id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
128,278,941 |
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Pankaj Alias Rituraj Tripathi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no.239 of 2019, under Sections 109, 114, 373, 376D, 120B IPC, Sections 3/4 and 5/6 POCSO and Section 3/5 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,429,916 |
/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba Medinipur.The fact of compromise on oath has been testified by the prosecutrix before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba Medinipur where the matter is pending.I have gone through the testimony of the prosecutrix and having regard to the testimony and upon hearing learned advocates for the respective parties, the proceeding being G.R. No. 1652 of 2015[ ST No. 2(9)18] arising out of Nandigram 2 Police Station Case No. 3905 of 2015 dated September 28, 2015 under Sections 493/376/420/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Haldia, Purba Medinipur, is hereby quashed.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,474,337 |
In Re:- Dulal Ghosh & Anr.. .. Petitioners.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Manikchak P.S. No.283 of 2015 dated 10.09.2015 under sections 147/148/149/323/325/326/307/427/332/333/353 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 of PDPP Act, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,543,431 |
"1) As per section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. accused no.2 Janardhan Waghmare, accused no.3 Rafique Sk., accused no.4 Anil Mohankar, accused no.5 Dilip Wagh, accused no.6 Omprakash Bhatkar and accused no.11 Tanaji Bhosale alias Tanaji Bhole are hereby convicted of the offence punishable under section 3 (1)(As offence under section 120-B of I.P.C. is included in section 3(2) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for that offence.).5) Accused nos.2 and 6 are convicted of offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 read with section 25 of Arms Act and each of them are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months each.6) All the sentences shall run concurrently.7) Accused no.8 Nasreenbano Rafique Sk.is hereby convicted of offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act (inclusive of Section 412 of I.P.C.) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and shall pay fine of::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 8 Rs.Two Lakh in default to undergo S.I. of nine months.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::8) Accused no.10 Anjali Janardhan Waghare is hereby convicted of offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act (inclusive of Section 412 of I.P.C.) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and shall pay fine of Rs.Two Lakh in default to undergo S.I. of nine months.9) Accused no.1 Dilip Korde and accused no.7 Shivaji Bhosale are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and of offence punishable under section 414 of I.P.C.10) Accused no.9 Sk.15) Seized gold bangles of 123-grams 34-allegedly seized from one Vikram Kankute, be confiscated in favour State and so also rest of the seized gold material be confiscated in favour of State and all such gold be sent to Mint after expiry of one year.and motorcycle no.MH-27/AF-6907 be auctioned and sale proceed be credited to State, all after expiry of one year.18) Seized motorcycle no.MH-29/L-6591 which was given on supratnama to P.W.31 Rupreshkumar Banait of Mangala Devi Ner, Tq.Ner, Distt.Yavatmal stand confirmed after expiry of one year.According to the prosecution, the accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are members of organized crime syndicate.They have committed organized crime, i.e., dacoity on 31/8/2010 at Khandelwal Jewellery Shop at Amravati.The prosecution came with a case that on that day at about 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. three dacoits came in the shop as customers and out of them two looked for gold::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 11 finger ring.It is also alleged that one of them spoke on mobile phone and thereafter three more dacoits entered in the shop as customers.One of them pressed the neck of the gate-man and another dacoit gave blow of knife to the shop owner.Some of them have shown pistol and other weapons and by terrorizing the employees and owner of the shop, they detained them in another adjoining room and looted 82 gold bangles and went away on two motorcycles.Thereafter, one of the employees, namely, Shri Kishor Pohokar lodged the report in the police station.Police registered the offence vide Crime No.325/2010 for the offence punishable under sections referred above.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::In the investigation, the police collected CCTV footage and seized hard-disk of the computer.On the basis of the said CCTV footage they carried out the investigation and taken raid on the house of one Vijay Bhatkar who then identified two offenders.During the course of investigation, police arrested accused nos.1 to 6 from different places.Thereafter, other accused were also arrested.In the investigation, the accused made confessional statement and at their instance the police seized some gold ornaments.Police also seized some gold ornaments at the instance::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 12 of accused nos.8 and 10 from the disclosure from the accused persons.Accused no.8 - Nasreenbano is wife of accused no.3 - Rafique Shaikh and accused no.10 - Sau.The accused nos.8 and 10 were knowing that the properties are of the same organized crime committed by the members of the said syndicate.The police obtained necessary permission from the Commissioner of Police, Amravati for registration of offence under the MCOC Act.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::During the course of investigation, the accused persons were identified in test identification parade by the witnesses, who were present in the Khandelwal Jewellers on the day of incident.The police also collected necessary documents during the investigation and obtained necessary sanction for prosecution from the Additional Director General of Police.After completing the necessary investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons.The accused persons appeared in the proceedings before the Special Court.He was also cross-examined but nothing is brought on record to disbelieve him.P.W.5 - Anil Narayanrao Uprikar is also present in the shop and deposed about the incident.He has also identified accused persons, i.e., Anil Mohankar (A-4), Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3), Dilip @ Kalya Wagh (A-5) and Tanya @ Tanaji Vithal Bhosale (A-11).In his evidence he has deposed that at the time of incident there were 16 CCTV cameras and he was present in the shop.The police asked him to show footage of CCTV cameras and accordingly he has shown the footage of CCTV cameras and police prepared the panchanama and seized the articles.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5/8/2014 passed by the Special Judge (MCOCA) Amravati in Special (MCOCA) Case No.1/2011 the appellants/original accused nos.2 to 6, 8, 10 and 11 have filed the present criminal appeals.All these accused were convicted by the Special Court by the impugned judgment and order, which reads as under :-(ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under sections 397, 120-B of I.P.C.2) Accused nos.2, 3 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twelve years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.(As offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and 3 (4) of MCOC Act is included in section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for those offences.)::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 7::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::3) Accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.(As offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and 3 (4) of MCOC Act is included in section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for those offences.)4) Accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (2) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.Salim is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under section 412 of I.P.C.entitled to set off for the period of detention already undergone during trial.13) Seized gold bar of 40-grams andbe returned to Govind Varma P.W.28, of Varma Jewellers, Sarafa Lane, Risod after expiry of one year.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::Khandelwal on supratnama, stands confirmed after expiry of one year and intimation to that effect be given to insurer of that shop.MBZTSOSEGA9H055 35 be returned to Baliram Jagtap.20) Seized country made pistol be sent to District Magistrate, Amravati for its disposal, after expiry of one year.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::worthless, same be destroyed after a year."The appellants/original accused nos.5 and 6 have filed joint Criminal Appeal No.91/2015 and also filed individual Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014, therefore criminal appeals filed by them, i.e., Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014 will have to be disposed of.Charge came to be framed against them for the said offences.The contents of the charge were read over to them in vernacular.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::After recording the evidence in the matter and on hearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) of the MCOC Act and also for the offence punishable under Section 397, 120 - B of the Indian Penal Code.The accused nos.8 and 10 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of the MCOC Act. The learned Special Judge also passed order regarding seized muddemal.The seized gold bar of 40 grams and 80 mg.were directed to be returned to Govind Varma (P.W. 28) of Warma Jewellers, Sarafa Lane, Risod after expiry of one year and 36 gold bangles weighing 719 grams and 550 mg.which were given to Deepak Khandelwal on supratnama stand confirmed after expiry of one year.However, the learned Special Judge directed the seized gold bangles of 123 grams and 34 mg.allegedly seized from one Vikram Kankute be confiscated in favour of the State and also rest of the seized gold material be confiscated in favour of the State and all such gold be sent to Mint after expiry of one year.The learned Special Judge also passed the order in respect of seized motorcycles and seized country made pistol.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::We have heard Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in respective criminal appeals, Shri R.P. Thote, learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellants in respective criminal appeals and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.J. Khan for the respondent - State in all criminal appeals at length.Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has submitted that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons.The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused persons.The impugned judgment thus requires interference of this Court and is liable to be quashed and set aside.Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has submitted that the accused were arrested on 9/9/2010 and since then they are in custody.He further submitted that the learned Special Judge has directed the sentences to run concurrently.The accused nos.2, 3 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 15 and accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine and the accused had undergone around ten years of imprisonment including remission.He further submitted that the accused had already undergone substantial period of imprisonment in custody and looking to their poor financial condition and liability to maintain their families, a lenient view may be taken for reduction of sentence.So far as accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are concerned, he further submitted that the accused nos.8 and 10 are sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and rigorous imprisonment is awarded for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months.The accused nos.8 has already undergone more than three and half years imprisonment and now she is on bail.Therefore, on undergone sentence, she may be released.In default of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- she is sentenced for nine::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 16 months and therefore, the said sentence be reduced.The accused no.10 has already undergone substantive sentence and therefore, the in default sentence of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- may be reduced.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::Shri Thote, the learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellants in respective criminal appeals has adopted the said arguments for the other accused.The criminal appeals filed by the appellants therefore be dismissed.Shri Wakode, the learned Counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application (APPA) No.1057/2017 in Criminal Appeal No.595/2014 appearing for Khandelwal Jewellers has submitted that by allowing this application the seized gold articles of 370.010 grams recovered in the present offence bearing F.I.R. No.325/2010 be given on supratnama to the applicant.He submitted that the Special Judge while passing the order confiscated the gold bangles of 123 grams 34 mg.in favour of the State as well as rest of the seized gold were also confiscated in favour of the State and::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 17 therefore he prayed to return the same.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::Shri Khan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor however objected for the same and submitted that the applicant has a remedy to file separate appeal claiming the said property.The criminal application therefore be rejected.We have gone through the evidence on record with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties.From perusal of the material on record, it appears that the alleged incident took place on 31/8/2010 in between 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Khandelwal Jewellers Shop at Amravati.These accused persons were armed with deadly weapons and by causing injuries to the persons present in the shop including the owner, looted the gold ornaments.It has come in the evidence that there were 16 CCTV cameras inside the shop of Khandelwal Jewellers, Amravati.The defence has not challenged the said facts during the course of trial.During the course of investigation, police have seized C.D. and C.P.U. under panchanamas.It has come in the evidence that the CCTV footage clearly shows picture of three offenders, i.e., accused no.3 - Rafique Shaikh, accused no.4 - Anil Mohankar and accused no.6 - Omprakash @ Omya and later on three more accused arrived in the::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 18 shop and then they looted the gold.Subsequently, three accused arrived in the shop and were seen in the CCTV footage.However, all these accused were identified during the test identification parade by the witnesses and their close relatives.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::P.W.1 - Deepak Harishchandra Khandelwal is the owner of Khandelwal Jewellers.In his deposition, he deposed that his shop "Khandelwal Jewellers" is situated at Jaisthamb Chowk.The incident took place on 31/8/2010 at about 2:30 p.m.. On that day 14 salesmen were working in his shop and the shop was open at 11:30 a.m. He has also deposed that he was present in the shop.He heard some suspicious noise and the accused persons giving dash to Jawanjal, who was at gate of the shop, entered in the shop and tried to assault him and he sustained injury on his hand.He also gave details of the incident in this evidence of dacoity and according to him, there was a robbery of 79 bangles and golden bar and his servant Shri Kishor Pohekar has lodged the report in the police station.In the evidence he has also stated that he has identified the accused persons at the time of test identification parade which was taken in the Central Prison, Amravati on 23/9/2010 and identified the accused.He was cross-examined at length by the defence.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::apeal472.14.odt 19 However, nothing is brought on record in his cross-examination to disbelieve him.He being the owner of the shop his presence at shop is not doubted.He also sustained injury in the said incident.In the cross-examination, he admitted that all ornaments in the shop were insured on the day of incident and he has put up the claim of robbed ornaments with the Insurance Company.His evidence is on the same line of the owner of the shop.In his evidence he has stated that 79 bangles and one golden bar was stolen in the said incident valued about Rs.50,00,000/-.He was cross-examined at length.However, nothing is brought on record in his cross-examination to disbelieve him.He has proved the contents of the report.He has also identified the accused persons.The fact that 79 gold bangles and one golden bar were stolen away from the shop on the date of incident is also proved through his evidence.18. P.W.3 - Jagdish Kisanlal Shrivas is one of the salesmen at Khandelwal Jewellers whose evidence indicates that he was::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 20 present on that day and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 - Deepak Khandelwal and P.W.2 - Kishor Pohekar on material counts.There is no reason to disbelieve him.He has also identified the accused persons in the test identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::19. P.W.4 - Bhujang Himmatrao Jawanjal is the gatekeeper.He has stated that on 31/8/2010 the incident took place.He has also given details of the incident and also identified accused no.5 - Dilip @ Kalya Kisanrao Wagh who pressed his neck and put knife on his abdomen.20. P.W.6 - Sachin Devidas Deshmukh was working in the Khandelwal Jewellers.He has deposed about the incident and also identified the accused Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3) and Janya @ Janardhan Ramrao Waghmare (A-2).21. P.W.7 - Sudam Somaji Sonule has also deposed about the incident and in the test identification parade identified Dilip @::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 21 Kalya Kisanrao Wagh (A-5), Janya @ Janardhan Ramrao Waghmare (A-2), Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3) and Omprakash @ Omya Bharat Bhatkar (A-6).::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::P.W.8 - Suchit Balkrushna Kusare was working as a Computer Operator at Khandelwar Jewellers on the date of incident.He was cross-examined at length.However, nothing is brought on record in his cross- examination to disbelieve him.The seizure of C.Ds.and CCTV footage is established through his evidence and he has proved the seizure panchanama (Exh.158) drawn by the police.The prosecution has also proved the recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of the accused persons.In the evidence it has come on record that the gold ornaments were seized at their instance and panchanamas under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are proved.Besides this evidence the accused have also made confessional statement.The::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 22 accused nos.8 and 10 are wives of accused nos.3 and 2 respectively and gold ornaments are seized from their custody.The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication.The evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.The learned Special Judge, therefore, has not committed any error while convicting the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and wrongly convicted the accused therefore cannot be accepted.The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the test identification parade and the discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not proved also cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::The learned Special Judge has already considered their case and taken a lenient view and awarded sentence of 12 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused nos.2, 3::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 23 and 11 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (ii) of the MCOC Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each.The accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each.So far as accused nos.8 and 10 are concerned, they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of the MCOC Act and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months each.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::So far as the next submission of reduction in the sentence in default of accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 is concerned, the learned Special Judge has awarded, in default of payment of fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon ruling, reported in (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 243 (Shantilal...Versus...State of M.P.).In the above ruling, the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Sections 64 and 53 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence.It is a penalty which a person incurs on account of non-payment of fine.In the said case, the Apex Court ordered that in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months instead three years, as ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.Considering the ratio laid down in the above ruling and considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, we are of the considered view that the appellants/accused nos.2, 3, 11 and 4 to 6 are not entitled to get reduced the in default sentence of fine of Rs.5,00,000/- passed by the Special Judge.The offence committed by them is under Section 3 (1) (ii) of the MCOC Act and also under Sections 397, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, these appellants/accused are not entitled for reduction of in default sentence.Their appeals are liable to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::So far as the sentences of accused no.8 - Nasreenbano and accused no.10 - Sau.Anjali alias Arati are concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused no.8 - Nasreenbano has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for four years and also undergone in default sentence of nine months and she is released.The appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.Considering the submissions of the respective sides, we are of the view that so far as appellant/accused no.8 - Nasreenbano::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 26 is concerned, she has already undergone substantive sentence as well as in default sentence and therefore, her appeal will have to be dismissed.So far as the appeal filed by the appellant/accused no.10::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::- Sau.Anjali alias Arati is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the undergone sentence of three years and eight months by her is sufficient one, considering the nature of the charges levelled against her.The appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.To that extent, her criminal appeal could be allowed.So far as the order regarding muddemal property is concerned, in the operative part of the judgment, particularly paragraph nos.13 and 14 the gold ornaments were returned to the Varma Jewellers and Khandelwal Jewellers.The said order is not challenged by the accused persons and others and therefore, the::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 27 said order is required to be maintained.The person who claims the property has to establish the ownership and identify the said property.The learned Counsel for the applicant could be directed to approach the Special Judge by filing separate application claiming the property and after receipt of the application, all the concerned persons to be heard and necessary order to be passed of handing over the said property or confiscation, if any, on merit.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and for the reasons stated above, we pass::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 ::: apeal472.14.odt 28 the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::O R D E R(i) Criminal Appeal nos.472/2014, 581/2014, 595/2014, 91/2015, 187/2015 and 188/2015 are hereby dismissed.(ii) Criminal Appeal No.475/2014 filed by the appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.Anjali @ Arati is partly allowed.The appellant/accused has already undergone sentence of three years and eight months and therefore the said sentence is sufficient.The sentence passed against her of four years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to already undergone sentence by her.The appellant/accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for nine months.The in default sentence of nine months is reduced to two months simple imprisonment.The appellant/accused is on bail and therefore, she is required to undergo the in default sentence of two months simple imprisonment and therefore, she will have to be surrendered for the said sentence to be served.(iii) The order regarding disposal of muddemal, except paragraph no.15 in the operative part of the judgment, is confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::(iv) So far as the disposal or confiscated property in paragraph no.15 of the judgment is concerned, the applicant - Khandelwal Jewellers is directed to file an application before the Special Judge for claiming the said property.The learned Special Judge, after hearing all concerned, shall dispose of the said application after giving opportunity to all parties.Criminal Application (APPA) No.1057/2017 stands disposed of.(v) Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014 are disposed of.(vi) Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the appellants are quantified at Rs.5,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:20 :::
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,286,543 |
Feeling aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandanagar in G.R. Case No. 13 of 2002 on 15.7.2002 whereby the interim bail granted by his Honour on 7.1.2002 was confirmed, this application has been taken out on behalf of the Complainant for setting aside the same.To substantiate the said prayer learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, who has placed before us the entire ordersheets from day one submitted that on the very first day the interim bail was granted by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate without perusing the Case Diary and subsequently although there was prayer for cancellation of the same at the behest of the Investigating Agency and notwithstanding the fact on the basis of the prayer of the latter Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added on 26.2.2002 confirmation of the interim bail was absolutely unjustified and requires to be set aside.He further submitted that such lenient view should not have been taken by the learned Magistrate while acceding to the prayer for interim bail on the very first day of production without giving time to the Investigating Agency to collect the materials.Further much stress was made on the prayer for cancellation before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate which was not considered; instead the interim order was confirmed.3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner as a part of his submission referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of West Bengal vs. Noor Ahmed and Anr., 2002(1) CHN 727 to substantiate his point that when an order was passed on erroneous presumption the same can be easily cancelled even at a later stage.For the State it was submitted that chargesheet has already been submitted on 31.12.2002 in respect of the offence of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He invited our attention to the various portions of the Case Diary, particularly in relation to the statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure made by one Samarpita Dey and showed there were materials.Learned State Lawyer further submitted that this was a case where prayer for bail should be cancelled...................................................Per contra : On behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 it was submitted that it was a case of mere accident and on the basis of proper consideration of the materials available interim bail was granted which was subsequently confirmed and as already chargesheet has been submitted and the case is awaiting commitment around the corner after copies are made ready at this juncture the Court should not interfere.The Return was used on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 showing that earlier the prayer for cancellation was disposed of as not pressed by another Division Bench on 23.9.2003 in C.R.M. No. 2355 of 2003 and as such, this application, which is second in line, was not maintainable on that score alone and disputed all the allegations made by the petitioner.After having heard the submissions made at the Bar and considering the affidavits and the decisions cited we now proceed to see as to whether the prayer for cancellation can be sustained.Factual matrix which gave rise to the present application relates to First Information Report lodged by the petitioner on 6.1.2002 before the Bhadhraswar Police Station inter alia on the allegation that at about 10.00 in the morning the Opposite Party No. 2 a co-tenant came to his room and was fondling his child and in spite of reluctance of his wife she took the child to the terrace for a stroll when in the process of caressing the child the said child fell and the neighbouring people came and found the said child in an injured condition on the road before their house.After the child was removed to the Sadar Hospital, Chandanagar he expired at about 11-55 p.m. The petitioner averred in the First Information Report that due to the irresponsible act of the Opposite Party No. 2 his child died.On 26.2.2002, there was a prayer for including Section 302, IPC was made.On 4.3.2002 on the prayer of the Investigating Agency, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.Subsequently, on 4.6.2002 the petitioner and the Investigating Officer also prayed for cancelling the interim bail on the ground that the Opposite Party No. 2 was continuously threatening the petitioner and other eye-witnesses.But, however, the said prayer was rejected at that stage.But, subsequently, on 15.7.2002 the interim bail was confirmed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after considering the Case Diary.This has prompted the petitioner to move this Court.We have carefully perused the Case Diary.Their Lordships in C.R.M. No. 2355 of 2003 passed the following order :No order as to costs.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,286,870 |
Undisputably, the deceased Lekhansingh and the accused/appellant Man Bharan Singh are real brothers.The prosecution case stated in brief is that there was a dispute between the accused/appellant Man Bharan Singh and his brother deceased Lekhansingh over the passage from the field.On 30-10-1985 at about 9.00 A.M. in the morning, while the deceased Lekhansingh was going to his field, the accused/appellant came out from hiding and assaulted the deceased Lekhansingh with a stick.The deceased Lekhansingh sustained injuries on his head and other parts of his body and fell down.On the deceased shouting for help, attention of Sadhusingh (P.W.6) and Ayodhya (P.W.7) was drawn and they came on the spot.Seeing them, the accused/appellant ran away.Other persons also came near the deceased and thereafter the deceased was taken to the Police Station.(i) Lacerated wound in scalp frontal part near post suture of skull 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" vertical in position;(xii) Contusion in lateral side of Lt. Thigh Middle part 21/2" x1/2" oblique;(xiii) Abrasion in post side of Lt. forearm near elbow joint 1 1/4" x1/4" vertical;Clotted blood on the left side between skull bones and membrane was found.Membranes and brain were congested.The doctor opined that the cause of death was 'coma' following fracture of multiple skull bones.The spot map (Ex.P/19) was prepared.The blood-stained as also ordinary earth was seized from the spot, as per seizure memo (Ex. P/8).At the Police Station, Lekhansingh himself lodged the report on the same day, which was recorded in 'Rojnamcha-Sanha' (Ex. P/13).The injured Lekhansingh was thereafter sent to the Asstt.Surgeon, Dr. A. V Mishra, who on examination, as per his report (Ex. P/15) found the following injuries on deceased Lekhansingh :-Irregular, not clear cut, adjacent part swollen, bleeding fresh on cleaning the wound, blood clotting in and around the wound:(iii) Visible swelling in face left side 1/2" lateral to lateral border of left eyebrow l"x1" oblique in position, contusion, abrasion, etc. absent;(iv) Lacerated wound in Ant.side of Rt. leg in Lower Part l"x1/2" x1/2" vertical;(v) Lacerated wound in Dorsum of left thumb middle Phalanx 1/2"xl/4"x1/4" horizontal;(vi) Lacerated wound in Palmar side of Lt. Hand in the web between Lt. Thumb index finger 1" x1/2" x1/2" vertical;(vii) Lacerated wound in Palmar side of Lt. Thumb Proximal Phalanx 1/2"x1/4"x1/6" vertical;(viii) Lacerated wound in Dorsum of Rt.Thumb middle Phalanx 1/2" xl/4" xl/6" oblique;(ix) Visible swelling in Dorsum of Lt. Hand from base of Lt. Ringh and Little finger upto wrist joint 2l/2"xl 1/2"; vertical;(x) 3 contusions on the back;(xi) Contusion in Chest Lt. Side lower part 2" x 1/2" Horizontal;As per the report (Ex. P/15), Injuries No. (i), No. (ii), No. (iv) and No. (ix) were grievous and rest of the injuries were simple in nature.The duration of injury was reported to be within 24 hours of the examination.Thereafter F.I.R. (Ex. P/16) was recorded.Lekhansingh died of the said injuries on 31-10-1985 and after inquest report (Ex. P/7), the body was sent for post mortem examination.Dr. K. K. Shukla (P.W.12) conducted the post mortem examination and as per post mortem report (Ex. P/18) found that all the bones on the left-side of the skull were fractured and there was also tearing of the brain membrane.The cloths of the deceased were also seized, as per seizure memo (Ex. P/3) and bed-head ticket was seized as per seizure memo (Ex. P/4).Memorandum (Ex.P/5) of the accused/appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and on the basis of which, a 'lathi', as per seizure memo (Ex. P/6) was also seized.After completion of investigation, the challan was filed.The accused/appellant abjured the guilt.His defence was that the deceased had trespassed in his field and assaulted the accused/appellant upon which the accused in exercise of right of defence of his property and person, assaulted the deceased on thigh.The deceased fell down on a stone and sustained injury.After trial, the learned trial Judge found that offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the accused/appellant and the accused/appellant was, therefore, convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life, as aforesaid.The learned counsel for the accused/appellant in this appeal has challenged the findings of guilt and conviction of the accused/appellant, as above, and has mainly urged that the accused/appellant was in his own field and the deceased had trespassed into his field and that the accused/appellant had right to exercise right of private defence and also that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not believable.The injuries caused to the accused/appellant have not been explained by the prosecution.Therefore, the accused/appellant is entitled to acquittal and in any case, conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained because there was no intention to cause death on the part of the accused/appellant.In this case, 'Sanha' No. 708 dt. 30-10-1985 (Ex. P/13) regarding the incident was lodged by the deceased Lekhansingh himself, which is proved by Head Constable Jagmohan Prasad (P.W.11).In the said report, on the basis of which F.I.R. (Ex. P/16) was recorded, it has been mentioned that there was a dispute between the deceased-complainant Lekhansingh and the accused/appellant regarding the passage and while the deceased was going to his field, the accused/appellant had assaulted him, on account of which he received injuries.In his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has stated that the dispute arose on the accused/appellant asking the deceased as to who grazed his crop of Jawar, upon which the deceased assaulted the accused/appellant.Thereafter, the accused/appellant hit the deceased on his legs.The deceased fell down on a stone and sustained injuries.Thus, his presence on the spot is not disputed by the accused/appellant.The prosecution has examined Ayodhya (P.W.7) regarding the incident, who has stated that on hearing cries from the field of accused/appellant Man Bharan Singh, he went to that side and found that the accused/appellant was assaulting the deceased Lekhansingh with 'lathi'.He has further stated that he beseeched the accused not to beat the deceased, whereafter the accused/appellant ran away.When Ayodhya (P.W.7) reached near deceased Lekhansingh, he told Ayodhya (P.W.7) that accused/appellant Man Bharan Singh had assaulted him and that he was finding it difficult to speak.Ayodhya (P.W.7) has further stated that Sadhusingh (P.W.6) also reached the spot along with him and thereafter P.W. 10 Daddu, P.W. 9 Chunnilal and Asaniya (P.W.8) also reached there.They had then taken the deceased Lekhansingh to Sobhapur.It would, therefore, be clear from the above statement of Ayodhya (P.W.7) that he saw the accused/appellant assaulting the deceased Lekhansingh and had reached on the spot immediately after the incident and Lekhansingh told him that it was accused/appellant Man Bharan Singh, who caused him the injuries.Sadhu Singh (P.W.6), who is the cousin of the accused/appellant as well as the deceased, has stated that on hearing noise from the field of the accused/appellant Man Bharan, he went there and found that the deceased was lying in an injured state and the accused was standing there with a 'lathi' in his hand.Ayodhya (P.W.7) had also gone there.Sadhusingh (P.W.6) has further stated that on seeing him and Ayodhya (P.W.7), the accused/appellant ran away from the spot.Sadhu Singh (P.W.6) states that the deceased Lekhan Singh told them that Man Bharan, the accused/appellant, had assaulted him.Thereafter they had taken injured Lekhansingh to Shobhapur.Thus, though Sadhusingh does not state that he saw the accused/appellant assaulting the deceased, he states to have reached the spot immediately after the incident.Both Ayodhya (P.W.7) and Sadhusingh (P.W.6) have also stated that the deceased Lekhansingh had told them that the accused/appellant had assaulted him.Chunnilal (P.W.9), who is the brother of the deceased Lekhansingh and Daddu Singh (P.W.10) who is the son of the deceased, have stated that they reached the spot and found that the deceased was lying in an injured state.Jtsaniya (P.W.8) has also stated that when he reached the spot, he found the deceased lying in an injured state.From the above prosecution evidence on record, it is established that Lekhansingh received severe injuries including injuries on his head and that he informed that the accused/appellant had assaulted him.In fact from the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the accused/appellant himself, as has been mentioned earlier also, it would be clear that he was present on the spot and had assaulted the deceased, though he states that he did so in the exercise of right of private defence.It would thus be clear that the deceased had received injuries at the time of incident.The injury report (Ex. P/15) of Lekhansingh and statement of Dr. A. V Mishra would indicate that there were two injuries on the head and one on the face, while rest of the injuries were on the legs, on the back and on the palms or fingers.Dr. P. D. Agrawal (P.W.1) has stated that he had sent Memo (Ex. P/l) to the Police Station reporting that the deceased had died.From Ex. P/l, it would be clear that the deceased died on 31-10-1985 at 10.30 P.M. at the hospital at Satna.He found that all the bones of the left side of the skull were broken and there was also extensive tearing of membrane - on the left side and there was collection of clotted blood on the left side of his skull.He has also stated that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Thus the death of Lekhansingh on account of injuries caused by the accused/appellant during the incident, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, is established, as has been found by the learned trial Court, for reasons assigned by it in its judgment impugned herein.It has been urged on behalf of the accused/appellant that the injuries were caused on account of fall on a stone.The above proposition, however, does not appear probable.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,756,785 |
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::above, in the proposal, the sanctioning authority in its orderunder section 23(1)(a) has taken into consideration only 8crimes / FIRs, which are as follows :It is also pertinent to note that at the time ofsubmitting proposal, no charge-sheet was sent along with theproposal, and as stated above, only 8 crimes / FIRs wereconsidered.Till date, 13 charge-sheets have been filed whichare as follows :Police Station, FIR / crime Number and sections.Vishrantwadi PS Crime No. 414/2008, IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 506, 427Visharambaug PS, Crime No. 169/2009 IPC Sec. 342, 506(2), 294, 504,patilsr 12/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19 34Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners are seeking followingreliefs :"(a) Strike down Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOCApatilsr 1/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19 being absolutely arbitrary, unguided, uncanalized and thus, unconstitutional being violate of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; or to save it from unconstitutionality to read down, delineate the ambit and scope of the words 'prior approval' occurring in Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA so as to ensure that the same is not rendered an empty formality dependent upon whims, fancies, prejudices and caprices of the concerned officer;::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::Apart from challenge to the constitutional validity ofaforesaid provisions, the Petitioners in above writ petitions havealso prayed for quashing and setting aside of the prior approvalorder dated 9th August 2018 issued under section 23(1)(a) of theMCOCA and to quash and set aside the proceedings invoking theprovisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999[for short "the MCOCA"] against the Petitioners and to set themat liberty.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::Since the issue raised in the present petitions isexactly identical to the issue raised in Writ Petition No.4639 of2018, in the present petitions too we grant Rule.We also issuenotice to the learned Advocate General.In Writ Petition No. 4639 of 2018, this Court hasconsidered the Petitioner's prayer for interim relief of bail.Weindependently examined the issue of grant of interim relief of bailand in the facts and circumstances of that case, for the reasonsgiven in support of that order, we have granted interim relief topatilsr 3/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19the Petitioner therein.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::The Petitioners in the instant writ petitions have alsoprayed for grant of interim relief of bail and accordingly we areconstrained to consider this prayer on its own meritsThe Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1670 of 2019 is theoriginal accused no.8 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3741of 2019 is the original accused no.2 in FIR bearing CR.This FIR was registered at theinstance of Jayesh Jagtap, the son of deceased Jitendra Jagtap.It isalleged in the FIR that Jitendra Jagtap was in possession ofproperty bearing Survey No. 481, Rasta Peth, Pune as care-taker.It is further alleged that the Petitioner in WP No.1670 of 2019 andhis partner Sudhir Karnataki were threatening deceased JitendraJagtap for giving possession of the said property.It is furtheralleged that accused no.1 along with 6 to 7 persons threatenedpatilsr 4/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19deceased Jitendra Jagtap for giving possession of the saidproperty and therefore, deceased Jitendra committed suicide.Accused no.8,namely, the Petitioner in WP.No. 670 of 2019 surrendered beforethe investigating agency on 1st August 2018.. On 1st August 2018, the Additional Commissioner ofPolice, Pune granted prior approval under section 23(1)(a) of theMCOCA Act thereby invoking section 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of thesaid Act in the subject crime.As stated above, the Petitioners inboth the petitions are challenging the said prior approval order inorder to claim the interim relief of bail.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::He submitted that while granting approval, the AdditionalCommissioner of Police has relied upon 8 crimes/FIRs.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::In the light of mandate of section 21(4) of the MCOCAct, we have also afforded an opportunity of hearing to thelearned APP.The learned APP opposed the grant of interim relief.Mr. Kamkhedkar, the learned APP submitted that though only 8crimes / FIRs are referred to in the prior approval order, thepatilsr 6/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19proposal submitted to the approving authority contains details of14 crimes / FIRs against accused persons.He submitted that thisCourt should take into consideration the proposal of SamarthPolice Station for prior approval, and if the same is considered,there is no question of grant of any interim relief to thePetitioners.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::The original complainant - Jayesh Jitendra Jagtap hasfiled an application bearing Criminal Application No. 398 of 2019for intervention.We have, therefore, heard him too.Mr. Joshi,learned counsel for the Applicant- intervener relied upon theproposal submitted by Samarth Police Station for prior approvalunder section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act. The learned counselsubmitted that application of mind by the sanctioning authority isa matter which requires evidence to be led and the prosecutionhas to be given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in thatregard and therefore, the present writ petitions are prematureand there is no question of exercising jurisdiction by this Court atthis interim stage.Before going into factual aspects of the abovepatilsr 7/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19matters, it would be appropriate to set out certain provisions ofMCOC Act, in particular sections 2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) of the said Actas under :::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::[2] A charge-sheet should consists of averments, alleging unlawful activity undertaken either singly orpatilsr 9/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19 jointly by the accused;::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::Vishrantwadi PS Crime No. 414/2008, IPC Sections 143, pending 143, 148, 452, 323, 506, 427Vishrantwadi PS, Crime No. 175/2011, IPC sec 307, pending 147, 148, 149, 323, 504Vishrantwadi PS, Crime No.71/2008, IPC sec.143, 147, pending 149, 324, 427, 435Kotharud PS, Crime No. 276/2014 IPC sec.324, 34Sahakarnagar PS Crime No. 206/2015 IPC Sec. 364(A) pending 389, 34::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::Chaturshringi PS, Crime No. 248/2009, IPC Sec.447, 506, 427, 34Vishraniwadi PS, Crime No. 3186/2010, Arms Act sec.Vishrantiwadi PS, Crime No. 175/2011, IPC sec 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504Vishrantwadi PS, Crime No.71/2008, IPC sec.143, 147, 149, 324, 427, 435Kotharud PS, Crime No. 276/2014 IPC sec.324, 34Sahakarnagar PS Crime No. 206/2015 IPC Sec. 364(A) 389, 34Deccan PS, Crime No. 92/2009 IPC Sec. 143, 147, 149, 324, 427Deccan PS, Crime No. 69/209 IPC sec.Admittedly, other accused were not concernedwith the said case / FIR.Similarly as far as other 7 crimes /FIRs referred to above in the approval order are concerned, theother accused were separately charge-sheeted or triedpatilsr 13/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19differently before the competent Courts and as such there isprima facie no indication of such offences constituting offenceof "organised crime syndicate".::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::So far as the Petitioner in WP No. 3741 of 2019 isconcerned, he is not named in any of the 8 crimes / FIRsreferred to above by the competent authority while givingapproval under section 23(1)(a).In the light of provisions ofthe MCOC Act, referred to above, it is mandatory that morethan one charge-sheet alleging the commission of the offencepunishable with imprisonment of three years or more ought tohave been there in order to apply the stringent provisions ofMCOC Act. Therefore, prima facie the approval authorityseems to have passed the impugned order without applicationof mind as to whether the offences charged were committedby various accused as members of organised crime syndicate.Learned APP and the learned counsel for theintervener heavily relied upon the crimes / FIRs against theaccused in the subject crime referred to in the proposal madeunder section 23(1)(a) of the said Act. We have perused thesame.As stated above, it contains 14 crimes / FIRs.Howeverpatilsr 14/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19when the charge-sheet was filed in the subject crime,prosecution relied only upon 13 previous crimes / FIRs referredto above.There is no reference in the present charge-sheetabout CR.No. 150 of 2009 registered with Khadak PoliceStation.Obviously, this crime is not of much relevance for thepurpose of considering the Petitioner's prayer for grant ofinterim relief.Out of remaining 13 previous crimes/ FIRs, thename of Petitioner in WP No.1670 of 2019 is shown as accusedin (i) FIR No.285 of 2008 registered with Shivaji nagar PoliceStation, (ii) FIR No. 169 of 2009 registered with VishrambaugPolice Station and (iii) FIR No.248 of 2009 registered withChaturshrungi Police Station.As stated above, only FIR No.285 of 2009 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station isreflected in the prior approval order.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::Crime / FIR no. 169 of 2009 was registered on theallegation of commission of the offence punishable undersections 342, 504, 294, 506(2) read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 and section 30 of the Arms Act. Perusal of thiscrime shows that charge sheet is filed for the offences whichare punishable with the imprisonment of less than 3 yearsexcept offence under section 506(2) of IPC and the cognizancehas been taken of those offences only.Thus, thePetitioner in WP 1670 of 2009 is shown as accused in onlythree crimes/ FIRs, and out of these 3 crimes, 2 crimes cannotbe considered for the purpose of application of MCOC Act.Thus, there is only one charge-sheet against the Petitionersince last 10 years, which can be taken into consideration forthe purpose of invoking the provisions of MCOC Act.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::So far as the Petitioner in WP No.3741 of 2019 isconcerned, as stated earlier, he is not accused in any of 8crimes / FIRs referred to above by the approving authority.However, perusal of the proposal shows that he was anaccused in only one crime / FIR bearing CR.No. 108 of 2017registered with Kotharud Police Station on the allegation ofcommission for the offences punishable under sections 324,patilsr 17/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19143, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of IPC and he has already beenacquitted in the said case.Even though this acquittal can notbe taken into consideration, the fact remains that out of 14crimes / FIRs referred to above in the proposal, the Petitionerherein was accused in only one case.Therefore, prima facie,in our opinion, the provisions of MCOC Act cannot be invokedin the present case.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::The learned counsel for the intervener reliedupon the following cases :Relying upon the above decisions, Mr. Joshi, learned2 2014(3) Bom.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::counsel for the intervener contended that the application ofmind by the sanctioning authority is a matter of trial whichrequires evidence to be led and the prosecution has to begiven sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in that regard.(b), namely, to consider their claim for bail, it can be held that for the present juncture with the available materials on record, it is not possible to show any nexus of the appellants who have been proceeded against for their involvement in Malegaon blast with the two earlier cases, namely, Parbhani and Jalna.There is considerable doubt about their involvement in Parbhani and Jalna and, therefore, they are entitled for their bail applications to be considered on merits."[emphasis supplied]7 (2015) 7 SCC 440patilsr 19/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::We are bound by these observations of the apexCourt in the light of provision of Article 141 of the Constitutionof India.These observations make it clear that if theapplication of MCOC is doubtful qua the Petitioner, then, thePetitioner is entitled to be released on bail.The overall perusal of the material against thePetitioners, in both the writ petitions even if taken at its facevalue does not disclose sufficient or tangible material whichwould, prima facie, justify the invocation of the provisions ofMCOC against the Petitioners as an organised crime syndicate.The Petitioners are languishing in jail since last more than 1year.In such circumstances, we are, prima facie, satisfied thatthe order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Polcie,Pune suffers from non application of mind as no material isproduced on record as part of the charge-sheet justifying theinvocation of provisions of MCOCA against the Petitioners.Weare satisfied that at this stage material on record is notsufficient to prima facie establish that the various offencesallegedly committed by the various accused were committedas members of the organized crime syndicate.The findingspatilsr 20/ 21 ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 ::: WP-1670 & 3741/19recorded by us are merely prima facie and tentative in natureand, in any case, they will have no bearing on the merits of thecase and trial Court is at liberty to decide the cases on thebasis of evidence adduced before it at the time of trial withoutbeing influenced by the aforesaid observations.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, we deem itappropriate and convenient to grant interim relief in terms ofprayer clause (e) of both the writ petitions.We, accordingly,direct that the Petitioners be released on bail in SpecialMCOCA Case No. 55 of 2018 arsing out of CR.No. 104 of 2018registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune on executing P. R.Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties inthe like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 02:03:05 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,842,061 |
He submitted that there was a scuffle in between the deceased at one hand and the accused persons including the appellants on the other and in that scuffle Mangesh (PW5) tried to assault Bhojraj by means of stick, which he was holding.However, the said was accidentally landed on the person of the deceased father of the said Mangesh (PW5).Ganpati Naik (PW8), in the year 1998 was discharging his duties as Police Station Officer at Police Station, Sindhi.On 16.03.1998, when he was at Wardha, he received message from Police Station, Selu that a scuffle took place at village Bondsula and the injured is admitted to Kasturba Hospital, Sewagram.He, therefore, went to the said hospital, made inquiry about the injured and proceeded to Bondsula.On the spot of the incident, Mangesh (PW5) was present.Investigating Officer Ganpati (PW8) called two pancha witnesses and inspected the spot.The incident occurred near the house of deceased Deorao and the accused.He::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 ::: 4 apeal34.05.odt found one bullock-cart was also standing on the spot.He also noticed blood stains near the bullock-cart.He found broken wooden stick on the spot and also Ubhari at the bullock-cart and the said was stained with blood.He seized Ubhari and in presence of panchas, he also noticed, at some distance, a Babool stick was lying.It was also seized.He also seized simple as well as blood stained earth from the spot.All these articles were seized by preparing seizure panchanama (Exh.-60).DATED :- 03.06.2019 ORAL JUDGMENTBy the said, the appellants stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- by each of them and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::I have heard Mr. R. M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the State.With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings.He submitted that the appellants had already undergone jail sentence::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 ::: 3 apeal34.05.odt for about five months and looking to the passage of time, the said will be sufficient.He, therefore, prays an order accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::Per contra, Mr. Doifode, learned A.P.P. straneously urged before me that the Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on behalf of the prosecution witness, especially evidence of Manda (PW4) and Mangesh (PW5).He also drew spot panchanama (Exh.61) in presence of panchas.The statement of witnesses were recorded.He arrested four accused persons under seizure panchanamas (Exh.-62 to 65).When the accused persons were in custody, appellant Shamrao made his discovery statement, leading to the discovery of weapon; stick.Memorandum statement (Exh.-66) and recovery panchanama (Exh.-67) were recorded.Clothes of the accused persons were also seized.All the seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyser (CA) by the investigating officer by giving requisition (Exh.-73) to the CA.CA reports (Exhs. 74 and 75) are available on record.After completion of the entire investigation, he filed charge-sheet before the Court below.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::He, therefore, committed the said to the Court of Sessions.Before the Sessions Court, charge was framed against the appellants and two others namely; Kisna and Bhaurao for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses and also relied upon various documents.After a full dress trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha acquitted all the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.However, the learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellant Bhojraj and Shamrao for the offence punishable under Section 304-II read with Section 34 of the IPC.Hence this appeal.Criminal law was set into motion by Maroti (PW3), son of deceased Deorao by lodging oral report (Exh.-37).The report was recorded at Police Station, Sewagram.Since the incident has occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sindhi, Police Station, Sewagram registered the offence vide offence No.00/98::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 ::: 6 apeal34.05.odt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and transferred the said for investigation to Police Station, Sindhi.At Police Station Sindhi, crime was registered as Crime No. 23/1998 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.Printed FIR (Exh.-75-A) was registered at Police Station, Sindhi.Ganpati (PW8) has conducted the entire investigation.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::Oral report (Exh.-37) dated 16.03.1998 would reveal that the first informant Maroti was informed by his sister Manda (PW4) that their father is being assaulted by all the four accused persons.Therefore, he went near the spot of the incident to notice that his father was being assaulted by accused persons by means of iron rod and Ubhari.It is stated in the FIR that acquitted accused Kisna was holding iron rod whereas appellant-Shamrao was holding Ubhari.It is also stated in the FIR that appellant Bhojraj snatched the stick from the hand of his brother, Mangesh (PW5) and started assaulting on the father.It is a trite law that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence.It could be used only for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction and examination of the said documents.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::His evidence would show that he did not utter a single word by which any Court can reach to the conclusion that he was an eye witness.His evidence would show that he reached to the spot after the incident was over and the deceased was lying in the pool of blood.In that view of the matter, version of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted as version of the eye witnesses.At the most, from his substantive evidence, it is clear that after gathering the information from his sister Manda about the assault and when he reached to the spot to notice lying of his father in pool of blood, he lodged the report.Therefore, his evidence is admissible only to the extent that he set criminal law into motion.Surendra (PW1) is a pancha witness on spot panchanama, memorandum statement of appellant Shamrao, which led to the discovery of stick from his house and arrest panchanama of the accused persons and seizure of the clothes of the accused.This prosecution witness did not support the prosecution case at all and, therefore, he was declared hostile.Even after he was cross-examined thoroughly by the learned::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 ::: 8 apeal34.05.odt A.P.P., nothing could be brought on record, by which it could be said that his evidence is anyway helpful to the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::Gunwanta Zite (PW2), an independent witness who was examined by the prosecution as one of the witnesses, also did not support the prosecution at all.Even the learned Judge of the trial Court has not considered his evidence and I see no reason to discard the finding of the learned Judge of the trial Court for not considering the evidence of this prosecution witness.Manda (PW4) and Mangesh (PW5) these two witnesses are daughter and son of the deceased Deorao.Merely because they are the daughter and son that does not earn any disqualification for considering their evidence.At the most, the Court will be at guard while appreciating their evidence.I will discuss their evidence later on after considering the medical evidence.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::Two doctors are examined in the present case.They are; Dr. Bipinchandra Tirpude (PW6) and Dr. Alok Bhati (PW7).Dr. Tirpude (PW6) has proved post mortem report (Exh.-49).It is pertinent to note here that Dr. Tirpude (PW7) did not perform post mortem of the deceased Deorao.He proved post mortem report since he was in know of the handwriting and signature of Dr. Bhati (PW7), who performed autopsy over the dead body.In that view of the matter, evidence of Dr. Bhati (PW7) would be required to be examined.Dr. Bhati (PW7) conducted post mortem on 16.03.1998 itself.He noticed following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased:"1. Lacerated wound at left angle of mouth lower lip of size 1X1 cm.Contused lacerated wound 2X2 cm deep at chin in midline of anterior surface of mandible with associated fracture of mandible.3. Abrasion in all area of 2-5 cm.at the level of nipple on anterior chest wall.1 cm outer to right border of sternum.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::Contusion, linear in shape 3 X 1 cm present on the tip of right shoulder.Nazal septum fracture in association with efusion of blood.Fracture of mandible n the centre at the lower border associated with efusion of blood.Rib number two and three were found fracture 1 cm away from left border of sternum.Right side rib number 3 fractured two cm right border of sternum."When he opened the dead body, he noticed following injuries:"a) Diffused effusion of clotted blood under the scalp in a area of 12 X 12 cm.left side.b) Defused effusion of clotted blood within muscular layers and under the scalp on area 5 X 4 cm.on right temporal muscles.c) Deffused effusion of blood in left occipital part in an area of 5 X 7 cm.d) Skull vault revealed linear crack fracture measuring 27 cm from left to right at the level of cronal suture.e) Linear crack fractured of 7 cm.length on right side at middle of right temporal bone starting 8 cm.away from mid line of right side.f) Two linear crack fracture found at the base of skull.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::Important to note while considering evidence of Dr.Bhati (PW7) that while performing the post mortem he did not notice any external injury on the head or skull.On the contrary, he admitted in his cross-examination that there was no corresponding external injury on head region in respect of the internal injury seen on that region.He also admitted that ante mortem injuries do not disappear suddenly and at last till decomposition.In the present case, the incident occurred on 16.03.1998 and post mortem was performed on the very same day.Further, there was no decomposition.In such eventuality, non observing the external injuries on the head which corresponds the internal injury, assumes importance.This will have to be examined in the light of the medical evidence of Dr. Bhati that the injuries can be caused if a person under intoxication falls on stone or any other hard and blunt object.In the present case, while performing post mortem, Dr. Bhati preserved viscera and it was sent for chemical analysis.CA report (Exh.-83) is in respect of the same, which clearly shows that alcohol was found in the viscera.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::12 apeal34.05.odt Thus, at the time of incident, there is no doubt that the deceased was under intoxication.According to the prosecution case, motive to assault the deceased was that appellants were nourishing a grudge in their minds that the deceased is involved in black magic.Even as per the evidence of Manda (PW4) and Mangesh (PW5), they noticed hot exchange of words and scuffle in between the deceased and the appellants.Though Manda claims that deceased was assaulted on the head, face and chest by these two appellants by means of weapons in their hands, her evidence is belied by the medical evidence inasmuch as no external injury was found on the head, which according to Dr. Bhati, would have appeared if the blow is given with force.Further, all the muddemal properties were sent to CA under CA requisition (Exh.-73) and the CA report (Exh.-74) is also on record.The weapons those were sent, were not having any blood stains nor the clothes of the appellants were having any blood stains.Looking to the evidence of Manda (PW4) and Mangesh (PW5), I accept it to the extent that the deceased was assaulted by::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 ::: 13 apeal34.05.odt these two appellants on the face and chest.Those injuries were not found to be grievous.Therefore, I find some force in the alternate submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::Once the use of Ubhari and stick by the appellants is proved then in my view, the appellants will have to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and not under Section 304-II, as convicted by the Court below inasmuch as the appellants cannot be the author for the internal injuries suffered by the deceased.The appellants were arrested on 16.03.1998 under arrest panchanama (Exh.-65).They were released by order of this Court in Criminal Application No.1237/1998 on 18.08.1998 and Roznama would show that they furnished bail bonds before the trial Court on 19.08.1998 thus for good five months, the appellants were in jail.Looking to the fact that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and the incident has occurred in the year 1998, in my view, some leniency can be shown to them.Hence, I pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::(i) The criminal appeal is partly allowed.(ii) Judgment and order of conviction dated 14.01.2005, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.60/1998, convicting the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 304-II read with Section 34 of the IPC is hereby upset and set aside.Instead, the appellants are convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and their sentence shall be the jail sentence, which they have already undergone.(iii) Bail bonds of appellants stand cancelled.JUDGE kahale::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 01:28:59 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,926,694 |
Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.The applicant is in jail in connection with Crime No.203/2019 registered at Police Station Kirnapur, District Balaghat for offences punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 506 of the IPC.The case of the prosecution against the applicant is that the applicant got entered into the house of the prosecutrix, when she was alone at her home.He committed forcibly rape upon the prosecutrix and threatened her if she narrates the story to anyone, he will kill her.On that basis, FIR has been registered against the applicant under aforementioned Sections.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this matter and the prosecutrix is a major lady.It is further submitted that FIR has been lodged after a delay 107 days of the incidence.The applicant is in judicial custody since 25.08.2019 and conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, opposed the application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case dairy.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that trial would take a considerable time for its final disposal, in the opinion of this Court and without commenting on merits of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 36814/2019 (Devlal Vs.The State of M.P.) 2 Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant Devlal, stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.09.26 10:24:37 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
128,996,875 |
30 09.09.2014 AB Court No.34 C.R.M. 11127 of 2014 Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25th August, 2014 in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 338 of 2013 dated 11.08.2013 under Sections 450/326A/307 of the Indian Penal Code In re : Jiten Burman ... Petitioner.Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, Mr. Sujan Chatterjee ... for the Petitioner.Ms. Rita Dutta ... for the State.Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the State.We have again applied our mind and we have gone through the Case Diary and we do not find any reason to review the said order of rejection.REJECTED The prayer for bail stands rejected.(Tapen Sen, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,931,089 |
Shri Prabal Solanki, Advocate for resopndent no.2/complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This appeal has been preferred under section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") against the order dated 15/1/18 passed by Special Judge (under the Act), Morena, whereby appellant's application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he tried to outrage the modesty of the rprosecutrix, a member of secheduled caste.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and)
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
59,320,688 |
Ms. Nutun Saxena, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.5- State.By this petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 20th December, 2004 passed by learned trial Court in S.T. No. 30/2000, acquitting the accused persons from the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons from the offence, since there was ample evidence available on record vide medical evidence of Dr. P.K. Jain, (PW-2), who has categorically noted the injuries which received by Sumer Singh, Veer Singh and Sher Singh.2 Criminal Revision No. 215/2005Counsel for the petitioner candidly submitted that there was a cross case filed by the accused persons of the present case and also insisted that the complainant party have been acquitted from the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC whereas more grievous injuries caused by the complainant party, which has been completely discarded by the trial Court.Counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order of acquittal be set aside and the matter be remanded back for fresh trial.Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4, on the other hand, fully supported the judgment of acquittal and stated that there was enmity between both parties which was evident in view of the cross case registered by the accused persons.Moreover, counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that none of the injuries caused by the present complainant party were grievous in nature.According to Dr. P.K. Jain (PW-2), injuries were simple in nature.There were material contradictions and omissions in the statement of star witness of the prosecution.The trial court has discarded the evidence of petitioner-Sumer Singh and another, namely, Veer Singh since omissions were obvious.3 Criminal Revision No. 215/2005Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 stated that the present revision petition is without merits and the same be dismissed as such.There was concurrent finding against the petitioner.
