to connect the recovered article i.e. Van with the alleged crime.The prosecution did not conduct any forensic examination of the Van to prove that the dead body was actually transported in this Van for being dumped at the nalla near Vinod Motors.The factum of the Van being recovered from A-4s house is also of no help as his house was open and accessible to several other people and not within his exclusive knowledge, as contemplated in Section 27 of the IEA.DW-2 Rakesh Kumar is A-2s neighbour.He deposed that he has accompanied A-4 several times till Palwal.In his cross- examination he could not tell the date or time when he had accompanied A-2 till Palwal.44. A-2 in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC had stated that he was summoned at the Police Station on 20.11.2000, after he had returned home from work and was detained there for one day.The attendance register for November 2000 (Ex.CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 25 of 28Further, A-2 did not give any suggestion to his sister (PW-11) and brother (PW-26) during their evidence that on the date of the incident i.e. 13.11.2000, he had reached home from his office at 10:00 PM, as was claimed by him in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC or even after 8:30 PM, when he along with A-1 and A-3 was seen by PW-12 in the company of the deceased.The several inconsistencies in the statement of A-2 under Section 313 of the CrPC, the testimony given by DW-1 and Ex.Rather, it brings out his intention to conceal the truth by stating that he was at work on 20.11.2000, when he was not.Further, the motive of committing the murder has also been proved through the letter (Ex.CW1/A) written by PW-11 to the deceased some days before he was found dead.The recovery of the deceaseds personal belongings after A-1s disclosure is also an important link in the chain of circumstances.(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 8 of 28 (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 8 of 28Last seen evidenceThe first link that the prosecution had tried to establish was the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, A- 1, A-2 and A-3 through the testimony of Smt. Savitri Devi (PW-12), mother of the deceased.PW-12 testified that her son, Narender was running a Coaching centre at C-33, Bhagwati Garden extension, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi for about 4 months prior to the incident.She deposed that A-3, described as chakkiwala had started becoming friendly with her son since 15 days prior to the incident and on "Monday", A-2 and A-3 came to her house on a two wheeler scooter at around 1:30 PM and asked her son, Narender to come to the chakki on that day for a "meat party" at 7:30 PM.She further deposed that when Narender did not go to the chakki at 7:30 PM, A-2 and A-3 came to her house on a two wheeler and took him along with them.She further deposed that at about 8:30 PM, she went to the chakki to call Narender for dinner and there, she found A-1, A-2 and A-3 along with her son.PW13/B. A register (Ex.CW1/A) in the name of Suman containing pages S-1 to S-47 allegedly containing PW-11s handwriting was handed over by Sudesh Kumar (PW-26) who is Sumans brother." So, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the register, Ex.CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 16 of 28The letter Mark A (Q1) along with handwriting sample marked S1 to S50 were sent for examination to the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents.PW22, PW-23 and PW- 25 deposed in unison that the accused had taken them to Sector-17, Pappan Kalan where there was a small Pipal tree below which was a small temple.About 50 paces on the southern side of this temple the accused had recovered a polythene bag from inside some bushes and in this bag was the pistol and the cartridges.All the three witnesses deposed that no public witness was willing to join the recovery.PW22/D, a polythene bag containing a black coloured purse (Ex.P5), one ring (Ex.P6), currency notes of denomination 10 (Ex.P7), one photograph of the deceased (Ex.P8) and some documents (Ex.P9/1-9) were recovered vide pointing out memo, Ex.PW-22/N. PW-22, PW-23 and PW-25 who were the witnesses to this recovery admitted in their cross examination that these articles were not put to any Test Identification Parade (TIP) and were not even identified by anyone in Court.Even though the purse and the ring were of such a nature that needed identification by a person who had seen the deceased carrying/wearing them, but the photograph of the deceased and his personal documents (Ex.P9/1-9) need no identification as these articles irrefutably belong to the deceased.He had disclosed in his disclosure statement, Ex.PW22/G that A-3 had come to his house on 13.11.2000 and both of them had taken his van bearing registration number DNH 4256 to A- 3s chakki where A-1 and A-2 were already present.He disclosed that Narenders dead body was wrapped in a bed sheet which was then taken by all of them in this vehicle to be dumped in the nalla near Vinod Motors.This Van is registered in the name of Shri Satya Dev, father of A-4, his address is mentioned as A-57, Bhagwati Garden in the RC.However, the recovery of this van is not enough to connect the accused with the alleged crime and the prosecution had to establish a connection between the recovered article and the alleged crime.CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 23 of 28The Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that since the dead body was recovered from the nalla, it must have been transported in some van and since A-4 had stated in his disclosure statement that his Van was used to transport the dead body, this disclosure statement has to be relied upon in entirety.We are of the opinion that the Trial Court erred in coming to this conclusion as the information relating to past user or history is inadmissible in evidence and only the place from where the article is recovered, is admissible in evidence.Consequently, the recovery of the van at the instance of A-4 is of no consequence. A-4 is therefore acquitted of the offences under Sections 201/120-B of the IPC.DW-1, Desh Raj who was working as a foreman with A-2 in Bakhara Bawas Management Board CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 24 of 28 Power House, Balabhgarh, Haryana deposed that the general working hours for the technical staff is from 8 AM to 5 PM.Photocopy of the attendance register for the month of November 2000 is Ex.He further deposed that he does not know the time taken to travel from Uttam Nagar to Okhla.CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 24 of 28The recovery of the pistol and cartridges at the instance of A-3 has also been correctly believed by the Trial Court.All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused in their statement CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 26 of 28 under Section 313 of the CrPC to which they chose to give no reply.A-2 chose to plead an alibi in his statement under Section 313 but that has not been corroborated by the defence witnesses or the documents brought on record.CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 26 of 28The conviction of A-1 (Surender), A-2 (Dinesh) and A-3 (Jitender), appellants in Criminal Appeal no. 389/2004, Criminal Appeal no. 339/2004 and Criminal Appeal no. 393/2004 respectively under Sections 302/201/120-B of the IPC, is upheld.The conviction of A-1 under Section 25 of the Arms Act is also upheld.The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the said appellants are hereby cancelled.They shall surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks, failing which the IO concerned will immediately take steps to have them arrested and sent to custody for serving out the remainder of the sentence awarded to them in the impugned judgment.We find that the Trial Court has not awarded any compensation to the legal representative of the deceased under Section 357 of the CrPC.Pursuant thereto, the Government of NCT of Delhi has framed the Victim Compensation Scheme.Therefore, the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA) is directed in terms of Section 357A (5) of the CrPC to forthwith undertake an inquiry and award and ensure disbursal of the appropriate compensation to the legal heirs of CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 27 of 28 the victim in terms thereof within two months.For this purpose, a certified copy of this judgment shall be delivered forthwith to the Secretary, DLSA with a further direction to submit a compliance report to the Roster Bench within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.If no such compliance is forthcoming within the stipulated time, the Registry will place a note before the Roster bench for further directions.CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 27 of 28These appeals are disposed of in the above terms.The Trial Court record be returned together with a certified copy of this judgment.(VINOD GOEL) JUDGE (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE AUGUST 02, 2019 CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 28 of 28CRL.A 339/2004 (Connected Appeals) Page 28 of 28
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,100,198 |
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.280 of 2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.04.2009, while the victim girl Ammu was alone at her home, the accused who was also working with her in Mahalakshmi Photo Studio, Vellore, came there at about 5 p.m., and had intercourse with her, after making a false promise to marry her and thereby, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 417 and 376 Cr.P.C.The trial court, after hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant documents has framed first charge against the accused under Section 417 IPC and the second charge against him undr Section 376 IPC and the same has been read over and explained to him.The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 have been examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.8 have been marked.When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as respects the incriminatin g materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.One Tamilselvan has been examined as D.W.1 on the side of the accused.The prosecution to substantiate the allegations against the accused, examined the victim girl/Ammu as P.W.1 and she deposed that herself and accused were working together in Mahalakshmi Photo Studio, Vellore, and on 13.04.2009, while she was alone at her home, the accused came there at 5 pm., and promised that he will marry her.Thereafter, the accused had intercourse with her for half an hour and at that time, the neighbour of the victim/P.W.2/Anja @ Anjala came and knocked the door and immediately, the accused went away.When questioned by P.W.2, Anja @ Anjala, the accused informed her that he has promissed to marry the victim girl.P.W.1 further stated that at the time of occurrence, her parents were away at hospital to attend on her sisters delivery and on their return P.W.2 informed them about the occurrence and immediately her parents went to meet P.W.6/Murthi, through whom, P.W.1 joined the said Photo Studio, however, since P.W.6/Murthi was not in town and returned only on 14.04.2009, her parents along with the said P.W.6/Murthi and P.W.7/Kuppan went to the house of the accused on 17.04.2009 and asked the parents of the accused to give the accused in marriage to P.W.1/victim girl.Since they refused for the same, Ex.P.1/complaint was lodged by the father of the victim viz., Elumalai/P.W.3 and thereafter, investigation was carried on.P.W.12/Tmt.Rani, the Inspector of Police, in her evidence, has stated while on duty at All Women Police Station at Vellore, on 18.04.2009, at about 08.05 p.m., the Head Constable-2095, by name Sumathi, placed before her the complaint registered in C.S.R.No.267/09 lodged by P.W.1/Ammu and in pursuant to the same, she registered FIR under Sections 417, 376 read with 511 IPC in Crime No.9/09 and the said FIR is Ex.P.6, and thereafter she visited the occurrence spot and prepared rough sketch-Ex.P.7 and examined the witnesses.According to P.W.12/Inspector of Police, after examining the witnesses and the victim, she altered the offences under Section 417 and 376 IPC and the altered report submitted by her is Ex.Subsequently, P.W.13/Tmt.Suriyakala, the Inspector of Police, completed the investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused.The prosecution examined P.W.11/Dr.Shanmugapriya and P.W.9/Dr.Madanmohan, who examined the victim girl to prove the prosecution case.The Medical Expert, in her evidence stated that on 22.04.2009, she examined one Ammu, brought to the hospital by the police and the said girl was not virgin and there were symptoms of her having intercourse earlier.The medical certificate issued by P.W.11 is produced as Ex.It is further stated by P.W.11, that she did not find any external injuries on the victim girl.Likewise, the prosecution examined another doctor P.W.9 who examined the victim girl to determine her age and he stated in his evidence that on physical examination, the age of the victim girl was assessed as above 18 and below 21 and the certificate issued by the said doctor was produced as Ex.The prosecution also examined another doctor Sudhakar, who examined the accused as P.W.10 and the doctor stated that the accused is not an impotent person and the certificate issued by him is Ex.Thus, on the basis of the above said evidence and materials placed by the prosecution, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the offence alleged against the accused is established beyond any reasonable doubt and found him guilty and convicted him to undergo 10 years R.I., and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 376(1) IPC, in default to undergo R.I., for 2 years u/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved over the same, the accused has preferred this criminal appeal and contends that the finding of the trial court is not consistent with the evidence placed before it and the same is to be set aside.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused contends that there are material contradictions between the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the complaint lodged by her.He also pointed out that even prior to the alleged date of occurrence, the victim and the accused had sexual intercourse 2 or 3 times and the same is established by the evidence of doctor/P.W.11 and Ex.P.5 certificate issued by her and the same was not considered by the trial court.He also contended that contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.5, regarding the injuries sustained on the date of occurrence has not been considered by the trial court and likewise, the contradictions regarding the manner of occurrence among the prosecution witnesses is not looked into and the delay in lodging the complaint has also not been considered and as such the appellant pleads to set aside the finding of the trial court by allowing this appeal and to acquit him.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contends that the accused by making a false promise of marrying the victim girl, had sexual intercourse with her and the consent for the intercourse was given under the misconception that the accused will marry her and thus, the act of the accused will constitute an offence under Section 376 and 417 IPC and pleads for dismissal of the appeal.As stated above, P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that while she was alone at her home on 13.04.2009, the accused came there and had intercourse with her after promising to marry her.The fact of the victim/P.W.1 and the accused were working together in Mahalakshmi Photo Studio at Vellore, is not disputed.According to the prosecution, the alleged promise of marrying the victim girl was made to her while she was alone and no other independent witness is available for the same.Now, it is to be seen as to whether the consent of the victim girl was obtained by the accused by making false promise to marry her.P.W.1 in her cross examination stated that she joined in the Mahalakshmi Photo Studio on 06.04.2009 and the occurrence alleged in Ex.P.W.1 further stated in her cross examination that she worked with the accused for one week only in the said studio.P.W.1 also stated that during lunch time, all the employees will go out, while herself and accused will remain in the studio.According to her, while they were together during lunch time, they had intercourse 2 or 3 times.She further stated that on 13.04.2009, when the alleged occurrence took place, the accused promised to marry her and then had intercourse at her home.Further, the said fact of the victim worked in the said studio only for a week is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8/Arunan, who is owner of the said studio.According to P.W.8, the victim as well as the accused joined for work in his studio on the recommendation of P.W.6/Murthi, who was working as a Watchman.Further P.W.8 stated that victim girl/P.W.1 worked in his studio only for 4 days and thereafter, she did not come to work and at that time, the accused was also employed in his studio.It is therefore clear that the victim girl P.W.1 worked in the said Mahalakshmi Studio only for about a week.In such circumstances, even as per the admission of P.W.1, she had intercourse with the accused 2 or 3 times in the studio itself, and thereafter, on the occurrence day on 13.04.2009, on the alleged promise of the accused to marry her, she had intercourse with the accused at her home.If that be the case, it is apparent that the victim who is stated to be above 18 years and below 21 years of age was having intercourse on several occasions with the accused even prior to promise of marriage was made by him.It is contended by the prosecution that even though she is a major, her consent for physical relationship was obtained by the accused on a false promise to marry her and the same will lead to an offence under Section 376 and 417 IPC.Now, it is to be seen whether the alleged occurrence as explained by the prosecution is established beyond reasonable doubt.However, in the cross examination, P.W.1 stated that at the time of their physical relationship on 13.04.2009, her hands were tied behind her back and her mouth was also tied with cloth.She also stated that while she fought with the accused, the water pot fell down.She further stated that after the physical relationship, when P.W.2 knocked the door, the accused went away, after freeing her hands, which was tied behind her back.From a close reading of the evidence given by P.W.1, who is aged above 18 years as per medical evidence, the contradictions in her statement about having physical relationship on consent believing the false promise of marriage made by the accused and the other evidence that her hands and mouth tied by cloth and she resisted the attempt of physical relationship, creates a doubt in the minds of this court as to the nature of occurrence.In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to necessarily go to the accused herein.Even though the medical evidence of P.W.11/doctor stated that the victim had symptoms of having physical relationship earlier, in view of the materials placed before this court, discussed as above, it cannot be safely concluded that the accused had physical relationship with the victim girl on 13.04.2009 as alleged by the prosecution.In such circumstances, the plea of the appellant that the finding of the trial court is unsustainable, has to be accepted and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused/appellant herein.The point is answered accordingly.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,100,273 |
Prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 11th of February, 1996 around 4 p.m., the prosecutrix (P.W.1), aged about 12 years, had gone to a nearby well situated around about kilometers away from her residence in village Gujri, P.S. Biaora, Distt.Rajgarh to wash her garments.After putting Cr.A. No.747/1997 2 the garments near the well, she went inside a hut situated near the well to fetch soap.Allegedly, while she was coming out of the hut, the appellant reached there and took her forcibly inside the hut; after putting her down on the ground, he removed her undergarments and forcibly committed sexual intercourse upon her, despite her resistance.It is further the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix (P.W.1) tried to raise an alarm, the appellant closed her mouth by his hand and further threatened to kill her.Allegedly, thereafter, the appellant left the place of occurrence further threatening the prosecutrix (P.W.1) not to reveal about this incident to anyone, else, she will be put to death.Cr.A. No.747/1997 2As per prosecution, after the incident, the prosecutrix came back to her house.Her mother, sister Shagun Bai (P.W.7) and brother were not present in the house as they had gone to some other village to attend a marrige.Though prosecutrix's father Ratanlal (P.W.2) was there, however, she did not reveal anything to him about this incident.Next day, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) narrated this incident to Kantibai (P.W.7), her friend, when she had gone with her to prepare cowdung cakes.The prosecutrix further narrated this incident to her mother, sister Shagun Bai (P.W.7) when they came back after attending the marriage.Thereafter, on 13.02.1998 the matter was reported by the prosecutrix (P.W.1) to police, leading to registration of First Information Report (Ex.P/1) against the appellant.Bherusingh (P.W.9) - the then Sub-Inspector, Police Station Biaora, during the course of investigation Cr.A. No.747/1997 3 prepared site map (Ex.P/2).Dr. Shasi Gupta (P.W.6) prepared two slides of vaginal swab taken from the private parts of the prosecutrix.Apart this, pubic hairs were also taken.(Delivered on 15th day of December, 2016) This appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against judgment and order dated 10.07.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, Distt.Rajgarh in S.T. No.89/1996, whereby Bhawarlal (appellant) has been found guilty for offences under Section 376 and 506 (Part-II) of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (for short 'IPC') and has been sentenced to undergo 8 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 376 'IPC' and to undergo 2 years R.I. for offence under Section 506 (Part II) 'IPC'.Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The prosecutrix (P.W.1) and other witnesses were interrogated.The prosecutrix (P.W.1) was sent for medical examination.Dr. Shashi Gupta (P.W.6) examined her on 13.02.1996 and, vide report Ex.P/6, found following injuries on her person, which, as opined by her, were caused within 2-5 days of examination :Cr.A. No.747/1997 3i) Abrasion cm.x cm.(superficial) over left lateral part of the neck.ii) Bruise coupled with the abrasion 1 cm.x 1 cm.on the back (lumber region).On examination of the private parts, though hymen was found intact, however, inflammation and pain was noticed one cm.below vagina.The petticoat worn by the prosecutrix was also seized.The appellant was arrested and sent for medical examination.After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was laid before the learned Magistrate, who committed the case to the Sessions.Charges for offences under Section 376 & 506 (Part-II) 'IPC' were framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses including prosecutrix (P.W.1), her father Ratanlal (P.W.2), sister Shagun Bai (P.W.5) and friend Kanti Bai (P.W.7).Dr. Shashi Gupta (P.W.6) had conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix, while Bherusingh (P.W.9) is the investigating officer.Documents Ex.P/1 to P/10 were also Cr.A. No.747/1997 4 marked in evidence.Cr.A. No.747/1997 4The appellant in his examination under Section 313 of 'the Code' denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and claiming innocence submitted that he was falsely implicated because of enmity between his family and the family of the prosecutrix.Sole witness Biram (D.W.1) was examined in defence.The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, vide the impugned judgment, found the charges proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as stated herein- above with regard to charges for offence under Section 376 & 506 (Part-II) 'IPC'.The conviction and sentence has been challenged in this appeal on the ground that the learned trial Judge has committed a serious error in relying upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and in discarding the version put forth by the defence.It is contended that considering the fact that First Information Report was lodged quite belatedly and that the prosecutrix's father has been on inimical terms with the appellant, the trial Court ought not to have believed the version put forth by the prosecutrix, particularly, in the background that no definite opinion regarding commission of rape was given by the concerned doctor.Cr.A. No.747/1997 5Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix is free from any serious anomaly or contradiction; being a case involving prestige of the prosecutrix, her family was slow in reporting the matter to the police, therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR has rightly been held to be not fatal.The doctor who conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix has found injuries not only on the neck and back of the prosecutrix but also on her private parts which corroborates the version put forth by the prosecutrix (P.W.1) with regard to commission of rape.Lastly, it is submitted that generally the parents will not go to the extent of levelling a false charge on account of enmity at the cost of the reputation of their daughter.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the conviction and sentence being in accordance with law and evidence, the same does not call for any interference.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The question before this Court is whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is not in conformity with relevant law and the evidences on record and, therefore, unsustainable ?The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has clearly deposed that on the date of the incident, she had gone to the nearby well to wash her clothes and that when she was coming out of the hut, situated near the well, after fetching soap, the appellant came Cr.A. No.747/1997 6 there and took her forcibly inside the hut.This witness has further stated that she was put down by the appellant on the ground and thereafter, the appellant after removing her 'Ghagri', had put his private part into her private part and also pressed her breasts and that when she tried to raise alarm, he had pressed her neck.This witness has further stated that despite her resistance, the appellant had sexually assaulted her and thereafter, left the spot by threatening her not to reveal the incident to anyone.Cr.A. No.747/1997 6It has come in the testimony of Shagun Bai (PW5), the sister of the prosecutrix, that on the date of the incident, she along with her mother and brother had gone to village Banania to attend a marriage leaving behind her father and the prosecutrix and that she returned back on Monday i.e. next day of the incident.The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has testified that when she returned back to her house after the incident her father Ratanlal (P.W.2) was there, however, she did not narrate the incident to him.This conduct on the part of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be unusual or unnatural.Ratanlal (P.W.2) the father of the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix had narrated the incident to her mother and sister Shagun Bai (P.W.5).Considering the nature of the incident involving sexual assault it was but natural on the part of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) to feel shy about narrating the incident to his father.Usually, in such a situation the girl will reveal the incident to mother & sister.Though, the prosecutrix allegedly, narrated the incident to Kantibai (P.W.7) her friend, however, she has Cr.A. No.747/1997 7 not supported the prosecutrix on this point and after being declared hostile has been contradicted by her previous statement (Ex.P/7) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. so as to discredit her.Be that as it may, the testimony of the prosecutrix has stood the test of cross-examination, because no serious anomaly, omission or contradiction could be elicited therein as regards substantive facts with regard to alleged incident except a minor omission in her case-diary statement (Ex.D/1) with regard to broken bangles, buttons and torn out blouse.Cr.A. No.747/1997 7The testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) has been challenged by the defence primarily on three grounds, firstly, delay in lodging First Information Report (Ex.P/1); secondly, lack of corroboration from independent source and thirdly, that as deposed by Dr. Shashi Gupta (P.W.6) hymen of the prosecutrix was found intact.It is further submitted that Ratanlal (P.W.2) has admitted in para-7 of his deposition about enmity between his family and the family of appellant, therefore, false implication cannot be ruled out.In reply, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that on the date of the incident, the mother, sister and brother of the prosecutrix were not present in the house as they had gone to some other village to attend a marriage; the prosecutrix, who was threatened by the appellant had narrated the incident to them when they came back to their home.It is further submitted that in rape cases, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be discarded simply because it is not Cr.A. No.747/1997 8 corroborated by independent source.It is submitted that Dr. Shashi Gupta (P.W.6) has found injuries on the person of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) which corroborates her version as regards causing of injuries during the incident.Lastly, it is submitted that no father would put the prestige and honour of her daughter at stake only for revenge on account of enmity.Cr.A. No.747/1997 8As deposed by Shagun Bai (P.W.5), on that day, she along with her mother and brother had gone to village Banania to attend a marriage.It is quite understandable that generally, a minor girl will not feel comfortable in narrating the incident of sexual assault to her father, therefore, it cannot be considered as unusual that the prosecutrix (P.W.1) after return of her mother and sister, had disclosed the incident to them, which later came to the knowledge of her father Ratanlal (P.W.2).Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in Indian social set-up generally, there is a tendency among victims of sexual assault not to come forward to take recourse to law and legal machinery as they apprehend that disclosure of the incident may adversely affect their prestige as well as prestige of their family.In Harpalsingh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361, it has been held that as the prestige and reputation of the family was at stake, therefore, delay in lodging the FIR in rape cases is not an unusual feature.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,103,739 |
Respondent No.2/original complainant lodged first information report against the present applicants on 29.06.2017 alleging that she was married to applicant No.1 Devidas Hatkar on 19.04.2009 and started living with her husband at her matrimonial home.She was given Rs. two lakhs in marriage as dowry.It is alleged that she was treated well by applicants initially for some days.Thereafter, the applicants started torturing, and ill-treating the complainant on trivial issues and on the ground of her physical structure/appearance and also raised suspicion on her character.They asked the complainant to bring Rs. one lakh from her parents for business purpose and in pursuance to the demand, the applicants started ill-treating the complainant, they used to beat her and harass her physically and mentally and some times she was kept without food.Accused also gave threat to kill her and was driven her out of the house.1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the parties, the application is taken up for final hearing.The application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of first information report bearing Crime No. 54/2017 registered with Chudawa Police Station, Tq.Purna Dist.Parbhani for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.By way of amendment, the applicants have also challenged Charge-Sheet No.72/2017 filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Purna and prayed for 2/6 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:57:42 ::: Appln 4244-17.odtquashing the same.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:57:42 :::With these allegations, offence as referred above came to be registered against the applicants.3/6 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:57:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:57:42 :::On perusal of the contents of the first information report it appears that specific allegation of demand of money, ill-treatment and harassment are made against applicant Nos.1 to 4 i.e. husband, father-in-law, mother in-law and brother in-law Vilas Hatkar who are residing at Samtangar, Bhokar, i.e. at the place of matrimonial house of the complainant.There are specific allegations against them that they have harassed the complainant and kept her without food, taken her ornaments and were beating her in pursuance of demand of money.So far as applicant Nos. 5 to 7 are concerned, it appears from the record that applicant No.5 Ravi Hatkar is in service and residing at Aurangabad, at the place of his service.Applicant No. 6 Charushila and applicant No.7 Jyoti are married sisters-in-laws of the complainant.Allegation against them are that they were harassing the compliant mentally and physically in pursuance of the demand of money.Applicant No.5 is brother in-law and residing separately at Aurangabad.Applicant Nos. 6 and 7, are married sister-in-laws is 4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:57:42 ::: Appln 4244-17.odtresiding at Nanded and New Panwel respectively with their respective husbands.There was no occasion for these applicants to harass or torture the complainant on the grounds stated in the FIR.They have no direct concern with the family affairs of the applicants 1 to 4 and the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:57:42 :::On perusal of the first information report it appears that there is no material particular quoting any specific incident of visit or about ill-treatment or harassment against applicant Nos. 5 to 7 so as to attract ingredients of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.All family members of the accused-husband appears to have been roped in the offence.Allegations against applicant Nos. 5 to 7 in the first information report are vague and general in nature.On its face, the complaint does not constitute any offence against these applicants.Nothing can be achieved if criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued against these applicants.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:57:42 :::Hence following order:O R D E Ri.Application of applicant No. 5 Ravi Manohar Hatkar, applicant No.6 Charushila Anil Balkhande and applicant No.7 Jyoti Kishor Khillare is hereby allowed.First information report bearing Crime No. 54/2017 registered with Chudawa Police Station, Tq.Purna, Dist.Application of Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 is rejected.iv.Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:57:42 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
491,062 |
This appeal from an original order is by the plaintiff, the Indian Cable Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff company).The plaintiff's case as made in the plaint and in the application for injunction is shortly as follows :On February 2, 1982, the plaintiff caused an inventory to be made of the furniture, fixtures and fittings of the plaintiff lying in the said property under the signature of the said Sri R. N. Gupta and the plaintiff's officer Sri G. N. Chatterji.JUDGMENT Anil K. Sen, J.The defendant was quite aware of those facts, the rent for the months of February and March, 1982, was duly paid and received by the defendant.On March 29, 1982, the plaintiff filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 in the 3rd court of the learned Munsif at Alipore praying for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right of ingress and egress to the suit property and for a mandatory injunction for removal of all obstructions to the access of the plaintiffs men and agents to the suit property.The plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the defendant had surreptitiously taken possession of the suit property, when Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 was filed.Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession and for injunction.3. Having filed such a suit the plaintiff filed an application for injunction for restoration of possession of the suit property on the allegation that the plaintiff having been in lawful possession of the suit property as a monthly tenant and the defendant having obtained the rent for the said property even for the month of March 1982, took the law in her own hands in wrongfuly throwing out the plaintiff in a surreptitious manner and in breach of the plaintiff's statutory protection under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It was claimed that the defendant acted not only wrongfully but also mala fide when she forestalled the suit against her and wrongfully kept the plaintiff out of the suit property in clear anticipation of a legal proceeding against her.Such being the conduct of the defendant it was claimed by the plaintiff that pending the suit the plaintiff company should be restored to possession of the suit property.This application was contested by the defendant landlady.After a broad denial of the allegations made in the application for injunction she made out a case that after receipt of the rent for the month of March 1982, on and from March 15, 1982, she was surprised to notice that some unknown persons were visiting the flat who refused to disclose their identity or whereabouts.They were so doing in collusion with the plaintiff.In that situation the plaintiff's husband on March 23, 1982, lodged a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, under Section 448 of the Penal Code and the learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the police for investigation with a direction to draw up an inventory.On March 24, 1982, the police in terms of the said direction visited the suit premises and found the door of the suit flat wide open and nobody was found inside the flat.An inventory was made by the police and the investigating officer handed over possession of the suit flat to the husband of the defendant.The police submitted a report and the learned Magistrate by an order dated March 29, 1982, allowed the defendant to remain in possession of the suit flat thus delivered to her by the police.The defendant on her turn filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 164 of 1982 on March 26, 1982, and therein filed an application for an interim injunction restraining the plaintiff company from dispossessing her through any security consultant service.Three days thereafter, the plaintiff company filed Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 with a prayer for interim injunction made therein and that suit is also pending.According to the defendant, the plaintiff having abandoned the said flat and the defendant having taken lawful possession thereof and she being in such possession on the date of the suit, the plaintiff is not entitled to any order of injunction directing restoration of possession to it.The application for injunction came up for consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge on the pleadings, as aforesaid.Though no oral evidence was adduced, parties relied upon affidavit evidence and they further relied upon various documents filed before the learned Subordinate Judge.The application was, however, dismissed as referred to hereinbefore and it was so dismissed on two-fold grounds.The first ground for refusing the prayer for injunction is that the present suit which is the second suit by the plaintiff company is barred under the provision of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. because the plaintiff could have sought for further remedy now being sought for in the present suit, in the earlier suit still pending in the 3rd Court of the learned Munsif.The second ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge refused the prayer is to the effect that the plaintiff upon its own pleading having been dispossessed on the date of the suit, and in the suit the plaintiff having prayed for recovery of possession, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim an order of injunction for restoration which would mean not only granting the main relief in the suit on an interlocutory injunction but would mean something more than restoration of status quo as on the date of the suit.Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward before us.Before I proceed to consider the plaintiff's claim for injunction by way of restoration on its merits, I must clear the two grounds on which according to the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff's prayer must fail in law.In my view, the learned Judge clearly overlooked the provision of Order 2, Rule 2 in taking the view that the present suit filed by the plaintiff company will be barred under such a provision only because the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff company, being Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 is still pending.What this Rule requires is that every suit shall include the whole of the claim arising from one and the same cause of action and not that every suit shall include every claim or every cause of action which the plaintiff may have against the defendant.The plaint in Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 is to be found at page 126 of the informal paper book prepared for our present purposes.It was based upon a cause of action which arose on and before March 15, 1982, and as pleaded in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint.In those paragraphs of that plaint it was clearly pleaded that the plaintiff had been in quiet and peaceful possession of the suit property until March 15, 1982, when the defendant started abusing and harassing the plaintiff's men and agents in the matter of getting access to the suit property.In the plaint of that suit there was no allegation of dispossession from the first floor flat.What was being alleged was that the defendant was wrongfully putting padlocks on the outer door thus making it difficult for the plaintiff's men getting access to the first floor.This being a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of tenancy rights along with damages valued at more than Rs. 33,000/- obviously such a claim could not have been added to the earlier plaint pending in the court of the learned Munsif not having the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.None was named as an accused in this application, nor was it pointed out that the disputed flat was then being held on a subsisting lease by the plaintiff.The plaintiff was not made party to this application nor any notice thereof was served upon them.An order to the following effect was obtained from the learned Magistrate: "Officer-in-Charge, Lake Police Station is directed to cause on investigation in the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure treating this petition of complaint as F. I. R. and to prepare inventories if necessary.To 30-4-83 for report".On March 25, 1982, the Security Consultants lodged an information with the Officer-in-Charge of the Lake Police Station, that the security guard on duty at the disputed flat were not allowed entry by the landlady on March 24, 1982, and even on that date in the morning when Sri S. K. Mookerjee a retired Assistant Commissioner of Police-- an officer of the consultants went there, he was allowed no access to the flat.Even before the returnable date, the landlady caused an application to be filed on March 27, 1982, praying for an order directing the police to submit an interim report and the Magistrate allowed the prayer.In this report, it was stated that the occupant of the flat left the flat sometime in the middle of January 1982, locking the flat.Few days after the flat was vacated some unknown persons numbering about 3 or 4 heads occupied the flat when the landlady's husband was out of Calcutta.Their movements were suspicious and they mis-behaved with the caretaker of the house Sri Mazumdar.Even on March 23, 1982, they were seen in the flat, since morning of March, 24, 1982, they were not seen in the flat.The flat was found unlocked and there was none to look after the flat.Sri R. R. Chakrabarti took charge of the flat in the presence of the witnesses.It was an unworthy act on the part of a police officer in not even examining the said Security Consultants or give them an opportunity to participate in the enquiry before he put the landlady into possession.We feel no hesitation in holding that the police officer was acting hand in hand with the landlady and was a party to illegal dispossession of the lawful tenant.There is no doubt in my mind that the landlady knew well that the flat fell vacant when the plaintiff's officer then in occupation vacated at the end of January 1982, and since then the plaintiff company through the Security Consultants had posted security guards therein.They were actually thrown off on March 24, 1982, and with the help of the Sub-Inspector of Police possession was taken over.When the defendant was feigning that some unknown persons were visting the flat she did it falsely knowing full well the identity of the persons therein posted on behalf of the plaintiff.This appears clear to us from the materials on record.Though the returnable date was fixed by the learned Magistrate on April 30, 1982, on March 27, 1982, an order was obtained for submitting an interim report by March 29, 1982, and such an interim report having been submitted, an order was obtained from the Magistrate to the effect that in the interest of investigation the course of action taken by the I. O making over charge of the flat to R. R. Chakrabarti be continued.On March 29, 1982, the present plaintiff filed their earlier suit, being Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 referred to hereinbefore.She knew very well that she was wrongfully dispossessing the plaintiff and, as such, in all these proceedings she was withholding all notices on the admitted tenants, the plaintiff.The appellants were quite unaware at relevant times, that they had actually been dispossessed in such a wrongful manner.Such being the manner in which the plaintiff had been thrown out of the suit property not only in breach of the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, but also wrongfully and by abuse of process of criminal court at a point of time when the tenancy in their favour was still continuing, I cannot but hold that they are entitled to be restored to possession even on an interlocutory application.All this was done in hot haste in anticipation of a suit likely to be instituted on behalf of the tenant when it is well established on the facts that the respondent started obstructing the security staff from continuing to occupy the fiat put into their possession as an interim measure and that led to the raising of a dispute.In a case like the present one, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to make out such an exceptional case where the courts have ever felt any hesitation to grant interim relief by way of restoration of possession.In the result, the appeal succeeds.