|
['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.
|
59,321,273 |
The case of the prosecution as it is unfolded in the chargesheet is as under:-"On 06.09.1985 Duty Constable Sultan Singh informed the police that Shri Trilok Chand s/o Shri Santram had been admitted in the hospital in an injured condition by Mr. Ashoki, son of Shri Risal Singh.One Rajju was running a rationing shop and was his friend.About two weeks earlier Rajju had CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 2 of 34 taken 1330/- Rs. From him, promising him to return them in 10 days.On that day he had gone to Satyam cinema to watch a show, at about 11:40 p.m raju and his friend who runs motor mechanical shop, tilak resident of Dev Nagar, Anil resident of Bapa Nagar, and Survjeet resident of Government quarters met him at the cinema.He asked Raju to return his money but raju asked him to come to Dev Nagar and them he would return his money.On that day at 07:30 p.m he after leaving his house was present at Rajram Kharoodewala at P.L.Road, a three wheeler scooter in which a boy aged 19/20 years was sitting and he told him that his friends are calling.On this he sat in the scooter and he was brought to subzi wala chownk Dev Nagar.At around 07:40, Raju with all his friends asked him that now tell what do you wasn't, and in the meantime the auto left.He had advanced a sum of Rs.1,300/- to his friend Harbhajan Singh @ Raju (deceased) who was running a ration shop possibly in the same vicinity.Raju had promised to return the said money to the deceased within a period of 10 days.Having not returned the said money, Raju met the deceased at about 11.40 a.m. on 06.09.1985 along with his other friends at Satyam Cinema where the deceased had gone to watch a movie.The deceased demanded money from Raju and Raju asked him to come to Dev Nagar and then he would return his money.The deceased reached to Subzi Wala Chowk near Dev Nagar where instead of returning the money to him, he was inflicted with 16/17 injuries on various parts of his body by all the accused persons.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.By this common order we propose to decide three appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C") preferred by Anil Kumar, Saravjeet Singh and Tilak Raj, respectively, challenging the judgment and order on sentence dated 07.10.1998 and 09.10.1998, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi has convicted them under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.On this information DD.No. 30-A at P.P Prasad Nagar was recorded and copy of it was handed over to ASI Balbir Singh.Who went to hospital and obtained the MLC of the injured.Since doctor declared him fit for statement ASI Balbir Singh recorded his statement wherein he stated that he was residing at 1250, P.R Road, Delhi and was doing the work of tailoring.All the accused persons started inflicting injuries on the deceased when he asked them to return money.When he cried and raised alarm, Mr. Ashoki brother in law of his elder brother came and removed him to Willington Hospital, in an auto rickshaw.All the accused person were known to deceased".CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 2 of 34To bring home the charges, the prosecution in all examined 25 witnesses.In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded that they were falsely implicated in the case.In defence, the accused persons had examined 3 witnesses.On behalf of Tilak Raj- appellant in CRL.A. 549/1998 and Saravjeet Singh- appellant in Crl.A.481/1998 arguments were addressed by Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate duly assisted by Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate and on behalf of Anil Kumar-appellant in Crl.A. 456/1998, the arguments were addressed by Mr.Vikrant Sarin, Advocate.The State was represented CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 3 of 34 by Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.Written submissions were also filed by the counsel for the appellants.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 3 of 34The contentions raised by both the counsel for the appellants were not much in variance except that in the case of appellant- Anil Kumar, one of the arguments raised by the counsel was that there was no recovery of any incriminating article from him during the disclosure statement.The main attack of both the counsel for the appellants, otherwise, was on the authenticity, genuineness and truthfulness of the dying declaration made by the deceased to ASI Balbir Singh- PW-18, who rushed to the Ram Monohar Lohia hospital (hereinafter referred to as "RML") after information was received at Police Station- Karol Bagh vide DD No.38 dated 06.09.1985 regarding the admission of an injured person- Trilok Chand.Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that it was quite surprising that the victim in his dying declaration gave the number of injuries which were inflicted on his person, as if, before his dying declaration he could count them.Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that after having suffered so many injuries the victim could not have been in a fit state of mind to make his dying declaration.Impugning, the said dying declaration, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that ASI-Balbir Singh had recorded the statement of the injured himself without taking any step to call CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 4 of 34 the area SDM for recording his statement.Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the said statement was recorded by IO in Urdu language and nowhere was it proved on record by the prosecution that deceased Trilok Chand knew Urdu language or that the said statement was read over to him in the language known to him.Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the fitness certificate given by Dr. Padmalaya Devi before the dying declaration does not bear any time and even Dr. Padmalaya Devi was not examined by the prosecution in the evidence.Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that there was an apparent improbability in the recording of dying declaration by ASI-Balbir Singh, as the police had received information about the incident vide DD No.38 at 8.45 p.m. on 06.09.1985 and the rukka reached the Police Station at about 10.25 p.m. and within such a short span of 1 hour 40 minutes the ASI reached at the hospital; got the fitness certificate of the doctor; recorded the dying declaration of the victim and thereafter returned back to the Police Station at 10.25 p.m. Learned CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 5 of 34 counsel for the appellants also submitted that there is a distance of at least 6 km. between the hospital and the Police Station and therefore, it was impossible for ASI-Balbir Singh, to record the dying declaration, within such a short time, after the travel time to and fro is counted.Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that after the admission in the RML hospital on 06.09.1985, the victim had died on 15.11.1985 after a gap of two months and nine days and therefore, the statement made by the deceased cannot be termed as a dying declaration.Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate as to how the police had zeroed in the appellant- Anil Kumar as in the rukka no parentage or address of accused Anil Kumar was mentioned and accused Anil Kumar was falsely implicated by the police only because of some previous disputes between the family of Anil Kumar and the family of the deceased and the deceased was even being tried under Section 307 IPC for stabbing the brother of accused Anil Kumar.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellants was that had the said Anil Kumar been the accused, the deceased could have named him after giving a clear reference of his family litigation with him.Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW4- Gyan Chand as his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after the death of the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the statement of PW4- Gyan Chand was recorded belatedly by the prosecution to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case.Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that presence of PW4- Gyan Chand in the hospital was not disclosed by the deceased in his dying declaration.Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the theory of motive as propounded by the prosecution also has no basis as nobody would kill a person for a paltry amount of Rs.1300/-.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 4 of 34CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 5 of 34CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 6 of 34Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the death of the deceased was not on account of the injuries received by him but due to medical negligence of the attending doctors who were treating the deceased.Inviting attention of this Court to the deposition of PW1-Dr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW-1 in his testimony stated that if the pus is drained regularly then there will be no deposit of pus in large quantity in abdominal cavity and there was 400 ml of pus in the abdominal cavity of the deceased which as per PW-1, Dr. Bharat Singh, was of definitely a large amount.Learned counsel for the appellants thus CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 7 of 34 submitted that it was the infection of the peritoneum which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased and not because of the injuries suffered by him in the incident.Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellants urged for acquittal of the appellants.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 7 of 34Refuting the said submissions, Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State, vehemently contended that the dying declaration recorded by the IO is free from any suspicion or doubt and the same was recorded by the ASI-Balbir Singh after Dr. Padmalaya Devi had declared the deceased fit for statement.Learned APP for the State submitted that there was no one present at the time of recording of the dying declaration except the doctor and the deceased had clearly named all the accused persons with the name of the localities where they were residing and also the motive which led the accused persons to inflict such serious injuries on the body of the deceased.Learned APP for the State also argued that instead of appreciating the promptness of the police in reaching the hospital and recording the dying declaration of the deceased, learned counsel for the appellants made a vain attempt to discredit the efficiency of the police in taking a prompt action CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 8 of 34 after DD No.38 was recorded at Police Station Karol Bagh at 8.45 p.m. Learned APP for the State also argued that the testimony of PW18- ASI Balbir Singh remained unrebutted and unchallenged as the defense in her cross-examination never challenged the fitness of the victim.The defense neither put any question to PW18 as to whether he had recorded the correct statement of the victim in Urdu language or not and nor as to why he did not requisition the service of area Magistrate in recording the dying declaration of the deceased.The contention raised by the learned APP for the State was that without there being any challenge to the deposition of PW18-ASI, Balbir Singh, the appellants cannot build up a new defence at the stage of appeal.Learned APP for the State further argued that before the dying declaration was recorded by ASI Balbir Singh, the doctor of the hospital had given a fitness certificate, an endorsement to this effect is duly recorded on the dying declaration itself.Learned APP for the State further submitted that the said endorsement of Dr. Padmalaya Devi was duly proved on record by PW-23, record clerk of Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital and this witness was also not cross-examined by the defense and his testimony also remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.Learned APP for the State also submitted that Dr. Padmalaya Devi was no more in service during the relevant period, and therefore, she could not be summoned to give her evidence.Learned CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 9 of 34 APP for the State also argued that there is no reason to doubt the impartiality and independence of the police official who had recorded the dying declaration especially in the absence of any material placed on record by the defence to attribute any motive on his part.Learned APP for the State also argued that there was a clear motive on the part of all the accused persons to kill the deceased, as he was insisting for repayment of Rs.1300/- which was lent by him to Accused - Raju, to be returned within a period of 10 days and this demand was raised by the deceased when he had gone to see a movie at Satyam Cinema and was called by Accused - Raju and ultimately was given serious stab wounds by all the accused persons instead of returning back his money.Learned APP for the State also argued that the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5, fully corroborate the dying declaration made by the deceased and even the testimony of PW-6 also fully support the prosecution case on material facts although he turned hostile.Learned APP for the State also argued that clothes of accused, namely, Saravjeet and Tilak Raj were also recovered during their disclosure statement and as per the FSL report, the blood group found on their clothes fully match the blood group of the deceased.Based on these submissions, learned APP for the State submitted that the defence has not been able to create any shadow of doubt or dent on the prosecution case and the testimonies of the material CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 10 of 34 witnesses remained unscratched and unchallenged and there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the dying declaration made by the deceased after he was declared fit by the attending doctor - Dr. Padmalaya Devi.Learned APP for the State submits that the present appeal is devoid of any merit; the same may be dismissed.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 8 of 34CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 9 of 34CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 10 of 34We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and gave our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them.We have also carefully gone through the records of the Trial Court.In the present case, the deceased, Tirlok Chand, was a tailor by profession.The deceased was removed to Willington hospital by one CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 11 of 34 Mr. Ashoki- PW-3, the brother-in-law of his elder brother and the accused persons ran away after committing the said crime.The deceased had succumbed to his injuries on 15.11.1985 after having remained admitted in the hospital for a period of two months nine days.The deceased could not get back the sum of Rs. 1,300/- and also lost his life at the barbaric and brutal hands of the accused persons.The case in hand shows, how cheap a human life has become.For a paltry amount of Rs.1300/-, a man can kill another man.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 11 of 34The duty constable Sultan Singh- PW-9, who was posted at the hospital, informed about the said incident which was recorded by the police post vide DD No.20-A, and handed over to ASI Balbir Singh and with the said DD, ASI Balbir Singh rushed to the hospital.ASI Balbir Singh had obtained MLC of the injured and he had also recorded the statement of the injured after the injured was declared fit for statement by the doctor.All the accused were named by the victim in his statement including the localities where they were residing.The deceased in his statement also very clearly stated that all the five accused persons brought out knives and started inflicting injuries on his stomach, buttock, arm, thighs and his entire body.He also stated that atleast he was attacked 16/17 times while he was crying and shouting save me save me and at that very time Mr. Ashoki, the CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 12 of 34 brother-in-law of his elder brother, reached there and took him to the Willington hospital after putting him in an Auto Rickshaw.He also stated that he very well knew all the assailants who had conspired to kill him and therefore had attacked him 16/17 times and thereafter all of them ran away.FIR under Section 307/34 IPC was registered by the police based on the said first statement made by the victim Tirlok Chand.Injured, Tirlok Chand remained in the hospital from 06.09.1985 to 15.11.1985 when finally he died in the same hospital.The inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted and dead body of the victim was sent for post mortem to civil hospital Subzi Mandi.As per the post mortem report, the death of Tirlok Chand took place due to shock and peritonitis following injury in abdomen.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 12 of 34As already stated above, the principal challenge by both counsel for the appellants concerns the dying declaration.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 15 of 34Victim Trilok Chand had received 17 injuries on his body as per MLC proved on record as Ex. PW-12/DA, and as per post mortem report proved on record as Ex.PW-1/A , the death of the victim was due to shock and peritonitis following injury to abdomen.The exact nature of injuries as recorded in the MLC are reproduced as under:-Multiple incise wound over (i) 1" x " right iliac CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 26 of 34 fossa " above the mid inginial point.4. 1 " x " over medial aspect of right upper fore-arm 1" below the elbow crease.5. 2" x 1" over medial aspect of right mid fore-6. 1" x " over lateral side of extensor surface of left fore-arm 2" below the left elbow right.7. " x 1/4 " over lateral surface of left upper arm.8. 2 " x " over postero lateral aspect of left lower thigh 2" above the knee joint.9. 1" x " over pesto lateral aspect of left upper thigh.12. 1" x 1/4" over postero medial aspect of the lower thigh 4" above the knee joint.13. 1" x 1/4" over lateral aspect of right upper leg 3" below the tip of right fibular.14. 1" x 1/2" over right gluteal region 1/2" below the mid right ileac crest.15. 1 1/2" x 1/2" over mid left guleral region.16. 1" x " over left para vertebral region 1/2"CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 27 of 34lateral to the mid vertebral line.17. 2" x 1/2" over left infra scapular region 1/2"below the apex of left scapular 2" lateral to mid vertebral line.The nature of injuries was sharp."The aforesaid MLC was proved on record as Ex. PW-8/A in the evidence of PW-8 Dr. K.K. Pandey.Immediately after the incident, the victim was admitted in RML hospital where he remained under treatment for a period of two months and nine days and finally he succumbed to his injuries.PW-1 Dr. Bharat Singh had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Trilok Chand, and in his post mortem he found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:Tracheostomy wound on the neck with mild infection over the wound;2. Cut open wound on the right upper arm outer upper part;3. Healed wound scar on right upper arm, front upper part 1/2" long, white in colour;Healed wound scar on the right fore-arm front upper third 1/2" long, white in colour;Healed would scar on the left fore-arm upper outer side " long, white base;Healed wound scar on the left upper arm front part in the upper third obliquely placed size 1" long, white in colour;CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 28 of 34Healed wound scar on the right fore-arm mid front part place horizontally, size 3/4" long with white base'Healed wound scar on the right side epigastic area, size 1/4" long obliquely placed, linear in shape, white base;Infected gaping wound on the right paramedian line placed vertically size 5" x 1.1/4" x abdominal cavity deep with pus deposit on the surface;Healed wound scar on left paramedian line placed vertically, size 7" long with suture markings on either side;Drainage tube wound on right iliac fossa (still healing);Healed wound scar on the right thigh front mid area size 1 1/4" long placed horizontally linear in shape;Healed wound scar on the right leg mid outer part placed horizontally size 11/4" long;Healing cut open wound on the right ankle'Healed wound scar on the left thigh lower outer part size 11/4" x 1/4" white in colour;16. 11/4" x 1/4" white in colour on the left thigh upper outer part size 1" x 1/4" white in colour;Bed sore on the sacral area size 4" x 3" x muscle deep;Healed would scar liner in shape on the left lumber area size 1" x 1/10" white in colour;Healed wound scare on the left scapula inferior angle size 1/2" x 1/10' liner in shape;CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 29 of 34Healed wound scare on the left buttock upper outer part size 1" x 2/10" white in colour."On the internal examination of the body of the deceased, the post mortem doctor gave following report:"INTERNAL EXAMINATION:Scalp was pale.Skull bones were normal.Brain was pale.Left tissues are inflamed.Both lungs were pale and partially collapsed.Heard was normal.Abdominal cavity contained about 400 ml of greenish pus which was foul smelling.Omentum was adherent.There was sutured wound on small bowels in a circular manner (operational).Loops of the bowel were adherent to each other.Stomach contained two ounce of bile.Mucous membrane was pale.Liver spleen, kidneys, adrenals and pancreas were normal.Rectum was empty.All injuries were old.Original stab injuries as mentioned in MLC had healed.Infected injury No.9 was operational wound which is infected."As to the cause of the death the post mortem doctor opined that the death was due to shock and peritonitis, following injuries to abdomen.He further deposed that all other wounds were healed, while injury No. 11 was in the process of healing and the same was also operational wound.As would be seen from the above MLC report, the deceased had CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 30 of 34 received multiple incise wounds 17 in number on various portions of his body.Out of 17 injuries, 5 injuries were inflicted on the right and left arm of the deceased, 5 injuries were inflicted on his left lower and upper thighs, injury No.1 was inflicted on the right iliac fossa 1/2" above the mid inginial point and Omentum was coming out of the wound, while injury No.2 was inflicted on the right epigastic region 1" lateral to mid line and 1" below the right costal margin.Further majority of the injuries were also inflicted on non-vital parts of the body of the deceased.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 30 of 34Now dealing with the contention raised by the appellant that the death of the deceased was not on account of injuries received by him but due to the negligence of the attending doctors treating the deceased.Here it will be important to quote the Explanation 2 to section 299, which is as follows:"Explanation 2.--Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented."As per the above factual matrix, it is amply clear that the death of the deceased was caused due to these wounds only, although it was not immediately caused.The wounds inflicted upon the deceased by the accused persons were causa sine quo non for the death of the deceased and the medical negligence was causa causans.In the light of the above facts and circumstances we do not find any merit in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the death of the deceased was not on account of injuries received by him but due to the negligence of the attending doctors treating the deceased.In the view of the above, we are of the considered view that the offence of the appellants would not fall under Section 302 IPC and the same CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 33 of 34 can be altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC.Consequently, we hold the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC.CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 33 of 34A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court for compliance.The present appeals filed by the appellants are partly allowed.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
|
59,324,450 |
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Criminal Case No. 11250/2015 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior for offences under Section 354-G, 294, 323, 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the allegations made against the applicant/accused are totally false and concocted as the applicant/accused lodged a report on 26.05.2015 against the respondent No.2 and two others namely Ashish Bamle and Ashutosh Jha on the basis of which an FIR bearing Crime No. 339/2015 was registered at P.S. Bahodapur for offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC before that another written report was submitted by the applicant/accused on 21.05.2014 against the respondent No.2 at P.S. Bahodapur also because of that the respondent No.2/complainant filed a criminal complaint against the applicant/accused before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior whereby a cognizance was taken MCRC No. 2851/2016 2 against him for the offences as stated earlier, no report was lodged by him at the concerned police station pertaining to the allegations made in the complaint.Moreover, if the report was not lodged by the police station concerned a written report could have been sent to the superior officer i.e. Superintendent of Police, Gwalior but it was not done so.On the contrary, the criminal complaint was filed after near about one and half months.The alleged offences are not punishable with imprisonment for more than 07 years and there is no kind of recovery to be made from the applicant/accused in this case, hence, the applicant/accused be granted bail.Learned PL and learned counsel for the complainant opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused have prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail as cognizance for an offence under Section 3 (1) (10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken by the trial court.In the said offence anticipatory bail is prohibited, therefore the applicant be rejected.Heard the arguments of both the parties.On perusal of the contents of the complaint, it appears that vague allegations have been made against the applicant/accused, no specific date for the happening of the alleged incident has been mentioned in it.Moreover, in para 3 of the complaint the date of incident is mentioned 26.05.2015 whereas the complaint was filed after near about one and half months.No report was lodged by the respondent at the concerned police station.Considering the submissions made on behalf of the MCRC No. 2851/2016 3 applicant/accused and the documents produced by him, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant accused.Therefore, the application is allowed.It is ordered that the applicant/accused shall appear before the trial court within 15 days from today, failing which this order shall have no effect and if he furnishes surety bond and personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) for his regular appearance before the court, he be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
59,330,493 |
L.P. No. 297/2016 who are also respondent No. 2 and Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 2 of 22 3 in Crl.The respondent Ravi has also been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 2 of 22The case of the prosecution, as set up and noticed by the learned Trial Court reads as under:As per case of prosecution, on 24.12.10 at about 9:40 PM, HC Brij Raj Singh, duty officer (PW31) received information from control room, which was regarding shouting of a person in the Aali Gaon, jungle Area of U.P. Government Irrigation Department, behind Metro Workshop.The said information was recorded vide DD No.38A. The said DD was handed over to SI Satish Chander Singh for necessary action, who left for the spot with HC Kartar.SI Parvesh Kasana, SI Virender Pakhre, HC Samay Singh, Ct.Kamal and Ct.Satish were also asked to go to the spot.PW31 HC Brij Raj Singh informed about the aforesaid information i.e. DD No.38A to Inspector K.L. Yadav (PW28), the then SHO of Police Station Sarita Vihar.On receipt of the said information, PW28 Inspector K.L. Yadav reached at the spot, where he was informed that one Bhim Singh Nagar was shot and his son and servant had taken him to Apollo Hospital.He found at the spot two shoes, one loi (woolen shawl), one empty cartridge of 315 bore.He also found one magazine of a pistol and a barrel of a country made katta.In the barrel of katta, one cartridge was stuck in.Two more empty cartridges of pistol, two pieces of led of bullet, one screw driver and one motorcycle make Hero Honda Red Colour bearing No.DL9SX4103 was also found lying at the spot.The blood stains were also noticed at the spot.Pubic witness Pradeep Mishra met at the spot whose statement Ex. PW5/A was recorded by SI Virender Pakhre (PW25).SI Virender Pakhre alongwith Ct.Satish went to Apollo Hospital and collected MLC of Bhim Singh Nagar, who was reported as brought dead.PW25 Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 3 of 22 SI Virender Pakhre made endorsement Ex. PW25/A on the statement of Pradeep Mishra Ex. PW5/A and gave the same to Ct.Satish for registration of FIR.Satish went to the Police Station, got the FIR registered in the case and thereafter, came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and asal tehrir to Inspector K.L. Yadav, IO as further investigation was handed over to him.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 3 of 22Inspector K.L. Yadav (PW28) prepared site plan Ex. PW28/A at the instance of Pradeep Mishra (PW5).He prepared sketches of cartridges and magazine Ex. PW25/D, sketch of barrel Ex. PW25/B and sketch of screw driver Ex. PW25/C. He also seized various incriminating articles/material found at the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/I to Ex. PW25/K respectively.Crime Team was called and spot of occurrence was inspected by them.The photographer took photographs of the scene of crime.Matter was investigated as per law.Accused Kamlesh did not run away from her residence after commission of offence in the case.She was not Crl.At the outset, we deem it appropriate to discuss the relevant testimonies including the testimonies of PW5 Pradeep Mishra who was the complainant in the instant case.PW5 Pradeep Mishra testified in his examination-in-chief that the deceased was the uncle of PW5 and he was working as a caretaker of the buffaloes and the agricultural land belonging to the deceased.On 24.12.2010 at about 9:15 PM, he alongwith the deceased were going towards his house, on a motorcycle bearing No. DL-9SX-4103 via Aali Vihar, Peer Baba and PAC Camp.PW5 deposed that when they reached the agricultural field and had covered half the way, he noticed that four persons came on two motorcycles from behind.The first motorcycle hit their motorcycle on the back and the second motorcycle stopped in front of them blocking their way.As a result of the impact of the hit, he lost his balance and they fell alongwith the motorcycle.The deceased Bhim Singh Nagar got up and while getting up, PW5 saw that accused persons Ravinder (facing trial) and Lokesh (declared as 'PO') were on a motorcycle which was behind them and had hit their motorcycle.The other motorcycle, which was stopped in front of their motorcycle, was driven by the respondent Ravi and one more boy who could be identified if shown to him.PW5 could not tell the name of the boy, who had shot at him but as per his deposition, the gun did not fire.Thereafter, he ran and saw that the deceased was running behind him, who was chased by accused Lokesh, Ravinder Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 9 of 22 and the respondent Ravi alongwith the fourth boy.It was further deposed by PW5 that the respondent Ravi was continuously firing at the deceased.The respondent Ravi was correctly identified by PW5 in the Court as the person who had fired at the deceased.It was further deposed by PW5 that he immediately called Rajesh (PW10/son of the deceased) on his mobile phone and informed him about the incident.PW5 also informed Chhotu (PW11/servant of the deceased) about the same.PW5 also told Rajesh the names of the assailants, who were involved in the attack on the deceased.After firing at the deceased, all the four assailants ran towards PAC Camp.In the meantime, Rajesh (PW10) and Chhotu (PW11) also reached the spot.He further deposed that the deceased was lying in an injured condition and was chat pata raha tha.Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital by Rajesh and Chhotu while he remained at the spot.PW5 deposed that he had pointed out the place of incident to the police on the first day itself.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 9 of 22In his cross-examination, PW5 admitted that the incident took place during the winter season i.e. on 24.12.10 at about 9:15 PM and it was cold on that day.He further admitted that on the fateful night, it was dark and there was fog also.PW5 admitted that he had narrated the entire sequence of the events to the police at the first opportunity.PW5 further admitted that it was correct that there was no occasion to raise any alarm.The site plan Ex.PW5 admitted that he had duly informed Rajesh and Chhotu from his mobile phone immediately after the incident and the incident was also narrated to 1-2 persons/shopkeepers of the area.PW5 claimed to have seen the occurrence from behind the wall.Thereafter, PW5 ran towards the residential area shouting as shooting incident had taken place.PW5 admitted that he had stated in his examination- in-chief that the respondent Ravi was continuously firing at the deceased.PW5 further stated that he heard about 6-7 gun-shots in total.It was admitted by PW5 in his cross-examination that Investigating Officer had read over the statement to him and it was the same statement which he had made before the Investigating Officer and only after hearing the same; he signed it.He admitted that in his statement Ex.PW5/A, the name of the respondent Ravi was not mentioned.PW5 further admitted that he was on talking terms with the respondent Ravi.chief that on 24.12.10 at about 9.20 to 9.21, after receipt of call from his servant Pradeep Mishra (PW5) on his mobile phone regarding his father being surrounded by bad elements in the fields.He took his Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 11 of 22 motorcycle and reached fields via PAC Camp, where his father was lying in an injured condition.PW10 further deposed that he picked his father on his lap when their servant Chhotu (PW11) also reached the spot.It was further stated by PW10 that his father told him that he was beaten and injured by the accused persons Ravi, Lokesh, Ravinder and another boy.PW10 further deposed that he alongwith Chhotu took his injured father to the hospital, where he was declared as brought dead.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 11 of 22The next material witness who claimed that he had seen the accused persons before and after the incident is PW11 Moharram Ali @ Chhotu who testified in his examination-in-chief that for the last 23 years, he had been working as Munshi for the deceased.On 24.12.2010 at about 8.25 P.M., he left the office of the deceased for his house.When PW11 reached at a distance of 150 meters away from the office, he saw accused persons Kamlesh, Ravi, Lokesh, Ravinder, Devender @ Tape and one more boy aged about 20-21 years old present alongside the wall and heard respondent Kamlesh saying as aaj Bhim Singh ka ant ho jana chahiye.On reaching home at about 8.35 PM, PW11 made a call to the deceased on his mobile phone but he did not pick up his call.PW11 made repeated calls to him but it was not picked.Thereafter, PW11 tried to contact Rajesh (PW10) but his phone was not reachable.At about 9.25 PM, PW11 received a call from Pradeep (PW5) and asked him to reach in the field near Peer Baba Mazar, PAC Camp as the accused persons Ravi, Lokesh, Ravinder and one more boy attacked upon the deceased.PW11 rushed immediately to the spot and saw at the Ali Vihar two motorcycles were coming from the side of the field.Besides the above public witnesses, PW31 HC Brij Singh was posted as duty officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00 mid night on the day of occurrence at PS Sarita Vihar.PW31 deposed that on 24.12.2010 at about 9.40 pm, he received information regarding shooting of a person in the Aali Gaon jungle area, near Metro workshop.He recorded the said information vide DD No. 38/A. At about 10.15 pm, PW31 received another information from control room regarding admission of the deceased Bhim Singh Nagar in Apollo hospital.Medical Evidence:PW21 Dr. Apoorva Sharma, Emergency Medical Officer, Indraprashtha Apollo Hospital deposed that on 24.12.2010 at about 9.45 PM, he was on duty alongwith Dr. Ashwini in the above- mentioned hospital.Two wounds on the left forearm.One wound on left clavicle region.Three punctured wounds at left side of back and chest region.One punctured wound at epigastric region.Multiple lacerated wound at back of head alongwith one punctured wound."M.A. 8084/2016(delay) in Crl.By this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 35 days delay in filing the leave to appeal.The application stands disposed of.M.A. 8691/2016(delay) in Crl.By this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 09 days delay in filing the leave to appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.The application stands disposed of.L.P. 267/2016 CRL.L.P. No. 267/2016 has been filed by the complainant (son of the deceased) under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), while Crl.L.P. No. 297/2016 has been filed by the State under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.Challenge in both the leave to appeals is to the judgment dated 03.02.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 47/14 arising out of the FIR No. 351/2010, registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar, by which respondent No.1 Ravi and respondent No. 2 Kamlesh in Crl.L.P. No. 267/2016 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').On conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer filed challan in the court.Accused Rahul @ Pradhan was found to be juvenile, therefore, he was produced before Juvenile Justice Board for trial in accordance with law.Accused Lokesh, Ravinder and Devender @ Tape are proclaimed offenders (P.O.) in the case.On production of accused Ravi and Kamlesh, they were supplied copy of charge sheet and complete set of documents and thus, compliance of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short "Cr.P.C." ) was made."12. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 302/120-B of IPC was framed against both the respondents.A separate charge under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act was framed against the respondent Ravi.The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 43 witnesses in all.The statement of the respondents was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C whereby they denied all the incriminating circumstances Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 4 of 22 against them and claimed to be falsely implicated in the present case.No witness was examined by the respondents in their defence.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 4 of 22Mr. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Rajesh submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the case of the prosecution is based on the statement of an eye witness as well as on circumstantial evidence.Counsel contends that the chain of circumstances was so complete that the only inference indicating the guilt of the respondents would be established.Counsel contends that the evidence of PW5 Pradeep Mishra is truthful and reliable.Based on the statement of PW5, it stands duly established that on 24.12.2010 the deceased died because of gunshot injuries at a place near U.P. Government Irrigation Department, behind Metro Workshop, jungle area of Village Aali.Counsel submits that there is no reason that the complainant PW5 Pradeep Mishra would falsely implicate the respondents and allow the real culprits to go scot free, a factor that has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.Counsel for the petitioner also contends that PW10 Rajesh (son of the deceased) and PW11 Moharram Ali reached at the spot immediately on receipt of information.The deceased was taken to Apollo Hospital by PW10 Rajesh (son of the deceased) and PW11 Moharram Ali.Counsel submits that the deceased had made a dying declaration to his son (PW10 Rajesh) and there is no cogent reason as to why the testimony of PW10 should be disbelieved, especially when the presence of PW10 stands duly established and corroborated by the testimonies of PW11 Moharram Ali and PW20 Hanok Nathaniel.It is further contended that the deceased was taken to the Hospital at 9:45 Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 5 of 22 P.M. which would show that at the time when the dying declaration was made, the deceased was alive and he was in a position to give the names of the assailants to his son.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 5 of 22Mr. Mohan submits that the weapon of offence i.e. pistol was recovered at the instance of the respondent Ravi.Counsel further submits that the evidence of PW42 Ballistic Expert V.R. Anand would show that the empty cartridges which were found at the spot matched with the pistol.As per the testimony of PW42, on comparison of the cartridges "individual characteristics of firing pin and breech face marks present on EC-3 and EC-4 and TC-1 to TC-3 were compared and examined under comparison microscope and were found identical.The cartridges EC-3 and EC-4 had been fired through the improvised pistol 7.65 m.m. bore Mark-F1" meaning thereby that the empty cartridges found at the spot were fired through the pistol recovered at the instance of the respondent Ravi.Thus, the respondents stand duly connected with the crime.Mr. Mohan also clarifies that human blood was found on the clothes of the respondent Ravi which was of Group-A and had matched with the blood group of the deceased, which would show that the respondent Ravi was involved in the incident.The respondents had failed to give any plausible explanation for the presence of human blood on his clothes.Mr. Katyal, learned counsel for the State has supported the arguments addressed by Mr. Mohan.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 6 of 22It is not in dispute that the son of the deceased (PW10) had reached the place of the incident and removed his injured father along with PW11 Moharram Ali on the motorcycle to Apollo Hospital.At the time when PW10 reached the spot, the deceased was alive and was fit to make dying declaration wherein he had named all the assailants.Mr. Katyal contends that the presence of PW10 and PW11 stands corroborated by the fact that the name of PW10 finds mentioned in the MLC of the deceased.Thus, the presence of PW10, 11 and 20 thus stands duly established.Per contra, Ms. Sidhu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 in Crl.The judgment is a well-reasoned judgment and the issues sought to be raised have been carefully analysed and based on the testimonies of the witnesses, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents.She submits that in case PW5 was an eye witness, he would have surely named the assailants for the reason that this witness has testified that he was working with the deceased for past 10-12 years and he was aware of the names of the assailants.Additionally, Ms. Sidhu submits that after receiving nine wounds including five gunshot injuries, the deceased would not have survived or that he would have been in a position to make a dying Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 7 of 22 declaration.She relies on the MLC as per which the deceased was brought dead.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 7 of 22As to the findings of the Ballistic Expert, counsel for the respondents contends that the learned Trial Court has considered the arguments sought to be raised by Mr. Mohan in para 47 of the judgment, wherein the learned Trial Court has referred to the opinion of PW42 V.R. Anand.She submits that out of the two weapons which were recovered at the instance of the respondent Ravi, one of the kattas was broken and thus, no opinion could have been given that any shot was fired from the said katta.As far as the recovered magzine is concerned, Ms. Sidhu contends that the Expert has given the opinion that the bullet magazine could have been fired from any pistol of 7.65 mm.We have heard learned counsels for the parties, considered their rival submissions, perused the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court and also given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 8 of 22 called by the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation in the matter.The police reached at the place of her residence i.e. stay on 15.03.11 and arrested on the same date itself."Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 8 of 22After sometime, the police reached at the spot and took PW5 to the police station where his statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded.On the basis of the statement of PW5, an FIR was registered.PW5 claimed that he had mentioned the names of the assailants to the police in his statement which was proved as (Ex.PW5/A).PW5 knew the respondent Ravi since he got his employment with the deceased Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 10 of 22 and stayed in his neighbourhood.PW5 further stated that on the fateful night of the incident, neither PW5 nor deceased raised any alarm at the time of the incident.Similarly, the assailants did not raise any alarm.PW28/A was prepared and proved by Insp.K.L. Yadav (PW28).The respondent Ravi was Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 12 of 22 driving one motorcycle and the boy who had been seen with them earlier was sitting behind him.The other motorcycle was driven by the accused persons Lokesh, and Ravinder was pillion rider.At some distance, PW11 saw respondent Kamlesh running towards Ali Vihar from the field area.Thereafter, he reached at the spot and found the deceased and Rakesh (PW10) in an injured condition.It was again deposed by PW11 that the deceased was in an injured condition and Rajesh was holding him on his lap.PW11 further deposed that the deceased told Rajesh that accused persons Ravi, Lokesh, Ravinder and one more boy caused injuries to him.The deceased was taken to hospital on his motorcycle.The deceased was declared as brought dead by the doctors of Apolo Hospital.The respondent Kamlesh and her family members wanted to usurp the properties of the deceased and same was the reason that she alongwith her family members committed murder of the deceased.The respondents Kamlesh and Ravi were identified by him in Court.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 12 of 22Police officials did not mention some facts in his statement which he had deposed in Court.It was further stated by PW11 that on 25.12.2010, Rajesh (PW10) was not present with him.When PW11 was confronted with the statement (Ex. PW11/DA) made to the police, the names of the assailants as told by Pradeep (PW5) on his mobile phone were not found mentioned in the same.Another public witness PW20 Hanok Nathaniel who made a call on 100 number and set the criminal machinery into motion, deposed in Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 13 of 22 his examination-in-chief that on 24.12.10 at about 9.15-9.30 pm, when he was present outside his room, Chhotu (PW11) came and was shouting that some miscreants had surrounded Chacha (Bhim Singh/deceased) in the forest.PW20 further deposed that he immediately ran towards the same direction to which Chhotu was pointing i.e. towards the Mazar of Peer Baba.It was further deposed by PW20 that he saw the deceased lying on the ground and some fired cartridges cases were also lying near his body and also blood was oozing out from the chest portion of the deceased.He further deposed that in the meantime, Rajesh (PW10) also reached the spot and subsequently, Chhotu and Rajesh took the deceased to the hospital on their motorcycle.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 13 of 22On a careful reading of the statement of the complainant (Ex.PW5/A) shows that it has been signed by him and his statement has also been attested by SI Virender Pakhre (PW25).It is noteworthy to mention that as per the evidence of PW5, he had given the names of the assailants to the police on the basis of which an FIR in the present case has been registered.PW5 also deposed in his deposition in Court that he had named the assailants to the police, but it was not correctly recorded by the police.PW5 further deposed that he also informed the name of assailants to PW10 Rajesh and PW11 Moharram Ali @ Chhotu, who had taken the deceased to the hospital.It is also difficult to believe as to why PW5 did not name the respondent Ravi in his statement Ex.PW5/A when given to police despite the fact that he knew respondent Ravi from the date of Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 14 of 22 his employment with the deceased.Additionally, in the site plan (Ex.PW28/A), which was prepared at the instance of PW5, it has not been shown from where PW5 Pradeep had allegedly seen the occurrence and also not even signed by him.It is also evident from the testimony of PW20 Hanok Nathaniel that PW11 Moharram Ali reached his place while shouting that some miscreants had surrounded Chacha.Despite knowing the names of the assailants, PW11 did not name the assailants, which make his evidence not trustworthy.Thus, the testimony of PW5 is falsified by the absence of names of the assailants in rukka, FIR and MLC of the deceased.In view of the defects in the testimony of PW5, PW10, PW11 and PW20, we need to scrutinize other evidence available on record.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 14 of 22He recorded this information vide DD No.39A which was proved as Ex PW28/N. PW28 Insp.K. L. Yadav was the Investigating Officer in the present case.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 15 of 22One person namely Bhim Singh Nagar (deceased) was brought by Rajesh (PW10) with an alleged history of gun-shot injury.Dr. Ashwini medically examined the deceased in his presence and prepared MLC No. 598/2010 which was proved by PW21 as Ex PW21/A whereby the deceased was declared as brought dead.As per the MLC following injuries were found on the deceased:Multiple punctured wound on the body.Dr. Ashish Jain conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 25.12.2010 at about 1.00 PM.However, the post- mortem report (Ex PW39/A) was proved by PW39 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary.As per the post-mortem report the following nine ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:(i) A firearm entry wound, circular in shape of size 0.5cm x 0.5 cm was present over the back of the neck on left side.(ii) A firearm exit wound, triangular in shape of size 1.5cm x 1 cm was present over the right side of neck.(iii) A firearm entry wound, circular in shape of size 0.5cm x 0.5 cm was present over the left side of the upper back.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 16 of 22(iv) A firearm entry wound, circular in shape of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present over mid back on left side.(v) A firearm entry wound, circular in shape of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present over the left side of lower back.(vi) A firearm exit wound, oval in shape of size 4 cm x 2 cm was present over the left clavicular region (shoulder).(vii) A firearm entry wound, circular in shape of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present over the back of the left forearm.(viii) A firearm exit wound, circular in shape of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present over front aspect of left forearm.(ix) Multiple lacerated wounds of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm to 10 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep were present over the occipital region in an area of 12 cm x 10 cm and were associated with haemotoma.As to the cause of death, Dr. Ashish Jain opined as haemorrhagic shock caused by multiple fire arms injuries.He further opined that injury No. 1 to 6 are individually as well as collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Time since death was about one day prior to the examination.In his cross examination, PW39 Dr. Asit Kumar admitted that injuries mentioned in the PM report at Sr.Two metal bullets were removed from the body of deceased.Besides the aforementioned medical evidence, the next important witness to decide the present leave petitions is PW42 V. R. Anand, Assistant Director, Ballistic, FSL, Delhi.In his cross-examination, PW42 admitted that there was no complete country-made pistol and Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 17 of 22 there were two parts of the country made pistol.He fairly admitted that he had not conducted test fire from the katta as the same was in two parts.He admitted that two parts of country-made pistol cannot be used as fire arm unless and until joined together.PW42 further admitted that any magazine of 7.65 mm may be inserted in the improvised pistol examined by him.The detailed report by PW42 was proved as Ex PW42/A.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 17 of 22Reading of the evidence of PW42 would show that there was no opinion rendered by the ballistic expert with regard to the three bullets found at the spot and two bullets recovered from the dead body of the deceased.It is also evident from the cross-examination of PW42 V. R. Anand that he had not test fired from the katta and he could not tell as to whether the recovered katta was in working condition or not.PW42 also admitted that the recovered magazine can be inserted in any instrument/pistol of 7.65 mm.As far as the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the deceased having made a dying declaration to his son (PW10 Rajesh) disclosing the names of the assailants is concerned.We may note the evidence of PW20 Hanok Nathaniel whereby PW20 reached at the spot in the first opportunity and thereafter, Rajesh (PW10) reached at the spot and subsequent thereto, PW11 Moharram Ali reached at the spot.If we go by the evidence of PW10 Rajesh, he deposed that he reached first at the spot.Further, in his cross- examination, PW20 Hanok Nathaniel stated that Rajesh (PW10) reached the spot within seconds of their reaching at the spot.PW20 Crl.L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 18 of 22 further stated that Rajesh (PW10) and Moharram Ali (PW11) took the deceased to the hospital immediately after reaching there.PW11 Moharram Ali has also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no talk between them and the deceased, while they took them to the hospital.PW20 Hanok Nathaniel has nowhere stated that any such statement as alleged by PW10 Rajesh was made before him.Furthermore, it is evident from the medical evidence extracted hereinabove that the deceased sustained nine ante-mortem injuries and the cause of death was opined as haemorrhagic shock caused by multiple fire arms injuries.In view of the nature of injuries, we find force in the argument raised by the counsel for the respondents that after receiving injuries, the deceased would not have been in a position to make a dying declaration.We also find force in the argument made by the counsel for the respondents that it is highly unusual that in case the deceased had made a dying declaration to his son, his son would not name the assailants at the time of preparation of the MLC.Thus, the contention with regard to dying declaration made to PW10 Rajesh stands rejected.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 18 of 22So far as the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. katta at the instance of the respondent Ravi is concerned, we deem it proper to mention para 41 to 44 of the impugned judgment which read as under:On 27.12.10, Inspector K.L. Yadav (PW28) and recovery witnesses SI Virender Pakhre (PW-25), SI Rajender Singh Dagar (PW-32) alongwith accused Ravi and Rahul went to Village Garhi, Kalengeri, Police Station Chandi Nagar, District Bagpat, U.P., where accused Rahul was residing.The aforesaid Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 19 of 22 police officials deposed that they requested public persons to join in the investigation, but they refused.They reached at the house of Rahul.As per them, as soon as they entered his house, on the right side, there was a room, where a sofa was lying, from underneath the cushion of sofa, Ravi produced one pistol which on checking was found to be written as automatic made in USA from one side.The pistol was sealed in a pullanda sealed with the seal of KL and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-27/E. The site plan Ex. PW-27/F of place of recovery was prepared.Crl. L.P.Nos.267/2016 & 297/2016 Page 19 of 22The above police officials have further deposed that on the same day, they alongwith both the accused reached at Village Chhalera near Sector-44, Noida.They reached at the house of Subhash where on the back portion of his house, there was a chajja near the wall and from the said chajja, Ravi produced one desi katta which was not having its barrel.They deposed that after checking the katta, sketch of the same Ex. PW-27/G was prepared.No reason has been mentioned as to why the signature of accused Ravi on the sketch of katta was not obtained.On bare look of both the documents, it appears that the signature of accused persons was obtained on blank papers and thereafter the same was written or alternatively same has been manipulated by the IO of the case."