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,119,100 |
This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the courts below holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 304-A,338 of IPC and 184 of M.V.Act.The petitioner stood trial for offences under sections 304-A and 338 IPC and 184 of Motor Vehicles Act in case tried in C.C.No.3669 of 2004 by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.The prosecution case was that on 06.03.2004 at about 02.00 p.m, the petitioner/accused, drove the offending van in a rash and negligent manner near Little mount, Saidapet opposite 'A.G.Church' and hit pedestrians, due to which one Sundaram sustained head injuries and died and two other pedestrians sustained grievous injuries.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 12 exhibits.None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.The trial Court entered a finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioner to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- i.d 6 months R.I. for offence u/s. 304-A IPC and 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i.d 3 months R.I for offence u/s.338 IPC.There against, this revision.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl) side.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the only direct evidence as regards the occurrence comes through the mouth of P.W.4- Parvathi an injured witness.The other witnesses allegedly present in the scene of occurrence P.Ws.1 to 3 have spoken to hearing a noise and then comong to know of the accident.The version of P.W.1 is that P.W.4 sustained injuries while she was walking on the platform, whereas the evidence of P.W.4-Parvathi was that she too was crossing the road when the occurrence took place.He would also contend that P.W.4 had admitted that the petitioner was not responsible for the occurrence.Though the occurrence has resulted in death of one person and injury to two persons, this court is constrained to allow this revision.It is the evidence of P.W.4, injured witness, that she and others were stationed in the middle of the road and that she and others crossing from one direction and those crossing over in the opposite direction from the A.G.Church as also a cyclist from such direction collided with each other.She further deposed that the deceased, an elderly person, fell down and died and that this petitioner was not to be blamed.Total misappreciation of evidence by courts below, given the attendant facts and circumstances would provide ground for interference in revision by this court.Though many are the cases which arise owing to rash and negligent driving of vehicles, many more are those which occur due to rash and negligence acts of pedestrians.The present case is one which falls under the latter category.For the aforesaid reasons, this revision shall stand allowed.The judgment of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai passed in C.A.No.51 of 2009 on 26.11.2009 confirming the judgment of learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet passed in C.C.No.3669 of 2004 on 23.01.2009 shall stand set aside.The petitioner is acquitted of all charges.Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner/accused.Index: Yes/No Website: Yes/No To1.The II Additional Sessions JudgeChennai2.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court,Saidapet.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,252 |
The information was recorded and SI Ranbir Singh was directed to investigate into the matter.SI Ranbir Singh along with constables was present at 12.30 p.m. at Loni Road when Karam Singh father of the deceased came to him and informed that he got foul smell from inside the factory of his son, when his son Shanker (PW4) broke the lock of the room inside the factory they found dead body of the deceased lying on a cot.Immediately Ranbir Singh along with some other persons came to the premises and found the dead body.It was noticed that some employees of the factory were missing and a case under Section 302 IPC was registered.During investigation, it transpired that that accused appellants Jallauddin, Kabir Mohd. Tahir and Shekhawat were employees of the factory and on being pointed out by Shanker Singh, (PW4) accused Shekhawat and Jallauddin were arrested from DTC bus stand near New Delhi Rly Station.ORDER Arijit Pasayat, C.J.These four appeals have been filed by four accused persons, (hereinafter referred to as the accused appellants by their respective names), questioning their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302/186 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) read with Sec. 34 IPC for allegedly having caused homicidal death of Billoo, (hereinafter referred to as the deceased.) They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.10,000/- as fine each with default stipulation of six months RI.Sans unnecessary details, accusations which led to trial of four appellants is as follows :On 16.3.1988, at 11.15 p.m. Kalawati (PW-7) lodged a missing report in police station wherein it was stated that on 14.3.1988, deceased had gone to his factory at 8.30 p.m. but had not come back to the house and his whereabouts could not be known inspite of search.They pointed out the place of occurrence and Shekhawat also got recovered the plastic rope with which the deceased was strangulated.Accused Takhir and Kabir Mohd were arrested later on.After registration of case and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed; charge was framed under Section 302/34 IPC and a separate charge was also framed under Section 201 IPC.In order to establish its version, when the Sessions cases were taken up, prosecution examined 23 witnesses.Learned trial Court found that the case was one of circumstantial evidence and mainly three circumstances were highlighted to fasten the guilt on the accused.Firstly, it was observed that on 14.3.1988, Shanker, brother of the deceased, (PW. 4) had seen all the accused persons in the factory and he left at 9 p.m. Secondly, Lal Singh (PW. 5) saw the accused persons standing outside the factory at 11.45 p.m. Thirdly, the plastic rope which was used to strangulate the deceased was recovered on being pointed out by one of the accused persons.First two circumstances were highlighted to bring in application of "last seen theory.As the case rested on circumstantial evidence, afore said circumstances were held to be sufficient to prove guilt of the accused.As indicated above, the accused were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced.It is submitted that at 11.45 p.m. the deceased was not seen in the company of the accused and therefore question of they being last seen together does not arise.The rope was discovered from a place which is easily accessible to others and therefore is of no consequence.Counsel for the prosecution, on the other hand submitted that the very fact that the accused persons were giving out story about the deceased having gone for 4-5 days clearly establishes the guilt.Mere fact that rope was found from a place which is easily accessible to others is not to be considered upon any rigid formula.Before analysing factual aspects it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission.The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also.The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts.To put it differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.(See Hukam Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan, , Eradu Vs.State of Hyderbad Earabhadrappa Vs.State of Karnataka, , State of U.P. Vs.Sukhaasi, , Balawinder Singh Vs.State of Punjab , Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs.State of M.P. .The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.In Bhagat Ram Vs.But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible.The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability, mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given.Jeet Singh ].In the case at hand, prosecution evidence is silent on the aspect as to manner of concealment and place of concealment.Appeals allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,254,877 |
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side.The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Partha Sakha Datta CRR No. 1312 of 2002 Soumitra Kumar Ghosh Vs.I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties.The Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer lodged an FIR with the O.C., Falakata P.S. on 14th of February, 2002 against the present petitioner alleging that the said petitioner, owner of Steel Brick Field was carrying on business in the brick field though his brick field was given in Jimma in favour of Upa-Pradhan of Dhanirampur Gram Panchayat by the B.L. & L.R.O. On this complaint a formal FIR being Falakata P.S. Case No. 19 of 2002 dated 23rd March, 2002 was recorded against the present petitioner under Section 188 of the IPC.Then followed another writ application at the instance of the said Association being C.O. No. 4760 (W) of 1991 challenging claim of advance royalty on brick earth at arbitrary rate and an interim order was passed by the Writ Court.Yet another writ application was moved being C.O. No. 9314 (W) of 1993 challenging arbitrary claim of price on brick earth and his Lordship Hon'ble Justice Satyabrata Sinha (as his Lordship then was) by his Lordship's order dated 7th April, 1997 was pleased to pass an interim order.Yet, another writ application was filed being C.O. No. 15903 (W) of 1994 wherein an interim order was also passed in favour of the writ petitioners.Now it is submitted that on the strength of the series of orders of the writ court the petitioner has been carrying on business; and when carrying on business is protected by the judicial order there cannot be lodgement of a criminal case against the petitioner in view of section 78, IPC.What Mr. Chakraborty submits are all matters of record.In all the aforesaid writ petitions interim orders were passed on the prayer of the writ petitioners including the present petitioners in respect of his own case.In the circumstance, the lodgement of the FIR on 14th of February, 2002 does not appear to be maintainable.At no point of time interim order has been vacated before the FIR was lodged.Accordingly, the application succeeds.The proceeding is quashed.Certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.(Partha Sakha Datta, J.)
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,255,177 |
In short, the prosecution case is that appellant developed affairs with Koushalyabai, a married woman, who was residing in village Nandora.Her husband and son had gone to Nagpur to earn livelihood.On 28.5.1999, at about 9 P.M., when appellant went to the (2) Cr.Appeal 2156/2000 house of Koushalyabai, she insisted him to keep her as his woman.When appellant did not agree for the same, there occurred an altercation, during which, he kicked Koushalyabai and after pouring kerosene set her on fire by burning matchstick.But, immediately thereafter he tried to save her by extinguishing the fire.On her shouting, Lakkhu (PW2), Shankerlal (PW5), Shivlal (PW7) and Rajkumar (PW1) also reached there and extinguished the fire.Sub Inspector G.R.Singh (PW14) after recording the report sent Koushalyabai to Community Health Centre, Barghat.At Barghat, Naib Tahsildar S.L.Choudhary (PW8) recorded her dying declaration Ex.She was referred to District Hospital, Seoni for further treatment.Dr. R.K.Sharma (PW12) examined her injuries and vide her M.L.C. report Ex. P/12 found 40% burn injuries on her body.She was admitted in female surgical ward.In the course of treatment, on 8.7.1999, Koushalyabai succumbed to her injuries.Dr. Abdul Hamid Qureshi (PW11) sent intimation about her death to Police Station, Seoni.The dead body of Koushalyabai was sent to District Hospital, Seoni for postmortem examination.As far as the death of Koushalyabai by burn injuries, it has not been disputed that she died due to burn injuries.She was taken to hospital, Barghat and then to District Hospital Seoni, where her injuries were examined by Dr. R.K.Sharma (PW12).Dr. Sharma vide his report Ex. P/12 found burn (6) Cr.Appeal 2156/2000 injuries on the face and both the sides of neck of deceased.Both arms, forearms and chest was burnt.On front side of abdomen and on the back there were burn injuries and blisters.Her hair were singed.There were about 40% of burn injuries.Koushalyabai was admitted in female surgical ward for the treatment.Koushalyabai remained under treatment at District Hospital Seoni.On 7.7.1999, she expired.After her death, on 8.7.1999, after inquest her body was sent for postmortem examination.Dr. A.K.Sarawgi (PW8) conducted postmortem examination and observed: "highly emaciated body with bone and skin appearance.Eyelids were partially eaten by maggots.There was ulcer in different stages of healing.Ulcers were distributed in her whole face, forehead, chest, post thorax, both upper limbs & scalp hair.The body was ulcerated over about 45% of body surface area.For the Appellant : Shri Siddharth Datt,Advocate.For the State : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer.Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 119/99, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.Dr. A.K.Sarawgi (PW6) conducted postmortem examination on 8.7.1999 and found burn injuries on her body.In his opinion, the death of deceased was the result of septic shock and complications due to 45% burn injuries.Sub Inspector G.R.Singh (PW14) converted the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded for investigation.After completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni.The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions.On charge being framed, appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication.He pleaded that Koushalyabai suffered accidental burn injuries.On hearing her shrieks, he reached there and tried to extinguish the fire.In support of prosecution case, prosecution examined Rajkumar (PW1), Lakkhu (PW2), Shankerlal (PW5) and Shivlal (PW7), but they did not support the prosecution version.The trial Judge, however, relying (4) Cr.Appeal 2156/2000 on the evidence of dying declaration Ex. P/9 recorded by Executive Magistrate S.L.Choudhary (PW8), the first information report Ex. P/14 recorded by Inspector G.R.Singh (PW14) treating as dying declaration and finding the same corroborated by the medical evidence held the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, appellant has filed this appeal.Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the evidence of dying declaration was not reliable since it was not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses Rajkumar (PW1), Lakkhu (PW2), Shankerlal (PW5) and Shivlal (PW7).It was evident from the aforesaid dying declarations that the appellant tried to save deceased by extinguishing fire and also took deceased to police station and hospital.In the alternative, placing reliance on the ratio of Apex Court decision rendered in case of Kalu Ram Vs.State of Rajasthan-AIR 2000 SC 3630, he submitted that the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified.At the most, appellant could have been held guilty under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.(5) Cr.On the other hand, Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that the guilt of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was well established by the evidence of two dying declarations.Once appellant ignited deceased, it had to be presumed that he intended to cause her death.He justified and supported the impugned judgment of conviction.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.From the aforesaid evidence, there appears no doubt that deceased died as a result of burn injuries.(7) Cr.Rajkumar (PW1), Lakkhu (PW2), Shankerlal (PW5) and Shivlal (PW7), the neighbours of deceased, who reached immediately after the occurrence and extinguished the fire, did not support the prosecution case that appellant set fire to deceased.On the contrary, all of them stated that deceased told to them that while she was climbing up the stairs with a lamp in hand, it fell down due to which she got burnt.All these witnesses were declared hostile.The only evidence on which the learned trial Judge placed reliance was the evidence of dying declaration.Naib Tahsildar S.L.Choudhary (PW8) stated that at the time of occurrence, he was posted at Barghat.On the requisition of police Barghat, he went to record the dying declaration of Koushalyabai, who was admitted in Govt. Hospital Barghat.The doctor, who was on duty, certified that Koushalyabai was in fit state to give her statement.On 29.5.1999, at 2.50 A.M., he recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/9).Koushalyabai told that she was in love with Jham Singh, therefore, she asked him to keep her as his wife, but he refused.During the talks, he picked up the bottle of kerosene kept in the (8) Cr.Appeal 2156/2000 house and after sprinkling kerosene over her, he ignited her.On perusal of the dying declaration Ex. P/9, it is revealed that deceased stated that when she cried, appellant Jham Singh extinguished her fire and in the meanwhile, Shivlal, Shankerlal and Lakkhu reached there.It is true that none of these witnesses, who reached at the spot supported the version given by deceased in the dying declaration, but they were declared hostile.There appeared no reason for the Executive Magistrate to have recorded the aforesaid dying declaration incorrectly.In our opinion, dying declaration Ex. P/9 was a correct and genuine document.The dying declaration Ex. P/9 stands further supported by the first information report Ex. P/14, which was got recorded by deceased herself at police station Barghat.This report was recorded by Sub Inspector G.R.Singh (PW14), the station officer of the said police station.Report Ex. P/14 was recorded soon after the occurrence i.e in the morning of 29.5.1999 at about 2.25 A.M. In Ex. P/14, deceased disclosed the same story that she was in love with appellant.He used to visit her house.In the night at 8-8.30 P.M., (9) Cr.Appeal 2156/2000 when he came to her house, she told to him that since he loved her, he should keep her as his wife, but he refused.This resulted into an altercation during which he gave two kicks to her and picked up kerosene bottle from the house and after dousing her with kerosene ignited her with matchstick.When she shouted, appellant extinguished her fire and at the same time Lakkhu, Shankerlal, Shivlal, and Rajkumar reached there and brought her to police station.Absolutely, no allegation was levelled against Inspector G.R.Singh that he recorded a false report.The fact that deceased was taken to police station immediately after the occurrence and the said report was recorded early in the morning indicated the genuineness of the said document.It is well settled that the first information report lodged by a person, who subsequently dies can be treated as a dying declaration, if it relates to the cause of his/her death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his/her death.Indisputably, the conviction can be recorded on the basis of dying declaration alone, but therefor the same must be wholly reliable.The presence of appellant at the time of occurrence is also established by the evidence of Lakkhu (PW2), Shankerlal (PW5) and Shivlal (PW7).It is thus amply established that appellant, who was in love with deceased, set fire to her as a result of which she died.The evidence of defence witnesses Chain Singh (DW1) and Murlidhar (DW2) does not appear truthful that they along with appellant and other persons had gone to pacify a quarrel in the neighbourhood of the deceased and on hearing cries of deceased they went there.According to Chain Singh, the uncle and brother of deceased went to police station and got a false report lodged against Jham Singh because of enmity.Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of (11) Cr.Appeal 2156/2000 the Indian Penal Code was not justified as the appellant was in love with deceased and that upon a sudden quarrel he set fire to deceased because deceased, who was a married woman insisted him to keep her as his wife.On perusal of the dying declarations Ex. P/9 and Ex. P/14, it is revealed that appellant used to visit the house of deceased because of love relations between him and the deceased.On the insistence of deceased that he should keep her as his wife, appellant kicked her and picked up kerosene from the house of deceased itself, sprinkled it and threw a burning matchstick at her.When she caught fire and shouted, he extinguished the fire to save her and did not try to run away from the spot.From these facts, it can be appreciated that the incident occurred in a sudden impulse without any premeditation on the part of appellant.In case of Kalu Ram (supra), accused without any premeditation ablazed deceased, his wife, when deceased refused to part with her ornaments on the insistence of accused/husband.Under infuriation accused doused her with kerosene and wanted her to die and supplied a box of match-stick to her.When she failed to ignite the matchstick, accused collected the match box and lit one (12) Cr.Appeal 2156/2000 matchstick and set her ablaze.When the flames were up, he brought water in a frantic effort to save her from death.Statement of deceased was recorded by the police which became the basis for the FIR and subsequently the Magistrate also recorded her dying declaration.Later deceased succumbed to her burn injuries.If he had ever intended her to die, he would not have altered his senses to bring water in an effort to rescue her.It could be that unfortunately the situation slipped out of his control and it went to the fatal extent.Accused would not have intended to inflict the injuries which she sustained on account of his act.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,260,152 |
The appellants have challenged their conviction in Sessions Case No.466 of 2006, titled as State v. Vinay Kumar & Anr., arising from the FIR No.528 of 2002, under Sections 302/449/376/411/ Indian Penal Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 1 of 64 Code, PS Rohini convicting the appellant Vinay Kumar under Sections 120-B, 449/120-B, 376, 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Munish Kumar under sections 120-B, 449/120-B and 302/120-B of the IPC by judgment dated 7th September, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.The appellant Vinay Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 449/120-B of IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment of two months for offence under Section 376 IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 302/120-B of IPC.Appellant Munish Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 449/120-B IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 302-120-B of IPC.The Sessions Court also ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 2 of 64 detention during investigation and trial be set off as provided under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 1 of 64A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 2 of 64The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19th August, 2002 Neelam Kler w/o Late Sohan Lal, who was employed in the State Bank of Patiala, Karala Branch had come back to her house, H. No. 19, Pocket no. F-24, Sector 3, Rohini, after work at about 5:15 p.m. and she had found her home to be in complete disarray.Her two children, the son named Bharat and the daughter named Sarika also resided with her in the same house.Seeing her house in shambles, she called out for her children, however they did not respond.When she went to the bedroom on the first floor she found the dead bodies of both her children lying on the double bed.Thereafter, Neelam Kler ran downstairs and approached the halwai and told him to call the police.She then came back to the house, cried a lot hysterically and ultimately became unconscious.The information was sent through Ct.Kishan to SI Ombir Singh Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 3 of 64 who along with Ct.Krishan and Ct.Suresh reached the spot.In the meantime the SHO and Addl.SHO Hira Lal, also reached the spot and found that on the first floor, the dead bodies of Bharat and Sarika were lying on the bed.The goods in the house were lying scattered and the almirah was lying open.A television set was also found lying on the top most stair of the first floor.The crime team was called for and on investigation 9-10 iron rods of the iron jaal on the top portion of the courtyard were found to be cut and bent downwards.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 3 of 64During investigation the scene was photographed.Finger prints were lifted as Ex PW18/A. A dog squad was called and the site plan was prepared.On the floor near the double bed, a belt with the monogram of the Central School was lying, which was taken into possession.From the bedroom the bed sheet of the double bed, Ex PW2/H and an iron rod, Ex PW27/A was recovered, while from the roof, three ropes, one aari having a wooden handle and four blades were also taken into possession.Statement of one Narender Mehta, family friend of the victims was recorded, who had stated that he had passed from F- 24, main Road, Avantika at about 4:15 PM on 19th August, 2002 and he had seen Vinay Kumar/son in law of Neelam and his servant Munish Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 4 of 64 going out of the house hurriedly.He had known both of the appellants very well at the time.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 4 of 64The case of the prosecution is that based essentially on circumstantial/evidence one chain of which is disclosure statements of the accused persons, leading to recoveries of certain articles at the instance of the appellants, which were the three watches, two from the appellant Vinay and one from the appellant Munish, two sets of black gloves, Ex. PX and Ex. PX1, and an amount of Rs. 10,000/-.Accused had also pointed out a tent shop from where the rope was purchased, a shop of hardware from where the four blades and the saw (aari) was purchased and a Kabari shop from where the iron rod was purchased.Statements of those shopkeepers were also recorded after which the accused person led the police party to the place of incident vide memo mark PW 3/A.Thereafter, the postmortem report was collected and on perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased Sarika, it transpired that the Doctor had opined that sexual offence prior to the death was a possibility.Consequently, Section 376 IPC was added to the charges.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 5 of 64 Exhibits of both the accused and Sarika were sent to CDFD, Hyderabad for DNA testing and the remaining exhibits were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 24 of 64The society of Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) was registered on 26th March, 1996 under the Andhra Pradesh (Yalangana areas) Public Sources Registration Act, 1300 fasli (Act of 1350 F).It is the only Government approved testing centre where DNA fingerprint solved crimes.Initially it was under the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 27 of 64 Biology (CCMB).The CDFD has analyzed many crimes cases through this technique.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 27 of 64As per his deposition his shop and the place of incident is on the same road and it takes about 5 minutes from his shop to reach the place of incident on foot.PW-3 had also deposed that, at the relevant time he was passing by the place of incident in relation to his work.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 35 of 64 Pradesh (Telangana areas) Public Societies Registration Act, 1300 Fasli (Act 1 of 1350F).(4) This section applies to the following Government Scientific experts, namely-A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 38 of 64Dr. Raman Bhutani had examined appellant Vinay on 23rd August 2002 at 4 pm for a general physical examination and for the collection of the blood sample of DNA Test at Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi.However since he was unavailable he could not be examined on this aspect.In any case in light of the deposition of PW-23 as well as the documentary evidence pertaining to malkhana, the deposition of PW-20 cannot be doubted.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 40 of 64THE ITEMS SENT TO CDFD, HYDERABAD AS PER THE REPORT Ex.PW 29/A:A sealed plastic bottle containing postmortem blood of deceased, Sarika.A small sealed plastic box, containing gauze cloth: vaginal swab of deceased, Sarika.A sealed plastic coloured big polythene cover containing cothes of the deceased, Sarika.Blood sample of accused Mr Vinay in two sealed vials.Blood sample of accused Mr. Munish in two sealed vials.Deposition of PW-29 who analyzed the DNA samples and matched the DNA samples of appellant Vinay with that of the blood found on the clothes of the victim Sarika is very material.S.P.R.Prasad, Senior Technical Examiner, PW-29 who had proved his report dated 15th October, 2003 as exhibit PW.29/A had deposed that the postmortem blood and vaginal swab of the deceased Sarika did not yield DNA suitable for analysis.The DNA from the clothes of deceased Sarika were compared with the blood sample of Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 45 of 64 appellants Vinay Kumar and Munish and on comparison the DNA profile and biological fluids on the clothes of deceased Sarika was found to be comparable with the DNA profile of blood of Vinay Kumar, however, the biological fluids from the clothes of the deceased Sarika was not the source of blood sample of the appellant Munish.The witness also proved gene scan analysis as exhibit PW.29/B for which microsatellites; D18S51; D7S820; FGA; D13S317; D21S11; vWA; D5S818; D8S1179; D3S1358 and Amelogenin were used.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 45 of 64According to the said witness STR method was used for analyzing the DNA fingerprinting.The relevant testimony of PW-7, who conducted the post mortem is as under:A.No.670/2007 at page No.000028 "On the same day, at 12 PM, I conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sarika a female aged 22 years.The deceased was wearing shirt, salwar, underwear blood stained.Shirt was sleeveless and was torn on both sides of the shoulder.Hair band and 11 hairpins.She was of average built, conjunctivae was congested and showed hemorrhagic spots, blood was present at vaginal orifice.On external examination: 1) There was scretch nail marks over the right side of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage placed anteriority, size being 2 cm X 1 mm, 1 cm X 1 mm.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 50 of 64hemorrhagic were present.On examination of neck, clotted blood was present on right anterolateral connective tissues and muscles of the neck hyoid bone was fractured at its right cornu, clotted blood present around it, posterior surface of the cricoids cartilage showed clotted blood approximately 5 ml.There was frothy secretion in the trachea.Thereafter, a rukka was given to Ct Kishan and an FIR No. 528/02 u/s 449/302 IPC was registered.Thereafter a notice u/s 160 of the Cr.P.C was issued and the appellant Vinay Kumar s/o Raj Kumar was directed to join the investigation.He was subsequently arrested on 20th August, 2002 at about 2:00 p.m. after which his disclosure statement was recorded.Subsequently appellant Munish Kumar was also arrested and he too had made a disclosure statement.The recovered three watches were duly identified in TIP by Neelam Kler, mother of the victims.Also four post cards allegedly written by the accused Vinay to his mother-in-law Mrs. Neelam Kler, PW-2 from jail admitting to his guilt were taken into possession by the police.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 5 of 64In order to substantiate its case the prosecution had examined 29 witnesses and thereafter, the accused persons were examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused persons also produced two witnesses in their defense DW-1, Raj Kumar, father of the appellant Vinay and DW-2 Shyam Sunder Batra, a friend of appellant Vinay.The Learned Trial Court considered the arguments of all the parties concerned and carefully weighed the evidence on the record and on the basis of the evidence of PW-3 who saw both the accused persons running out of the house in question; the recovery of the watches belonging to Neelam Kler which were found missing from the house- from which two of the watches were recovered from accused Vinay Kumar, and one watch was recovered from accused Munish, which were duly identified by Neelam Kler in TIP as well as during trial; the recovery Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 6 of 64 of the weapon of offence viz the belt used for strangulating one of the victims as per the endorsement of the doctor who conducted the postmortem; the recovery of the aari, blade of aari and rope used by the accused persons for entry in the house after cutting the iron jaal from the house and the DNA Test Report according to which the biological fluid present on the clothes of the victim, Sarika matched the DNA of the accused Vinay Kumar, the Trial Court concluded that the guilt of the appellants was established beyond any reasonable doubt.Appellants' PleasA 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 6 of 64He urged to discard the testimony of PW-3 Narender Mehta in light of the many alleged inconsistencies evident in his testimony.The learned counsel submitted that as per the testimony of PW-3, he claimed to have seen the accused persons at 4:15 pm on 19th August, 2008, running out of the house of Neelam Kler and that it is only during the evening time that he had come to know that the children of PW-2 had been murdered.Learned counsel further submitted that subsequent to the incident two statements of PW-3 were recorded i.e. one dated 19th August, 2002 and the other dated 20th August, 2002 which were exhibited as Ex PW3/DA & DB.However as per the learned counsel, PW-3 himself deposed that he did not go to the house of PW-2 on 19th Crl.This fact was also corroborated by the deposition of PW- 27, who deposed that he along with the SHO, ACP, DCP had reached the spot and that no person had met the police party at the spot claiming himself to have been aware of the facts of the case or who could throw light on the incident.In fact PW-27 was categorical in deposing that PW-3 had not met him at the spot till the time he remained on the spot up to 9:00 p.m. While on the other hand PW-22 had deposed to the contrary, stating that he had recorded the statement of PW-3 at 6/7 p.m. on 19th August, 2008, which according to the learned counsel is not possible since PW-27 himself had denied having met any person, who was aware of the facts of the case.It is further asserted that the witness must have been added subsequently on the directions of the IO with the intention to falsely implicate the appellants.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 7 of 64The learned counsel also emphasized the discrepancies in the testimony of PW-3 who during his examination stated that he had come home at 8:00 p.m. which is when he heard about the incident from the neighbours, after which he reached the house of Neelam, PW-2 at 8:15 p.m. During the cross examination the said witness deposed to the contrary stating that he had heard about the incident from the persons Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 8 of 64 gathered in front of the spot at 6:00 p.m. Thus as per the learned counsel, these contradictions regarding the time of receiving the information and the source of the information is material in every aspect as it is reflective of the fact that he is not a genuine witness.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 8 of 64The learned counsel further contended that PW-3 while deposing in Court stated that the accused persons were seen running from the spot of occurrence.However this is material inconsistency with his two statements recorded u/s 161 by the police i.e. Ex PW3/DA and ExPW3/DB wherein the word "running" was not mentioned, instead only the term "walking fast" was used.According to the learned counsel if indeed the accused persons were behaving suspiciously, then it is unusual conduct on the part of PW-3 to have not stopped and enquired from them or in the very least to have at least gone to the house of PW-2 to check, if everything was alright.It is further asserted that PW-3 in his examination in chief deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 20th August 2008 after which he came back to his house.While subsequently in his cross examination PW-3 mentioned the time of recording the statement as 2:00 p.m. However he later on deposed to the contrary stating that he had attended the funeral at 2:00 p.m. Thus the learned counsel contended that the witness, PW-3 has contradicted himself on various accounts which is reflective of the fact that he is not a truthful witness.This inconsistency is also apparent from the deposition of PW-22 who Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 9 of 64 categorically deposed that the supplementary statement of PW-3 dated 20th August 2008 was recorded at about 10:30 p.m. In addition, the learned counsel contended that this statement had been endorsed by an unknown officer who was not examined and thus its genuineness has not been established.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 9 of 64The learned counsel has further expressed doubt on the deposition of PW-3 since as per his testimony both the accused persons had made their disclosure statements dated 20th August, 2008 in his presence, however, he is neither the witness nor the signatory to these disclosure statements Ex PW22/A and PW27/G nor does he make any reference about the disclosure statements in Ex PW3/DA and Ex PW3/DB.Further this fact is diametrically opposite to the deposition of PW-22 Sahib Singh who was categorical in stating that while the disclosure statement of accused Vinay was recorded at 5:00 p.m. on 20th August, 2008 at the police station, no public person was present there, other than he himself, Inspector Hira Lal and PW-27 SI Ombir Singh.Thus if in fact PW-3 was present in the police station, his signatures and name should have been on the disclosure statement as well as the personal search memo of accused Vinay, Ex. PW 27/E. It was further asserted that PW-3 in his testimony had categorically stated that the accused persons were not taken to any place nor had they led the police to any place in his presence.However in view of this deposition according to the learned counsel it is glaringly unexplained Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 10 of 64 why his signatures are appearing on the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence Mark 3/A, Ex. PW 27/H and from this, the only inference that can be drawn is that because he was a close friend of the victims family, he agreed to sign any of the documents as per the desire of the police.Thus it is alleged that in the facts and circumstances PW-3 cannot be relied upon and he is not a genuine witness and his testimony cannot be relied on establishing the culpability of the accused.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 10 of 64Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that since PW-3 is a solitary witness to the alleged factum of having seen the accused persons running out from the house of PW-2 which fact has not been corroborated by any other evidence, therefore it cannot be substantial enough to inculpate the guilt of the accused persons.Learned counsel contended that even if the version of PW-3 is to be taken into consideration for the sake of argument, it is highly unlikely that the accused persons would have run out of the victims house, as it would have attracted attention towards them and also since they were well aware of the timings of PW-2, the mother of the victims, so they would have known that she was to come back to the house by about 5:15 in the evening and there was ample time for them to go out without running.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 11 of 64A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 11 of 64The learned counsel vehemently argued that the Trial court grossly erred in relying upon the DNA finger printing report of the CDFD, Hyderabad since there were many manipulations by the police authorities in the collection and preservation of the samples/articles from the point of seizure to the point of its submission before the forensic analysis, which undoubtedly could have contaminated the samples and consequently would have affected the outcome of the report.According to the learned counsel, in the police remand application dated 21st August, 2002 the ground taken to remand the appellants to police custody was for the purpose of taking the blood samples of the accused persons in order to facilitate DNA Analysis, for which two days of police remand was granted.However the learned counsel submitted that the MLCs of both the accused were not placed on the record with the clear intention of withholding it from the Court.It was also alleged by the prosecution that the garments, blood samples and MLC No. 1800 of Munish were handed over by the doctor to PW-25 Suraj Bhan which were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW25/A. However no explanation had been given by the prosecution regarding what happened to the garments, and the blood samples of accused Munish.In addition neither has the seizure memo regarding Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 12 of 64 the garments, blood samples and the MLC No. 1799 of Vinay has been placed on the record nor were the doctors of BSA Hospital, who examined accused Munish and Vinay on 21st August 2002 either cited or examined in Court, for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 12 of 64Thereafter, on 23rd August, 2002 as per the MLC No. 1823/02, accused Vinay Kumar was again taken to the BSA Hospital at 11:35 a.m. by Constable Kishan PW-24 while as per the MLC No. 1824/02 accused Munish was taken to BSA Hospital at 11:40 am by Constable Pramod, PW-21, however neither of the witnesses had deposed about the same.Also no blood samples were taken for DNA analysis at this stage nor was the doctor who examined the appellants been cited as a witness.At about 2:00 pm on 23rd August, 2002 the accused were produced in court after the expiry of two days of the police remand and they were further remanded to judicial custody.However as per the record on 23rd August, 2002 the accused were again taken to the hospital at 3:20 pm, without any permission from the court, since as per the learned counsel, procedural requirement necessitated that samples for DNA should be taken before an MM.As mentioned in the MLC, the accused persons were brought by HC Prakash Pradhan PW-The accused Munish was examined by Dr. Poonam PW-8 vide MLC Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 13 of 64 Ex. PW 8/A and accused Vinay Kumar was examined by Dr. Raman Bhutani vide MLC Ex PW14/A. Blood samples of both the accused were taken.However Dr. Raman Bhutani could not been examined as he had left the services of the hospital, because of which in his place Dr. Kuldeep Singh was examined as PW-14 since he was conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Raman Bhutani.However Dr. Kuldeep Singh testified in court only on the basis of the contents of the MLC, hence as per the learned counsel the non-examination of Dr. Raman Bhutani has caused great prejudice to the appellant Vinay Kumar as many clarifications regarding sampling, taking specimen sample seal, preservation of samples, precautions taken in sampling, role of technicians, etc could not be ascertained.Therefore it is contended that due to non-examination of this material witness the findings of the same cannot be relied on as against the appellant, since its sanctity has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.PW-14 also did not depose anything regarding the details/description of any such seal or state the fact that the samples were sealed.Hence, it is contended that there was a good chance that the samples could have been tampered with.It is further submitted that this is not disputed that there was availability of surplus biological fluid with the police, hence as per the learned counsel it could have been Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 14 of 64 very easily been utilized by the police with the view to manipulate the evidence and inculpate the appellants.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 13 of 64A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 14 of 64It is also pointed out that as per the MLC No. 1823/02 Ex PW 14/A the samples of appellant Vinay Kumar were handed over to HS Prakash Pradhan (PW-20).However PW-20 has deposed diametrically opposite by stating that the pullandas in respect of Vinay Kumar and Munish were separately collected by the IO.Thus in light of the confusion regarding the collection of the samples which is imperative in ascertaining the validity of the report, the learned counsel asserts that the samples could have been tampered with and contaminated and the same cannot be relied upon and consequently the CDFD report implicating appellant Vinay cannot be relied on as well.There is absolutely no evidence regarding under whose custody the samples and garments of Sarika remained during the intervening period.There is also absolutely no explanation given for the delayed examination of the DNA material.As per the learned counsel even though the vaginal swab, vaginal smear and nail clippings of Sarika the victim was preserved and handed over to the police by the doctor during post mortem, however the vaginal smear and the nail clipping which Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 15 of 64 would have definitely yielded suitable material for DNA Typing was not send to the CDFD, Hyderabad.Therefore, it is contended that in light of these inconsistencies the deposition of the witness PW-29 too has to be considered cautiously and his denial to the suggestion that there could have been contamination of the samples, since it reached after a delay of 72 hours, has to be disregarded.The analysis too admittedly was conducted after the lapse of a year, the delay for which is unexplained and renders allegedly a huge blow to the case of the prosecution.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 15 of 64The learned counsel has highlighted the fact that though 18 plastic dibbas were specified in the malkhana register as Entry No. 2551, however only 16 of these item were re- Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 16 of 64 deposited in the malkhana after being sent to FSL Malviya Nagar.On being specifically questioned which of the two plastic dibbas were not deposited, he could not specify the same.Thus the learned counsel contended that since the 18 plastic dibas also included the clothes of Sarika as well as her undergarments which were sent for DNA analysis, there is a possibility that the same could have not been deposited and therefore there was every possibility of it being tampered with.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 16 of 64Learned counsel has also submitted that the report of The Forensic analysis has come from FSL Rohini Ex PW 28/A and not from FSL Malviya Nagar as deposed by various witnesses.There is absolutely no evidence or explanation as to how and under what circumstances the samples reached FSL Rohini, whereas the entire documents and evidence shows that the pulandas were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar.As per the learned counsel the fact remains that the pulandas were analyzed at FSL Rohini, hence it is contended that the entire oral evidence of the witnesses and the documents showing FSL Malviya Nagar are false and fabricated.This is also reflective of the lack of sanctity in the investigation and the ploys employed to falsely implicate the appellants.However they were analyzed only after a lapse of 3 years on 22nd March, Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 17 of 64A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 23 of 64 thereafter resulted in the finding that three of her watches were missing.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 23 of 64Instead watches of the Kawa or classic make, similar to the stolen watches ought to have been mixed up.Reliance has been mainly placed on the testimony of PW-3 Narender Mehta, who had categorically deposed that he had seen the appellants running out of the house no. 24/19, Secor-3 Rohini which is the spot of occurrence at about 4:15 Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 25 of 64 p.m. which was immediately after the alleged incident as per the Post Mortem Report.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 25 of 64The learned counsel further asserted that the mother of the victims, PW-2 had identified the three watches in TIP which were missing from the house after the incident and were recovered from both the accused persons.While two of the watches were recovered from the room of accused Vinay the other watch was recovered from accused Munish.PW-2 Neelam Khler had also produced the letters of apology received from appellant Vinay in which he admitted to his guilt and while deposing about the same the appellants did not even cross examine the said witness.Learned counsel further contended that even though PWs-12 & 5 the tent house owner and the hardware shop owner had both turned hostile, however there deposition need not be completely effaced from the record and can be taken into consideration to the extent that they both proactively identified the appellants as the persons who had purchased the rope, the blade and the saw respectively from both of them.The Kabari shop owner, PW- 5 had also deposed regarding the Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 26 of 64 fact that the appellants had purchased two iron rods two days prior to the date of the incident, which was clearly in view of carrying out the offence.The recovery of the rope, blade saw and the iron rods which were used by the accused persons to cut the iron Jaal at the roof in order to gain entry into the house is relevant in proving the guilt of the appellants.