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
59,339,600 |
Case diary is available.This common order shall govern disposal of M.Cr.C.No.7158/2017 and M.Cr.C.No.7127/2017 M.Cr.C.No.7158/2017 is second application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of Nankiya S/o Bhimsingh, father-in-law and M.Cr.C.No.7127/2017 is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail filed on behalf of Sorambai W/o Nankiya Bhil, mother-in-law.The accused/applicants were arrested by the Police Station, Maheshwar, district Khargone in Crime No.238/2016 under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, the deceased Parvatibai is daughter- in-law of the present applicants.She was in her parental house.The husband and the present applicants went there to bring her back.She did not come back to their house and it is alleged that when they were in the house, she consumed some poisonous substance which resulted in her death.Arguments heard, case diary perused.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during dismissal of the first application of father-in-law of the deceased, liberty was granted to the applicant to renew the prayer after recording of evidence of material prosecution witnesses.Now as many as six prosecution witnesses have been examined.In their statement they do not indicate any act on the part of the present applicants which would fall under the definition of 107 of IPC.Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each and one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.They are further directed that on being so released on bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,962,409 |
CRA No. 2320/20072. Prosecution story in short is that on 28 th February, 2005 at about 12:00 p.m. at Village Khamrehi/Har, P.S. Nagod District - Satna the accused/appellant in conspiracy with the other co-accused persons namely Prithviraj Singh and Raghu @ Raghvendra Singh in furtherance of common intention fired at the deceased Vineet Singh by a 315 bore country-made pistol, as a result of which Vineet Singh died.The incident is alleged to have taken place in the Dhaba (Hotel) of Pramod Singh (PW-3).The criminal case was set at motion by Pramod Singh (PW-3)who is the author of the F.I.R. and also the eyewitness of the incident.On his report, F.I.R. (Ex.P-4) was registered at the Police Station Nagod, District Satna against the present appellant and two others Prithvi Raj Singh and Raghu @ Raghvendra Singh.The other two accused persons have been acquitted, whereas the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as indicated herein above:The prosecution case is based on testimony of eyewitnesses Pramod Singh (PW-3), Ramjan (PW-4) Rajesh Prasad Patel (PW-5) and Shrikish Patel (PW-13).The investigation was carried out by S.I. Bharat Singh Chouhan (PW-16).He deposed that at around 1:30 p.m., 3 CRA No. 2320/2007 Pramod Singh came to the police station and informed that the appellant Guddu @ Chandra Dev Singh has fired on Vineet Singh and he is lying in the car in unconscious stage.He went to the car and saw that Vineet Singh was lying in the car in pool of blood and was unconscious.Vineet Singh was taken to the hospital and as per the information given by Pramod Singh, F.I.R. (Ex.P-4) was written.In the hospital Vineet Singh was declared brought dead and thereafter he went to the hospital and had executed the dead body panchnama (Ex.P-6) which bears his signatures as well.He had sent the dead body for the postmortem vide Ex.He also seized the motorcycle vide Ex.P.-11 from Khalihan of Pappu Singh of Village Itma.The autopsy was conducted by Dr. B.K. Tiwari (PW-15).On external examination he found blood on shirt and hosiery (banian) of the deceased.There was a hole of 5 x 4 c.m. and there was also blackening on the back side of shirt and on its upper portion of left side there was a hole.He also found injury on left side of the chest and there was an oval shape wound from 11 c.m. above from nipple to 8 c.m. which was on outside of left calvic bone.The length of wound was 4 x 2 c.m. and the left rip was also broken.Injury No.2 was on left scapula on upper side 3 x 5 4 CRA No. 2320/2007 c.m.x 1.5 c.m.the said wound was on the middle of back side to 14 c.m. outside and 11 c.m. from the corner of left shoulder.The scapula bone was fractured.On internal examination, he found that there was blood on respiratory canal and the left lung was teared.The cause of death was shock on account of excessive bleeding because of the injuries and the duration of death was six hours.In para -4 of his deposition he deposed that there was blackening, which proves that the bullet was fired from a close range of six inch.On the discovery statement of the appellant the country made pistol was recovered from the house of the accused vide memorandum (Ex. P-13).(Jabalpur, Dated: 31.07.2018) Per- V.K. Shukla, J.The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 03.09.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No. 115/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:of Rs.100/-, in default, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment.Both the sentences to run concurrently.The seizure memo of country-made pistol and one Kartus (cartridge) was prepared vide Ex.The seizure was proved by Ramrasendra Singh (PW-11).The seizure of pistol and cartridges was further supported by the testimony of armourer Ram Singh (PW-10).He deposed that he had taken the seized country-made pistol and cartridge in the sealed cover for chemical examination.The site plan was prepared by Chandra Kishore Shrivastava (PW-1) and Constable Ramcharan Tiwari (PW-2) was examined to prove that the seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar.In the seized garments of the deceased 5 CRA No. 2320/2007 as well as soil human blood was found and on the seized soil.The F.S.L. report proved that the seized empty cartridge marked as Article EC-1 was fired from the seized country-made pistol.FSL report is Ex. P-23 on record.Now we proceed to examine the testimony of eyewitnesses namely Pramod Singh (PW-3) who is brother of the deceased Vineet Singh, Ramjan Khan (PW-4), Rajesh Prasad Patel (PW-5) and Shrikesh Patel (PW-13).Pramod Singh (PW-3) has clearly deposed in his statement that the accused Guddu @ Chandradev Singh came to the Dhaba on his motorcycle.He asked the deceased to give him amount and also abused him.When the deceased asked, that for what purpose, he was demanding money on that the appellant/accused took out a 315 bore country-made pistol from his pocket and fired on the chest of the deceased.The deceased fell down and became unconscious.Thereafter, he loaded another bullet and threatened the persons who were present in the Dhaba and thereafter went off from the spot.The testimony of PW-3 is well supported by the testimony of Ramjan Khan (PW-4) and Rajesh Prasad Patel (PW-5) they also narrated the same incident.No substantial and material contradiction has been pointed out in their testimonies.Their testimony is consistent and coherent that the appellant came at the spot on a motorcycle and took out pistol and fired on the deceased from a close range.On assimilation of the testimony of witnesses, PW-3 and the other eye witnesses, it is clearly proved that the accused came on a motorcycle at the Dhaba having a country-made pistol loaded in his pocket and asked for money and on refusal thereof he fired the same from a close range on the vital part of the body i.e. chest.Accordingly, the appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
596,272 |
The facts as found by the courts below are as follows: Therehad been long standing enmity between the appellants andtheir party on the one hand and the deceased Gurbaksh Singhand his party on the other, resulting in a number of crimes,and proceedings in court.On the 27th Januarv.1952, atabout sunset time, Gurbaksh Singh was sitting inside hishouse on the sabath and his sister Mst.Bholan was in thekitchen.Then the appellants and their men came to theplace armed with rifles, got on the roof of the house ofGurbaksh Singh and challenged him to come out.GurbakshSingh and Mst.Bholan went to the kotha and bolted the doorfrom inside.Bholan were caught inside and burnt to death.Abrother of Gurbaksh Singh called Dev, who had been at thattime away, was, according to the prosecution, seized when hesubsequently turned up, thrown into the flames and was alsoburnt to death.Meantime one Gurnam Singh, P.W. 13, acousin of Gurbaksh Singh and his neighbour, managed to slipout of the village and reported the occurrence at the policestation at Nihal Singhwala,906a place eight miles away (vide Exhibit PQ).It was then 10-30 p.m. On receipt of this information, the police sub-inspector, P.W. 25, went to the village with a posse ofconstables and with Gurnam' Singh.He found the ,housemostly burnt and recovered therefrom the charred remains ofthree dead bodies and they were identified as those ofGurbaksh, Dev and Mst.The appellant Karnail Singhwas actually seen at that place and arrested on the spot.Jai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kohli, with him) for the appellants.Porus A. Mehta for the respondent.Then the appellants and their men made holesin the roof with spades, ignited inflammable materials, suchas dry twigs, and threw them inside the kotha through theholes and set fire to the building.Both Gurbaksh Singh andMst.Malkiat Singh who had been mentioned in Exhibit PQ as one ofthe participants was found in his house with gunshot woundsand was also arrested.Eventually eight persons, includingthe appellants, were charged under section 148, Indian PenalCode, for forming an unlawful assembly with the object ofburning the house of Gurbaksh Singh and murdering him, Devand Mat.Bholan, and under section 302 read with section149 for their murder.The Additional Sessions Judge,Ferozepore, held that the case had not been establishedbeyond doubt as against two of the accused and heaccordingly acquitted them.He convicted the six othersincluding the appellants under section 148 and section 302read with section 149 and sentenced them to death.Onappeal, the learned Judges of the Punjab High Court heldthat "although there can be no doubt whatever that theoccurrence took place more or less on the lines described bythe prosecution witnesses, and the primary object of theculprits must have been to murder Gurbaksh Singh, deceased,in consequence of the bitter enmity between him and the mainbody of the accused" and that "although it may very well betrue that all the six appellants took part in thisoccurrence " , the evidence against the four accused otherthan the appellants was insufficient to sustain theirconviction, as it consisted of the testimony of persons whowere at a distance of 40 to 50 feet from the scene ofoccurrence and who claimed to identify the particularaccused only by their voice.They were accordinglyacquitted.Then dealing with the case against the twoappellants they observed that as against them, there wasevidence of the two eyewitness Gurnam Singh (P.W. 13) andMaghar Singh907(P.W. 14), that Maghar Singh was not a reliable witness,that nothing could be urged against the evidence of GurnamSingh, that even so it would be Unsafe to base a convictionon his evidence alone, but that the presence of KarnailSingh at the spot and the existence of wounds on the personof Malkiat Singh afforded sufficient corroboration of theevidence of Gurnam Singh.They accordingly confirmed theconviction and sentence as against the appellants.As fourof the accused were acquitted in appeal, the learned Judgesset aside the conviction of the appellants under section 149and substituted section 34, Indian Penal Code, there for.Two contentions have been urged on behalf of the appellants,that the evidence which bad been accepted by the learnedJudges as reliable was insufficient to establish the guiltof, the appellants and that their conviction under section34 was bad as no charge had been framed against them underthat section.As regards Karnail Singh, the police sub-inspector, P.W. 25, actually found him emerging out of theburning house with a spear in his hand.He had injuries onhis person and his pyjama was bloodstained.As for Malkiat Singh, hisname was mentioned in the first information report, ExhibitPQ, and P.W. 25 went to his house and found him with gunshotwounds and arrested him.In the statement given by KarnailSingh under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, he statedthat when he saw the house908of Gurnam Singh on fire, he went there and was, assaultedby culprits, that Malkiat Singh came there to help him, thatwhen they were grappling with the culprits he was attackedand Malkiat, Singh received a gunshot and thereafter theywent away to their houses.The statement of Malkiat Singhalso was on similar lines.There was no evidence that anyother person or persons were responsible for the acts andthe learned Judges therefore rejected as untrue theexplanation of the appellants that "they received theseinjuries while intervening against some unknown assailantson behalf of their bitterest enemy."It is contended for the appellants that the mere presence ofKarnail Singh at the place of occurrence would in itselfmean nothing and that it would amount to corroboration onlyif some further act incriminatory in character was proved.With reference to Malkiat Singh, it was argued that theexistence of gunshot wounds would be inconclusive as therewas no evidence as to how they were caused.It was 'con-tended that, the theory of the learned Judges that GurbakshSingh might himself have shot at him trough the hole whilehe was on the roof was.wholly unsupported by evidence andopposed to the medical evidence in the case as to the natureof the wounds and to the fact that no gun was recovered fromthe house, and that there was accordingly nothing to connectMalkiat Singh with the incident at the house of GurbakshSingh.He is awitness against whom the learned Judges had nothing to sayand if they required corroboration of his evidence it wasbecause he was a relation of the deceased and it wasconsidered not safe to base a conviction on his soletestimony.admission of the appellant that he was present at or nearthe scene of occurrence is distinct and separate from hisexplanation as to how he received the injuries.The learnedJudges having disbelieved, in our opinion rightly, thestatement of the.appellant that the house was burnt by someunknown enemies of Gurbaksh Singh and that it was they whomurdered him, we do not see any objection to the statementof, the appellant that he was present at the scene of theoccurrence from being used as an admission.Another pieceof corroboration which the learned Judges relied on was thatin their view the gunshot wounds must have been received byMalkiat Singh at the house of Gurbaksh Singh.On the facts of thiscase there can be no difference between the object and theintention with which the offences were committed.Ourattention was also drawn to the wording of the charge whichwhile mentioning section 149 also sets out that inprosecution of the common object the accused intentionallyset fire to the house and murdered Gurbaksh Singh and Mst.satisfied that the substitution of section34 in the place of section 149 in the charge by the courtbelow has resulted in no prejudice to the appellant and itis therefore not open to objection.The appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
596,273 |
The plaintiff is a practicing Advocate since 1923 and has occupied various positions in social life.(26) The plaintiff has himself deposed that he started his practice p in the year 1923 and had been the President, City Congress Committee for 12 years, President, District Congress Committee for 12 years, Member of the Provincial Congress Committee for 16 years and President of Naujawan Bharat Sabha Sargoda for several years.He was also a member of the Municipal Committee and member of the College Trust and that he owned three weekly magazines.He had been assessed to income-tax in Pakistan, but in Delhi though he was assessed to income-tax after 1958, as according to him from 1947 to 1955 he had been engaged in public work.He claimed that his income from agriculture was Rs. 1200.00 per month and he had acquired a house at Nai Sarak for Rs. 20,000.00 and 1200 yards for Kothi near Shakti Nagar for Rs. 5,500.00 .This shows the respectability, social and financial status of the plaintiff.It appears that on 27th April, 1948 a First Information Report (Ex D3) was lodged with the Police complaining of an alleged offence under sections 420/406, Indian Penal Code.The information was primarily directed against one Gurbax Singh and it appears that the plaintiff was suspected to be involved in the case.Eventually, on 14th April, 1950 the plaintiff was discharged by a First Class Magistrate on a report of the Police (vide Ex. P8).On the material date, Shri 0m Prakash, defendant No. 1 was the Station House Officer in-charge of the Kotwali Police Station, while Naut Ram Yadav, defendant No. 2, was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of the same Police Station.The established facts are that as the name of the plaintiff was being maintained in the register of the Police in the list of absconders, Om Prakash, defendant No. 1, ordered defendant No. 2 to scrutinise the record of the proclaimed offenders and make an effort to make their arrests.He learnt on 21st March, 1957 that the plaintiff, whose name was borne on the register was present in the premises of the Criminal Courts at Kashmere Gate, Delhi and so at about 2.00 p.m. he came to the court, approached the plaintiff and after satisfying himself with regard to his identity arrested him and produced him before the Magistrate who bailed him out.The allegation of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 2 after the arrest took the plaintiff to the Kotwali Police Station where defendant No. 1 again formally arrested him and sent him on the same day to the Magistrate, who bailed him out.Defendant No. 2 has, however, alleged that the plaintiff was not taken to the Police Station, but was taken to the prosecution branch which directed production of the plaintiff before the Magistrate and then defendant No. 2 produced him before the Magistrate between 3 .(X) and 4.00 p.m. on the same date.(3) The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegations that he had been arrested a unlawfully and falsely without any legal justification and that the defendants had committed the tort of false imprisonment.In the other suit the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 9000.00 as damages for malicious prosecution by the defendants- The Union of India was sought to be made liable for vicarious liability on the torts committed by its employees.(4) The defense led on behalf of the defendants was that the name of the plaintiff was being maintained on the register of abscondors and proclaimed offenders and as such defendant No. 2 had a reasonable cause to arrest the plaintiff and their act was bona fide and performed in due discharge of duties and the commission of the tort was denied.The defense of the other defendants was to the same effect, besides some preliminary objections about the notice and the plaint not disclosing the cause of action, which are not material at this stage.(5) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the suit for damages for false imprisonment, which has given rise to these appeals.Relief."In the other suit for damages for malicious prosecution the issues framed were these :Whether a valid and proper notice under S. 80 Civil Procedure Code .Whether defendant No. 2 is entitled to special costs under S. 35-A Civil Procedure Code .Relief."Both the suits were tried together.The suit for damages for malicious prosecution has.been dismissed and no appeal has been filed, against the same.It is, therefore, not necessary for us to discuss the issues framed in the other suit.The plaintiff has deposed that at the time of his arrest he had pointed out this fact to defendant No. 2 and requested him to look into the judicial record that the investigation had been filed.He also pointed out that if he were an absconder, he would find some proceedings taken under sections 87-88 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but defendant No. 2 laughed away the points.The plaintiff then told him that he was not an absconder and he had contested the Municipal Election and had been touring with the Municipal Engineer's Staff and he had an office in Chandni Chowk and that he had been appearing in courts and he was meeting the S.H.O. Kashmere Gate, which was near the District Court (see page 54 of the record).Defendant No. 2 examined as Dw 2 in his statement admitted that when he approached the plaintiff and wanted to arrest him, he started an argument and was asserting that there was no case against him, while the defendant was insisting that the plaintiff was a proclaimed offender.(17) Moreover, the relevant statutory Police Rules make the position clear beyond any doubt.Rule 22.54 prescribes Register No. Iv to be maintained in the Police Stations.This register relates to absconders as well as proclaimed offenders.The note in the aforesaid Rule states that as soon as an absconder has been proclaimed under section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code, his name shall be entered among the proclaimed offenders in Part I of Register No. X. Rule 23.4 prescribes the form of Register No. X as detailed in Rule 23.4 and clause (a) of sub-rule (2) requires that in Part I of the said register all persons who have been proclaimed under section 87 of the Code shall be entered in the register.The said file has not been produced.The direction of defendant No. 1 to apprehend, therefore, clearly included the plaintiff.Morevore, after causing the arrest the application made to the Magistrate for remand and for challan of the plaintiff purport to have been forwarded and signed by the Station House Officer.This would be so in the natural course of events and as such the Station House Officer cannot escape the liability.The entries have been proved to be wrong as the plaintiff had in fact been admittedly discharged by a competent court and so the entries could not continue.Moreover, the police file sent to the Police Station on which the said entries are supposed to be based has not been produced.It is a matter of surprise that the last item under column 9 in Ex. D4 for the year 1952 relates to a document dated 15th August, 1953 and the same has mechanically been repeated year after year till 1957 and nobody took the trouble to verify.as to what had happened in the case after 1953 and whether or not the plaintiff was in fact a proclaimed offender and no further enquiry seems to have been made for a number of years until suddenly defendant No. 2 in obedience to the direction of defendant No. 1 apprehended the plaintiff and caused his arrest.As such the court below has erred in not defendant No. 1 and the suit must accordingly be decreed against him.(24) So far as the liability of the Union of India is concerned there is no dispute about the same for the tortuous act committed by defendant No. 2 or defendant No. 1 during the course of their official duties.The Union of India as the employer of the other defendants is certainly liable vicariously and the suit has been correctly decreed against it by the Court below.(25) This takes us to the question of quantum of damages.The court below has dismissed the suit for recovery of damages on ac- count of malicious prosecution as is stated above.In respect of the suit for damages for false imprisonment, it has allowed the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of one half of the amount sued and decreed it for a sum of Rs. 12,500.00 .The plaintiff has claimed in the appeal (RFA IO-D of 1964) enhancement of the amount of damages.The Union of ln,dia has challenged the decree by their appeal (RFA 179-D of 1963).They have mainly disputed the legal basis of the liability.He was again arrested under defense of India Rules in 1940 and 1942 in connection with the Quit India Movement.He was arrested from the court premies at about 2.00 p.m., while he had some more work to do in the court.There was altercation at the time of the arrest.The altercation collected a crowd of persons and finally it was at the intervention of two Magistrates, Sham Behari Lal, Honorary Magistrate, who was examined as DW6, and Raja Lal Gupta, Ex. Magistrate, examined as DW16, that defendant No. 2 was persuaded to take the plaintiff to the prosecution branch instead of being locked up in the Police Lock up.The application that was moved before the Magistrate at the time of the production of the plaintiff was for remand of the plaintiff to judicial lock up for a week an,d not for being enlarged on bail (vide Ex. P12 dated 21st March, 1957).The amount of bail that the plaintiff had to offer to the Magistrate to obtain his release was rather heavy.It was a personal bond for Rs. 10,000 with one surety for the same amount.Then again the defendants 1 and 2 challaned the plaintiff without verifying the fact of his previous discharge.The plaintiff had to take extraordinary steps to write to the officers dealing with the case at the time of the first discharge and the officer confirmed that the plaintiff had in fact been discharged and he made a reference to the particulars.Ultimately, on 19th December, 1957 (vide Ex. P7) the Magistrate trying the case was obliged to write a D.O. Letter to the Superintendent of Police staling that the plaintiff had been arrested by the S.H.O. Kotwali, on 21st March, 1957 and he had made several representations to the effect that he had been discharged on 14th April, 1950 by the City Magistrate on a report by Police under the orders of then Senior Superintendent of Police and so the case against the plaintiff could not proceed and the copies of the representations made had been given to the prosecution branch, but no reply had been received owing to lack of instructions from Kotwali Police and the case was thus hanging fire.The request was made to direct the S-H.O. Kotwali to forward his reply to the Magistrate immediately.These facts we have mentioned only to bring home the point that neither defendant No. 1 nor defedantNo. 2 even after causing the arrest cared to verify the truth of the defense for long, nor did they repent having caused the false imprisonment and so there is nothing in the case to mitigate the damages for false imprisonment.The offence for which the plaintiff was sought to be charged was cheating and criminal misappropriation under sections 406/420, Indian Penal Code.All these facts combined certainly caused great loss of his reputation.The plaintiff has claimed damages for being deprived of his liberty injuring his credit and reputation and mental shock and effect on his heart and nervous system and on his health.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
596,548 |
JUDGMENT G.R. Luthra, J.(1) Bhagwan Singh who was a Corporal in Indian Air Force and was residing at New Willingdon Camp, Race Course, New Delhi was convicted on August 30, 1979 by Shri P. L. Singla, Addl Sessions Judge, Delhi, in respect of commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced on September 1, 1979 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and for two years respectively.He was further convicted in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.All the three sentences were directed to run concurrently.The present appeal was filed by Bhagwan Singh through jail.At his request he was not produced in Court and Shri B. R. Prashar, Advocate was appointed as amices curies.According to the version of the prosecution Shri S. P. Jeitley, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Branch received an information that the present appellant was in conspiracy with some foreign agents and was collecting, communicating and passing on secret information and documents relating to defense services, which were calculated to be directly or indirectly useful to foreign and enemy country and that the appellant would meet one of the foreign agents on October 24, 1978 near Harding Library.On receipt of the information a case was, registered at P. S. Kotwali and Inspector Raghubir Singh (P.W. 27) of Special Branch was deputed for the investigation who formed a raiding party inter-alia joining Prakash Chand (P.W. 1) and Dalip Singh (Public Witness .3).The said raiding party kept a watch near Harding Library.At about 7.15 P.M., appellant was noticed approaching Harding Library from Gandhi statue side.Informer who was among the raiding party pointed out towards the appellant.The members of the raiding party were put on the alert.They saw that the appellant met a person, who .was subsequently found to be Mohd Gustaf Rana of Pakistan Embassy in India at New Delhi, near ladies Park.The appellant and said Mohd Gustaf Rana started conversation and thereafter former handed over some envelopes to the latter.Both of them were apprehended by raiding party.Official document containing secrets of Air Force.were,recovered from Mohd Gustaf Rana and inter-alia the said documents .were as under :1.One open cover addressed to Air Hdqrs EA.3, R. K. Puram New Delhi POR/6307 dt. 18-10-73 611 containing one secret letter of Air Head-Quarter/S-82152/Eng.A-3(0) Allot 23 Oct., 78 Directorate of Engineering A, regarding purchase of AN-12 Air Craft Utilisation, one paper.2.One open cover of Government envelope addressed to D. D. Eng.A-3(Q) IV.Air Head Quarters, R. K. Puram, New Delhi containing : (a) secret letter of Air Hq/82169/ Eng.A3(Q) Allot 24 Oct., 78 regarding Allotment of MI-8 Helicopters, one paper.(B)Secret letter Air Hq/S-82154/Eng.A3(Q) Allot 24 Oct., 78 regarding allotment of Ash 82V A/ES, one paper (C)Secret letter No. Au Hq/S-82154/Eng. A3('Q) Allot 20 Oct.. 78 regarding allotment of MI-8 Helicopters, one paper.(D)Air Hq.letter No. Hq/S-82169/Eng.A3(Q) Allot 18 Oct., 78 regarding allotment of MI-8 Helicopters, one paper.3.One sealed cover inscribed 'secret' addressed to Air Hq (TS-9) R. K. Puram.4.One sealed cover inscribed 'secret' addressed to Air Hqs (TS-9) R. K. Puram.5.Secret sealed cover addressed to Air Hqs.6.One secret sealed cover addressed to Air Hqs.Dts. of Eng.(3) Mohd Gustaf Rana and the appellant were taken to police station Kotwali where former rang-up Pakistan Embassy, New Delhi at which Mr. G. Q. Bhatti, second Secretary of the said Embassy arrived at P. S. Kotwali, identified Mohd Gustaf Rana as an officer of the said Embassy at which he was allowed to be taken along by Shri G. Q. Bhatti.(4) Subsequently, the residential house of the appellant was searched, as a result of which two more secret official documents were recovered.The appellant was interrogated by the police.In his confessional statement, the appellant disclosed as follows : On January 4, 1978 he happened to meet one person (whose name was subsequently known to be Chaudhary Noor Khan of Pakistan, Intelligence Department) in a' D.T.C. bus and both shared one seat in the said bus.During conversation Chaudhary Noor Khan told his name as Om Parkash.The said Om Parkash enquired from the appellant about the residence and place of the latter and the latter told that he was working in Air Head Quarters and was residing with his family in a Government Quarters near Gurdwara in Sarojini Nagar.On January 13, 1978 said Om Parkash again met the appellant in Sarojini Nagar Market, and former asked the latter about the residence of the latter which the latter pointed out.On January 27, 1978 Om Parkash visited the house of the appellant and the former appreciated the locality and also expressed his desire to have a house on rent in the said locality.He told the appellant that former had resigned the job of Assistant in Government of India and had started business and that is why he is in search of a new house.On February 13, 1978 and February 20, 1978 Om Parkash again visited the house of the appellant on the pretext that the former was searching the house.Appellant expressed his inability to help Om Parkash in that matter.On the occasion of Holi festival Om Parkash presented the appellant with some sweets and latter enquired from the former as to where the house of the former was at which the former told that the latter should come to India Gate on April 2, 1978 then the former would take the latter to his house, Om Parash and appellant met on April 2, 1978 at appointed place and the former took the latter to two room flat at Tilak Marg, where appellant was served with "Roohafza" and the conversation between the two went on for about 45 minutes, 0m Parkash enquired from the appellant about the pay and savings of the latter at which the appellant replied that he could not save anything from his emolumente.Om Parkash advised the appellant to save something for former's son Raju and the former assured that he would help latter in finding some private job to supplement his income.Appellant expressed his preference for doing the job of tuitor because he could teach mathematics up to Matric standard.(6) Om Parkash again met the appellant on April 13 and April 20, 1978 and the former expressed his inability to find the job of a tuitor and suggested that the latter should handover some secret documents of Indian Air oFrce against substantial financial help, on the pretext that former required the said documents for his Iranian friend who was writing thesis on Indian Air Force.At the same time Om Parkash administered a warning to the appellant that in case the latter disclosed about his conduct to the former, former would kill the son of the latter.Appellant agreed to supply the secret documents.(7) On May 13, 1978 appellant brought two documents which were in fact not secret and passed on these to Om Parkash at about 8 P.M., at Sarojini Nagar.Those documents were returned to appellant at 10 P.M., on the same day and he was paid Rs. 45 in respect of those.(8) Thereafter, both of them continued meeting each other and Om Parkash insisted on getting classified mail only and also explained to the appellant that precautions which should be taken of their being watched, Om Parkash told that after he felt suspicious that someone was watching, he would wipe his face with a white handkerchief in his right hand.It was then agreed that both will meet at 8 P.M., at bus stop between Raj Nagar and Vinayak Mandir.Appellant brought a document "letter of credit addressed to Dehradun C.D.A." and reached the appointed place where said Om Parkash met him.(9) Next meeting was fixed for June 29, 1978 at 8 P.M. near Harding Library.Om Parkash further handed over a leather bag to the appellant' for bringing documents in the same.(11) On July 15, 1978 at about 8 P.M. appellant reached at Holy Family Hospital in accordance with the previous arrangement with Om Patkash, but the latter did not turn up.(12) On July 10, 1978 Om Parkash was accompanied by one person whose name was subsequently found to be Mohd Gustaf Rana of Pakistani Intelligence Office.That person was introduced by 0m Parkash to appellant as Mr, Sharma.Om Parkash told the appellant that former was going for treatment to a foreign country and that Mr. Sharma at Andrews Ganj Bus Stop.Appellant brought a secret document of Helicopter and AN-12 Aircrafts on the aforesaid date and handed over to Mr. Sharma at Andrews Ganj But Stop.(13) Next meetings were held on August 13, 1978 and August 20, 1978, but no document was passed on by the appellant to Mr. Sharma On September 5, 1978 appellant brought a secret document regarding allotment orders of Aero Engines from the outgoing mail of his office and passed the same to Mr. Sharma a.t the appointed time and plance.Mr. Sharma advised the appellant to use leather brief case for carrying the documents.(14) Appellant shifted his residence from Sarojini Nagar to 7-D New Willingdon, Race Course, New Delhi on September 15, 1978 and met Mr. Sharma on September 19, 1978 at Andrews Ganj but did not band over any document.The next meeting was fixed for October 3, 1978 on which date the appellant handed over three documents regarding allotment of Helicopters and AN-12 Aircrafts from his house and passed them on to Mr. Sharma at 8 P.M. at Andrews Ganj.That boss was subsequently found to be Mohd Rafi, second Secrttary, Pakistani Embassy at New Delhi.That boss of Mr. Sharma offered the appellant a cigrette.The learned counsel first of all relied upon Indian Express' of August 7, 1979 in which there is a news under the heading, " India planning to busy Swedish submarines for fleet Expansion".The learned counsel then relied upon a news in Indian Express' of August 6, 1979 under the heading, "Pindi bid to buy new French Mirage".Reliance further is on an issue of Indian Express' of July 27, 1979 in which a news appeared under the heading, "First Jaguars arrived in India".It is contended that these books also disclosed as to how different type of Wat Aircrafts and weapons were being used by the forces.(24) The argument has clearly no force.The news items and the books mentioned above are of general nature.The documents which were recovered by the police from the possession of Gustaf Rana were in respect of use, allotment to different units and deployment of different types of aircrafts.These related to movements of the aircrafts and use by them by the Air Force.They were obviously secret.Flying Officer A. K. Sharda P.W. 18 deposed that the documents Ex. Public Witness 18/A and Ex. Public Witness 18/B were classified as secret documments, that they were dispatched through the Central registry of his unit and that they were not supposed to be in the hands of unauthorised persons as the information contained in those two letters were secret and if leaked out to a foreign State the same could undermine the security of the State.He explained that those documents contained information regarding the effectiveness of squadron in which he was working.On cross-examination he testified that the said letters contained information regarding the flight of the aircraft and their flight hours, that the action which was taken on the previous day and the one which was to be taken on the following day and that he could tell from those two letters as to what particular Helicopter was deployed at what particular station.(26) Flying Officer B. M. Dhamija Public Witness 19 deposed that the letters Ex. Public Witness 19/A and Ex. Public Witness 19/8 were signed by him.He added that these letters pertained to 44 Squadron, Air Force, that they were classified as secret, that no unauthorised person was supposed to be in possession thereof and that if information contained in these two letters was leaked to some enemy country that would effect the security of India and that the information was secret even without decodifying.On cross-examination also he affirmed as to the secret nature of the said letters and added that they contained information regarding the action that had already been taken and the one which was yet to be taken.(27) Flying Lt. Sucha Singh Public Witness 6 stated in his cross-examination that the letters Ex. P7 to P 11, Ex. Public Witness 18/A, Ex. Public Witness 18/B, Ex. Public Witness 19/A and Ex. Public Witness 19/B were of secret nature because they pertained to secret matters like the location and operation of units, allotment of aircrafts or their serviceability and movements of transport from one unit to another.(28) SQ.S. Raghvan Public Witness 23 deposed that the letters Ex. 27 to P11 and P17 were signed by him, that they were of secret nature and that if any foreign State came to know contents of those letters or the information contained therein that would undermine the security of India.I heard Shri B. R. Prashar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri V. K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the State.(2) Criminal proceedings against Bhagwan Singh were started on a complaint under sub-section 3 of Section 13 of the Act filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi.Thereafter, the appellant brought one document from in-coming mail and two documents from out-going mail of his office on October 9, 1978 and handed over the same to Mr. Sharma on October 10, 1978 at Harding Library.At that time Mr. Sharma was accompanied by another person who was introduced as the Boss.Appellant declined.(15) On October 24, 1978 the appellant handed over the secret documents to Mr. Sharma at about 7 P.M. near Harding Library and as already mentioned he was apprehended red-handed by the police.(16) The appellant also identified three photographs from amongst the photographs of Pakistani Embassy Officials, which had been procured during the investigation from the Ministry of External Affairs.Those photographs showed that Om Parkash was actually Chaudhary Noor Khan, that Mr. Sharma was actually Mohd Gustaf Rana and that the person who was introduced as boss by Gustaf Rana was in fact Mohd Rafi, second Secretary Pakistani Embassy at New Delhi.(17) After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction to prosecute the appellant a complaint was filed by the Deputy Commissioner ( Police), North District against the present appellant for trial and punishment of the later under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the provisions of the Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.(18) Prosecution examined Parkash Chand Public Witness 7, Dalip Singh P.W. 3 and Inspector Raghubir Singh Public Witness 27 in respect of apprehending of the appellant and Mohd Gustaf Rana on October 24, 1978 and recovery of some documents Ex. P1 to P11 detailed already.In a statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, the appellant admitted that the knew the person shown in the photograph Ex Public Witness 3/A as Mr. Sharma stated that he never knew him as Gustaf Rana or that he was an employee of Pakistani Embassy.He denied that he handed over the documents Ex. Pi to Pll to Mr. Sharma and stated that those documents were taken by police from out of his pocket near Harding Library.He denied that Dalip Singh or Om Parkash were present when he was apprehended.(19) For the purpose of proving that his confession was voluntary Shri P. K. Dham Public Witness 25 was examined as a witness.In his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .appellant admitted that he made a confessional statement before Shri P. K. Dham.After hearing the appellant on September 1, 1979 he was sentenced as already mentioned.(21) It is apparent from the above that the appellant admits the prosecution Varsion substantially.Therefore, the facts that the appellant had been meeting Noor Khan and Gustaf Rana of Pakistan Embassy at different places and also met Mohd Rafi on October 10, 1978 arc no disputed, although in a statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .appellant had denied that he had handed over the documents Ex. Pi to Pi I to Gustaf Rana on October 24, 1978 before both were apprehended and had rather stated that it was from his possession that these documents had been taken by the police.Hence, the evidence mentioned above proving the version of the prosecution, which was believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not assailed.(22) The only thing which was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the documents which were recovered from the appellant were not secret ones, firstly because they were of routine nature and secondly because the subject of possession of different type of weapons and aeroplanes by the Indian Air Force and Indian Army had appeared in different newspapers which showed that such matters were never secret.12 Celebrates 33rd Anniversary : AGRA.The number "Twelve' Squadron, the pioneering transport squadron of the Indian Air Force which proudly claims the credit for setting the present pace of transport operations in the Iaf celebrated its 33rd anniversary at its present base today, reports PTI.AIRMarshal Shivdev Singh (retired), the first Commodore Commandant of the Squadron, which has had a glorious past with many 'firsts' to its credit took the salute at a smart ceremonial parade provided by its pilots, navigators, radio operators, flight engineering, and airmen.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,910,146 |
They have got no message; they have got noinspiration; they have got no thought.They have got nothing.They arejust filth and ought to be stamped out.The factual scoreThis assessment had a decisiveeffect on the judgment.The prayer for amendment was allowed.The accusedpersons assailed their conviction in an appeal before the High Court andthe complainant filed a criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentence.The High Court by common judgment dismissed the appeal and affirmed thesentence.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
699,160 |
One eye-witness PW 23 Habib became hostile and said that he had seen only a crowd and no violence.This statement was given by Jagdish to investigating officer PW 24 Ramsingh.He had gone to the spot that night at about 1-00 a.m. as accused Sardarsingh had gone to the police station at 11-30 p.m. and made a report Ex. D-5 that in his village Sarai, his brother Bhagwansingh and Roopsingh were being beaten by Amarnath, Jagdish, Surendra and Hariram.Sardarsingh had gone to the police station along with Hiralal.S.H.O. Ramsingh reached the spot of incident.He noticed 3 deceased lying sprawled at various points.Amarnath was already dead and other two had still their breaths though they were seriously injured with large number of injuries and were unconscious.The place of incident was near the house of the deceased as also near the house of the accused.Doors and roof tiles of the house of the deceased were found broken with stones.They were the aggressors.Motive was the bad blood between them due to dispute about mango trees which had resulted in litigation between them, but the immediate cause was not the mango trees.JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.This is State's appeal against acquittal of 16 accused/respondents of charges of forming unlawful assembly with object to commit murder and mischief and in pursuance of their common object committing triple murder of Amarnath, Hariram and Surendra on 11-11 -85 between 10 11 p.m. in village Sarai, P.S. Piplod, Dist.The judgment was passed in S.T. No. 38/86 by'Addl.Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, Dist.The acquittal is based mainly on the probability that all the accused might have acted in self defence.Accused Ramsingh suffered one injury resulting in fracture of right frontal and temporal bone, while Bhagwansingh suffered simple injuries on his little finger and Roopsingh suffered simple injuries on the upper part of his right hand.These were blunt weapon injuries.The trial Court had rejected the testimony of eye-witnesses including injured witnesses namely PW 7 Kiran, sister of deceased Surendra, PW 12 Mukesh, nephew of Hariram and Amarnath, PW 22 Jagdish, son of deceased Amarnath.The house of the deceased is in the immediate neighbourhood of the house of the accused.The S.H.O. recorded the statement (Ex.P-77) of PW 22 Jagdish at 2 a.m. According to his narration, that evening they were at their house watching T.V. Amarnath and Hariram were also in the house watching T.V. He was about to start his meals when they heard the cries of Bachao-Bachao raised by Surendra.They noticed all these 16 accused (all 16 are named in the statement) were assaulting Surendra with lathis, Dhariya, Khartaliya and Pata.Hariram went to intervene.These accused attacked him.Then Amarnath went forward and they assaulted him also.Ramsingh called out to others, "Yahi Sala Sab Kuchh Karta Hai, Aaj Isko Bhi Khatam Kar Do".Ramsingh, Bhagwansingh, Sardarsingh, Roopsingh, Dhyansingh attacked Amarnath with lathis and other weapons.This witness rushed forward to save his father and he was also attacked by these accused.He ran away to the house to save himself.The accused then threw stones on the house which broke roof tiles and doors and also damaged the walls.The background of enmity between the parties in which this incident has occurred is also narrated by him and is not in dispute.It was stated that there were few mango trees on the boundary wall of field of Ramsingh.The deceased already claimed to have purchased them about 50 years back and they were collecting its fruits.But about a year back during settlement the revenue authorities depicted these mango trees in the field of Ramsingh.So Ramsingh wanted to collect the fruits and so they quarrelled with the deceased.There had been reports to the police on this count between the parties and even proceedings Under Section 107, Cr.P.C. had been started by police against both sides.However, at the relevant time of this incident there was no fruit on the trees and the immediate cause of the dispute could not be known.The investigating officer sent the injured Surender and Hariram to the Dist.Hospital, Khandwa, but they died the same night.The intimation was sent to the police by hospital authorities.The S.H.O. also found Mukesh injured and he sent him to the hospital.Similarly he found accused Bhagwansingh, Roopsingh and Ramsingh having some injuries and they were also sent to Khandwa Hospital for medical examination.PW 20 Dr. Shukla had conducted the autopsy on the body of Amarnath.He found the following injuries on his body :--1) A.M.L.W. 1/2" x 1/2" bone deep medial aspect of lower l/3rd Lt. leg.On internal examination of the dead body the doctor found fracture of right parietal bone, right occipital temporal bone and joint of the two parietals, even fracture of sub-temporal bone of the right side was extending up to right scalp.There was haematomma of the right side of the brain.In his opinion the death occurred because of head injury resulting in damage to brain.His report is Ex.The head injuries even individually were sufficient to cause the death.The postmortem examination had been conducted on 12-11-85 at 1-15 p.m. The doctor opined that even injuries 1 and 2 which were on the legs causing fracture of tibia and fibula could result in death.PW 16 Dr. Mishra had conducted autopsy on the body of Hariram.He gave the report Ex.All the clothes were found completely blood smeared.He found the following injuries on his body :--1) Lacerated wound on the left leg over the skin of the left tibia size 3 cm x 1 cm x 1/4 cm.fractured bone is seen through the wound.Apparently this could not be sole consideration to consider whether the testimony of these witnesses was that of interested persons.The first fact which should be seen in assessing evidence in a criminal trial is whether the witnesses were naturally present on the scene of crime.If so the mere fact that they are related to the deceased does not make them interested witnesses, even if there is prior enmity between the accused and the deceased.The trial Court is bound to consider the effect of damage to the house of deceased persons and stones having been found there as is clear from the photographs of site taken on the morning of 18 December by police photographer PW.19 Pandit Rao.He states that P-68 is the photo of house of Jagdish which shows the bulb also.The site plan Ex. P-22 prepared by PW. 24 Ramsingh shows the spot where body of Amarnath was lying and where injured Hariram was lying and also the relative positions of the house of the accused and Jagdish.They are all in immediate neighbourhood.It has to be kept in mind that the spot is not the one where mango trees were situate.So dispute about mango trees was not the immediate cause of this violence.The immediate cause of the violence, according to the prosecution witnesses was that they heard the cries of Surendra.The accused's case is that 3 deceased.Jagdish and Mukesh had gone to the house of Bhagwansingh to attack him and they attacked Bhagwansingh as well as his father Ramsingh and so Ramsingh became unconscious.The mohalla people gathered and saved them.So they do not say why the deceased and 2 witnesses entered their house suddenly to attack them at that late hour of night.In the report Ex. D-5 on behalf of these accused there is no mention that injured party had attacked their house or entered their house armed with weapons.They simply said that these people were beating them.The trial Court has failed to appreciate that this report was nothing but a 'Peshbandi' report.The injured must have been already done to death by that time.No doubt there had been enmity between the parties and its cause was the mango trees.A police report was made by Ramsingh on 3-5-85 that is Ex.Another report was made on 20-5-85 (D-7).Amarnath lodged the report P-48 on 30-5-85 against Bhagwansingh.That was also a report in respect of mango trees.In this, Bhagwansingh, Dhyansingh, Sardarsingh and Ramsingh are shown as culprits.So there was no doubt a dispute between the parties.The bad feelings were continuing but it could not be the immediate cause of dispute.There is nothing on record as to what happened between the parties on the day of incident, but prior to incident.It is significant to note that if the incident had started because all the deceased and Jagdish went to the house of Ramsingh to attack him and his family members as urged by the defence, they would have gone armed with some lethal weapons.That would have been their natural conduct.So far as cross-examination of witnesses is concerned, Kiran (PW-7) was asked if Amaranth, Surendra and Hariram assaulted any of the accused.Her reply was that she did not see it.The further suggestion was that Jagdish, Sunil, Narendra, Umesh, Mukesh, Suresh, Surendra, Hariram and Amarnath entered the house of Bhagwansingh to assault him.She denied this.She also denied that they destroyed the house of Bhagwansingh.The statement of Jagdish is that he/or the deceased persons had no lathi with them and further he does not know how accused Bhagwansingh, Ramsingh suffered the injuries.It was suggested that he, Hariram, Amarsingh, Surendra, Hansh, Amarnath, Sunil, Madan entered the house of Bhagwansingh to assault him.He denied this.Thus, in cross-examination the accused were suggesting trespass and assault by many other assailants including Hans (PW. 6) along with the deceased, and not only Jagdish and the deceased as reported in Ex.The significant question would be that if so many persons armed with weapons trespass in a house of Ramsingh accused in order to assault, how it was that the three accused suffered only minor injuries except an injury on the frontal part of the head of Ramsingh and its width is 3/5" suggesting the thickness of the weapon which might have hit there.The other injuries on other accused are very minor.Therefore, the inference taken is that the allegation of the accused that they were first attacked and their neighbours and they acted in their self defence, should be accepted.One of their injuries was grievous.It was observed regarding unexplained fracture on head of a third accused Paras Nath along with another injury that "presence of these injuries coupled with failure of prosecution to explain them, was far from sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of the injuries to the deceased and his companions, having been caused in repelling attack on Paras Nath.So the accused acted as aggressors.The Court held that even if complainant used a Gandasa, it makes no difference and the mere fact that some of the accused received incised wounds would not be material to find the accused party acted in self defendant, or that accused were not agressors.In view of what we have discussed about the circumstances of the case, the injuries on the persons of the three deceased, the sequence in which the witnesses reached the spot of crime, minor nature of the injuries on the persons of the accused except one injury on the head of Bhagwan Singh and the background and also the sequence in which the deceased were attacked, rules out any possibility of the accused having attacked the three deceased in exercise of self defendant of any of them.It is clear that the accused persons were the agressors.It is doubtless to say that PW. 7, PW. 12 and PW. 22 have supported the prosecution case that these accused armed with various weapons had attacked Surendra and when Hariram and Amarnath went to intervene, they were also attacked and all of them died.There was injury to Mukesh also.So his presence on the scene of crime should have been accepted.Jagish had lodged the FIR within 3 hours of the incident.So it was a prompt FIR and could not be called with deliberation as his own father and uncle and cousin had been murdered and he must have been in extremely nervous and apprehensive State of mind about his own safety as he too was rushed at and his house was stoned.So in a prompt FIR all the accused were named as assailants which is supported by him and other witnesses on oath in the Court.There is hardly anything to detract from their reliability.The argument of the counsel for the accused is that the statement of Kiran was recorded about 10 days after the incident Under Section 161 Cr.The witness had stated about the stone pelting on Jagdish who rushed away to his house when he was chased.Some of the stones were seized by the police and also a broken tile (Kabalu) of roof was seized.The fact that statements of PW.7 Kiran and PW.12 Mukesh were recorded after 7 days of the incident and so their testimony was unreliable found favour with the trial court and the same has been pressed now in this appeal.The trial Court noticed that Mukesh has not been stated by the witness Jagdish to have been present while the assault was going on.So inference was taken that Kiran was a later introduced witness.Similarly, while assessing the testimony of Mukesh it was found by the trial Court that according to him Hariram had fallen in injured condition in front of house of Laxman but in the site plan it was shown that Surendra had fallen in front of the house of Laxman while Hariram fell in front of house of Raghunath.This was taken to be a contradiction and read with the fact that his statement was recorded about.8 days later, the witness was held not reliable.There is no discussion by the trial Court regarding the injury on Mukesh found on his shoulder as found by PW.17 Dr. Bhatia.The 3 accused were also examined by this doctor.So the trial Court has totally lost sight of this important fact which suggested the presence of this witness at the scene of crime.While assessing the testimony of Jagdish the trial Court was swayed by the fact that in the seizure memo there was no mention of any broken wall or door of the house of Jagdish.There is mention of only some broken Kabalus and brick-bats on the roof.Some stones were lying near the Chabutara.The trial Court was not convinced that the presence of brick bats or broken Kabalus or broken Pharsi provided support to the testimony of Jagdish.In fact the trial Court sought support from the statement of hostile witness PW.23 Habib to find that Jagdish was unreliable.The trial Court observed that the spot where Surendra fell was quite at a distance from the spot where Hariram had fallen.But this witness had stated that Hariram fell one or two paces away from Surendra.It was found that he was a made-up witness and falsely introduced witness.No weight was given to the fact that Jagdish had lodged the FIR in the form of Dehati nalishi on the scene of crime at 2 a.m. in the same night.The trial Court has also made certain remarks recording the demeanour of this witness in the Court while being cross-examined to the effect that he was avoiding to answer the questions.As already noticed the testimony of these 3 eye-witnesses also did not find favour with the trial Court because they were related to the deceased, because there was enmity between the deceased and the accused and the injuries of the 3 accused had not been explained by these witnesses.It was also observed that investigation was not fair as no investigation was made about the injuries to the accused.Mukesh and Kiran were brother and sister.Kiran had come from her house on hearing shrieks.Jagdish was chased by the accused persons and he ran to his house.It explains that he might have failed to see the persons other than accused persons i.e. these witnesses.The injury on Mukesh at the time of incident is established beyond doubt.He had received a stone throwing injury.The non-mention of his name in the FIR is explainable and is counter balanced by his injury which gives a stamp of truth of his presence at the scene of crime.This factor should not have been ignored by the trial Court.The finding of the trial Court that the witness is a false witness, suffers from perversity.No doubt the statement of this witness was recorded about 7-8 days late but the police knew of his presence on the night of incident.They got him medically examined from a Govt. doctor.If still the investigating officer did not record his statement for 7-8 days it is not for the witness to have his testimony discarded because of this reason.It appears to be lapse of the investigating officer for which the prosecution cannot be thrown out.It is not in every case that if the statement of a witness who was present at the scene of crime is recorded after delay, then the testimony of such witness is described as suspicion.In the present case Mukesh and Kiran are proved to have been present at scene of violence.Then in cross-examination to these three eye-witnesses the suggestions have been that the deceased and the witnesses along with others assaulted the accused at the house of Ramsingh.In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the trend of cross-examination by defence or prosecution witness can provide support to the inference if some accused and witnesses were present at the scene of crime.The most striking feature is the fact that such a report was recorded by the police and they at once proceeded to the scene of crime.This indicates that there was some under current working between the police and the accused persons.The police could not but have recorded the Dehati Nalishi on finding one person died and 2 in the process of dying with fatal injuries.If Kiran had hot witnessed the occurrence there was no need to introduce her as a witness when there were witnesses such as Jagdish and Mukesh whose presence at that spot could hardly be challenged.So, if anything, investigation was unfair towards the complainant party and not against the accused persons.The presence of Kiran being cousin of Surendra whose cries had been heard would be natural.He asserted that the accused persons were armed with lathis, Kharaliya and Pati.He saw the accused hitting them.There were large number of injuries which were more than 38 on the 3 victims.It is unacceptable that the accused could have succeeded in causing so large number of grievous hurts to these deceased if the deceased and witnesses had gone to their house to attack, duly armed.In fact these victims were attacked by the accused.The opening of the attack on Surendra was not seen by any witness.No witness claims so.Initially Surendra was the sole victim of assault.Others ran out of the house to intervene.The reasoning of the trial Court that these injured were found lying at great distance from one another is imaginary.The house of the victims and the house of the witness and house of the accused are in close neighbourhood.The trial Court has ignored the evidence of these witnesses that the houses of the accused are adjacent to the houses of the victims.Even the site plan shows immediate neighbourhood of the house of Jagdish, Raghunath, Laxman and Shakuntala.The trial Court appears to have created an imaginary defence that the witnesses could not be able to see the incident or they have described the incident differently.The testimony of Jagdish who lodged the FIR is clear that these 16 persons assaulted Surendra, Hariram and Amarnath.In the FIR he named all 16 accused and in Court also.In the Court he said that Bhagwansingh, and Ramsingh were armed with Pata, Dhyansingh, Sardarsingh and Roopsingh were armed with Khiraliya and others were armed with Danda and Dhariya.But in the FIR he said that the accused were armed with Lathis, Kharaily, Dhariya and Patas.We will not call it any serious improvement over the FIR.In the FIR he had stated that when his father Amarnath went to intervene, Ramsingh had spoken out that he should be finished.At this Ramsingh, Bhagwanshigh armed with Patas and Sardarsingh, Roopsingh and Dhayansingh armed with Kharaliya started assaulting Amarnath.Even in Court he had stated that Bhagwansingh and Ramsingh were armed with Patas and Dhyansingh, Sardarsingh and Roopsingh were armed with Kharaliya and also that Ramsingh, Dhyansingh, Sardarsingh and Roopsingh assaulted his father with these weapons.We fail to understand how the trial Court reached the conclusion that this witness was not present at the scene of crime.Kabalus of roof of this witness were damaged.Kabalu is a Khapra which is used as upper layer of roof.The presence of stones and brick bats also supports this witness as he said that stones and brick bats were thrown when he escaped into the house.There is complete corroboration to his testimony in Court.When Mukesh (PW. 12) reached, the assault was continuing and part of the assault had already taken place.He saw the accused persons hitting Amarnath and it was within his sight that Hariram fell.The assailants were armed with sticks and Patas.They started pelting stones on this witness, one of which hit his shoulder.This witness said that he did not see Surendra.That establishes his truthfulness.He pointed to the accused in Court.She had reached there on hearing the shrieks of Surendra.So the assault on Surendra had already been opened and then Hariram and Amarnath had reached from their house.She had also seen the accused pelting stones on Jagdish and shouting that he be also finished.To discard the testimony of this witness on the ground that the point of her presence is not shown in the site plan or that her statement was recorded later or that her name does not appear in FIR, is totally impermissible mechanical approach.The positive material existing on record in favour of reliability of her testimony, is overpowering and has been wrongly ignored by the trial Court.The trial Court observed that perhaps this witness could not see the incident.The trial Court lost sight of substratum of evidence of this witness.She specifically stated that she did not see Amarnath falling and Surendra had been already hit.Hariram was hit in her presence.No contradictions or serious omissions have been pointed out in her testimony.We have already discussed the legal position in paras 17 and 18 herein.The injuries of Ramsingh and Roopsingh were superficial in nature.Only one injury on Bhagwansingh was found to be grievous.It was on the front of the head measuring 1 1/2" x 1/3" x 1/4".The accused do not say so in their statement Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The position taken by them, that the victims along with number of persons attacked them in their house, is false.Every case must be judged on its own facts and circumstances.It is different fact that the victim, who was present from the start, does not explain the grievous hurt on the accused though he must have known about it, in comparison to similar disability of witnesses who reach one after the other and after the attack has already started.The witnesses have pointed out the accused, they have named them in Court, Jagdish has pointed them in Court and named them in FIR.If they are unable to name which of the accused used which weapon, we cannot discard their testimony.So they committed offence Under Section 148, IPC and they have been wrongly acquitted of the charge.The 3 murders were result of common object of this unlawful assembly.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,922,925 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.182/2020 (Tarachandra Goyal s/o Pirulal Goyal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 16.01.2020 Mr. Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.As per prosecution case, allegations of rape and criminal intimidation have been made by the prosecutrix against the present applicant on the pretext of marriage.The prosecutrix is a major 2 lady aged about 43 years; and according to the allegation made in the FIR as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 as well as Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant committed rape upon the prosecutrix first time on 15.10.2017 and thereafter for two years he made physical relationship with her.However, during which, neither she raised any alarm nor intimated to her husband or other family members regarding the incident, which clearly indicates that she was the consenting party.The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,925,860 |
DATED: 21st August, 2019ORAL JUDGMENT:Since both Appeals arise from the same crime and the commonjudgment and order is delivered by the learned trial Judge and since the paper-book is common, the same are being disposed by this common judgment andorder.Appeal No.74/2006 is preferred by original accused no.2-Raju @Pintya Hivrale; whereas Appeal No.112/2006 is filed by original accused no.2-Mahendra @ Mandya Telgande, both of which have been directed against thejudgment and order dated 8th February 2006 delivered by learned Ad-hocAdditional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.211/2002 whereby the learnedJudge of the trial Court has convicted both of them, for offence punishable undersection 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for aperiod of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default ofpayment of fine, to suffer RI for six months each.A1-Mahendra was alsoconvicted for offence punishable u/s. 324 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 ::: CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 3for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to suffer RI fortwo months.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::The prosecution case in brief is that, accused and the victims areR/o Akola.On 7th February 2002 A1-Mahendra and A2-Raju, both met PW3-AnilSagne in the afternoon.At that time, A1-Mahendra threatened PW3-Anil thathe would stab him on that day itself.On the same day at about 9.30 pm, whilePW3- Anil was proceeding towards the bypass old Balapur check-post, both theaccused approached him.A1 said to him, " Tu khup Majla Ahes; Dadagiri Kartoska? and assaulted him by means of knife on his right arm, due to which PW3sustained bleeding injury.PW3-Anil, however, managed to escape from thatplace.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused then approached PW1-Mohan Giri who happened to be passing through the same road.A2-Raju caughthold the hands of Mohan Giri and A1- Mahendra assaulted him by means of aknife on his chest and hip.At the relevant time, brother of Mohan Giri, namely,PW2-Vasant Sagne was returning back to his house in a taxi.He noticed A1and A2 running behind his brother.In the meantime, PW2-Vasant Sagne, who isthe brother of PW3 Anil Sagane, was returning home in a cab.He noticed A1-Mandya and A2-Pintya chasing his brother Anil Sagne.PW2 Vasant got downfrom his vehicle, Vasant noticed that A2 Raju had caught hold of hands of MohanGiri and A1-Mahendra assaulted him by means of a knife on his chest and hip. ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 4PW2-Vasant tried to catch the accused, however, they fled away.PW2-Vasantthen shifted the injured PW1- Mohan by an auto rickshaw to the Police Station.The police directed him to take the victim to Civil Hospital Akola.Accordingly,PW2 Vasant took him to the hospital.At that time, he noticed that both accused were chasing PW3-Anil.A1-Mahendra was holding a knife.According to PW1 after assaulting PW3-Anil,PW3 fled away from that place.The accused asked him about the whereaboutsof Anil and said that he used to be in the company of PW3-Anil.CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 8Thereafter PW2-Vasant arrived at the spot, who took him to the City KotwaliPolice Station by autorickshaw.PW2 Vasant lodged report in the Police Station.PW1 then taken to the hospital.According to PW1-Mohan he was hospitalizedfor about 20 to 21 days.PW1 identified Art.1( knife) as well as his clothesArt.2(shirt) and Art.3 (pant).During the cross-examination, PW1-Mohan admitted that the roadfrom Balapur Naka to city Police station is a busy road.He stated that the policerecorded his statement in the hospital.PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that he had not stated before the policethat as he used to accompany PW3-Anil, the accused were annoyed.PW1 statedthat when PW2-Vasant Sagne came on the spot, 2 to 4 other person arrived atthat place and Vasant lifted him and took him to the Police Station in anautorickshaw.He stated that there were blood stains in the auto rickshaw.PW1admitted that he had been to the spot to rescue the quarrel and there was nointention to assault him.A meticulous scrutiny of the testimony of PW1-Mohan indicatesthat the accused had an intention to assault PW3- Anil Sagne.The evidence ofPW1 shows that after assaulting PW3- Anil, the accused turned on him and ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 ::: CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 9asked him about the whereabouts of Anil.The evidence of PW 1 shows that A1-Mahendra asked him about about the whereabouts of Anil and said that PW1used to be in the company of PW3-Anil.The testimony of PW3-Anil Sagne shows that on7th February2002 both the accused met him in the afternoon.A1 said that he would stab him.On the same day at about 9.30 pm, while PW3 was proceeding towards by pass,both the accused approached him.A1 said that "Tu Khup Majlas Ahes, ...DadagiriKartos"? He was armed with a knife.A1 assaulted PW3 on his right arm andPW3,therefore, fled away from the spot.He further stated that while he wasrunning both the accused were chasing him, He however hid himself at a shortdistance from the octroi post and from that place, he saw that PW1 had come onthe spot.A2-Raju caught hold of him and A1-Mahendra assaulted him by meansof knife.PW3 stated that he thereafter fled away from that spot and went to thePolice Station.CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 10The deposition of PW2-Vasant Sagne depicts that on 7 thFebruary,2002 between 9.30 and 9.45 pm, he saw A1-Mahendra and A2-Rajuchasing PW3-Anil.A1 was holding a knife.He stated that he stopped hisvehicle and asked A2 as to what had happened.On this the A2 told him thatAnil ran away from the spot and Mohan came there.A2 caught hold hands ofMohan and A1 assaulted him by means of knife on his chest and hip.PW2 tookMohan to the Police Station by an autorickshaw and lodged his report (Exh.12).PW2 then took PW1 to the hospital where he was admitted.PW2 admitted thatabout 7 to 8 persons gathered at the place of incident and at the relevant time ofincident shops as well as panshops were opened.He further stated that therewere bloodstains in the autorickshaw.PW2-Vasant then lodged his complaint in thePolice Station.PW7-PSI V.D.Patil who was attached to said Police Stationregistered the offence on the basis of the said complaint vide Crime No.27/2002Thereafter PSI V.D. Patil proceeded to the place of incident and recorded thespot panchnama.During the same night, injured PW3-Anil Sagne proceeded tothe Police Station.Police referred him to the Civil Hospital for medicalexamination and treatment.PW7-PSI Patil recorded the statements of both theinjured PW3-Anil and PW1-Mohan Giri in the hospital.Accused were arrested bythe police.Clothes of the injured were taken charge and sent to the ChemicalAnalyser for its analysis.After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet wasfiled in the court of learned JMFC.The case was committed to the court ofSessions.The learned trial Judge framed the charge and on assessment of theevidence on record and hearing both the sides, convicted the accused, asaforesaid.Hence these Appeals.Learned seniorcounsel lastly contended that no independent witnesses have been examined bythe prosecution although they were available at the place of the incident There isno investigation in respect of the autorickshaw although it is the case of PW1-Mohan that his clothes were stained with blood and he was taken in anautorickshaw to the hospital.He contended that though according to PW1-Mohanhis statement was recorded in the hospital, said statement was not produced bythe prosecution in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 6Akshaya Kshirsagar, learned Advocate (appointed) for theappellant in Appeal No.112/2006, supported the arguments advanced by learnedsenior counsel.She contended that the A1-Mahendra had no intention tocommit murder of either PW1-Mohan or PW3-Anil and the incident had takenplace in a spur of moment.It was submitted that as per the evidence of PW2-Vasant, it was darkness at the place of the incident and as such, it is doubtfulwhether the accused persons were involved in the said offence.Lastly, sheprayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order.Per contra, Shri T.A. Mirza, learned APP contended that the Courtbelow has rightly assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and hasrightly convicted the A1-Mahendra and A2-Raju, under section 307 r/ws.34 of theIPC.It is submitted that A1-Mahendra was in search of PW3-Anil.He further submitted that the medicalevidence supports the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses and,therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 7In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecutionexamined in all seven witnesses.The defence of the accused was of total denial.In order to consider the rival contentions, it would be advantageous to go throughthe evidence led by the prosecution.The prosecution has examined in all sevenwitnesses, PW1-Mohan and PW3-Anil are the injured witnesses.PW2-Vasantclaims to be an eye witness to the incident and the first informant.Aslam Jamal is the Medical Officer who examined the injured witnesses; PW4 isthe Panch witness on the point of recovery of knife at the instance of A1-Mahendra.PW5 is the carrier of muddemal property to CA office ; and PW7 PSIVishwanath Patil, is the Investigating Officer.The prosecution heavily relied upon the testimony of PW1-MohanGiri.The testimony of PW1 shows that he was knowing the accused, they wereannoyed with him and used to quarrel with him as he used to be in the companyof PW3-Anil.On 7th February, 2002 at 9.30 pm, PW1-Mohan came to Balapurnaka.A1 Mahendraassaulted him by means of knife on his chest and hip, whereas A2-Raju caughthold of his hands.PW1 sustained injuries therefore he sat down on the ground.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::The said version indicates that the A1 hada grudge in his mind that PW1-Mohan used to remain in the company of Anil(PW3).::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::An improvement was pointed out in his evidence to the effect thathe had witnessed the incident by hiding himself.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::Mohd. Aslam Jamal indicates that he examined PW1- Mohan and foundthe following injuries:-(1) Stab injury on right chest wall, 6 inter costal space, size 1"x 1/2 x pluralcavity deep.(2) Stab injury on left flank, abdomen laterally of size 1" x ½ x abdominal ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 ::: CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 11cavity deep.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::(3) Stab injury, size 1" x ½ x 1/2" on left gluteal region."PW6-Dr.Jamal, opined that the injuries were fresh and werecaused by hard and sharp object and were possible by knife (Art-1).The injuryNos.1 and 2 were on the vital part of the body and were sufficient to cause death.He issued medical certificate (Exh.73).He noticed severe injuryon the right arm laterally in the middle 1/3rd admeasuring 2 x ½ x 1 .Injury wasfresh and caused by hard and sharp object and was possible by knife (Art-1).The deposition of PW4-Raju Ghate, a panch witness, shows thaton 15.2.2002 between 1.00 and 1.30 pm, he was called by the police in the oldcity Police Station Akola.Since A1-Mahendra was in the lockup; he was broughtoutside.He states that A1-Mehendra stated that he will produce the knife.Thepolice recorded the memorandum panchnama (Exh.24A).Thereafter the accusedled the police and Panchas to a field where there was thorny bush and removedthe soil and produced the knife.The police took charge of the said under seizurepanchnama (Exh24B).The evidence of PW4 coupled with the Pachnama makesit amply clear that neither there is a reference of bloodstains on the knife nor ofsealing of the said weapon.Although no bloodstains were found on the said ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 ::: CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 12knife, the CA report reveals bloodstains on the knife.In this context, theevidence of the PW5-Kiran Gavai shows that on 22nd March 2002 he carried thesaid article-1 knife to the CA office and at that time seals were intact.As statedabove, as there is no mention of sealing of the knife in the Panchanma as well asin the evidence of PW4-Raju, it appears that the knife was lying idle in the PoliceStation without affixing the seal.In these circumstances, there is every possibilityof tampering with the knife, even the possibility thereafter sprinkling the blood onthe knife cannot be ruled out.Thus, the seizure of knife is of less assistance tothe prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::So far as the investigation is concerned, no doubt, the InvestigatingOfficer has not recorded the statements of any independent witnesses althoughpanstalls and other shops were opened at the relevant time, as stated by witnessPW1-Mohan Giri.Thus, the overall assessment of the evidence led by theprosecution witnesses indicates that as PW1-Mohan used to be in companyPW3-Anil and on this count the accused used to get annoyed with him andused to quarrel with him.The said version of PW1-Mohan shows that A1 andA2 had some sort of grudge against PW3-Anil and they were also annoyedwith PW1-Mohan as he used to accompany him.It is very clear from the ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 ::: CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 13evidence of PW1-Mohan that on the date of incident, both the accused werechasing PW3-Anil; A-1 holding a knife , first A1 assaulted PW3-Anil.Howeveronly there was injury to the arm of PW3 Anil and he somehow managed to fleeaway from that place.It appears that the A1 was not satisfied with the said Actand then he turned to PW1-Mohan, enquired with him about the whereabouts ofAnil, probably because Anil fled away from that place.A1-Mahendra said toPW1 that he used to be in the company of PW3-Anil.The said version of PW1makes it amply clear that A1 had a grudge in his mind about PW1 as he usedto be in the company of PW3-Anil and on account of this, A-1 Mahindra assaultedPW1 by means of knife on his chest and hip.The medical evidence shows thatthere were three stab injuries on the body of Mohan PW1 - one on the chest,second on the abdomen and the third injury was on the gluteal region.Out ofthose injuries , injury nos. 1 and 2 were fatal and sufficient to cause death, inordinary course of nature.The nature of injuries inflicted by A1-Mahindra on thevital part of the body of PW1-Mohan makes amply clear that A1 had an intentionin his mind to kill PW1-Mohan.Therefore, it can be safely said that the offenceu/s. 307 of IPC is committed by A1-Mahindra.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::So far as A2- Raju is concerned, the evidence of PW1 indicatesthat A2 caught hold of his hands while A1 assaulted him with knife on his chestand hip.The testimony of PW1 shows that first A1 and A-2 proceeded to ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 ::: CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 14assault PW3-Anil and as Anil skipped from that place by receiving injury to hisarm only, A1 and A2 approached towards PW1-Mohan; A2 caught hold of PW2knowing fully well that A1 was holding a knife in his hand and he had alreadyassaulted PW3- Anil and at that time A1 had also expressed his annoyance bysaying to PW 1 that he used to be in the company of PW3-Anil.A2 came to knowthe intention in the mind of A1 that the A-1 may try to kill PW1-Mohan as hewas already holding naked knife in his hand.Inspite of having knowledge thatthe A1 may kill PW1 Mohan, in order to facilitate his act, A2 Raju caughthold the hands of Mohan.The said act of A2 manifest that the A2 also sharedthe common intention with A1 to kill PW1-Mohan.Thus, the offence punishableu/s 307 is also proved against the A2-Raju.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::In view thereof, it can be safely said that the A1 hadcommitted the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC in respect of PW3- Anil.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::In that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the accused merelyaccompanying co-accused to house of deceased and merely because accusedknew that co-accused was himself armed with pistol and also had knowledgeabout previous enmity between co-accused and deceased, inference that ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 ::: CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 16accused had common intention to kill cannot be drawn.It was further held thatsimply because accused was armed with pistol, does not lead to inference thathe had reached house of deceased with common intention to kill.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::The facts in that case also differ from the facts in the present case.In that case, both the accused went to the house of the deceased.At that timeaccused Mithu Singh was not aware that the co-accused may have an intentionto cause death of deceased, only because he was armed with pistol.In theinstant case, A1 was moving with naked knife and he had already attackedPW3-Anil.In these circumstances, it can certainly be gatheredthat A2 who had noticed all these aspects must have knowledge that there isevery likelihood that the A1 may assualt PW3-Anil and in order to facilitate thesaid act, he caught hold of PW3 when A1 assaulted PW3 on his chest for thefirst time and then on other parts of the body by inflicting one after the otherblow.He did not restrain A1 from doing the said act and therefore A1 succeededin inflicting three injuries on the vital part of the body of PW3-Anil and thusshared a common intention.Learned APP placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Israrvs.State of U.P. reported in AIR 2005 SC 249 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Courtheld in paragraph 20 that the evidence of PW3 to PW5 is consistent and that the ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 ::: CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 17accused appellant restrained the movement of the deceased and held him whilethe other co- accused inflicted knife blows.Thus, as the accused/appellant caughthold of the deceased and facilitated the co-accused to inflict the knife blows ondeceased, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant had shared the common intention to commit murder of deceased.Thelearned trial Judge assessed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in rightperspective.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that A1-Mahendra is held guilty for offence punishable u/s 307 r/ws.34 IPC and u/s 324 ofthe IPC whereas A2-Raju is held guilty for offence punishable u/s 307 r/ws.34 ofthe IPC, with fine amount as awarded by the trial Court.Hence the followingorder:-(a) Criminal Appeal Nos. 74/2006 and 112/2006, both are dismissed.(b) The impugned judgment and order dated 8.2.2006 passed by learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No.211/2002 is herebymaintained.(c) The appellants who are on bail, shall surrender to their bail bonds, withinfour weeks, to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::CRI.APPEAL.74.06+ 18(d) The professional fees of Ms. Akshaya Kshirsagar, Advocate (appointed) forthe appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 112/2006 be paid as per Rules.JUDGEsahare ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 09:55:51 :::
|
['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.
|
69,928,634 |
The applicant has preferred present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 13/2018 dated 06/01/2018 registered against the applicant at Police-Station- Kotwali, District-Mandsaur for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.Brief facts of the case are that on 04/01/2018, a missing person report of Naresh Ramwani was lodged by the family members of the deceased, which was registered as Missing person report No. 1/2018 at Police-Station-Kotwali, District-Mandsaur.On 05/01/2018 at about 12:45 p.m., dead body of Naresh Ramwani was found in Shivna river.Then police registered Merg No. 2/2018 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and enquired the matter.C. No. 46342/2018 Nirmala Nahata Vs.State of M.P.During Merg enquiry, police prepared dead body panchnama of the deceased and sent his dead body for the postmortem.Police also recovered one suicide note in the purse of the deceased.According to which, three years ago, on 10/02/2014, the deceased took a loan of Rs.3.0 Lacs from the present applicant and he was paying Rs.3,000/- per day to him and still the present applicant is demanding the interest to the principal amount taken on credit, due to which he committed suicide.On the basis of Merg enquiry, FIR bearing Crime No. 13/2018 dated 06/01/2018 has been registered 2 M.Cr.C. No. 46342/2018 Nirmala Nahata Vs.State of M.P.against the applicant at Police-Station-Kotwali, District-Mandsaur for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased was harassed by the applicant for recovery of interest but no complaint in whatsoever manner has been made against the applicant by the deceased or his family members.It is also submitted that the contents of the FIR and the investigation carried on by the Investigating Officer are self contradictory.On the one hand as per the complaint received and FIR, a suicide note was found by the deceased wife in an envelope but as per prosecution case, the suicide note was recovered in the purse, which deceased was in possession.This completely two instance of suicide note clearly creates suspicion regarding the alleged suicide note.It is further submitted that in the suicide note, the deceased has not made any allegation against the applicant that he used to harassed the deceased for recovery of any money nor it is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant abetted the deceased for commission of suicide.It is well established principle of law that demand of money given to a person is not constitute any offence.If any person committed suicide, due to the said fact then it cannot be said that the aforesaid act of the accused falls under Section 306 of the IPC.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no iota of evidence on record for prosecuting the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.Hence, he prayed for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 13/2018 dated 06/01/2018 registered against the applicant at Police-Station-Kotwali, District-Mandsaur for 3 M.Cr.commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State opposed the prayer by contending that contents of the suicide note clearly suggests that the applicant had instigated and facilitated the deceased for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.Therefore, the grounds raised by the learned counsel of the applicant for quashment of the FIR can very well decided after recording the evidence.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet.To resolve the controversy, it appears necessary first of all to have a look at the provision of Section 306 of IPC, which reads as under:Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment either description for a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."The parameters of 'abetment' have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows :-Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who -First - Instigates any person to do that thing;or Secondly, - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of 4 M.Cr.C. No. 46342/2018 Nirmala Nahata Vs.that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. "As Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC.Therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other person in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commit suicide or he must intentionally acts by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased.C. No. 46342/2018 Nirmala Nahata Vs.In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998, the accused was charged under section 306 of IPC for abeting his brother-in-law to commit suicide.The accused allegedly said to him to " go and die".The deceased left behind a suicide note stating that the accused is responsible for his death."Abetment involves a mentalprocess of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained -In order to convict a persons 6 M.Cr.C. No. 46342/2018 Nirmala Nahata Vs.State of M.P.under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he committs suicide - Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victi belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty - Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 made out - Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable."The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh Vs.State of Punjab reported in (2017( 1 SCC (Cri) 134 is held as under:-Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that a person in doing of a thing.In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing.More 7 M.Cr.C. No. 46342/2018 Nirmala Nahata Vs.The intention of the Legislature is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she commits suicide."On perusal of the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased-Naresh Ramwani, it is apparent that the applicant demanded loan amount at higher rate of interest and pressurized the deceased for vacating the house, therefore, he had committed suicide.From the suicide note, it does not appear that the applicant had harassed the deceased to pay loan amount at higher rate of interest.The allegation made against the applicant in the suicide note or in the statements of the witnesses, even if taken true at their face value does not prima-facie indicate that the applicant by 8 M.Cr.C. No. 46342/2018 Nirmala Nahata Vs.State of M.P.positive act on his part incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, in the aforesaid premises continuation of the proceedings against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC will be nothing, but exercise in futility .In the the aforesaid premises, prima-facie, no charge under Section 306 of the IPC is hereby made out against the applicant.Consequently, present petition is allowed.The FIR bearing Crime No. 13/2018 dated 06/01/2018 registered against the applicant at Police-Station-Kotwali, District-Mandsaur for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and the applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charge.C c as per rules.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,933,172 |
CC Nos.4 to 12 of 2001 on the file of District and Sessions/Special Court, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District traces its root to a common complaint.The accused persons Thiru.Mani (A-1) and Thiru.K.BelliKalan (A-2), who are now appellants before this Court are public servants employed in Education Department as Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer (in short AAEEO) and Record Clerk respectively at Kothagiri Additional Elementary Education Office.The charges against them are criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, forgery, use of forged document as genuine, falsification of accounts, creation of false documents and abuse of official position for illegal pecuniary advantage.As far as Spl.C.C.Nos.5/2001,6/2001 and 7/2001, Thiru.Mani (AEEO) and Thiru. K.BelliKalan (Record clerk) are accused.The criminal law has been set into motion based on the complaint lodged by Thiru.R.Narayanasamy, then Director of Elementary Education on 17.10.1997 detailing out several instances of falsification of accounts, financial irregularities including misappropriation and forgery.Though the complaint named only Thiru.Mathappan (AEEO) and Thiru.Thathan (AEEO) as suspects of crime, in the course of the investigation, apart from these two named accused, others were also working under Kothagiri Assistant Elementary Education Office.A.Nos.777 and 795 of 2003 arise from the judgement in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2001 wherein Thiru.Mani (A-1) appellant in Crl.A.No.777 of 2003 found guilty of offences under Sections 467, 477-A, 409 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) &(d)(i) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default S.I. For 6 months each and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 471 IPC and period of sentence ordered to run concurrently along with the sentence imposed in Spl.The Appellant in Crl.A.No.795/2003, Thiru.K.Bellikhan (A-2) found guilty of offences under Section 467, 477-A, 409 r/w 109 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d)(i) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 6 months each and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months under Section 471 IPC and period of sentence ordered to run concurrently along with the sentence imposed in Spl.Case of the Prosecution in brief:Between 03.07.1995 and 24.07.1997, A-1 (Thiru.Mani) was the Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer and A-2 (Thiru.BelliKalan) was the Record Clerk in the Assistant Education Office.Mani) as pay drawing officer, was responsible for drawing money from the Sub-treasury, presentation of bills towards the salary of the teachers.He was authorised to draw Teachers Provident Fund at the request of the respective teachers working under his jurisdiction and distribute it to them immediately.BelliKalan) who was working under A-1(Thiru.Mani) as Record clerk entrusted with the responsibility of preparing the pay bills of the teaching staff, to maintain MTC 70 register, Cash book, disbursement register, pay register etc.6. A-1(Thiru.Mani) and A-2(Thiru.Bellikalan) having access to the records and dominion over the property viz, salary and other bills like Provident Fund, had forged the signatures, created false documents, used the forged document as genuine and also dishonestly misappropriated cash entrusted to them, besides pecuniary advantage by illegal means.Precisely, in this case, on 11.07.1997 to cheat and misappropriate a sum of Rs.10,556/- from the Provident Fund account of Mr.K.R.Krishnan, had forged the signature of Mr.K.R.Krishnan in the disbursement register and had falsified the Account.The PF amount payable to Mr.K.R.Krishnan had been misappropriated by A-1(Thiru.Though in Ex.P-5 there is an entry that he had received a sum of Rs.10,556/- on 11.07.1996, the signature found in that register is not his.The signatures found in page No.71 of the same register, which is marked as Ex.P-6 is his signature.He signed it, when he was paid Rs.4,63,876/- towards his part final settlement.The other admitted signatures are in Ex.Opening of Service Registers, Sanction of increments.Award of Selection/Special Grade to teachers and headmasters.Sanction of all kinds of leave and reposting order for leave beyond 30 days, limited to the existing regulations.Re-employment orders on superannuation.Sanction of short term advances like Festival, Handloom Education etc.Sanction of GPF Advances both temporary and part-final upto 75%.Submission of pension proposals and sanction of retirement benefits.Countersignature of Record Sheets of schools upto 8th standard.Permission for admission of private students upto Std.Power to grant exemption from the operation of age rule upto one month for Std.I only.Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) (except suspension) and award of minor punishments to all Secondary grade teachers and allied categories of primary and Middle Schools.2. Follow up action on the findings of the surprise visits to schools and inspection.Conducting 4 tire meetings every quarter.Assisting the Director of Government Examinations in the conduct of Government Examinations.Any other work assigned by Superior Officers.COMMON JUDGMENT Batch of appeals arising from the judgement of the trial Court in Spl.The investigation has led to file 9 separate final reports against the persons involved in respective act of forgery, misappropriation, creation of false documents and falsification of accounts.The present appeals Crl.Mani) with the aid and assistance of A-2(Thiru.BelliKalan), thereby A-1(Thiru.Mani) had committed offences punishable under sections 467,471,477A, 409 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d)(i) of PC Act and A-2(Thiru.To substantiate the charges the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and marked 58 exhibits.The trial Court has found the prosecution case proved and held the accused guilty of charges and sentenced them as stated supra.Aggrieved by the judgement of sentence, these two appeals are preferred.The Learned counsel appearing for Thiru.Mani the first accused / appellant in Crl.A.No.777/2003, would submit that the prosecution has not made out any offence against this appellant.The First Information Report does not mention his name, none of the prosecution witnesses directly implicate the appellant.Even according to the prosecution witnesses, it was the second accused who as record clerk, was maintaining the records and the bills were prepared by A-2(Thiru.BelliKalan).The handwriting of the accused was not obtained for comparision with the disputed signature to prove forgery.The evidence of PW-1(Thiru.Umarani who was not examined as prosecution witness.In the absence of mens rea, for the omission and commission of the subordinate, this appellant, who was the head of the office as Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer cannot be criminally held liable.On behalf of the second accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.795/2003, the learned counsel would submit that, the trial Court has miserably failed to note that to allege criminal breach of trust by public servant, it should satisfy the twin requirement namely entrustment or dominion with property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion for his own use.The case as projected by the prosecution against this appellant would not attract the ingredients of Section 477A, 409 IPC or the Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d)(i) of PC Act. In the absence of documentary proof to show this appellant was acting as Junior Assistant and was entrusted with the duties of Junior assistant like preparation of bills, maintenance of MTC 70, disbursement registers, cash book, Ex.P-10, marked through PW-9 is a document created for the purpose of the case.Documents not maintained in the course of the business are relied by the trial Court to convict the appellant.Based on the oral evidence of interested witnesses, the trial Court has come to the erroneous finding, which warrants interference.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, A-1(Thiru.Mani) as AAEEO has to periodically verify the registers regarding remittance and acquittance.He is the officer responsible for supervising the proper maintenance of the records.He and A-2 (Thiru.BelliKalan) had connived and had misappropriate the PF money of K.R.Krishnan.His admitted signatures found in Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-9 varies from the signature found in Ex.P-5 which proves beyond doubt the case of forgery and use of forged document as genuine by the accused persons to misappropriate Rs.10,556/-.While PW-2(Thiru.K.R.Krishnan) was paid 90% of his PF on his retirement, Rs.10,556/- which is the balance 10% , was not paid but the accused A-1 and A-2 by forging the signature of PW-2(Thiru.The signature found in Ex.P-5 is proved to be forgery through expert evidence.Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt the charges against the appellants.Hence, the trial Court judgement has to be confirmed.The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved forgery, falsification of accounts and misappropriation beyond doubt ?In her report, she has given extensive details about the irregularities found during the inspection of records maintained in Kothagiri Assistant Elementary Education Office.The report reveals several financial irregularities inviting departmental action and criminal prosecution against the appellants herein and others who are subsequently prosecuted.PW-1 [Mr. Narayanasamy] to whom the report was forwarded by Tmt.Umarani has deposed that on receipt of the report he perused it and being satisfied that irregularities found in the report requires investigation by police, he forwarded the complaint Ex.P-2 to the Director, Crime Branch, Chennai.On completion of investigation, three cases against these appellants were filed and taken cognizance by the Court.As far as Spl.C.C.No.7/2001 is concerned, it is in respect of forging the signature of K.R.Krishan, falsification of accounts namely, making false entry in the acquittance register as if Rs.10,556/- paid to PW-2(Thiru.For the balance 10%, he applied on 08.09.1996 through letter marked as Ex.P-8 specimen signatures given to the Police during investigation and Ex.P-9 specimen signatures given to the Additional Educational Officer, Kothagiri.On scrutiny of the evidence of PW-2 and his complaint marked as Ex P-4 dated 8.9.1996, this Court finds that when 10% of his PF amount was not paid inspite of repeated visit to AE Office, the persons in-charge were giving evasive reply and on his insistence, he was allowed to find the acquittance register, where he found that some one has forged his signature and has appropriated the money.The hand writing expert opinion is marked as Ex.While so, they are to be held responsible for any falsification and forgery.Though it is not proved by the prosecution that either A-1 or A-2 has forged the signature of PW-2[Thiru.K.R.Krishnan], undoubtedly the signature found in Ex.P-5 is not that of PW-2[Thiru.K.R.Krishnan].A-1 and A-2 who are responsible to get the acquittance from the right person and disburse the money have failed to do so and they cannot claim ignorance of the forgery, falsification of account and misappropriation of the money upon which they had dominion.The prosecution evidence has proved the role of A-2(Thiru.BelliKalan) as record clerk responsible for maintaining the account and registers both the acquittance register and undisbursed register.A-1 being the head of the office vested with the responsibility of payment of PF and other allowances as per G.O.Ms.No.1228, Education Science Technology Department, dated 30.12.1994 marked as Ex.Therefore, this Court finds no force in the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the appellant which requires interference of the trial Court judgment.19. A-1 and A-2 who as persons responsible for disbursement and maintenance of the record are liable for making false entry in the acquittance register by forgery and misappropriation.The first accused/ appellant in Crl.A.No.777 of 2003 cannot plead absence of mens rea and put the blame of A-2, who is his subordinate.Duty is cast upon A-1 to maintain service register and supervise the service matters the teachers including sanctioning of short term advances, sanction of GPF advances both temporary and part final.Ex.P-58 which is the order issued by the Education Department vide G.O Ms.The said Government order had classified the officers, their duties and responsibilities.As far as the Assistant Educational Officers are concerned, their duties and responsibilities are:-Works of the Assitant Educational Officer/ Additional Assitant Educational Officer for their respective jurisdiction:a. In Respect of Panchayat and Municipal Schools:-Service matters of the teachers and maintenance of service Registers.2. Regularisation and declaration of probation of all teachers and Headmasters of Primary Schools.IN RESPECT OF AIDED SCHOOLS:-1. Proposals for fixation of teachers in Primary and Middle Schools on the basis of average attendance.Fixation of pay of teachers, approval of sanction of increment and grant of leave to teachers and heardmasters.Approval of Re-employment on superannuation.Assessment of teaching grant to aided school teachers.Pensionary benefits and pension proposals.Sanction of short term loan and advances including GPF upto 75%Counter signature of students record sheet upto Std.VIII.Approval of award of Special/Selection Grade to teachers and Headmasters.Conducting annual inspection and periodical surprise visits to schools atleast once in every quarter.Name of the Accused Conviction under Section Sentence imposed by the trial Court Modified sentenceA1(ii)Under Section 471 IPC(i)To undergo RI for 5 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default Simple Imprisonment for 6 months each.(ii)To undergo RI for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default SI for 3 months(i)To undergo RI for 1 year each.(ii)To undergo RI for 1 year.Fine amount imposed by the trial Court remains unaltered.(ii)Under Section 471 IPC(i)To undergo RI for 5 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default SI for 6 months each.(ii)To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default SI for 3 months(i)To undergo RI for 1 year each.(ii)To undergo RI for 1 year.Fine amount imposed by the trial Court remains unaltered.The period of sentences shall run concurrently along with the sentence imposed in Spl.C.C.Nos.5 and 6 of 2001 as modified in the appeals Crl.A.Nos.775,776,793 and 794 of 2003 by this Court.The period of sentence already undergone shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.With the above modification, these Criminal Appeals are disposed of.12.02.2018Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderariTo1.Special Judge of the Nilgiris, Udagamandalam.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,CBCID, Nilgiris.3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.G.Jayachandran,J.ariPre-delivery judgment made inCrl.A.Nos.777 and 795 of 200312.02.2018
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,943,901 |
From perusal of First Information Report, it was got lodged upon the report of prosecutrix victim Manju herself after almost 11 hours of the occurrence at police station.It is apparent that it was Narendra who had been assigned the role of commission of rape with her.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant Kaleram @ Kala, who is involved in Case Crime No. 795 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 354-A and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number.Report was instantly got lodged on 6.10.2018, in which role of catching hold was assigned to him whereas accusation of rape was assigned to Narendra, subsequently, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. too, this was the version of prosecutrix whereas under Section 164 Cr.P.C. accusation of rape by each of them were developed.Prosecutrix as per her own statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.was taken on motorcycle by Kapil and Narendra whereas Kaleram @ Kala was said to be on other motorcycle.Under above pretext bail has been prayed for.Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., this was categorically said that Kapil and Narendra, took prosecutrix upon their motorcycle, Kaleram @ Kala was on another motorcycle and role of commission of rape was against Narendra and Kapil.Subsequently, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. this was developed to be rape by each of the accused applicants.Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.Order Date :- 6.3.2019 Kamarjahan
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,994,770 |
In short the facts of the case are that Savitribai, the deceased, 2 alongwith her husband Dunnu Ahirwar and children lived in a hut.In the adjacent house, accused/appellants, who happened to be her husband's cousin, his mother and the wife, resided.It is said that accused Kisna had an evil eye on deceased.Frequently he made indecent overtures to her, but she always discarded and abused him.On 13.6.1999, in the morning, when deceased was in her hut, her husband had gone to answer the call of nature and her children were playing outside, accused Kisna alongwith his mother Rukman and wife Gendabai reached there.Kisna and Rukmanbai caught deceased and Gendabai, after dousing her with kerosene, set fire to her with a matchstick and ran away.When her husband reached there, she narrated the incident to him, who took her to Community Health Centre, Patera for treatment and then went to police station to inform the incident.This information was recorded in general diary (Ex.P/13-C) at 9.45 am.In Community Health Centre, Patera, the injuries of deceased were examined by Dr. S.N. Mewafarosh (PW-13), but in view of serious nature of injuries, she was referred for further treatment to District Hospital, Damoh.During treatment, on 12.7.1999 Savitribai died.While alive, a dying declaration of deceased (Ex.P/18) was recorded by Executive Magistrate S.K. Garg (PW-14).Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/6) was also recorded by Head Constable Ram Kumar (PW-4).On the death of deceased, an intimation was sent by the doctor to Police Station Damoh, whereupon, a Murg No.0/1999 was recorded.In presence of witnesses, Police Damoh conducted inquest proceedings and recorded memorandum (Ex.P/3).Head Constable Motilal (PW-10) stated that on 13.6.1999 at about 9.45 am Dunnu gave information at Police Station, Patera that his wife suffered burn injuries.This information was recorded in general diary (Ex.P/13).Dr. S.N. Mewafarosh (PW-13), Assistant Surgeon of Community Health Centre, Patera deposed that on 13.6.1999 he examined the injuries of Savitribai and found burn marks on her face, chest, abdomen, back, both hands and both legs.There were about 80% burn injuries.Smell of kerosene emanated from her body.These injuries were around four hours old and appeared to have been caused by dry flame.He recorded the injuries of Savitribai in his report (Ex.P/17) and referred to her for further treatment and admission in District Hospital, Damoh.The injury report was written and signed by him.Head Constable Krishnakant Pradhan (PW-1), on 12.7.1999 received information at Police Station, Damoh that Savitribai died in the hospital.He recorded Murg intimation.The inquest of the dead body of Savitribai was 5 conducted by ASI Gokal Singh (PW-2) and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.Dr. P.K. Jain (PW-12), Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital, Damoh conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of Savitribai and found deep burn marks of burn injuries on her neck, face, arms, chest, back side of trunk and both lower arms.Dunnu (PW-6) stated that at the time of occurrence his brother Kisna, his wife and mother were not present in their house.He had gone to answer the call of nature.His wife closed the doors of her room from inside.When his children shouted, he came and saw smoke coming out of the room.He pushed the doors of the room but they did not open, then he alongwith Nunni and Nona pushed open the doors and found deceased sitting in burnt condition.Her fire had already 8 slacked off.She did not give any answer as to why she ignited herself.When she came out of the room, he took her to Patera hospital.Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28th July 2000, passed by Sessions Judge, Damoh, in Sessions Trial No.183/1999, convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-.On receiving the Murg intimation, a fresh Murg (Ex.P/14) was registered at Police Station, Patera.On the basis of dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Investigating Officer, Virendra Bahadur (PW-15) registered the case under Section 302 of the Indian 3 Penal Code against the accused persons.He inspected the spot, prepared spot map and seized burnt clothes of deceased.He also arrested accused persons and on their information seized a kerosene Kuppi and matchstick.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hata.The case was thereafter committed to the court of session for trial.On charge under Section 302 of the India Penal Code being framed against accused persons, they abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication due to ill will on the part of deceased.According to them, deceased suffered burn injuries accidentally by fall of kerosene lamp while cooking.They also examined Badi Bahu (DW-1) and Laltabai (DW-2) in their defence.The prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined as many as 17 witnesses in the court.Main witnesses viz. Dunnu (PW-6), the husband of deceased, Nonelal (PW-7), Nunni (PW-8) and other witnesses of seizure etc. did not support the prosecution case.However, learned trial judge, believing the dying declaration (Ex.P/18) recorded by Executive Magistrate (PW-14) and the police statement of deceased (Ex.P/6) recorded by Head Constable Ram Kumar (PW-4), held the accused persons guilty of commission of murder of deceased and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence appellants have filed this appeal.Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the evidence of dying declaration was not supported by the evidence of husband and other relatives of the deceased.Husband of deceased Dunnu (PW-6) did not disclose the fact of setting fire by the accused persons in the earliest report (Ex.P/13-C) tendered by him to police.In these circumstances, the evidence of dying declarations was not believable, but the learned trial judge misappreciated the aforesaid evidence and convicted the accused persons.On the other hand, Shri Amit Pandey, larned Penal Lawyer for the State, submitted that the evidence of dying declarations was fully reliable.The Executive Magistrate had no reason to fabricate an incriminating dying declaration of deceased against accused persons.He justified the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.It has not been disputed that Savitribai died of burn injuries in District Hospital, Damoh.Dunnu (PW-6), the husband of Savitribai, deposed that Savitribai suffered burn injuries and died in the hospital.His evidence on this point was supported by Nunni (PW-8).Heeling wounds with pus were present on the body.About 60% part of the body was affected by burn injuries.The cause of death of Savitribai was shock due to secondary infection.The postmortem report (Ex.P/15) was written and signed by him.From the aforesaid evidence, we find it established that deceased died out of burn injuries.The next question before us is whether the trial court was justified in holding the accused persons guilty of causing death of deceased on the basis of alleged dying declarations Ex.P/6 recorded by Head Constable Ram Kumar (PW-4) and Ex.P/18 recorded by Naib Tahsildar S.K. Garg (PW-14).Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the aforesaid dying declarations were not corroborated by any independent evidence, trial court committed error in placing reliance on them.Naib Tahsildar S.K. Garg (PW-14) stated that on 13.6.1999 at about 10.00 am he recorded the dying declaration of Savitribai who was admitted in Primary Health Centre, Patera.Before recording her statement, Dr.Mewafarosh (PW-13), who was posted in the said Health Centre, examined Savitribai and certified her to be fully conscious and fit to give her statement.He himself found Savitribai capable of speaking.Savitribai stated that accused Kisna and Bau (Rukman Bai) caught hold of her and Kisna's wife ignited her.They caught her when she was all alone in her house.Kerosene was brought by Kisna, which was poured on her by his wife.Since nobody was in the house, she herself extinguished the fire.No serious challenge has been made to this 6 dying declaration on the ground that it was not correctly recorded or it was not made by the deceased.There was nothing on record to indicate that deceased made the aforesaid statement on being prompted by somebody else.Otherwise also, the doctor being an independent and impartial government officer, there could be no reason for him to have concocted the aforesaid dying declaration.Otherwise also, Dr.S.N.Mewafarosh (PW-13) stated that at the time of making the dying declaration deceased was in a fit condition to give statement.As such, we have no doubt that the dying declaration (Ex.P/18) recorded by Naib Tahsildar (PW-14) was genuine record of the statement made by the deceased.He was sent by the Station Officer of Police Station, Patera to record the said statement.His departure from the police station was recorded in general diary of the police station.At the time of making statement, deceased was in her full senses and her husband was also present.According to him, deceased stated that accused Krishna Chamar of her village used to come to catch her, therefore, she used to abuse him.In the morning, at about 6-7 am, when her husband had gone to answer the call of nature and her children were playing outside, because of the aforesaid animus, Krishna Chamar, his mother and his wife came to her Tapariya.Krishna and his mother caught hold of her and his wife Bhagbai, after pouring kerosene, ignited her.No other house is present in the vicinity.After 10-12 minutes, when her husband came back, she narrated the incident to him, to her mother-in-law and other people.Her relations with 7 Krishna Chamar were strained because he looked at her with covetous eyes.The aforesaid statement of deceased recorded by police constable can be accepted as a dying declaration, provided it is found trustworthy.The evidence of Head Constable Ram Kumar (PW-4) finds corroboration from the evidence of Head Constable Motilal Mishra (PW-17) who stated that he made entry in general diary on 20.6.1999 about the departure of Head Constable 508 for recording the statement of injured in Crime No.57 registered under Section 307/34 IPC.The said general diary is Ex.His arrival was recorded in general diary (Ex.P/26).He then went to Police Station, Patera and made a report to police.Since this witness did not tow the line of prosecution, he was declared hostile, but his evidence, to some extent, stood corroborated by the evidence of Head Constable 213 Motilal (PW-10), who deposed that on 13.3.1999 at 9.45 am Dunnu gave an intimation at Police Station, which was recorded as R.No.367 in general diary.On perusal of this report (Ex.P/13-C) it is revealed that Dunnu informed that on hearing the cries of his children, when he, Nunni and Nona reached his house, they saw smoke coming out of thatch.The doors of the hut were closed from outside.When he pushed the doors, they did not open, then with the help of a Sabbal they opened the doors and saw his wife sitting burnt and weeping.When he asked why did she do it, she only asked for the treatment.A kerosene Dibia was also lying there.He then took her to hospital Patera and made the report to police.It is significant to note that this information was made by the husband of deceased at the earliest.Had accused persons ignited deceased, she would have definitely disclosed that to her husband.Even otherwise, it does not appear probable that deceased would not have resisted or shouted, when she was being forcibly ignited, to attract the attention of the people living in the neighbourhood.It is also suspicious that if the doors of the room in which deceased suffered burn injuries were bolted from outside why they could not be opened unless a 'Sabbal' was used to break open the doors.It gives some indication that doors were closed from inside.it is also important to note that in the dying declaration (Ex.P/18) recorded by Naib Tahsildar (PW-13) deceased did not disclose as to why accused persons set fire to her whereas in her police statement (Ex.P/6) she 9 disclosed that accused Kisna kept an evil eye on her and also made attempts to catch her.Admittedly, accused Kisna is the cousin of her husband Dunna.Though Savitribai in Ex.P/6 stated that she narrated all these facts to Dunnu immediately after the occurrence, but these facts were not disclosed by Dunnu in Rojnamcha report (Ex.P/13-C).It is also improbable that accused Rukman Bai and Gendabai, the mother and the wife of accused Kisna would help Kisna to kill deceased because she did not yield his ugly demands.Other witnesses Nonelal (PW-7), Nunni (PW-8) also stated that deceased either set fire herself or suffered burn injuries accidentally by fall of kerosene lamp.Badi Bahu (DW-1) and Laltabai (DW-2) respectively the mother-in-law and daughter of the deceased also stated that deceased caught fire by the fall of kerosene lamp.It is true that these witnesses are close relatives of accused persons, therefore, they might have deposed in their favour, but, at the same time, from the probabilities emerging out from the evidence of Dunnu (PW-6) and other circumstances, a suspicion is created about the truthfulness of the statement made by deceased in the aforesaid dying declarations.It has been stated by Dunnu that deceased had told to him about the frequent skirmishes between her and accused persons about water, food or any other matter.As, a motive for committing an offence may lie hidden in the heart of accused, a motive for making false accusation against an accused may remain enshrouded in the heart of a victim.Since in the above circumstances we feel not satisfied about the truthfulness of the story given out by the deceased in her dying declarations, we find ourselves unable to accept the evidence of aforesaid dying declarations worthy of reliance.We, therefore, hold that prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that accused/appellants set fire to deceased and caused her death.Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.Appellants No.1 Kisna and No.3 Gendabai, who are in jail, shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Bail bond and surety bond of appellant No.2 Rukman Bai shall stand discharged.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 302 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.