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 26 of 64Regarding the offence of rape the learned counsel for the state has contended that as per the DNA report the biological fluid present on the clothes of Sarika was a source of exhibits of the appellant Vinay, however, the same wasnt a source of exhibits of the accused Munish and thus it is contended that the scientific evidence of rape before murder by the appellant Vinay stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt.Learned counsel further asserted that hundreds of crime cases are solved across the country with the help from the Centre for DNA Finger Printing Diagnostics (CDFD) at Nacharam.The centre for DNA fingerprinting and diagnostics (CDFD) is an autonomous organization funded by the Department of Biotechnology.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 31 of 64 Therefore, the presence of the witness PW-3 at the spot cannot be termed to be impossible or incredulous, so as to disbelieve it.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 32 of 64A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 33 of 64A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 33 of 64He too has supported the veracity of the two statements recorded.Learned counsel for the appellant has further disputed the very presence of PW-3 on the premises by relying on the testimony of PW-27, who had deposed that no person had met the police party at the spot claiming himself to have been aware of the facts of the case or who could throw light, on the incident and had specifically deposed that PW-3 had not met with him at the spot till the time he remained on the spot up to 9:00 p.m. However the presence of Narender Mehta, PW-3 at the spot had been confirmed by the deposition of PW-24 who categorically stated that Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 34 of 64 Narender Mehta was present at the spot 20 minutes after he himself had reached the spot.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 34 of 64The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the report of CDFD, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics is admissible under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code.PW 29/A. The witness was examined who had deposed cogently about the report and who had been cross examined also at length by the accused/appellant.The Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics hereinafter referred to as CDFD is an autonomous organization funded by Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.The learned counsel has also relied on DNA Tests in Criminal Investigation, Trial and Paternity disputes, a compendium of DNA analysis and its application in legal system by Alia Law Agency.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 35 of 64(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;(c) the Director of Finger Print Bureau;(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;(e) the Director (Deputy Director or Assistant Director) of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory; and(f) the Serologist to the Government."Therefore, the report exhibit PW.29/A of CDFD which has also been proved in the statement of Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 37 of 64 Sh.The learned counsel for the appellants has also emphasized that the blood samples were taken on 23rd August, 2002 at about 4 PM though the accused had already been produced in the Court at 2 PM and remanded to judicial custody and there is no evidence as to who collected the blood samples from the hospital where the appellants were allegedly taken nor there is any record of receipt of those samples in the malkhana record of the appellants.Thus as per the counsel, the surplus of DNA samples could have been easily used to manipulate the evidence by means of tampering with the clothes of the victim Sarita and Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 38 of 64 therefore the CDFD report should not be relied on.This argument may sound impressive at the first blush, however, it is to be repelled since the DNA samples were taken by means of taking the appellants blood while the CDFD report Ex. PW 29/A clearly stipulates that the biological fluid i.e. the semen present on the source of the clothes of the victim Sarika is comparable with the blood sample of appellant Vinay and it is not the case of the appellant that during his medical examination his semen samples were seized by the prosecution.Thus the question of manipulation does not arise and the fact that the DNA samples of the appellants were taken on two occasions does not prejudice the appellants in any way nor cast any doubt about this evidence.However since he wasnt in the services of the hospital anymore, Dr. Kuldeep Singh, CMO, Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital, PW-14 who was conversant with the handwriting of Dr. Raman had endorsed the MLC prepared by him.As per MLC, Ex PW 14/A the blood sample was collected in EDTA vial and activator vial, i.e. in two vials having 5 ml each.He further deposed that as per the document the sample as well as the MLC was handed over to HC Parkash.The learned counsel for the appellant has doubted the proper collection of the DNA Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 39 of 64 samples since HC Prakash Pardhan, PW-20 had deposed that the samples were taken into possession by the IO and was subsequently received by him on the same night from the MHCM.As per the learned counsel this is a major contradiction and the same casts a doubt on the DNA samples and therefore, the same ought not to be relied on.However this argument cannot be accepted since as per the deposition of PW-23 HC Hari Kishan who was posted as MHCM at PS Rohini at the relevant time, was examined.He categorically deposed that on 23rd August, 2002 Addl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 39 of 64This fact is substantiated by the deposition of PW-20 as well who deposed that the pullandas were taken into possession by the IO and he had received the pulandas from the MHCM which he had taken to CDFD, Hyderabad for DNA testing.The endorsement on the MLC, Ex PW 14/A regarding the samples being handed over to PW-20 may have been made since PW-20 had accompanied the appellant at the time he was being medically examined.This can only be clarified by the Doctor who examined the appellant Vinay.Parcel-3 : One jar sealed with the seal of "DKS", labelled as PMR No.530/2002 Viscera of Sarika.Exhibit -3 : Unidentified blackish material, sticking inside the jar.Parcel-4 : One jar sealed with the seal of "DKS", labelled as PMR No. 530/2002 Sarika.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 43 of 64PW-9 further deposed that the STR method was used for analyzing the finger print and that at the time STR method required 13 STR plus one amelogenin to determine the identity of the person, however in the present case only nine STR plus amelogenin since he was using the Ampflrstr profiler plus kit which was of an American company and as per the requirement of the kit there was only need to use 9 STR only.He further clarified that the kit was of applied bio Systems.He also categorically denied the suggestion that the kit is used for 13 STR and not 9 STR and further deposed that the literature to support the version would be available on the internet of the companys literature.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 47 of 64A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 47 of 64He further deposed that he could not get DNA in the vaginal swab and the post mortem blood, thus if any manipulation was done or any contamination of the samples was shielded by PW-29, then he would have detected DNA from these samples as well.On examination of the chest, visceral pleural showed tardieu spots.Both lungs were congested and oedematous and tardieu spots were also present over the visceral pericardium.Stomach contained 200 ml of undigested magi like noodles, hymen was torn, it was fresh injury, unterus was normal.Opinion: Cause of death was asphyxia due to manual throttling, manner of death was homicide, all injuries were antimortem and were of same duration, time since death was approximately 22 hours.Sexual assault prior to the murder cannot be ruled out.Detailed report will be given after receipt of viscera and vaginal swab report.Opinion regarding the belt: One sealed parcel was received from IO Inspector Hira Lal of PS Rohini which was found to be sealed of KKS.It was said to contain a belt which was used in strangulating brother and sister on 19-8-02, referring to my post mortem report, parcel was opened and was containing a school belt having the buckle bearing the monogram of Kendriya Vidyalaya.It was of approximately of 82 cm long and 3 cm broad.Strangulating marks over the neck of dead body of Bharat were possible by this belt.My detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW7/C signed by me at point A."Thus the injuries on the body of the deceased, Sarika in addition to the DNA report that matched the DNA of the appellant Vinay with the Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 51 of 64 biological fluid (semen) found on the clothes of the deceased and the opinion of PW-7 stating that sexual assault prior to murder cannot be ruled out, all point towards the undeniable inference that the appellant Vinay had raped the deceased, Sarika and then murdered her by strangulation.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 51 of 64It is also imperative to assess the recoveries effected as against the appellants.As per the case of the prosecution after recording the disclosure statement, the appellants had taken the police to the Hardware store belonging to Roshan Lal PW-4 as it was the store from where they had purchased the four blades and one aari.However during the examination of PW-4, the said witness had turned hostile and refused to identify the appellants as the very same person who had purchased the said items from his store.Regardless of the fact that the witness was declared hostile, it does not mean that his entire evidence needs to be effaced from the record.To the extent that it supports the case of the prosecution it can be taken into consideration.A perusal of the testimony clearly shows that even though PW-4 refused to identify the appellants, he did depose that four blades and one aari was purchased from his shop by two boys and subsequently he had even identified the four blades, Ex P-1 to P-4 and the aari, Ex P-5 recovered by the police as the ones which were sold by him.The four blades and one aari were brought in a sealed parcel bearing the seal of KKS and Crl.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 52 of 64 therefore could not have been tampered with.Thus recoveries pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellants have been established.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 52 of 64Similarly PW-5 Kishan Murari too turned hostile and refused to identify the appellants as the same persons who had purchased the iron rod Ex P-6 from his shop.However he did depose that on 20th August, 2002 the police along with the two appellants, who he identified in court, had come to his shop and that they had told the police that they had purchased the iron rod from the shop days prior to the incident.He also identified the rod, which was produced in court in a sealed pulanda bearing the seal of KKS, as the one being purchased from his shop.Therefore in light of the facts and circumstances this recovery too stands established as against the appellants.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 53 of 64A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 53 of 64As to the belt which was recovered by the police, the same was also examined by PW-7 during examination of the body at the time of post mortem, wherein he opined that strangulating marks over the neck of the dead body of Bharat was possible by the said belt.The three watches which were recovered from both the appellants i.e. two from appellant Vinay and one from appellant Munish, also needs to be considered.These watches were duly identified in TIP by the mother of the victims.PW-17 Sh.Inderjeet Singh MM posted at Tis Hazari Court was also examined who deposed that the TIP proceeding were conducted with due caution as 5 watches brought by the IO were mixed with the three watches recovered from the appellants.PW-2 had duly identified the watches as those belonging to her husband, her daughter and her son respectively.The same watches were thereafter Crl.The objections of the learned counsel that not enough watches were mixed up with the ones that were recovered is without much substance and does not dilute the evidentiary value of recoveries.The trial court has also observed that no such question, as has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants, was put to PW-17 in his cross examination.If the Ld. MM was not satisfied about the watches brought to be mixed up with the three watches recovered from the appellants then he would have refused to conduct the TIP.Since the proceedings also reveal that as the property brought for being mixed up did not contain currency notes, therefore, the currency notes from the case property were removed and TIP of the Rs 10,000/- allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant Munish were not put to TIP.There are no cogent reason to doubt the TIP proceedings and the validity of the identification of the three watches on the basis of depositions and documents in the facts and circumstances.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 54 of 64She contended that if motive was to usurp the property then the appellant Vinay would have conspired to kill Nellam Kler as well.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 55 of 64 kill the children only.In the absence of the other two children, his wife would have inherited the entire property.The reasoning and findings of the Trial Court for the motive are plausible and cannot be repelled on the pleas raised by the counsel for the appellant Vinay.A 670/2007 & 826/2007 Page 55 of 64
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,262,723 |
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.1471 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent and consequential First Information Report in Crime number 1471 of 2017 registered by the 1st respondent for the alleged offence under section 406 & 420 IPC is a clear abuse of process of law, engineered at with an intention to harass the petitioner inasmuch as there is no material available to connect the petitioner with the said offences.The defacto complainant has not paid any amount to the petitioner and inspite of that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and not the Lakshmi who received the money and executed a forged Power of Attorney.Hence this petition.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the crime has been registered in Crime No.1471 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 406 & 420 IPC.The petitioner is the friend of defacto complainant and acted as a Mediator and instigated the complainant to pay a sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/- to one Lakhsmi for obtaining Power of Attorney.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this quash petition.4.Heard, Mr.T.S.Charles, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent Police.The second respondent lodged a complaint on the allegation that the petitioner with a malicious intention to extract money from the complainant has acted as a mediator and collected a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- towards sale consideration for the forged property document in order to unjustly enrich himself.Accordingly, the petitioner has committed serious offence.9.However, considering the above facts, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.1471 of 2017 and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Inspector of Police (Crime) F5, Choolaimedu Police Station Chennai-600 0942.Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Crl.O.P.No.9790 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.5128 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,263,635 |
DATE : AUGUST 10, 2018ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioners who were accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 93 of 2012 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taloda, have challenged the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada and the consequential order dated dated 04.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taloda, whereby the said case has been ordered to be committed to the Court of Session vide Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code", for short).::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::3 916 wp 1069-18The accused in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2012 filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada stating therein that Regular Criminal Case No. 93 of 2012 arising out of the same incident (i.e. a counter case), is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Taloda.Therefore, the accused requested that Regular Criminal Case No. 93 of 2012 may be transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Taloda to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, at Shahada.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada passed the following order on that application :" Perused the application and the say filed by the A.P.P. Heard learned counsel for Applicant / Accused.After going through the certified copies of RCC No.93/12 it is clear that, present case arises from the same incident and cross case is pending before J.M.F.C. Court.Hence, considering the ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 ::: 4 916 wp 1069-18 submission made, the application is allowed.Call the R & P of R.C.C. No. 93/12 from Taloda Court and the same be tried along with this case".::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::After the order dated 22.09.2016 was communicated to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Taloda, he passed the following order:He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::The learned APP accepts the legal position that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to call for the Record and Proceedings of the Regular Criminal Case No. 93 of 2012 at his own and instead, he should have directed the accused ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 ::: 6 916 wp 1069-18to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, seeking committal of the case by making an application to that effect.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::The learned Magistrate simply seems to have complied with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which order was not at all legal and proper.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::They are liable to be quashed and set side.With these observations, I pass the following order:::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::(A) The Writ Petition is allowed.(B) The impugned orders dated 22.09.2016 and 04.08.2017 are quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::(D) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:43:03 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,942,238 |
First bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.01.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.51448/2018 and Second bail application has been dismissed on account of non prosecution of the case vide order dated 25.01.2019 passed in M.Cr.Both applications have not been dismissed on merits.Applicant is in jail.The case of the prosecution in short is that the applicant is driving truck in high speed and trying to overtake the another truck, while on the road women were going for taking bath and devi darshan.The truck of the applicant ran over them and on the spot 3 women were died immediately and another 3 women sustained injuries.F.I.R. under Section 279, 337,304-A of the I.P.C. has been registered at Police Station, Kolgawan and Crime No.962/2018 has been registered.It is alleged that the applicant fled away from the spot after accident with truck and he was stopped at Railway crossing.During investigation, it is found that accused was knowing that women are going on the road in spite of that, he tried to overtake the another truck with high speed knowing the fact that women may be dashed by the truck.He dashed them and on account of injuries, 3 women succumbed immediately.No doubt, this is a negligent act.Applicant was having knowledge that due to accident, women may be died but he did not THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-5076-2019 (Ram Khelawan Yadav Vs.The State of M.P.) 2 break the speed of the truck and trying to overtake the another truck and rushed the truck over the women and fled away from the spot.In the case of Prabhakaran (supra), accused was driving a bus with enormous speed and children of school was crossing the road.He could not control over the bus and dashed over the children.No doubt, Hon'ble the Apex Court after recording the evidence of both the parties, opined that act of the accused was not intentional.In the Haidarali Kalubhai (supra), accused was driving a truck speedly on the highway and the truck was coming in contact with the corner of the steel cot.Learned counsel for the applicant filed a copy of the order dated 2408.2015 passed in M.Cr.C.NO.13305/2015 Shamshuddin @Jagdambe v State of M.P. and in this case accused was driving bus rashly and negligently and met with an accident and 21 pesons were died in the alleged accident.It is expected from the driver that when the crowd of person is on the road, he should not overtake the speedy vehical in high speed.In this case, prima facie, it emrges out that accused has seen the crowd on the road in spite of that he was driving and overtake the high speed truck.There was no space for overtaking in spite of that he knows if he cross the truck the women of the crowd could have run over.He is having knowledge of that fact, he did not break his speed.He drived his truck in high speed to overtake the truck and ran over THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-5076-2019 (Ram Khelawan Yadav Vs.The State of M.P.) 3 the women, who were present in the road.The road was not a National Highway.There is a prima facie evidence that accused did it with the knowledge that truck, which he was driving run over the women and women could be died.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2019.02.13 18:43:06 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
250,360 |
The notice which has been sent by the Municipal Council Alibag shows that the said house was in total dilapidated condition.The pillars were infested by termites, were rotten and were likely to give way at any time causing damage, injury to human life and public property.The titles were also in broken condition.JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J.The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad-Alibag dated 26.9.94 in the matter of Regular Cri.Case No. 130/94 by which he dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for discharging him in view of provisions of Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for convenience).Few facts need to be stated for unfolding the controversy which resulted in the complaint in which the application was moved for praying the discharge.House No. 1349 situated at Alibag happens to be belonging to the present petitioner wherein respondent No. 1, according to him, was residing as tenant.The notice issued by Municipal Council, Alibag (Annexure H) shows that the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Alibag asked the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Alibag to survey the said building and to find out whether it has come to the stage of dilapidation or not because the Municipal Council called both, the petitioner and respondent No. 1, for hearing for coming to the conclusion as to why said building should not be demolished as it is dangerous to life of the members of public and their property adjacent to it.The said notice show that the petitioner attended the said hearing but respondent No. 1 did not attend and contended that the said building was not in dilapidated condition but it needed some minor repairs and nothing more than that.The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Alibag submitted a report and brought to the notice of the Municipal Council that the said building was in dilapidated condition.The Chief Executive officer of Municipal Council came to the conclusion that it was dangerous to public safety as it had supports at number of places and they are damaged substantially.In fact the said notice shows that the pillars were rotten and were affected by termites.Municipal Council opined that the said building was dangerous to human life and public property and it was necessary to demolish it in public safety.A notice was issued to respondent No. 1 and thereafter it was demolished.Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint with PSI Alibag Police Station on 28.6.1994 alleging that the petitioner demolished the said building through Alhad, the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Alibag and dragged him, his wife, children from the said house on Road.Not only that, he alleged that the petitioner assaulted them, abused them and threatened them by declaring that he would kill them.2) the notice sent by respondent No. 1 to Chief Officer of Municipal Council, Alibag.3) the reply sent by the said officer to said notice.4) the copy of the plaint of the civil suit filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner.5) the copy of the plaint of the suit filed by the present petitioner against respondent No. 1, etc. It was urged that in view of contradictory statements made in those documents and the discrepancies indicated by those documents, on the part of respondent No. 1, the present petitioner be discharged.In the complaint, the respondent No. 1 alleged that the petitioner went himself inside the house and by dragging the respondent No. 1, his wife and children brought them on road.Not only that, he was called on for hearing twice.But respondent No. 1 - the original complainant - absented himself.Therefore, how it can be even inferred that the present petitioner demolished the said house? The said house has been demolished by Municipal Council, Alibag and that too through its staff members under police protection.The trespass has to be with the intention of committing the offence.If not, it should be a criminal and culpable trespass.Unfortunately, the tendency is growing to vindicate personal grievances by filing the lis in the Courts and settling the score.Unfortunately, it puts the unbearable burden on judiciary as a whole, judicial system as a whole and finally on public exchequer.The arrears of pending cases has already assumed fearsome significance.No order was to costs.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,094,526 |
Item No. 68And In the matter of: Hari Om Rajak & Ors.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Beliaghata Police Station Case No. 317 of 2011 dated 30.11.2011 under sections 498A/406/323/114 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
251,480 |
JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J.It appears that on 28th July, 1980 the said Magistrate was recording statement of PW 1 Sri Girja Shankar Misra in Criminal Case No. 574 of 1980, State v. Ashok Kumar, under Section 354 of the T. P. C, in his court room at about 0.15 p.m., his attention was attracted by some police personnel who intruded in the dock of his court room and he found two accused being dragged from the dock forcibly out of the court room.He was informed that the two persons in the dock had arrived there to surrender in court in State v. Narendra Singh and Ors.under Section 302 of the I.P.C. of police station Kotwali, district Oral.The Magistrate on query learnt from the clerk of Sri Anand Swarup Yadav, a practising advocate of his court that the two dragged out per-sons were Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh who were there in the dock for surrender in connection with their surrender application paper No. 3 ka of Misc.However, they could not be taken into custody by the Magistrate under Section 167-A of the Cr.P.C. as they had already been carried away by the intruders.The names of the intruders given in application paper No. 6 Ka were Sarva Sri Degraj Singh, S.H. O. Kotwali, Sub-Inspector Sri Aslam, Sri Yagyadatt Pai, Sub-Inspector, M, K. Khan, Sub-Inspector, Virendra Singh, Sub-Inspector and Gufran, Constable.The shoes and chappals lying near the dock allegedly belonging to two accused were collected and sealed on the application of their advocate paper No. 5 Ka at the same time.Surrender application paper No. 3Ka became infructuous as the accused had already been carried away.By a subsequent application dated 29-7-1980 names of all the persons who had dragged away the two accused from the dock were supplied by their advocate.The number increased to nine.The names of Sarvasri Sheo Mangal, Jai Prakash Sachan and Amat Singh Bhadoria, constable were added vide application paper No, 7 Ka.A miscellaneous case was registered against them.The names of their associates eleven in number could not be disclosed us their identity was unknown to applicants.Learned Magistrate in the preliminary enquiry had the affidavits of Sarvasri Sheo Ram, Govind Singh, Surendra Singh and Ram Dutt Doholiya, clerk of Sri Anand Swarup Yadav, Advocate vide papers Nos. 10 Ka, 11 Ka, 17 Ka and 18 Ka dated 31-7-1980 statement of Sri Hari Shanker Khare, reader, Sri Ranvir Singh, Assistant Prosecuting Officer, Orai attached to his court, Sri Anand Prakash, court constable and Sri Udai Narain Srivastava and Sri Raja Ram Chaturvedi, Advocates, Orai were recorded on oath vide papers Nos. l2Ka to 14Ka, 15Ka and 19Ka.The contemners were notified and served to show cause against the reference.Except Sri Amar Singh Bhadoria, remaining contemners were sent up to this Court.In defence contemners filed their counter-affidavits traversing the aforesaid allegations and also explaining the GD entry relating to the apprehension of Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh on that noon; copy of that GD entry is annexure C8 showing the arrest of the accused Ramesh Singh and Surendra Singh by Sarvasri Degraj Singh, Yagyadatt Rai, Shyam Babu, constables Balram Singh, Raghunandan Singh, Ram Bahadur and Vishram Singh.Sarvasri Mohd. Aslam, Shankei Dayal Tripathi, Virendra Singh, Jai Prakash Sachan, Sheo Mangal Singh, Ram Bahadur and Gufran filed counter-affidavits denying their participation in the occurrence and put forward their plea of alibi.Rejoinder affidavits have been filed by Sri S.P. Srivastava.However, in view of the allegations on record and the nature of evidence before us we accept their affidavits and extend benefit of reasonable doubt to these contemners and discharge the notices issued to them.Cases of Sarvsri Degraj Singh and Yagya Dutt Rai stand on a different footing.They also maintained that surrender application was filed subsequent to their arrest in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai although such incident never took place in his court room on that date.They alleged their ill will with both the accused and maintained that their nomination by the witnesses in this case was false.Sri Yagyadatt Rai in para 10 of his affidavit alleged that on 28-7-1980 he was summoned from Kotwali by the Station House Officer.He left Kotwali at 11-55 a.m. and reached the court compound at about 12-20 p.m. He was going round the court compound to contact the Station House Officer when he saw some police personnel chasing the contemners(?) on Kalpi Road.The deponent also reached there and did not enter the court room of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on that date.He further maintained that both the accused could be lawfully arrested by them at any place including the court room.In para 17 of his affidavit he further offered unomalified apology in the matter.In his affidavit dated 31-1-1982 Sri Degraj Singh, S.H.O. in para 13 alleged that on that noon at about 0.15 p.m. he reached the court compound and learnt about Rang Musalman and Dinesh Pandit, close associates of Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh being present in the court room of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun.He wanted to gather information about the whereabouts of Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh from them and so he procured presence of Rafiq Musalman and Dinesh Pandit by sending constables inside the court room.While he was interrogating them he saw Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh running from the gallery of the court towards Kalpi Road.The deponent along with nolice force chased them and apprehended them on the Kalpi Road near the Power House in presence of Devendra Singh, Advocate and Devendra Kumar Vaid, Advocate.In para 16 of his affidavit he alleged that the surrender application was got prepared and given to the reader simultaneously or after their arrest in a preplanned manner.In para 24 of his affidavit he tendered an unqualified apology and promised to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court in future.He also filed copies of two reports (First Information Report along with his affidavit) to show that both the accused were bad characters and so their arrest was justifiable.Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate filed his rejoinder affidavits to traverse these allegations and to show that the incident actually took place in his court room and not outside.He further explained the circumstances and the procedure adopted by him through which he learnt the names of contemners on that noon and subsequently.We have carefully perused the entire record and heard learned Counsel for the parties.In connection with that suit Smt. Chandra Mukhi Bai, wife of Ganga Ram filed an application for permission to prosecute her husband for forgery as Smt, Chandra Mukhi Bai had not signed the plaint or the vakalatnama, although her signatures were forged on the said documents.Another application was filed by certain other persons said to be other tenants of Ganga Ram in which some allegations were made against Revashanker.The intention of the contemners was not to insult or interrupt the Chief Judicial Magistrate who was engaged in recording the statements of PW 1, Sri Girja Shanker Misra.The contemners had simply gone there with the sole intention to arrest Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh who were sitting in the dock awaiting the orders on their surrender application paper No. 3-Ka which was pending disposal.No opportunity was afforded to the contemners to cross-examine them.Their assertions that Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh were arrested on the Kalpi Road and not inside the court-room could not be successfully rebutted by the affidavit of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and under such circumstances the contemners well deserve benefit of reasonable doubt.G. D. Entry, copy of which is on record as Annexure Ex. B and original of which was perused by us unmistakably goes to show that Ramesh Singh and Surendra Singh were arrested by both these contemners on that noon with the help of other police constables.Obviously the constables who were subordinates to these officers had to comply with their orders.The allegation that the arrest was not effected from inside the court room and the surrender application was post arrest and had been prepared in a preplanned manner is demonstrably false.There is the affidavit of Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which we see no reason to disbelieve and which finds support from surrender application paper No. 3-Ka and the application paper No. 5-Ka containing the orders that the shoes and chappals found inside the court-room were to be preserved by constable Anand Prakash who was ordered to deposit them in sealed up condition in Sadar Malkhana, Orai on the same day.The shoes and chappals could not have been planned in such manner, had they not been actually found in the dock.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,264,830 |
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), whereas respondent no.2 Chhotu has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the IPC.Prosecution case, in brief, is that in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched with respondent no.1 Bhagirath, on 17/2/10 respondent no.2 Chhotu not only kidnapped the prosecutrix under a false promise to marry, but also took her to various places and subjected her to sexual assault.On 18/2/10, missing person report was lodged in respect of the prosecutrix by her brother-in-law Mukesh at Police Station Piplani, and during investigation the said facts had come to light.After considering the entire age-related evidence on record, trial Court in para 21 of the impugned judgment found that prosecution had failed to prove that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age.Prosecutrix (PW1) deposed that, under false assurance of marriage, respondents had taken her to Sagar where they kept her in a Lodge for a night and then to the house of the sister of respondent Chhotu at Chandora, where Chhotu subjected her to sexual assault for a period of 4-5 days.She categorically deposed that she had gone with Chhotu as he had promised to marry and had returned only on his denial.She admitted that she had told her sister that she was going with Chhotu.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that prosecutrix was a consenting party and that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,338,069 |
Quashing of impugned order of 27th September, 2004 vide which SI Raj Kumar and ASI Charan Singh have been summoned as accused for the offence under Sections 193/341/364-A/506/34 of IPC and the proceedings arising out of the complaint in question is sought in this petition.The version of respondent-complainant, as put forth in pre- summoning evidence, deserves to be taken note of.It reads as under: -"On 23.09.2003 I was present at my residence, 8/10 persons in plain clothes came to my residence and they picked up my son Rajesh Rathi and took him with them.PCR van arrived at my residence and they advised me to go to PP, HC Rai Singh from PP arrived at my residence, I informed HC Rai Singh of the Crl.M.C.1234/2011 Page 1 incident and gave the vehicle numbers to him.On 23.09.03 I went to the O/o Special Staff, Dhaula Kuan where SI Raj Kumar and ASI Charan Singh met there.My son Rajesh Rathi was found in their custody.SI Raj Kumar and ASI Charan Singh demanded Rs.2.00 Lakhs from me for release of my son Rajesh Rathi.These two police officers stated either give Rs.2.00 Lakhs or we will involve Rajesh in some false case or we may eliminate him.I was not allowed to meet my son Rajesh.On 27.09.03 I gave information of abduction of my son through fax to Commissioner of Police, Human Rights Commission, LG, Delhi.I applied for supply of the copy of message given by me to PCR, but I was informed that they can supply the copy of PCR form only on the direction of Hon'ble Court.The copy of the letter given by inspector Administration to me is Ex.CW1/A. The copy of PCR form dated 23.09.03 is mark A. On 27.09.03 my son was falsely arrested in case FIR No.199/03 U/s 399/402 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. The copy of DD No.16 dated 23.09.03 written by HC Raj Singh at PP SG Hospital, PS Mangolpuri which is mark B. The copy of DD No.27 showing the arrival of Raj Singh in PS is marked C. The copy of FIR No.199/03 is marked D. After false involvement of my son in case FIR No.199/03, I gave a complaint to DCP (Vigilance), Delhi.Earlier also the same police officers i.e. SI Raj Kumar and ASI Charan Singh picked up my son while they were posted at special Staff, PS Rajouri Garden.At that time Rajesh Rathi was detained in legal custody for five days continuously and he was involved falsely in a case of car jacking and arms act.My son Rajesh was illegally detained by SI Raj Kumar and ASI Charan Singh for 3 days and then he was falsely implicated in a fabricated case being its FIR No.199/03 U/s 399/402 IPC and 24/54/59 of Arms Act."(2008) 5 SCC 248 to contend that the complaint in question against petitioners, who are police officers, is counter-blast to the action taken by them in their official capacity and the allegations levelled in this complaint are malicious and an afterthought as the complainant had not levelled allegations against petitioners when he was produced before the Magistrate upon being arrested in FIR No.199/2003 under Sections 399/402 of IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.To highlight factual background of this case, it was asserted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner that Inspector Raj Kumar has earned out of turn promotion for his commendable work in eliminating the most wanted criminals.Besides this, he has been awarded one President Police Medal for Gallantry, Six Asadharan Karya Puraskar-the highest award given by the Commissioner of Police for showing sincerity, gallant act and exemplary courage in solving sensational cases, 223 rewards of worthy Commissioner of Police, 57 rewards of Joint Commissioner of Police and 117 rewards of Addl.CP/DCP.It was pointed out that SI Charan Singh, the other officer against whom the respondent has levelled baseless allegations, has earned 3 Asadharan Karya Puraskar (AKP) - the highest award given by the Commissioner of Police for showing sincerity, gallant act and exemplary courage in solving sensational cases, 138 Commendation Rolls-the second highest award given by the Commissioner of Police, 21 Commendation Certificates awarded by Joint Commissioner of Police, 134 Commendation Cards awarded by Addl.CP/DCP.It was also pointed Crl.M.C.1234/2011 Page 3 out that alleged victim/son of respondent-complainant is not only a dismissed Constable of Delhi Police but also a history sheeter of Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi, who was dismissed from the service as he was involved in anti-social activities and thereafter, his involvement was found to be in as many as nine heinous crimes and has also been convicted in case FIR No.332/2001 under Sections 392/397/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Keshav Puram, Delhi and was awarded rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of `25,000/-.While taking note of the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of petitioner-State, the proceedings in the complaint case in question were directed to be stayed.Learned counsel for respondent-complainant had contended that impugned order is based on documentary evidence and in view of the dictum of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR (SC) 604, High Court has no jurisdiction to examine correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the complaint in question and impugned order rightly relies upon pre-summoning evidence of respondent-complainant and thus, there is no merit in this petition.After having heard both the sides and on perusal of impugned order, pre-summoning evidence, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that truthfulness of the allegations levelled cannot be gone into while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. but what stares in the face is that instant complaint prime facie appears to be a counterblast to FIR No.199/2003 registered against Rajesh Rathi, son of respondent-complainant, who is a dismissed police official and is said to be also involved in other criminal cases including FIR case No.186/03 Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,780 |
Sessions Judge Dhar in S.T. 312/90 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed murder of Toliya son of Manglia Bheel on 23-6-1990 at about 9.30 a.m. in village Gwalbaidi District Dhar and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Prosecution story in brief is that on the date of the incident i.e on 23-6-1990 at about 9.30 a.m. deceased Toliya accompanied by his son Shambhu (P.W. 1), Chhagan (P.W. 2) Kalabai (P.W. 3) went to the disputed field which they had cultivated a day before.They found the accused and his two brothers conducting sowing operations in the disputed field.It was objected to by deceased Toliya and his family members.Accused Hemta took out bow and arrow and gave an arrow shot which hit deceased Toliya in his chest.He pulled out the arrow and died sometime thereafter.The matter was reported to the police by son of deceased Toliya i.e. Shambhu (P.W, 1) the same day at about 10.35 a.m. P.S. Amzara which is about 3 k.m. away from the place of incident.The report was recorded by P.W. 8 Shersingh A.S.I. who registered the offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. under crime No. 132/90 vide Ex.He visited the spot and summoned the witnesses vide Ex.A.S.I. Shersingh prepared spot map vide Ex.Accused Hemta had also sustained some injuries.JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J.This appeal is against judgment and order dated 23-10-1991 of the first Addl.Dr. Shrivastava (P.W. 4) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Toliya and found the following injury on his person:--Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" on right side of chest on 5th intercostalspace and puncture of muscle and plura and pericardium.The injured died of haemorrhage and cardiac shock.One arrow with letter Ex. P/3 was sent by the' police for examination and on examination, Dr. Shrivastava (P.W, 8) opined that the injury found on the body of Toliya could be caused by this arrow, Dr. Shrivastava also examined, accused Hemta on 24-6-1990 and found the following injuries on his person:-(1)Complained swelling and pain on left, arm but no external injury was found.(2) Complained swelling and pain on right scapular region.(3) An abrasion on right leg 1/2 " X 1 1/2".(4) An abrasion on lower part of right leg 1/2" X 1/4".The arrow found on the spot, blood stained and controlled earth and clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical examination.Blood was found on all these articles excepting the controlled earth vide Ex. P/16 by the Chemical Examiner.As against it, learned counsel for the State submitted that the complainant party was in possession of the land much before the date of incident.They had also cultivated the same.The accused committed trespass and conducted sowing operations.They were not in settled possession of the land and, therefore, they had no right of self defence;We have been taken to the evidence on record, The fact of homicidal death of Toliya has not beep challenged and righty so the same stands provided, not only from the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.W. 1 Shambhu, P.W. 2 Chhagan and P.W. 3 Kalabai, but from the evidence of Dr. Sririvastava (P.W. 4) as well, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Toliya on the same day.P.W. 1 Shambhu son of the deceased has stated that he along with his father, sister and brother-in-law-went to the field and found Hemta conducting sowing operations there.The same was protested by his father.Accused Hemta thereafter gave an arrow shot to his father who fell down on the ground and died thereafter on account of that arrow injury.This witness stands corroborated from the F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) proved by A.S.I. Shersingh (P.W. 8) and the medical evidence, i.e. autopsy report and the evidence of Dr. Shrivastava (P.W. 4).P.W. 2 Chhagan and P.W. 3 Kalabai have also corroborated the story disclosed by Shambhu (P.W. 1).The injuries found oh the body of Hemta were on the leg and could be caused during sowing operations.No external injury was found on left arm and back.Complaint of pain may be because of other reasons also.There is no evidence to show that the complainant party assaulted accused Hemta.Even if the fact of settled possession is not found proved in favour of either of the parties, the complainant party had only protested and asked the accused to stop sowing operations.In such a situation, the accused had no right of self defence of person or property.Learned counsel has drawn our attention to last line of paragraph 8 of the statement of P.W. 2 Chhagan and submitted that he admitted apprehension and use of force under that apprehension.The prosecution witness has.denied all this suggestion.It has come in the evidence that the complainant party protested against sowing operations and accused gave an arrow shot to deceased Toliya.There was some sudden altercations and exchange of hot words and protest by the complainant party and it was at this juncture that accused gave arrow shot which unfortunately landed on vital part of the body of Toliya and punctured plura and pericardium.In our considered opinion, therefore, intention of commission of murder cannot be inferred, However, knowledge can be attributed to the accused regarding likelihood of death because of arrow shot injury.The accused would, therefore, be held guilty under Part II of Section 304, I.P.C. The incident took place over possession of small piece of land and exchange of hot words, protest and counter-protest between the complainant party and the accused and, therefore, very serious view cannot be taken in the matter of punishment.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 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.