|
69,949,024 |
When the special leave petition in Gian Singh v. State ofPunjab and another came up for hearing, a two-Judge Bench (Markandey Katjuand Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.) doubted the correctness of the decisions of thisCourt in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another[1], NikhilMerchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another[2] and Manoj Sharmav.State and others[3] and referred the matter to a larger Bench.Thereference order reads as follows :“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.The petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 and Section 120B, IPC by the learned Magistrate.He filed an appeal challenging his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge.While his appeal was pending, he filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for compounding the offence, which, according to the learned counsel, was directed to be taken up along with the main appeal.Hence, this petition has been filed in this Court.In B.S. Joshi1 , the undisputed facts were these : the husbandwas one of the appellants while the wife was respondent no. 2 in the appealbefore this Court.When thecriminal case registered at the instance of the wife was pending, thedispute between the husband and wife and their family members was settled.There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX- A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.The suitfor recovery filed by the bank against the company and the ManagingDirector of the Company was compromised.The suit was compromised upon thedefendants agreeing to pay the amounts due as per the schedule mentioned inthe consent terms.Thesaid application was rejected by the Special Judge (CBI), Greater Bombay,which came to be challenged before the Bombay High Court.The contentionbefore the High Court was that since the subject matter of the dispute hadbeen settled between the appellant and the bank, it would be unreasonableto continue with the criminal proceedings.It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order.We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused.The High Court dismissed the appeal from the judgment andconviction.In the appeal, by special leave, the injured – complainant wasordered to be joined as party as it was stated by the counsel for theappellant that mutual compromise has been arrived at between the parties,i.e. accused on the one hand and the complainant – victim on the other handduring the pendency of the proceedings before this Court.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,959,960 |
According to the petitioner, the third respondent took J.Dinesh Kumar s/o Mr.Jeeva in an illegal custody on 21.07.2016 and from then onwards, he was detained in the illegal custody of the third respondent.2.Today, when this Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Sate would submit that J.Dinesh Kumar s/o Mr.Jeeva is an accused in Cr.No.1094/2016 on the file of the respondent Police and he was also an accused in Cr.No.390/2016 for offences under Sections 395 & 397 and in Crime No.505/2016 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) I.P.C., on the file of the Sholavaram Police Station and he was remanded in judicial custody in connection with the case in Crime No.390/2016 for offences under Sections 395 & 397 I.P.C., on the file of the E.5 Sholavaram Police Station.5.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,153,915 |
There is no allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant.He further submits that complainant is living separately with her parents after leaving her husband.The case is listed today for admission.Heard on the bail application.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.186/2014 registered at Police Station Myana, District Guna (M.P), for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 326-A, 324, 323, 294, 506-B and 34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, it is alleged that on 28.08.2014 when the complainant Reena went to her in-laws house then she saw that her husband Kalyan was playing card.When complainant asked not to play the card then applicant and her husband started beating the complainant and poured the inflammable material on the private part of the complainant.On the report of the complainant the police registered the case at Crime No.186/2014 under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506-B and 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated.There is no specific allegation against the applicant.He has not poured inflammable material on the complainant.He further submits that initially case was registered under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506-B and 34 of IPC.Later on Section 326-A of IPC has been increased.On these M.Cr.C.No.9049/14 (Balram Jatav Vs.State of M.P.) grounds learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail.The application is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge bj/-
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,178,139 |
3 The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus:(i) As per prosecution case, PW-2 Smt. Saroj was daughter of PW-13 Eknath Pawar.That PW-13 Eknath Pawar was working as the Deputy Collector at Mumbai and was residing at Bandra.The accused was doing his post-graduation in surgery while PW-2 Saroj had studied ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 5 APEAL.659-1992.sxw up to 12 standard at the time of her marriage.The accused could not succeed in his examination and therefore he had to stay with the parents of PW-2 Saroj at Mumbai for some time.However, accused was not satisfied with the said arrangement.The accused was expecting a well-furnished and independent hospital to be constructed by the parents of Smt. Saroj and on this count there used to be quarrel between PW-2 Saroj and the accused.In August 1984, PW-2 Saroj gave birth to a son namely Swapnil (PW-3).(ii) It is further the prosecution case that even at the Government quarters at Andheri, the accused continued with his demand for having an independent hospital and on that count he used to beat PW-2 Saroj mercilessly.On one occasion when the accused was beating PW-2 Saroj, PW-6 Bharati Deshpande intervened in the said incident and the matter was reported to MIDC Police Station.However, it appears that due to mediation of the police, the matter was amicably settled between the husband and wife, and PW-2 again went for residing with accused.(iii) The record further discloses that in the year 1986, the accused had passed Public Service Commission examination and thereafter was transferred to Public Health Center at Jawhar, District-PW-2 Saroj was continuously residing with the accused, but it appears that after some intervals, there used to be incident of beating at the hands of the accused to PW-2 Saroj.According to PW-2 Saroj, the said beating was arising out of the demand of money by the accused.Accused used to pressurise PW-2 Saroj for bringing money from her parents for construction of the hospital.In the ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 7 APEAL.659-1992.sxw month of September 1987, again an incident reported by PW-2 Saroj about merciless beating at the hands of the accused.Smt. Saroj informed PW-13 Eaknath Pawar her father about the same.PW-13 Eknath Pawar visited Jawahar along with PW-14 Gangadhar Bagul.With the interference of the police and the Municipal Council Chairman Shri Tendulkar, the matter was amicably settled.However, it appears that Smt. Saroj did not had peaceful life and she used to write letters to her father.She used to disclose about arrogant, indecent and violent behaviour of accused.(iv) As per record on 26.1.1988, the accused bet Saroj on the ground that her father was not providing funds for constructing the hospital.At this time Saroj could not sustain the pressure and she approached the police and gave her application to A.S.I. Shri Jadhav.PW-2 Saroj has stated that accused had tried to throttle her and she felt that she would be killed by accused.It further appears that due to intervention of the police, the matter was settled between the husband and wife and PW-2 Saroj again started cohabiting with accused.(v) In the year 1988-89, the accused was transferred to Vani.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::APEAL.659-1992.sxw The accused wanted to settle his practice at Nasik, so also PW-2 Saroj i.e. the complainant wanted to establish her business of beauty-parlor at the said place.The respondent-accused approached PW-13 Eknath Pawar, the father of the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs.PW-13 after receipt of the letter from the respondent-accused was not satisfied with the same.The respondent-accused used to curse PW-2 Saroj and used to beat her.On that day, PW-2 Saroj after returning from her aunt in the evening asked the respondent-accused whether he had gone to see any plot for their house to which the respondent-accused got offended and he confined Saroj in a room and bet her with kick and fists blows.When Swapnil their son tried to intervene in the matter, the respondent-accused did not allow him to enter into the room.There was constant quarrel between the respondent-accused and Saroj.Due to severe beating, the complainant Saroj was yelling and weeping up to 1.30 a.m. and woke up at 4.00 a.m., ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 9 APEAL.659-1992.sxw because of pain and again started yelling and crying.After sometime the complainant Saroj started feeling nauseatic and therefore the respondent-accused forcibly took the complainant to the hospital of Dr.Thakkar in the morning hours and from there she was taken to Nagji Memorial Hospital.As the complainant Saroj was reluctant to take any treatment in the private hospital, the respondent-accused took Saroj to Nasik Civil Hospital where she was treated.5 PW-2 Saroj in her detailed examination-in-chief has given various instances of demand of money at the hands of the accused and also about the beating and other instances of cruelty which were caused at the hands of the accused to her.6 The version of PW-2 Saroj was corroborated by PW-3 Swapnil i.e. son of PW-2 Saroj and the accused, aged about 6 years at the time of his deposition.The version of PW-2 Saroj pertaining to cruelty and demand by the accused has been further corroborated by PW-6 Bharati Deshpande who was the neighbour of the complainant Saroj at Mumbai and PW-10 Bhagwan relative of PW-13 Eknath Pawar.PW-12 Gulabrao, a family friend of PW-13 and Eknath Pawar PW-13, the father of the complainant Saroj.The father of the complainant Saroj in his testimony has stated in detail about the cruelty meted out by the accused to the complainant Saroj, demand made by accused and the fulfillment of many of the demands by PW-She was yelling and crying and was unable to speak.She was awaken at about 4 a.m. She was sleeping inside the room along with her son and the accused was sleeping on a diwan in the outer room.On hearing her cries and weeping, the accused came to her and inquired that had somebody died for which she was weeping.The ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 14 APEAL.659-1992.sxw complainant Saroj replied that it would have been better if she herself would have died.Thereafter, the accused caught hold her, dragged her into the toilet and after holding her jaw, poured Begon insecticide in her mouth.The complainant spit it out, but during the said process she gulped down some portion of the liquid.The accused then again caught hold of her and forcibly poured another lid full of Begon in her mouth and shut her mouth to which she had to gulp it down.Thereafter the accused brought her out and threw her on the bed.The complainant Saroj started feeling nauseatic.1 The aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.659 of 1992 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the respondent-Mr.The Respondent herein will be termed as "accused" hereinafter for the sake of brevity.It is to be noted here that, as the appeal preferred against acquittal of accused was admitted by this Court, the appeal preferred by the accused was thereafter transferred to this Court for hearing the same along with appeal preferred by the State.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::Criminal Revision Application No.164 of 1992 has been preferred by the original complainant Smt. Saroj Kiran Ahire, the wife of the accused Mr. Kiran Ahire, against the inadequacy of the sentence for the offence under Section 498A and against the acquittal of the accused from Section 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2 The original accused Kiran was tried for offences under Sections 506, 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.163 of 1991 and by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.4.1992, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 4 APEAL.659-1992.sxw imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::As far as the charge under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that, it is found to be a part of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with respect to the original complainant Smt. Saroj and hence no separate sentence was awarded for the same.The learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused under Section 506 read with Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.Even after passing of his examination, the accused had to reside at the residence of the parents of Smt. Saroj at Mumbai.During the said period, the accused Kiran started a feeling that his in-laws are not paying proper attention towards him and on that count he used to quarrel with PW-::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::2 Saroj.The accused was expecting that the father of Saroj i.e. PW-PW-13 Eknath Pawar used his own office and secured a job for the accused in E.S.I.S. Hospital at Worli.Eknath Pawar PW-13 also arranged for a clinic at Linking Road, Mumbai for setting up a dispensary for the accused.Subsequently the accused was transferred to a hospital at Andheri where he was ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 6 APEAL.659-1992.sxw provided with Government quarters for his residence.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::accused, paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-.However, the respondent-After hearing the cries of the complainant Saroj, the respondent-accused went to her and had exchange of words.As the complainant had got fed up with the apathetic treatment meted out to her at the hands of the respondent-accused, she told him that it is better to die than to suffer such beating at the hands of the accused.On the said statement, the respondent-accused dragged the complainant Saroj to the side of the toilet and took Begon insecticide and hold the jaw of Saroj and poured Begon insecticide in her mouth.The complainant did not had energy to resist the respondent-accused, somehow, she spit out the said chemical out from her mouth.However, she had to consume some portion of the said insecticide.The respondent-accused thereafter threw the complainant Saroj on a bed.In the ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 10 APEAL.659-1992.sxw evening of 20.11.1990, Saroj gain consciousness.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::accused had informed PW-13 Eknath Pawar, the father of the complainant who also arrived at the hospital.Dr. D.N. Pawar (PW-8) examined the complainant Saroj and gave her treatment.On 20.11.1990, the police recorded the complaint of PW-2 Saroj and registered an offence against the respondent-accused under Section 498A, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.PW-8 Dr D.N. Pawar after extracting the gastric lavage from the stomach of the complainant Saroj, referred the same to the Chemical Analyzer wherein it was detected that the same was containing Carbemate insecticide (Begon).(vii) After completion of the investigation, PW-16 Police Inspector Shri Anup Sankhe submitted chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Nashik.The Judicial Magistrate First Class subsequently committed the said case to the Court of Sessions and the same was placed for hearing before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik.The learned Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 5, to which the respondent-accused pleaded not guilty.The defence of the respondent-accused was of total denial.It was further ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 11 APEAL.659-1992.sxw defence of the respondent-accused that PW-2 Saroj being a daughter of a Revenue Officer was not interested to stay with him who belong to poor family and the evidence against him has been concocted at the behest of PW-13 Eknath Pawar who used his financial influence on the Police machinery and the medical officers.The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the Sessions Case was pleased to convict the accused under Section 498A. However, was pleased to acquit him for offence under Sections 307 and 506 as stated herein above.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::4 We have heard Mrs. A.S. Pai, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. H.E. Palwe, the learned Counsel for the original accused.We have also heard at length Mr. Kalpesh Patil, the learned Counsel for the original complainant.She has also narrated about the incident dated 18.11.1990 wherein ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 12 APEAL.659-1992.sxw the accused forcibly put insecticide Begon in her mouth and the beating to her prior to the said incident.In the cross-examination of the complainant Saroj truthfulness about the cruelty meted out to her by the accused was not shaken at all.The complainant Saroj affirmatively answered all the questions put to her pertaining to the cruelty and demand of money at the hands of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::In his testimony, PW-13 has in detail narrated about the various demand and its fulfillment at his instance.In the cross-examination ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 13 APEAL.659-1992.sxw of this witness, nothing fruitful has been elicited which would either discredit his testimony or which would snap the corroborative link between the evidence of PW-2 Saroj and PW-13 Eknath Pawar.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::At that time, the accused woke up his maid servant Dwarka by saying that the complainant Saroj had consumed something herself.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::Thereafter the accused directed the complainant Saroj to change her clothes and forcibly put her in an auto-rickshaw and took her to the hospital of Dr. Thakkar.The complainant Saroj was thereafter shifted to Nagji Hospital on the advice of Dr. Thakkar.As the complainant was not ready to take treatment in the private hospital, she was thereafter taken to the Civil Hospital.The complainant Saroj felt unconscious.She gain consciousness on 20.11.1990 and thereafter the police recorded her statement.It appears to us from the ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 15 APEAL.659-1992.sxw testimony of PW-2 Saroj that till the time she was taken to Nagji Hospital or rather to the Civil Hospital at Nashik, she was conscious and well-oriented.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::9 PW-8 Dr. D.N. Pawar who was then attached to Nashik Civil Hospital had examined PW-2 Saroj on 19.11.1990 at about 8 a.m. and found the following injuries on her person:Contusion on left sided buttock around 3 x 3.6 cm with redness.2. Abrasion on left side eye-brow lateral aspect of size 2 x 2 cms with bleeding.3. Contusion on left side dorsal aspect of forearm 3 x 3 cm with redness.All injuries were within 24 hours caused due to hard and blunt object.10 PW-8 Dr.. Pawar in his testimony has stated that as per his memory the husband of complainant brought her and thereafter he gave treatment to her.He gave the stomach wash to the complainant Saroj.The stomach wash (gastric lavage) was preserved.He thereafter sent those bottles under requisition to the Chemical Analyzer and in due course of time, the Chemical Analyzer gave his ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 16 APEAL.659-1992.sxw report which is at Exhibit 36, stating that the gastric lavage was containing carbemate insecticide.In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the Chemical Analyzer had referred back the sample of gastric lavage since PW-8 had not used proper form and proper sealing procedure was not followed.The specimen bottles were again referred to the Chemical Analyzer after using proper form.He has further admitted that he had not sealed the said bottles himself, but they were sealed by ward-boy or by the clerk.He has further admitted that when the bottles were referred back from the Chemical Analyzer, he had not changed the sealing of the bottle.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::After excluding the report of Chemical Analyzer from consideration, what remains are the injuries mentioned herein above which were received by the complainant Saroj.Taking into consideration the nature of injuries which were received by Saroj, it is clear that the said injuries were not of serious nature, because of which the life of the complainant Saroj was put in danger.We therefore of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 307 read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved at all by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::12 The criminal intimidation which has been caused by the accused to the complainant Saroj was caused during the course of committing offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 18 APEAL.659-1992.sxw and therefore separate sentence for the same is not required.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::13 After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record and the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that there is no legal infirmity at all in the impugned judgment and order 28.4.1992 passed by the learned Trial Court.against acquittal of the accused is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 28.4.1992 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.163 of 1991 is hereby confirmed.(ii) As we have upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Appeal No.382 of 1996 preferred by the accused against conviction is dismissed.(iii) We also dismiss the Criminal Revision Application No.164 of 1992 preferred by the original complainant Saroj as the same sans of any merits.15 After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Palwe, the learned Counsel appearing for the original accused prayed before this Court ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 ::: 19 APEAL.659-1992.sxw that the present judgment and order may kindly be stayed for a period of 6 weeks from today with a view to enable his client to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned Counsel for the original complainant opposed the said prayer.::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::However, in the interest of justice we accede to the prayer of Mr. Palwe, and stay the effect and implementation of the present judgment and order for a period of 6 weeks from today.(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2014 23:49:55 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,217,414 |
Information was also gathered Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 2 of 22 from Ronak.On 30th April, 2009, respondent/accused Habib was arrested in case FIR No. 97/09 under Section 363/365/366/328/344/384/34 IPC registered with PS Swaroop Nagar but no fruitful information could be gathered.Later on, the Investigating Officer came to know that the prosecutrix 'D' had come to her brother-in-law's house on 30th April, 2009, thereafter her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.She was medically examined.As regards the testimony of the Prosecutrix (PW1), she has deposed that in the year 2009, she was studying in class IX in the Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Adarsh Nagar and used to come from her house at Bhalaswa Dairy to attend the school.On 27th December, 2008, she was going to Adarsh Nagar market for shopping purpose when suddenly accused Habib came in her way and stopped the vehicle in front of her.He then told her that Ronak and one boy named Lal were sitting in the car and they want to talk to her but after she sat in the said vehicle she could not see anyone and as she tried to come out of that vehicle, accused Habib caught hold of her hand by stating that he wanted to talk to her about Ronak and Lal and started the vehicle.Accused Habib then stopped the vehicle at some distance, brought cold-drinks in two glasses and on drinking the said drink she became unconscious.After regaining consciousness, she found herself locked in a room.Accused Habib came to the room in the night, offered her food and on her denial to Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 13 of 22 eat the food he started beating and misbehaving with her and further told her to allow him to do whatever he wanted to do.Thereafter, accused had physical relations with her against her wishes and without her consent.The next morning, accused left the room but had left one lady to keep an eye on her and if she had to go to the toilet that lady used to accompany her.She was confined in the said room for a period of about four months and during that period accused Habib raped her several times.One day, accused brought her friend Ronak in the said room and when the prosecutrix asked for her help, she refused to do so.Accused also brought Lal to the said room on some another day and so both Ronak and Lal were aware that she has been confined in the said room by the accused Habib.Accused again brought Ronak to the room and this time she remained with her in that room for about 13 days and thereafter she left with Habib.On the subsequent day, she got an opportunity to escape from the said room, thereafter she reached the STD booth from where she made a telephone call to her brother-in- law (Jija) and told him the location of the said booth.Her jija alongwith one other person reached there and from there she was taken to her jija's house where other family members were also called.After two days, she was taken to the PS Swaroop Nagar Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 14 of 22 where the IO prepared her recovery memo, Ex. PW 1/A and was thereafter taken to BJRM hospital, where she was medically examined after obtaining the consent from her mother for her internal examination and in the hospital doctor also took her vaginal swab.In her cross-examination, she stated that her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Ld. MM in which she had stated that since July, 2008, she used to reside at the house of her elder sister at Kewal Park.She had stated that accused Habib was the brother of Ronak and they alongwith Lal entered into conspiracy in taking her away.She admitted the fact that on some occasions, accused Habib used to drop her to the school but denied the suggestion that due to the aforesaid reason she had developed friendship with him.She admitted that her mother used to object on dropping her to school by the accused as she used to inform her mother the days as and when accused used to drop her.She admitted that the diary Ex. PW 1/D1 to Ex. PW 1/D3 is in her own handwriting as she used to write the diary but went on stating that most of the portions in the diary were got written from her forcefully.Regarding the photograph Ex. PW 1/D4, she denied the Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 15 of 22 suggestion that the said photograph was got clicked by her with the accused as she was in love and affection with him, rather the same was done forcibly under a threat.She also admitted that all the photographs and drawings/ pictures Ex. PW 1/D5 were got prepared from her forcefully.(ii) According to her, the accused had taken her in a car in a crowded place.When she did not find R and Lal in the vehicle, she tried to come out from the vehicle.But, accused caught hold her hand and started plying the vehicle, but she failed to explain as to why she did not raise alarm.(iii) According to prosecutrix, she was given cold drink by the accused and when she regained her consciousness, she found herself in a room which was at village Rajokari, belonging to PW Shakuntala Devi.According to PW 19 ASI Devinder, there were sixteen rooms in the said house.If accused had taken her in unconscious condition then definitely other residents would have noticed accused carrying prosecutrix and would have objected to it.As such, her version that she was brought to the room where she was kept does not appear to be convincing.(iv) According to the prosecutrix, she was confined in the room.However this part of her testimony does not find corroboration from PW4 Shakuntala who had testified that she had given the said room on rent to Samir @ Habib, i.e., accused and accused used to reside with one girl Mehak and introduced her as his sister and she had inquired from Mehak and Mehak told that her parents had Crl.The said house was 100 sq. yds.The distance of room and latrine was about 10-15 steps for going to latrine and bathroom.One has to pass through the open space in front of those rooms and the room where the prosecutrix was Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 18 of 22 confined was the first room of the house and the last room of the house was nearest to the latrine and bathroom.He further admitted that if a person goes for latrine and bathroom, then he will be visible to occupants of the other rooms.In these circumstances, when so many persons were residing in the nearby room, it is not possible to confine her for such a long period of about four months.: SUNITA GUPTA, J. (Oral) Crl.M.A. No. 6824/2014 By this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act, the petitioner/State is seeking condonation of delay of 58 days in filing the accompanying criminal leave to appeal.Delay of 58 days in filing the accompanying petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is condoned.The application stands disposed of.The present criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 1 of 22 the petitioner/State under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. to challenge that part of the judgment dated 16th November, 2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, North Rohini, Delhi whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges under Section 328/344/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 1 of 222. To appreciate the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/State, a brief summary of the prosecution case is given below:-On 4th January, 2009, complainant Smt. Manwati @Shanti,w/o late Charan Singh, R/o Gurudwara Road, Masjid Wali Gali, Khasra No. 447, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi came to the police station and lodged a complaint regarding missing of her daughter 'D', aged about 16 years (herein after also referred as Prosecutrix) from 27th December, 2008 and she raised her suspicion upon one boy, namely, Habib, s/o Jamil Khan.On the basis of this complaint, FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered.Information was sent to Missing Persons Squad and CBI.Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also got recorded.Accused was arrested in this case.After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 2 of 224. Charge under Section 363/366/328/376/344 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses.All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age.She was residing with her sister.Since father-in-law of her sister used to misbehave Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 3 of 22 with her and tried to outrage her modesty, as such, she left the house of her sister and started residing at Rajokari village.He did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 3 of 22After minutely scrutinizing the evidence coming on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years.A room was taken on rent by the accused, where the prosecutrix was kept and since the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age on the date of incident, as such, her consent was immaterial.Therefore, offence under Section 363 IPC was proved.He was accordingly convicted of this offence.However, prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused to compel her for marriage or force her to have illicit intercourse or seduce her to do illicit intercourse or that she was administered some intoxicating substance in the cold drink.As such, offences under Section 366/328 IPC were not proved.As regards offence under Section 376 IPC is concerned, it was held that prosecutrix had gone along with the accused voluntarily and resided at the house at Village Rajokari for almost four months and had sexual relations with the Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 4 of 22 accused with her own consent and since she was above age of 16 years, therefore, she was capable of giving consent for sex, accordingly, he was also acquitted of the charge of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 4 of 22Assailing this part of the impugned judgment, Sh.Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the entire evidence led by the prosecution has not been appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in correct perspective.The Trial Court erred in overlooking the statement of the material witnesses.The learned Trial Court also erred in taking the date of birth mentioned in the School record as trustworthy.The medical opinion ought to have been taken to ascertain her exact date of birth in view of the suggestion of PW12 who had advised X-ray of the prosecutrix for age determination.Testimony of prosecutrix herself is sufficient to convict the accused and no corroboration to the same is required, however, the learned Trial Court erred in finding the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable and coming to the erroneous conclusion that the prosecutrix went with the accused with her own consent.Based on the above submissions, learned Public Prosecutor for the State strongly urges for grant of leave to appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 5 of 22 acquittal.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 5 of 22We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and given our thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced by him and also perused the Trial Court Record.In the instant case, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 363 IPC but acquitted of all the remaining charges.As already noticed, against the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred application for leave to appeal.Thereafter, in the court, her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Ld. MM.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 13 of 22A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 14 of 22She further denied the suggestion that she did not raise alarm when accused Habib caught hold of her hand because she was having friendly relations with him and was going with him voluntarily.She admitted that she had not given the description of the lady who used to keep an eye on her during the confinement period to the police as the police itself did not inquire about the same.She admitted the fact that Lal and Ronak used to visit that room during her confinement but denied the suggestion that Lal and Ronak noticed that she was residing happily in the said room and that is why they did not inform her family members or the police.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 15 of 22The learned Trial Court did not find the testimony of the prosecutrix to be reliable on the following grounds:-(i) The accused was previously known to her as she has admitted in her cross examination that sometime accused used to drop her to school in his taxi.Her mother and brother used to object her dropping at school by accused which shows they were Crl.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 16 of 22 having friendship otherwise, why she will go in his taxi.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 16 of 22A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 17 of 22 already died and accused is her brother and she wanted to live with him.There was no reason why PW4 Shakuntala will falsely depose in favour of accused.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 17 of 22(v) As per the testimony of PW7 R, Mehak was the prosecutrix.Both the accused and the prosecutrix remained in the house of PW4 Shakuntala Devi as brother and sister.It reflects that she was living in the said house with her own consent otherwise why she would tell PW4 that she was the sister of accused, rather she could inform her that accused had kidnapped her and confined her forcibly.(vi) She remained in that house for quite a long period and during that period, she never raised any alarm that she has been confined there or when accused committed rape with her.She was fully grown up girl and could very well protest the act of accused.It was admitted by ASI Devender Singh (PW19) that the house in which prosecutrix was confined was having 16 rooms of hut type and all the rooms were occupied.There was a common latrine and bathroom of all the 16 rooms.She would have ample opportunity to inform to neighbourers or run away.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 18 of 22(vii) The plea taken by the prosecutrix that she could not run away as one lady was keeping watch on her was also not believed as she did not give any description or physique of the lady who used to keep an eye on her.The Investigating Officer had admitted in cross examination that he did not make any inquiry regarding the lady.Moreover, it is impossible to keep watch upon the prosecutrix because if the room would have been locked from outside, after confining her inside the room then, that lady would have been noticed by the neighbours and enquired as to what she was doing there and why the prosecutrix was confined in the room and if the door of the room was opened then prosecutrix had an ample opportunity to raise alarm and inform those persons that she was confined forcefully in the said room.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 19 of 22(viii) The manner in which prosecutrix allegedly ran away also creates a doubt that she was confined.According to her, on the next day of R leaving the room she managed to escape from the said room and reached one STD booth from where she made a call to her brother-in-law Rakesh (PW2) who came and took her to his house.The STD owner was not examined to corroborate her testimony.Moreover, according to PW7 'R', she was confined in the same room where 'D' was confined.Then, what prevented the police to recover the prosecutrix on the same day.No reason has come on record why immediately after recovery of the prosecutrix, police was not informed.(ix) On perusal of the diary and photograph Ex.PW19/B4a to Ex.PW19/B4k and PW19/B4, it is very unlikely that the contents written in the diary can be written forcefully and the photographs of the accused with the prosecutrix also do not appear to be taken forcefully.The photographs reflect that both the accused and the prosecutrix were in deep relationship.The circumstances rather suggest that prosecutrix had gone voluntarily with the accused and had sex with him voluntarily.A. Nos. 295/2014 Page 20 of 22(xi) Keeping in view the fact that she was above age of 16 years, therefore, she was capable to give consent for sex.Prosecution had failed to prove that she was kidnapped by compelling her for marriage or had illicit intercourse or that she was administered any intoxicating substance in cold drink.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,286,419 |
DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2020 PER COURT :-The applicants in both the applications are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 217 of 2020 registered with Gangakhed Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 of IPC.Their application with similar prayer bearing Criminal M.A. (Bail) Nos. 164 of 2020 and 163 of 2020 respectively, came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions vre/-::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::2. Learned counsel for the applicants in both the applications submits that though names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR with a specific role attributed to each of them, the allegations have been made mainly against co- accused Bhaiyya Jadhav.Learned counsel submits that as per the allegations made in the FIR, on 30.04.2020 at about 7.30 p.m., a quarrel took place between deceased Gaus and co- accused Bhaiyya Jadhav and thereafter, co-accused Bhaiyya Jadhav left that place on a motorcycle and returned to that place within 15 to 20 minutes along with applicant Akbar on motorcycle.Learned counsel submits that though there are allegations against applicant Akbar that he caught hold of deceased Gaus when co-accused Bhaiyya was inflicting injuries on the person of deceased Gaus with the help of knife, however, it has been revealed during investigation that applicant Akbar was without any weapon.Learned counsel submits that it is not clear from the allegations made in the vre/-::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::3 917-BA-979-2020+.odt complaint, so also not revealed during the course of investigation, that the present applicant Akbar had shared the said intention of co-accused Bhaiyya Jadhav.So far as applicant Babanrao is concerned, it has been alleged that he was holding a black colour pipe in his hand and also extended beating to deceased Gaus with the help of said black pipe.However, apart from the stab injuries, there are abrasions on the toe of deceased Gaus.There is no injury on his person caused with the help of hard and blunt object like an iron pipe.Further, co-accused Bhaiyya had assaulted injured witness Kalim Pathan and caused him injury with the help of knife, the said co-accused Bhaiyya is still behind bars.As per the allegations made in the complaint, one Sanjay Parave is the conspirator.However, he has been released on bail by this Court.Applicant Akbar is a young person having no criminal history.Furthermore, the antecedents of applicant Babanrao are also clear.Both the applicants are having a fixed place of residence.They are available for trial.The applicants are ready to abide any conditions, if imposed by this Court.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::4 917-BA-979-2020+.odt3. Learned APP has strongly resisted the applications on the ground that there are eye witnesses to the incident and the informant and said Kalim Pathan are the injured witnesses.Learned APP submits that so far as applicant Akbar is concerned, there is an overt act on his part to caught hold of deceased Gaus at the time of the incident so as to facilitate commission of crime and as a result thereof, co-accused Bhaiyya had inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Gaus with the help of knife.Learned APP submits that applicant Babanrao was also holding a black colour pipe in his hands and he had also extended beating to deceased Gaus.Learned APP submits that the applicants and the co- accused have shared common intention.There is a strong prima facie case against the applicants.There is possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence if the applicants are released on bail.Both the applications are liable to be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::5 917-BA-979-2020+.odtIt appears that investigation is now over and the charge sheet has been submitted.On going through the allegations made in the complaint and on perusal of the charge sheet, though I find names of the applicants mentioned in the FIR with a specific role attributed to each of them, however, there is a reference to the earlier incident just 15 to 20 minutes prior to the main incident, wherein, a quarrel took place between deceased Gaus and co-accused Bhaiyya.The present applicants were not party to the said quarrel.It further appears that the said co-accused Bhaiyya had again come to the spot along with the present applicant Akbar on his motorcycle and on reaching there, he had given a blow of knife on the neck of deceased Gaus.Though there are allegations that the present applicant Akbar caught hold of deceased Gaus, however, it is also a fact that applicant Akbar was not holding any weapon.Prima facie it is not clear from the allegations made in the complaint, so also from the investigation, that the present applicant Akbar had shared the intention of co-accused Bhaiyya.It appears that as of sudden co-accused Bhaiyya took out the knife and vre/-::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::6 917-BA-979-2020+.odt started inflicting blows on the person of deceased with the help of it.There is nothing revealed during investigation that the present applicant Akbar was having knowledge that co- accused Bhaiyya was intending to assault deceased Gaus with the help of knife.So far as applicant Babanrao is concerned, though he was holding a black colour pipe and allegedly extended beating to deceased Gaus, however, on perusal of the postmortem report, particularly, column no.17, it appears that there are in all five stab wounds on different parts of body of deceased Gaus and 'one abrasion on dorsal aspect of left foot near left ankle' and 'peeling off of skin at the tip of right toe and 3 rd toe of left foot'.It thus appears that there were no injuries on the person of deceased Gaus caused by a hard and blunt object like iron pipe.Both the injured witnesses, i.e. the informant and Kalim Pathan, have sustained simple injuries in the assault as per their medo-legal certificates.There is no criminal history.Both the applicants are available for trial.Thus, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail.So far as the possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence is vre/-::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::allegations, it would be appropriate to restrict entry of both the applicants in Gangakhed, Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani, till conclusion of trial.Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :ORDER I. Both the applications, i.e. Bail Application No. 979 of 2020 and Bail Application No. 984 of 2020, are hereby allowed.The applicant in Bail Application No. 979 of 2020, namely, SHAIKH AKBAR S/O. SHAIKH DILAVAR and the applicant in Bail Application No. 984 of 2020, namely, BABANRAO LAKSHMANRAO PANDIT be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 217 of 2020 registered with Gangakhed Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 of IPC, on furnishing P.B. of Rs.20,000/- each with one solvent surety each of the like amount on the following conditions :- vre/-::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::Both the applications are accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 05:51:17 :::
|
['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.
|
68,349,744 |
A.No.118/2007 Page 1 of 9A.No.118/2007 Page 1 of 9Concisely stated, the case of the prosecution leading to the trial of the appellant for commission of offence under Section 304 IPC was that on 13.01.2005 at about 08.30 p.m. at Public Street, opposite Railway Office, Tilak Bridge, ITO, Delhi, he gave a violent push to the victim - Ganga, as a result of which, her head struck against the road and she sustained internal head injuries.She expired on 16.01.2005 in the hospital.Police machinery swung into action on receiving information about the occurrence vide Daily Diary (DD) No.56B (Ex.PW-8/A) at 08.47 p.m. at PS I.P.Estate.The investigation was assigned to ASI Ram Niwas who with Const.Vikrant went to the spot.After recording statement of the complainant - Suraj (Ex.PW7/D), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report.On 16.01.2005, information was received vide DD No.22A (Ex.PW-8/C) that the victim had succumbed to the injuries.Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.The accused was arrested.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for committing offence under Section 304 IPC.The prosecution examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and denied his involvement in the crime.He examined DW-1 (Rambir) in defence.When the complainant expressed inability to pay the borrowed amount that time, a quarrel ensued between them.In the scuffle, both PW- 7 (Suraj) and the appellant came out in the street.Victim Ganga - complainant's wife rushed outside to intervene.It is alleged that the appellant gave a forceful push to her as a result of which, she sustained head injuries.The victim was taken to J.P.N.Hospital immediately and was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW-5/A) at around 09.00 p.m. The alleged history records that the victim assaulted approximately half an hour ago at Sanjay Amar Colony had suffered swelling over occipital region approximately 3 cm x 1 cm.She was unfit to make statement.PW-6 (Dr.Sunil) conducted post-mortem examination on the Crl.A.No.118/2007 Page 3 of 9 body and proved report (Ex.PW-6/A).This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Sant Ram against a judgment dated 29.01.2007 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.107/05 arising out of FIR No.23/05 PS I.P.Estate by which he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 325 IPC.By an order dated 12.02.2007, he was sentenced to undergo RI for three and a half years with fine `1,000/-.After Crl.A.No.118/2007 Page 2 of 9 considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant under Section 325 IPC.It is pertinent to note that State did not challenge the acquittal under Section 304 IPC.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.A.No.118/2007 Page 2 of 9Injury No.1 i.e. Contusion 7 cm x 3 cm present over right temporal occipital region of head was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Cause of death was due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head.All the injuries were opined ante-mortem in nature.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement the appellant did not deny the injuries sustained by the victim in the occurrence.His defence is that when she rushed out of the house on seeing them quarrelling, she stumbled against the pavement and got injuries after fall.A.No.118/2007 Page 3 of 9Crucial testimony to prove that victim Ganga sustained injuries due to push given by the appellant is of PW-7 (Suraj).In his statement (Ex.PW-7/D) to the police at first instance, he gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, a quarrel had taken place with the accused over demand of money.He further informed that when his wife Ganga intervened to save him, she was also beaten.The appellant gave her a forceful push as a result of which she fell down on the road and sustained head injuries.Immediately, she was taken to hospital by her mother-in-law.In Court statement as PW-7, he proved the version given to the police without major variations.He deposed that when he expressed inability to pay `1,700/- demanded by the appellant Crl.A.No.118/2007 Page 4 of 9 from him, the appellant started abusing him.He dragged him out from the house and started beating him.When his wife came out to save him, the accused gave beatings to her; caught hold her from her hair and struck her head on the road.In the cross-examination, he was confronted with the statement (Ex.PW-7/D) where certain facts mentioned by him in examination-in-chief were omitted to be recorded.He denied the suggestion that the victim had sustained injuries on her head as she struck against the pavement.A.No.118/2007 Page 4 of 9No valid reason exists to disbelieve the statement of PW-7 (Suraj).It was not uncommon to push the victim on her intervention to save her husband by the appellant as quarrel was going on between the two and both of them had suffered superficial injuries.It was victim's anxiety to pacify both of them.Since the FIR was lodged without inordinate delay, there was least possibility of the complainant to have concocted a false story in such a short interval.Statement of the complainant coupled with medical evidence establishes beyond doubt that the appellant gave a push to the victim as a result of which, she fell down and sustained injuries.A.No.118/2007 Page 5 of 9 appellant had no intention or knowledge that the injuries so sustained by the victim would be fatal.Neither the State nor the victim has challenged the findings of the Trial Court in this regard.A.No.118/2007 Page 5 of 9Moot point is that even if the incident is accepted to have taken place in the manner as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 325 IPC.The Trial Court was of the view that the appellant was guilty under Section 325 IPC as the victim had sustained fracture of right temporal bone extending to right middle cranial fossa of the skull and it was grievous in nature.Undeniably, relations between the appellant and the complainant were cordial before the incident and in good faith certain sum was borrowed by the complainant from him.On the day of occurrence, the appellant had gone to the complainant's house only to demand the loaned amount.An altercation took place between the appellant and the complainant on refusal to pay the amount.Both the parties came out of the house while quarrelling.The victim - complainant's wife, present in the house rushed out to pacify the parties.At this juncture, she was given a push by the appellant to prevent her intervention as a result of which, she fell down and sustained injuries.Obviously, the appellant, who was not armed with any weapon whatsoever had no intention to pick up quarrel Crl.A.No.118/2007 Page 6 of 9 with the complainant or his wife.His only motive to visit the house was to get back his money.In the altercation, both the complainant and the appellant suffered superficial injuries.It was a sudden quarrel that took place on a trivial issue at the spur of the moment.The victim was not the target and her arrival on the spot to intervene was not in appellant's anticipation.From the attendant circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the appellant had intention or knowledge that the push given to the victim would result in severe internal injuries causing her death.He himself had not caused any 'fracture' or grievous hurt on the victim's body voluntarily.Obviously, it was due to fall on the ground due to the said push.For the 'fracture' suffered by the victim, the appellant, in my considered view, cannot be held liable.The offence proved by the prosecution falls only under Section 323 IPC.A.No.118/2007 Page 6 of 9In 'Jani Gulab Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra', 1970 (1) SCC (Cri) 532, in similar circumstances the accused therein had given blows to the deceased who fell down with his face towards the sky.Immediately, he became unconscious and his mouth and ear started bleeding.High Court convicted him under Section 304 part-II IPC.In the post-mortem examination, number of injuries were found on the head and it included fracture of occipital; laceration to brain underneath; subdural Crl.A.No.118/2007 Page 7 of 9 hematoma right temporo parietal region 4"x 3"; Contusion 3.2/3"x3" over the occipital region; Contusion at temporoparietal region 2"x1".Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that it was difficult to impute knowledge to the accused that death was likely to result by the push he is alleged to have given.The accused therein was convicted under Section 323 IPC.A.No.118/2007 Page 7 of 9In the light of above discussion, conviction under Section 325 IPC is modified to Section 323 IPC.The Trial Court has awarded reasonable compensation to the LRs of the victim as detailed in the sentence order.The appellant who has suffered agony of trial / appeal for about ten years is not involved in any other criminal case and is not a previous convict.Considering all these facts and circumstances, the period already undergone by the appellant in this case shall be taken as substantive sentence under Section 323 IPC.The appellant shall, however, deposit fine of `1,000/- (if not paid) and the compensation amount (if not deposited) within two weeks before the Trial Court.A.No.118/2007 Page 8 of 9A.No.118/2007 Page 8 of 9The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 / tr Crl.A.No.118/2007 Page 9 of 9A.No.118/2007 Page 9 of 9
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
683,956 |
7.Abduction of passengers.12.Failure to stop when signalled to do so by any person authorised to doso.13.Misbehaviour with and showing discourtesy to passengers,intimidatingpassengers or consignors and consignees of goods.Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.6900 of 2009Writ Petition has been filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the respondent relating tothe order of the respondent, dated 13.07.2009 in R.No.24720/A5/2009, quash thesame and consequently, direct the respondent to return the driving license ofthe petitioner to him and award costs.226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugnedorder passed by the respondent in Se.In respect of anaccident that took place on 01.07.2009, a case has been registered in CrimeNo.368 of 2009 u/s.304(A) of I.P.C., by the Periyakulam Police against thepetitioner, who was the driver of that bus and the respondent has issued a showcause notice, dated 10.07.2009, under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act,directing the petitioner to show cause why his license should not be suspended.The petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 13.07.2009 stating that he wasnot responsible for the accident.3.W.P.(MD)No.7905 of 2009: The petitioner is a driver employed in theTamil Nadu Transport Corporation and is working in the Karur Depot.In respectof an accident of which he was the driver of the bus that took place on22.05.2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, dated 01.06.2009,under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, directing the petitioner to showcause why his driving licence should not be suspended.The petitioner submittedhis reply on 07.07.2009 stating that he was not responsible for the accident.Nevertheless, the respondent passed the impugned order inSe.4.In these two writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the order ofsuspension by the respondent.5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in both the writpetitions, submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that theAuthority has not applied his mind and passed the order making in the printedformat, without stating any reason why the explanation of the petitioner was notaccepted.6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied upon thejudgment of this Honourable Court made in W.P.(MD)No.1637 of 2009, in the caseof K.Kottiyappan vs. The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer,The Regional Transport Office, Periyakulam wherein this Court has deprecatedthe practise of issuing the order in the printed format.In that judgment ithas been observed as follows:It has been filled up bythe respondent wherever the occasion arises.14.Smoking while driving public service vehicles.24.Abandoning a transport vehicle as a mark of protest or agitation of anykind or strike in a public place or in any other place in a manner causingobstructions or inconvenience to the public or passengers or other users of suchplaces.25.Using mobile phone while driving a vehicle.and unless the person charges committed one of the above acts, he cannot bedisqualified for having committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisanceor danger to public13.A perusal of those 25 acts stated therein, the reason for which thepetitioner was charged will not come under the category of the Acts stated inRule 21 and therefore, the order passed by the respondent in W.P.(MD)No.6900 of2009 is not in accordance with the provision of the Rule framed therein.14.Further as held by the learned single judgment in W.P.(MD)No.1637 of2009 dated 04.03.2009, the order has been passed in the printed format withoutassigning any reason and the order also makes it clear that the Authorities hasnot applied his mind.15.Hence, the impugned order of the respondents are set aside andaccordingly, these writ petitioners are allowed.However, the respondent is atliberty to conduct the enquiry afresh and pass orders giving reasons.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.No costs.1.The Licensing Authority, The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Periyakulam.2.The Licensing Authority cum Regional Transport Officer, Karur, Karur District.3.The Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,601,752 |
And In the matter of:- Champa Bagdi Petitioner Mr. Samiran Mondal for the petitioners Mr. Nirmalya Biswas for the State The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Gangajalghati P.S. Case.No. 144/2014 dated 01.10.2014 under Sections 376/493/417/323/506/313 of the Indian Penal Code.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 3
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,636,056 |
Heard on this Third application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants in Crime No.317/2018, registered by Police Station City Kotwali, Rewa, District Rewa under Sections 294, 323, 307/34, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25-B of Arms Act.Their earlier two bail applications being M.Cr.C. Nos.25408/2018 and 33899/2018 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 06.07.2018 and 28.09.2018 respectively.At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants, prays for withdrawal of prayer for regular bail made on behalf of applicant no.2 Sanam.Consequently, prayer for bail made on behalf of applicant no.2 Sanam stands dismissed as withdrawn.Now, the prayer made on behalf of applicant no.1 Janbaz @ Janu shall be considered on merits.The case of the prosecution is that, on 10.05.2018 at about 01:00 pm, near Bolchhadi Masjid under the jurisdiction of Police Station City Kotwali, District Rewa because of old rivalry some altercation had taken place; during the course of that altercation, applicant alongwith co- accused persons have beaten complainant Fareed Khan and his sister Asma by means of Bakka, Gupti, iron rod, wooden stick etc. by which he sustained grievous injuries.The Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 06/03/2019 22:17:03 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-7817-2019 (JANBAZ @ JANU & ANO.Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 complainant remained admitted in different hospitals for long time.The report of the incidents have been lodged on the same day, on that basis, crime under the above mentioned offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant-Janbaz @ Janu on bail.In view of the aforesaid, he does not deserve to be released on bail.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 06/03/2019 22:17:03
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,810,267 |
A-1's father has garden-lands.Over a cart-track, there was a dispute between the two families since the last five years.Two years prior to the occurrence day, the deceased and P.W.2 were filling up sand in the cart-track.On seeing that, A-1's father and A-1's elder brother assaulted P.W.1's husband and P.W.2 leading to a complaint in the police station at their instance.One year prior to the occurrence, in the same cart-track, A-1's father and A-1's elder brother, with a view to prevent the prosecution party from using the cart-track, stacked stones in the said cart-track. P.W.2, his wife and another relative of P.W.1 questioned the accused party as to why they are obstructing the cart-track.Therefore, both the families are at loggerheads.At about 4.00 p.m. on 10.3.03, when P.W.1 and her husband (since deceased) were working in their garden-land, A-1 and A-2 came there.At that time A-1 demanded that P.W.1 and her husband should withdraw the case given against his father and his brother.They also threatened that if the case is not withdrawn, then something different would happen to him.Then they left.P.W.1 and her husband returned home at 7.00 p.m. and they told P.W.s 2 and 9 about the incident at 4.00 p.m. in the garden-land.P.W.s 2 and 9 advised them to keep quiet for that night and they could talk it over on the next day morning.Accordingly, after taking dinner, P.W.1 and her husband took to their bed.The electric lamp was burning.Around 1.00 a.m., she heard dogs barking.She woke up and at that time she saw both the accused standing by the side of the cot in which her husband was sleeping.A-1 was armed with a suri kathi and A-2 had a stick in his hand.On seeing P.W.1 waking up, A-1 addressing her by her caste name, questioned her as to why would she not withdraw the case as requested and then saying so, he stabbed her on her right axilla.At that time, A-2 aimed a blow on her with the stick.As by that time she fell down, she did not receive any injury on that attempt.On hearing the noise, her husband (deceased) woke up.A-1 calling him by his caste name, threatened him as to why he should not withdraw the case and so saying stabbed him on his left side chest with the knife he had.P.W.1 shouted that her husband is being killed.On hearing that noise, P.W.s 2, 3, 9 and others came running.All those persons also pleaded with the accused not to stab.On the witnesses saying so, A-1 criminally intimidated them by saying that if they dare to near him, they would also meet the same fate.At that time, A-2 by turning her husband to the ground on his face, held him tightly enabling A-1 to stab on her husband's back (shoulder); flank; hip and other places.Then the accused made good their escape.Then P.W.2 by making use of the phone from a nearby house, informed P.W.11, who reached the crime scene at 5.00 a.m. in his car.P.W.11 transported P.W.1 and her husband in his car in the company of P.W.s 2 and 9 to the Government Hospital, Andhiyur, which they reached at 6.15 a.m. Initial treatment was given to both of them at Andhiyur Government Hospital and going by the nature of the injury, the duty doctor advised them to be taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Erode.On they reaching the Government Headquarters Hospital at Erode, at 10.00 a.m., P.W.1 alone was admitted as an in-patient in the said hospital and her husband, on medical advise, was transferred to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore.At 10.00 a.m. on that day, when P.W.1 was in the Government Hospital, Erode, the Sub-Inspector of Police from the investigating police station reached the hospital and examined her.She gave the details to him, which he reduced into writing.Then the Sub-Inspector of Police read over the complaint to her and after that she put her left thumb impression in it.Ex.P-1 is the said complaint.At 8.00 p.m. on that day, the Deputy Superintendent of Police examined her.At that time he recovered M.O.s 3 to 5 from her.She came to know that on the next day morning her husband died at the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital.Patient referred to Erode G.H.On the same day he also examined P.W.1 for injuries shown to have been sustained by her at 1.00 a.m. on that morning in her house at the hands of two known persons by the use of suri kathi.On her the doctor found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P-8, the wound certificate.The symptoms noted by him are as hereunder:P.W.19 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in Andhiyur police station.On receipt of information from the Government Hospital, Andhiyur, regarding the medico-legal case, he reached the Government Hospital, Andhiyur at 7.20 a.m. where he came to know that all the injured have been transferred to the Government Hospital, Erode.P-28 is the intimation received from the hospital.From the Government Hospital, Andhiyur, he reached the Government Hospital, Erode at 9.30 a.m. On enquiry he came to know that Murugan, since deceased, has already been transferred to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital.However, he found P.W.1 as an in-patient in the hospital and by examining her reduced her statement into writing.Ex.P-1 is the said complaint given by P.W.1 in which he got her thumb impression after reading it over to her.Then he came back to the police station at 12.00 noon and registered the said complaint in crime No. 92/03 under Sections 452, 307, 342, 506(II) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Ex.P-29 is the printed first information report prepared by him.He sent the express records to court as well as to higher officials.P.W.20 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police.At 12.45 p.m. on 11.3.03 he received the express records and commenced investigation.At 2.15 p.m. on the same day, he reached the crime scene where in the presence of P.W.12 and another, prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P-30 is the rough sketch prepared by him.From the scene of occurrence, he recovered M.O.s 1 and 8 to 11 under Ex.He examined P.W.s 2, 3 and 9 by recording their statements.Then he reached the Government Hospital, Erode at 8.00 p.m. and by examining P.W.1 recorded her statement.Then, in the presence of P.W.12 and another he recovered M.O.3, bloodstained jacket, M.O.4, bloodstained saree and M.O.5, bloodstained inskirt under Ex.He came to know that at 2.05 p.m. on that day Murugan breathed his last in the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, which information he received at 5.30 p.m. on that day.He sent the express records to the court as well as to the higher officials.From 8.00 a.m. till 11.00 a.m. on 12.3.03 he conducted inquest over the dead body in the mortuary in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore in the presence of panchayatadars and witnesses.P-32 is the inquest report.During inquest he examined P.W.s 2, 9 and others by recording their statements.He again examined P.W.1 in the Government Hospital, Erode and recorded her statement.He examined P.W.11 and others on 13.3.03 and recorded their statements.P.W.13 is the photographer, who took photographs of the crime scene from three different angles.M.O. 12 series and M.O.13 series are the photographs and negatives.P.W.12 witnessed the preparation of the observation mahazar, Ex.P-14 and recovery of M.O.s 7 to 11 under Ex.He also witnessed the recovery of M.O.s 3 to 5 under Ex.P.W.8 is the Tahsildar, who had issued Exs.P-10 and P-11, the community certificates to P.W.1 and the deceased.He also issued community certificates, Exs.P.W.20 arrested A-1 at 11.00 a.m. on 20.3.03 in the presence of P.W.15 and another.On examination, A-1 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.Pursuant to Ex.P-17, M.O.s 1 and 14 to 16 came to be recovered under Ex.P.W.15 is the Village Administrative Officer, who had deposed about the arrest of A-1; his examination; recording his confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.He also witnessed the recovery of a TVS-Moped under Ex.P-19 and M.O.17 is the said motorcycle.P.W.20 brought the accused and the recovered incriminating objects to the police station.Mucosa pale.- Small intestine contains 20 ml of bile stained fluid.Mucosa pale.Ex.P-3 is the viscera report, which shows neither alcohol nor poison was detected in the viscera.Ex.P-5 is his final opinion, which shows that death is due to external injury Nos. 5 and 6 and its complication.P.W.9 is the nephew of the deceased.When he was grazing his cattle, at about 4.00 p.m. on 10.3.03, he noticed P.W.1 and her husband, since deceased, working in their garden-land.As we have already noted, P.W.s 2 and 9 are closely related to P.W.1 and the deceased.It was almost dead of the night.P-28 is the intimation sent by the doctor at Andhiyur hospital to the investigating police station informing them about the medio-legal case.P.W.19 would state in his evidence that on receipt of information about P.W.1 and Murugan examined by the doctor at the Government Hospital at Andhiyur, he reached the Government Hospital, Andhiyur where he was informed that both the injured have been transferred to the Government Hospital at Erode for better treatment.Accordingly, P.W.19 reached the Government Hospital at Erode at 9.30 a.m. and then finding P.W.1 alone there, by examining her, he recorded her statement.JUDGMENT R. Balasubramanian, J.1. Appellants, two in number, were tried in S.C. No. 142/03 on the file of the Principal Court of Sessions, Erode, under Section 448 IPC (A-1 & A-2); Section 307 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Casts & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (A-1); Section 307 read with 34 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (A-2); Section 302 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Casts & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (A-1); Section 302 read with 34 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (A-2) and Section 506(II) IPC (A-1).At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of all the offences referred to above and convicted them for the gravest offence to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine carrying a default sentence.We are not referring to the other sentences given to the convicted accused since it is lesser than the sentence given for the gravest offence.Hence, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal.Heard Mr. V.K. Muthusamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 10.3.03 and 11.3.03 around 1.00 a.m., the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and her husband and besides making an attempt on the life of P.W.1, committed the murder of P.W.1's husband and in the course of the same transaction, criminally intimidated the witnesses, who came running to prevent any further onslaught and, therefore, punishable for the offence referred to earlier.The defence did not let in any oral or documentary evidence.3. P.W.1 is an injured eye witness and she is the wife of the deceased.She belongs to a downtrodden community.A-1 belongs to Hindu Gounder community and A-2 belongs to Nadar community.On that occasion also, A-1's father and A-1's elder brother assaulted P.W.2 and others calling them by their community name.On that occurrence also a prosecution under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act had been lodged.At 6.15 a.m. on 11.3.03, P.W.11 brought injured Murugan for injuries shown to have been sustained by him at 1.00 a.m. on that morning by the use of a suri kathi at the hands of two known persons.On Murugan, since deceased, the doctor found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P-7, the accident register.The symptoms noted by him are as hereunder:1) A widened laceration of muscle depth 10 x 10 cm on left side of chest near the nipple.2) A linear abrasion of 11 x 1 cm of muscle depth on back of chest.3) A laceration of 6 x 5 of muscle depth over the back of abdomen.4) A laceration of 6 x 1 of muscle depth on back of right scapula.5) A stabbed wound of 5 x 3 x muscle depth on the back of waist.6) A stabbed wound of 15 x 6 cm of muscle depth on right buttock.7) A laceration of 3 x 1 x 1 cm over left elbow.A laceration of 10 x 5 cm of muscle depth over right side of chest below the left scapula on the back.Patient referred to Erode G.H. - D.O.D. 7.4.2003 X-ray right side chest PA view I.D. No. 45386-11.3.2003 Fracture of 8th rib present.P-15 attested by the same witnesses.The arrested first accused (A-1) was sent for judicial remand and the case properties were sent to the court.At 3.00 p.m. on 31.3.03 P.W.20 arrested A-2 in the presence of P.W.15 and another and examined him.A-2 also gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-20, pursuant to which M.O.2 and M.O.18 came to be recovered under Ex.P-21 attested by the same witnesses.P.W.15 had given evidence on the above aspects.P-26 and P-27 are the chemical examiner's report and serologist's report.8. P.W.4 is the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine in the Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital.During post-mortem he found various symptoms as noted by him under Ex.P-4, the post-mortem report.The symptoms noted are as hereunder:The following ante mortem injuries are seen:1) Vertically oblique incised wound of 11 cms x 1.5 cms x subcutaneous deep involving upper two-third to middle two-third of front of left chest.The lower end of the wound is 10 cms away from the midline.The upper sharp end of the wound is 5 cms away from the left anterior axilla.2) Vertically oblique stab injury of 3.5 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep seen over posterior aspect of upper part of right forearm 2 cms below the back of right elbow joint.3) Oblique incised wound of 5 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep seen over middle of left scapular region.The upper sharp end is 13 cms from the left posterior axilla.The lower blunt end is 8 cms away from the midline.The lower end is on the midline.The upper end is 8 cms away from the left posterior axilla.5) Oblique stab injury of 5 cms x 1.5 cms x thoracic cavity deep seen over left back of middle chest.On dissection the wound passes obliquely downwards through the 6th intercostal space and caused a stab of 3 cms x 1 cm for a depth of 4 cms in the posterior aspect of lower lobe of left lung.Total depth of the wound tract is 7 cms.6) Oblique stab injury of 4 cms x 1 cm x thoracic cavity deep seen over the back of left lower chest.The upper end of the wound is 1.2 cms away from the midline.On dissection the wound passes downwards obliquely and caused a stab of 1.5 cms x 1 cm for a depth of 1.5 cms in the posterior aspect of middle part of the spleen.Total depth of the wound tract is 6 cms.7) Oblique stab wound of 12 cms x 3 cms x muscle deep seen over the right lower gluteal region.The lower sharp end is 19 cms below right anterior iliac spine.The upper blunt end is 13 cms away from the mid part of sacral region.Other Findings:- Pleural and peritoneal cavities empty.- Lungs cut section pale.- Heart : Right side chambers contains clotted blood, Left side chambers empth Coronaries patent.- Hyoid Bone intact.- Stomach contains 50 ml of mucosal fluid.No specific smell.No specific smell.- Liver, spleen, kidneys and brain cut section pale.- Urinary bladder empty.Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.Sample of blood preserved.According to him, a weapon like M.O.1 could have caused those injuries and injuries 5 and 6 with their corresponding internal injuries would cause death or sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events.P.W.17, the police constable attached to the investigating police station would state that he carried the requisition given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.20) to the hospital for conducting post-mortem on the dead-body.After post-mortem he removed M.O.19 from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer along with his special report, Ex.P.W.16 is the police constable in the investigating police station, who received the death intimation, Ex.P-22 from the police outpost in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore.P.W.14, examined to prove that he sold the knife to A-1, turned hostile.P.W.2 is the elder brother of the deceased.Apart from giving details about the property dispute between the two groups, as far as the occurrence proper is concerned, he would state that on the night of 10.3.03, after dinner, he went to sleep and at about 1.00 a.m. in the following morning he heard dogs barking and shouts from his brother's house that somebody is attempting on the life.According to him, his brother's house is fifteen feet north of his house.On hearing the noise, he along with his wife, P.W.s 3, 9 and others ran towards his younger brother's house where they saw both the accused standing in the house of his younger brother.A-1 was armed with a knife while A-2 was armed with a stick.On reaching there, he found P.W.1 having an injury on her right side axilla and a stab injury on the left side chest of his brother, since deceased.He pleaded with the accused not to stab any further.A-1, thereafter, criminally intimidated the witnesses that if they dare near him, he would not spare them.At that time, A-2 by turning his younger brother on his face, held him tightly to the ground by using the stick he had in his hand and A-1, with the knife in his hand, stabbed on his brother's left back side shoulder; hip and buttocks.Then the accused made good their escape.During the occurrence time electric lights were burning in the house of the deceased and in that light he saw the crime.P.W.11 brought a car in which he along with P.W.9 and others took P.W.1 and Murugan, since deceased to the Government Hospital, Andhiyur.They reached the hospital at 6.00 a.m. from where they went to the Government Hospital, Erode.P.W.1 was admitted as an in-patient in the hospital and Murugan, since deceased, was transferred to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore and he accompanied Murugan to Coimbatore.At 2.00 p.m. on that day in the hospital at Coimbatore, Murugan died.P.W.2 was examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on that evening.He was also examined during inquest.Then two days later he identified A-2 in the test identification parade.P.W.3 is another eye witness to the crime.He also gave details of the pending land dispute between the parties.On 19.5.03 test identification parade was conducted.P.W.5 is the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.Pursuant to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, he passed a consequential order on 19.5.03 to conduct test identification parade in the Central Prison at Coimbatore.At 4.15 p.m. on 19.5.03 he reached the Central Prison at Coimbatore and made all the preliminary enquiries.Then after observing all the legal formalities, he conducted the test identification parade.During test identification parade, P.W.1 identified A-2 correctly twice.P.W.2 identified A-2 correctly on all the three occasions.Rathinal, wife of P.W.2 could not identify A-2 even once.P.W.9 identified A-2 correctly on all the three occasions.P.W.3 identified A-2 correctly on all the three occasions.However, P.W.3's brother, Samiappan, could not identify A-2 even once.Kuppusami, another witness (not examined in court) could not identify A-2 correctly even once.He would also state that when he was fast asleep in his house on the night of 10.3.03, he heard dogs barking in the early hours of the following morning and on waking up he also heard the distress call from a distance.This made him to run along with P.W.2 and others to his uncle's house, namely the house of the deceased. P.W.3 and others also came.The electric lamp was burning and at that time they saw P.W.1 having an injury on her right axilla and his junior paternal uncle, Murugan, since deceased, having bleeding injuries on his left side chest.A-1 and A-2 were there. A-2 was armed with a stick, while A-1 was armed with a suri kathi.All the witnesses pleaded with A-1 not to stab for which A-1 criminally intimidated them stating that if they dare to near them they would also be stabbed.After that, A-2 turned Murugan, since deceased, face down on the ground and then held him tightly, which enabled A-1 to stab on Murugan's hip, buttocks and back repeatedly.Then they made good their escape with the weapons of offence.M.O.s 1 and 2 are the respective weapons in the hands of A-1 and A-2. P.W.2 informed P.W.11 over telephone and, accordingly, P.W.11 came to the crime scene at 5.00 a.m. in a car in which both the injured were taken to the hospital as referred to earlier.He returned to his house from Government Hospital, Erode.P.W.10 is a neutral person.He knows the accused as well as the deceased.He also saw, at that time, A-1 and A-2 coming there and demanded P.W.1 and her husband to withdraw the case given by them against A-1's father and brother and if they did not do so, then something different would happen.P.W.10 then attended to his work.P.W.11 is a resident of Meenavapuram at Andhiyur.At 3.00 a.m. on 11.3.03, when he was in his house, P.W.2 passed on the information over telephone that his younger brother and P.W.1 have been stabbed and that he must come immediately with a car.Then he transported P.W.1 and her husband in the company of P.W.s 2 and 9 to the Government Hospital, Andhiyur, which they reached at 6.00 a.m. From there the injured were transported to the Government Hospital, Erode.When he reached the crime scene, he found Murugan having stab injuries on his chest and back, while P.W.1 was having a stab injury on her right hand axilla.After reaching the Government Hospital, Andhiyur, he returned home and he did not go to the Government Hospital, Erode.After completing the investigation, P.W.20 filed the final report in court against the accused as referred to earlier.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against each one of them, they denied each and every circumstance as false and contrary to facts.A-1 had filed a written statement contending in substance as hereunder:The deceased filed a civil suit claiming right over a cart-track at the instance of P.W.s 3 and 10 and that suit was dismissed; Mathammal, sister of Murugan was having an affair with one Veeran and, therefore, there was quarrel between the deceased and Veeran; in Murugan's house there are no electric lights; my father and brother are in remand on a false complaint given by the prosecution party leaving me alone in my family as a free citizen; hoping that if I am also sent to jail, the family of the deceased and P.W.3's brother would have a right of way over the cart-track and hoping that the accused would sell their lands also to them, a case has been foisted upon me on the advise of P.W.11; I was taken from my house at 5.00 p.m. On 16.3.03 and I was tortured; my elder brother Rangasamy sent telegrams on 19.3.03 and 20.3.03 and only after that my arrest is shown and I was sent for judicial remand; I have not given any confession statement nor had I produced any document; I am enclosing the two telegrams referred to above.The first telegram is dated 19.3.03 and addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Erode District sent under the name of Rangasamy.The telegram reads -- "My brother Dhanapal (A-1 is called as Balu @ Dhanapal) was illegally custody of Andhiyur Police Station for two days".The other telegram is dated 20.3.03 and it is addressed to the District Collector, Erode, shown to have been sent by one Rangasamy.It reads as hereunder -- "My brother Dhanapal was arrested and kept in illegal custody at Andhiyur Police Station for the past three days.In Ex.P-1, the 2nd assailant is described as a person whose name is not known, but who could be identified on being seen.Ex.P-1 had come to be recorded only at 10.00 a.m. on 11.3.03 almost nine hours after the incident and since in Ex.As such although the murder was witnessed by a number of witnesses, they could not recognise the accused A-2, Felix.Therefore test identification parade has to be conducted of the said accused Felix by summoning the following eye witnesses.Though P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and 9 have identified A-2 in the test identification parade, yet the other eye witnesses, who also participated in the test identification parade, could not identify A-2 at all.Therefore, there is an equal possibility of P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and 9 also not noticing the distinguishing features of A-2, which alone would have enabled each one of them to identify A-2 in the test identification parade.On this point, learned senior counsel would contend that A-2 is not shown to have suffered any injury at all on any part of his body which is clear from the evidence of P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and 9 and, therefore, the involvement of A-2 should be disbelieved.It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that though bloodstains of human blood of Group "B" is shown to be found in the shirt recovered at the instance of A-2 and the same blood group is found in the personal wearing apparel of P.W.1, the deceased and the materials recovered from the crime scene, yet, in the absence of any evidence to show that A-2's blood do not belong to the same group, such material cannot be made use of.Public Prosecutor, there is no compelling need for the investigating officer to take blood samples of A-2 and show that his blood group is different than the blood group found on the incriminating object recovered at his instance.In the light of the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State, we went through the entire materials with utmost care and caution.P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and 9 are examined as eye witnesses to the crime.P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, while P.W.2 is the elder brother of the deceased.P.W.3 knows the accused as well as the deceased.But, nonetheless, as already stated, by going through the evidence of P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and 9 we are fully convinced that there exists a serious dispute between the two groups.The prosecution case is that only in the context of that rivalry over the dispute regarding the cart-track, the occurrence had taken place.There is a person called Idea Kumarasamy.Rengasamy and A-1 are brothers and incidentally the sons of Idea Kumarasamy.The prosecution had not shown any material adverse against A-2, namely, that he has an affinity towards the family of Idea Kumarasamy nor has any adverse interest against the prosecution party.As noted earlier, the rivalry is between the deceased on the one hand and the family of Idea Kumarasamy on the other.The occurrence is shown to have taken place on the intervening night of 10.03.03/11.03.03 (i.e.) at 01.00 hours.It is shown to have been recorded by P.W.19 at 10.00 a.m. on 11.3.03 and, thereafter, it was registered in the investigating police station at 12.00 noon on the same day.It is not as though the occurrence had taken place in the heart of the town.From the printed first information report, Ex.P-29, we see that the police station is at a distance of 10 Kms., from the crime scene.The occurrence had taken place at the dead of the night.The injured and the deceased are downtrodden people.P.W.1 had received a grievous injury.Ofcourse, her evidence shows that after the assault on her; after the initial assault on her husband, when she cried for help, P.W.s 2, 3 and 9 came running to the crime scene and they watched the remaining assault perpetrated by A-1 on her husband.Therefore, it is clear, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel that atleast three witnesses have come to the scene and all of them appear to be males.Therefore, the question that follows is as to why either P.W.1 or any of the other witnesses, namely, P.W.s 2, 3 and 9 have not chosen to take steps immediately in lodging a complaint.P.W.2's evidence is that he made use of a phone in the nearby house and called P.W.11, who appears to be a prominent man in the local communist group to come and render help.P.W.2 had made a request to P.W.11, by informing the incident, to bring a car for transporting the injured to the hospital.It must also be noticed that Murugan did not die at the spot.Therefore, the witnesses would be eager to save their lives.P.W.11 in his evidence would state that he received information about 3.00 a.m. (i.e.) within two hours after the crime and he lives at a distance of 7 Kms.or so from the crime scene.Therefore, it is clear that within two hours from the time at which the crime was committed, P.W.11 was informed over phone.P.W.9 would state that P.W.11 reached the crime scene at 5.00 a.m. in a car.P.W.11's evidence is that he arranged for a car at Andhiyur and then reached the crime scene.P.W.6 is the duty doctor in the Government Hospital at Andhiyur.P.W.6's evidence is that he advised the patients to be taken to the Government Hospital at Erode.Thus the complaint, namely, Ex.P-1 was registered in his police station at 12.00 noon.Mr. V.K. Muthusamy, learned senior counsel fairly states (he is hailing from Periyar District) that Erode is at a distance of roughly 25 miles from Andhiyur where the hospital and the investigating police station are situated.Whatever it is, from the sequence of events as referred to above, namely, at 3.00 a.m. P.W.11 receiving the information about the crime; P.W.11 reaching the crime scene at 5.00 a.m.; P.W.1 and Murugan being examined by the doctor at Andhiyur Government Hospital at 6.15 a.m.; P.W.19 reaching Andhiyur Government Hospital on receipt of intimation about the crime; then reaching the Government Hospital at Erode at 9.30 a.m. and by examining P.W.1 at 10.00 a.m. recording her complaint, definitely shows that the prosecution was moving from one stage to another stage in all promptness and there is no deliberate waste of time.In these circumstances, we are inclined to reject the submission made by the learned senior counsel that on account of the delay in giving the complaint, the entire prosecution case must be doubted.As far as the occurrence proper is concerned, as we have already noted, the entire prosecution case rests upon the oral evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 and 9 alone, of whom P.W.1 is an injured eye witness.It has come out on evidence and as could be seen from the rough sketch, Ex.The house on the north of P.W.1's house separated by a care-track is the house of Karuppan (see Ex.P-30).Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that P.W.9 lives almost at a hand shaking distance from the crime scene.The sketch also shows that P.W.2 lives somewhere on the north-east from the crime scene and the witness admitted that it is at a distance of 500 feet.The distance of 500 feet is not too long to be covered by any person in a quick time.P.W.2 is shown to be a male aged about 27 years.Therefore, the possibility of P.W.2 also reaching the crime scene on hearing the alarming call of P.W.1 cannot be totally said to be impossible.As far as the house of P.W.3 is concerned, though P.W.2 would state that he lives two furlongs away, P.W.3 himself stated that his house is at a distance of 100 feet from the crime scene.He is also a male shown to be aged 44 years.Ofcourse, the house of P.W.3 is not shown in the plan.But, however, we are inclined to accept his evidence that he lives in close proximity to the house of P.W.1 where the crime was committed.Once we find that the presence of P.W.s 2, 3 and 9 in the occurrence place is prima facie established, then the question is can their evidence along with the evidence of P.W.1 could be accepted as reliable evidence.18. P.W.1 is an injured eye witness.Normally, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the evidence of an injured eye witness must be kept in a high pedestal than the evidence of the other eye witnesses.Having regard to the enmity between the two families shown to be in existence, we proceed to examine the oral evidence of P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and 9 with great care and caution.Enmity is always said to be a double edged weapon so that it can cut either way.Enmity may be used as a ground to foist cases.Enmity can be used to wreck vengeance.The prosecution case is that only in order to wreck vengeance on them, the occurrence had taken place and that too in the context of the dispute over the cart-track.We have already concluded that the evidence of the witnesses show that there exists a dispute between the two groups regarding the cart-track.P.W.1's evidence is that even at 4.00 p.m. on the occurrence day evening, when she and her husband were working in the garden-land, A-1 came there with another person and intimidated them that unless they withdraw the case already given by them against Idea Kumarasamy and Rengasamy, things would take a different shape.He appears to be an independent person.Nothing is available on record to even infer that he may lean on the prosecution side.His evidence shows that when he was grazing cattle in his garden-land, he noticed P.W.1 and her husband doing some work in their garden-land and at that time the accused came there and insisted that P.W.1 and her husband should withdraw the case filed against A-1's father and A-1's elder brother and left the place threatening the scenario would completely change if they do not do so.Ofcourse, while he was cross-examined, he admitted that there are litigations between his family and the family of Idea Kumarasamy and that there is a pending civil dispute also.But, however, he firmly stated in his evidence in cross that neither he is leaning towards P.W.1 and her family nor towards the family of the accused.He was fair enough in saying that he did not see the occurrence proper in this case.Therefore, going by his entire evidence, we find that he appears to be a reliable witness and his evidence definitely impresses us.Let us now find out the materials regarding the occurrence proper itself.She is injured and her evidence is that on reaching home from the agricultural land, she and her husband informed P.W.s 2, 9 and others about the incident at 4.00 p.m. on that day and they asked them to lie low for the night and on the next day the whole thing could be sorted out.P.W.2 had given evidence in total corroboration to the oral evidence of P.W.1 on the above aspect.According to P.W.1, after dinner when she and her husband went to bed, around midnight she heard dogs barking, which made her to wake up.When she woke up, she noticed A-1 and another person (we are carefully mentioning at this stage the 2nd assailant as another person since an argument has been advanced that the identity of the 2nd assailant had not been established at all) standing by the cot where her husband was sleeping.Her evidence is that at that time A-1 addressing her by her caste name, recalling the incident that took place at 4.00 p.m. in the evening and finding fault with her for not complying with the request, stabbed her on her right axilla.Her evidence also shows that A-2 attempted to beat her with a stick, but, however, by that time she had already fallen down after receiving the injury at the hands of A-1. A-2's attempt did not result in any injury on her.She would then state that on her raising her voice in pain, her husband woke up and A-1 describing him also by his caste, stating the same reasons as referred to earlier, stabbed him on his right side chest.P.W.s 2, 3 and 9 uniformly say that they also heard the loud call of P.W.1 that her husband is being attacked and, therefore, they ran towards the scene.From this stage we consider the evidence of P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and 9, who uniformly speak that on P.W.s 2, 3 and 9 arriving at the crime scene and pleading with folded hands to the accused not to cause hurt any more; the 2nd person over turned injured Murugan to the ground on his face; held him tightly and at that stage, A-1 repeatedly caused injuries by stabbing on the back of Murugan.Though these witnesses including P.W.1 have been cross-examined lengthily on the 2nd part of the prosecution case, especially with particular reference to the witnesses, namely, P.W.s 2, 3 and 9 could not have come to the crime scene at all, we find that all the witnesses have stood the ground and kept their evidence in chief regarding the occurrence proper intact.One of the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that when Murugan is forced to over turn on his face to the ground and the 2nd person was holding him in such a position, it would not have been possible for A-1 to cause so many injuries on the back of Murugan.In fact, P.W.2 in his evidence had categorically stated that after over turning Murugan, since deceased, to the ground, the 2nd assailant held him tightly by pressing the stick, which he had with him.Therefore, it is possible that the 2nd person could not have been sitting on Murugan when he was lying down, which alone would have disabled, on all probability, from A-1 causing the remaining injuries on the back of Murugan.Therefore, going by the evidence of P.W.2, as referred to above, it is possible to conclude that the 2nd person would not have covered Murugan entirely by focussing his body on the other person's body.For the reasons stated above, we hold that it is not possible to doubt the prosecution case that A-1 could not have caused the remaining injuries on the person of Murugan as spoken to by the witnesses.In view of our discussion, we have no doubt at all to conclude that the evidence of P.W.1 establish beyond doubt that it is A-1, who caused the injury on her and the evidence of P.W.s 1, 2, 3 and 9 show that A-1 had attacked Murugan, since deceased.In other words, no other conclusion is possible from the evidence of these eye witnesses regarding the overt act attributed to A-1 vis-a-vis the deceased.20. Let us now find out, on the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned Addl.Though he made an attempt to attack P.W.1 with a stick, yet it did not result in any injury on her.To decide the prosecution case that the 2nd person involved in the crime is A-2, we must go from the earliest material on record till the witnesses spoke in court.P.W.11 in his evidence would state that even at 3.00 a.m. when he received information, P.W.2 told him that A-1 by name Balu and the 2nd person by name Felix (A-2's name is Felix) had stabbed P.W.1 and Murugan.In his evidence in cross, he stated that the phone message was received by John, his neighbour and he alone passed on that information to him.John had not been examined in this case.P.W.2 nowhere states that he informed P.W.11 as to who the assailants are.Therefore, when P.W.2 did not inform the names of the assailants to P.W.11; when P.W.11 admits that only John, a neighbour who received the telephonic message, passed on that to him, then from the evidence of P.W.11 that he was informed by P.W.2 even at 3.00 a.m. that the name of the 2nd assailant is Felix cannot be believed at all at its face value.From one other angle also we could test the prosecution case that the 2nd assailant is none else than Felix, who is arrayed as A-2 before the court.P.W.s 2, 3 and 9 have stated in their evidence that they knew A-2 earlier.We will discuss about it later on.Therefore if P.W.11 was informed that the 2nd assailant's name is Felix and if P.W.s 2, 3 and 9, who had seen A-2 in the crime scene and if really they knew him earlier, then we fail to understand as to how in Ex.What is mentioned in Ex.P-1 is A-1 and a person, whose name not known but, however, who could be identified if seen, were the assailants.Therefore, at the risk of repetition we state that if really the name of the 2nd assailant was known to P.W.s 2, 3 and 9, then there would not have been any omission to mention the name of the 2nd assailant in Ex.This complaint came to be registered at 10.00 a.m. in the hospital on the day of the occurrence.That requisition contains the following material:A-2 when he was questioned by P.W.5, the Judicial Magistrate at the end of the test identification proceedings as to whether he wants to say anything in regard thereto, A-2 stated as hereunder:By 13.3.03 or so, police caught me and kept me in the police lock up at Andhiyur police station; I was in police lock-up for two days at Vellithirupur police station; I was photographed and those photographs were shown to the witnesses for the purpose of identification.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
70,926,372 |
JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]1) Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent, heardboth the sides for fnal disposal.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 :::No. 3612/2018 22) Present proceeding is fled for relief of quashing of F.I.R.No.85/2018 registered with Railway Line Police Station, Ahmednagarfor the ofences punishable under sections 306, 353, 34 etc. of IndianPenal Code.The crime is registered on the basis of report given bywidow of deceased Balu Bhakre.Balu was working in AhmednagarCorporation in water supply section and he was posted in wardknown as Nirmal Nagar.On 29.4.2018 one incident had taken placein which the deceased was assaulted by Sagar Dagwale and AkashDagwale, applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and due to that incident report wasgiven to police and N.C. No. 579/2018 was registered for ofencespunishable under sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. It is contended thatafter that incident the deceased had again gone to Nirmal Nagarward and he had started discharging the duty.He had contactedUnion President by name Anant Lokhande to express his grievanceagainst these applicants and the incident was disclosed to informantalso.3) It is contended by the informant that on 30.4.2018 atabout 2 p.m. Dilip Dagwale, applicant No. 3 visited her house.Herequested the deceased to come with him and take liquor.It iscontended that Dilip had frst requested to take back the complaintgiven by Balu in the past against applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and whenBalu refused to do so, he was assaulted by Dilip.It is contended thatthough the assault took place in her present, she could not intervene ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 ::: Cri.No. 3612/2018 3as Balu had advised her not to intervene.It is contended that inrespect of this incident, mother of Balu had given report to police,but on that occasion also N.C. was registered.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 :::4) It is the contention of informant that due to harassmentof the applicants the deceased was mentally depressed.It iscontended that on 1.5.2018 when deceased had gone to NirmalNagar, the family of Dagwale had again given threats to deceased.According to the informant, on that day he returned home late.It iscontended that the deceased used to request the superior ofcersnot to send him to Nirmal Nagar, but the superior ofcers were notlistening to him and they were sending him to the same locality anddue to that he was frustrated.It is contended that on 3.5.2018 whileleaving home the deceased had expressed that he had apprehensionof something.It is contended that on that day he did not go to placeof work and he committed suicide by going to railway track.Thereport came to be given on 30.7.2018, after about two months of thedate of suicide.5) The learned counsel for informant took this Court throughthe copies of aforesaid two N.C. reports which were given againstSagar, Akash and Dilip and he submitted that inference of abetmentof suicide can be drawn on the basis of this record and surroundingcircumstances.He placed reliance on the observations made by the ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 ::: Cri.VinayakDeorao Bhagat and Anr.reported as (2009) ALL MR (Cri) 780.In that case, the requirements for making out the case under section306 of I.P.C. are mentioned.That was the stage of consideration ofanticipatory bail application.Thus, the observations were made fordiferent purpose.In the present matter, there are aforesaidcircumstances and there is more record to create other probabilities.Shrikant Magar for about one and half years prior to the date ofincident.He was issuing medical certifcates to the deceased forproduction of the certifcates in corporation.In the statement, he hasmentioned that the deceased was possibly sufering from mouthcancer as the inner portion of cheeks had such symptoms.It is alsomentioned that the deceased was addicted to liquor and he wassufering from mental illness and that kind of symptoms were alsonoticed by him and he had advised deceased to approachPsychiatrist.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 :::6) The record collected by the police and the circumstancesshow that there was possibly some dispute between the presentapplicants and the deceased over discharging of the duty by thedeceased in aforesaid area.One of the applicant is working in samecorporation and it can be said that applicant No. 3 was colleague of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 ::: Cri.No. 3612/2018 5the deceased.The deceased used to complain the ofcers that hewas being harassed by the persons of that area and due to thathigher ofcers had instructed to take action like giving report topolice.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 :::7) The aforesaid material does not show that there was anyintention of abetment of suicide of any of the applicant.Thedeceased was not afraid of the applicants and on every occasion, heand his family had approached police and the report was givenagainst the applicants to police.It wouldhave been interesting to see the record of A.D. and that record wouldhave revealed as to what was disclosed to police by the relatives ofthe deceased when A.D. was registered.Due to all thesecircumstances, this Court holds that it will be abuse of process of lawif the applicants are directed to face the trial for aforesaid ofences.In the result, application is allowed.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 06:04:16 :::
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
70,926,423 |
We understand that in most of the cases the facts are similar and the petitioners / applicants are similarly placed.On 14th May, 2015, the petitioner was found transporting larg quantities of pouches of tobacco which is called 'Gutka' in common parlance, pouches of pan-masala in a truck.One of the important object of this Act was to ensure that public at large should get safe and wholesome food.The Act incorporated salient provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and is also based on international legislations, ig instrumentalities and Codex Alimentaries Commission which related to food safety norms.The Act contains detail statements of objects and reasons.The Act defined term 'Adultrant'.It means, any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or substandard, misbranded or would contain extraneous matter (ramnants of raw material, packaging material etc.).The Act also define term 'food'.The food authority would also provide scientific data to the Government in the matter of framing policy relating to foods safety and nutrition.The authority would collect and summarize relevant scientific and technical data relating to food consumption and exposer of individual to risk relating to the ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:00 ::: 15 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:00 :::consumption of food prevalence by biological risk etc. It should also collect scientific data in respect of contaminants of food and in respect of risks involved in consumption of food etc. The Act then provided general provisions about articles of food which includes use of food additives and processing aids contaminants, pesticides etc. It also imposes special responsibilities on food business operators.The Act thus provides various methods to provide safe and wholesome food for the society." Therefore, he prohibited manufactures support, distribution or sale of Gutka or Pan Masala, containing either tobacco or necotine or Magnesium Carbonate as ingredients.Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that earlier to 2012 in Maharashtra, there were number of business men who were engaged in manufacturing Gutka or Pan Masala containing tobacco etc. These products were sold freely to the members of public earlier.The provisions of the FSS Act, 2006 made provisions for appointment of 'Designated officer' who would be in-charge of Food Safety administration for each district and 'Food Safety Officer'.The Act further provides as to what powers are given to the Food Safety Officer and ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:01 ::: 17 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:01 :::designated Officer.(c) keep it in the safe custody of the food business operator such article of food after taking a sample;and in both cases send the same for analysis to a Food Analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken:Provided that where the Food Safety Officer keeps such article in the safe custody of the food business operator, he may require the food business operator to execute a bond for a sum of money equal to the value of such article with one or more sureties as the Food Safety Officer deems fit and the food business operator shall execute the bond accordingly.(2) The Food Safety Officer may enter and inspect any place where the article of food is manufactured, or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food, or exposed or exhibited for sale and where any adulterant is manufactured or kept, and take samples of such articles of food or adulterant for analysis.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:01 :::Procedure relating to search, seizure, summon, investigation and prosecution.The food Analyst would submit his report as to whether the food was mixed with adulterant etc. In our cases, Gutka/Pan Masala was not sent for food analysis.DATE : 4th March, 2016 JUDGMENT (Per A.V. Nirgude, J.) :-All these Criminal Applications and Criminal Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing by consent of all the parties, and since the point ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:00 ::: 11 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:00 :::raised in all these cases is more or less similar, they are disposed of by this common judgment.For the purpose of disposal of the cases, we would utilise facts of Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015 as representative.The truck was stopped by respondent no. 4, who is Food Safety Officer of Osmanabad district.He alleged that he not only seized the goods but even lodged a police complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed violation of Government Notification, dated 15th May, 2014, prohibiting certain acts pertaining to Gutka/Pan Masala and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (in short, FSS Act, 2006).He further alleged that the petitioner was also liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 188 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code.The police registered offence vide a Crime No. 70 of 2015 and arrested the petitioner.The petitioner secured bail, but asserted that lodging of complaint and registration of crime for offences punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code was illegal.According to them, the ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:00 ::: 12 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:00 :::On the day of incident, the prohibitory order was in force.It is, therefore, clear that admittedly the petitioners were found to have committed violation of the prohibitory order.(In the case it was found that the petitioner was transporting gunny bags containing Pan-masala pacages and tobacco pouches.Transporting such prohibited committee apparently amounted violation of the prohibitory order and the petitioner was liable for certain penal action.)It ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:00 ::: 13 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:00 :::consolidated the laws relating to food, and for establishing the food, safety and standards authority of India.Said Act was made also for laying down science-based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:01 :::The questions that arises then is, whether in such cases Food Safety Officers should have gone to the Police Stations for lodging complaints, and, secondly, whether acts complained amounted to any offence punishable under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.On careful perusal of provisions of Chapter IX and X of the FSS Act, 2006 and the prohibitory order issued by the Commissioner, it appears to us that contravention of prohibitory order would amount to "failure to comply with directions of Food Safety Officers" as contemplated in S.55, which provided penal action.Section 55 of the FSS Act, 2006, reads as under :-The petitioner and applicants have stored/transported Gutka and Pan Masala in bulk quantity.They knew in most of the cases that the articles would be consumed in the State of Maharashtra.The question is, whether possessing such articles knowing that articles would be consumed in Maharashtra would amount to offence punishable under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal code read as under :-::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:03:01 :::25 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.- Whoever adulterates any article of food drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.Sale of noxious food or drink.- Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in the state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."Both these Sections deal with adulteration of article of food.The first question therefore is, whether Gutka or Pan Masala found in possession of the applicant / petitioner were "adulterated food".The Indian Penal Code does not define specifically what is food adulteration.However, we can assume that adulteration of food would mean mixing any material to food which would make the food unsafe and substandard.It reads as under :-In view of all above discussion, we proceed to pass the following order :-O R D E R A) All Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications are allowed.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
70,928,482 |
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal seems to be arguable, therefore, admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.5479/2016 which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant stands convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under -With the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the land in question is the ancestral land belonging to two brothers namely Tarachand (complainant) and Rajaram (accused).The loan was advanced on the said land alleging that the signature of Tarachand were forged and was prepared by the appellant for his own benefit.List the case for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
70,930,254 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-The accused/appellant is the husband of the deceased.The deceased inthis case was one Mrs.Meena.At the time of marriage, according to theprosecution, the parents of the deceased presented 10 sovereigns of gold jewelsto the bride and two sovereigns of gold jewels to the bridegroom besides otherhousehold articles.After the marriage, they were happily living together ashusband and wife at the house of the accused for six months.Thereafter, onone occasion, the deceased came to the house of her parents and told PW.1 (thebrother of the deceased) that the accused forced her out of her matrimonial homedemanding motor cycle from her parents as dowry.PW.1 and her family memberstold her that they could not even reimburse the marriage debts and therefore, itwas not possible for them to purchase a motor cycle.Thereafter, theypersuaded the accused and left the deceased at the matrimonial home.After twomonths, again, the deceased came to the house of PW.1 and told him that thistime also the accused had sent her out of matrimonial home demanding a motorcycle.After some time, the father of the deceased spoke to PW.1 over phoneand informed that the accused had met with a minor accident and requested PW.1to send the deceased to his house.Accordingly, on 28.6.2008, PW.1's brothertook the deceased and left her at the house of the accused.Thereafter, on1.7.2008, around 6.00 a.m., PW.1 was informed that the deceased had died at thehouse of the accused.Immediately, PW.1 and the relatives rushed to the houseof the accused.They found the dead body of the deceased lying on a steel cot.Froth was oozing from her mouth and nose.There were contusions around herneck.PW.1 suspected foul play in the death of the deceased and therefore, heproceeded to the Police Station and made a complaint.3. PW.11 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Ramji Nagar PoliceStation.On 1.7.2008, at 10.00 a.m., PW.1 presented Ex.P1 written complaintand based on the same, PW.11 registered a case in Crime No.205 of 2008 underSection 174 Cr.P.C.,.P12 is the F.I.R.,.Then, he forwarded Exs.P1 andP12 to the Court.Since the death fo the deceased was within 7 years of hermarriage and since it apparently seemed to be an unnatural death, PW.11 referredthe matter to the Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer forholding inquest.PW.10 was the then Revenue Divisional Officer of the Thiruchirapalli.She conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 1.7.2008, during which, sheexamined PWs.1 and 2, and the father of the deceased and prepared Ex.P8 InquestReport.P4 is the Post-Mortem Certificate.(The judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU,J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.118 of 2009 on the file of thelearned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli.He stood charged forthe offences under Section 498(A) and 302 IPC.,.The learned Sessions Judge, byjudgment dated 22.2.2011 convicted him under both the charges and sentenced himto undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence underSection 498(A) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offenceunder Section 302 IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, theappellant is before this Court with this appeal.In the said report, PW.10 opined that there was dowry demand by theaccused.Then, the body was sent for post-mortem.5. PW.9, Dr.Karthikeyan, and one Dr.They found the following injuries:-1.Dark brown colour abrasions; on the front of lower part of neck, 3 cm x 0.5 cmfront of upper part of left side of chest, 4 cm x 2 cms.2.Bruising of right parietal region of scalp - dark red.On bloodlessdissection of neck.3.Bruising of soft tissues of neck in a diffused manner - dark red.4.Diffusion of blood into the soft tissues of neck.5.Fracture of lower laryngeal cartilages present.6.Bruising of esophageal wall - dark red.7.Haemorrhagic spots in mucous membranes of wind pipe and food pipe.8.Bruising of neck muscles on the left side present - dark red.They opined that the deceased wouldappear to have died of manual strangulation.On 01.7.2008 at11.30 a.m., PW.12 prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in thepresence of PW.3 and another witness.Then, he examined PWs.1 to 3 and a fewmore witnesses and recorded their statements.Based on the same, he altered the case into oneunder Section 302 and 498(A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct.P14 is the alteration report.In the mean while, according to thecase of the prosecution, the accused appeared before PW.6, the VillageAdministrative Officer of Mathur Village and made a voluntary confession.PW.6reduced the same into writing and obtained his signature.He produced the accused along with Ex.P3 to PW.12.On 05.7.2008 at 4.00 p.m., when the accused was produced before him by PW.6,PW.12 arrested him.On such arrest, the accused gave yet another voluntaryconfession to the police.Then, he sent the accused to the Court for judicialremand.Then, he collected medical records and examined the Doctor and otherwitnesses.On completing the investigation, finally, on 12.07.2008, he laidcharge sheet against the accused under Sections 498(A) and 302 IPC.Based on the above material, the trial court framed charges.Theaccused pleaded innocence.In order to prove the charges, on the side of theprosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 14 documents wereexhibited.On the side of the defence, one document was marked as Ex.PW-3 is a cousin of the deceased.He has been awitness to the Observation Mahazar.PWs.4 and 5 have turned hostile and theyhave not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.PW-9 is the Doctor, whoconducted autopsy and PW-10 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who held inqueston the body of the deceased.PW-11 has spoken to about the registration of theFirst Information Report and PW-12 has deposed about the investigation done byhim.When the above incriminating evidences were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.On his side, a lone document(Ex.D1) was marked.The plea of the accused before the trial Court was that on the crucialdate, he was not at home.When he returned to his house, he found his wife lyingdead.He has further stated that he went to the Police Station, but he had beendetained in the police station for a long time.He has further stated that hedid not give any voluntarily confession to the Village Administrative Officer(PW-6) at all and Ex.P3 was obtained under coercion from him only in the PoliceStation.He has further stated that he did not demand for dowry also.For the sake of convenience, let us first take up the conviction underSection 302 IPC.The trial Court itself hasdisbelieved the same.It is in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that on the date ofoccurrence, even when they had gone to the Police Station for preferringcomplaint, the accused was already kept in the Police Station along with hisfamily members.They have further stated that the accused continued to be in thePolice Station for a few more days.This would go to show that till 05.07.2008,the accused was in the custody of the Police.Therefore, it would not have beenpossible for the accused to have gone to the office of PW-6 to give such avoluntary confession.Thus, the confession is a suspicious one.At any rate, Ex.If once Ex.The said question has not been raised even in thespecial leave petition.No such point was also taken before the learned trialJudge or the High Court.The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 302 and498(A) IPC.The appeal preferred to the High Court was dismissed.As against thesame, further appeal was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Onsuch release, the accused shall execute a fresh bail bond for a sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.asvm/rj2To(asvm/rj2)1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Station, Jeeyapuram Sub Division, Ramji Nagar Police Station, Trichirappalli District.2.The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichirappalli.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,094,435 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of case No. 1505 of 2019 (State vs. Kaushal Kumar Gupta & others), arising out of case crime No. 304 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 354A, 354B IPC, Police Station- Adampur, District Varanasi, as well as charge sheet dated 02.05.2019 and cognizance order dated 07.11.2019, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, District Varanasi.The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and on the basis of false and frivolous allegation, the present FIR was lodged against the applicant.He further submitted that there is dispute between opposite party no. 2 and the applicant regarding residential house.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 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.
|
70,946,345 |
The petitioner is in custody for about 176 days.Opposing the prayer for bail, our attention has been drawn to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (C. S. Karnan, J.) 2
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
70,948,337 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is repeat bail application of the applicant, whereas his previous application was dismissed on 21.05.2015 being withdrawn.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
70,953,346 |
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision is finally disposed of.The petitioner preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05/04/2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Seoni, in Criminal Appeal No.169/2001, arising out of the judgment dated 31/10/2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni in Criminal Case No.1091/2001, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under Provision Sentence u/s 451 IPC R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.200, in lieu of default, R.I. for one month.u/s 380/511 IPC R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.200, in lieu of default, R.I. for one month.According to prosecution, on 04/09/1993 at 12.00 O'clock at the village Pusera, when Ghuro Bai was sleeping on Verendah of her house, the applicant/accused came there and attempted to steal silver ornaments from her feet.She raised alarm and her husband and son got up and caught hold of the accused/applicant.Both the Courts below have not committed any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution witnesses corroborated by medical evidence.Therefore, the petitioner is rightly convicted under Sections 451 and 380/511of IPC.With regard to sentence, admittedly the petitioner remained in jail for a period of 09 days.No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner had been proved by the prosecution therefore he seems to be first offender.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and submissions made by the counsel of the applicant/accused especially the fact that the incident is of 04/09/1993, it would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner back to jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence after lapse of 19 years.The interest of justice would be served, if the amount of fine is enhanced.Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed.The remaining amount be deposited in the trial Court within 3 months, failing which he shall undergo S.I. for 2 months.With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, revision petition stands disposed of.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE manju
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
240,006 |
The victim in this case is Batton, a boy aged about 7 years.At the time of the occurrence, Battan was living with his adoptive father in village Bagri.The accused Balla was also a resident o the same village.Since the accused and the boy (Battan) be lived in the same village, they got friendly.The accused Balla owned a vegetable-farm situated on the outskirt of the village.On 24-2-57, before noon, Battan visited the field of his adoptive father, who at that time was carrying on winnowing operations.The boy then was wearing a coat and had a cap on his head, besides two golden Murkies, silver bangles and two anklets.It is said that from the field of his father Battan went towards the accused who was of is farm collecting brinjals.About that time Halku asked Shyamlal P. W. 2 (his servant) to bring bullocks from the grazing field so that the corn may be thrashed.Shyamlal went to the grazing ground where he met the accused Balla and also Battan.Shyamial asked Battan to come along with him and help him in taking the bullocks to his father's field.The young boy (Battan) refused to go with Shyamlal and told him that he would rather assist his friend Balla, in collecting brinjals at the farm.A few hours after this, Halku's wife (adoptive mother of Battan) came to Halku and enquired about Battan who had not been to the house to take his noon-meal.Halku told his wife not to worry about the boy who must be playing somewhere.As the evening approached, and, Battan did not turn up, they naturally became anxious.They told Laxminarayan, who was the Muk-kadam of the village about the disappearance and thereafter the whole village was astir and a vigourous search was made for the missing boy.They also asked the accused Balla about Battan, but he denied knowledge of his whereabouts.When the search yielded no result, a report was ultimately made at police station.Bhilsa, the following day (Ex. P1).The Police Officer reached the village at about 6 P. M., and in the course of his investigation he also questioned Balla.JUDGMENT A.H. Khan, J.The Additional Sessions Judge Bhilsa convieted the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.He also convicted the accused under Section 394 read with Section 397 I. P. C. and sentenced him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.Both the sentences were to run concurrently.Aggrieved by his convictions and sentences the accused has filed this appeal.the accused.The accused is said to have told the Police Officer in the presence of other villagers that he had strangled the boy and buried his body in a Nalla which was about a mile from the village.The accused led the Police Officer and the withesses to the Nalla where he dug out some earth and brought forth the body of the deceased from a pit.A rope was found tied to the neck.The following morning at .the instance of the accused, Murkies, silver bangles and anklets of the deceased were al o recovered from the vegetable-farm of the accused.The accused appears to have told the Police that he the with' coat and the cap in a well.But no discovery of those articles was made, and the efforts of the Police in that direction resulted in blank.The evidence in this case against the accused mainly consists of (1) persons who saw Battan with the accused on the fateful day, (2) the discovery of the body, (3) discovery of the ornaments, the boy was wearing, at the instance of the accused, (4) his confession before the Magistrate and (5) the admission of his guilt which he made before the Committing Magistrate.I proprose to examine the evidence referred to above.Shyamlal P. W. 2 has deposed that on the fateful day, he saw the accused and Battan together near the vegetable-farm known as Bhatoi.Parma P. W. 7 says that he saw Battan in the vegetable-There is ample testimony on the record, which is not challenged by the learned counsel for the accused appellant, that the dead body of Battan was recovered at the instance of the accused.Nor is there any reason to doubt that the discovery of the gold earings, silver bangles & anklets was also made at the instance of the accused.The recovered articles have been identified as those the deceased was wearing on the day he disappeared.The accused was produced before him on 2-3-57 and he ordered that the accused he kept in the judicial lock-up.This was done and a couple, of days after being in the judicial lock-up, he was produced-and his confession was recorded.After a warning to the accused that he was not bound to make a confession and that if he made a confession, it may be used against him, the Magistrate recorded it.On going through the confession, which is Ex. P. 17, I find that all the formalities necessary for recording the confession were observed and that the recording Magistrate had satisfied himself regarding the voluntariness of the statement the accused made before him.The accused, however, before the Sessions Judge, denied having made the confession voluntarily.But in his statement before the Committing Magistrate, he had admitted making the confession and did not complain about any compulsion and force.This statement was brought on record under Section 287 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and, is to be read as evidence.The accused had promised to repay the entire price of the house in Baisakh but he failed to do so.The accused had admitted all these facts in his examination under Section 342 Cr. P. Code, and it is suggested that the accused was in need of money and therefore killed the boy in order to rob him.From the confession of the accused it appears that he killed the boy and'thereafter removed his ornaments.
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,011,312 |
CRM 572 of 2017 Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on January 18, 2017 in connection with Kaliganj Police Station Case No. 139 of 2016 dated 4.3.2016 under Sections 376/511/448/326/326A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of :- Tapan Biswas.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.)