|
97,781,651 |
In Re: Mahiuddin Mistry @ Mahinuddin Mistry .. Petitioner.Mr. Pradip Roy, Mr. Ujjal Roy .. For the Petitioner.Ms. Rita Dutta .. For the State.The petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with Diamond Harbour Police Station Case No. 379 of 2012 dated 12.02.2013 under sections 498A/3023/34 of the Indian Penal Code has come to this court for anticipatory bail.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.This is the second application made by the petitioner for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,782,134 |
The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court reads as under:-The case of the prosecution was that on 18.06.2012 at 3.00 a.m. in the bedroom of H. No. 27-B, Pocket E, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, Vijay Kumar (Hereinafter 'the accused') given (sic: gave) tawa (pan used for baking) blows on head of his wife Mithlesh and step-son Akshay with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances Crl.A.201/2017 Page 1 of 24 that if by that act, he had caused death of his wife Mithlesh, he would have been guilty of murder of his wife which is punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').A.201/2017 Page 1 of 24The charge-sheet:Vijay Sharma was doing business in share market.He used to suffer losses in share market.It was further stated that the appellant was falsely implicated by his parents-in-law, brother-in-law and his step son.The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be falsely implicated in the Crl.A.201/2017 Page 3 of 24 present case.She further deposed that Mithlesh was in a vegetative state at the time of her discharge and was on tube-feeding and tracheostomy.PW4 has testified that he was studying Hotel Management from Hotel Management and Catering Institute, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) and was in his second year.His mother (victim) was a teacher in Vivekanand School.His mother could not walk and talk because of the head injury suffered by her and she was being administered food through the food pipe.The father of PW4 namely Sunil Kumar expired when he was studying in fifth standard.His mother solemnized her second marriage with the appellant Vijay Sharma six years prior to his deposition in Court.The appellant was engaged in share market and was suffering losses.The appellant used to demand money from his mother to settle the losses suffered by him.On the demand so made by the appellant, there used to be quarrels between the mother of PW4 and the appellant.On 18.06.2012, at about 3.00 AM, when PW4 was sleeping with his mother in his house, the appellant who was duly identified by PW4 in the Trial Court hit him on his head with a Tawa due to which his head started spinning.Thereafter, the appellant started hitting his mother and gave several blows with the said Tawa on her head.PW4 attempted to save his mother by holding the hand of the appellant but the appellant did not stop and gave several blows to his mother.Subsequently, the appellant ran away from the spot.PW4 shouted for help and called his neighbours.PW4 took his mother to GTB hospital with the help of the neighbours.PW4 called his maternal grandfather on his phone, at his residence at Dilshad Garden and informed him about the incident.Initially, PW4 was medically examined at GTB Hospital vide MLC No. C-2791/12 which was proved as Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, PW4 alongwith Crl.A.201/2017 Page 7 of 24 his mother was shifted to Max hospital by his maternal uncle.ASI Suresh Pal (PW16) met PW4 at Max Hospital and recorded his statement which was proved by him as Ex.PW4/A. His mother remained admitted at Max Hospital for about one month after the incident.The victim had re- married with the appellant whom he had duly identified in the Trial Court.On 18.06.2012 at about 8.00 AM, PW6 received a phone call from his nephew Akshay Kumar (PW4) informing that the condition of his mother was serious and had been admitted at GTB hospital.PW4 also informed him that the head of his mother was fractured by the appellant.When PW6 reached at GTB hospital, he saw that his sister was bleeding profusely and the doctor informed them that they were helpless to treat her further.Thereafter, PW6 took his sister to Max hospital, Patparganj, Delhi.The statement of PW6 was also recorded by the Police.It was deposed by PW6 that he could not tell as to why the appellant assaulted his sister.PW6 was Crl.A.201/2017 Page 9 of 24 cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in the Trial Court whereby he admitted that his nephew (PW4) also sustained injuries in the incident.PW6 further admitted that his nephew had told him that the appellant gave injuries to his nephew.PW10/A. The FIR was recorded by PW10 which was proved as Ex.PW10/B.The appellant was arrested on 19.08.2012 by PW14 HC Praveen Kumar from H. No. 2164, Sector-21C, Chandigarh vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A and the personal search of the appellant was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/B. The weapon of offence i.e. tawa was recovered from a heap of garbage under a tree at Hanuman Vatika Park, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and was duly identified by PW4 Akshay in the TIP proceedings.The seizure memo of tawa was proved by PW14 as Ex.PW14/D.PW16 ASI Suresh Pal was the initial Investigating Officer who had recorded the statement of Akshay (PW4) and made endorsement vide Ex.PW16/A for registration of the instant case.The site plan of the spot was prepared by PW16 and was proved by him as Ex.PW16/C. PW17 SI Hukam Singh was the subsequent Investigating Officer who recovered tawa pursuant to the disclosure of the appellant and also conducted TIP of the said tawa.A.201/2017 Page 10 of 24Medical Evidence:PW1 Dr. Akshay testified that on 05.11.2012, he was working as a Junior Resident, Department of Accident & Emergency at GTB Hospital, Delhi.At about 12.35 PM, the patient namely Akshay was brought to the Casualty of GTB Hospital by Const.PW1/A.PW2 Dr. Ranjeetesh, CMO, GTB Hospital proved MLC of Akshay as Ex.PW2/A which was prepared by Dr. Krishanavtar, Junior Resident, GTB Hospital, Delhi.As per the MLC of Akshay (Ex.PW2/A), he was examined on 18.06.2012 at 04.45 AM vide MLC No.It was also mentioned in the MLC that Akshay was conscious and oriented at the time of his examination.PW3 Dr. P. Ram, CMO, GTB Hospital, Delhi proved the MLC of Mithlesh as Ex.The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against the judgment dated 15.11.2016 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').On 18.06.2012 at 6.50 a.m., PW-5 ASI Vijay Singh received a PCR call regarding admission of Akshay and Mithlesh in serious condition in Emergency, GTB Hospital vide DD No. 8A Ex.PW5/A. PW-16 ASI Suresh Pal with PW-11 Ct.Ravi Kumar reached at GTB Hospital.He collected MLC Ex.PW2/A in respect of Akshay and MLC Ex.PW3/A in respect of Mithlesh.Akshay was reported 'under observation' and Mithlesh was reported 'unfit'.He could not find the injured persons.On 18.06.2012 at 9.20 a.m., PW-10 SI Munesh received information from Max Balaji Hospital through Dr. Farida regarding admission of Akshay and Mithlesh in Max Balaji Hospital.Thereafter, PW-16 ASI Suresh Pal with PW-11 Ct.He came to know that Mithlesh had been taken to operation theatre.Akshay was under treatment in Emergency Ward.Akshay made the statement Ex.PW4/A, which is translated as under:"Statement of Akshay Kumar S/o Late Sh.Sunil Kumar R/o Pocket E-27B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.Age 19 years.Stated that I am residing at the aforesaid address with my mother who is a teacher in Vivekanand School.I am studying in IInd year in Hotel Management & Catering Institute, Shimla, H.P.Now a days, I am on vacation.I have come to my mother.My father Sunil Kumar expired before 15 years.My mother Mithlesh Thakur did second marriage with Vijay Sharma who is a resident Crl.A.201/2017 Page 2 of 24 of Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, who is presently, residing with my mother in H. No. 27-B, Pocket-E, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.He used to demand money from my mother.On this issue, there used to be frequent quarrel between Vijay Sharma and my mother.In the night of 18.06.2012 at about 3.00 a.m., I and my mother Mithlesh Thakur were sleeping together on bed.At that time, while I was sleeping, Vijay Sharma, at once, attacked on my head with an iron tawa which is used for baking roti (bread).I woke up.I felt giddiness (chakkar sa aa gaya).Thereafter, Vijay Sharma attacked several times with the said tawa on head of my mother.I asked him not to hit my mother.Vijay Sharma again attacked on my head and immediately, Vijay Sharma fled from the house.Condition of my mother became very serious.I woke up my neighbours who with the help of other neighbourers admitted me and my mother in GTB Hospital.Thereafter, my maternal uncle (mama) resident of H. No. 70-A, Block-R, Dilshad Garden, Delhi admitted us in MAX Hospital, Patparganj.Vijay Sharma caused head injuries to me and my mother Mitlesh Thakur with an iron tawa with the intention to cause death.Legal action be taken against Vijay Sharma who is second husband of my mother.I have heard statement.It is correct."A.201/2017 Page 2 of 243. Charge under Section 307 of IPC was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses.The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. whereby it was stated that he was not present in Delhi on the day of the occurrence and he was at his native village attending to his ailing father.Mr. Sharma submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as PW4 and his sister were both against the second marriage of their mother with the appellant.There is no evidence to show that the appellant was present at the house when the incident took place.It is also contended that the appellant was arrested after two months of the incident from Chandigarh.The so-called weapon of offence, which was a tawa, recovered at the instance of the appellant is highly improbable as the recovery was made from an open place, being a public park, which is used by public as a thoroughfare and thus recovery of the tawa is doubtful.Counsel submits that it is unusual that blood of PW4 was found on the said tawa, who according to the prosecution, was attacked first while the victim who was attacked subsequently with great force by the same tawa did not contain blood of the victim.It is also contended that delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained.The incident took place at 3:00 AM, while the rukka was sent at 11:00 AM.Learned counsel also submits that merely because the appellant was not found at the spot and was absconding, that by itself cannot be a ground to hold him guilty.In fact, the appellant has categorically stated that he used to sleep in the same room along with his wife.PW4 who was the step son of the appellant was visiting them during the vacations and he was sleeping in the adjoining room.Reliance is placed on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act').It is submitted that since the appellant was present in the house, being the husband of the injured person, the onus would shift on him to explain as to how she sustained injuries.The appellant was arrested two months after the incident and there was no explanation rendered by him for his abscondence.A.201/2017 Page 5 of 24Additionally, it is contended by the counsel for the State that the weapon of offence i.e. tawa has been recovered at the instance of the appellant.The said tawa was also duly identified by PW4 in the TIP proceedings.It is further submitted that the testimony of PW4 is truthful and reliable and this by itself is a ground for conviction of the appellant.It is contended that the evidence of PW4 would show that the victim, i.e., his mother is still bed-ridden and is not in a position to walk and talk.Reliance has also been placed on the testimony of CW1 to show that the victim was in a vegetative state at the time of her discharge and was on a feeding tube and tracheostomy.On 20.06.2012, PW4 accompanied police to the place of the incident from where two blood stained pillows were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. However, the said Tawa by which the appellant caused injuries to PW4 and his mother could not be recovered from the house.The appellant also could not be apprehended by the police.PW4 identified the said Tawa, cushion and pillow with stains of blood in the Trial Court.A.201/2017 Page 7 of 24During cross-examination, PW4 stated that at the time of the incident, he was residing in a two room house.The appellant used to sleep in a separate room.At the time of the incident, the appellant was smoking bidi in the other room while he was watching T.V. till 2:15 AM.The appellant hit PW4 on his head with the edge of Tawa once.It was voluntarily stated by PW4 that while the appellant was hitting his mother, he tried to save his mother by holding the hands of the appellant and at that time the appellant again attempted to hit him with the Tawa.As a result of which, PW4 sustained injuries on the right side of his head and started bleeding.The clothes of PW4 including his banyan and jeans were drenched with blood.PW4 shouted for help when the appellant was hitting his mother.His mother was taken to the GTB Hospital in the car of Nitin who accompanied them to the Hospital.PW4 had admitted that he was not in agreement with the decision of his mother to marry the appellant.PW4 denied the suggestion that his sister was also against the marriage of his Crl.A.201/2017 Page 8 of 24 mother with the appellant.It was further stated by PW4 that there were frequent quarrels between his mother and the appellant and were witnessed by him.PW4 further stated that he informed his maternal grandfather from GTB Hospital at about 4:30 AM about the incident, while using the mobile of Nitin.The clothes worn by his mother at the time of the incident were blood stained.However, he did not remember as to whether the Police officials seized the same.PW4 denied the suggestion that the appellant had not given any Tawa blow on his head or on the head of his mother.PW4 further denied that his mother had fallen down on the floor and had sustained injuries on her head; also denied that the appellant never demanded money from his mother; further denied that no quarrel had taken place between his mother and the appellant over the demand of money by the appellant.This witness was recalled for cross-examination after a period of one year.PW6 was cross-examined by the defence counsel; however, his testimony remained uncontroverted and supported the case of the prosecution.A.201/2017 Page 9 of 24Besides the above public witnesses, PW10 SI Munesh was the Duty Officer on the fateful day at Police Station Seemapuri.She received information from MAX Hospital, Patparganj regarding admission of PW4 Akhsay and Mithlesh.The said information was recorded vide DD No. 24B which was proved by her as Ex.Manoj Kumar (PW7) from PS Seemapuri.PW1 took the blood sample of Akshay (PW4) vide MLC No. 83303 and proved the medical examination report dated 05.11.2012 as Ex.PW3/A which was prepared by Dr. Basu, Junior Resident, GTB Hospital.PW3 collected the blood sample of Mithlesh vide MLC Ex.PW3/B. After examination of the said tawa, PW3 opined that 'the possibility of causing injury by the said tawa cannot be ruled out'.PW9 Dr. Kishlay Dutta, In-Charge, Emergency Medicine Deptt, MAX Hospital, Patparganj opined that the nature of injury sustained by Mithlesh was grievous which was rendered by him vide Ex.PW9/A.The counsel for the appellant has contended that the testimony of PW4 cannot be relied as he is an interested witness, being the son of the victim who was against the second marriage of his mother with the appellant.A.201/2017 Page 11 of 24It is true that PW4 was the step son of the appellant but as the occurrence had taken place inside the room in the dead of night, where PW4 alongwith his mother was sleeping in one room and the appellant was sleeping in the other room.The testimony of PW4 cannot be ignored and discarded merely because he happens to be the step son of the appellant who was against the second marriage of his mother with the appellant.The incident took place at about 03.00 AM in the morning thus the presence of PW4 cannot be doubted.Furthermore, the evidence of the eyewitness PW4 is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW6 Jitender Pal Gosai (brother of the victim) who reached the GTB hospital immediately after PW4 informed him about the critical condition of his mother.On reaching hospital, PW6 found that his sister was bleeding profusely and the doctors showed their inability to provide further treatment to her.Thereafter, the victim was taken to the MAX hospital by him.The statement of PW6 was also recorded by the Police at the hospital.Undoubtedly, the testimony of an interested witness can be relied upon if found to be reliable and trustworthy.However, there is a duty on the Court to scrutinise the evidence available on record carefully and the same can be relied upon in case the evidence is found to be truthful and reliable.This Court can also not loose track of the fact that PW4 Akshay is an injured witness as well who sustained injuries on his head as per the MLC Ex.PW 2/A.In the case of Piara Singh and others vs. State of Punjab reported at (1977) 4 SCC 452, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the evidence of Crl.A.201/2017 Page 12 of 24 the interested witness is credit-worthy then there is no bar to convict the accused on the basis of it.Relevant part of Para 4 reads as under:A.201/2017 Page 12 of 24"4..... It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence.In view of the above, we have found that PW4 was the most natural witness who was present with the victim and had given a graphic description of the entire incident.His presence on the spot cannot be doubted as he was injured in the incident during the process of preventing the blows given to him as well as to his mother who was sleeping next to him.What you have to say?We were residing in the said flat.Coming to the case on hand, we find the recovery of tawa to be reliable which was recovered from a heap of garbage under a tree at Hanuman Vatika Park.There was no delay in effecting the recovery of tawa as the appellant was arrested on 19.08.2016 at 2.45 PM from Chandigarh and the said tawa was recovered at about 9.00 PM on 19.08.2016 from the above mentioned place.Furthermore, the said tawa was duly identified by PW4 in the TIP proceedings and the presence of blood on tawa which belonged to PW4 further connects the said tawa with the crime.The counsel for the appellant has also contended that the name of the appellant has not been named at the first opportunity available, i.e., at the time of recording of the MLC.The relevant para 17 reads as under:A.201/2017 Page 20 of 24Another argument advanced before us was that although PWs 1 and 2 were supposed to be eyewitnesses, they never cared to disclose the name of the assailant to the doctor when the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital.The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant.We find no infirmity in the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court.As far as the sentence of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, the following aggravating factors were relied upon by the learned Trial Court which read as under:i) The appellant was an educated person being a software engineer who was swayed by his indifferences or emotions;ii) The appellant attacked his wife Mithlesh while she was sleeping;iii) The offence was not committed in a heat of passion;iv) The manner in which the appellant attacked his wife Mithlesh appears to be a pre-meditated;A.201/2017 Page 23 of 24 the order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.Trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment.In view of the judgment passed, the bail application stands dismissed.G.S.SISTANI, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 //b Crl.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,787,284 |
07 md.Mr. Arnab Saha, Advocate .. for the Petitioners Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Bitasok Banerjee, Advocate .. for the State Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioners were not represented on August 16, 2018 when CRM 6099 of 2018 was dismissed for default.The order dated August 16, 2018 is recalled and CRM 6099 of 2018 is restored to the file.In the matter of:-1 2 In the matter of:-The petitioners claim that there was an altercation between two groups and injuries were suffered by both groups and complaints lodged.Considering the material against the petitioners, there does not appear to be any need to take them into custody.CRM 6099 of 2018 is allowed as above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 3
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,796,079 |
Three year old son of the complainant of first information report (FIR) no. 881/2014 of police station Janak Puri was then a student of Natkhat Play School run by Anish Kumar (accused) in which the petitioner herein was employed she being described as the class teacher.On 07.08.2014, the child was taken to hospital with a history of ingestion of paint thinner.It is alleged that a bottle containing the said substance was lying unattended, unnecessarily and with no accountability, in the class room, it having come in the hand of the child allegedly due to rash or negligent acts of commission or omission on the part of those concerned with the school, the child Crl.M.C. No.2479/2016 Page 1 of 4 allegedly having consumed some part of the substance in the said bottle leading to vomits etc. The police had registered the case for offences under Sections 284 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).M.C. No.2479/2016 Page 1 of 4Upon conclusion of investigation, report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted seeking trial of Anish Kumar, inter alia, on the basis of evidence showing that he, against medical advice, had called the child back from the hospital, thereby coming in the way of immediate appropriate medical treatment, the effect of the injury suffered by the child, thus, having persisted.The police proposed the trial of Anish Kumar for offences under Sections 284/337 IPC, seeking he to be summoned as accused.Accusations had also been levelled against the petitioner, particularly on the basis of statement of co-teacher Vidhi, indicating the presence of the petitioner in the class room, injured child having been noticed in their presence to be holding the bottle containing the unwholesome substance immediately whereafter he had started vomiting.The police, however, reported to the Magistrate in the charge-sheet that case of negligence on the part of the petitioner could not be established and, therefore, she was kept in column no. 12 (persons not sent up for prosecution).Thereafter, she proceeded to embark upon some inquiry followed by series of orders requiring further investigation qua the Crl.M.C. No.2479/2016 Page 2 of 4 role of the petitioner, the reports received in such wake having resulted in the petitioner also being summoned as an accused, by order dated 23.12.2015, which has been impugned by the present petition.But, if the Magistrate accepts the conclusions and the proposal in the report, takes cognizance of the offence(s) and issues process against the accused sent up for trial in terms of power vested in him, sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C., summoning of an additional accused by subsequent order is permissible in law only in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. That stage had not come in this case when the additional order summoning the petitioner as another accused was passed.The case against Anish Kumar is still at the threshold and prosecution is yet to adduce evidence.Accepting the above position in law, the counsel for the complainant (who has also been participating in these proceedings) and the additional public prosecutor for the State, fairly agree that the impugned order will have to be set aside.At the same time, the Crl.M.C. No.2479/2016 Page 3 of 4 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the impugned order is likely to be vacated, the petitioner reserves her rights to raise her contentions as to her innocence in case in the subsequent proceedings, should the Metropolitan Magistrate pass any order on evidence adduced during the trial against Anish Kumar, summoning her as additional accused in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.M.C. No.2479/2016 Page 3 of 4The petition is, thus, allowed.The impugned order dated 23.12.2015 summoning the petitioner as additional accused is set aside.The issue as to whether there are grounds to proceed against her under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is kept open.Trial court record be returned forthwith.R.K.GAUBA, J.
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,800,089 |
[Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J. ] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Murugan, S/o.Arumugam, aged about 53 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Cr.M.P.No.15/Goonda/2016, dated 09/07.2016, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.However, it has also been stated that in a similar case registered in Kundadam Police Station, in Crime No.11 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC, bail had been granted to the accused therein, by the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, in Cr.M.P.No.448 of 2015, on 21.04.2015 and as bails are granted by the Courts in similar type of cases, there is a real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail by filing another bail application in the case registered against him.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that it had been admitted by the detaining authority that no bail application had been filed by the detenu in the case in Kundadam Police Station in Crime No.273 of 2016 in any Court.While so, the statement of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail has not been substantiated with sufficient materials.The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not been refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.In such circumstances, the statement of the detaining authority in the detention order that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.Thus, it is clear that the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority without proper application of mind and appreciation of facts.Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the detention order.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 09.07.2016, passed by the second respondent, is set aside.The detenu is directed to be released, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.[M.J.,J.] [T.M.,J.] 25.01.2017 gpaTo1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 9The District Magistrate and District Collector Thiruppur District3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.JAICHANDREN,J.AND T.MATHIVANAN, J.gpa H.C.P.No.1596 of 201621.12..
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,780,261 |
The petitioners, accordingly, be granted bail of Rs. 10,000/-each with two sureties of Rs. 5000/-each, of whom one must be local.Such bail bonds are to be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandi, District: Murshidabad, to whom a copy of this order be sent at once.If on bail, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 must meet the Investigating Officer twice a week until further order.The case diary be returned.(Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.) (Harish Tandon, J.)
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,802,885 |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu,J.) The appellants are the accused 1,4 and 5 in S.C.No.32 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Ariyalur.The accused 2 and 3 were found to be juveniles in conflict with law and, therefore, the case against them is being dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ariyalur.The accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294-B, 341, 324, 307 and 302 read with 149 IPC.By judgment, dated 12.02.2016, the trial Court acquitted the accused 6 and 7 from all the charges, however, convicted these three accused/appellants, as detailed below :Accused Section of lawSentenceA-1, A-4 & A-5147 I.P.C.There was a longstanding enmity between the family of the first accused and the deceased.All these accused hail from the same village.The fourth accused is the brother of the first accused.On 17.10.2013, at about 07.30 p.m., P.W.1 and the deceased Kamaraj were proceeding in a motorcycle on Koman Road in Thoothoor village.The deceased was driving the said motorcycle bearing registration No.P.W.1 was the pillion rider.It is alleged that when they were nearing the place of occurrence at the coconut thope belonging to one Kasi, all these seven accused suddenly emerged from the said coconut thope.They were all armed with weapons like spear, aruval and spade with handle.They intercepted motorcycle.The deceased stopped the motorcycle immediately.It is alleged that the first accused attacked the deceased with aruval and also with wooden handle on the head of the deceased.The fourth accused attacked the deceased with aruval on his left hand, left year and other parts of the body.The deceased fell down in a pool of blood.In the same occurrence, it is alleged that the sixth accused Mr.Arjunan attacked P.W.1 with a spear in an attempt to kill him and caused injuries.The fifth accused Mr.Thamarai Selvan attacked P.W.1 with aruval and caused injuries.The seventh accused attempted to cut P.W.1, but P.W.1 escaped.When P.W.1 raised alarm, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.On hearing the alarm raised, the villagers gathered at the place of occurrence and, then, with the help of 108 Ambulance, they took P.W.1 and the deceased to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.On his way, the deceased breathed his last.P.W.1 was admitted at the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital as inpatient.On getting intimation from the hospital, P.W.20 went to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and, on returning to the police station, registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294-B, 341, 324, 307 and 302 IPC.Ex.P-1 is the complaint and Ex.P-25 is the F.I.R. In the complaint, P.W.1 had mentioned about the presence and participation of all these seven accused.He went to the place of occurrence at 06.00 a.m. on 18.10.2013 and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch, in the presence of the witnesses.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.Then, he went to the Government Hospital, Ariyalur.P-17 is the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P-18 is the final opinion.The doctor opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.P.W.18 collected the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased.He examined P.W.1 and a few more witnesses and recorded their statements.On 19.10.2013, P.W.22 arrested the seventh accused at Vazhaikurichi Bus Stand in the presence of the witnesses.Simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.A-1, A-4 & A-5 148 I.P.C.Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each.A-1, A-4 & A-5 341 I.P.C.Fine of Rs.500/- each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week each.A-1, A-4 & A-5 302 r/w. 149Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each.Fine of Rs.500/-; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to post-mortem.P.W.16, Dr.Gunasekaran, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 18.10.2013 at 11.50 a.m. He found the following injuries :1. Laceration (L) temporo parietal occipital region, measuring about 13 x 4 x bone depth.Stab wound, measuring about 1.5 x 1 cm below and lateral to (R) sterno-clavicular joint.Stab wound abdomen 2 x 1 cm 2 cm from midline, 13 cm from diphoral process, 8 cm from umblic.Laceration lower lumbar region 5 x 3 bone depth.Abnormal mobility of (L) index finger."On such arrest, the seventh disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hideout and produced the aruval.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the court.He came to know that the accused 1,4 and 5 had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and the accused 2 and 3 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.While in custody, they gave independent voluntary confessions one after another.In pursuance of the said confessions made, the first accused took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced two aruvals, one spear and one spade handle.P.W.18 recovered the same under a mahazar.Then, the fourth accused took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced one aruval, that was recovered.On the same day, the fifth accused also took the police and the witnesses to the place of hideout and produced yet another aruval.That was recovered.He produced one spear also from the place of occurrence.That was recovered.Then, on returning to the police station, P.W.18 forwarded all the accused to the Court for judicial remand.On completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet against all the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 22 witnesses were examined, 35 documents and 12 material objects were marked.He has spoken about the presence and participation of the seven accused, including the overt acts.He has stated that he accompanied the deceased in the motorcycle and, at that time, the occurrence has taken place.He has identified the weapons used in this case.He has further spoken about the complaint made by him.P.W.2, who was expected to speak about the occurrence as eye witness, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case in any manner.P.Ws.3 to 6 are the villagers, who gathered at the place of occurrence after the occurrence, on hearing the same.They have not stated anything incriminating against the accused.P.W.7 has also spoken about the fact that he heard about the occurrence, went to the place of occurrence and then took the injured and the deceased to the hospital.P.W.9, the chemical analyst, has stated that he analysed the material objects and found human blood on all the material objects.P.W.10 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch and recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.11 has stated that on 17.10.2013, at 07.30 p.m., he, along with others, heard about the occurrence and when they went to the place of occurrence, the motorcycle belonging to the deceased was lying at the place of occrrence, they took the same and handed over to police.P.W.13, Constable, has stated that he handed over the F.I.R. and the complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate on 18.10.2013 at 05.40 a.m. P.W.14, another Constable, has stated that he handed over the visceral organs to forensic lab, for examination.P.W.15 has spoken about the disclosure statements made by the accused 1,4,5 and 6 and the consequential recoveries of material objects on their disclosure statements.P.W.16 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.17 has spoken about the arrest of the seventh accused and the disclosure statement made by him and also the consequential recovery of aruval from his possession.4. P.W.18, Dr.Jayaprakash, has stated that on 18.10.2013, P.W.1 was brought to Vinodagan Private Hospital at Thanjavur at 12.30 p.m.; he admitted P.W.1 in the hospital as inpatient; at that time, he was conscious and he told that he was attacked by seven known persons of Thoothoor village on 17.10.2013 at 07.30 p.m. When he examined P.W.1, he found the following injuries :A sutured lacerated wound, measuring 7 cm on his head.Tenderness on the chest.P-21 is the Accident Register.According to him, the injuries are simple in nature.P.W.19 Dr.Balasundaram has stated that P.W.1 was brought to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital on 17.10.2013 at 10.45 p.m. and he told that he was attacked by two known persons with aruval and he was admitted as inpatient.He found a lacerated injury measuring 7 x 2 cm length on the head; a lacerated injury measuring 2 x 1 cm length on the right side of the chest and a stab injury measuring .2 x 0.2 x .5 cm on the left shoulder.P.W.19 has further stated that P.W.1 underwent treatment in the said hospital till 18.10.2013 at 04.00 p.m. and, thereafter, he left the hospital.P.W.22 has spoken about the investigation done and the filing of the final report.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness or to mark any document on their side.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted these appellants alone, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.That is how, these accused 1,4 and 5 are before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the materials carefully.As we have already narrated, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the eye witnesses account of P.W.1, who is the injured eye witness.From the very fact that P.W.1 had sustained injury in the very same occurrence, it can be conclusively presumed that he was present at the time of occurrence along with the deceased.But, whether P.W.1 has deposed only the truth or there is falsity in his evidence is a matter for appreciation.At that time, P.W.1 told that he was attacked by five known persons and two unknown persons with aruval and eety.Subsequently, when he made statement in Ex.P-1 on 18.10.2013, he gave the names of all the seven persons as assailants.It is not his case that out of the seven named persons in the F.I.R., two were not already known, since all the seven accused were already known to him, as they were his enemies.It is not explained to this Court as to why on 17.10.2013, he told P.W.19 Dr.Balasundaram that he was attacked by two unknown persons also.This is an initial doubt in the case of the prosecution.Thereafter, on 18.10.2013, at 12.30 p.m., he was brought to Vinodagan Private Hospital at Thanjavur and at that time, he told that he was attacked by seven known persons.If that be so, we need to expect corroboration from any other independent source and the material particulars.But, there is no other evidence to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 as against these appellants.This would further strengthen the doubt, which we have already dealt with in respect of the improvements made, relating to the number of assailants at various stages.When P.W.1 happens to be an interested witness and also inimical towards the accused, more particularly, when P.W.1 has rendered himself only partly believable, then, in our considered view, prudence requires that there should be corroboration from any other independent source.In our considered view, the possibility of falsification cannot be ruled out in this case.Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts.Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,673,588 |
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 29/08/2019 12:54:25Shri Saurabh Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Case diary perused and arguments heard.This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 1/2/2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in B.A.No.26/2019; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Dileep Chourasiya, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in connection with Criminal Case no.2074/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 452, 427, 147 of the IPC & Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on which appellant his arrest on that case.As per prosecution case, on 13/4/2012 complainant Smt. Urmila Meravi lodged a complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class averring that on 10/2/2012 at 11.30 p.m., appellant Dileep Chourasiya and co-accused Vinod and Mohit came to her house situated at Narmada Nagar, Balaghat and abused her insulting words regarding cast and also assaulted her.They also threatened to kill her.On that complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506-II, 452, 427, 147 of the IPC & Section 3(1)(v) and Section 3(1)(x) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and registered criminal case no.2074/2015 and issued warrant against the appellant for his appearance.The appellant filed an application before the trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this matter.On that Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 29/08/2019 12:54:25 2 CRA-2527-2019 report, police registered Crime no.134/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the ST/SC Act and after investigation filed charge sheet against co-accused Vinod, Mohit and Virendra.In that report, complainant did not mention that the appellant also involved in the crime.The name of the appellant is not mentioned in that report.Thereafter, on 12/4/2012 complainant lodged a false private complaint for the same incident alleging that the appellant was also involved in the crime.On that, learned trial Court registered Criminal Case no.2074/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506-II, 452, 427, 147 of the IPC & Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.He is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial.Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that learned trial Court registered a Criminal Case no.2074/2015 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506-II, 452, 427, 147 of the IPC & Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. So looking to the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.From the complaint prima facie offence under Section 3(2)(va) and Section 3(1)(x) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant.At this stage, only on the basis that in the FIR lodged by the complainant, name of the appellant is not mentioned and complainant lodged the complaint against the appellant on 13/04/2012, it can not be said that the complainant lodged false complaint against the appellant.So, looking to the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, appellant is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.Hence, appeal is rejected.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,741,722 |
65/skp.C.R.M. 1144 of 2017 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.02.2017 in connection with Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 1461 of 2016 dated 22.09.2016 under Sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.(Patherya, J.) (Shivakant Prasad ,J.)
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,744,672 |
Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 05/10/2020, rendered by Special Judge (SC/ST), Dewas, District Dewas, in B.A.No.620/2020 whereby the prayer for regular bail has been declined.As per prosecution story, complainant lodged a missing report at police station Civil Lines, Dewas that her younger daughter is missing.During investigation police recovered the prosecutrix and on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix the aforesaid offence has been registered against the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.:2:against the appellant regarding commission of rape with the prosecutrix.The said allegation is against the main accused Aniket.It is also submitted that the appellant is implicated in the present crime only on the ground that he was accompanied with the main accused Aniket in a separate motor cycle when Aniket was eloping with the prosecutrix in a different motor cycle along with his friend Govind.Thereafter, the present appellant and main-accused Aniket had reached to the village of the appellant near Ujjain where his grandparents removed the prosecutrix from their house after knowing about the said elopement incident.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.The bail application of the co-accused person Rahul has already been allowed by the trial Court and the case of the appellant is similar to him.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for grant of regular bail to appellant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on bail, hence the application filed by the appellant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted.Consequently, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is hereby allowed.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety :3: Cr.A. No. 5314/2020 Akash V/s State of M.P.This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) Judge Ajit Ajit Kamalasanan 2020.10.16 17:51:27 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,746,702 |
1 19.08.2020 SL No.101 ss CRM 5807 of 2020 With CRAN 4218 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Dubrajpur P.S. Case No.277 of 2019 dated 17.11.2019 under Sections 498A/341/326A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Pampa Mondal (Pal) Mr. Manas Das ... ... for the Petitioner.Mr. Saibal Bapuli, APP Mr. Aroni Bhattacharya ... ... for the State.Petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within one month of resumption of normal functioning of the Court.Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.Having considered the materials on record prima facie disclosing involvement of the petitioner in throwing acid on the victim girl which is supported by medical evidence as well as statements of witnesses, we are of the opinion this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,746,723 |
The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station-Isagarh, District Ashoknagar in connection with Crime No. 96/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 294, 452, 324, 323, 506-B, 325 and 326 of IPC.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 applicants are in custody since 27.04.2015 and the charge- sheet though has not been filed but the investigation appears to be nearing completion.Certified copy as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Vacation Judge Abhi*
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,751,509 |
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for applicant.Shri V.K. Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for State.This is a repeat bail 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.775/2015 registered at P.S. Hanumanganj, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 506/34-B of the IPC and 3, 4 of POCSO Act. Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to file the same after recording the statement of the complainant.The statement of the complainant has been filed and he has been declared hostile.(S.K. GANGELE)
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
667,548 |
ORDER Venkataraman, J.P.C. to quash the proceedings instituted against the petitioner in C.C. 2179 of 1966 on the file of the Sub Magistrate, Tirukoilur.That Karnam reported the matter to the Tahsildar.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
667,711 |
JUDGMENT V.S. Kotwal, J.The proceedings depicts not only transgression of limits by the learned Magistrate of his jurisdiction but more disturbing features is that the impugned order does not contain even a grain of reasoning so as to infer application of mind and one is really constrained to observe that an obviously serious matter has been dealt with in rather a casual manner.An incident occurred at about 8 p.m. on a public street near over head bridge in Santacruz area of this city, which according to prosecution was quite ghastly.It is alleged that one Salauddin was proceeding by the road completely unaware of the tragedy that was to occur when all of a sudden about 5-6 persons, who were present in the vicinity directed their attention towards him as a target.Most of them were armed with words and were brandishing those weapons so that members of the public who were present at the spot would dare not go to the rescue of the victim.After having secured this position, it was Sher Ali Mohamed Sadique, who is the first respondent herein, was more active when he took out a revolver and before the victim could realise the implication, he fired shots at him from a close distance causing injuries to the arm as also the abdomen.It is further disclosed by the material collected by the police that the bullet injury caused in the abdomens was through and through.Inspite of that, the victim mustered some strength and started running from spot shouting loudly, though holding stomach with his hands.As luck would have it some constables were in the vicinity.One out of the miscreates chased the said victim Salauddin and it is alleged that even in that condition he was assaulted with sword.Not only that but as per the allegations, even one of the constables by name Borate was also assaulted by the sword by one of the miscreants and the constable also sustained injuries.Salauddin obviously could not travel a considerable distance and soon collapsed.The intimation was given to the Santacruz Police Station.By the time, however, the police could arrive at the spot, Salauddin was removed to Nanavati Hospital and when the police arrived at the spot they found one person Dinanath equally seriously injured.However, the prosecution are not in a position to affirmatively say that Dinanath was injured in the course of the same transaction and it is stated by the prosecution that case was being investigated on the basis of different C.R. number with same Police Station.Salauddin was medically treated since the injuries were apparently serious.The police have been able to contact nearly four eye witnesses out of whom one or two persons have actually named the three respondents herein as being the members of the unlawful assembly and armed with those weapons, and it was the first respondent, who fired the shots.It may also be observed that after Salauddin was removed to Nanavati Hospital on that night itself his dying declaration was recorded by Police Inspector, which declaration was treated as F.I.R. when the names of those three respondents along with others are expressely mentioned in the same as being the perpetrators of the crime.The medical evidence as reflected through the case papers and the first certificate on the admission of Salauddin as also his autopsy report ex facie support the prosecution case about the assault by means of revolver and swords.There are gun shot wounds as also punctured wounds.Prima facie at least the cause of death can be safely attributed to the said assault though the deceased might have survived for about 10 days.The prosecution also alleged an element of motive inasmuch as Salauddin and his colleagues were earlier prosecuted, though they were acquitted, and these accused persons were interested in securing conviction and thus this enraged them and this furnishes a motive in addition to the alleged long standing enmity between them.The statements of direct witnesses are quite clear.There was adequate light and the incident occurred almost in the open.It is also alleged that to scare the people shots were fired in the air even after the incident.This pertains to the nature of material collected by the police.The more disturbing feature comes into existence as per the events that are being referred to hereinafter.The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on the same night of incident while respondent No. 3 was arrested on December 24, 1982 as he was absconding.This was, however, on the forum of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra who was pleased to grant even interim bail in the sum of Rs. 2500/- with a condition annexed to report to the said Police Station on every Monday.This was perhaps as by that time the offence was one under section 307 as the victim was alive.The further development, however, is more disturbing, which came into existence after the victim died and the nature of offence was changed.It was on December 22, 1982 that both these accused were rearrested obviously because the offence transpired was one under section 302 and they were again placed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra for remand.It is on 5th January, 1983 that an application for bail came to be filed on behalf of all the three accused, which was stoutly opposed on behalf of the prosecution.That application came to be decided on 6th January, 1983 and the learned Magistrate quite surprisingly recorded only a cryptic order that all the three accused be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount with an option of giving cash bail of Rs. 5000/- stipulation was annexed that they shall not enter into the area which falls within the jurisdiction of Santacruz Police Station and that they shall observe peace wherever they stay and they were further directed to attend the Court on each of the remand dates.Therefore, on January 17, 1983 Police Inspector filed an application before the said Court for cancellation of bail on the additional ground that the condition annexed to the bail has been violated.An equally unusual order has been passed by the learned Magistrate, which does not make rather a happy reading.It is rather difficult to reproduce the gist of the order in a faithful manner since it contains more confusion rather than any rationale and, therefore, the best thing would be to reproduce that order verbatim, as :---"Miss Samant, Advocate for accused present.The P.I. Santacruz to arrest accused if they are found within the jurisdiction of Santacruz Police Station even though they are on bails.Miss Samant Advocate prays time till 6 a.m. tomorrow to inform accused and hence the police to execute order of arrest from 6 a.m. on 18-1-83 Tuesday".The net result of this order obviously was that the application by the prosecution came to be filed while the concession of liberty granted to the accused to be continued.Exception is taken to that order also.Even though the offence by then was registered under section 302, the bail application dated 5th January was granted on the 6th January.The alleged breach of condition was committed on 13th January for which application came to be filed on the 17th January.Though, therefore, the State has filed this application even before the bail was granted on 6th and even before the application was filed on 17th January still it would not be proper to prohibit the State to rely on these features even in this proceedings since all events form a composite and integrated picture and cannot be viewed in isolation.Further no prejudice is being caused to the defence by adopting this course.As regards the order of bail, which was styled as interim bail granted on 17th December, 1982, much can be said in favour of the prosecution even though by then offence was one under section 307 and the victim was alive.It is only the nature of the offence but all the attendant circumstances that are required to be viewed in totality.The victim was still in the hospital and investigation was incomplete.The propriety of that order itself is open to exception.However, even assuming in favour of the trial Court that he was justified in granting bail one is really preplexed as to how that justification could be extended in favour of the trial Court even after the accused were rearrested after the death of the victim when the offence prima facie was one under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.As stated, the order dated 6th January, 1983 under which the accused were released on bail does not contain even a grain of any reasoning much less element suggesting application of mind by the trial Court.It is not clear whether the papers of investigation were perused by the learned Magistrate.However, a statement is made at the bar on behalf of the respondent on instructions that the papers were called for by the learned Magistrate.The police alleged that the accused were seen in that locality on the 13th January and immediately moved the Court.That application came to be disposed of on 17th January.I have already quoted the order passed by the learned Magistrate which ex facie tends to convey that he was not prepared to take cognizance of the said lapse that occurred prior to that date but he was rather charitable in observing that the police were at liberty to arrest the accused if anybody of them was found in the prohibited area and this time was to be commenced from 6 a.m. on 18th January.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,669,798 |
Mamta Dubey, learned counsel for the Respondent [COMP].Case diary is available.This is the first application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.339/2019 registered at Police Station Bharveli District Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376-2(n) of IPC & 3, 4, 5(1), 6 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.It is submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence.Counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, has not made any allegation against the present applicant.The trial will take time to conclude.The applicant is permanent resident of District and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.On these grounds, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE nd Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 17/02/2020 02:34:00
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,671,786 |
It is further submitted that chargesheet in this case has already been filed and case is pending before Ms. Priya Mahindra, Ld. Addl.I have considered the rival submissions.The prosecution version is that on 12.11.2018, complainant Jaiprakash s/o Sh.Masicharan R/o E-167, Daxinpuri had given a complaint at PS Ambedkar Nagar regarding missing of his daughter, aged 15 years and raised doubt on petitioner Lakhan.BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Lakhan in FIR No. 536/2018 u/s. 363/365/376 IPC & 6 POCSO Act, PS Ambedkar Nagar.Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.Bail Appl.In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 04.04.2019, prosecutrix has stated that she did not make any physical relations with the petitioner and left her parental house on her own free will alone and the petitioner was not with her.However in her later statement recorded on 23.05.2019 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she established physical relations with the accused Lakhan on her own free will and consent.It is submitted that benefit of this changed statement should go to the petitioner.It is further submitted that the age of prosecutrix was above 18 years when she had eloped with the petitioner.Sessions Judge (POCSO), District South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail in the interest of Bail Appl.no. 3244/2019 Page no.2 of 5 justice.APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.Petitioner has made physical relations with the prosecutrix who was 15 years and, therefore, her consent is immaterial.He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail application.On the said complaint, the present FIR bearing no. 536/18, under Section 363 IPC was registered.During the course of the investigation the prosecutrix was produced before the CWC and on 04.04.2019, her statement U/S: 164 CrPC was recorded by the Ld.M.M, Anjani Mahajan, Saket Court, South.During the course of the investigation copy of birth certificate was also taken from the school.On 01.05.2019, petitioner surrendered in the court and after interrogation he was arrested.On 23.05.2019, statement of the prosecutrix under Section Bail Appl.no. 3244/2019 Page no.3 of 5 164 CrPC was again recorded by the Ms.Alka Singh, MM, Saket Court, South wherein prosecutrix has stated that she eloped with petitioner at his (petitioner) instance to Himachal Pradesh and lived with him at Dharamshala and Hisar for around 4-5 months.They had sexual intercourse but it was consensual.She further stated that she has not spoken truth in her earlier statement dated 04.04.2019 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as she was scared and wanted to protect the petitioner.The prosecution has placed on record order dated 25.01.2020 vide which Ld.As per Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for determining the age of any victim of sexual offence, first document which is to be considered is Date of Birth Certificate issued from school or Matriculation or equivalent Certificate from Bail Appl.no. 3244/2019 Page no.4 of 5 concerned examination Board.The Ld.The above facts reveal that prosecutrix was about 15 years old at the time of the alleged offence and her consent for sexual intercourse was therefore immaterial.In these circumstances, keeping in mind the nature of offence, no grounds for bail are made out.The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,674,066 |
23.02.2021 Item No.17 Ct.No.28 dc.Allowed C.R.M. 10980 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner is granted leave to amend the cause title.The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner in connection with Faridpur P.S. Case No. 73 of 2019 dated 18.07.2019 (Special POCSO Case No. 21 of 2019) under Sections 363/365/366A/370(2)/370(4)/370A/372/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 16/17 of the POCSO Act.The learned advocate also stresses upon the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that narration of facts by 2 the victim does not attract the section for which the petitioner and others have been implicated.The learned advocate further submits that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail.Additionally, the learned advocate submits that on any condition, the petitioner may be released on bail.Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are allegations wherein administration of certain medicines were done upon the victim and the case has prima facie been established for trial.The learned advocate for the State also submits a report as called for by this Court on the earlier occasion.Let the report dated 11.02.2021 be kept with the record.The said report reflects that there are no antecedents of the present petitioner in respect of similar offence or other offence.We have taken into account the statement of the witnesses, the stage of the case and the complicity of the present petitioner compared to the other accused persons who are already on bail.Having regard to the same, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has prima facie made out a case for being released on bail.As such, his prayer for bail is allowed.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner, namely, Sk.Babar Ali shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the 3 satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Durgapur and on further condition that the petitioner shall meet with the Officer-in-Charge of Faridpur Police Station once a week until further orders.With the aforesaid observations, the application for bail, being CRM 10980 of 2020, is disposed of.All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,681,216 |
other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that victim has suffered two incised wounds each in the incident and sticks have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners on the disclosure statement made by them.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts:in the First Information Report, the petitioners are said to have used only hands and fisticuffs;they were not armed with any weapons;even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that they were armed with sticks, there are no significant injuries on the persons of the victims caused by a hard and blunt object;the petitioners have been in custody since 2nd week of February, 2017;- in the opinion of this Court, both the petitioners deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, these first applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Vishal and Akash is allowed.It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,546,850 |
The appellant has come in appeal against the said judgment and order.Briefly, the facts are that injured Kumari Shabnam used to go to learn typing in DAV Model School at Yusuf Sarai.The appellant used to follow her.He was employed with her father.On her complaint about it, her father terminated his services.He continued to so follow and harass her.Due to his this misbehaviour, she started going to the school in the company of her two friends, Ranjana and Harvinder Kaur.On the day of occurrence i.e. 31.3.1993 she along with her said two friends was going as usual to the said school when at about 7.45 a.m. on the way the appellant all of a sudden appeared from behind armed with the knife like weapon Ex. P/1 and gave blows with it causing multiple injuries on her neck, head, back (chest) and arm.The injured fell down, profusely bleeding and was removed to the AIIMS Hospital by Ranjana.Information was also conveyed by the PCR to local police.SI Asab Singh with Ct.Niranjan Singh reached the spot and found that the injured had already been removed to the AIIMS; he went to the hospital, collected the two MLCs of Shabnam and Ranjana (who was also injured in the incident).PW1 Shabnam (resident of R9A, Hauz Khas) is the injured.She has deposed that the accused appellant in the year 1993 used to reside near her house and was employed at the shop of her father; she used to go to learn typing at DAV Model School, Yusuf Sarai everyday at about 7.30 a.m. along with her two friends Harvinder and Ranjana who also used to learn typing there.The accused used to chase her every day upto the school and did not desist from doing so inspite of her protests.She had made complaint about it to her father and her father terminated his services; for this reason the accused was inimical towards her and this was the reason for assault; on 31.3.93 she along with her aforesaid two friends Harvinder and Ranjana was going as usual for learning typing when on the way near SFS Gate at about 7.45 a.m. the accused suddenly came, caught her from hairs (choti) and started assaulting her with knife Ex.P1 on her head and neck; when she tried to ward off his attacks with her arms she also received injuries at her hands; Ranjana stopped a vehicle and removed her to AIIMS; that the accused assaulted her because of bitterness for her having complained to her father and his father having terminated his services.She has identified her blood smeared shirt Ex. P2 seized in AIIMS and her bag Ex. P3 and pair of belly Ex. P4 seized from spot.She denied that she had a love affair with the accused or used to write letters or letters marks A and B are written by her to him or that she has falsely implicated him.PW2 Harvinder and PW4 Ranjana have corroborated her.PW2 Harvinder Kaur has deposed that she along with PW1 and PW4 used to go together to learn typing at about 7.30 a.m.; on 31.3.1993 they were going as usual for learning typing when the accused suddenly came there; caught hold of Shabnam from her hairs (choti) and started assaulting her with knife Ex.P1 on her neck and hands.She and Ranjana raised hue and cry and also tried to rescue her but in vain.A bus was stopped and some commuters from the bus came down to their rescue and nabbed the accused and thrashed him and Ranjana removed Shabnam to Hospital.Earlier also the accused used to chase and tease the injured.She has denied the suggestion that Shabnam used to write letters or letters mark A and B are in the hand of Shabnam or that she was deposing falsely or that accused was not the assailant.ORDER J.B.Goel, J.Shabnam was found unfit to make statement.Ranjana made first information statement about the occurrence on the basis of which SI Asab Singh got the FIR registered.The accused was arrested and the knife was seized by the said S.I. at the spot.The accused was prosecuted and charged for offence under Section 307 IPC.During trial the prosecution has examined injured Shabnam (PW1), her two friends Harvinder Kaur (PW2) and Ranjana (PW4).PW1 Shabnam supported the prosecution case whereas PW2 and PW4 corroborated her testimony.PW7 Dr. Bitra George, who was Medical Officer on Emergency duty at the Casualty in AIIMS had first examined the injured and noted down the injuries in MLC Ex. PW7/A and had referred the injured for emergency operation.PW3 H.C. Sardar Singh and PW10 HC Harish Chand who were on duty at PCR van nearby had reached the spot on hearing the cries of the girls; they had apprehended the accused and seized the knife Ex.P1 at the spot.PW11 SI Asab Singh, IO along with PW9 Ct.Niranjan Singh had reached the spot and PW11 at the Hospital (AIIMS) had recorded the first information statement of PW4, got the FIR registered, arrested the accused and seized the knife at the spot.The accused had taken the plea of false implication.The learned trial court believed the prosecution evidence, held the appellant guilty and convicted him as aforesaid.Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the correctness of the findings about the time, place and circumstances of the occurrence and the appellant being the assailant.Nor about recovery of the weapon of offence Ex. P1 from the appellant.However, he has contended that the surgeon who had operated upon the injured has not been examined nor the medical record thereof has been produced and the nature of injuries has not been proved and as such offence under Section 307 IPC is not proved and only an offence under Section 324 IPC is made out; and that the appellant at the time of the occurrence was below the age of 21 years he is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He has relied on State of Punjab Vs.Bant Singh & Anr.1996 Cri.L.J. 3886 (P & H); 1998 II AD (Cri) Delhi 577; Rajesh @ Vimal Kumar & Anr.State (Delhi Administration) 1995 JCC 148; Narinder Kumar Vs.State (Delhi) 1980 CC Cases 62 (Delhi); Ashok Kumar Vs.State 1994 JCC 522 (Delhi); Om Parkash Vs.The State 1998 II AD (Cri.) Delhi 21; Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman Vs.State (Delhi) 1994 JCC 689; Ganga Ram Vs.State 1968 Cri.L.J. 134 (Rajasthan); Ram Chander Vs.State 1991 (2) R. Cri.Rep. 665 (Delhi), Rajinder Singh Vs.State, 1997 JCC 98 (Delhi); Ved Parkash Vs.State of Haryana 1981 Cri.L.J. 161; Satyabhan Kishore and Another Vs.The State of Bihar 1972 Crl.L.J 1042 (SC); Musakhan and Others Vs.State of Maharashtra and Masarullah Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, .Whereas learned counsel for the State has contested these contentions and has contended that the nature of injuries has been proved by Dr. Bitra George PW7 who had examined the injured on her being admitted in emergency and had noted the injuries in the MLC prepared by him and he has also given the nature of injuries as grievous and dangerous to life, inter alia, on basis of his own observations which he was in a position to give and in view of his evidence it cannot be said that the nature of injuries has not been proved.Moreover, the knowledge or intent of the accused required for offence under Section 307 IPC has been established from the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record which has established that the appellant intended to cause the death of the injured.The circumstances are that the accused was armed with a deadly weapon, followed the injured and inflicted multiple injuries even on vital parts without any excuse which coupled with the motive established would prove his requisite intention.It is also contended that he is not entitled to probation on facts and in law.He has relied on State of Gujarat Vs.V.S. Chauhan and State of Rajasthan Vs.PW4, Ranjana has also deposed that she along with Shabnam and Harvinder used to go for learning typing; and on the day of occurrence near DDA Flats the accused suddenly came from back side, caught Shabnam from her hairs (choti), stabbed her repeatedly with knife Ex. P1 at her neck, arms and chest resulting in bleeding profusely and she fell down; she had tried to rescue her but she herself was also injured.She removed Shabnam to AIIMS in a private car; both were examined and her (PW4) statement was recorded there by the police.She has also denied that Shabnam was in love with the accused, or that the accused was not the assailant or that she has deposed falsely.PW2 and PW4 are natural witnesses of the occurrence.Nothing to discredit the testimony of these three PWs has been brought out.Their testimony is also supported by medical evidence.PW3 HC Sardar Singh and PW10 H.C. Harish Chand have deposed that they were on PCR van duty at Hauz Khas, near petrol pump, Red Alert Point and on hearing cries of bachao bachao they had reached the spot; there a girl was lying on the road who was bleeding.The accused was also present with an iron knife, he tried to run away but was apprehended along with the knife.The injured was removed to the AIIMS.The local police was informed.SI Asab Singh reached there.Knife Ex. P1 and the accused were handed over to him.SI Asab Singh has deposed that on receipt of information from PCR vide DD No. 3A he along with Ct.Niranjan Singh reached the spot where the accused had been apprehended by PCR officIals and the injured was already removed to AIIMS; he went to AIIMS, collected the MLCs of Shabnam and Ranjana.Shabnam was unfit to make statement and he recorded the statement Ex. PW11/C of Ranjana, came to the spot and through Ct.PW9 Const.Niranjan Singh has corroborated him.The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took the plea that he has been falsely implicated as her parents came to know that she is having love affair with him.He did not lead any evidence.Prosecution evidence has been believed by the trial court.Correctness of the finding about time, place, circumstances of the occurrence and the appellant being the assailant and knife Ex.P1 being the weapon of offence have not been disputed during arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant.Incised wound over left back scapular region,7. ?Tendon cut over right mid finger, and the injured was unfit to make statement.He had thus found multiple stab injuries and has opined the injuries as grievous.(He had also examined PWRanjana having injuries vide MLC Ex. PW7/B.) In crossexamination he has stated that injury on the neck of Shabnam had depth of 11/2" and that the injured was shifted immediately for emergency operation of trachea (neck).and injury was dangerous to life and by 'dangerous' he meant the injuries were sufficient to kill the person.He has given opinion about the injuries being dangerous on the basis of his own medical examination and that of ENT Surgeon who had immediately operated the patient on trachea (neck).The injuries are three stab injuries on neck exposed to deep fascia, penetrating injury over the scalp, right ear in the right occipital area; multiple laceration over scapular region, multiple incised wound on right upper arm, incised wound over left back.The injuries are multiple incised injuries obviously given in quick succession when the injured was in walking position and from behind.The injuries are in the region of neck.Neck is a vital part.The injured was removed to hospital soon after the occurrence, had to undergo emergency operation due to trachea injuries.She was thus given timely medical aid.From the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW4 it is proved that the appellant has been constantly following and harassing the injured, obviously he wanted to make improper advances towards her.This was repulsed by the injured; she complained about this to her father where the accused was employed and for this reason his services were terminated.He thus had strong motive to eliminate the injured, and for that purpose, on the day of occurrence he came armed with weapon Ex. P1 and suddenly inflicted multiple injuries from behind, the injured being unaware.Ex. P1 is wholly of iron, 14 inches long, with a blade of 91/2 inches long.I had sent for this knife and it has been produced before me.It is like a chopper, the blade portion has a width of 3 cm.at its top and 3.5 cm.at the bottom of blade and 0.2 cm.in width at its back throughout, lower portion blade has been moulded with the handle.It is in a crude form and a deadly weapon.Appellant had inflicted multiple injuries, on neck and nearby regions without any excuse.The assaults thus were deliberate and preplanned and committed under aggravating circumstances.Ranjana and Harvinder Kaur who were accompanying her and also some commuters came to the rescue of the injured.Timely medical aid was also given to her.PW7 in MLC Ex. PW7/A has opined the injuries as grievous but in his statement has deposed that the injuries were dangerous and sufficient to cause death.The grievous injury in this case would fall in clause eighthly under Section 320 IPC which includes "any hurt which endangers life".PW7 had referred the injured for emergency operation of trachea (neck).This in itself clearly shows that but for the operation, the neck injuries would have proved fatal.It is not that Court cannot see the circumstances to come to the conclusion about the nature of injuries.In these circumstances, nonexamination of the surgeon or of other medical record is of no consequence.On the material on record it should not be difficult to draw inference that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.One is supposed to know the consequences of his act.But for the timely medical aid, in all probability she would have succumbed to her injuries.The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is well merited.The appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial court.V.A. Chauhan AND State of Rajasthan Vs.Kailash Chandra 1995 SCC (Cri) 249, an accused convicted for an offence punishable with life imprisonment, is not entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The nature and gravity of the offence is quite serious.A young girl was being constantly followed and harassed by the appellant, obviously he wanted forcible undesirable intimacy from her which was repulsed by her and this prompted him to brutally assault her with deadly weapon.The victim is a young girl and young girls need protection against such brutal instinct.This type of crime has to be viewed and dealt with sternly, keeping in view the interest of society especially in metropolitan cities like Delhi.This type of crime, if not punished sternly, is likely to shake the confidence of the society in the administration of criminal justice.The purpose of sentencing, inter alia, is that the sentence should have effect on and discourage likeminded persons so that they may not be prompted so easily to indulge in similar offences.The learned trial court has sentenced the appellant to RI of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 2,500/.Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, nature of injuries and the interest of the society at large that helpless young girls should not be made the targets of brute force and object of lewd instincts of depraved persons, in my view the sentence in this case also does not call for any interference.In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,546,856 |
Through this petition, the State of Maharashtra has assailed the correctness of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the respondent, whom I shall refer to as "the Accused", has been discharged of certain offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 a few facts that are relevant for the decision of this criminal revision application are alone being recounted by me.Normally, there would have been no reference to this aspect at the initial stage of the judgment, but there appears a degree of justification in this charge and it is for this reason that it is being referred to by me.Coming first to the background and the relevant facts.The Accused before me, Dr. B. K. Subbarao, is a senior member of the Armed Forces having joined the Indian Navy on 15-7-1962 as a Sub-Lieutenant and having finally parted company with the Navy on 27-10-1987 when he opted for premature retirement, at which time he was holding the rank of a Captain.On the night of 30th May, 1988, the Accused was leaving for New York by an Air India flight when it is alleged that the Customs Officers at the Airport decided to check his baggage.It is further alleged that in the course of the baggage check, certain documents are alleged to have been found in his possession and these documents are supposed to have had certain nothings on them that they were secret documents.According to the Prosecution a Panchnama was drawn up and the Inspector of Police, Sahar Airport Police Station, was requested to take over the matter because the Customs Authorities, prima facie, felt that the Accused ought not to have been in possession of these documents and that, consequently, the situation was actionable.The Police Authorities placed the Accused under arrest, and in the course of the investigations they are alleged to have searched the respondent-Accused and it is their case that several other documents of an equally confidential nature were found in the course of that search.The learned Magistrate proceeded on the basis of the complaint and the charge-sheet that had been filed was tagged to the complaint, but admittedly it on the basis of the complaint filed by the investigation Officer, Mr. Sawant, that the Court took cognizance of the offences.Since it was pointed out to the learned Magistrate that the charges against the Accused were under the Official Secrets Act and the Atomic Energy Act and involved several secret and confidential documents and aspects, the proceedings were held in camera and the leaned Magistrate thereafter committed the case to the Court of Session.The Accused, when he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 31-5-1988 itself, made an application that he should be released on bail and it also appears that thereafter the Accused filed a detailed application before the Court on 13-6-1988 in which he contended that the authorities who had arrested him have wrongly proceeded against him on the assumption that he had committed infringements of the Official Secrets Act and the Atomic Energy Act; whereas, according to him whatever documents he is alleged to have been carrying, at their face value, could never justify such a charge.I need to mention one extremely curious aspect of this litigation which is that the documents, which I shall describe presently and which from the subject-matter of the charges, do bear a description which at first blush would give the impression that they are of an extremely secret and confidential nature connected with the Armed Forces and the Atomic Energy installations and that, consequently, ipso facto they would be covered by these two statues.To my mind, had this been done, the course of this litigation would have been different.The ground given was that they were secret documents for which reason no copies were made and the originals were kept in a sealed cover, in which condition they continue to remain.The prosecution immediately rushed to the Supreme Court and an application was made before the Vacation Judge and an ex parte stay was obtained from the Supreme Court and the Accused was immediately taken into custody.He had also made a prayer in the course of those petitions that he should be released on bail on merits.The Accused had been making this prayer for bail in every application filed by him from time to time.The group of petitions before Puranik J. was fully argued and adjourned c.a.v.The condition of the Accused, who was in Jail, having taken a turn for the worse, he filed another petition in April, 1989 praying for release on medical grounds alone.On 21-4-1989, Suresh, J. passed an order that Dr. Dumgaonkar should try and administer the treatment to the Accused in the J.J. Hospital itself.It appears that attempts were made during the Summer Vacation and Dr. Dumgaonkar pointed out to the learned Judge in the month of June, 1989 that it was not possible for any such treatment to be given in the J.J. Hospital.Mrs. Rao who was in charge of the proceedings tried vainly to defend this un-pardonable state of affairs.Against this order, the Prosecution came in revision before a single Judge of this High Court.These are documents relating to different departments, and after this long lapse of time, it would be extremely difficult for any investigating authority to be able to dig into the records and files and locate persons who might have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case.After scrutiny of the record, I am more than satisfied that Mr. Sawant has done a reasonably good job, having regard to the time factor and having regard to the resources at his control.He has contacted whichever of the officers or person he could do.As indicated by me earlier, the Petitioner filed before the Division Bench Criminal Application No. 2445 of 1990, which came to be admitted and set down for expedited hearing.While the Petition was listed for final hearing before the Division Bench of this Court, the Accused made an application for permission to leave the country on a certain assignment.The Application having been considered and found to be reasonable, the Accused was directed by the Division Bench, to which I was a party, to prefer this Application to the trial Court before which the proceeding was pending.The trial Court, namely, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, passed an order granting the Accused permission to leave the country for a short duration of time, i.e., only 3 days.Against this order, the Prosecution approached the High Court once again.Instead of doing this, an application was made to the learned single Judge and an ex parte order obtained without any notice to the Accused.As a result of this order, the Accused, who was to leave the country on the very next day, was prevented from doing so and was unable to attend to whatever assignment he was going for.No evidence has been led in the present case on the basis of which the Court could have convicted the accused.The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the law did not permit him to proceed with the trial from the stage at which he was and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, recorded the conclusion that the accused stands discharged.To my mind, this conclusion was incorrect in so far as the only order that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have passed was an order of acquittal.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,685,653 |
No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this matter.The respondents were convicted for offence under Section 323/34 and sentenced with a fine of Rs.500/- each however, they have been acquitted from the other charges framed against them.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 06/05/2019
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,686,612 |
The prosecution case, briefly stated, are that the deceased is Dr. Sugandha, who was married to the present appellant about 18 years prior to her death which is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 8/9-7-2006 at Bhopal.As alleged, the accused-appellant made a telephonic call to the police informing that when he came to his residence he found that his wife - the deceased was lying in a pool of blood.The police reached to the spot and prepared `panchnama' of the dead-body and referred the same for postmortem examination.An FIR was registered on 9-7-2006 at about 07:05 AM.The accused-appellant is also said to have informed his brother-in- law, Shambhu Singh Gahlot (PW-2) on telephone, who informed the mother of the deceased, Tarabai (PW-4).They reached Bhopal from Hingoli (Maharashtra).When the appellant was suspected by the police he was interrogated.He tried to mislead the investigation and at his instance three 0.22 gun was recovered along with an empty cartridge from the house of father of the appellant.During autopsy a led was recovered from the body of the deceased.The report reveals that she died as a result of gunshot injury.PW-2 Shambhu Singh Gahlot is brother of the deceased, who has deposed that the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased, as the deceased was not having any issue.He has also stated that on 08-07-2006 the accused called him and informed that his sister was lying in a pool of blood.He has informed the same to his mother.PW-4 Tara Bai is mother of the deceased.She has also stated that the relations between the deceased and the appellant were bitter and the appellant used to quarrel with her daughter, as it was informed by the deceased that the appellant was having extra marital relation with the other woman.Another independent witness PW-3 Arti Shinde , who was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station T.T.Nagar Bhopal was examined by the prosecution to prove that the deceased had submitted a complaint before her regarding the harassment being caused by her husband 5 and brother-in-law Ravindra Singh.These witnesses have proved the fact that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were bitter and not cordial and the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased because of his extra-marital relations with the other ladies.R.S. Ghuraiya (PW-14) the Investigating Officer has deposed that he received telephonic call from the appellant and when he had gone to the spot, the appellant was present there.He had prepared the panchnama Ex.P-14 and the other map etc. He has also carried out the seizure of rifle and one empty cartridge vide Ex.P-6 from the house of the father of the appellant on his disclosure statement.The gun so recovered was sent for forensic analysis and ballistic report (Ex.P/24) was obtained by the prosecution.Other co-accused were also charged in respect of offence punishable under section 30 of the Arms Act.The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and defence also chose to examine two defence witnesses.Appreciating the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court acquitted other co-accused persons, namely, Ravindra Singh (A-2) and Shashi Bhushan Singh (A-3) of the charges framed against them and the present appellant has also been acquitted of the charge under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, however, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the IPC as mentioned above.Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the order of conviction and submitted that the circumstantial evidence available in the present case has established the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and further that the appellant has tried to mislead the investigation by getting three .22 rifles recovered .To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we consider it appropriate to first consider the testimony of PW-1, Arti Asthana, PW-2, Shambhu Singh Gahlot, PW-3 Arti Sinde and PW- 4 Tara Bai.Arti Asthana(PW-1) is a counsellor in Family Consultation Centre, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal.She has proved that the deceased had come to her office for the consultation and has narrated that her husband used to quarrel with her and he was having extramarital relations with other woman.On the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant, other rifles were also seized.He has sent these seized weapons for chemical examination.The .22 bore gun with Magazine No.03310037 was seized on which it was written "Sporting Rifle in English".The said recovery was made on the disclosure statement of the appellant from the house of his father Jitendra Singh from a hidden place.Another .22 bore rifle with telescope on which in English TASCO 3- 9 x 40 was written, the same was recovered on the disclosure statement of the appellant from the house of Chandan Singh Yadav.Another rifle .22 bore was got recovered from the house of one Rishi Kumar Singh, which was said to be in the name of father of the appellant Jitendra Singh.The same was recovered vide Ex. P- 6He has sent these seized weapons for chemical examination.The gun .22 bore in which it was mentioned " Make-Indian" No.033100327 was marked as Ex.A-1 was sent for chemical examination.The rifle seized with telescope was marked as Rx.A-2 and rifle in which it was mentioned made in 'England' was marked as Ex.The empty cartridge Article-F was marked as Ex.The ballistic expert had mentioned in his report that all the three weapons, Ex.A-1, Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 have been found to be in working condition.He further opined that by use of these guns, fatal injury could have been caused.Thus, though the seizure of the weapons has not been supported by the independent witnesses but was supported by PW- 14 R.S. Ghuraiya, the Investigating Officer and the ballistic expert report made it clear that the led which was recovered from the dead body has been found to be fired by A-1 .22 bore rifle.The recovery of the empty cartridge has not been recovered from the spot but from the house of the father of the appellant.The led was recovered from the dead body of the deceased and has been found to be fired by A-1 .22 bore rifle.As per the postmortem report and 7 the testimony of PW-9 Dr.C.S.Jain, it was found that there was wound surrounded by blackening which proves that the fire was made from a short distance.Thus, the story of the defence that the deceased used to play with the cats on the terrace of the house and the possibility was that somebody fired from the outside cannot be plausible in view of the specific postmortem report as the bullet was fired from a close distance.Admittedly, the incident had taken place in the house of the appellant and there is no evidence to establish that there was not possibility of the access of a third person at the spot.On scanning of the entire facts, circumstances and the evidence, the following circumstances are established against the appellant:-(i) The witnesses PW-1 Arti Asthana, PW-2 Shambhu Singh Gahlot, PW-3 Arti Shinde and PW-4 Tara Bai had established that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were bitter and she had made a complaint to the Counsellor PW-1 Arti Asthana and PW-3 Arti Shinde, Sub Inspector about the harassment and beating by her husband because of this extra-marital relations with other ladies.(ii) The incident had taken place in the house of the appellant, which is a strong fact against him.It has come out from the evidence that on the ground floor, there was a restaurant and the residence of the appellant was on the first floor.The appellant was also found present near the dead body of the deceased.He had made a mobile call to the Investigating Officer and when he reached at the spot, he was present there.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,694,912 |
The brief facts of this case are that on the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka.1), lodged by Babita Srivastava at P.S.- Keerganj which was scribed by P.W.3 Nand Lal Kumar, Case Crime No. 50 of 1987 was registered against one appellant Dilip Kumar, husband of Babita Srivastava, u/s 307/ 498-A I.PC.In the written report (Ext.Ka.1) complainant Babita Srivastava had stated that marriage between her and appellant Dilip Kumar was solemnized in the year 2002 and ever since then she was being tortured and maltreated by her husband for having brought inadequate dowry.On the day of incident at about 12:30 P.M., accused-appellant Dilip Kumar started beating her and after pouring kerosene oil on her, he set her ablaze on which she came out into court-yard of her house shouting for help.Her mother-in-law Smt. Chintamani and her brother-in-law P.W.1 Anil Kumar poured water on her in an effort to extinguish the fire and took her to the hospital.On the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka.1), check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.17) and necessary G.D. entry (Ext.Ka 18) were prepared by P.W.11 Ram Vilas Chaturvedi, who was posted as Head Moharrir at P.S.- Keerganj at the relevant time.Ka.16).Complainant Babita Srivastava died on 24.02.1987 at about 5:25 P.M. in the hospital as a result of burn injuries.Initially, the case was investigated by P.W.8 S.I. Jagatpal Singh Parihar, who after inspecting the place of occurrence on 20.02.1987, prepared the site plan (Ext.Ka.13) and seized the half burnt clothes and mattress (material Ext.Ka.1), bed-sheet (material Ext.Ka.2), half burnt nylon saree (material Ext.Ka.5) and half burnt blouse (material Ext.Ka.6) along with match-box (material Ext.Ka.3), broken pieces of bangles (material Ext.Ka.4) and velvet (material Ext.Ka.7) and prepared the recovery memo of the aforesaid articles (Ext.Ka.14) and got the seized articles sealed on the spot.On the same day, he promptly recorded the statement of Smt. Babita Srivastava and her mother-in-law Smt. Chintamani and arrested the accused-appellant on the next day (21.02.1987).Since, after the death of the complainant Babita Srivastava on 24.02.1987, the case was converted to one under Section 302 I.P.C. from Section 307 I.P.C., its investigation was taken over by P.W.5 C.O. Rajbir Singh.The injuries of the complainant Babita Srivastava were examined on 22.02.1987 at about 2:20 P.M. by P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava who had prepared her injury report (Ext.Ka.11).The injury report of deceased Babita Srivastava (Ext.Ka.11) indicates that she was admitted to hospital with 90 percent burns.After the death of Babita Srivastava on 24.02.1987, inquest on her dead body was conducted under the supervision of Officiating Magistrate, Allahabad on 25.02.1987 at 3-4 P.M. Her inquest report (Ext.Ka.12) and other related documents photo nash (Ext.3), challan nash (Ext.4), letters addressed to C.M.O and R.I. (Ext.5 and Ext.6) and impression of specimen seal (Ext.7).Thereafter, the dead body of deceased Babita Srivastava was sealed and dispatched for postmortem through P.W.9 Constable Tirth Raj Shukla and P.W.13 Constable Satya Prakash Pandey.Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Babita Srivastava was conducted on 26.02.1987 at 3:30 P.M. by P.W.10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava in the presence of P.W.7 Dr. U.S. Sinha who had also prepared her postmortem report (Ext.Ka.12).He opined that the deceased had died as a result of shock due to antemortem burn injuries on 24.02.1987 at about 5:25 P.M. The information regarding the death of deceased Babita Srivastava was recorded by P.W.11 Ram Vilas Chaturvedi in G.D. vide rapat no. 22, 11:50 A.M. dated 25.02.1987 whereafter the case was converted to one u/s 302 I.P.C. (Ext.Ka.15).Ka.2) of the deceased Babita Srivastava and other related documents photo nash (Ext.3), challan nash (Ext.4), letter addressed to C.M.O and R.I. (Ext.5 and Ext.6) and impression of specimen seal (Ext.7).P.W.5 C.O. Rajbir Singh, the second Investigating Officer of the case proved the charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.10) and also the statements of P.W.2 Smt. Savitri Devi and P.W.1 Anil Kumar recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which they had fully supported the prosecution case as (Ext.Ka.8 and Ext.Ka.9).P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava who had examined the injuries of deceased Babita Srivastava on 20.07.1987 at about 2:20 P.M. and prepared her injury report and recorded the same in Medico Legal Register proved the true copy of the Medico Legal Register as (Ext.Ka.8).He also deposed that it was possible that the burn injuries found on the dead body of the deceased was caused at about 12:30 P.M. He further deposed that at the time of the examination of the injuries of the deceased Babita Srivastava, a strong odour of kerosene oil was emanating from her body and she was finding it difficult to speak and her condition was serious.P.W.7 Dr. U.S. Sinha, Reader and Head of Department, Forensic Medicine Department, Motilal Nehru Medical College, deposed that postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Babita Srivastava was performed by P.W.10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava on 26.02.1987 at about 3:30 P.M. in his presence and Dr. S.C. Srivastava had prepared the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.12).P.W.8 S.I. Jagatpal Singh Parihar, the first Investigating Officer of this case, proved the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka.13) and (material Exts.Ka.1 to Ka.7) and the recovery memo of the articles which were seized by him from the place of occurrence namely half burnt clothes, match-box, broken pieces of bangles, plastic jerrican (Ext.Ka.14).P.W.9 Constable Tirth Raj Shukla proved that he had taken the dead body of the deceased along with P.W.13 Constable Satya Prakash Pandey to the mortuary of the Swaroop Rani Hospital.P.W.4 Vishal Nath Rai, Magistrate had accompanied them to the mortuary where he had conducted the inquest on her dead body and prepared the inquest report and proved the same as (Ext.Ka.2).P.W.10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava stated that he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Babita Srivastava on 26.02.1987 at about 3:30 P.M. in the presence of P.W.7 Dr. U.S. Sinha and prepared her postmortem report (Ext.Ka.12).He also deposed that the body of the deceased was 90 percent burnt.P.W.11 Ram Vilas Chaturvedi in his statement recorded before the Trial Court deposed that the information regarding the death of Babita Srivastava was recorded by him in G.D. vide rapat no. 22, 11:50 A.M. on 25.02.1987 (Ext.Ka.15).Thereafter, the case was converted to one u/s 302 I.P.C. P.W.12 Shiv Shankar Tiwari, Additional City Magistrate, IIIrd, Allahabad in his evidence recorded during the trial, deposed that on the date of the incident, he had received telephonic information from C.O. City IInd about the occurrence and on his request, he had gone to Swaroop Rani Hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Babita Srivastava (Ext.Ka.16) after being personally satisfied and also after the doctor who had certified that the deceased was in a fit condition to give her statement.P.W.14 Munni Lal Yadav, Head Constable, P.S.- Keerganj, proved the check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.17) and the relevant G.D. entry (Ext.Ka.18).He also deposed that the articles relating to the case which was delivered to him in a sealed bundle along with one jerrican were deposited in P.S.- Keerganj by S.I. Jagatpal Singh Parihar and necessary G.D. Entry in this regard was made vide rapat no. 22, 2350 hours and proved it as (Ext.Ka.2).The accused-appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that deceased Babita Srivastava was his wife.He also admitted that at the time when Babita Srivastava had caught fire, he was present in the house and had attempted to save her.Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.(By the Court) Case called out in the revised list.None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal.Record further shows that when this appeal was called out on 25.01.2017, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal.We passed an order issuing non-bailable warrant against the appellant.But the non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant pursuant to our order dated 25.01.2017 through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad could not be executed against him as he was not found residing at the address mentioned in the memo of appeal.Consequently, on 23.03.2017, we passed an order directing Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to proceed against the sureties of the appellant Dilip Kumar.However, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad vide his report dated 27.02.2017 has informed that he could not proceed against the sureties as bail bonds furnished by the sureties of the appellant at the time of his being released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.03.2017 could not be traced out.In view of the above, it is apparent that neither the appellant nor his counsel are interested in the disposal of this appeal.Since, neither the address of the appellant is available nor the bonds furnished by his sureties are traceable, there is no likelihood of the accused being arrested and produced before this Court and no useful purpose will be served by directing Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to take further steps for tracing out the accused and producing him before us.It is obvious that the appellant has abused the liberty of bail.Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of this appeal in the absence of both the appellant and his counsel and wait perennially for the appellant to be traced out, if at all, and produced before this Court.Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgement delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 :19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits;19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent;19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgement of the trial court;This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Dilip Kumar against the judgement and order dated 01.06.1990 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 375 of 1987, State Vs.Dilip Kumar, convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C.Record further indicates that the dying declaration of complainant Babita Srivastava was recorded at Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad.Relevant G.D. Entry vide rapat no. 36 on 20.02.1987 at 15:30 P.M. was prepared as (Ext.Ka.18).Before Sri Shiv Shankar Tiwari, Additional City Magistrate IIIrd, she stated that on the day of the incident, a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband at about 10 A.M. whereafter her husband had taunted her by saying that she had not brought any dowry from her parents and then poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze saying that he would finish her.Her dying declaration is on record as (Ext.The Investigating Officer P.W.5 C.O. Rajbir Singh, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.10) against appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.Dilip Kumar and made over for trial to the Court of Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad who on the basis of material on record and after hearing the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 302 I.P.C. against him.The accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.He proved the written report (Ext.Ka.1) by deposing that on receiving information about her sister being burnt and admitted to hospital from Anil Kumar, brother of the accused-appellant, he reached the hospital at about 2 P.M. and met her sister who narrated to him the entire episode which was scribed by him and thereafter, the deceased Babita Srivastava had put her thumb impression thereon and then he had lodged the same on the same day at P.S.- Keerganj at about 1530 hours.He further corroborated the facts stated by Smt. Babita Srivastava in her dying declaration.He proved the dying declaration of the deceased (Ext.Ka.16) by deposing that he had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at about 3 P.M. on receiving information about the incident from the hospital after the doctor had certified that Babita Srivastava was in a fit mental condition to give her statement.P.W.1 Anil Kumar and P.W.2 Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of deceased Babita Srivastava were examined as witnesses of fact.They were declared hostile on the request of the prosecution after they failed to support the prosecution case in their evidence tendered during the trial.P.W.4 Vishal Nath Rai, Officiating Magistrate proved the inquest report (Ext.According to him, her wife had caught fire while cooking food on stove and his brother and mother got her admitted to the hospital.He also stated that a false F.I.R. was lodged against him by the police in collusion with P.W.3 Nand Lal and a wrong charge-sheet had been submitted against him.The written report of the incident which was lodged in the police station was fake and manufactured.His brother had informed Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of Babita Srivastava and her brother Nand Lal about the incident.He had lastly stated that he had falsely been implicated in the present case.The defence examined Dr. M.K. Bhatia, Medical Officer Central Jail, Allahabad as D.W.1 who deposed that on 22.02.1987 at about 12 P.M., he had examined the injuries of appellant Dilip Kumar in Central Jail, Naini and had noted following injuries on his person:-1) Superficial burn injury spread over an area of 3" X 2" in the middle of the left thigh2) Superficial burn injury on right forearm spread over an area of 2" x 1-1/2"3) Superficial burn injury on the right sleeve spread over an area of 3" x 1/2"According to Dr. M.K. Bhatia, all the injuries found on the person of accused-appellant Dilip Kumar were simple and appeared to be two days before.He also deposed that it was possible that the injuries found on the person of accused-appellant could be received while trying to dodge the fire.He however, deposed that he had not found any burn injuries on the palm of accused Dilip Kumar.After considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary, the learned Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad convicted the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.Hence, this appeal.We have very carefully perused the entire lower court record and heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned AGA assisted by Smt. Manju Thakur, Advocate for the State.The written report (Ext.Ka.1) of the occurrence was scribed by P.W.3 Nand Lal, real brother of the deceased on the dictation of the deceased Babita Srivastava.From the perusal of the written report, it is crystal clear that on the date of the occurrence, the accused-appellant had started beating the deceased at about 10 A.M. for having brought inadequate dowry and had then set her ablaze after sprinkling kerosene oil on her.The written report also contains the recital that ever since her marriage, the accused-appellant had been torturing and maltreating her for having brought inadequate dowry and after she had been set ablaze by her husband, she had come out of her room into the court-yard, shouting for help.Her mother-in-law Smt. Chintamani and her brother-in-law Anil Kumar had tried to save her by pouring water on her and had then got her admitted to the hospital for treatment.The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in the legal maxim 'Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire' which means 'a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth'.The doctrine of Dying Declaration is enshrined in section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as, 'Evidence Act') as an exception to the general rule contained in section 60 of the Evidence Act, which provides that oral evidence in all cases must be direct i.e., it must be the evidence of a witness, who says he saw it.Ka.16) on 20.02.1987 at about 3:30 P.M. in the hospital.It would be useful to reproduce the dying declaration of the deceased which runs hereunder:-The dying declaration has been proved by P.W.12 Shiv Shankar Tiwari.Even the most superficial reading of the dying declaration of the deceased shows that it is the most natural narration of the incident and how it had taken place.There is absolutely no effort on her part to embellish or implicate all the family members of her husband.On the contrary, the deceased in her dying declaration has stated that after her husband had set her ablaze, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law tried to save her life by pouring water on her.We do not find any reason to discard the dying declaration which appears to be fully trustworthy and inspires confidence.We further also do not find any reason why the deceased would falsely implicate the accused-appellant.Moreover, plea which was taken by the accused-appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that his wife Babita Srivastava had caught fire while she was cooking food on the stove has been found to be false.It is true that the two witnesses of fact P.W.2 Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased and P.W.1 Anil Kumar have failed to support the prosecution case.But P.W.3 Nand Lal, elder brother of the deceased has fully supported the prosecution case by deposing that when he had met her in the hospital, she was talking to the residents of the locality at about 1 P.M. which shows that she was in a position to interact.Moreover, we do not find any reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declaration which fully supports the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. The fact stated by the deceased in her dying declaration that the appellant had after beating her, poured kerosene oil on her and then set her ablaze, find further corroboration from the articles seized by P.W.8 S.I. Jagatpal Singh Parihar, the first Investigating Officer of the case, from the place of occurrence namely half burnt clothes, one plastic jerrican with kerosene oil, matchbox, broken pieces of bangles which were proved and exhibited as material Ext.Ka.1 to Ka.7).On the date of the occurrence, the deceased had been beaten by the accused-appellant and thereafter he had set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil on her.The medical evidence on record fully collates the prosecution version as is evident from the evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and P.W.10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava, who have in their evidence recorded during the trial have fully corroborated the prosecution case that the deceased had died as a result of burn injuries sustained by her on being set ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her.Thus, upon a wholesome appraisal and critical analysis of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving that the deceased Babita Srivastava had received burn injuries on 20.02.1987 at about 12:30 P.M. in her house after her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze and as a result of aforesaid burn injuries, she had died on 24.02.1987 at about 1:30 P.M. We do not find that the learned Trial Judge committed any error, illegality, infirmity or perversity in convicting the appellant and sentencing him to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C.This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,697,090 |
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing.Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the State.Also heard on I.A. No.20023/2017, an application under Sec- tion 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court as under:Rs.500/-, in default additional R.I. for 01 month Under Section 366 Ka of R.I. for 05 years and fine of IPC Rs.500/-, in default additional R.I.for 01 month Under Section 376(2)(i)(n) R.I. for 10 years and fine of of IPC Rs.1,000/-, in default further R.I.for 02 months Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since long time and the appeal would take considerable time to be disposed of finally, therefore, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.Considering the nature of offence proved against the appellant and the fact that the appeal would take considerable time to be disposed of finally, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant- Jaipal Adiwasi shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18.09.2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.C.C. as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge vc Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2018.05.17 17:00:22 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,051,781 |
pk CRM No. 2421 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.03.15 in connection with Matigara P.S. Case No. 717/14 dated 15.11.14 under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased housewife.Although FIR was registered for an offence punishable under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code but charge sheet has been submitted under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code.We have gone through the case diary and found that during investigation the statements of the son and the daughter of the 2 victim housewife were recorded and the same are at pages 19 and 20 of the case diary.Having regard to what transpires therefrom, we find no valid reason to decline the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands allowed.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
880,568 |
JUDGMENT S.S. Chadha, J.(1) An Act to establish a Press Council for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and oF maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India was enacted by Parliament, being Press Council Act 1965 (Act 34 of 1965), (hereinafter called the 'Act').In furtherance or its object the Press Council is empowered to help newspapers and news agencies to maintain their independence.The Jurisdiction of the Press Council was invoked by two complaints under sections 12(2) (a) and (e) of the Act. What is the meaning and scope of the terms 'Freedom of Press', Independence of Newspapers' and the Independence of the Editor of a Newspaper' is one of the interesting questions which goes to the "out of the jurisdiction of the Press Council that has arisen in this case.respondent 27, Shri D. R. Mankekar, addressed a complaint to the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Press Council') under section 12(2) (a) of the Act and Regulation 16 of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) alleging inter alia, that he is a Journalist of 40 years' standing and concerned with maintaining the independence of the Press from pressures of any sort, including pressures from the proprietors of newspapers; that the freedom of the Press is synonymous with the freedom of the editor from external pressure to pursue the editorial policy; that Shri B. G. Verghese, Editor of the Hindustan Times has been following an independent editorial policy exposing the defects and misdeeds of the Establishment; that Shri K. K. Birla (the petitioner in the writ petition) conceived the idea of terminating the services of Shri B. G. Verghese so that he might be replaced by one who is more amenable to Shri Birla's dictates or v/ho would not initiate or incur the displeasure of the Government by his writings in the newspapers; that the petitioner for promoting his business interest, is beholden to the Government and is, therefore, either under the pressure from the Government or is desirous of placating the Establishment to further his business interest; that there was thus a threat to the termination of the services of Shri B. G. Verghese; that the free- G; dom of speech and expression which is mentioned in Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution includes the freedom of the Press of and the freedom of the Press has no meaning unless the editor is free from pressure, including pressure from the proprietor; that Shri B. G Verghese was sought to be punished by terminating his services for the sin of exercising his right of freedom of expression; and that the threat of the termination of the services of Shri B. G. Verghese has greatly agitated Journalists who are interested in a free Press with an independent Editor free from pressures.(3) On November 5, 1974 respondent 28, Shri C. P. Ramachandran, the Chairman of Hindustan Times Committee and Assistant Editor of the Daily Hindustan Times, New Delhi, also addressed a complaint to the Chairman of the Press Council under sections 12(2)(a) and (e) of the Act, read with Regulation 16 to remove, what he alleges, a grave threat to the freedom of the Press and independence of the newspapers flowing from the decision of the Management of the Hindustan Times Ltd. to remove Shri B. G. Verghese from the editorship of the newspaper and its allied English publications.After referring to the constitution and objects of the Hindustan Times Ltd. respondent 28 alleged in the complaint, inter alia, that Shri K. K. Birla, (petitioner herein) had sent a notice to Shri B. G. Verghese in August last asking Shri Verghese to cease to be the Editor with effect from February 28, 1975, but the petitioner has declined to disclose the reasons for the action; that the petitioner is contemplating a new editorial structure for the Hindustan Times Ltd. and its allied publications, which will completely whittle down the independence of the editor and other members of the editorial staff and thus undermine the integrity of the profession; that the threat is inherent not only in the action proposed to be taken against the present editor but also in the new dispensation which is expected to follow his removal; that during the last six years of his editorship, Shri Verghese has not only scrupulously and faithfully pursued the policy described in the Memorandum of Assoriation of the Hindustan Times Ltd., but also brought prestige to the newspaper in doing so; that Shri Birla himself is against faithfully implementing the policies and in fact is seeking to suppress them; that it is conceivable that powerful persons in the ruling party and the administration to whom independence of the Press is anathema and who like to use Hindustan Times for furthering their political and other interests have exerted pressure on the petitioner; that the petitioner who has extensive industrial and business interests has taken the action to terminate the services of Shri B. G. Verghese because he finds the editorial policy that is being pursued by Shri B. G. Verghese embarrassing and unsuitable for the pursuance of these interests, and that alternatively, it is clear that he is seeking to ingratiate himself with Government agencies and/or the ruling party for the same purpose.After the arguments on the pre- liminary objections were concluded, the Press Council considered and then decided to reject the preliminary objections but stated that the reasons would be given only at the final stage.Counsel for the petitioner again desired that the reasons for rejecting the preliminary objections should be given immediately, but the request was rejected by the Press Council, who decided to proceed with the trial of the two complaints immediately.Shri B. G. Verghese, who had been summoned Along with certain documents as a result of a decision taken by the Press Council at 10.30 A.M. earlier in the day, was sought to be examined by the Press Council.An objection was taken by the counsel for the petitioner that he was completely taken by surprise as no notice was given that any witness would be examined.The objection was overruled and the deposition of Shri B. G. Verghese was recorded till about 5.30 P.M. The counsel for the petitioner again renewed, his request for time to enable him to receive instructions from the petitioner to study the documents filed by Shri Verghese and to prepare the cross-examination.The case was, however, adjourned to next day.1975 by the counsel for the petitioner asking for a short adjournment for a fortnight, the Press Council granted the adjournment to February 4, 1975 and fixed the hearing to continue day to day thereafter.It is alleged that when important questions of jurisdiction and non-maintainability of the complaints were raised which go to the root of the matter, the Press Council ought to have given reasons for the rejection of the said preliminary objections.If in their wisdom the said two members chose to abstain from attending the meeting, the petitioner cannot allege that they were excluded mala fide by the Chairman.There is thus nothing upon which to found a suspicion of bias on this ground.Shri Dalmia in his reply dated January 8. 1975 had made reference to the suggestion to produce certain correspondence, but observed that the Secretary had not specified which letter or letters should be produced and under which section.In reply to this letter, the Secretary wrote the letter dated January 9, 1975 that "you would have seen from the complaint that it is to a very large extent based upon the correspondence that passed between you and Mr. Vorghese, it is presumed from July 1974 to the end of the year from which the inference has been drawn that there was motivation behind the action said to have been taken by you to terminate the services of Mr. B. G. Verghese as editor of the Hindustan Times".