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,011,791 |
P.W. 3 - Dilip Salvi and P.W. 4 - Mahaveer Mangale are panch witnesses.P.W. 5 is Dr. Pralhad Narayan Deokar who has performed postmortem and P.W. 6 - Pramod Nalavade is the Investigating Officer who was attached to Deorukh Police Station at the relevant time.P.W. 1 - Sakharam Patil has stated that accused and his daughter got married about 11 years before the incident and she was residing at the distance of about 25 feet from their house.According to him, two year before the incident, the accused had started ill-treating his daughter since he suspected that she was having an illicit affair with one Sameer Salvi.He further stated that eight days before the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 ::: 6 (APEAL 326.04) incident, accused had assaulted his daughter and she had to be admitted in the hospital.(Original Complainant) Mr. Rakesh R. Bhatkar & Adesh Chavande, for the Appellant.Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent.CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 8th November, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.)Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri whereby the Trial Court was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:06 ::: 2 (APEAL 326.04) the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:06 :::Prosecution case is that the appellant committed murder of his wife since he suspected that she was having an affair with one Sameer Salvi.According to the prosecution, on 22/02/2003, deceased Sangeeta had gone to the house of her mother who lived in the same building at about 11 O'clock and, after some time, she went back to her house and promised to return back after serving meals to her husband.At about 12.30 in the afternoon, her son Ajay went to her mother's house and informed her that Sangeeta was lying in a pool of blood in the bath-room.When Shardabai, mother of Sangeeta, went to the house of Sangeeta, she also found that Sangeeta was lying in a pool of blood.Ajay, thereafter, went to his grandfather Sakharam Patil and informed him about the incident, who also came to the house of Sangeeta.Thereafter, Sangeeta was taken to the hospital.However, she was declared dead.A complaint was filed by Sakharam Patil against the accused, appellant herein who was then arrested.Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses.The spot panchanama and inquest panchanama was prepared and three days after the incident, recovery of knife was made at the instance of the appellant.Blood stained clothes of the accused were also sent to the Chemical Analyser.Charge- sheet was filed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:06 :::(APEAL 326.04)Prosecution examined in all six witnesses.The defence was of denial.In his 313 statement, accused has stated that on the date of the incident, at about 9.00 a.m., he left the house for seeing the cricket match which was played near his house and claimed to have met Ajay and his two nephews at about 11 O'clock and from there he went to his office and came to know at about 1.00 p.m. about the incident and he, therefore, came back to his house.He submitted that the prosecution had not examined Ajay, son of the appellant and deceased Sangeeta though he was a crucial witness since he was the first person who had seen the deceased Sangeeta in an injured condition and, thereafter, had informed his grand parents.He submitted that adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the Trial Court against the prosecution for not examining Ajay since he could have thrown some light about the presence of the accused at the cricket match.He submitted that recovery of knife also was not trustworthy since the accused was handcuffed when the recovery was made and the key of the house was with the police.He also submitted that recovery was made almost three days after the arrest of the accused.It is further submitted that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 ::: 4 (APEAL 326.04) Chemical Analyser also did not support the case of the prosecution because the blood which was found on the clothes of the deceased did not match since the blood group of the deceased was different from the blood which was found on the clothes of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the accused used to suspect the character of the deceased and had assaulted her for that reason on number of occasions.However, no complaint was filed on account of the intervention of the deceased.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State.They have taken us through the judgment and Order of the Trial Court and also the evidence which is brought on record.Dr. Pralhad Narayan Deokar (P.W.5) who conducted the postmortem has stated that he noticed 9 incised wounds on the chest of Sangeeta and over wrist and between fingers of the left hand.He also noticed that there was a fracture of the first rib and that the left lung was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 ::: 5 (APEAL 326.04) punctured and the large vessel was found torn.In his opinion, therefore, he has stated that the cause of death was because of hypovoluminic shock due to injury to great vessel and vital organs.He has also stated that these injuries could be caused by Article 19 which is a knife and which was recovered at the instance of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::The crucial question which needs to be decided is : whether the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed murder of his wife Sangeeta?Prosecution has examined in all six witnesses.According to him, no complaint was filed against the appellant since his daughter had restrained him from filing the complaint.He has further stated that his daughter had told him that the accused had threatened to kill her.He has stated that, at 1.00 p.m., his grandson Ajay came to him and told him about the incident and, thereafter, he filed the complaint against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::P.W. 2 - Sharada Patil is the mother of the deceased.She has also stated that the accused used to ill-treat her daughter since he suspected her character.She has stated that on account of quarrels between the accused and her daughter, she had brought her daughter and two grandsons to her house and her daughter was staying with her.However, since the accused was unwell, Sangeeta used to go and take care of the accused.She has also stated that on the date of the incident, Sangeeta had left her house at about 11.30 a.m and, at about 12.00 and 12.30, her grandson Ajay came and told her that his mother was lying in the bath-room.P.W. 4 - Mahaveer Mangale is another panch who prepared the inquest panchanama.He also prepared the panchanama of attachment of clothes of the accused which ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 ::: 7 (APEAL 326.04) is at Exhibit-16 and the panchanama of recovery of knife at the instance of the accused.In the cross-examination, however, he has admitted that he was called at the Police Station on 24/2/2003 for recording the statement of the accused about production of the knife.He has stated that the accused was handcuffed when he was taken to his house and the house of the accused was locked and the key was with the police.The police opened the lock and, thereafter, they all entered the house.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::P.W. 5 is Dr. Pralhad Deokar, who performed the postmortem of deceased Sangeeta.P.W.6 - Pramod Nalavade is an Investigating Officer, who was attached to Deorukh Police Station.In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in the arrest panchanama it is not stated from where the accused was arrested and taken in custody.He has further stated that he has recorded the statement of Ajay Salvi, the son of the accused since he was an important witness.He has also admitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused and his son had been to see the matches at Patgaon on the date of the incident and when Ajay had returned to the house from Patgaon, he had seen his mother lying in injured condition.He also admitted that Sameer Salvi had seen the deceased at the back side of her house at about 11.00 a.m and that he was the last person who had seen the deceased alive.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::(APEAL 326.04)Trial Court, after going through the evidence which is brought on record, has observed as under in para 28 of its judgment:-From the entire evidence it doesn't appear that any other person other than accused has any intention to kill Sangeeta.Trial Court, instead of addressing itself to this question, has, on the basis of suspicion and surmises, come to the conclusion that since no other person other than the accused had an intention to kill Sangeeta, he was guilty for committing the said offence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::In our considered view, the evidence which is brought on record is not sufficient for establishing the fact that the accused was responsible for commission of the said offence.None of the prosecution witnesses has stated that they have seen the accused in his house at that time.Another crucial aspect which has been ignored by the Trial Court is that the prosecution has not examined Ajay who was the first person ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 ::: 10 (APEAL 326.04) who had seen the deceased lying in an injured condition.No explanation has been given as to why the prosecution has not examined Ajay.It is the duty of the prosecution to bring on record evidence which could throw light on the circumstances under which the offence had taken place in order to enable the court to come to a proper conclusion.If, however, prosecution fails to examine the crucial witness, then, in such cases, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inference.In the present case, the accused in his statement under section 313 has categorically stated that he had gone to see cricket match at Patgaon and that he had met his son and two nephews at the cricket match.If the prosecution had examined Ajay, he would have been in a position to not only state the circumstances under which he found his mother lying in an injured condition but he also would have been in a position to state whether, in fact, accused had met him at the cricket match at Patgaon.An adverse inference, therefore, will have to be drawn against the prosecution that the prosecution did not examine Ajay because had he been examined, his evidence would have supported the case of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::Another important fact which has been brought on record by the defence in the cross-examination of Investigating Officer - P.W. 6 is that the prosecution had also arrested Sameer Salvi who was the last person who had seen the deceased alive in the morning at about 11.00 a.m behind her house.Prosecution has not given any ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 ::: 11 (APEAL 326.04) explanation as to why he was released.The evidence which has been brought on record by the prosecution, at the best, would raise a suspicion against the accused.It is quite well settled that suspicion, however, strong it may be cannot take the place of proof.In the present case, P.W. 1 and 2 have stated that two years prior to the incident accused was suspecting chastity of his wife and had also on one or two occasions assaulted her on that ground.This may create a suspicion that the accused was responsible for inflicting vital injuries on Sangeeta.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::ig However, that does not establish beyond the reasonable doubt that he alone could have caused these injuries to the deceased.Accused in his statement under section 313 had given an explanation about his whereabouts at the said time.He has stated that he had gone to see cricket match at Patgaon and he had met his son and two nephews and offered them ice cream after the match.He has also stated that the parents of the deceased namely P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had a grudge against him since the marriage between the accused and the deceased was an intercaste marriage and they had not approved of his marriage with the deceased.Prosecution could have very well established that this version which was given by the accused was not correct by examining Ajay.However, the prosecution, curiously, failed to examine Ajay, though his statement was recorded by P.W. 6 and though he has admitted in his cross-examination that Ajay was a crucial witness in the case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::(APEAL 326.04)Prosecution has also relied upon the recovery of knife at the instance of the accused.It is a matter of record that the said recovery was made almost after three days after the arrest of the accused.It has also come on record that the spot panchanama and the panchanama of the seizure of the clothes of the deceased was made immediately by the police.The police, therefore, had an ample opportunity to take search of the house of the accused on the same day of the incident and thereafter.It is difficult to accept the prosecution case that almost three days after the date of arrest that the weapon with which the murder was committed could be found at the instance of the accused from the same house.The another circumstance which creates doubt regarding recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused is that the panch witness P.W.4 -Mahaveer Mangale has admitted that the accused was handcuffed when he was taken to his house and he has further stated that house of the accused was locked and it was opened with the key which was with the police and that the police opened the lock and they all entered the house.It is, therefore, difficult to rely on the said recovery which has been made at the instance of the accused.In dealing with circumstantial evidence, the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind.In such cases there is always danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and, therefore, one has to remind oneself about the warning addressed by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 ::: 13 (APEAL 326.04) Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg vs. Hodge1 where he states that "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and misled itself, to supply some little link that wanting to take for granted some fact inconsistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::In this view of the matter, it is difficult to rely on the recovery of knife at the instance of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::19 In the result the following order is passed:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:54:07 :::
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,024,231 |
Shri Jagdish Dangi, learned Counsel for the applicant- Rahul S/o Radheshyam.Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.This is 2nd repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to application applicant- Rahul, who is implicated in Crime No. 749 of 2014, registered under Section 392 of IPC at Police Station-Tukoganj, Indore.This 2nd repeat application has been filed on the gourd of parity with co-accused- Golu @ Ajay whose application for grant of bail has been allowed by order dated 2.11.2015 which reads as under:-"Heard.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to applicant Golu @ Ajay who was implicated in Crime No. 749/2014 registered under Section 392/34 IPC by Police Station Tukoganj Indore.Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that article which has been said to have been seized from the possession of the applicant has not been identified by the complainant nor he has been identified by her.He submitted that after investigation charge sheet has been filed and no further interrogation from the applicant is required.In respect of another case registered under Section 379, IPC he submits that in the aforesaid case on the basis of compromise he has been acquitted by the Trial Court.A.G. has opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection.On due consideration of the aforesaid, and other material evidence available on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I allow the M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge pp/
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,026,615 |
prosecution eyewitness.The appellants were identified by him in course of recording his evidence before Court while Ghata @ Samar Haldar was not identified by him.The charge framed against the other four accused persons were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such they were acquitted.Therefore, the principles of natural justice of fair play was not denied to the appellants treating Ghata @ Samar Haldar and the aforesaid four other acquitted persons unequally.It is submitted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury in his usual fairness, that the prosecution case was proved beyond any reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence of PW 2 and other documentary evidence.It is also submitted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the impugned judgment was not passed depending upon the evidences of either PW 1 or PW 9 who were hearsay witness.According to him, though it was not in dispute that PW 3, PW 4, PW 6 and PW 7 were declared hostile witnesses but the evidence of PW 3, PW 4, PW 6 and PW 7 corroborated with the evidence of PW 2 partially up to the extent the same supported the prosecution witness.According to the evidence of PW 4, there was existence of previous disturbance in the locality concerned and police picketing had been withdrawn before one day of the occurrence of the incident.According to PW 6, one of the accused persons Ram Ghosh @ Ram Chandra Ghosh was the elected commissioner of the municipality concerned and he was an influential person of the locality concerned.But he was identified by the above prosecution witness while adducing evidence in Court and the discrepancies in the statement of PW 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. with the evidence adduced on June 27, 2003, were minor in nature.Reliance is placed on the decision of Santosh Kumari vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., reported in (2011) 9 SCC 234 in support of his above submissions.Having heard the learned Counsels for the respective parties at length and after considering the facts and circumstances of this appeal, we find that the learned trial Judge analysed the evidence (both oral and documentary) in the following manner to arrive at a conclusion that the commission of offence by the appellants was proved beyond doubt:-The case of the prosecution as projected before the learned Court below, the PW 2 not only witnessed the death of one Jayanta Das (the deceased) on November 27, 1992, but he was also assaulted by the appellants and their associates at the material point of time.He was the person who identified the dead body of the deceased when the police came at the place of occurrence on the above date at 12.25 hours.In the matter of Sarwan Singh & Ors.vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Justice S. Murtza Fazal Ali, as His Lordship then was, speaking for a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed that even though an eyewitness might have belong to the group of the deceased and that witness came from one particular group was sufficient to show the interested nature of evidence.But it was not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity.All that the Courts required as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, was that the evidence of such witness should be scrutinized with a little care.It was further observed in the above decision that there might be circumstances where only interested evidence might be available and no other, e.g. when an occurrence took place in absence of no other witness, but once such witness was scrutinized with a little care and the Court was satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration."10. . . . .Indeed there may be circumstances where only interested evidence may be available and no other, e.g. when an occurrence takes place at midnight in the house when the only witnesses who could see the occurrence may be the family members.In such cases it would not be proper to insist that the evidence of the family members should be disbelieved merely because of their interestedness."The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted.His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else.The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he 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.Both of them were compelled to get down by the appellants with their associates from the cycle under the leadership of Ram Ghosh (Commissioner of Krishnagar Municipality) near the said primary school with firearms and deadly weapons and assaulted them with the help of rod, "dao" (chopper) and pipegun.When the above miscreants were taking them to a 'kolabagan' (banana field) nearby, the PW 2 fell down on the way.The deceased person was dragged to the banana field.The miscreants left the place.(Emphasis supplied) PW 3 was the rickshaw puller, who had found the PW 2 to come forward limping towards the sister and mother of PW 2 (PW 9).He further witnessed the arrival of the police at the village at the material point of time.According to his deposition, police (PW 3) took him (PW 2) to the place of occurrence boarding on a police van.Jadab Chakraborty indicated the banana garden as also they found the dead body of the deceased was lying there.From the evidence of PW 2, it would appear that though he did not witness the cutting of the deceased person, who was well acquainted with him (PW 2), by his throat but he saw the appellants being armed with deadly weapons to drag the victim towards 'kolabagan' and thereafter he heard a sound which was normally raised when a goat was cut by its throat.He recognized the voice of the deceased person.After the miscreants had fled away he found the cut injury on the throat of the deceased person.It could have been claimed by PW 2 that he witnessed the assault of the deceased person by the appellants with sharp cutting weapon inside the 'kolabagan'.He arrived at the place of occurrence at 12.25 hours.After recovery of dead body of the victim from banana garden the inquest examination began at 13.35 hours.However, a finding that assailant concern had a common intention with the other accused was necessary for resorting to such a course.As discussed in the earlier part of our judgment, a common intention with the other accused had also been proved from the evidence of the prosecution witness.(1) The accused did some act;It appears from the evidence of PW 2 that he was assaulted by the appellant nos.3, 4 and Ghata with the help of blunt portion of "dao".From the treatment papers of PW 2 prepared by the PW 10, who had examined him, found the following injuries:-One multiple small abrasion both upper limbs.Liniar parallel bruises on back 3" x " and there " apart.Afterwards X-ray done and on X-ray the fracture of lower one-fourth right ulna was detected and the patient was referred to our orthopedic surgeon T. Dutta Roy."From the aforesaid evidence, it was surfaced that the intention or knowledge of the aforesaid appellants was not of such nature as was necessary to constitute murder.The commission of offence by other accused person, namely, Ghata was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt and as such he was acquitted of the charge framed against him.Considering the use of blunt portion of "dao" to above intention or knowledge of either of the appellants could not be said to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,027,570 |
They were also beaten and were humiliated.It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required under Section 15-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "the Act") This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14- A(2) of the Act being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Shivpuri rejecting the bail application.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Date: 2018.03.07 15:37:35 +05'30'
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,028,115 |
This application u/S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant Santosh Sharma s/o Surajpal Sharma who is in custody since 10/9/2017 in connection with Crime No.316/2017 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Distt.Mandsaur for commission of offence punishable u/Ss. 420 and 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 6 Nishepako ke Hitto ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam.Learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this Court that in identical circumstances, one Devendra s/o Sureshchandra who was also one of the Directors of the Company has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10/5/2019 passed in M.Cr.17185/2019, and the petitioner is also a Director of the Company.He is in Jail for the last 3 years.It has also been stated that even Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to the present petitioner in a similar kind of crime vide order dated 11/8/2020 passed in Criminal Misc.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M. CR.C. No. 26193 / 2020 SANTOSH SHARMA Vs.17185/2019, decided on 10/5/2019) has passed the following order :Indore, Dated:10/05/2019 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Earlier bail applications being MCRC No.10796/2017 was rejected on merit by order dated 02/11/2017 and the 2nd bail application being MCRC No.22039/2017 was dismissed vide order dated 24/11/2017 on the ground that there is no change circumstances.Notice of this application was served on the State counsel.Case diary as per the direction of this Court has been produced and it has been perused.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after passing of the order by this Court on 24/11/2017, the applicant has been granted regular bail in the connected crime numbers wherein the allegation was the same.He has submitted that on the basis of the similar complaints, crime No.571/2017 was registered wherein this Court on 07/08/2018 in MCRC No.23961/2018 has granted regular bail.He further submits that the applicant was Director in company between 2009 to 2012 and during this period, no deposits were made.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of bail.C. No. 26193 / 2020 SANTOSH SHARMA Vs.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,032,811 |
Accused no.2 Ramnath is maternal uncle,accused no.3 Zumberbai is mother of accused no.1 and accused no.4Hirabai is wife of accused no.1 Balu.It is also not in dispute that boththe accused as well as the deceased were residing in a field known as'Limbacha mala' at village Akoli-Wadgaon.They were having theirseparate agricultural lands with separate farm houses, but they werehaving one common well and they were sharing the water of the wellon the basis of daily use.Accused no.1 was entitled to use the waterone day and night on Tuesday, while the deceased was entitled to usethe well water one day/night after the turn of the accused.It isdisputed at what time the term of the deceased was to begin.Thereseems to be no prior disputes.On 28.2.1995, at about 6.00 p.m.,deceased Raosaheb switched off the electric motor and therebystopped the water supply to the field of the accused.It led to thequarrel.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::As per F.I.R., when the deceased Raosaheb switched off theelectric motor, accused no.1 Balu came to the house of the deceasedand challenged him to come out and threatened to kill him.Thereafter, he brought one axe, abused the deceased and gave anaxe blow on his skull.Raosaheb sustained injury and he sat down dueto giddiness.After sometime, P.W.1 Balu, accused no.2 - hismaternal uncle Ramnath (accused no.3 - Zumberbai's brother) cameto the house of Raosaheb.Ramnath was having a stick.Whenhe saw P.W.1 Gangubai in front of her house, accused no.1 Baluabused her and inflicted blow of axe on her skull and thereafter wentto the village.After sometime, P.W.1 Gangubai heard shouts of herhusband as 'Melo re.. mala dharare'.P.W.1 Gangubai pressed herinjury and went towards pir.Her husband was lying there withprofuse bleeding.All the accused were present there and wereshouting as 'Dhara' (caught hold), 'Hatpai toda' (cut off hands andlegs).It is stated that accused no.2 Ramnath was saying that theywere lucky to find deceased Raosaheb on the way.Accused nos.3 and4 threatened to kill him and stated that they would hold him andaccused nos.1 and 2 should kill him.On arrival of P.W.1 Gangubai, allthe accused fled away.Then Gangubai's grandson Vikas also camethere.Both of them brought Raosaheb to their house.Raosaheb wasunconscious.He was first carried in a bullock-cart to Dr. Pawre atMahagaon, but he referred him to the civil hospital at Aurangabad andprovided his car for transport.Raosaheb was taken to Civil Hospital,Aurangabad.On the next day, at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.1 Gangubaicame to the civil hospital.She learnt that her husband was dead.In Sessions Case No.142/1995, by judgment dated 25.9.2002,the learned Ist Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabadacquitted all the four accused of offences punishable under Section302 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, but convicted andsentenced accused no.1 Balu as follows :The aggrieved accused no.1 Balu has preferred Criminal AppealNo.574 of 2002, whereas the State has preferred Criminal AppealNo.138 of 2003 challenging the order of acquittal of all the accused.Since there is a common judgment, common arguments are heardand the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.The prosecution was initiated on the basis of F.I.R. lodged byGangubai wife of deceased Raosaheb on 1.3.1995 at 22.35 Hrs. atSillegaon police station, Taluka and District Aurangabad.The crimewas registered at C.R. No.14/1995 under Sections 302, 504, 506 readwith Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and was investigated into by P.W.8Police Inspector Mr Bhosale.As per the investigation and evidence on record, it is not indispute that deceased Raosaheb aged about 60 years was uncle of::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 3accused no.1 Balu.Accused no.3Zumberbai and accused no.4 Hirabai also come there.As Raosaheb::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 4was not at home, they started proceeding towards the village.The incident was witnessed by her son P.W.2 Ramnath, daughter-in-law Mangal and grandson Vikas.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::The crime was registered on the basis of F.I.R. at C.R.No.14/1995 under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with Sec.34 of IndianPenal Code and was investigated into.The medical evidencedisclosed that deceased Raosaheb had sustained one contusedlacerated wound on right parietal region of size 3" x 1/2" to skull::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 5deep, two contusions on right occipital region and four more injuries,two contusions and two abrasions.Injury no.1 contused laceratedwound on the skull was found to be fatal.The Investigating Officercollected medical certificate of P.W.1 Gangubai.He drew inquestpanchnama, spot panchnama and seized one axe from the house ofthe accused.He recorded statements of material witnesses.The seized articles weresent for chemical analysis and blood stains were found on the clothesof accused no.1 Balu, but not on the axe.After completion ofinvestigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of JudicialMagistrate.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad framed chargeagainst all the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined eight witnesses.It is defence of theaccused that deceased Raosaheb and P.W.1 Gangubai had a quarrelwith accused no.3 Zumberbai and they had assaulted her and whileP.W.1 Gangubai was assaulting Zumberbai, she accidentally gave axeblow to deceased Raosaheb which resulted into his death.On thebasis of F.I.R. lodged by Zumberbai, P.W.1 Gangubai, P.W. 2 Ramnathand other family members were prosecuted.(submissions at the bardisclose that there was conviction by the trial Court, which was setaside and accused were acquitted by a Single Judge of this Court ).::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::Appeal No.574/2002 6Heard learned Advocate Mr V.R. Dhorde for the appellant inCriminal Appeal No.574 of 2002 and for respondents in CriminalAppeal No.138 of 2003 and learned A.P.P. Mr S.J. Salgare for the State.Mr Dhorde has submitted that P.W.2 - Ramnath had not intervenednor even accompanied his parents to the hospital.The two other eyewitnesses P.W.4 Waman and P.W.5 Kisan have not supported theprosecution and with the permission of the Court they were cross-examined by learned A.P.P. He submitted that the evidence on recordshows that the incident took place at late night after 9.00 p.m. Therewas no electricity on the spot.The evidence of P.W.1 Gangubai is notsufficient, as it is not reliable and trustworthy.Her evidence is notconsistent with her F.I.R. There is delay of twenty four hours inlodging the F.I.R. No blood was found on the axe.The prosecutionwitnesses have suppressed the genesis.There is no explanationgiven to the injuries sustained by Zumberbai.Therefore, theconviction of accused no.1 Balu under Section 324 of Indian PenalCode for causing injuries to deceased Raosaheb and P.W.1 Gangubaiis not sustainable.Hence, the appeal of the accused should beallowed and conviction should be set aside.He relied on:1) Thulia Kali Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC393 on the point of delay in F.I.R.2) Golbar Hussain and ors.,(2015) 11 SCC 242 on the point that when the trial Court hasacquitted the accused on the ground of contradiction in the evidenceof witnesses and absence of independent corroboration, the appellate::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::3) Hem Raj and anr.State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC 241on the point that when the prosecution witnesses are stating aboutthe injuries, which are not disclosed in the F.I.R. and when they werenot explaining the injuries sustained by the accused even if minor, itaffects the credibility of the witnesses.Per contra, learned A.P.P. Mr Salgare has argued that there iscogent and consistent evidence of P.W.1 Gangubai, partly supportedby P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and medical evidence to show thataccused no.1 Balu had inflicted blows of axe on the skull of deceasedRaosaheb as well as P.W.1 Gangubai.P.W.1 Gangubai is injuredwitness and her presence on the spot cannot be disputed.Theaccused are closely related to prosecution witnesses and, therefore,the identification even at the darkness is not suspicious.Clothes ofthe accused no.1 - Balu were having stains of blood.Therefore, theevidence shows that accused no.1 Balu has inflicted injuries by deadlyweapon axe on the vital part skull which has resulted into death ofRaosaheb.There is sufficient evidence to convict accused no.1 underSection 302 of Indian Penal Code.There is also evidence againstaccused nos.2 to 4 showing their involvement in the crime.Hence, allthe accused should be convicted and the appeal filed by accused no.1should be dismissed.The points for our consideration with our findings are asfollows :::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::Appeal No.574/2002 8(I) Whether deceased Raosaheb met with homicidal death ? .. In the affirmative(II) Whether accused nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Raosaheb ? .. Not proved(III) Whether accused nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention attempted to commit murder of P.W.1 Gangubai or voluntarily caused hurt by deadly weapon to her ? .. Offence under Sec.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::conducted post mortem shows that the deceased had sustainedfollowing injuries :(1) An obliquely placed contused lacerated wound over right parietal region at vertex, 3 x ½ inches x skull deep.i.e. upto periosteum, margins were irregular, beveling seen on lateral part of the wound.(2) Two irregular dark reddish contusions over right occipital region, located side by side, admeasuring ½ x ¼ inch (3) An oblique dark reddish contusion over dorsal of left index finger, 1 x ½ inch.(4) An oblique contusion over anterio-lateral aspect of middle right thigh, 1/3rd right thigh, 2½ x ½ inches.(5) An irregular dark reddish abrasion over anterio- lateral aspect of left knee.(6) An oval dark reddish abrasion over medial aspect of right knee, 1 ½ x 1 inches.All the injuries were ante-mortem and injury no.1 has causedinternal damage to the brain and intra-cerebral-hemorrhage of rightcerebral hemisphere.There was evidence of contusion at rightparietal lobe, at top, 1.5 inch x 0.5 inch, flattering of cortical-surfaces,::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 10within obliterations of sulci and gyri, suggestive of cerebral oedema.There was evidence of patecheal-hemorrhage in cerebellum.It is notdisputed that after the incident, deceased Raosaheb has becameunconscious and on the next day he died in the hospital.It is obviousthat Raosaheb has met with a death on account of the injuriesinflicted to him by somebody else.These injuries can be neitheraccidental nor self inflicted.The admission of the doctor that promptand immediate treatment could have saved the life of Raosaheb doesnot change the nature of death i.e. homicidal.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::The prosecution has relied on following type of evidence :(I) Eye witnesses - P.W.1 Gangubai, P.W.2 Ramnath, P.W.4Waman, P.W.5 Kisan.P.W.4 Waman and P.W.5 Kisan have turnedhostile.P.W.8 P.I. P.B. Bhosale.(III) Discovery of stick at the instance of accused no.2 Ramnath,memorandum Exh.47 and seizure panchnama Exh.47-A proved byP.W.8 P.I. Bhosale.(IV) The spot panchnama Exh.45 proved by P.W.8 P.I. Bhosale.(V) Recovery of axe from the house of the accused proved by P.W.7panch, Exh.41, Article No.10 axe.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::Appeal No.574/2002 11(VI) Medical evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Mohd. Javed Asar who hasexamined P.W.1 Gangubai.He found following injuries :(1) CLW, scalp region 10 x 2 x bone deep cms linear (2) Abrasion left forearm 3 x 1 cms, right middle 3rd, 3 x 1 x 1 cms linear (3) Contusion on left scapular region, which was ill-14. P.W.4 Waman and P.W.5 Kisan are hostile witnesses.Theirevidence shows that on the day of incident, in presence of both ofthem, there was quarrel between Raosaheb and Zumberlal near thewell in Nimbacha Mala at 5.30 p.m. They had separated them.Theyhave stated that at late night they heard shouts of Raosaheb from theside of pir, but they had not witnessed the incident of assault.Incross-examination, P.W.4 Waman has admitted that accused no.1Balu in his presence abused Raosaheb and threatened to finish him onthe ground that Raosaheb had switched off his electric motor.Similarly, P.W.5 Kisan has stated about absence of accused no.1Balu at 7.00 p.m. on account of dispute over well water.He hadseparated them.Thereafter, he heard some shouts of Raosaheb fromthe side of (pir) tomb at late night.He, in cross-examination admittedthat accused no.1 Balu had threatened Raosaheb to kill.He hadstated about arrival of accused no.1 Balu towards the house ofRaosaheb but had not stated anything about carrying axe or makingassault.He has deposed that accused no.1 Balu had abusedGangubai in his presence in front of his house.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::Appeal No.574/2002 12Material evidence is of P.W.1 Gangubai and P.W.2 Ramnath.P.W.2 Ramnath is son of P.W.1 Gangubai and deceased Raosaheb.Hehad gone to Vaijapur.He stated that after his return from Vaijapur,the incident had taken place.He deposed about the assault byaccused no.1 Balu at 7.30 p.m. on his father Raosaheb by inflictingblow of axe on his skull.His father sustained profusely bleedinginjury.He stated that accused no.1 Balu threatened to come againalong with his maternal uncle to kill his father.Thereafter his fatherwent towards the village to inform the incident to police patil andreturned after half an hour.He deposed that when his mother wasgoing towards village, accused no.1 Balu gave blow of axe to hismother on her head.We find the evidence of P.W.2 Ramnath not reliable andtrustworthy.In the first place though he had seen assault on hismother P.W.1 Gangubai and father deceased Raosaheb, he did not tryto save them nor raised shouts, nor accompanied them to thehospital.He admitted that he visited Ghati hospital at Aurangabad onthe next day.It is tried to beexplained that he was having pains in the leg due to lameness but stillhe could have raised shouts.He could have accompanied his parentsto the hospital.The evidence shows that he had gone to Vaijapur onthe day of incident and on the next day, he had gone to Ghatihospital.He was not bed ridden.His conduct does not support hisversion that he was eye witness.Besides, there are contradictions inhis evidence regarding the time element with reference to P.W.1::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 13Gangubai's evidence.He deposed that accused no.1 Balu camewithin five minutes after abusing his father.P.W.1 Gangubai statedthat accused no.1 Balu came after one hour.He stated that when theaccused gave blow of axe on the skull of his mother, he was sitting inthe door of the farm house.There is evidence that there was noelectric lights in the field and P.W.2 Ramnath had not raised shoutsnor intervened nor begged the accused not to assault his mother.P.W. 2 Ramnath has stated that accused nos.2 to 4 were presentwhen his mother was beaten.The evidence on record shows thataccused no.4 Hirabai had delivered a child and her child was just sixweeks old.It is highly improbable that accused no.4 Hirabai couldhave participated in the incident.P.W.2Ramnath has also not gone to the police station to report the incident.Considering the facts, we find evidence of P.W.2 Ramnath unreliableand we discard it.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::P.W.1 Gangubai is injured eye witness.She deposed that herhusband Raosaheb switched off the electric motor at about 6.00 p.m.According to the accused, the turn of Raosaheb was starting on thenext day morning, whereas according to P.W.1 Gangubai their turnwas starting at 7.00 p.m. In either case, Raosaheb could not haveswitched off electric motor at 6.00 p.m. This incident is not in dispute,but according to P.W.4 Waman and P.W.5 Kisan, there was a quarrelbetween Raosaheb and accused no.3 Zumberbai and Raosaheb hadassaulted accused no.3 Zumberbai.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::Appeal No.574/2002 14It is the matter of common sense that only because the watersupply of accused no.1 Balu was stopped by his uncle Raosaheb,accused no.1 Balu would not have tried to kill his uncle and aunt.Asper evidence of P.W.4 Waman and P.W.5 Kisan, there must have beensome quarrel between deceased Raosaheb and Zumberbai andZumberbai might have been assaulted by deceased Raosaheb or shemight have been very much insulted by Raosaheb, which could haveenraged her son accused no.1 Balu to take the extreme step.Learned Advocate Mr Dhorde has argued that the prosecutionhas not explained the injuries sustained by Zumberbai but we findthat the defence has not proved any injury to Zumberbai.The injurycertificate is also not proved on record.Mere production of her letterto Superintendent of Police dated 20.3.1995 will not prove thedefence case of assault on Zumberlal.The said letter has also notbeen proved by examining the witnesses.Though there areadmissions to show that there was counter case against P.W.1 -Gangubai and P.W.2 - Ramnath and others, no record of the said caseis produced in this case and, therefore, the accused cannot take anybenefit of counter case.In the light of the facts, the judgment in HemRaj's case (cited supra) regarding duty to explain injuries on theaccused by the prosecution is also not applicable.According to evidence of P.W.1 Gangubai, the assault took placein three separate incidents as follows :(i) Accused no.1 came in front of her house, when she and herhusband were sitting in front of the house and accused no.1 Balu gave::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 15blow of axe on the skull of her husband causing bleeding injury.(II) Thereafter her husband had gone to village Akoli-Wadgaon togive intimation of the incident.When she was going towards thevillage to see her husband, accused no.1 Balu came near her farmhouse, obstructed her and gave a blow of axe on her head andthereby caused bleeding injury to her.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::(III) After sometime, there was commotion from the side of pir whichis about 500 to 1200 feet away from the house of P.W.1 Gangubai.She heard shouts of her husband and when she had gone there, shesaw all the accused present there.Accused no.1-Balu was armed withaxe, accused no.2 was armed with stick and on her arrival, they leftthe spot.On carefully considering the evidence of P.W.1 Gangubai, wefind that the incident no.1 described as assault by accused no.1 Baluby axe on skull of Raosaheb could not have taken place in front oftheir house.As per the medical evidence, the contused laceratedwound on the skull of P.W.1 Gangubai was the fatal wound.It was ofthe size 3" x 1/2" by skull deep.It is inherently improbable that aftersustaining such injury, deceased Raosaheb could have gone to thevillage, which is at a distance of half hour's walk and his familymembers would have let him go alone.Evidence of P.W.1 Gangubaishows that at the relevant time, she her two sons, two daughters-in-law and grandson were present in the house.They did not come out.They did not accompany Raosaheb either to go to the police patil forreporting the matter or for taking him to the hospital.After carefully::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 16considering the evidence, we find that deceased Raosaheb must havesustained all the injuries at one and the same time.The evidence ofP.W.3 Dr. Jinturkar and post mortem show that he had sustained somecontusion and abrasions which must have been caused by blows ofsticks.Evidence of P.W.1 Gangubai is silent about assault by sticks.We, therefore, find that P.W.1 Gangubai is not telling the truth whenshe is deposing about the first incident of assault by accused to herhusband in front of her house.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::No doubt, there is spot panchnama showing blood on the walland in front of house of P.W.1 Gangubai, but as per F.I.R., the assaulton P.W.1 Gangubai also took place at the same place.The muddemalproperty was sent for chemical analysis, but there is no record toshow what was the blood group of deceased Raosaheb and P.W.1Gangubai.The blood found in the soil on the spot is human blood, butits group had not been determined.There is nothing to suggest thatthere were two separate assaults by accused no.1 in front of house ofP.W.1 Gangubai.It is also natural that if accused no.1 could haveassaulted her husband, P.W.1 Gangubai would not have alone gonetowards the village and her family members would not have let her goalone.We, therefore, find evidence of P.W.1 Gangubai about assaultby accused no.1 Balu on her husband's skull by axe as unreliable anduntrustworthy.The second incident is assault by accused no.1 after sometimeon the skull by the accused.As already stated that axe (Court Articleno.10) is recovered.As per Chemical Analysis report (Exh.50), no::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 17blood was found thereon.The evidence shows that it was dark night.P.W.1 Gangubai has stated that there were no electric lights in thefarm house.The incident of assault on her had taken place late atnight.Still, we find that there was quarrel between accused no.1 Baluand deceased Raosaheb.He had given abuses to P.W.1 Gangubai.Therefore, even in darkness, she could have identified him by voice.In the darkness, she might not have seen what was the nature ofweapon, but it must have been a sharp weapon.A contused laceratedwound can be caused by sharp weapon, like axe and not when theblade is very sharp like razor and not by blunt weapon.The evidenceof P.W. 9 Dr. Mohd. Javed Asar that the contused lacerated wound toP.W.1 Gangubai could have been caused by blunt object, cannot beaccepted, as it is not according to medical jurisprudence.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::We find that injury sustained by P.W.1 Gangubai is only bonedeep and, therefore, the weapon used might not be axe.We find thataccused nos.2 to 4 had not taken any part in the said assault.Theevidence regarding their presence is also not reliable.Accused no.1Balu must be held responsible for causing the said injury.Consideringthe depth of injury and the fact that P.W.1 Gangubai did not go formedical treatment till next day 9.00 p.m., we find that the said injurywas not threatening life and the offence disclosed would be underSection 324 of Indian Penal Code.We find that after the quarrel between Raosaheb andZumberbai at the well, Raosaheb must have gone to the village andthe assault on him took place while returning to his house.It is stated::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 18that it took place near pir.The admitted topographic map Exh.56discloses a distance of 500 feet from the house of accused to theplace of pir, whereas P.W.8 P.I. Bhosale has stated that peer is at adistance of 1200 to 1300 feet.From the evidence of the witnesses,we find that Raosaheb must have been assaulted very late, whenthere was total darkness.The evidence of P.W.1 Gangubai and otherwitnesses that they heard shouts and they went there and P.W.1Gangubai's evidence that she saw all the accused present there istotally unnatural, unreliable and untrustworthy.P.W.1 Gangubai haslodged F.I.R. after a period of twenty four hours.It is true that P.W.1Gangubai had lost her husband and she had sustained injury on herskull.Therefore, mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be fatal andher evidence cannot be said to be totally untrustworthy.However,her evidence with regard to involvement of accused nos.2 to 4 andabout hearing of shouts of her husband from the spot near peer andP.W.1 Gangubai going to the spot alone and watching accused nos.2to 4 present there is totally unnatural and unreliable.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::The clothes of accused no.1 Balu were seized and those weresent for chemical analysis along with covering letter Exh.48 by P.W.8P.I. Bhosale.Its chemical analysis report is received by him at Exh.50.It shows human blood on the clothes of accused no.1 Balu.However,the chemical analyst's report shows that blood groups of deceasedRaosaheb and of P.W.1 Gangubai could not be determined.The bloodgroup of the blood on the clothes of accused no.1 Balu also could notbe determined.Evidence of human blood found on the clothes ofaccused no.1 Balu is sufficient to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 19Gangubai about assault by accused no.1 on her skull, but it is notsufficient to connect accused no.1 Balu with the murder of Raosaheb.No witness has identified the axe seized as the weapon of offence andno blood was found on the stick.In the light of these facts, we findthat the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused underSection 302 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, but we find thatthe learned trial Judge has committed error in holding accused no.1Balu guilty for causing simple hurt by deadly weapon to deceasedRaosaheb.We hold that the finding of learned trial Judge thataccused no.1 Balu has committed offence under Section 324 of IndianPenal Code by causing injury to P.W.1 Gangubai by means of deadlyweapon is proper and correct.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::The learned trial Judge rightly acquitted the accused for offenceunder Section 504 as no specific abuses were disclosed.The learnedtrial Judge erred in convicting the accused no.1 Balu for offence ofcriminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 (2) of Indian PenalCode.P.W.1 Gangubai herself had not stated that accused no.1 Baluhad threatened her or her husband that he would commit theirmurders.Learned trial Judge has relied on the evidence of P.W.4Waman and P.W.5 Kisan, who were declared hostile and who havegiven answers after leading questions were asked to them.For the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian PenalCode, mere statement that the accused threatened to commitsomebody's murder or would cause some injury to him is notsufficient.As per definition of criminal intimidation under Section 503::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 20of Indian Penal Code, the accused must threaten the witness withinjury or death to his person, or reputation or property, of anyone, inwhom that person is interested; with intent to cause alarm to thatperson, to cause that person to do any act which that person is notlegally bound to do, or omit to do any act which that person is legalyentitled to do, as means of avoiding the execution of such threat.Then only the offence of criminal intimidation would complete.In thepresent case, it was mere declaration of intention by accused no.1Balu as per evidence of P.W.4 Waman and P.W.5 - Kisan which is notsupported by main witness P.W.1 Gangubai.It is not alleged thataccused no.1 Balu wanted P.W.1 Gangubai or deceased Raosaheb todo certain things which they were not bound to do or omit to docertain things, which they were legally entitled to do.Therefore,conviction under Section 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code is notsustainable.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::In the light of the facts stated hereinabove, the appeal by theState will have to be dismissed, whereas the appeal of accused no.1Balu will have to be partly allowed.The conviction under Section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside, whereas theconviction of rigorous imprisonment for two years passed by learnedtrial Judge under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code needs to bemodified.The judgment shows that the learned trial Judge heldaccused no.1 Balu guilty for voluntarily causing hurt by deadlyweapon to both deceased Raosaheb and P.W.1 Gangubai.In thatcase, he should have imposed separate punishments for each offence.Considering the nature of injury (bone deep) and the fact that the use::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 ::: Cri.Appeal No.574/2002 21of weapon axe is not duly established, we take lenient view to reducethe sentence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.Hence theorder:::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::- ORDER -(I) Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2002 is partly allowed.Theconviction of accused no.1 Balu under Section 506 (2) of Indian PenalCode is set aside.Conviction of accused no.1 Balu under Section 324of Indian Penal Code is confirmed, however, the sentence is modified.The accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months andshall pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor 50 days.The fine amount be recovered and be paid ascompensation to P.W.1 Gangubai.(II) The accused no.1 Balu shall surrender before the trial Judgewithin fifteen days for undergoing the sentence, failing which the trialJudge shall take steps to secure his presence and issue convictionwarrant accordingly.(III) Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2003 filed by the State is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 02:07:21 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,036,255 |
Balaghat whereby convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional one year RI as well as under Section 323 of IPC (Two counts) and sentenced to undergo one year RI along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional three months R.I.The case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is that prosecutrix (PW-9) was minor studying in Class 10 th at the time of incident.On 19/7/2012 she was at her home 2 along with her younger brother and her parents went outside.Appellant entered into the house of prosecutrix and dragged her in the field and forcibly committed rape upon her.When parents of prosecutrix came their house, they did not find the prosecutrix in the house, then they started searching the prosecutrix.Appellant saw the parents of prosecutrix and by releasing her fled away from the spot, then prosecutrix immediately narrated the whole story to her parents.When her parents shouted that appellant outraged the modesty of her daughter, then appellant came on the spot beat prosecturx and scuffled with the father of the prosecutrix.On the next day prosecutrix along with her parents went to Police Station, Rampayali and lodged report (Ex.P/9).Police sent prosecutrix for medical examination.Police prepared spot map of the incident (Ex.P/10) and Village Patwari also prepared map (Ex.P/6).Mother of prosecutrix (PW-10) no where stated the date, month or year of the birth of the prosecutrix.Dr. S.K. Adkane (PW-21) Headmaster in Govt. Middle School, Jhaliwada, Tah.After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant.Learned trial Court framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 376, 323, 506 Part-II of IPC.The appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.Prosecution examined witnesses i.e. Tekchand (PW-1), Tukaram Choudhary (PW-2), Dr. R.K. Dongar (PW-3), Dr. A.P.Arora (PW-4), Subhdakaran (PW-5), Khemlal Maskole, Village Patwari (PW-6), Ku.Reena Nagpure (PW-7), Ashok Kumar, Sainik (PW-8), prosecutrix (PW-9), mother of the prosecutrix (PW-10), father of prosecutrix (PW-11), brother of prosecutrix (PW-12), Dhanlal (PW-13), Dwarka Prasad (PW-14), Chandrabhan Bisen (PW-15), Rajendra Uike (PW-16), Bhaiyalal Navreti (PW-17), Balkishan (PW-18), Sampat Singh, ASI (PW-19), Dr. Rashmi Baghmare (PW-20), S.K. Adkane (PW-21), Dr. S.K. Raut, Radiologist (PW-22), S.K. Sen (PW-23), Dr. Ashish Saxena (PW-24)Appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating evidence come against him and pleaded defence that there was a previous rivalry on account of land between the family of the prosecutrix and his family.There was quarrel between both the parties.Prosecutrix assaulted appellant by iron Trishul and lodged a false report of rape.He denied for committing any rape upon the prosecutrix.He has been falsely implicated on 4 account of previous enmity.The appellant examined Kamlesh Bisen (DW-1) as defence witness.Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties delivered the judgment on 29/08/2013 convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 323 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.The appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that there are so many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.Independent witnesses of the locality have not supported the case of the prosecution.Prosecutrix was major at the time of incident.She was a consenting party.With her own will she developed sexual relationships with the appellant but when her father saw both in compromising stage, then she lodged false report against the appellant.No offence is made out against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 as well as other section of Indian Penal Code, therefore, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the appellant.Learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant.This appeal has been filed by the appellant on wrong grounds, therefore, prays for dismissal of this appeal.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.Learned trial Court concluded the age of prosecutrix as 17 years minor and in para-24, 25, 26 appreciated the evidence on the point of age.P/16, P/17 as 15/07/1994 and Dr. D.K. Raut (PW-22) who conducted ossification test for ascertaining the age of prosecutrix, submitted a report and stated that prosecutrix at the time of examination was approximately 17 years old.This witness in his cross-examination admitted that there may be plus and minus of two years of error.In this way, this Court is of the view that prosecutrix may be 19 years old.Learned 6 trial Court also assessed the age on the basis of date of birth recorded in the school record but in para-24 concluded that prosecution failed to prove that on what basis the date of birth 15/07/1994 recorded in the school record.9. Perused the statement of father of prosecutrix (PW-11).This witness no where stated the date, month or year of the birth of prosecutrix.His statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is Ex.In this statement, he stated the name of his younger daughter as a victim but as per the case of prosecution case, his elder daughter is victim.Waraseoni, Distt.Balaghat submitted Ex.P/16 scholar register and Ex.In his cross- examination, this witness stated that there is no document available on the record submitted by the parents of the prosecutrix for her date of birth and admitted that there is no base of recording the date of birth of the prosecutrix in 7 the school record.Learned trial Court in para-24 of the judgment has not relied the entry of date of birth in school record but on the basis of ossification test found that prosecutrix was 17 years old at the time of incident.This court is of the view that when doctor specifically admitted that there may be two years error of both side and in this way age of prosecutrix may be 19 years at the time of incident or may be below 18 years, the accused should be granted of that margin which favour to him.Thus, this Court finds that prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a consenting part.Perused the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses.Mother of prosecutrix (PW-10), father of prosecutrix (PW-11), maternal uncle of prosecutrix (PW-11) stated that they were not at home in the night and when they came back, they did not find prosecutrix at home, both children who are brother and sister of prosecutrix were sleeping.They went to search prosecutrix and prosecutrix after some time came back at home and uttered the whole ordeal and act of the appellant 8 committed with her.She categorically stated that the appellant dragged her from the house and took her in the field where he forcibly committed rape upon her.Brother of prosecutrix (PW-12) stated that at the time of incident, he was sleeping.When he heard commotion, he woke up, her sister i.e. prosecutrix uttered the incident.This witness categorically stated that thereafter there was scuffled between the appellant and his father.On whole assessment of the statement of witnesses, it is reflected that no noise raised by the prosecutrix neither any disturbance made by the prosecutrix, therefore, the brother and sister of the prosecutrix who were sleeping in the house did not wake up.However, when there was commotion, brother of the prosecutrix (PW-12), woke up.Had the prosecutrix raised a voice for help at the time when appellant was dragging her, brother and sister of prosecutrix who were sleeping in the same room, would have woke up.Perused the statement of prosecutrix (PW-9).She categorically stated that she was at her home at the time of incident.Her brother and sister were also at home.Appellant came and dragged her in the field where he 9 removed her cloth and after laying her on ground, forcibly committed rape upon her.When appellant heard the noise of her parents, then he left her and fled away thereafter prosecutrix came to her home and narrated the whole ordeal.Her brother was aged of 14 years and sister was aged of five years.Perused the cross-examination of the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix admitted that when appellant was dragging her, no one saw her.There were neighbours residing with family near her house.In para-6 she also admitted that place of incident is an open field where appellant committed rape upon her but no one saw the incident.This witness admitted in para-5 that the incident happened in rainy season, but there was no mud on the ground.She categorically narrated the act stating that firstly appellant removed his cloth and thereafter removed her cloth laying her on the ground pressed her breast with both hands.She stated the act of rape and admitted that for five minutes appellant committed rape upon her.In para-7 she categorically stated that her parents came back at home and when appellant saw them, then he fled away from the spot.10 This witness no where stated that when appellant was committed sexual intercourse upon her, she shouted and cried for help.In para-8 she also categorically stated that when she was not found in home, her parents and maternal uncle searched her and her parents asked where she went, she narrated the whole story to her parents.When father of prosecutrix shouted that appellant has outraged her modesty, then the appellant came out to her house and said that why you are making false allegation.Thereafter appellant beat her and scuffled with her father.Witnesses of locality i.e. Tekchand (PW-1) and Tukaram Choudhary (PW-2) stated that on hearing commotion, they came on the spot and found that there was quarrel between the appellant and father of prosecutrix and prosecutrix.But, the prosecutrix did not state anything about committing rape upon her.This fact shows that had the prosecutrix shouted for help, her neighbour might have come to rescue her when appellant was forcibly dragging her and taking her to the field for committing rape.All these facts when considered together, the only thing reflected that prosecutrix, at the time of incident, was a 11 consenting party.When her parents not found her in home and inquired about the incident, then she narrated the incident.Prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix without her consent.Learned trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.Prosecutrix and her father clearly stated that appellant beat her and inflicted injuries to her father by the teeth.Perused the statement of Dr.A.P. Arora (PW-4) who examined the injuries and not found any injury of biting by teeth.Dr. R.K. Dongar (PW-3) found simple injury on the body of father of prosecutrix.Dr. Rashmi Baghmare (PW-20) did not find any fresh injury on the body of prosecutrix.On the basis of forgoing discussions, this Court finds that the appellant was not having any weapon for voluntarily causing hurt to the victim who is father of prosecutrix.Independent witnesses stated that there was quarrel between both the parties, victim as well as accused.When there is scuffling between both the parties, it cannot 12 be held positively that who inflicted injuries voluntarily.Injured who is father of prosecutrix stated that the appellant caused injuries by biting him, however, doctor has not supported this fact.In this way, this Court is of the view that prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt that the appellant inflicted voluntarily simple hurt to the father of prosecutrix as well as to the prosecutrix.This Court finds that prosecution failed to establish the charges against the appellant beyond doubt, hence this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of all charges framed against the appellant by the trial Court.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2020.02.12 11:28:41 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 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.
|
181,235,126 |
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedingsin P.R.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Keeranur, for an alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 494,506(i) r/w.The defactocomplainant stated that when the petitioners took away the jewels belongingto the defacto complainant, the entire dispute arose and thereafter, thedispute was amicably resolved among the parties.Therefore, he stated thatthe entire proceedings can be closed, taking into consideration the interestof both the parties.2.The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,235,569 |
And In the matter of: Mijanur Miah alias Rahaman ... Petitioner Ms. Mousumi Bhowal ... For the Petitioner Mr. S. S. Imam ... For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 425 of 2016 dated 03.05.2016 under Sections 448/323/376/511/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G. R. Case No. 450 of 2016, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.He has been falsely implicated in the instant case.( Patherya, J.) (Arindam Sinha, J. )
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,236,500 |
First application was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2018 in M.Cr.As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that the applicant used to harass the complainant.Accordingly, the case has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.There is no specific allegation attributed against the applicant and he has no criminal antecedents.Counsel further contended that during trial the complainant as well as her parents have turned hostile.Under such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and supported the order impugned.It is directed that applicant be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance in the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Chourasia Date: 2018.04.04 17:26:23 +05'30'
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,248,025 |
He had merely filed his personal affidavit to the effect that the High Court has passed an order granting bail and the certified copy of the order dated 03/09/2014 was produced.In the second part of the order dated 04/02/2015 passed by the trial Court which is as clear as noon-day that it was the surety who had produced the documents before the Court.Thus, it cannot be said that the applicant had produced Bhu Ahikar Evam Rin Pustrika and other documents for furnishing bail but it was the surety who had produced Bhu Ahikar Evam Rin Pustrika before the Court.He identified Ishtyaq Khan and Vakil Singh and those sureties were found to be Ishtyaq Khan and Vakil Singh.In the present case, there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant- Advocate that he was the author or provider of those forged documents to the concerned sureties.A suspicion may be created that those two persons could not get the forged documents on their own and there must be a common source but it was for the Investigating Officer to connect the applicant with the aforesaid crime.The prosecution against the surety shall continue.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,248,063 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.127/15 registered at Police Station Janakganj, Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506-B and 452/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except the offence under Section 452 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable.It is not alleged against the applicant that he entered in the premises with any weapon and therefore prima facie, no offence under Section 452 of the IPC is made out against the applicant.At the most, the offence under Section 451 of the IPC may constitute, which is bailable.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.Consequently, the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant namely Praveen Pathak be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).However, it is made clear that due to non- appearance of the applicant, if the concerned Court issues the warrant of arrest in future, against him, then in such event this order be deemed ineffective relating to that applicant(s).This order shall be operative before the trial Court, if bail bonds are furnished before the arresting officer within one month from today.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj Later on (30.03.2015) Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the applicant.Shri Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki, Govt. Adv.for the respondent/State.Shri A.S. Bhadoriya, counsel for the objector.Learned counsel for the objector has moved an application that the present application may not be decided because the application of the co-accused was decided by the Hon'ble Justice Shri B.D. Rathi and therefore, this application is to be listed before the same Bench.Under these circumstances, where the order has already been passed of bail application and on the basis of aforesaid reasons, the application of the objector has no force and consequently, the application filed by the objector is hereby dismissed.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 452 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.
|
181,248,230 |
The first application of the applicant herein was dismissed vide order dated 20.2.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5505/2018 as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after the statement of the injured witness Akshay is recorded before the learned trial court.This witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution's case.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he suffered the injury on account of fall in love.Learned counsel for the State has also drawn the attention to paragraph 5 of the statement of injured witness Akshay who states that he has entered into a compromise with the applicant herein.Be that as it may, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant herein and the injured witness Akshay turning hostile, I am inclined to allow the instant application and direct that the applicant herein be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge ps Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2018.10.12 10:38:03 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,249,804 |
The petitioner has been made scapegoat.Though search was conducted on the 16th April, 2014 at the room stated to be in occupations of the petitioner at Hotel Hyatt Regency, R.K. Puram and 1.35 crores recovered besides the Mercedes Benz Car, it is the case of the prosecution itself that on 17th April, 2014 the room was again opened and a business card was recovered noting that the petitioner was a Rajya Sabha member.The said business card has been planted.Sections 467/468/471/474/201 IPC were added only on the basis of these planted recoveries.In any case the petitioner is no more required for investigation and thus be released on bail.BAIL APPLN.1550/2017 Page 1 of 5Opposing the bail application learned APP for the State besides referring to the allegations against the petitioner states that after the arrest the petitioner has been involved in three other FIRs, in two cases he was found impersonating as a Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as PS to the Minister of Law and Justice and in the third case he while being taken to be produced in other Courts it was found that he took all the Police Escort officers with him by flight though neither the petitioner nor they were entitled to go by air.Sukesh was stated to be in constant touch with TTV Dinakaran, AIADMK Deputy General Secretary (Sasikala faction) regarding a pending matter before the Election Commission of India for dispute over party symbol.Acting on the BAIL APPLN.BAIL APPLN.1550/2017 Page 2 of 5During the course of investigation petitioner disclosed that TTV Dinakaran was desperate to acquire the legacy of Jayalalitha, former CM of Tamilnadu and get favourable order from Election Commission of India for two leaves election symbol.Thus he was searching for a suitable person to get the task done by any means and was ready to pay crores of rupees.TTV Dinakaran came in contact with Sukesh through his Advocate B. Kumar.Sukesh assured TTV Dinakaran about his good contact in the Election Commission of India and Union Law Ministry and assured that his work would be done and the matter pending adjudication for two leaves election symbol will be resolved in his favour.Sukesh was assured a sum of 50 crores in return for a favourable order.Accordingly 2 crores were sent from Chennai to Delhi and Sukesh received the same in two equal installments from Naresh Singh and Lalit Kumar.During the course of investigation identity cards, credit cards and other membership cards including a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) identity card bearing photo of the petitioner being used to access to Parliament precincts were recovered from him which were found to be fake on verification.The sticker on the petitioner's car also was of Member of Parliament.Though the petitioner is required to be released on bail on parity but for his conduct post arrest in custody which shows that he can influence the witnesses as during the pendency of investigation and trial, 3 FIRs have been registered against the petitioner.The second complaint was dated 7th August, 2017 alleging that a call was made from the mobile phone to the control room of the Battalion wherein the caller identified himself as Sarvana Kumar, IAS working as PS to Hon'ble Minister of Law and Justice and required the staff to extend favour to Sukesh Chandrashekar.Though it is not the case of the prosecution that the phone call was made by the petitioner but the petitioner was the beneficiary of the call.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 11, 2018 'ga' BAIL APPLN.1550/2017 Page 5 of 5BAIL APPLN.1550/2017 Page 5 of 5By this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.56/2017 registered under Sections 170 and 120B IPC read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'PC Act') wherein later on Sections 467/468/471/474/201 IPC were added later on.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at best the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner acted in conspiracy with the main accused TTV Dinakaran to obtain a favourable order from the Election Commission of India (in short ECI) with respect to 2 leaves election symbol.It is contended that the main accused TTV Dinakaran has already been released on bail on 1st June, 2017 by the learned Sessions Court, however the petitioner is in custody and be granted bail on parity.The offences under Section 8 of the PC Act would at best be punishable for a sentence of BAIL APPLN.1550/2017 Page 1 of 5 imprisonment for a period of five years and the petitioner being in custody for nearly 9 months, he be released on bail.The first FIR being FIR No. 100/2017 BAIL APPLN.1550/2017 Page 3 of 5 was registered under Sections 170/189/507 IPC at PS Subzi Mandi on the complaint of Special Judge, Ms. Poonam Chaudhary who complained that on the landline phone she received a phone call on 28th April, 2017 wherein a person was posing as a Hon'ble sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India and told the Special Judge to grant bail to the accused which was to be heard on the same day.As per the records, the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge on the said date on remand and it has been found that the petitioner used the mobile phone of the Constable in whose custody he was to make the phone call on the landline of the Special Judge.In the third FIR registered on 21st October, 2017 under Sections 7, 12, 13 PC Act and 120B IPC by the Crime Branch on the complaint of ACP/III Battalion it was found that the petitioner extended undue favours and facility to the Police Escorting staff while the petitioner was being taken to Bangalore, Coimbatore and Mumbai to be produced before the concerned Courts.Not only the Police Escorting team along with the petitioner availed travel by air facilities during the custody, he was found to be freely moving around in a Mall as evident from the CCTV footage.BAIL APPLN.1550/2017 Page 3 of 5Considering the conduct of the petitioner and that there is every apprehension of his tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.1550/2017 Page 4 of 5Petition is dismissed.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,326,185 |
Heard on this third application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Guddu @ Upendra Yadav in Crime No.107/2017 registered by P.S. Waidhan, District Singrauli under Sections 394, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.His second application was dismissed by this Court by order dated 11.07.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.10424/2017 with liberty to renew the prayer after recording the statement of complainant Phulkeshwar Pando.By way of change in circumstances for this third application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of complainant Phulkeshwar Pando has been recorded by the trial Court.As per the prosecution case, at about 10:00 p.m. on 07.02.2017 petitioner Guddu along with two other co-accused persons Aftab and Pankaj @ Vikram Pratap Singh looted Rs.2360/- from victims Phulkeshwar Pando, Phulcharan Pando and Rajkumar Panika behind the bus stand at Waidhan.During investigation, on the disclosure statement made by petitioner Guddu, Rs.600/- were seized.He was identified during the test identification parade.As such, he (2) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:JABALPUR M.Cr.