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,057,042 |
Without any base, the respondent police had registered a case in Crime No.624 of 2016 for the offences under Section 468, 471, 420 of IPC & 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967, as against the petitioner.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.624 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.7043 of 2018 duahttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.7043 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.1.The Inspector of Police, Villupuram District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No. 7043 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.3650 of 2018 12.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
880,608 |
Briefly narrated the facts of the prosecution case are that prosecutrix Geeta Bai (P.W. 4) is daughter of Sunderlal (P.W. 7).Being a minor she was in lawful guardianship of her parents on the date of offence.Accused Manpyare was living in a house opposite the house of Sunderlal (P.W. 7), at Barigarh.Accused Ramprasad brother-in-law of accused Manpyare was also staying there for his study.Another student accused Shiv Prasad was also living in the same locality in the house of Bhawanideen.On 24-4-86, the date of incident, prosecutrix Geetabai went to the Chaturbhuj Baba well for fetching water.From that well accused Ramprasad and Shivprasad also used to take water.In the course of frequent visits to the well accused Ramprasad developed friendship with Geeta and started exchanging letters.Accused Ramprasad used to send letters through accused Manpyare or Shivprasad.He used to invite Geeta to his house by such letters and perform sexual intercourse with her.On 24-4-86, accused Ramprasad sent a letter to Geeta through the younger son of Manpyare assuring to fix her marriage with accused Shivprasad.On that date itself Shivprasad also wrote a letter to Geeta, promising her to marry and that enticed her to visit the house of accused Ramprasad at 3 O'clock in the night where she also disclosed the fact that her mother had chastened her for any such indulgence.For that reason, accused Ramprasad advised her to go and hide behind a hillock and he promised to look after her.Prosecutrix Geeta did accordingly and on 25-4-86 at about 8.00 O'clock in the morning accused Ramprasad visited her and asked her to stay there itself.Again at about 5 O'clock in the evening accused Ramprasad went to give her water.Thereafter accused Manpyare went there and performed sexual intercourse with her.Accused Ramprasad came in the night and also performed sexual intercourse with her.In the morning accused Ramprasad went away but Manpyare stayed there.In the day time accused Ramprasad brought food for her and went away.Genda Bai (P.W. 5) mother of the prosecutrix informed her husband Sunderlal (P.W. 7), a school teacher, through her brother-in-law Shivlal after Geeta did not return home.On 27-4-86, at 15.45 Sunderlal (P.W. 7) father of the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station, Jujharnager which was registered for offences under Sections 363 and 366, IPC as per Crime No. 21/86 by Police ASI Shri R.N. Mishra (P.W. 13).Shri Mishra (P.W. 13) also recorded the statements of witnesses Sunderlal and Ramadeen and seized as per Ex. P-12, the letter written by accused Shiv Prasad to Geeta.The police came to the place where she was hiding but could not trace her out.Thereafter, accused Manpyare took Geeta along to Pipri where Geeta stayed in his aunt's house.On 1-5-86, accused Ramprasad also joined and they took her to Chhatarpur Court via Srinagar where they obtained her affidavit and made her sign some papers.In her affidavit she stated her age to be 18 years.Thereafter, she was taken to Mahoba and from there to Karbi.Thus, accused persons roamed around with her and performed sexual intercourse.JUDGMENT Uma Nath Singh, J.This is an appeal from the judgment and findings dated 21-11-89 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in the Sessions Trial No. 48/87 whereby the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count and in default, to further undergo six months R.I. on each count.However, accused Shiv Prasad was not found guilty on any count, therefore, acquitted of said charges.Manpyare also took Geeta to Naibasti and purchased a new set of cloths for her, where, he came to know that police was coming in search of Geeta, therefore, he left her alone in the forest and fled away.On 5-5-86 as per Ex. P-10 Police Station Incharge, AS.Bhadouria (P.W. 11) arrested accused Manpyare, Ramprasad and Shivprasad.On 30-6-86 accused Shivram was taken in custody.Accused persons were medically examined by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta (P.W. 12) who submitted his report as Ex. P-11 (A), Ex. P-12 (A) and Ex. P-13 (A).The affidavit sworn by prosecutrix Geeta Bai was seized from Ramprasad.After due investigation a challan was laid and charges were drawn up for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC, against all the accused which they denied.However, accused Manpyare and Ramprasad admitted that they had got an affidavit sworn by Geeta at Chhatarpur.Accused Manpyare pleaded innocence and false implication due to enmity, being a relative of accused Ramprasad.Accused Ramprasad submitted that the complainant wanted him to enter into a nuptial bond with prosecutrix which he declined, and therefore, he was falsely implicated.Accused Shiv Prasad admitted the factum of being taken in custody and subjected to medical examination.He also pleaded innocence and false implication.Accused Manpyare and Ramprasad also adduced defence evidence of witnesses Shivpal Singh and Sonelal Prajapati, in their favour.The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of the evidence on record found that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges against accused Shiv Prasad and, therefore, recorded his acquittal.However, accused Manpyare, Ramprasad and Shivram were held guilty and awarded sentences as stated above.Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.Shri Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel vehemently argued for the appellants and made two pronged attacks to demolish the prosecution case: First, placing reliance on the dictum of Brij Mohan v. Priya Brat (AIR 1965 SC 282), he submitted that Sunderlal (P.W. 7), father of the prosecutrix.Keeping in mind her job prospects got an entry of wrong date of birth in the school scholars register, and; secondly; the prosecutrix was a consenting party.Countering the arguments of Shri Singh, Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State placed strong reliance on the evidence of prosecutrix as also the medical evidence.As regards the first contention about the age of the prosecutrix, Sunderlal (P.W. 7) emphatically denied all suggestions in para 11 of the cross-examination in respect of wrong information about the age of prosecutrix and reiterated that on the date of incident, the age of Geeta (P.W. 4) was only 14 years.This marks-sheet was issued by the Govt. Middle School, Barigarh under the original penned signatures of the Head Master, the class teacher and the dealing clerk on a printed format.Below the signature of the Head Master, is affixed the school stamp.Though this document was not produced with the charge-sheet but taking into account the totality of circumstances, the learned Trial Judge admitted it in evidence to be exhibited on the record.In cross-examination she appeared to be utterly confused in calculating the time gap in between the birth of her seven children.Moreover the defence did not give any direct suggestion that she had given a wrong information about the age of prosecutrix.Dr. K.L. Bandil (P.W. 1) who had taken X-ray of the relevant parts of the body of prosecutrix, to determine her age, clarified in his cross-examination that her average age was 15 years, subject to variation of 3 years on either side.Thus, it could be 12 years on the lower and 18 years on the higher side.Dr. (Smt.) P. Mukherjee (P.W. 2) in reply to a pointed question emphatically stated in para 4 (bottom) of her cross-examination that in the case of prosecutrix, her age could not be more than 16 years.Moreover, she clarified that her estimate of the approximate age of prosecutrix was subject to confirmation by the X-ray reports.Maheshwari Deen Saxena (P.W. 10), Head Master of Barigarh appeared before the Court with scholar register.Entry No. 538 of the said register showed the entry of prosecutrix as Geeta Devi D/o Sunder r/o Barigarh.The witness has stood the rigours of cross-examination which failed to reveal any meaningful information that could disturb the layout of consistent prosecution evidence adduced on the point under consideration.Dr. R.K. Khare (P.W. 7) had on 22-3-1982 taken skiagram (vide Ex. P-4) of the elbow and wrist joints of the prosecutrix.He has opined that on that date the age of the prosecutrix was between 16 to 18 years with a margin of 3 years on either sidedue to variety of reasons.Ex. P-5 is his report.Due to the margin stated by the witness it cannot be said that the medical evidence militates against the other consistent evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix.In that case despite medical advice for X-ray examination of the prosecutrix to find out her age, it was not got done.The appellant had been acquitted of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and in the circumstances it was observed that for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC the question of age deserved to be examined more closely.On the material on record the Trial Court's conclusion that the prosecutrix was under sixteen years is upheld.The testimony of the prosecutrix Ku.Section 375 has five clauses.According to clause fifth read with the exception, a man is said to commit "rape" who has sexual intercourse with a woman not being his wife, with or without her consent when she is under sixteen years of age.It may be noted that consent of such a woman is wholly immaterial and furnishes no defence.Dr. J. Engineer (P.W. 4) who had examined the prosecutrix on 20-3-1982 has stated at the trial that there were no signs of rape on her and she was habituated to sexual intercourse but as the prosecutrix has been found to have been under 16 years, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence of rape."As regards the second limb of argument, though it would be inexpedient to elucidate when the age of prosecutrix is found to be under 16 years, prosecutrix Geeta Bai (P.W. 4) has mentioned in her cross-examination that she was repeatedly subjected to forcible sexual inter-course and as she was under threat she could not resist that.She is specific in giving details of the accused and the manner in which she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.The witness was put to a lengthy cross-examination but no material contradiction came out which could shake the foundation of prosecution case.A.S. Bhadouria (P.W. 11) police station in charge in para 10 of the cross-examination reiterated the police case diary statement of the prosecutrix that accused Ram Prasad performed sexual inter-course 10 to 12 times with her.He further stated that the police statement of prosecutrix Geeta Bai also contained a fact that all the accused had performed sexual inter-course with her.Obtaining of an affidavit from prosecutrix Geeta Bai which was seized from accused Ram Prasad is not in dispute.Further, Dr. (Smt.) P. Mukherjee (P.W. 2) who medically examined the prosecutrix noticed a complete rupture of her hymen.Thus, from the evidence of prosecutrix Geeta Bai (P.W. 4) coupled with the statements of A.S. Bhadouria (P.W. 11) and Dr. (Smt.) P. Mukherjee (P.W. 2) and also the fact that the accused had obtained an affidavit of the prosecutrix at Chhatarpur, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellants repeatedly performed forcible sexual inter-course with her which the defence may not gainsay in view of preponderant evidence on records, and therefore, I find no force in the second argument of Shri Singh that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.Thus, on a reappraisal of the evidence on records before me, I find no merit in the instant criminal appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.Consequently, the accused appellants who are on bail are directed to surrender to their bail bonds.Criminal Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 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.
|
88,062,838 |
P.W.3 is also a resident of Manjankolam.P.W.2 Natarajan is residing at Ervadi Lakshminarasingapuram.P.W.5 Peer Mohammed is living at Ervadi and is having a vegetable shop in the main Bazaar where the deceased Murugan very often used to visit.P.W.6 is a retired Village Administrative Officer, who is residing at Ervadi.P.W.7 Khader is an agriculturist and he is working as a Lightman at Noor Complex.P.Ws.8 and 9 also belong to Ervadi.(b) The motive for the occurrence is said to be that about 15 days prior to 3.9.1991, the deceased assaulted A.1 with Cheppals at Ervadi Bus Stop and at that time A.1 threatened to kill him.Therefore, A.1 collected his friends A.2, A.3 and one Anandan (since deceased) and came to the place of occurrence which is the front portion of the Jamuna Vessel shop in Ervadi Bazaar and A.1 pulled and dragged the deceased to a place near Noor complex and A.3 caught hold of the deceased by holding his head and all the accused indiscriminately cut the deceased with Aruval, causing multiple injuries which caused the instantaneous death and thereafter they have taken away about 71 grams of gold chain which was worn by the deceased.When the accused were running away from the scene via., Nadar Street of Erwadi, P.W.3 questioned A.1 and A.1 told him that they have killed the deceased and thereafter he also ran away.Immediately P.W.1 went to Police Station at 9.00 p.m., and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before P.W.20, Sub Inspector of Police.P.15 is the printed FIR.The original FIR and the complaint were sent to Judicial Magistrate and copies to the higher officials.P.W.20 also informed PW.23 through Wireless about the occurrence.P.W.23, Inspector of Police reached the Police Station at 10.00 pm., and got the copy of FIR and took up investigation.At 10.15 pm., he went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of P.w.6, Village Administrative Officer and Sudalaikannu, he prepared an observation Mahazar Ex.He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.He engaged P.W.8 to take photographs of the place of occurrence and the body.In the same night between 12.00 pm., and 3.00 a.m., of 4.9.2991 morning in the presence of Panchayatdars P.W.23 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.17 inquest report.P.W.14 further gave opinion that the death would have occurred due to shock and haemorrage as a result of the injures sustained.(c) P.W.23, Inspector of Police continued his investigation.He also examined other witnesses.On 13.9.1991, he examined PW.14 Dr. Andiappan and recorded his statement.(d) On 14.9.1991 at about 3.30 pm., P.W.23, Inspector of Police arrested A.3 at Marudhakulam in the presence of PW.9 and one Sivasubramanian and A.3 volunteered to give a confession, admissible portion of which is Ex.In pursuance of the said confession, on the same day, he took the Inspector of Police and witnesses to a Bridge near Vijayanarayanan Military Camp and produced M.O.18 series, 4 aruvals which were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.18 is Ex.JUDGMENT S. Ashok Kumar, J.The appellants were convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli to undergo imprisonment for life for offences under section 302 IPC read with Section 334 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.8,000/= each, in default to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and for offences under section 404 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/=, in default to undergo Six months rigorous imprisonment.Aggrieved over the said judgment and conviction the appellants preferred this appeal.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-(a) A-1 belong to Manjankolam village.P.W.4 Kasiammal, wife of the deceased belongs to Vellur, near Srivaikuntam.P.W.1, Sahadevan is a resident of Manjankolam.P.W.20 recorded the statement and also got the statement attested by one Shanmugasundaram.Based on the said Ex.During inquest he examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and Muthulakshmi and recorded their statements.After inquest, he sent the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Nanguneri through P.W.22 for the purpose of autopsy along with a requisition Ex.On 4.9.1991 at 1.30 pm., P.W.14, Dr. Andiappan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-Deep cut wound on left fronto temporal region 15 cm x 6 cm x bone deep.An oblique deep cut-wound on fronto parietal extending the region in front of left ear 20 cm x 4 cm x Bone deep.Left lobe ear severed in the middle region.Deep cut wound in front of left infra orbital region extending laterally 10 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm.Lacerated wound in front of left ear in extensive area 10 cm x 6 cm x bone deep molar level upto premolar tooth chip of mandible bone seen on dissection.Deep cut wound along the lower border of chin to the angle of mandible 20 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on left side.Incised wound along the lower border of left lower lp 6 xcm x 2 cm x 2 cm,.Deep cut wound in the middle of chin extending laterally to cheek 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep.9. contusion 15 cm x 3 cm in the upper part of left armIncised wound just below left elbow 10 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm muscles exposed.Lacerated wound in the dorsal aspect of left wrist 5 cm x 4 cm x 2 cmLacerated wound in the middle and lateral part of left thigh.Terminal Phalanx in left ring finger posteriorly severed.Lacerated wound in the middle Phalanx of left middle finger 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.Lacerated wound medial part of left index finger 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.Incised wound above right elbow 5 cm x 3 cm x 2 cmLacerated wound in left frontal region 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep.Deep cut wound in right parietal region 12 cm x 3 cm x bone deep.Deep cut wound adjacent to injury NO. 18 15 cm x 3 cm x bone deep fracture ight parietal bone seenDeep cut wound on the right parietal region 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep.Abrasion on left hypochondrium 2 cm x 1/2 cm.Contusion on upper lateral part of thigh 15 cm x 1/2 cm.Incised wound on right upper arm 4 cm x 2 cm x 2 cmAbrasion on base of right thumb 2 cm x 1 cmAbrasion on right rign finger 1 cm x 1 cm."On 15.9.1991 at 2.00 pm., he arrested A.1 in the presence of P.W.10 Muthiah and one Sudalaikannu and A.1 volunteered to give a confession and admissible portion of which is Ex.On the same day at 4.00 pm., he took the Police party and the above witnesses to Meenakshipuram and identified Anandammal, W/o.Rajendran and produced M.O.19 dhoti and M.O.20 shirt which were seized under a cover of mahazar Ex.On the same day, A.1 led the Police party to Mudalaikulam, where he identified one Gununathan from whom M.O.1, gold chain was recovered and seized under a cover of mahzar Ex.P.W.23 examined the mahazar witnesses and recorded their statements.He also examined one Ayyappan, an employee of Anthoniar Cycle Mart from where A.1 has hired cycle on 3.9.1991 and also got the ledger of the cycle shop which is Ex.The relevant entry made in Ex.On 16.9.1991 he sent a requisition Ex.P.20 to the Judicial Magistrate to conduct identification parade for A.2, A.3 and deceased accused Anandan.On 19.9.1991 he sent Ex.P.11 requisition to the Judicial Magistrate to send the case properties for chemical analysis.(e) P.W.24, Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, who received Ex.P.21 requisition from the Inspector of Police, sent a memo to produce A.3 before him and in pursuance of the said memo, A.3 was produced before him on 26.9.1991 at 2.00 pm., He observed the usual formalities of sending all the people outside the court, locking the doors and warning the accused that it is not necessary for him to give a confession and also that the confession which he may give, may be used against him in the subsequent trial and by giving such confession he will not be released from the case and he sent him back to Jail to think over about his warnings.On the next date i.e., on 27.9.1991.. at 2.30 pm., A.3 was produced before the same Magistrate and observing the same procedure and giving sufficient warning to the accused, he recorded the confession statement of the accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C., The proceedings and the confession statement are Ex.He also received Ex.P.20 requisition of the Inspector of Police to conduct Identification Parade along with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.On 30.9.1991, he conducted Identification Parade in the Central Prison of Tirunelveli observing all the necessary formalities.He asked P.Ws.1, 2 and one Shanmugasundaram to identifyA.2, A.3 and the deceased Anandan and all the three witnesses identified the accused correctly.The proceedings of the Identification Parade conducted by P.W.24 are Ex.(f) P.W.25, Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation, examined the Sub Inspector of Police and also witnesses P.Ws 1,2 and Shanmugasundaram and after completing investigation on 22.11.1991, laid final report against the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 404 read with 34 IPC.Before the trial court, P.Ws 1 to 25 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.P.1 to P.23 and M.Os 1 to 24 were marked.On behalf of the accused no witness was examined and no document was produced.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, all the accused denied the same as false and not known.A.3 has also filed a written statement wherein he has mentioned that the Police took custody of his wife and gave her Rs.2000/= for expenses and threatened her to induce him to give a confession before the Magistrate and due to the inducement and out of fear that the Police may implicate his wife in a false case, he has made the false confession before the Judicial Magistrate.On a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli has convicted all the accused to for the offence under section 302 IPC read with Sec.34 IPC to under go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.8000/= in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and for the offence under Section 404 IPC read with Sec.34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.Aggrieved over the said judgement and conviction the accused have preferred the present appeal.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that A.2 and A.3 are not residents of the place of occurrence and they are implicated only on surmises, that A.3 has been induced by the Police to give confession statement on inducement by the Police and the Identification Parade conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate should not be relied upon since the accused were already shown to the witnesses before such Parade.There was enmity between A.1 and the deceased because the deceased has beaten him in the Bazaar with cheppals about 15 days prior to the occurrence.P.Ws 1 and 2 are eye witnesses who have given cogent and clear evidence about the involvement of these three accused along with one Anandan (since deceased).P.W.3 has deposed that after the occurrence when the accused were running via Nadar Street, he questioned A.1, who stated that he has murdered his enemy, thereafter he has seen the body of the deceased.P.W.5 who is a Muslim, who owns a Vegetable shop near the place of occurrence in the main Bazaar has also deposed that A.1 caught hold of the deceased and pulled him near Noor Complex and pushed him down and three other persons came with Aruvals and all of them indiscriminately cut the deceased and he has also deposed that he knew A.1, because he very often used to visit Ervadi.Thus, there is evidence of P.W.1,2 and 5 who figured as eye-witnesses and there is no enmity with them to implicate the accused falsely.P.W.3 has seen the accused running with bloodstained Aruval immediately after the occurrence.We do not find any reason to disbelive the evidence of the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses.A.2 and A.3 do not belong to the place of village where the occurrence took place.However, at the request of the Inspector of Police and on the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Judicial Magistrate, Valiyoor has conducted an Identification Parade on 30.9.1991 in which P.Ws.1, 2 and one Shanmugasundaram have identified the accused correctly and the Identification Parade proceedings are Ex.A.2, A.3 and the deceased accused Anandan were identified correctly by P.Ws 1,2 and Shanmugasundaram.Another important circumstantial evidence is that A.3 was arrested on 14.9.1991 and in pursuance of Ex.P.4 confession, he has produced 4 Aruvals, M.O.18 series used by all the accused which were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.On 15.9.1991 at 2.00 pm., P.W.23, Inspector of Police arrested A.1 and he volunteered to give a confession admissible portion of which is Ex.On the same day at 4.00 pm., A.1 took the Police party and witnesses to Meenakshipuram and produced M.O.19 dhoti and M.O.20 shirt which were seized under a cover of mahazar Ex.On the same day, A.1 led the Police party to Mudalaikulam, where he identified one Gununathan from whom M.O.1, gold chain was recovered and seized under a cover of mahzar Ex.When M.O.18 series, 4 Aruvals which were seized under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.5 in pursuance of Ex.P.4 confession of A.3, and Mos. 19 and 20 namely dhoti and shirt which was seized under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.7, in pursuance of Ex.P.6, confession of A.1 along with the case properties like the bloodstained earth and dress materials worn by the deceased were sent for chemical analysis as per Ex.P.13, all the items were found to contain human blood and Ex.P.14 serologist's report would confirm that all the Aruvals contain human B group blood which matched with the blood group of the deceased as found from the Dhoti and Shirt worn by the deceased.This circumstantial evidence clearly proves the involvement of all the accused in the crime.Hence the Appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,065,311 |
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 08/01/2019 16:30:20This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Applicant has been arrested on 14/12/2018 in Crime No.164/2018 registered at Police Station-Badagao Dhasan Distt.As per the prosecution case, on 21/09/2018 on the information that blast had occurred in the house of applicant situated at village Bada Gaon, police reached on the spot and found that the applicant had illegally kept explosive substance in his house negligently, due to which, on 21/09/2018 explosion occurred and wall of applicants house had collapsed due to which applicant and Brijlal sustained injuries.On that police, registered crime No. 164/2018 for the offences punishable under 286, 336 of the IPC & Section 5 Explosive Substance Act against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid offence.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-
|
['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,066,270 |
Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 2 of 72 was also given to the appellants.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 2 of 72Broad features of the prosecution case are that deceased Krishan Kumar was driver of Maruti Van No. DL-3C R 1271 which was registered in the name of his son Anirudh Kumar (PW-8).On 26.8.2000 Jitender (PW-4) son of Krishan Kumar was telephoned by the deceased to bring his clothes to Kaushik Travels, informing him that the vehicle had been hired and he was to go to Hardwar.At Kaushik Travels Jitender came to know the names of the appellants as Kalu, Dharminder, Chintu and Tayyab, all residents of Hastsal, Delhi.Deceased Krishan Kumar with the appellants in the vehicle left Delhi on 26.8.2000 at about 4.30 PM in the presence of Jitender.Though Krishan Kumar was to return back to Delhi on the next following day, he did not come back.Anirudh Kumar received a telephone call on 29.8.2000 at about 12.10 PM from SHO, Bihar that driver of the vehicle had been killed and all the four persons were apprehended by him.Anirudh Kumar informed the P.C.R. Police Station Uttam Nagar was accordingly informed by the P.C.R. This information was recorded as DD No. 10A at the Police Station.SI Dal Chand on receipt of DD No. 10A along with const.Dilbagh Singh went to Kaushik Travels where he recorded the Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 3 of 72 statement of Jitender on which, he made his endorsement at about 2.15 PM and got the FIR of this case, being FIR No. 786/2000 registered under Sections 365/2000 IPC.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 3 of 72On 29.8.2000 at about 9.15 PM Maruti Van was intercepted by a patrolling party of Police Station Purnia, Bihar headed by SI Rajesh Kumar.When the vehicle did not stop on signal, instead speeded up, it was chased.All the appellants who tried to flee away after getting down from the vehicle were overpowered and apprehended.They were arrested in FIR No. 330/2000 under Section 413/414 IPC, Police Station Kehat, Bihar, when they could not give any satisfactory reply regarding their possession of the vehicle.SI Rajesh Kumar found a slip of paper of Kaushik Travels containing a telephone number lying in the van and he accordingly made a phone call on the said telephone number at Delhi.The dead body of Krishan Kumar was recovered at Jawalapur, Hardwar on 27.8.2000 at about 10.30 AM on an information received from Paramjeet by Inspector Kuldeep Singh in the presence of Hazara Singh, watchman, and other police officials of police station Jawalapur.A panchnama was Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 4 of 72 prepared.The inquest papers were prepared by SI Rajesh Kumar.The dead body was got photographed.The dead body was got post-mortemed from H.M.G. District Hospital, Hardwar.After post-mortem, the dead body was got cremated.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 4 of 72On 31.8.2000 PW Govind Singh Bakuni, Upender Singh Dixit, Chander Kishore Dwivedi and few other persosn went to Police Station Jawalapur and made inquiries about the dead body.From the photographs they identified the dead body of Krishan Kumar.DD No. 7 dated 31.8.2000 at 6.30 AM was recorded at Police Station Jawalapur regarding the visit of these persons and also the factum of identification of the dead body.The appellants had already been sent to judicial custody.Finding sufficient evidence against the appellants namely; the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants by Jitender, recovery of the dead body of deceased Krishan Kumar from Hardwar, recovery and seizure of maruti van from Purnia Bihar, arrest of the appellants by police of Police Station Kehat, Purnia and registration of a case against them for being found in possession of suspected to be stolen property and the post-mortem report showing homicidal death of the deceased, a chargesheet was filed against the appellants for having abducted and murdered Krishan kumar with a motive to rob him of his vehicle.The trial court framed following charge against all the appellants:"That on 26.8.00 at about 4.30 p.m. near Kaushik Travels, main Najafgarh Road within the jurisdiction of PS Uttam Nagar all of you in furtherance of your common intention deceitfully abducted Sh.(2) PW-4 Jitender Kumar is the complainant.He made the complaint Ex.PW-4/A which was recorded by SI Dal Chand.In his statement he recorded that his father Krishan Kumar was plying his Maruti Van No.DL 3C R 1271 from Kaushik Travels, Main Najafgarh Road.On 26.8.2000 he was present in the house when at about 4.00 PM his father telephoned that he was carrying some passengers with him to Hardwar and he should deliver his clothes.He (jitender) went to Kaushik Travels office to hand over the clothes of his father, where, he found his father standing with four boys.He handed over the clothes to his father.He came to know the names of those boys on inquiry as Chintu Malhotra, Kallu Kashyap, Dharmender and Md. Tayyab, resident of LIG Flats, Hastsal.The said four boys sat in the vehicle and he was told by his father that he would come back on the next following day but when he did not return back home they were worried and started searching for him.He suspected that the above said four boys had kidnapped his father.He identified the appellants on 4.11.2000 after their arrest near Kaushik Travels at the time when, the appellants pointed the place, Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 8 of 72 from where they had hired the maruti van.He also identified all the appellants in the court.He has deposed that on 26.8.2000 when he reached home from his office he was told by PW-9 Jitender that his father had gone to Hardwar and had carried four passengers with him and would come back on the next day.Jitender had also disclosed the names of the said four passengers, one of whom; Dharmender happened to be his class fellow.He received a telephone call on 29.8.2000 from Bihar about recovery of maruti van and apprehension of four boys who had informed the police that they had killed the driver of the vehicle.He found the voice similar to the one as that of Dharmender, that he told the caller that he appeared to be Dharmender on which the phone was disconnected.He made a call at 100 number and a DD No.10A was recorded at Police Station Uttam Nagar.He named the appellants as the suspects before the police.He along with his brother PW-9 Jitender had identified the photographs of his father shown to him at the Police Station Uttam Nagar received by the police from Jawalapur, Hardwar.(4) PW-11 Govind Singh Bhatuni is the neighbour of the deceased.He has deposed that on 31 st day, of the year Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 9 of 72 2000 Jitender and wife of deceased came to him around 5.00 AM and told him that some untoward incident had taken place.He along with PW-12 Chander Kishore and 3-4 other persons went to Hardwar.From Police Station Jawalapur he and other persons came to know that on 27.8.2000 a dead body of an unknown person had been recovered which had been cremated.PW- 21/A.) (5) PW-12 Chander Kishore is the son in law of the brother of the deceased.He has deposed that he was called on 29.8.2000 by wife of the deceased.(7) PW-10 Tirath Raj Singh is the draftsman.He prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW-10/A on 4.11.2000 after inspection of the spot at the instance of SI Rajesh Kumar, Police Station Jawalapur, Hardwar.(8) PW-24 SI Dal Chand joined the initial investigation of this case.He also went to Purnia on the night of 29.8.2000 where he came to know of the arrest of the appellants and recovery of the maruti van.He deposed that he moved an application before the concerned court at Purnia seeking production of the appellants before the concerned MM at Delhi.Later on he went to Purnia again on 1.11.2000 and with the permission of the court took the transit remand of the appellants and produced them in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on 3.11.2000, where appellants were formally arrested.(9) PW-25 Insp.He formally arrested the appellants.He obtained their three days police custodial Crl.The relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution, who are witness to the recovery of the vehicle and the proceedings conducted at Police Station Purnia, Bihar after maruti vans interception are:a. PW-5 SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey.He has deposed that on 29.8.2000 he along with SI Ajit Kumar, SI Ram Vikash Choudhary, HC Tarkeshwar, HC Ashok Kumar and const.Sushil Kumar were on patrolling duty at Madhopara Road.At about 9.15 PM when he saw one maruti van plying on the road, he signalled the maruti van to stop but the car speeded up, he and the police party chased the said maruti van.Four persons got down from the car and started running away.He Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 12 of 72 along with his police party apprehended the said four boys in the presence of Surender Kumar (PW-7) and Mahadev Kesri (PW-6).On interrogation he suspected that the vehicle had been stolen.He got registered FIR No. 330/2000 at Police Station Purnia and arrested all the four persons.However, he failed to identify the appellants as the four persons whom he had arrested and from whom the maruti van was seized by him.He identified the maruti van Ex.P-1 which he had recovered.In his testimony while corroborating the statement of SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey that he was a member of the patrolling party on 29.8.2000 and was present near Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 13 of 72 Madhopara at about 9.15 PM when, a white colour maruti van was intercepted and was signalled to stop but, it speeded up and was chased.He has deposed that the van stopped after going a little ahead and out of the maruti van four persons got down and started running.They all chased them and overpowered them.He has deposed that they came to know the names of those boys as Chintu Malhotra@ Chirag Malhotra, Kalu Kashyap, Dharmender Singh@ Vijay Singh and Mohd. Tayyab.He identified all the appellants who were present in the court as the persons who were apprehended by them.He testified that the vehicle bearing no. DL 3C R 1271 was seized and FIR No. 330/2000 was registered against the appellants.He has further deposed that from the dickey of the van a slip of KK Travel and Tour Agency on which a telephone number was written was recovered and on the said number a phone call was made at Delhi and they came to know that the said van was hired for Hardwar.He further deposed that, after two days the police party along with public persons came there and took a copy of the FIR.By the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.) the van was released.Subsequently Delhi police also took away the accused persons with them.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 13 of 72As regards the identity of the vehicle, he deposed Crl.i. PW-20 Inspector Kuldeep Singh was posted at Jawalapur, Hardwar.He has deposed that on 27.8.2000 at about 10.30 AM one person by the name of Paramjit Singh came to the police station and informed him that a dead body of a male person was lying beneath the bridge, Rani Pur Nehar.He along with SI Rajesh, const.Sohail Ahmed and const.Ramesh Chand reached the spot.He further deposed that SI Rajesh Kumar called a photographer who took the photographs of the dead body which was having injuries on its person.He gave the description of the dead body as wearing white kurta pyajama having six fingers in the right Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 15 of 72 hand.On his instructions SI Rajesh conducted the panchnama.On 28.8.2000 he got the dead body post- mortemed and handed over the dead body to Sewa Samiti, Hardwar, for cremation because, the dead body could not be identified.He deposed that on 31.8.2000 Chander Kishore and Govind Singh along with 3-4 persons came to the police station.He showed them the photograph of the deceased and also gave the description of the clothes of the deceased on the basis of which, they identified the dead body of Krishan Kumar.He sent his report Ex.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 15 of 72PW-23 SI Rajesh Kumar while corroborating the statement of inspector Kuldeep Singh has deposed that he tried to get the dead body identified but failed, then he called the photographer who took the photographs of the deceased.He deposed that he conducted inquest proceedings Ex.Kuldeep Singh and SI Rajesh Kumar.v. PW-17 Hajara Singh was a watchman and had gone to Sukhi Nahar, Rani Pur on 27.8.2000 where he found some persons gathered and he saw a dead body of one male person lying in the canal.He has testified that there were injuries on the body of the deceased and also blood was oozing out from the nose and mouth of that person.At about 11.30 AM police staff from police station Jawalapur reached there and Investigating Officer conducted the panchnama Ex.PW-17/A. he signed the panchnama as one of the witnesses.Later on he came to know the name of the deceased as Krishan Kumar, resident of Delhi.PW-19 Surender Kumar had taken the photographs Ex.PW-19/B1 to Ex.PW-19/B4 of the deceased at the spot (Rani Pur Nehar, Hardwar) on 27.8.2000 at the instance of SI Rajesh Kumar.PW-21 const.Narender Singh was working as DD writer at police station Jawalapur.He deposed that he recorded DD No. 19 Ex.PW-21/A on receipt of information from Paramajit Singh about a dead body lying in Rani Pur Nehar.He also recorded DD No.7 Ex.To another question put to him in the cross examination on behalf of the said two accused persons (appellants), he replied when I was standing with my father at the place I had asked the accused Dharmender who is friend of my brother that where they are going on which he Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 29 of 72 replied that they are going to Hardwar as those boys were on holiday'.To another suggestion put to him in the cross- examination, he replied it is correct that I had seen the accused persons namely Chintu Malhotra and Kalu Kashyap on 26.8.00 when they were going to Hardwar'.Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals."Dead body of Krishan Kumar was spotted at Rani Crl.Sohail Ahmed (PW-22) and independent public witness Hajara Singh, a watchman (PW-17) at about 10.30 AM.As per the post- mortem report, which was conducted on 28.8.2000 by Dr. Rajiv Verma (PW-13), the time since death was 1-2 days prior to the date of post-mortem.They must have reached near Hardwar around 11.00 PM.The cause of death was given by Dr. Rajiv as from shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.Hence the identity of the dead body recovered at Jawalapur as that of Krishan Kumar is established.On 27.8.2000 the dead body of Krishan Kumar was spotted and recovered from Rani Pur Nehar by police of police station Jawalapur, Hardwar.The time gap between the point of time when the appellants and the deceased were last seen alive by Jitender PW-4 and when the deceased was found dead is very small and the possibility of any person other than the appellants being the author of the crime becomes impossible.The chain of circumstance of last seen of the deceased with the appellants and recovery of dead body of Krishan Kumar soon thereafter has been successfully proved by the prosecution.Maruti van No. DL3C R 1271 was intercepted by SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey on 29.8.2000 at about 9.15 PM when he was patrolling the area of Madhopara Road, Purnia along with SI Ajit Kumar, SI Ram Vikash Chaudhary and others.The Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 42 of 72 vehicle had to be chased by the police officers as, instead of stopping on signal it gained speed.As per the testimony of SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey four persons got down from the said vehicle and started running.They were overpowered and apprehended by them in the presence of public persons namely Surender Kumar and Mahadev Kesari.Since on inquiry none of those persons could give any satisfactory reply nor could produce any document relating to the van, he seized the van suspecting it to have been stolen.He got FIR No. 330/2000 under Section 413/414 IPC registered at police station Kehat, Purnia and arrested all the four persons.Unfortunately, he did not identify the appellants as the persons who were apprehended by him and from whose possession the vehicle was recovered.He did identify the maruti van Ex.P1 as the same which was seized by him.Ironically Mahadev Kesari (PW-6) and Surender Kumar (PW-7), the independent public witnesses in whose presence the appellants were apprehended and the vehicle was recovered also turned hostile.SI Ajit Kumar (PW-14) another member of the patrolling party at Madhopara Road has fully supported the prosecution case.He deposed that he came to know the names of the appellants as Chintu Malhotra@ Chirag Malhotra, Kalu Kashyap, Dharmender Singh @ Vijay Singh and Mohd. Tayyab.He identified all the appellants in the court as the persons who were apprehended and arrested by SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey in his presence on 29.8.2000 at about 9.15 PM.True that, he could not exactly identify the maruti van Ex.P1 but, he did confirm the registration number and colour of the vehicle which was recovered from the appellants.He was confused probably because of the sticker of KK Tours and Travel Agency not on the van when shown to him in the court.Instead, one board bearing words Zila Adhyaksh Samajwadi Party was seen by him on the vehicle which according to him was not there at the time of its seizure.It is obvious that the appellants were not apprehended from inside the maruti van.They were overpowered when they got down from the maruti van and started running away from the police party.a. Appellants hired maruti van No. DL 3C R 1271 Ex.-P1 at 4.00 PM on 26.8.2000 at Kaushik Travels for going to Hardwar.e. Dead body of an unknown person (later on identified as Krishan Kumar) was recovered from Rani Pur Nehar, Jawalapur, Hardwar, at about 10.30 AM on 27.8.2000 by Inspector Kuldeep Singh (PW-20) and SI Rajesh Kumar (PW-23) in the presence of other police officials and independent public witness Hajara Singh (PW-17).f. The dead body was got photographed by SI Rajesh Kumar (PW-23) at the spot from photographer Surender Kumar (PW-19).He prepared panchnama which was signed by five witnesses, including Hajara Singh.h. The doctor found various injuries on the person of the deceased.He opined the cause of death as shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.i. The dead body was identified as that of Krishan Kumar by Chander Kishore (PW-12) and Govind Singh (PW-11) from the photographs Ex.PW-19/B1 to B4 shown to them at police station Jawalapur and also by Jitender (PW-4) and Anirudh (PW-8) when shown to them by SI Dal Chand at police station Uttam Nagar.j. The maruti van was intercepted at Crl.k. The appellants were apprehended and the vehicle was recovered from them by SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey and other police officials.The above captioned appeals have been filed by the four appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby they were convicted for offence under Sections 364/302/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 31.3.2008 whereby they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 364/34 IPC.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Crl.He moved an application for production warrants of all the appellants.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 5 of 72Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 5 of 72Krishan Kumar in order that the said Krishan Kumar might be murdered and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 364/34 IPC.Secondly, on the night intervening 26/27/8.00 all of your in furtherance of your common intention committed Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 6 of 72 murder of said Krishan Kumar when all of you had abducted deceitfully the said Krishan Kumar from Delhi to Hardwar and thereafter disposed of his body and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and within cognizance of this court."Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 6 of 72Since three independent investigating agencies are involved in this case and the crime continued to be committed from Delhi to Hardwar and finally to Purnia, it is appropriate to segregate the evidence of the prosecution in three different parts for just and proper assessment and appreciation of the prosecution evidence and the incriminating circumstance as adduced on the record.The relevant witnesses who joined the investigation at Delhi on receipt of an information from PW-8 Anirudh Kumar son of deceased Krishan Kumar recorded in DD No.10A on 29.8.2000 at about 12.10 PM and consequent registration of FIR No. 786/2000 under Sections 365/34 IPC Ex.PW-9/A on the basis of endorsement Ex.PW-24/A SI Dal Chand on the statement of PW-4 Jitender son of deceased Krishan Kumar are:(1) PW-9 ASI Pushpal Kaur.She recorded FIR No. Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 7 of 72 786/2000 under Sections 365/34 IPC Ex. PW-9/A on receipt of rukka with endorsement Ex.PW-24/A of SI Dal Chand on 29.8.2000 at 2.25 PM.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 7 of 72He identified deceased Krishan Kumar from the photographs shown to him by the police officers of Police Station Jawalapur.(He had also filed a written application before the duty officer, Police Station Jawalapur which was recorded as report No.7 at 6.30 AM dated 31.8.2000 Ex.On 29.8.2000 he along with PW-11 Govind Singh and 4-5 other persons went to Hardwar to enquire about Krishan Kumar.While corroborating the testimony of PW-11 Govind Singh, he has deposed that he was told by SI Rajesh Kumar that the deceased was cremated after post-mortem.He had also identified the dead boy of Krishan Kumar from the photographs shown to him.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 9 of 72(6) PW-16 Sunil Kaushik is the proprietor of Kaushik Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 10 of 72 Travels.He has deposed that deceased Krishan Kumar used to park his maruti van in front of his office and he used to deal with the passengers independently.He deposed that he came to know that maruti van was hired by some persons for Hardwar and later on that Krishan Kumar had died.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 10 of 72Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 11 of 72 remand and got them medically examined from DDU hospital, recorded the disclosure statements of the appellants.Appellants pointed the place of occurrence on 4.11.2000 from where the dead body was recovered and they also pointed out the place from where the vehicle was hired i.e. Kaushik Travels on 5.11.2000 vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-3/B.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 11 of 72PW-1 HC Ashok Kumar, PW-2 const.Dilbagh Singh, PW-3 SI Gurnam Singh and PW-15 HC Deep Kumar are formal witnesses.Though he has admitted his signatures on the seizure memo mark X prepared by SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey.c. PW-7 Surender Kumar another witness to the recovery of the vehicle and arrest of the appellants is also hostile.He admitted his signatures on the seizure memo mark X but deposed that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper.d. PW-14 SI Ajit Kumar was a member of the patrolling party.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 14 of 72 that the registration number of the maruti van shown to him was the same.But sticker of KK Tour and Travel agency was not on the car when shown to him in the court, whereas the board bearing words Zila Adhyaksh Samajwadi Party was not on the vehicle at the time of the seizure.However, on seeing the vehicle in the court he could not exactly say if it was the same maruti van which was seized by them at Purnia though the number and the colour of the vehicle was same.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 14 of 72The relevant witnesses of the prosecution to the recovery of the dead body of Krishan Kumar at Jawalapur, Hardwar on 27.8.2000 at 10.30 AM are:He further deposed that on 31.8.2000 3-4 persons came to the police station who identified the dead body as of Krishan Kumar from the photographs shown to them and they also told him that on Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 16 of 72 26.8.2000 four persons had hired maruti van for Hardwar.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 16 of 72PW-18 const.Ramesh Chander corroborated the testimony of Insp.Kuldeep Singh and SI Rajesh Kumar.PW-22 const.Sohail Ahmed also corroborated the statement of Insp.PW-13 Dr.As per the post- mortem report Ex.PW-13/A, he found following injuries on the Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 17 of 72 body of the deceased:-Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 17 of 72"External injuries:Lacerated wound 4x2 c.m.on right side of head, 5 c.m. above right ear.Lacerated wound in front of right chin size 2x1 c.m.Traumatic swelling 12x10 c.m.on right side of face.Swelling on right side of chest 15x10 c.m.Internal injuries:2. Anterior middle cranial fossa fractured.I gave my opinion with regard to the cause of death as shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.And the time since death has been given as 1-2 days prior to the date of post- mortem.PW-21/B on 31.8.2000 pertaining to the arrival of Chander Kishore, and Govind Singh along with other 3-4 persons at police station Jawalapur.We have heard Mr.for appellant Chintu Malhotra @ Chirag, Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv.for appellant Gyan Chand Kashyap @ Kalu, Ms.Anu Narula, Adv.for appellant Dharminder Singh @ Vijay, Mr.V.K. Raina, Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 18 of 72 Adv.for appellant Mohd. Tayyab Alam and Mr.Pawan Sharma, APP for the State.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 18 of 72It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the van was seized in Purnia, Bihar on 29.8.2000 at about 9.15 PM, surprisingly enough PW-8 Anirudh Kumar claimed to have received a phone call from SHO, Purnia, Bihar on 29.8.2000 at around 12 noon informing murder of the driver of the vehicle, apprehension of four persons and seizure of the maruti van.As per PW-8 the voice of the caller from Bihar sounded familiar; meaning thereby, he knew the caller.Counsel urged that when the complaint was lodged with the Delhi Police, it assumes significance that PW-8 did not inform that he knew one of the persons i.e. Dharmender as the one who had hired the van.The last seen evidence was doubtful because PW-4 did not know Dharmender and he wrongly deposed to said fact.In any case he did not know the other accused and since he possibly could not have seen them properly when the van was allegedly booked and PW-4, as claimed by him, went to Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 19 of 72 give clothes to his father, their identification by PW-4 is extremely suspicious.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 19 of 7218. PW-16, owner of Kaushik Tours has disclaimed any knowledge and this shows that the van was not booked from Delhi as claimed by the prosecution.A dead body was recovered on 27.8.2000 from Ranipur canal within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jawalapur, Hardwar.How did said information get transmitted to the police at Delhi is a mystery.Different witnesses have spoken about going to Jawalapur and having identified the deceased.Different dates have been disclosed by them.Counsel urged that the various witnesses who have deposed of going to Jawalapur have materially contradicted each other with respect to the time of leaving Delhi and reaching Jawalapur as also pertaining to the identification of the dead body; therefrom, counsel urged that it is apparent that information pertaining to the dead body being recovered in Jawalapur was known to the police at Delhi from some other source and not as claimed by them and this shows that the entire investigation has been manipulated.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 20 of 72Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 20 of 7221. PW-14 appears to have spoken some truth with respect to the seizure of the van in Bihar and his testimony shows that the police at Bihar had seized the van much before 9.15 PM the time recorded by the poice at Bihar pertaining to the seizure of the van.Counsel urged that the FIR registered in Bihar was post dated and post timed and the real culprits were allowed to go scot free and the appellants were falsely implicated.Counsel urged that Mohd. Tayyab was a resident of Purnia and the other accused were his friends and this explains their presence in Purnia.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the evidence adduced on the record has failed to pass the test of principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. & Ors.- AIR 190 SC 79 to bring home the guilt of the appellants and the evidence adduced by the prosecution but, rather is consistent with the innocence of the appellants as they had gone to Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 21 of 72 Purnia because appellant Mohd. Tayyab was permanent resident of Purnia and they were falsely implicated by Police Station Kehat, Purnia in FIR No. 330/2000 under Sections 413/414 IPC.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 21 of 72While refuting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned APP for the State has submitted that despite some contradictions in the statements of public witnesses, the following circumstances have been proved:He had gone to Kaushik Travels to deliver the clothes to his father where he had seen the appellants on 26.8.2000 at about 4.00 PM and also saw the appellants who had hired the van leaving with his father in the maruti van for Hardwar.Krishan Kumar thereafter did not come back home.He correctly identified the appellants in the court.At the time when he made his statement to the police (complaint) he had no knowledge that the appellants were caught in Bihar.The dead body of an unknown person was recovered by the police of Police Station Jawalapur on 27.8.2000 at 10.30 AM and also that post-mortem was got conducted and doctor found several injuries on the person of Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 22 of 72 the deceased which were homicidal in nature.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 22 of 72The dead body of Krishan Kumar was identified by Govind Singh (PW-11) and Chander Kishore (PW-12) on the basis of photographs shown to them by the police at Jawalapur, Hardwar.All the four appellants were apprehended by PW-5 SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey and PW-14 SI Ajit Kumar, Police Station Kehat, Purnia and the maruti van was also seized from their possession.v. As the appellants were found absconding from the day of incident till they were apprehended at Purnia, Bihar on 29.8.2000 along with the maruti van, the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is clearly attracted against the appellants.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 27 of 72 we shall now scrutinize scrupulously and examine carefully the circumstances appearing in this case against the appellants.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 27 of 72The said four boys who went with Krishan Kumar are the appellants who were identified by Jitender Kumar in the court.Jitender Kumar as PW-4 has testified on oath as follows:On 26.8.00 I was present in my house and at about 4.00 p.m. one telephone call and it was the call of my father who asked me to come with his clothes in front of Kaushik Travels as he was to go to Hardwar.I took Kurta Payajama of my father behind Mini Bus stand in front of Kaushik Travels.Where I found my father and 4 other young persons were standing.I handed over the clothes to my father and he changed his clothes and the four persons who were standing there are Chintu Malhotra, Kallu Kashyap, Dharmender and Md. Tayyab who are present in the court today.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 28 of 72 from accused persons as to where they were going and they told that they were resident of Hastsal, Uttam Nagar.Thereafter they borded the van and my father told me that he would be coming back the next day.When on the next day he did not returned we started searching our father but we did not find any clue thereafter I lodged the report to police which is Ex.PW4/A. and bears my signature at point A. On 2nd or 3rd day my Jeeja-ji and some nearby persons went to Hardwar to enquire the whereabouts of my father.ASI Dal Chand came to my house with the photographs of my father and I identified as the photo of my deceased father.Perhaps by the end of October or in the beginning of November 2000 I was called near Mini Bus stand where the four accused persons were present and they were identified by me."He denied the suggestion that on 26.8.2000 Chintu Malhotra and Kalu Kashyap had not gone with his deceased father to Hardwar in the vehicle in question.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 29 of 72When asked by the learned counsel for appellant, Dharmender in the cross-examination, he replied it is correct that I came to know about the names of accused persons on making the inquiry on 26.8.00'.Appellant Mohd. Tayyab has not questioned Jitender regarding his identity and Jitender coming to know of his name on 26.8.2000 itself at Kaushik Travels.Therefore, the testimony of Jitender qua him regarding his identity remains undisputed.The said DD does not find mention the place from where the vehicle was hired and also the names of any of the persons who had hired the Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 30 of 72 vehicle or, were detained by Bihar police for the simple reason that till then no one knew the names of any of the persons who had hired the vehicle.The names were given by Jitender in his complaint Ex.PW-4/A only after the receipt of information from Bihar.Had he known Dharmender earlier he would have stated so in the statement Ex.PW-4/A the fact, that he knew Dharmender from before.It is also argued that apparently the names were disclosed in the complaint after receipt of the information from Bihar as is clear from the deliberate attempt made by Jitender PW-4 to conceal knowledge of phone call received from Bihar although, prior to that, as per his own admission, Delhi police was informed regarding the commission of offence after receiving message from Bihar.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 30 of 72DD No.10A was never proved in evidence by the prosecution, though much reliance has been placed on DD No.10A by the learned defence counsel while pleading innocence of the appellants.DD No.10A was recorded on an information received from PCR by the duty officer, Police Station Uttam Nagar.DD No.10A is nothing but an information which is recorded at the police station regarding some untoward Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 31 of 72 incident or crime having taken place.It is not required to contain all the details as is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants.The purpose of registration of a daily diary is to swing into action the investigation agency to enquire into the information so received.As discussed above, DD No.10A was recorded on the basis of an information received from PCR.No information was received by police station Uttam Nagar directly from Purnia, Bihar.Details if any regarding the names and addresses of the persons who had been apprehended by them could have only been provided by police officers of Purnia.There is every possibility that Anirudh Kumar was not informed about the names of the persons who had been apprehended by police officers of Police Station Purnia.Under the circumstances, non- mentioning of names of the persons who had hired the vehicle and had left Delhi with deceased Krishan Kumar for Hardwar in the DD No. 10A in no manner is fatal to the prosecution case.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 31 of 72It has come in evidence that Anirudh Kumar (PW-8) had informed PCR about having received a phone call from SHO, Bihar pertaining to the recovery of maruti van No. DL 3C R 1231 hired by four persons on 26.8.2000 for going to Bihar Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 32 of 72 and also that driver of the vehicle had been murdered and all the said four persons had been apprehended.In this DD besides the residential address of deceased Krishan Kumar his address near Kaushik property dealer, Delhi is also mentioned.It is on the basis of this DD that SI Dal Chand went to Kaushik Travels where he met the complainant Jitender Kumar and recorded his complaint Ex.PW-4/A. In his complaint Jitender Kumar has specifically named all the four appellants who had disclosed their names to him when he had reached Kaushik Travels to deliver clothes to his father and from whom he had enquired their names and who had also disclosed their addresses as LIG Flats, Hastsal.None of the appellants were found to be residing in LIG Flats, Hastsal.Jitender Kumar is categorical when he said that the appellants boarded the van and his father, deceased, drove away the van telling him that he would come back on the next following day.From the prosecution evidence, it is clear that at the time when SI Dal Chand recorded the statement of Jitender Kumar, he had no knowledge about receipt of any information regarding recovery of the van and apprehension of the appellants at Bihar, since this information was received by Anirudh (PW-8).Anirudh Kumar had not met Jitender till the complaint was lodged.From the testimony of Jitender as well Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 33 of 72 as Anirudh, it is apparent that one of the appellants Dharmender was known to them as he happened to be the class-fellow of Anirudh.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 32 of 72Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 33 of 72Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 34 of 72 sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.He informed SHO; Inspector Kuldeep Singh, Police Station Jawalapur, Hardwar about the same.Ramesh Chand (PW-18), const.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 35 of 72SI Rajesh Kumar (PW-23) had prepared the panchnama after the recovery of the dead body which was signed by five witnesses one of whom being Hajara Singh (PW-18).In the panchnama the description of the deceased Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 36 of 72 and the position in which his dead body was found has been given in detail.SI Rajesh Kumar got the dead body photographed at the spot.Panchnama also describes the nature of injuries which were noticed on the person of the deceased, they are:-Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 36 of 72"lacerated wound on the right side of head, blood oozing out from nose and mouth, left side of the face compressed, swelling on chest and abdomen at various places."The deceased was wearing white terricot pyajama without string and white colour kurta, white colour vest and readymade underwear.The deceased was identified from the photographs Ex.PW-19/B1 to B4 by Govind Singh (PW-11) and Chander Kishore (PW-12), who happened to be neighbour and son in law of the deceased, in police station Jawalapur on 31.8.2000 at 6.30 AM.The appellants have not disputed that the dead body recovered by police of police station Jawalapur, Hardwar was that of deceased Krishan Kumar.Every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his own way.Some start shouting for help.However, they did admit their signatures on the seizure memo of the maruti van.Despite being cross- examined by learned APP for the State, neither SI Rajesh Kumar nor Mahadev Kesari and Surender Kumar identified the appellants and boys who were apprehended and arrested Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 43 of 72 along with the maruti van at Madhopara Road, Purnia.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 42 of 72From his testimony, it is clear that a telephone call was made at the telephone number mentioned on a slip of KK Travel and Tour Agency recovered from the dickey of the van and it was on this call that they came to know that the van was hired for Hardwar.He has also spoken about the registration of the FIR Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 44 of 72 No. 330/2000 against the appellants at Bihar.They were chased and apprehended.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 44 of 72On coming to know of the arrest of the appellants in FIR No. 330/2000 and also that appellants were in judicial custody he filed an application in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day seeking the production of the appellants in the concerned court at Delhi.The appellants remained in judicial custody in the said case registered against them at Purnia for being found in possession of stolen maruti van Ex.P1 for about two months before they were brought to Delhi by SI Dal Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 45 of 72In their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant Chintu Malhotra in answer to question no.35 admitted that he was detained by police officials of police station Kehat.In reply to question no.39 though he said that he was falsely implicated, has admitted that he was arrested in this case on 3.11.2000 when he was produced in the court.However, in reply to question no. 15 he replied that he did not know driving nor holds any driving licence.Same is his reply to question no.35 when he said that he was detained by police officials of P.S. Kehat.In reply to question no.39 though he said that he was falsely implicated, has admitted that he was arrested in this case on 3.11.2000 when he was produced in the court.However, in reply to question no. 15 he replied that he did not know driving nor holds any driving licence.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 46 of 72Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 46 of 72In reply to question no.15 he has stated that he does not know driving or holds any driving licence.Appellant Mohd. Tayyab Alam has also not denied that he was arrested in FIR No.330/2000 at Police Station Kehat though, he said that he was falsely implicated.In reply to question no.39 he said that he was falsely implicated.However he has admitted that he was arrested in this case on 3.11.2000 when he was produced in the court.In reply to question no.35 also that he has deposed that he was falsely implicated and he was detained by police officials of Kehat.Unlike other appellants in reply to question no.15 he only replied that he was falsely implicated and was not accompanying any of the accused persons in the alleged maruti van.Thus, it is clear that all the appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not deny the factum of their apprehension and arrest by police officials of police Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 47 of 72The answer to a question given by an accused sometimes may be a flat denial or an outright repudiation of the circumstance put to him.It is also that in certain cases accused would offer some explanations to incriminative circumstances.Possibility of accused admitting or owning incriminating circumstance adduced against him are also there, may be for the purpose of adopting legally recognised defences.All the appellants in their statements have taken a defence that maruti van Ex.P1 was not recovered from them nor they were driving the said vehicle.Even if the defence of the appellants is accepted that three of the appellants did not know driving and did not possess driving licence, the fact remains Mohd. Tayyab Alam one of the appellants knew the driving and must be the person who was driving the maruti van when it was intercepted by SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey at Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 48 of 72 Madhopara Road, Kehat, Purnia.Also he being native of Purnia was fully in the geographical know how of his place.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 48 of 72The admission on the part of the appellants that they were apprehended and arrested at Purnia, is in consonance with the registration of FIR No. 330/2000 under Sections 413/414 IPC for being found in possession of stolen maruti van DL 3C R 1271, arrest of the appellants, disclosure of their names to the investigating officer, their remaining in judicial custody for two months and their arrest in this case on execution of production warrants on 3.11.2000, their identification by complainant Jitender and recovery of maruti van No. DL 3C R 1271 from their possession clearly establishes their identity as the persons who had hired maruti van Ex.P1 driven by deceased Krishan Kumar on the pretext of going to Hardwar.Simply because SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey has not supported the case of the prosecution in full, his testimony cannot be completely discredited.Though Mahadev Kesri PW-6 is totally hostile but he admitted his signatures on the seizure memo Mark X of maruti van Ex.Surender Kumar PW-7 while admitting his signatures on the seizure memo Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 49 of 72 Mark X deposed that he had signed the seizure memo Mark X after maruti van was seized in his presence.Learned counsel for the appellants has emphasized that from the evidence of the prosecution as adduced on the record, especially the document Ex.PW-21/B it can be safely inferred that the vehicle was recovered on 28.8.2000, that a phone call was received from Bihar on 28.8.2000 and that the whereabouts of Krishan Kumar were known on 29.9.2000 before DD No.10A was recorded.These documents are in consistence with the plea Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 51 of 72Govind Singh (PW-11) had given an application in writing in the police station Jawalapur disclosing the names of the persons who had visited the police station along with him.In the said application, as recorded in Ex.PW-21/B, he penned down that on Monday, 28.8.2000 a telephone call was received from police station Purnia, Bihar at the residence of Krishan Kumar Dixit informing that their maruti van along with four persons had been intercepted at Purnia.On interrogation the said boys disclosed that they had thrown away the driver of the vehicle about 20 kilometers before Hardwar beneath the bridge (pul).He also noted in the application that on seeing photograph of the deceased at the police station he and the other persons who accompanied him have identified the dead body of Krishan Kumar.Except this Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 52 of 72It is possible that a telephone call was received as alleged and it was on receipt of this call the search of the deceased was made by Jitender and Anirudh from the house of Dharmender who was class-fellow of Anirudh and was known to them from before.True that, some contradictions have come in the cross-examination of these two witnesses regarding the visit to the house of Dharmender, but those are minor and in no manner demolish the testimony of these two witnesses regarding their visit to Dharmenders house.While disclosing the details of the incident and the information received in the application submitted at police station Jawalapur, he noted down the dates on his memory, may be gathered impression.Be that as it may the contents of his application are based on hearsay and are therefore inadmissible in evidence.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 53 of 72Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 53 of 72It was only when Jitender and Anirudh failed in their efforts to search Krishan Kumar or to find out his whereabouts, it seems that DD No.10A was got recorded at police station Uttam Nagar.It is also possible that a telephone call was received by Anirudh at his office.Significantly, DD No.10A does not find mention of any specific place at Bihar from where the telephone call was allegedly received.As per testimony of Anirudh (PW-8) he found the voice of the caller similar to that of Dharmender.It is possible that this call was made by appellant Dharmender only with a view to inform the family members of Krishan Kumar that they (the boys travelling in the vehicle) had killed the driver of the vehicle and had gone to Bihar.Had the vehicle been intercepted or seized by police station Kehat, Purnia, before receipt of DD No.10A, by Anirudh, the caller of the telephone who described himself as SHO would have Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 54 of 72 given his name as well as the name of place where the vehicle was intercepted to Anirudh, thereby giving specific information about the seizure of the vehicle.DD No.10A does not find mention of the date of the telephone call which was received by Anirudh regarding the seizure of the vehicle and apprehension of the four persons and murder of the driver of the vehicle.Any information recorded in the Daily Diary does not assume the characteristic of an FIR for the simple reason that the information is so recorded in the DD through various channels and information so recorded might not be very accurately given under the facts and circumstances of a case.Under these circumstances, therefore, much authenticity cannot be attached to the contents of DD No.10A which, even otherwise has not been proved in evidence though, much relied upon by the counsel for the appellants.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 54 of 72The police officers of police station Kehat, Purnia, registered an FIR against the appellants probably after coming to know that the said vehicle was a stolen vehicle may be on interrogation from the appellants or after they had a conversation with Anirudh at the telephone contact number which was traced out from maruti van.There is a serious Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 55 of 72 lapse, sheer callousness on the part of the investigating officer SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey when he belatedly got registered FIR No.330/2000 against the appellants on the intervening night of 29-30/8/2000 only after informing the family members of Krishan Kumar at Delhi.This explains the discrepancies which have appeared regarding the date when the information was received at Delhi, the time of recording of the DD No.10A at 12.10 PM and the registration of FIR No.330/2000 both on 30.8.2000 which are only attributable to SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 55 of 72Naturally on receipt of DD No.10A SI Dal Chand (PW-24) proceeded with the investigation of the case.He visited Kaushik Travels where he recorded the statement of Jitender and he also recorded the statement of Anirudh at his residence.As pointed out, when these two statements were recorded, Anirudh and Jitender had not conversed with each other and therefore Jitender was not in the know of any information received on telephone by Anirudh and also recording of DD No.10A at police station Uttam Nagar.It is pertinent that since SI Dal Chand knew Mohd. Tayab Alam from before being resident of the ilaqa and also Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 56 of 72 the fact that he was resident of Purnia he decided to go to Purnia on coming to know of his name as one of the persons who had hired the vehicle while recording complaint Ex.It was only when he went to police station Kehat that he came to know of the registration of FIR no. 330/2000 under Sections 413/414 IPC against the appellants, seizure of the vehicle and also that the appellants were in judicial custody.He made every endeavour to ensure that the appellants were brought to Delhi with the permission of the CJM Purnia for further investigation of this case.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 56 of 72The manner in which the PCR was informed by Anirudh, recording of the DD No.10A and the recording of statement of Jitender Kumar and Anirudh by the investigating officer on receipt of telephone call speaks volumes of the mental condition of Jitender, the complainant, Anirudh (PW-8) and of their anxiety to find out the whereabouts of their father.In this whole process how they reacted to the situation is obvious from the record.Much has been argued by the learned counsel for Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 57 of 72 the appellants that the FIR No.330/2000 is ante dated and the actual culprits were someone else who have been scot free and appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.However, we find no force in these arguments.When he reached Police Station FIR was already registered against the appellants.Not only this, appellants had been produced before the C.J.M. Purnia and were remanded to judicial custody in the said FIR registered against them at Purnia.He had moved an application before the C.J.M. Purnia, seeking transfer of the appellants to Delhi as they were wanted in this case.C.J.M. vide his order dated 1.9.2000, had allowed the application so filed by SI Dal Chand.Therefore, under these circumstances, there was no occasion or cogent reason for SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey of Police Station Purnia to ante date the FIR and falsely implicate the appellants in this case by planting the recovery of the vehicle from them after recovering it from someone else.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 57 of 72b. Victim Krishan Kumar was the driver of the said maruti van.c. Complainant Jitender last saw the appellants along with deceased Krishan Kumar leaving Delhi in the said maruti van at about 4.30 PM for Hardwar.d. Krishan Kumar did not come back on 27.8.2000 as informed by him to Jitender on 26.8.2000 while leaving for Hardwar with the appellants.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 65 of 72 Madhopara Road, Kehat, Police Station Purnia by SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey in the presence of SI Ajit Kumar and other witnesses.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 65 of 72n. The appellants have been identified as the persons who had left Delhi with Krishan Kumar in the evening of 26.8.2000 and the persons who were apprehended at Purnia along with the vehicle.From the proved circumstances as above we are satisfied that appellants had abducted Krishan Kumar with a motive to rob him away of his vehicle after murdering him.The appellants are the only persons who knew what happened to Krishan Kumar till he was with them.The dead Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 66 of 72 body of Krishan Kumar was found soon after the abduction, the recovery of the vehicle from their possession and their apprehension after 2-3 days of the abduction of Krishan Kumar clearly draws the presumption that appellants had murdered Krishan Kumar specially when the appellants have not disclosed as to what happened to Krishan Kumar till he was with them.In the present case none of the appellants have disputed that they were present at Purnia when they were Crl.Appeal Nos. 406/08, 435/08, 603/08 & 1009/08 Page 70 of 72 apprehended by the patrolling party of police station Kehat.The recovery of the vehicle from them also stands proved on the record.They took false defence in their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they did not know driving.It was in their knowledge as to what happened to Krishan Kumar till he remained in their company upto Hardwar.However no such explanation has been offered by any of the appellants, except their total denial of having hired the vehicle for going to Hardwar and recovery of the vehicle from them.The various links in the chain, when taken in isolation, might not connect the appellants with the commission of the crime but when taken together they unmistakably point out the guilt of the appellants.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,084,510 |
This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.363/2016 registered by Police Station Ramnagar, District Satna for offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC.He was only required to verify the work carried out by the construction agency.The order dated 14/10/2016 passed by the SDO has already been stayed by the Collector.Under Section 30 of the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtri Gramin Niyojan Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2005 (in short "the Adhiniyam, 2005"), the applicant is protected.Accordingly, the application is rejected.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,084,913 |
The applicant is in custody for more than 3 months.Now, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first bail application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.T h e applicant has been arrested on 20.12.2019 by Police Station Tendua, District Shivpuri, M.P. in connection with Crime No.116/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 294, 506 and 307 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant Kedar has been falsely implicated.The present applicant has not committed any offence.There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.Hence, prayed for grant of bail.Therefore, prayed for its rejection.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and now the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance as well as copy of the order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE mani SUBASRI MANI 2020.03.20 11:19:36
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
880,970 |
The prosecution case was that the appellant Lalaram was a servant of Sukhpal Singh, the zamindar of Kodaira, Madhopur and other villages and that in that capacity Lalaram used to take forced labour from the villagers and also recover from them illegal exactions.As a result of these acts of Lalaram, the villagers were displeased with him and persuaded him to give up the service of the zamindar.The prosecution alleged that the conduct of Sukhpal Singh the Zamindar and of his servant Lalaram was stoutly opposed by the deceased Jalim who constituted himself as a leader of the villagers and who was a close-relation of the appellant.When the appellant Lalaram refused to leave the service of the zamindar, the villagers did not permit Lalaram to share with them the benefit of a patta in respect of certain lands in the zamindari of Sukhpal Singh which the villagers had obtained from the Collectorate.The prosecution alleged that on account of these reasons the relations between Lalaram and Jalim became strained and that on the evening of 8.5.51 at about 8 p.m. when Jalim was returning from the village-well with some water, the appellant Lalaram and his brother Karansingh assaulted Jalim with a sword and a farasha and inflicted on him severe injuries.It was said that Lalaram had a sword with him and Karansingh carried a farasha.The prosecution stated that Mst.Ram Devi a daughter of Jalim was with him at the time of the alleged occurrence and that when she shouted the.prosecution witnesses Man Singh son of Hargyansingh P.W. 1, Sardar Singh P.W. 2, Har Prasad P.W. 6 came to the scene and witnessed the occurrence and that thereafter the accused persons ran away from the scene.The first information report was lodged by Jalim himself the same night at 2-30 in the morning in the police Station Jaora.In this report Jalim stated that there was some litigation between him and the accused persons and that earlier in the night at about 8 p.m. when he had gone to the village-well to fetch water, the accused gave him sword-blows and caused him severe injuries; that he was picked up by his cousin Mansingh and his nephew Sardar Singh and that the occurrence was witnessed by all the men and women-folk of the village.In the body of the first information report the accused, persons have not been named.JUDGMENT Dixit, J.The appellant Lalaram and his brother Karansingh were tried by the Sessions Judge of Morena for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code for the murder of one Jalim.At the end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Karansingh giving him the benefit of doubt.But agreeing with the opinion of the assessors, he found the appellant Lalaram guilty under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to transportation for life.Lalaram has now appealed to this Court against the conviction and the sentence,But in the column above it5 the names of Lalaram and Karan Singh were entered as the accused persons.Jalim was then removed to the hospital for treatment.A post mortem examination of the body of Jalim was held by Dr. Londhe, the medical Officer of Joura.The doctor found multiple wounds and fractures on the body of Jalim and came to the conclusion that his death was due to these injuries.A few hours before the death of Jalim, his dying declaration was recorded at about 4-30 a. m. in the morning of 9.5.51 by Mr. Apte, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Joura.In this statement Jalim said that on the previous evening, when he was bringing water and was near a chabutra Karan Singh and one Lalai met him on the way, and then Lalai struck him with a sword and Karan Singh also gave him a lathi blow; and that at that time, no one was present but later on Man Singh and Sardar Singh came to the scene.Jalim also added in the statement that his ring was removed.He denied having given any sword blows to Jalim.He pleaded alibi:At the trial, the evidence against Lalaram and his brother Karan Singh consisted of (1) the depositions of Man Singh P.W. 1, Sardar Singh P.W. 2, Har Prasad P.W. 5 and Mst.Ram Devi P.W. 6 who claimed to have seen the appellant and Karan Singh give blows to Jalim with a sword and a farasha (2) the dying declaration Ex. P. 2 of Jalim recorded by Mr. Apte and the report of the incident lodged with the police by Jalim himself.The deposition of Mst.Ram Devi is that she had gone with her father to the well to bring some water and when they were returning, Lalaram and his brother Karan Singh met them on the way; Lalaram who carried a sword stood on one side of Jalim and Karan Singh who had a farasha with him was on the other side of Jalim and both of them dealt several blows to Jalim and that when she shouted, Man Singh, Har Prasad and Sardar Singh who were in their homes closely arrived on the scene.The witnesses Man Singh, Har Prasad and Sardar Singh said in their evidence that on hearing the cries of Jalim and Mst.Ram Devi, they ran to the scene of the occurrence and found that Lalaram and Karansingh were striking Jalim with a sword and a farasha respectively.None of these witnesses deposed to the precise part of Jalim's body where the blows were struck by each of the accused persons.All that they say is that Lalaram gave three blows and Karan Singh likewise gave two or three blows.All these witnesses were confronted with the statements they had made to the police in which they had omitted to mention the facts that Karan Singh was also present; that he carried a farasha with him and that he also assaulted Jalim.The explanation they gave before the learned Sessions Judge, as regards these omissions was one of simple denial that what the police recorded was not what they had told to the police.The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the statements of these witnesses against Karan Singh.He, however, came to the conclusion that there was no reason to reject the statements of these witnesses showing the complicity of the appellant Lala Bam in the crime.The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, relying on the evidence of Man Singh, Sardar Singh, Har Prasad and Ram Devi and on the dying declaration Ex. P. 2 of the deceased found the appellant guilty of the murder of Jalim.Mr. Dey learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Sessions Judge having found that the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses as regards Karan Singh were not true, was not iustifled in regarding them as trustworthy witnesses against the appellant Lalaram; that according to Ex. P. 2 the dying declaration of Jalim, these witnesses were not present at the time of the alleged occurrence.On a consideration of the evidence on record and the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and of the learned Govt. Advocate for the State, I am inclined to think that the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant are well founded and must be accepted.Dealing first, with the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses Man Singh, Har Prasad, Sardar Singh and Mst.The learned Sessions Judge says "Karan Singh ne Jalim ko farase se marane ka waka sarasar galat bataur after thought badhya hua hai." In regard to Mst.But I fail to understand how when the learned Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of eye-witnesses against Karan Singh as demonstrably false and acquitted Karan Singh on the ground that there was no evidence against him, the acquittal of Karan Singh could be described as one resting on the principle of giving benefit of doubt to the accused.The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not accurate when he described the case of Karan Singh as one of giving benefit of doubt to the accused.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,099,578 |
The family members of the deceased were referred to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for grant of suitable compensation.Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 1 of 13The charge against the Appellant was that at around midnight on 7 th December, 2016 he murdered Yusuf son of Zameel (deceased) by firing a gunshot on his neck and later caused the evidence to disappear by removing the blood of the deceased from the spot by throwing of water from the water tank.He was also charged with having in his possession and using an unlicensed firearm thereby committing offences under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act.The criminal justice process was activated when a call was made to the Police Control Room (PCR) at around 1:27 am on 7th December, 2016 that at a party which was taking place at the Community Hall near the Krishna Mandir on the Najafgarh Road, firing was taking place and two or three people have been injured.In the initial report recorded in the PCR form (Ex.PW2 colly.) the information recorded was to the effect that 'Rahul tent wale ka dost Kallu ne sharab pee kr Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 2 of 13 shaadi main firing ki hai or Yusuf Nasim age 40 years.... ko ek goli lagi hai jo behosh admit hai.'Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 2 of 13On receipt of the above mentioned information ASI Ram Kanwar (PW13) passed on the message to ASI Dharmender (PW-22) who then proceeded to the community center near the Water Tank, Nangloi.Meanwhile the SHO, PS Nangloi also deputed SI Mahesh Kumar (PW-24) to the spot.PW-22 was informed that the injured had already been taken to the hospital.At the spot there were six empty cartridges lying.At some distance blood was also lying.While PW-22 remained at the spot, PW-24 proceeded to the Satyabhama Hospital.The injured Yusuf had been admitted and was unfit for the statement.At the hospital, enquires were made by PW-24 from Rahul Kumar (PW-1) who ran the Rajoria Tent House which provided tents, chairs, lights, vehicles for marriages and other functions.PW-24 returned to the spot with PW-1 and noticed the six empty cartridges and the blood spots.It appeared that somebody had thrown water on the blood spots tampering with the scene of the crime.The crime team was called and photographs taken.On the statement of PW1 (Ex.PW1/A) a rukka was drawn up (Ex.PW24/A) and sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR.The bloodstained earth was collected along with the earth-control and these were sealed in plastic containers and sealed.PW-24 tried recording the statement of the injured Yusuf at the RML Hospital to which he had been moved.However, he was still unfit for statement.20.08.2018 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 25th May, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (West) in Sessions Case No.162/2017 arising from FIR No.495/2016 registered at PS Nangloi convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act while acquitting him of the offence under Section 201 IPC.This appeal is also directed against the order on sentence of the same date whereby the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of six months for Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 1 of 13 the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; RI for five years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-; and in default to undergo RI for three months for the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act; and RI for three years along with fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default to undergo RI for one month for the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.PW-24 also Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 3 of 13 recorded the statements of Bheem Sen (PW-11) and Yashpal (PW-4), purported eye-witnesses.Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 3 of 13On receipt of secret information, the Appellant was arrested while he was coming in a Santro Car on 7th December, 2016 at 6 pm.The Appellant purportedly made a disclosure statement and on his search a pistol was found from his left dub of his pant containing three live cartridges.On 8th December, 2016 the statements of three more purported eye witnesses viz., Avinash (PW-9), Jatin Yadav (PW-15) and Krishan Kumar (PW-8) were recorded.On 15th December, 2016 Yusuf died at the RML Hospital.Thereafter Section 302 IPC was added to the FIR.The post mortem report (Ex. PW-12/A) revealed one gunshot injury wound, 1.2 x 1 cm over the lateral aspect of right neck, situated 2 cm below the right ear with blackening and tattooing of margins.The opinion as to the cause of death was "shock due to spinal injury as a result of firearm injury."Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 4 of 13The charge sheet was filed against the Appellant and by order dated 17th April, 2017 the trial Court framed charges as noticed hereinbefore against the Appellant.Unfortunately for the prosecution all of these eye- witnesses turned hostile.As far as the Appellant is concerned, he denied all the circumstances put to him under Section 313 CrPC.He offered to lead defence evidence.The Appellant in his defence examined Ashok Yadav (DW1) and Surender Yadav (DW2).This was in order to prove the Appellant's alibi that he was present at the engagement ceremony of the daughter of one Jaipal in Gurgaon at the relevant time.By the impugned judgment, the trial Court proceeded to convict the Appellant despite noting that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt through the evidence of the eye-witnesses.The trial Court based the conviction by holding that the prosecution had succeeded "in completing the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the Dharmender @ Kale." According to the trial Court, both the oral and documentary evidence established that the Appellant and the deceased were present at the Community Centre, Nangloi on the intervening night of the 6th/7th December, 2016; that the deceased Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 5 of 13 suffered gunshot injury in his neck which proved fatal; that empty cartridge cases were found at the spot which were fired from the pistol which was recovered from the possession of the Appellant.Since no other person present in the community centre was involved in the firing and since the Appellant took a false plea of alibi, it was held that failure of the prosecution to prove motive was not fatal to its case.As already noticed, the trial court convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act while acquitting him of the offence punishable under 201 IPC.Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 5 of 13This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. R. P. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP for the State.As already noticed earlier, the prosecution has projected the present case as one based on direct evidence.It has sought to prove the guilt of the Appellant on the basis of eye witness testimonies of PWs- 1, 4, 8, 9 and 11, all of whom failed to support the prosecution.As noticed by the trial Court itself, Rahul Kumar (PW-1) resiled from his previous statement and simply stated that PW-11 came to him running and stated goli lag gai.He then stated that he immediately went running to the injured and he also called Kishan Kumar (PW-8) there.They took the injured to a van standing nearby and drove to the Satyabhama Hospital.PW-1 maintained that his statement was not Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 6 of 13 recorded by the police at the spot or the hospital.According to PW-1, he was called to the police station two days after the incident and made to sign documents.He further stated "It is correct that accused was also present in the tent at around 11.00 p.m. when the boys were taking food".However, PW-1 denied having told the police that the Appellant "was having weapon in his hand and he was firing in the air".He also denied that in his presence six empty cartridges were seized from the spot by PW-Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 6 of 13PW-1 again stated that he was made to sign documents which were already written and that "I had not read the documents prior to putting my signatures on them".At this stage, it must be noticed that the un-scaled site plan (Ex.PW-1/E) which was supposed to have been drawn up by PW-24 on the statement of PW-1 does not indicate where PW-1 himself was standing.This somehow appears as letter B in the scaled site plan (Ex.PW-14/A).Learned APP sought to place reliance on the statement of PW-1 in his cross-examination by the Addl.PP that the Appellant was also present in the tent at about 11.00 p.m. This per se does not, in the considered view of this Court, assist the prosecution since there is no corroboration of this part of the statement of PW-1 by any of the other witnesses.Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 7 of 13Yashpal (PW-4) was one of the waiters working under Bheem Sen (PW-11).He too was a witness who failed to support the prosecution.He categorically stated that he did not know the Appellant.He failed to confirm that the Appellant was also present in the pandal when the incident took place.PW-4 denied the suggestion that he had seen the Appellant become angry, take out a fire arm and start firing in the air and then he pointed the gun and fired a gunshot at the deceased.Turning now to Kishan Kumar (PW-8) who was also cited as an eye witness, he only stated that he noticed the injured lying bleeding.He denied that the Appellant was present, or that he took out a pistol and started firing or that any arguments took place between the Appellant and the victim.It should be recalled that it was the engagement ceremony of the brother of PW-8 that was being performed in which this incident took place.Avinash (PW-9) was another eye witness who turned hostile.He also denied having seen the Appellant take out a fire arm and fire in the air.Likewise, Bheem Sen (PW-11) also turned hostile on the point of presence of the Appellant and his taking out the pistol and firing in the air.PW-11 in fact was the contractor who had engaged the waiters including the deceased.Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 8 of 13The last eye witness was Jatin Yadav (PW-15) who also turned hostile.He claimed not to know the Appellant or that he was present at the venue or that he fired the gunshot at the deceased.With PW-1 not being corroborated by any of the other eye witnesses, it was unsafe for the trial Court to proceed with the conclusion that the presence of the Appellant at the scene of crime was established beyond reasonable doubt.With all the above eye witnesses turning hostile, there was absolutely no evidence to prove the fact that the Appellant was present at the spot; that he came with an unlicensed fire arm which he fired in the air five times and the sixth one injured the deceased.Even the trial Court noticed that although six empty cartridges were found at the spot only four of six empty cartridges were shown to have been fired from the pistol recovered from the Appellant.Therefore, the charge itself was defective.Crl A. 689 of 2018 Page 12 of 13Be that as it may, with the prosecution having been unable to prove that it was the Appellant who fired the gunshot on the deceased, the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,099,923 |
The appellants, Mohd.864/2012 & 910/2012 Page 1 of 4 41/10/09 arising out of FIR No. 90/2009 PS Geeta Colony.By an order dated 07.06.2012, they were awarded RI for seven years with fine ` 20,000/- each under Section 489B/34 IPC and RI for three years with fine ` 10,000/- each under Section 489C/34 IPC.Both the sentences were directed to operate concurrently.864/2012 & 910/2012 Page 1 of 4Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet, was that on 28.04.2009 at about 05.30 P.M., a secret information was received that two persons were to deliver two fake currency notes in the denomination of ` 1,000/- each in exchange of a genuine currency note of ` 1,000/-.A raiding team was organised.When he struck deal at around 06.10 P.M., both the appellants were apprehended.On search, 98 and 80 currency notes in the denomination of ` 1,000/- each were recovered from the possession of A-1 and A-2 respectively.During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.864/2012 & 910/2012 Page 4 of 4864/2012 & 910/2012 Page 4 of 4Jafar (A-1) and Mohd.Jamal (A-2) impugn their conviction under Sections 489 B/489C/34 IPC by a judgment dated 04.06.2012 of Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. Crl.After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants; they were duly charged and brought to trial.Supplementary charge-sheet against Qamar Abbas was submitted.However, vide order dated Crl.864/2012 & 910/2012 Page 2 of 4 13.05.2010, he was discharged of the offence.The prosecution examined seven witnesses to substantiate the charges.In 313 statements, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime; pleaded false implication and examined five witnesses in defence.The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have preferred the appeals.864/2012 & 910/2012 Page 2 of 4During the course of hearing, Counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction and accept it voluntarily.They, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellants have remained in custody for substantial period and are not the previous convict.Learned Addl.The appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with total fine ` 30,000/- each.He is a first time offender.Sentence order records that he has four minor children to take care.A-2 is also in custody for the same period and is stated to be not involved in any other criminal case.A-2's sentence order records that he was aged about 34 years and has a family consisting of wife and aged widow mother.Considering all the facts and circumstances and the fact that the appellants have clean antecedents, sentence order is modified and the substantive sentence for RI for seven years is reduced to four years.Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.864/2012 & 910/2012 Page 3 of 4The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.Pending application (if any) also stands disposed of.Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 09, 2014 / tr Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,928,160 |
In view of COVID-19 pandemic situation, the matter is being taken through video conferencing.Heard Sri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Hansraj Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.As per office report dated 14.07.2020, notice has been served on opposite party no.2 through heir (brother).This revision has been filed by Rahul Kumar (Juvenile) through his real uncle Ram Manohar against an order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki and order dated 15.01.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.66/2019 (Rahul Kumar Vs.Learned counsel further submits that both the Board as well as Appellate Court without taking into consideration the report sent by District Probationary Officer and parameter of the Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, has rejected the bail application only on the gravity of the offence.From perusal of record, it transpires that opposite party no.2-Deshraj Yadav lodged the F.I.R. on 15.08.2019 that her daughter aged about 16 years was enticed away by one Deepak Saini on 14.08.2029 at 8:00-9:00 P.M. and during search, the opposite party no.2 inquired Rajan Singh and Deepak Singh regarding the whereabouts of the victim since the motorcycle of Deepak Saini was parked in front of house of said Rajan Singh.Both Rajan Singh, Deepak Singh and their family members hurled abuses to opposite party no.2-Deshraj Yadav.Thereafter, first information report was lodged on Deepak Saini, Deepak Singh and Rajan Singh.During the investigation, the name of accused were exonerated by the Investigating Officer and involvement of revisionist alongwith other co-accused Rajesh Singh and Krishna Kumar was surfaced in the statement of Ram Nihor Rawat (Chowkidar) of Village Anand Purwa, Dalmau, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,993 |
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.Criminal Revision Petition 521/2005 is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th March, 2005, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 31/2004 arising out of F.I.R. No. 572/1997, Police Station Sultanpuri whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of all charges."Smt.Sweety was married to Sh.After marriage, parties resided at 1948-B/151, Tri Nagar, Delhi.Family comprised of the couple, the parents of the husband, two younger brothers of the husband and two small daughters of the couple.The relations between the complainant Sweety and her in-laws were bitter.Budh Vihar, Delhi.On 4.6.97 at about 6 PM Sweety was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi by her husband with 30% burns on her body.MLC was prepared.The doctor referred her to LNJP hospital for further management.She was however, declared 'fit for statement' on 6.6.97 and the SDM recorded her statement upon which a case U/s 498A/307/34 IPC was registered.Version of the prosecution is that Sweety used to be harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and dowry demands were made from time to time by her husband and parents-in-law.A charge under section 498A IPC was framed against the husband Manjeet Singh; Prakash Kaur, the mother-in-law and Jogender Singh, the father-in-law.Manjeet Singh was accordingly charged with the commission of an offence punishable under section 307 IPC.Manjeet Singh, Prakash Kaur and Jogender Singh were also charged Under Section 406 IPC R/W Section 34 IPC for mis-appropriating the 'Istridhan' comprising of the dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage."It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the statement of PW-1, Smt. Sweety is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and that the trial court has gone wrong in not relying upon her when she herself is the victim of the cruelty.From a perusal there from it appears that the story put forth by the prosecution as narrated by PW-1, Smt. Sweety has found no corroboration.On the other hand, there appears to be substance in the case put up by the defense.Since I find no miscarriage of justice, I see no reason to entertain this petition.Criminal Revision Petition 521/2005 is dismissed.
|
['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.
|
129,940,342 |
Factual matrix of the case as emerging from First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") as well as material placed on record is as follows.3. PW-1, Jai Pakash submitted a written Tehrir Ex.Ka-1 on 31.10.2011 in Police Station Partapur, District Meerut stating therein that his own house was broken and it was not liveable, so his mother lived alone in the house of Sudhir (his cousin) and as usual, she slept in the night of 30.10.2011 in that house.His sister in law (Bhabhi) Smt. Kamlesh PW-2 was living in her own house and look after his mother (victim).In the morning on 31.10.2011 PW-2 Kamlesh came to see victim and saw that door was closed from inside.She tried to get it opened by giving voice but no response came from inside, so a boy was sent from the house of neighbouring Jogendra to open the door from inside.On opening door, PW-2 Kamlesh found his mother Bhagwati dead.There was a lot of bruises and blood on her face.Many people gathered on the spot.F.I.R. further recites that on 30.10.2011, PW-1 was present in the house of his Bhabhi, at about 10:00 PM.PW-1 and his nephew Yogesh, PW-3, after taking dinner, came to walk in the street towards his mother and saw that house of his mother was locked.They saw accused-appellant Pappu @ Nandu Pandey going towards roof of Jogendra from Sudhir's roof.All cloths of mother were removed from her body and she was half necked.It was suspected by PW-1 that victim was raped and murdered by accused-appellant Pappu @ Nandu Pandey.PW-7 Dr. Vikram Singh examined smear slide of Smt. Bhagwati and prepared his examination report, Ex.Ka-9, expressing his opinion that dead spermatozoa was found in the slide.PW-3 Yogesh deposed that PW-1 is his uncle and he wrote a tehrir Ex.Ka-1 on the dictation of PW-1 Jai Prakash.In cross-examination, he deposed that Ex.Ka-1 was scribed in police station in the presence of police officials.PW-4 Smt. Beena deposed that deceased Bhagwati happens to be her Tai (aunt) who lived in her other house in the village.On 30.10.2011, victim slept in the night after taking meal.In the next morning, when she and PW-2 Kamlesh went to that house and found door was closed from inside.She knocked door but no response.PW-9 B.D. Pushkar, Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that accused-appellant was not present on spot.PW-1 Jai Prakash states that he along with his nephew Yogesh, after taking meal at about 10:00 PM, went to the house of his mother.Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV)Present jail appeal has been directed by accused-appellant Pappu @ Nandu Pandey against the judgement and order dated 11.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Meerut in Session Trial No.1395 of 2011 (State Vs.Pappu @ Nandu Pandey) under Section 302, 376 IPC, P.S. Partapur, District Meerut whereby Trial Court has convicted accused Pappu @ Nandu Pandey and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 IPC, in default of payment of fine, one years additional imprisonment; and rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, two years additional imprisonment.On the basis of written Tehrir Ex.Ka-1, a Chick F.I.R. Ex.Ka-19 was registered by H.M., Naresh Kumar as Case Crime no. 530 of 2011, under Section 302 and 376 I.P.C. against accused-appellant.5. PW-8, Inspector, Rampal Singh, under the direction of PW-9 B.D. Pushkar, the then Inspector, held inquest over the dead body of Smt. Bhagwati, prepared inquest report Ex.Ka-10 and other papers relating thereto.6. PW-6 Dr. Ravindra Singh, conducted autopsy over the dead body of Smt. Bhagwati and prepared post mortem report Ex.Ka-8, expressing his opinion that death of victim was possible two days prior to post-mortem due to coma on account of head injuries.He found three ante-mortem injuries as under :-(i) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side of forehead eyebrow.(ii) Bilateral black eyes.(iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right side of chin (not clear in the P.M. report).PW-9 B.D. Pushkar undertook investigation, visited spot with Informant PW-1, prepared site plan Ex.Ka-16, recorded statement of Informant, collected one blood stained pillow and one blood stained bed sheet, blood stained and simple earth, one bangle (Kada made by steal) and prepared memos thereof, collected one Jeans pant, underwear and baniyan belong to accused and taken into custody and prepared Fard thereof; recorded statement of other witnesses.After completing all formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka-18 against accused-appellant.Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Sessions Court for trial.Trial Court, framed charges against accused-appellant Pappu @ Nandu Pandey under Section 302 and 376 IPC on 01.02.2012 which read as under :vkjksi ^^^eS] lk/kuk jkuh] vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0&15] esjB vki iIiw mQZ uUnw ikaMs ij ,rn}kjk fuEu vkjksi yxkrh gWwA izFke] ;g fd fnukad 30-10-2011 dks jkf= esa fdlh le; LFkku xzke f< f}rh;] ;gfd mijksDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vkius oknh dh eka ds lkFk cykRdkj djus ds i'pkr tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls oknh dh eka dh pksVsa igqWpkdj mldh gR;k dj nh bl izdkj vkidk ;g dk;Z /kkjk 302 Hkk0na0la0 ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/k gS tks bl U;k;ky; ds izlKku esa gSA ,rn}kjk vkidks] vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkidk fopkj.k mDr vkjksi gsrq bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA** Charge "I, Sadhna Rani, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut, hereby charge you, Pappu @ Nandu Pandey with the following offences:-Firstly, you at any time on the night of 30.10.2011 forcibly committed rape on the complainant Jai Prakash Singh's mother sleeping in Sudhir's house located in village - Dhidhala, PS - Paratapur, and District - Meerut; thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 376 IPC, which is in the cognisance of this court.Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses out of whom PW-1 Jai Prakash, PW-2 Kamklesh, PW-3 Yogesh and PW-4 Beena are witnesses of fact and PW-5 Shiv Raj Singh, PW-6 Dr. Ravindra Singh, PW-7 Dr. Vikram Singh, PW-8 Inspector Rampal Singh and PW-9 the then Inspector B.D. Pushkar are formal witnesses.Subsequent to closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court explaining entire evidence and other incriminating circumstances.In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant denied prosecution story in toto, story and statement of witnesses are said to be wrong and under the pressure of police.He claimed false implication in the present case.Trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating entire evidence led by prosecution on record found accused-appellant guilty and convicted him as stated above.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgement and order of conviction, present appeal has been filed through Jail.We have heard Sri Prem Shanker Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for appellant and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A for State-respondent at length and gone through the record carefully.Learned counsel for appellant assailing impugned judgement and order of conviction of accused-appellant, advanced his submissions, in the following manners :-(iii) There is no motive to accused to commit the present crime.Motive is completely missing in the prosecution case.(iv) PW-3 Yogesh states nothing in support of PW-1 regarding landing of accused-appellant on Yogendra's roof.(v) Except PW-1, no other witness states anything about the fact of case.(vi) It is apparent from the prosecution case that accused was present on spot before registration of case which leads innocence of accused.(vii) Seeing the age of deceased, there is no possibility of rape with victim by any one.Medical evidence does not support theory of rape with victim.(viii) There are many contradictions in evidence of witnesses rendering the case doubtful.(ix) Prosecution, totally, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but Trial Court wrongly appreciated evidence and held accused-appellant guilty without proper application of mind.Learned AGA opposed submissions of leaned counsel for appellant and submitted that accused is named in F.I.R.; he has been arrested immediately after the crime; his steal bangle (Kada), pant and underwear contained blood which was found to be human blood in the report of F.S.L. was recovered from the spot; PW-1 saw him landing on the roof of Yogendra from the house of Sudhir on 10:00 PM in the night on 30.10.2011 in which crime was committed; hence, prosecution has proved entire chain of circumstantial evidence and Trial Court rightly convicted accused-appellant.Although, time, date, place and assassination of victim Bhagwati was not challenged from the side of defence but according to Advocate for appellant he is not responsible for the present crime.Death of Smt. Bhagwati and place where she was assassinated stand established from the evidence of prosecution.Thus only question for consideration of this Court is, "whether accused-appellant is responsible for committing present crime and Trial Court has rightly convicted accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 I.P.C. or not?"Now we may proceed to consider rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and evidence of prosecution as well as some important decisions.PW-1 Jai Prakash deposed that on 30.10.2011 he had gone to the house of PW-2 Kamlesh; his mother (deceased) was living in the house of his cousin; PW-2 Kamlesh was looking after the victim; in the evening on 10:00 PM, he was coming from the house of his Bhabhi PW-2 after taking meal along with his nephew Yogesh; door of his mother's house was closed whereupon he began to come back; he saw that accused-appellant Pappu @ Nandu Pandey was landing on Yogesh roof; he and his nephew Yogendra PW-3 came back to his house and slept; when on the next day, as usual, his sister-in-laws PW-2 Kamlesh visited the house of victim to provide tea and knocked door but it was not opened, then a boy was sent inside to open the door through Yogesh house's roof, who opened the door from inside; PW-2 saw that victim was lying on cot in naked position and there was sign of injuries on her face; he and other people present there saw the victim lying dead; and it was suspected that victim was killed by accused-appellant Pappu @ Nandu Pandey.In cross-examination at page 28 of paper book, he admitted that he had seen accused-appellant first time in the night of incident.He further deposed that when accused-appellant was caught by villagers and handed over to police, he saw him.When accused-appellant Pappu @ Nandu Pandey told in police station that he was resident of Bihar, he came to know about his residence.He further deposed in cross-examination at page 30 of paper book that there was an electric pole near the house of Yogendra.House of Yogendra and Sudhir are adjacent to each other.When he went to his mother's house in the night, there was electric light.It is relevant to mention here that there is no description of electric pole in FIR.It is evident from the statement of PW-1 that there was light of electric when he went to the house of his mother but PW-1 says that he saw accused landing on the roof of Yogendra in the light of mobile torch which inspires no confidence.PW-2 Kamlesh deposed that on 30.10.2011 her mother-in-law Smt. Bhagwati (victim) was sleeping in the house of Sudhir after taking meal; at about 10:00 PM her son Yogesh PW-3 and Dewar Jai Prakash PW-1 went to see her mother-in-law but door was closed from inside and they came back; they saw accused-appellant landing on the roof of Yogendra from the house of Sudhir in the light of mobile torch; next morning, she, as usual, went to her mother-in-law, door was closed; she sent one Ankit in the house of Sudhir where mother slept, who opened the door from inside and she saw that victim Bhagwati was lying on cot with blood and her cloths were scattered all around; she cried whereupon many people around came there and then she came to know that accused-appellant committed rape and killed her (victim).When she sent one Ankit in the house through Yogendra house who opened the door from inside, she entered the house and saw that victim Bhagwati was lying dead with blood on cot and her cloths scattered all around.On hearing noise of weeping, PW-1 Jai Prakash and PW-3 Yogesh came there and informed police.Police inquired accused-appellant who confessed that he was in drunken position, committed rape upon Bhagwati and killed her.27. PW-5 Shiv Raj Singh is not eye witness and he proved Fard / memo prepared by police.Only circumstantial evidence against accused-appellant is :-(i) PW-1 Jai Prakash saw accused-appellant landing on the roof of Yogendra's house from the roof of Sudhir's house where victim slept;(ii) Sign of rape appeared over the body of deceased;(iii) Alleged underwear of accused-appellant bearing siemens, one Jeans Pant with blood allegedly belonged to accused-appellant.As per report dated 6.4.2013 of F.S.L., Agra, human blood was found but no spermatozoa was found on the cloths allegedly belong to accused.30. PW-5 Shiv Raj Singh deposed that police has taken one steal bangle (Kada), one pant, one underwear and one baniyan with spot of blood from the accused and prepared Fard.In his cross-examination, he admitted that when he reached the spot at about 7:00 AM and remained there by 10:00 AM, police was there from before with accused-appellant whereas Chick FIR Ex.Ka-19 reveals that it was registered in the police station concerned at about 8:30 AM on 31.10.2011, meaning thereby police arrived at spot before registration of case and accused was already present there.PW-4 Beena herself admitted that accused-appellant Pappu @ Nandu Pandey came there and police inquired from him.Presence of accused-appellant on spot before registration of case leads his innocence.If he had committed any offence, he would not have remained present there.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,946,503 |
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
129,948,095 |
of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 17 read with section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.And In the matter of : Abhijit Mondal & Anr.... Petitioners Mr. Anghsuma Chakraborty ... for the Petitioners Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ms. Faria Hossain, Mr. Binoy Panda, Mr. T. K. Ghosh, Mr. Pratick Bose ... for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the Court.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate for the State.Having due regard to the heinousness offence and complicity of the petitioners, we are not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.Accordingly, the application for bail being C.R.M. No. 3792 of 2020 and C.R.A.N. 2043 of 2020 are rejected.( Samapti Chatterjee, J.) 2 ( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
129,953,617 |
C.R.M. No. 5521 of 2014In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on April 28, 2014 in connection with Howrah Police Commissionerate, Women Police Station Case No. 35 of 2013 dated October 07, 2013 under Sections 376/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66/66A/66E/67A of the IT Act.And In the matter of: Ravi Ranjan Singh alias Ravi Ranjan ...Petitioner.Mr. Srikanta Datta ...for the petitioner.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.)
|
['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.
|
129,958,375 |
In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.And In the matter of: 1. Asajul Dalal,Marjina Bibi,Israfil Dalal,Julekha Dalal @ Sulekha Dalal,Ajmira Dalal. ... petitioners.Mr. Bhaskar Hutait.... for the petitioners.Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Garhbeta Police Station F.I.R. No. 83 of 2017 dated 03.04.2017 under Sections 323/325/509/379/354B/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.( Dipankar Datta, J.) 2 ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,996,158 |
sh Case Diary is perused.e Learned counsel for the parties are heard.ad This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.PC for grant of bail.Pr Petitioners have been arrested on 06.02.2018 in connection with a hy Crime No.6/2018 registered by Police Station Gyaraspur, District Vidisha M.P. in relation to the offences punishable under Sections ad 294, 498-A, 324, 506, 34 of IPC.Afterwards Section 307 IPC was M added.As per the prosecution story, there is a dispute between the of complainant Shivwati and her husband Ramkishan with father of rt Ramkishan, one Daula and brothers of Ramkishan, who are applicants ou No.2 and 3 respectively.It is alleged that on 07.01.2018 when Ramkishan was not present in house, there were a dispute as regards to C construction of the house.It is alleged that petitioners Jaibai, h Ramkali and Omvatibai abused her with filthy abuses.Father-in-law ig Daula had poured oil over who the body of the complainant and set H her on fire with a match stick.Due to fear of the father-in-law, nobody came forward to save her and thereafter further threatened that if she will report the matter, she will face dire consequences.As per the pre-MLC which is available in the case diary.In view of such facts, petitioners pray for enlarging them on bail as they have been falsely implicated because of the property dispute.It is further submitted strangely in a dowry case, husband has not been implicated.Application is opposed by State Counsel and prayed for its rejection.There is no explanation for delay in the F.I.R. when incident had taken place on 07.01.2018 at about 5 PM and why dehatinalisi was sh recorded at District Hospital, Vidisha on 09.01.2018 at 11.30 AM e when pre-MLC was done on 08.01.2018 at about 1.55 PM.It is ad apparent from the F.I.R. that husband of the complainant Shivwati had Pr returned back on the same day.H Their single non-appearance shall cancel their bail automatically by the trial court concerned, without any further order of this Court.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Digitally signed by SUBASRI MANI Date: 2018.02.28 18:13:58 -08'00' mani
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,192,075 |
No.1/State.This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the FIR in Crime No.98/2016 registered by Police Station Dehat, District-Bhind for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The necessary facts for the disposal of this application lies in narrow campus.The FIR was lodged on 22.10.2015 against the applicant and co-accused persons on the allegation that the deceased-Sangeeta was married to applicant about two years prior to the date of incident.Immediately after the marriage, the applicant and the co- accused persons started demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry she was harassed, as a result of which she committed suicide by hanging herself.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the deceased had committed suicide in her parents house and she was suffering from various deceases, as a result of which she left her matrimonial house without informing the applicant.A petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was also filed on 30.09.2015 by the applicant against the deceased.However, she did not join the company of her husband.It is further submitted that in fact only omnibus allegation have been made against the applicant.Per contra, counsel for the complainant submitted that the police after concluding the investigation has filed the 2 MCRC 11176/2016 charge-sheet.The statements of the witnesses were recorded in which they have specifically stated that the deceased was being harassed by the applicant and co- accused persons.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.Bitoli Devi, mother of the deceased in her case diary statement has stated that her daughter Sangeeta was married to applicant and dowry as per their financial conditions was given.Till two months after the marriage she was treated properly.Deceased has a son aged about eight months.Thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused persons started harassing the deceased for bringing Rs.1,00,000/- and she was beaten, as a result of which the deceased fell ill and neither she was got treated properly nor food was given to her regularly.When the deceased made complaint with regard to the mis-behavior and 4 MCRC 11176/2016 harassment by the applicant and co-accused persons, then the brother of the deceased along with his relatives tried to convince the applicant and co-accused persons but, because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry they turned out the deceased-Sangeeta from her matrimonial house and also kept the son of the deceased with them.The applicant and co-accused persons had stated that she may reside at whatever place she wants.It was further stated that they had made complaint to the Superintendent of Police also.The statements of the other witnesses are also to the same effect.After the marriage when I went to my matrimonial home, I was treated nicely by the members of the family.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.