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,813,332 |
One day prior to the occurrence i.e. 9.3.1985 the police of Sursa arrested Ram Saran, husband of the informant (PW-1) and the challan was brought to the concerned Court on the day of the occurrence.Om Prakash @ Chhotey (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') who was related to the parents of the informant, met then in the Court premises.Jaipal (PW-2) brother of Ram Saran was also there along with the informant and she was talking to him about bail of her husband.After sometime, accused Om Prakash sent PW-2 to find out whether the challan had come or not.J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6111 of 2005)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench upholding the appellant's conviction for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(e) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') as recorded by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment as awarded.We do not propose to mention name of the victim.Section 228-A IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable.Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished.True it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court.But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court.High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated, we have chosen to describe her as 'victim' in the judgment.Then at about 3.00 p.m. accused overpowered the informant and he started raping her in the veranda of Zila Parishad near the Court.When the informant raised alarm, PW-2 and one Ram Lal came there and they assaulted Om Prakash who was raping her and they apprehended him and the accused was taken to the police station.The informant gave oral information and then Chik number 126 Exhibit A-1 was recorded and the entry was made in the general diary and the case was registered.The charge of investigation of the case was given to Shri Mahesh Lal Vadhuria (PW-6), who prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit A-8).After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused and cognizance of the offence was taken and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.Charge was framed against accused Om Prakash @ Chhotey under Section 376 IPC.The accused did not admit the charge and demanded trial.To substantiate its version, prosecution examined the victim (informant), eye-witness Jaipal (PW-2), Dr. Smt. Purnima Srivastava (PW-3), Dr. P.K. Gangwar (PW-4), Shri Uttam Kumar (PW-5), Shri Mahesh Lal Vadhuria (PW-6) and head constable Shri Jitendra Singh (PW-7).The statement of accused Om Prakash was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.').The accused alleged that he was implicated due to the enmity.It was stated by him that he had come from the village along with the brother of the victim and other persons for taking steps.He even made some attempts in the police station in the night.He had taken some money for the purpose.When the challan came, they got down at Bilgram Chungi and then a quarrel took place amongst the accused, PW-2 and father of the victim on the question of refund of the money.They assaulted him and he was implicated in the criminal case.The Trial Court held that there was no reason to reduce the minimum prescribed sentence.In appeal before the High Court it was submitted that the prosecution version is incredible and the trial Court should not have convicted the accused.The High Court by the impugned judgment affirmed the conviction and sentence.It noted that the FIR was lodged immediately, without any delay.The evidence of the victim was credible and cogent.That itself was sufficient to record conviction.In addition was the evidence of PW-2 an eye-witness.Therefore, the conviction as recorded was maintained and the appeal was dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,813,366 |
The prosecution case is as follows :P.W. 1 Kuppan is a resident at Kootteripattu village.He had three acres of land at the boundary of Edappalayam village on the side of the G.S.T. road there.He had construction a hut in it and was keeping in it agricultural implements.On both sides of the G.S.T. Road the Forest Department had planted tree saplings under the Social Forest Scheme.The accused Nachimuthu, a Forester in that department was in Kootteripattu.He placed Valikathan thorns in front of that house obstructing the way to the house from the road.P.W. 1 went to the Forest Watcher (P.W. 4) but he directed P.W. 1 to go and see the Forester-accused.P.W. 1 went to meet him two three times but he was not available.He was informed that the accused would be available in his house in the early morning.On 13-5-1985 at 6.00 a.m., P.W. 1 proceeded to the house of the accused.They saw the accused sitting in the verandha of his house.P.W. 1 requested him to take away the thorns put in front of his house.The accused refused and he said that it would be kept there till the time of rainy season, and he further stated that even after taking the thorn after the rains he was going to plant tree saplings.On further request of P.W. 1 the accused said that if he was paid a bribe amount of Rs. 200/- he would remove the thorn and he would not plant tree Saplings.But P.W. 1 did not like giving bribe to the accused.He wanted to give a report to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption department, Cuddalore.He went there at 4.00 p.m. There P.W. 1 gave a report Ex. P. 1 to P.W. 11 Inspector.The Inspector registered a case under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.He sent word to P.W. 3 Kuppu Ramana, an Agricultural Officer and Gnansingamani, a Co-operative Sub-Registrar and requested them to come to his office at 4.00 a.m. on the next day and P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 also were told to come there at that time.Accordingly P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went there at the time mentioned on the next day.P.W. 3 and Gnansingamani also came there.The Inspector introduced P.W. 3 and Gnansingamani to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, and P.W. 3 and Gnansingamani were informed about the complaint.P.W. 1 then gave to the Inspector four 50 rupees notes.He conducted Phenaphthalene test smearing Phenaphthalene powder on the said four currency notes.Then they all went in a jeep to Kootteripattu and near Mylam Railway Station P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 got down.The Inspector told P.Ws. 1 and 2 to do as they were instructed by him.P.Ws. 1 and 2 went towards the house of the accused and the Inspector and others remained there.P.Ws. 1 and 2 saw the accused sitting on the bench in front of his house.On seeing them he asked whether they had brought the money.P.W. 1 gave the said four currency notes.The accused received it and counted them with his both hands, and he promised P.Ws. 1 and 2 that he would remove the thorn and he would not plant sapling.Then along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 the Inspector and others went in the jeep to the house of the accused.There P.W. 1 identified the accused.The accused on seeing them just dropped down the rupee notes on a bench there.Then the Inspector prepared in a glass tumbler sodium carbonate, solution and he asked the accused to dip his right hand in it.The solution turned into pink.The Inspector again asked the accused to dip his left hand in another Sodium Carbonate Solution prepared by him.When the accused did so that solution also turned pink.The accused took up the notes from the bench and handed over them to the Inspector.The Inspector compared the numbers in those currency notes with the numbers he had noted in his office in the morning and they were found to tally.The accused has been convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No separate sentence has been passed under section 161, I.P.C.Then the Inspector arrested the accused.Then the Inspector went to the house of P.W. 1 at G.S.T. Road and prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P. 6 there.Then the Inspector applied for sanction for prosecution of the accused.Then the Inspector filed the charge-sheet against the accused under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(e) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The accused denied the charge.The learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore on consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.The prosecution has filed Ex. P. 16 as the sanction order through P.W. 10 Divisional Forest Officer, who was deposed that he accorded sanction.It is submitted that P.W. 10 himself has stated that the prosecution agency has sent a draft sanction Ex. P. 2 and he had adopted that draft in Ex. P. 16, and this shows that there was no application of mind.It is true that the prosecuting agency has sent Ex. D. 2 Draft sanction and P.W. 10 has adopted it.But it cannot be said from this alone that P.W. 10 has not gone through the relevant papers in the matter.In his evidence he has clearly stated that he has gone through the entire records relating to the accused and then only he accorded sanction.Ex. P. 16 contains the facts of the case and the grounds for the satisfaction.In the complaint Ex. P. 1 which is dated 13-5-1985 it is stated that P.W. 1 was told 15 days before that the first accused had put the thorn.It must be remembered that this witness has been examined for the purpose of proving the payment of bribe to the accused, and suddenly in the cross examination he has been put some question regarding the thorn.P.W. 2 has corroborated his evidence stating that he accompanied P.W. 1 to the house of the accused and there the accused said that if P.W. 1 wanted the thorn to be removed and no sapling is to be planted he must pay a bribe of Rs. 200/-.It is true that P.W. 2 is a cousin brother of P.W. 1 but only for this reason his evidence cannot be disbelieved.Considering the other circumstances in the case which would be preferred to hereinafter the evidence of P.W. 2 is quite believable.Both have clearly stated in their evidence that as instructed by P.W. 11 Inspector they both went to the house of the accused on the morning of 14-5-1985 and the accused asked them whether they, had brought the money, and P.W. 1 paid four 50 rupee notes and the accused received them.Then there is the evidence of P.W. 11 Inspector that on being told by P.W. 1 that he has paid the amount to the accused he went along with his party to the house of the accused and on seeing them the accused slipped down the currency notes on the bench before him and then he (Inspector) prepared Sodium Carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip his right hand first and then the left hand, and that both times the solutions turned pink; and when the Inspector asked for the currency notes the accused took up the four currency notes and gave to him which the Inspector seized under a mahazar.This evidence of P.W. 11 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3 Kuppu Ramana Agricultural Officer.P.W. 3 is a responsible person and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve his evidence.Both against P.W. 11 and P.W. 3 no suggestion as to any motive for them to speak against the accused in a grave charge of corruption has been made.Not necessarily.When there is the evidence of P.W. 3 to support the evidence of P.W. 11, only because there were other persons gathered outside the house of the accused, it is not required that any one of them should be examined.A defence witness (D.W. 1) was examined.He has stated that P.W. 1 Kuppan gave him four 50 rupee notes and when he asked as to why he is giving the amount P.W. 1 told him to keep it and little later he would come to know of the reason, and he kept them in his waist and then the Inspector along with some others came there and at that time P.W. 1 told him to give the rupee notes to the Inspector but he let them fell down, and then the Inspector asked the accused to take them up.When the accused hesitated, the Inspector insisted and then he took them up.This evidence of D.W. 1 sounds quite unnatural and artificial, and this uncorroborated evidence of D.W. 1 cannot at all be believed.Thus I find no merit in the appeal.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,338,989 |
02.09.13 Item No. 29 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 29And In the matter of: Motiur Rahaman Mondal & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar Ms. Priyanka S. Tibrewal Mr. Ashraf Mondal For the Petitioners Mr. Goutam Wilson For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Murutia Police Station Case No. 143 of 2013 dated 23.07.2013 under Sections 147/148/448/427/323/379 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.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,813,407 |
Heard both the parties.Case diary of Crime No.206 of 2009 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 366 and 363 of I.P.C is perused.Applicant has an apprehension of his arrest for aforesaid crime.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix left her parents house with her own will and went to the house of her aunt.Afterwards the prosecutrix and the applicant entered in marriage and at present there is a child born on 31.12.2009 to the prosecutrix.Parents of the prosecutrix have submitted a report to Superintendent of Police, Damoh and also gave some affidavits regarding the matter.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,347,666 |
Heard behalf onthe of thisapplicant first application Sandeep for bailGautam Singh under Section in 323, 439 crime326 of No.and the Cr.P.C.Complainant Kirti Dubey lodged a report of non-cognizable offence with police against the applicant on 12.01.2015 to the effect that pursuant to an altercation regarding parking of vehicle, applicant Sandeep Singh Gautam pushed her husband Rajesh, who fell down.There is pain in his chest.In the MLC report conducted the same day, the victim Rajesh was found to have consumed alcohol and was said to be suffered pain in the ribs.Since, the offence was found to be non-cognizable, he was advised to move to Court.Subsequently, on the statement made by victim Rajesh, an offence under Section 326 was registered.It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that Originally offence under Section 323, 294 and 506 was registered.offence under Section 326 of the IPC was subsequently added on the basis of statement made by the victim Rajesh and reports submitted by private hospital.It has further been argued that the incident, as originally reported was a trivial one.The victim has been discharged from the hospital, charge sheet in the case has been filed and the trial will take time.The applicant has been in custody since 30.03.2015; therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent State on the other hand has opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that as a result of injuries suffered in the incident, the victim has to be hospitalized for a period of about two months.Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts that the incident as originally reported, was a trivial one and the victim was only pushed and suffered injury because he fell down, charge sheet in the case has been filed, applicant has been in custody since 30.03.2015, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.Consequently, this first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant Sandeep Singh Gautam is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before committal/trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR)
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,813,505 |
(i) PW.1 is the wife of the deceased Raghuraman.PW.2 is the mother'ssister of Raghuraman.PW.1 and her husband were employed in a pork vending shopof one Ganesan.(ii) On the earlier occasion, there was accusation against one DuraiMurugan, the younger brother of Raghuraman, had committed the murder of theelder brother of the accused.On 28.12.2003 at about 2.00 a.m., as usual, bothPW.1 and her husband went to the pork vending shop.Thereafter, PW.2 came overthere to buy meat in their shop.At about 6.45 a.m., A.1 armed with a saw andA.2 armed with an aruval came over there.A.1 uttered that "our elder brotherwas murdered by your younger brother and hence you should not be alive".Onsaying so, A.1 attacked with the saw on the head and on other parts of the bodyof the deceased while A.2 attacked with the aruval on the right shoulder of thedeceased and that Ragharaman fell down and died instantaneously.Immediately,A.1 and A.2 fled away from the place of occurrence.(ii) Immediately, PW.1 proceeded to the respondent police station wherePW.7 Head Constable was on duty.She gave Ex.P.1 report on the strength ofwhich, a case came to be registered in Crime No.316 of 2003 under Section 302IPC.He prepared an F.I.R. Ex.(iii) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R, PW.11, Inspector of Police tookup investigation and proceeded to the spot and made an inspection.He preparedan Observation Mahazer Ex.P.12 in the presence of V.A.O. PW.10 and also prepareda rough Sketch Ex.P.18 and following the same, he recovered Material Objectsavailable from the place of occurrence.Sample earth Mo.7, blood stained earthMo.8 were recovered under the cover of mahazer Ex.He found injuries on the dead body of the deceased as described in thepost-mortem certificate Ex.P.4 issued by him.He opined that the deceased wouldappear to have died of cardio respiratory arrest due to hypotensive shock due toincised injuries.(v) Further, PW.11, on coming to know that both the accused, whosurrendered before the Court at Sankarankoil, were being brought before theJudicial Magistrate No.2, Tuticorin, he filed an application seeking for policecustody of the accused and the same was ordered.He took up both the accusedfor investigation and they voluntarily came forward to give confessionalstatements.The admissible part of the confessional statements of the accusedwas marked as Exs.P.14 and P.15 respectively.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) This Criminal Appeal has arisen from the judgment of the AdditionalSessions Division, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin dated 30.12.2005 made inS.C.No.213 of 2005 whereby the appellants 2 in number stood charged, tried andfound guilty as per the charge under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and each of themwas awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with a defaultsentence of six months.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal canbe stated as follows:Pursuant to their confession, A.1produced MO.1 Saw and A.2 produced MO.2 Arual, which were recovered under thecover of mahzer Ex.Thereafter, both the accused were sent for judicialcustody.(vi) All the materials objects recovered from the place of occurrence andfrom the dead body of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis pursuant tothe requisition made, which resulted in two reports viz., Chemical AnalysisReport Ex.(vii) On completion of the investigation, the investigator filed a finalreport against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302r/w 34 IPC.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessarycharges were framed against the accused/appellants.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 19 Exhibits and 18 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused werequestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found inthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was flatly denied on the partof the accused.No defence witness was examined.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants, would submit as follows:-(i) According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 6.45a.m., on 28.12.2003 at the main bazaar road, Thalamuthu Nagar, Thuthukudi.PW.1 is the wife of the deceased and PW.2 is his mother's sister.Admittedly, they were close relatives of the deceased.PW.3 is the owner of theshop but he has turned hostile.However, the prosecution has the evidence ofPW.1 and PW.2 to support its case.(ii) Even as per the prosecution, a number of persons were there forpurchasing pork at the time of occurrence.If it be so, the prosecution has notexamined any one independent witness and the non-examination of independentwitness is fatal to the case of the prosecution.(iii) Insofar as PW.1 and PW.2, though they have spoken to the incident,there are a lot of inconsistencies in their evidence, which lead to therejection of their evidence but the trial court has failed to do so.(iv) In the instant case, the deceased Raghuraman had a number of enemiesand he was keeping a concubine and he was being threatened to be killed by them.Like wise, PW.1 was already given in marriage to another man and the deceasedhad taken her from him and she was living with him and that the husband of PW.1had also threatened him.Therefore, as he had a number of enemies, some onecould have committed the murder and PW.1 and PW.2 could not have seen theoccurrence at all.(v) Medical opinion do not support the case of the prosecution in thesense that the occurrence had taken place at about 6.45 a.m., on 28.12.2003 andthe Doctor PW.5, who had commenced post-mortem at 2.15 p.m., had mentioned thatrigor mortis was present.Therefore, the occurrence should have taken placemuch earlier to the alleged time of occurrence.(vi) In the instant case, both the accused came forward to giveconfessional statements that too when they were in police custody and pursuantto which, they produced MO.1 saw and MO.2 aruval are all nothing but an inventedstory in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution.Hence that part ofevidence should be rejected.(vi) The ocular testimony did not corroborate with the medical evidence.(vii) All put together, the prosecution has no direct evidence to offeragainst the accused in the instant case.(viii) Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, evenassuming that the prosecution has proved its case that the said Raghuraman wasdone to death in the incident that took place as put-forth by the prosecution,in the charge, there was nothing to indicate that they had a common intention tokill the deceased.Even as per the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.4, Injuries 1and 12 were fatal, which were inflicted on the head and chest by A.1 alone.A.2had attacked only on the right shoulder.Under the circumstances, there wasnothing to indicate that A.2 had the common intention in the commission ofoffence and hence, the act of the second accused cannot warrant a punishment forcommon intention in the commission of offence.This aspect has got to beconsidered by this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made athorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.Hence, it could be concluded that the deceased died out of homicidal violence.That fact was never a subject matter of controversy in the case.Hence, withoutany difficulty, it can be factually recorded so.In order to substantiate the fact that both the accused attacked thedeceased Raghuraman in the occurrence as put-forth by the prosecution, theprosecution examined 3 eye witnesses.Theirevidence inspires the confidence of the Court when they have spoken in one voiceand their evidence was also convincing and hence, there can be no impediment inaccepting their evidence.In the instant case, immediately after the occurrence, PW.1 went to therespondent police station and gave a report Ex.P.1, on the strength of which,the case came to be registered and the investigator took up investigation,proceeded to the scene of occurrence.He conducted inquest on the dead body ofthe deceased and the dead body was sent for post-mortem.The Doctor, PW.5, whoconducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, gave an opinion that thedeceased out of shock and haemorrhage.It is true that rigor mortis was presentat the time of conducting autopsy.The presence of rigor mortis would dependupon so many factors such as environmental conditions, climatic conditions etc.,which should also be taken into account but no suggestion was made in thatregard.Therefore, that part of medical opinion cannot in no way be taken toaccount for or to disbelieve the ocular testimony.In a given case, when theocular testimony is acceptable and found truthful, that should always prevail.Yet another circumstance, in favour of the prosecution was therecovery of MO.1 saw and MO.2 aruval produced by the accused A.1 and A.2respectively in the presence of PW.10.V.A.O pursuant to the confession made bythem and the Material Objects recovered from the place of occurrence as well asfrom the dead body of the deceased were placed before the lower Court, whichremain unshaken.The lower Court rightly accepted that part of evidence andhence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has provedthose facts and therefore, it has got to be accepted.Insofar as the second line of argument, the Court is able to see forcein the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants.According to theDoctor, PW.5, injury Nos. 1 and 12 are fatal and those injuries were caused byA.1 on the head and on the chest of the deceased respectively.Hence, there isno impediment in confirming the conviction and sentence insofar as the firstaccused for the charge of murder.Insofar as the second accused, there is nothing to indicate that heshared the common intention with the first accused in causing death of thedeceased.Apart from that he had attacked only on the shoulder and on otherparts of the body and those injuries, according to the medical opinion, were notfatal.In the absence of any evidence indicating that he shared commonintention with the first accused and caused death of the deceased, the Court isof the considered opinion that he cannot be found guilty under Section 302 r/w34 IPC and he has got to be convicted under Section 326 IPC and awarding 5 yearsrigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- would meet the ends of justice.In the result, insofar as A.1, the conviction under Section 302 r/w 34IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 302 IPC and thesentence and the fine amount with default sentence imposed on A.1 by thejudgment of the trial Court is confirmed.Insofar as A.2, the conviction andsentence are set aside and he is convicted under Section 326 IPC instead of 302r/w 34 IPC, and awarded 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-with a default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin.2.Inspector of Police, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station, Tuticorin District.(Crime No.316/2003)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,353,145 |
The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 27.3.2009 and order on sentence dated 28.3.2009 sentencing both the accused to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine both accused to undergo SI for six months each.A. No. 442 of 2009 Page 1 of 7A. No. 442 of 2009 Page 1 of 7The facts of the case are that both the accused used to work together in Delhi.On the night intervening 23/24.10.2004 both the accused along with deceased and some other persons were employed at a stall in the Ramleela ground, Kamla Market, Delhi when at about 2:00 a.m., while they were preparing to sleep both the accused came in a drunken condition and started making noise.The deceased Ram Avtar told them not to make noise and went to the urinal and when he came back he was abused by both the accused.The deceased then asked the accused persons not to abuse him on which the accused Ombir exhorted his co accused Damodar "Yeh saala zyaada chaudhary banta hai" and caught hold of the hands of the deceased while Damodar stabbed him on his chest with a vegetable cutting knife and both the accused fled from the spot.The deceased was taken to the JPN hospital where he was declared brought dead.The case against the appellants was registered in the FIR no. 480/04 under Section 302 IPC.On completion of investigation, the appellants were challaned and sent for trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.Both the appellants pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.In order to prove the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses.The important witnesses are the eye witnesses, Jai Chand, PW1, Ramesh, PW2, Vidya Sagar, Crl.A. No. 442 of 2009 Page 2 of 7 PW3, Veer Pal, PW4 and Nanku, PW5, who as per the prosecution, had seen the occurrence.Another important witness is Dr.Rohit, PW17, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and as per his version, he found two incised stab wounds on the left side of chest of the deceased.He opined that the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon the stab injuries.The doctor further opined that the injuries were possible with a sharp edged weapon.A. No. 442 of 2009 Page 2 of 7In the course of hearing, learned counsel stated on instructions from the appellants, that they admit their guilt for having caused fatal injury which resulted in the death of the deceased and does not dispute the facts in that behalf.The only argument advanced is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell into an error while convicting the appellants under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC, as the case is one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.The prosecution case rests mainly upon the eye witness account.PW2 Ramesh has stated that when the appellant was returning after easing himself, the accused Crl.The appellants and the Crl.A. No. 442 of 2009 Page 4 of 7 deceased admittedly were working at a chaat stall which implies that knife was handy at the spot of occurrence.A. No. 442 of 2009 Page 3 of 7
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,139,167 |
The present leave petition has been filed under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') challenging the judgment dated 23rd February, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Courts (POCSO), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, acquitting the respondents-accused in FIR No. 252/2009 registered with Police Station Neb Sarai under Sections 363/366/368/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').The trial court has held that even though the prosecutrix was just a few months short of becoming an adult, she was sensible and aware of the CRL.L.P. 294/2018 Page 1 of 5 intention of the accused and had accompanied the accused out of her own free will and consent as well as stayed with the accused for one and a half months voluntarily.In support of its conclusion, the trial court has relied upon the Supreme Court judgement in Shyam & Anr.vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1995 SC 2169, wherein it has been held as under:-CRL.L.P. 294/2018 Page 1 of 5"In her statement in Court, the prosecutrix has put blame on the appellants.She has deposed that she was threatened right from the beginning when being kidnapped and she was kept under threat till the police ultimately recovered her.Normally, her statement in that regard would be difficult to dislodge, but having regard to her conduct, as also the manner of the so-called "taking", it does not seem that the prosecutrix was truthful in that regard.In the first place, it is too much of a coincidence that the prosecutrix on her visit to a common tap, catering to many, would be found alone, or that her whereabouts would be under check by both the appellants/ accused and that they would emerge at the scene abruptly to commit the offence of kidnapping by " "taking" her out of the lawful guardianship of her mother.Secondly, it is difficult to believe that to the strata of society to which the parties belong, they would have gone unnoticed while proceeding to the house of that other.The prosecutrix cannot be said to have been tied to the bicycle as if a load while sitting on the carrier thereof.She could have easily jumped off.She was a fully grown up girl may be one who had yet not touched 18 years of age, but, still she was in the age of discretion, sensible and aware of the intention of the accused Shyam, That he was taking her away for a purpose.It was not unknown to her with whom she was going in CRL.L.P. 294/2018 Page 2 of 5 view of his earlier proposal.It was expected of her then to jump down from the bicycle, or put up a struggle and, in any case, raise an alarm to protect herself.No such steps were taken by her.It seems she was a willing party to go with Shyam the appellant on her own and in that sense there was no "taking" out of the guardianship of her mother.The culpability of neither Shyam, A-1 nor that of Suresh, A-2, in these circumstances, appears to us established.The charge against the appellants/ accused under Section 366, I.P.C. would thus fail.Accordingly, the appellants deserve acquittal.The appeal is, therefore, allowed acquitting the appellants."Venu Madhav R.K., Sr.Resident, Department of Radiology, AIIMS, New Delhi, showed that on the date of the incident the bone age of prosecutrix was between 14.5 years to 16.5 years.Keeping in view the aforesaid Ossification report as well as the fact that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the accused, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.However, the issue of law raised by the petitioner-State is left open.Accordingly, the present leave petition is dismissed.MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J MAY 07, 2019 SU/ CRL.L.P. 294/2018 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,152,755 |
Nandita Rao, Adv.Javed Alvi, Adv.The first ransom call was received by Sube Singh on 15.12.2003 whereby the caller demanded Rs.30.00 lakhs for release of his son.Another call was received by Sube Singh on 17.12.2013 whereby he was asked to come with ransom amount at Madak More, Jattari, PS Tappad, Aligarh, U.P. Although separate Police teams were constituted and fake bundles of currency notes were procured yet despite reaching the place, none was present to receive the amount.On 24.1.2004, elder brother of Sube Singh informed him that he had spoken to one of the kidnappers on 23.1.2004 and he had asked him to come on 29.1.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. near Hasayan More, Ratti Ka Nala, Hathras Road, however, the kidnappers did not show up.Through : Ms.for respondent no.2, Rajender Singh.Karan Sachchar and Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advs.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.NOS.4181/2014 & 4182/20141. CRL.M.A.No.4181/2014 has been filed by the appellant/State seeking condonation of 33 days' delay in filing the present appeal and CRL.M.A.No.4182/2014 has been filed seeking condonation of 6 days' delay in re-filing the present appeal.2. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that they have no objection if the present applications are allowed and delay is condoned.CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 1 of 13Heard and for the reasons stated in the present applications, the same are allowed.Delay in filing and re-filing the present appeal is condoned.Let the appeal be taken on record.The present leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dated 17.8.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, North, Rohini, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.866/2006, whereby the respondents stand acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 363/364A/302/201/203120B of the Indian Penal Code.On 8.2.2006 investigation was assigned to Inspector P.C. Jha, who recorded the supplementary statement of wife of Sube Singh.On 26.2.2006 one public witness Shatrughan had stated that respondent no.2, Rajender Singh, had confessed before him for committing the offence and one Pratap Singh also made a statement that respondent CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 2 of 13 no.1, Salim Khan, had confessed before him that they had kidnapped the child, Master Virat, and they had given the child to one relative, but since the ransom money was not received, the relative, to whom the child had been entrusted, did not return the child and since the child recognised Salim Khan, the child was drawned in the Gangnehar.CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 2 of 13The prosecution has examined 29 witnesses.Statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they have denied all the incriminating evidence put to them.9. Learned APP for the State submits that the trial Court has passed the order of acquittal based on the presumption, conjectures, surmises and without taking into account the evidence surfaced during the course of trial.Learned APP further submits that the learned trial Court has ignored the vital piece of evidence and has erred in not appreciating the testimony of PW-4, Sh.Pratap, who had testified that respondent no.2, Rajender Singh, had made an extra-judicial confession before him and PW-15, Col. (Retd.) Basant Kumar.Learned APP contends that the trial Court has failed to take into account that the locket of the child, Master Virat, was recovered at the instance of respondent no.1, Salim Khan and further the complainant, Sube Singh, had identified the school bag, which was recovered at the instance of respondent no.2, Rajender Singh.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is not a single piece of evidence, which would link the accused persons (respondents herein) to the crime.It is further submitted that the gold chain and the school bag have been planted inasmuch that the respondents would not keep the same for a period of almost three years from the date of the incident.Even otherwise, it is submitted that neither in the complaint made to the Police nor in the hue and cry notice there CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 3 of 13 was any reference to the gold chain or the school bag.It is also contended that an extra-judicial confession is a week form of evidence and cannot be relied upon.CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 3 of 13We have heard learned APP for the State and counsel for the respondents, and also carefully examined the evidence and the judgment passed by learned trial Court.In order to prove the guilt of the respondents the prosecution had relied upon the following circumstances as noticed by the trial Court.The prosecution has relied upon following circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused persons:-(b) Testimony of PW5 Randhawa and PW11 Subey Singh, which proved that ransom of Rs.30 lakhs was made on phone from different places even in lieu of released of child.(c) The extra judicial confession made by accused Rajender Singh before PW Satrughan and disclosing of said confessional statement by PW Satrughan to PW Pratap.(d) The extra judicial confession made by accused Salim Khan to PW Kalu confessing his crime of kidnapping of child Virat in conspiracy with accused Mojib (PO), Rajender Singh and Sandeep.(e) Confessional statement of accused persons Salim Khan and Sandeep and further recovery of articles belonging to child Virat in pursuance of their respective disclosure statement.(f) The testimony of PW13 regarding dropping of victim child by accused Sandeep to him.CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 4 of 13(g) The pointing out memo of place from where accused Niranjan Singh and Sandeep made ransom calls."The arguments of learned counsel for the State can be summarised as under:(i) That the trial court has erred in not relying on the extra-(ii) That the trial court has failed to take into account that locket of the child, Master Virat, was recovered at the instance of Salim Khan, respondent no.1, from beneath the floor of his house and further the school bag was recovered at the instance of Rajender Singh, respondent no.2, from an iron almirah, which was kept in the South-East direction in his room.Both these articles were duly identified.The present case is based on circumstantial evidence.(iv) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law."Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, we have examined the two extra-judicial confessions, which are heavily relied upon by the State.As per the testimony of PW-28, PW-16, Shatrughan came to the Police Station and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.As per this statement of Shatrughan, respondent no.2, Rajender Singh, had met him and told him that about two and a half years ago he along with two other persons had kidnapped a child and handed him over to one relative, but despite efforts for 4-5 months they could not get the money and the child was thereafter handed back to Salim Khan and since the child recognised Salim Khan, the child was drowned in the gang nehar.PW-16, Shatrughan did not support the case of the prosecution and denied that any confessional statement had been made before him by respondent no.2, Rajender Singh, despite the fact that he was cross- examined at length.The observations made by the learned trial court read as under:As far as accused Salim Khan is concerned as per the prosecution case, he made confessional statement before PW-19 Kalu Ram.PW-19 Kalu Ram had testified that he used to take CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 9 of 13 juice from the Salim Khan Juice Corner and Salim Khan was running said shop in his village for the last about 19 years.One evening he went to the juice shop to take the juice, he noticed that Salim was looking very sad and on his asking what has happened he told that, some wrong has been committed by him.He further told that, one Mojib (PO) was doing white washing in the house of Sube Singh and he had also carried white whash in the house of Sube Singh and Mojib (PO) heard the conversation on Subey Singh that huge cash amount is always retained by him.Thereafter met him and he (Mojib) told they can get huge amount if they kidnapped the son of Subey Singh.Thereafter, he (Salim Khan) met accused Rajender and told him that they could plan to kidnap the son of Sube Singh.CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 9 of 13CRL.L.P. 213/2014 Page 12 of 13
|
['Section 363 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.
|
1,521,559 |
From the grounds of detention it appears thatthe detenu came to adverse notice of the police in R-8Vadapalani Police Station Cr.Some of the accused persons were waiting atthe Court to attend trial and since one of the co-accused,namely, Rajadurai, who was in jail custody had not beenbrought, the Court had asked other accused to wait till thearrival of the co-accused.While the accused persons wereproceeding to take lunch, Tvl.Binu, Radha @ Radhakrishnan,Allavudin, Reagen, Ramesh, Jai @ Jaikumar, Sekar @Chandrasekar (present detenu), Karuna @ Karunakaran, Hari @Bangalore Hari, who were armed with knives, ran towardsthose accused persons.At that time, Thiru.Saravanan, oneof the accused facing trial in Madhuravayal Police StationCr.No.1126/1998, ran away from the spot.Binu, Radha @Radhakrishnan, Allavudin, Reagen, Ramesh, Jai @ Jaikumar,Sekar @ Chandrasekar, Karuna @ Karunakaran, Hari @ BangaloreHari chased Elumalai, another accused, who fell down andraised hue and cry stating that he should not be assaulted.Binu caught Elumalai and asked his associates to cutElumalai.Other persons including the detenu, gave cut-blows indiscriminately.Public came for Elumalai's rescue,but the assailants threatened the public and subsequentlyran away.On this ground, thedetention order is liable to be quashed.Next contention raised by the petitioner isregarding non-application of mind on the imminentpossibility of detenu being released on bail.The detainingauthority has observed :Since weare quashing the order of detention on the other grounds, itis not necessary for us to delve further into this aspect.The Secretary to Govt.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,156,130 |
The claim petition was filed by the father and mother of deceased seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.34,35,000/- on the allegation that on 24.10.2011, when the deceased Narendra Singh alongwith Bhupendra @ Bhura were going to Meerut by Motorcycle No.U.P.-13-P-1922, they met an accident at around 4 AM with Maruti Van No.H.R.-26-N-2498, which was being driven rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle from the front side, which caused grievous injuries to Narendra Singh and Bhupendra @ Bhura and they succumbed to the injuries on the spot.A first information report was lodged by one Satendra Singh at Police Station Gulawathi, District Bulandshahar and the same was registered as Case Crime No.339/2011 under Sections 279, 304A and 427 IPC.At the time of accident the deceased Narendra was 26 year's young person and was working in Armed Forces and his monthly salary was Rs.25,000/-.Both the claimants were dependent upon their son and they had no other source of income.The proceedings were contested by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle by filing written statement denying the allegation but at no point of time they have raised any objection that the accident did not involve their vehicle and the allegation of negligent driving on part of deceased was alleged.So far as the insurance company is concerned, it had taken a stand that the vehicle was deliberately planted in collusion with the owner just to shift the liability to pay the compensation as the vehicle was insured by the appellant Insurance Company.The Insurance Company filed detailed written statement in the proceedings denying the allegations made in the claim petition.On analysis of the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, produced by the parties, the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as well as by the deceased Narendra Singh as the accident occurred from the front side.That finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of oral evidence of P. W. '2' Satendra and PW-3 Harendra @ Hariraj Singh, who was eye-witness of the accident.At the relevant point of time, he was going to see his ailing sister Kamlesh, who was married at Hapur by motorcycle and due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which dashed the motorcycle and both the persons died on the spot.After the accident they escaped from the place and have reiterated the same version in the examination.He has also made statement that at the time of accident, the speed of motorcycle was about 30-35 kms per hour.He was driving the motorcycle at the speed of 32 kms per hour.The deceased motorcycle was around 400 meters away/in front of him and the Maruti van was plying with the speed of 70 KMs per hour.At the time of accident, five to six persons were occupying in the Maruti van and on account of fear, he could not apprehend any of the accomplice.At the time of accident the light of the Maruti van was on and therefore, he was able to see the number plate.He informed the police personnel and left the site as his sister was ailing.At no point of time the Tribunal has disbelieved the occurrence of the accident by the same vehicle.More so, the driver of the offending vehicle had never taken a plea that the said accident had not occurred with their vehicle but at the same time, the plea was taken that the accident took place as both vehicles dashed on the front side on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle.The eye witness not only collaborated the mode and manner of the accident but his testimony was unshakable during cross-examination and thus, the Tribunal rightly relied upon him and returned the finding on the issue.The Tribunal further found that the driver of offending Maruti van was having a valid driving license and was duly insured with the insurance company and was having all valid documents.On the question of quantum of the deceased, PW-5 Satendra son of Rajveer Singh was examined and on oath, he made a statement that at the time of death of the deceased, his monthly salary/income was Rs.23,384/- and his actual yearly income was found to be Rs.2,21,495/- by the Tribunal.Since the deceased was married, his 1/3 monthly income was deducted towards personal expenses for the purpose of compensation on the basis of date of birth as the deceased was 25 years, seven months and 16 days' old.On the matter of extend of contribution to the accident, it is held by the Tribunal that at the time of accident the deceased Narendra Singh did not have valid licence and more so the accident occurred in the middle of the road from head on collision.The deceased Narendra Singh also held to be guilty of contributory negligence.As such he also contributed to the accident to the extend of 50%.Therefore, the claimants are only entitled half of the compensation towards loss of dependency.The Tribunal, relying upon the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 SCC (CR) 2 100, had also awarded 50% of annual income towards future prospects amounting Rs.13,28,967/- but unfortunately as only Rs.200000/- has been claimed by the claimants towards future prospect, therefore, only the said amount was awarded by the Tribunal; Rs.2000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate.In this manner, total compensation of Rs.28,62,434/- was determined by the Tribunal.Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contends that the first information report was lodged against the unknown vehicle and Maruti van was falsely roped in this case by the claimants not only to get compensation from the appellant insurance company.Even after investigation the investigating officer had submitted the final report in which it has been stated that from the investigation the car and driver had not been traced out and near future there is no possibility to trace out the car and its driver and as such, the final report was submitted.On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submitted that PW-3 Harendra @ Hariraj in his examination-in-chief (eye witness) has clearly stated that on 24.10.2011 he was going on motorcycle to see his ailing sister at Hapur and the deceased was around 400 meters away and he was also riding motorcycle at about 400 meters away and Maruti van AH-26-2498, which was coming with the high speed, hit the motorcycle and on account of his negligent driving the deceased died on the spot.Even he has made a statement that the speed of the motorcycle was about 30-35 kms per hour but Maruti van was moving with a speed of about 70 per KM as he stayed for 5-7 minutes and he had noted down the number of the vehicle as the light of the Maruti van was on, he noted the number of the Maruti van but he could not identify the deceased as both were bearing the helmets.He informed the police personnel as the treatment of his sister was continued for more than 12 days but at no point of time the Inspector has taken his statement.The statement had been accepted by the Tribunal and more so, the driver and owner of the vehicle had not disputed the occurrence of the accident.The argument so advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is unacceptable.At no point of time the Tribunal has disbelieved the statement of the eye-witness.The driver and owner of the offending vehicle have also not disputed the occurrence of the accident.It is matter of common knowledge that with the rise in price index, there has been considerable increase in the wages of salaried as well as self employed person.In so far as addition of 50% towards future prospects is concerned, the same is also not liable to be sustained.Rule 220A introduced by way of amendment in the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 with effect from 26.9.2011 providing that future prospects of a deceased shall be added in the actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased and more so in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 0 Supreme Court (SC) 1050 as under:(I) Below 40 years of age : 50% of the salary,In such situation, the amount, which has been quantified towards the future prospect amounting to Rs.13,28,967/-, could not be reduced but were have to be reevaluated.The High Court without assigning any reason concurred with the findings of the Tribunal with respect to contributory negligence.We find it pertinent to observe that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the appellants/ claimants in these appeals liable for contributory negligence.The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same.The Division Bench of this Court, in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.While passing the award the Tribunal was also of the view that as the accident took place in the middle of the road and dashed the vehicle from the front side.The deceased was also liable for negligent driving and more so, he has no valid papers and attributed half of the compensation.Rs.1,40,304/- x 18 = Rs.25,25,472/- (loss of dependency) On addition of Rs.4500/- (Rs.2500/- + Rs.2000/-) + Rs.25,25,472/-) it comes to Rs.25,29,472/.As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time.No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard.As a consequence of the aforesaid facts and discussions, appeal filed by the insurance company stands dismissed but the award stands modified to the extent directed above.Order Date :- 29.1.2020 RKP
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,157,005 |
However, Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga has been acquitted by the trial court in view of the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses regarding role played by as well as on the point of identity.It may be noted that all the relevant witnesses to the incident happen to be police officials, thus, their statements have to be scrutinized with care and caution they being seasonal witnesses.Same set of witnesses have been disbelieved qua Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga.As per the prosecution, on 23rd October, 2007 Home Guard Constable Sunil (PW1) and HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW3) were on duty of checking vehicles at road no. 56, Ramprasth Park.They Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 2 of 9 were checking vehicles coming from Raghunath Mandir side.At about 6:45 pm a secret informer informed PW3 HC Sanjeev Kumar that two boys would be coming on a stolen silver colour pulsar motorcycle with an intention to commit chain snatching in Anand Vihar area.At about 7:00 pm appellant and his accomplice (whose names were disclosed after their apprehension) were seen coming on the motorcycle bearing no. UP-15S-8841 from Seema Puri border side.They were given signal to stop by PW3 H.C. Sanjeev.They were asked to show the relevant papers of motorcycle at which they became furious and the Sardar (Jagdish @ Jagga) who was sitting on the pillion seat of motorcycle pushed HC Sanjeev Kumar while appellant started motorcycle and tried to take a U- Turn but in the process motorcycle got slipped and they fell down and sustained injuries.Thereafter, appellant got up and gave a helmet blow to Home Guard Constable Sunil resulting injuries on his nose.Appellant was over powered, however, his accomplice succeeded in escaping.PW1 was examined by the doctor vide MLC Ex.PW6/A. Since there was fracture of nasal bone doctor opined injuries as grievous.Constable Harbir, who was posted in the hospital, sent information regarding admission of Home Guard Constable Sunil in the hospital to police station Preet Vihar pursuant whereof, DD No. 28-A was recorded and handed over to HC Rakesh (PW10) who along with Constable Dev Dutt reached hospital and obtained MLC of Home Guard Constable Sunil.Thereafter, PW 10 HC Rakesh reached at the spot and recorded statement of PW3 HC Sanjeev Kumar wherein he narrated the incident in the manner as has been described in para no. 3 hereinabove.Appellant has been convicted under Sections 186/333/353/34 IPC by the trial court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 186/34 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 333/34 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 353/34 IPC.All the sentences have been directed to run Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 1 of 9 concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the appellant.Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 1 of 9Appellant along with Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga was sent up to face trial for the offences under Sections 186/332/353/411/34 IPC by the police station Anand Vihar by filing a charge-sheet in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.Subsequently, case was committed to Sessions Court.Charges under Sections 186/332/353/34 IPC were framed against appellant and Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga.Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 2 of 9PW1 Home Guard Constable Sunil was removed to Hedgewar Hospital (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 3 of 9 hospital) by ASI Desh Raj (PW9) of Police Control Room.On the basis of his statement FIR No. 602/2007 was registered at police station Preet Vihar.Appellant was present at the spot and was arrested.Pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant Jagjit Singh @ Jagga was arrested.Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 3 of 9After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate along with a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 4 of 9Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 4 of 9Trial court has found statements of PW1 Home Guard Constable Sunil, PW3 HC Sanjeev and PW10 HC Rakesh trustworthy and reliable and has concluded that from their testimonies it was proved that the appellant had deterred PW1 and PW3 from performing their duties, inasmuch as had caused grievous injuries on the person of PW1 in order to deter police officials to perform their duties and further that the appellant was apprehended at the spot.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP and have also perused the trial court record carefully and am not able to concur with the view taken by the trial court, I find statements of material witnesses, that is, PW1 Constable Sunil, PW3 HC Sanjeev and PW10 HC Rakesh to be discrepant in nature, inasmuch as the statements of injured and eye witnesses are inconsistent and are not sufficient to prove the prosecution case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.It may further be noted that their statements have not been found trustworthy and reliable by the trial court with regard to accomplice of the appellant.Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 5 of 9Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 5 of 9That apart, there is a delay of about three and a half hours in registration of FIR which has not been sufficiently explained leaving the scope of coloured version creeping in the prosecution story.Delay in the peculiar facts of this case is fatal more particularly because despite availability of injured in the hospital his statement was not recorded immediately; instead Investigating Officer chose to go to spot and record the statement of PW3 HC Sanjeev.As per PW 10 HC Rakesh, on receipt of information regarding the incident, he reached the hospital and obtained MLC of PW1 Home Guard Constable Sunil, who had sustained injuries.Reason for not recording his statement, as per him, was that PW1 was under observation.Meaning thereby he was not fit for making a statement.However, his this version is belied from the documentary evidence, that is, MLC Ex. PW6/A. A perusal of Ex.PW6/A makes it clear that the doctor had not made any endorsement "Under Observation".Instead, doctor has written on the MLC "fit for statement", meaning thereby PW1 Home Guard Constable Sunil was fit for making a statement.Despite this, PW10 HC Rakesh did not record his statement who is victim to the Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 6 of 9 offence and could have described the incident.He was the best person to narrate the incident at the first available opportunity.There is no reason as to why PW 10 HC Rakesh could not have recorded his statement for the prompt registration of FIR.Instead, he chose to proceed to the spot and record statement of PW3 HC Sanjeev.Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 6 of 9Besides above, statements of PW1 and PW3 are discrepant so as to make their presence at the spot together suspicious.PW1 Home Guard Constable Sunil has deposed that he was on duty from 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm; he was present along with PW3 Sanjeev on picket duty.However, as per PW3, he was on duty along with PW1 between 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm.Above all there is material contradiction in this statement regarding roles ascribed to the appellant and his accomplice are concerned.PW3 while deposing in Court, has stated that it is the appellant who was driving the motorcycle.As against this, PW1 Home Guard Constable Sunil has said that accomplice of appellant was driving Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 7 of 9 the motorcycle while appellant was sitting on the pillion seat.In his cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, PW1 denied that appellant was driving the motorbike.As per PW1 Home Guard Constable Sunil and PW3 Sanjeev, both, that is, appellant and his accomplice were wearing helmets however, accomplice of the appellant being Sardar probability of his wearing helmet was not there and in fact this is one of the reason for which appellants accomplice has been acquitted.There is yet another major lacuna in the prosecution case which makes the prosecution story suspicious.As per PW10 statement of HC Sanjeev was recorded at the spot, however, PW3 in his cross-examination, that he had narrated the incident to HC Rakesh at the spot but his statement was got signed in the police station.Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 7 of 9In view of the sketchy, shaky and inconsistent stand taken by the above-noted material witnesses it would not be safe to conclude against the appellant that he had committed the offences for which he had been charged.I am of the view that trial court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the appellant in the light of evidence discussed herein above.Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 8 of 9Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 8 of 9For the foregoing reasons, conviction of the appellant is set aside.He be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for serving it on the petitioner as also for compliance.A.K. PATHAK, J.JANUARY 02, 2013 ga Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 9 of 9Criminal Appeal 310/2011 Page 9 of 9
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,158,993 |
06.1.2015 Item No. 74 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 74CRM No. 15703 of 2014 In the matter of: An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.11.2014 in connection with Jibantala P. S. Case No. 249(5) of 2014 (tagged with Bhangore Police Station Case No. 120 of 2014) dated 03.05.2014 under Sections 147/148/149/302/120b of the Indian Penal Code AND Sections 25/27/35 Arms Act and read with Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive SubstanceAnd In the matter of: Rafique Molla @ Rafik Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay For the Petitioner Mr. Suman De For the Defacto Complainant Mr. Anupam Maity For the State The Petitioner has applied for bail in respect of the above mentioned case.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary and other relevant material on record including the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.We do not think that the Petitioner should be granted bail considering the contents of those statements.Hence, the application for bail being CRM No. 15703 of 2014 is ted rejected.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (R. K. Bag, J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
152,235,986 |
Being aggrieved with both the judgments the applicant has preferred this revision.The prosecution's case in short is that on 29.6.2009 at about 10.00 a.m in the morning the complainant Shyamabai was working in her own house situated at Ward No.9 Nainpur, District Mandla.The applicant along with other accused went inside the house and abused the victim with filthy abuses and thereafter, he assaulted the victim.The applicant twisted the hands of the complainant and also assaulted her.The complainant had lodged an FIR Ex.P/3 before the Police Station, Nainpur.She was sent for her medico legal examination to the Community Health Centre, Nainpur.Dr. R. K. Kumre (PW8) examined the complainant and gave his report Ex.(Delivered on the 9th day of April, 2013) The applicant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 and 323 of I.P.C vide judgment dated 12.12.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nainpur (Shri Sanjay Raj Thakur) in Criminal Case No.228/2009 and sentenced for one years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and six months simple imprisonment respectively.In Criminal Appeal No.05/2010 the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla vide judgment dated 23.1.2013 partly allowed the appeal.He found swelling and pain in right palm and right wrist of the complainant Shyamabai and thereafter, on X-Ray examination there was a crack fracture found in her radius bone of the right wrist.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed.The applicant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea in the defence but, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter.No defence evidence was adduced.The learned JMFC, Nainpur after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above whereas the learned IInd 3 Criminal Revision No.165/2013 Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla acquitted all other accused persons from the charge of offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and imposed fine upon other persons for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C whereas the applicant was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C but, conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C was maintained.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a first offender who remained in the custody for more than 53 days.There is no allegation against the applicant that he used any weapon in assaulting the victim.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the applicant does not challenge the conviction directed against him.However, looking to the evidence of Janki (PW1), Shyamabai (PW2), Shushila (PW3), Motilal (PW4), timely lodged FIR Ex.P/3 and various medical reports proved by Dr. Kumre (PW8), it is 4 Criminal Revision No.165/2013 proved beyond doubt that applicant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim Shyamabai and therefore, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C.So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicant did not use any weapon in the incident.He was the first offender, who remained in the custody for 53 days.Looking to the overt act and looking to the fact that he was the first offender, his custody period appears to be an appropriate sentence against him.However, fine amount may be enhanced.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed.The conviction for offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.However, fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs.200/- to Rs.7000/-.The applicant is directed to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in addition.If fine amount is deposited then a sum of Rs.5000/- be given to the victim Shyamabai w/o Nandlal r/o Ward No.09, Nainpur, District Mandla by way of compensation.Criminal Revision No.165/2013The applicant is on bail.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,522,360 |
The appellants have preferred these appeals against judgment dated 17.5.2001 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. Nos. 159/99 and 110/2000 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.According to the prosecution, on 9.5.99 in the evening Vishnu (son of complainant) Kehar Singh (PW1) went towards field (Baadi) to answer the call of nature, when he was returning home, accused Sikri @ Chandra Kumar (AW2) who was carrying a lathi intercepted him, in front of the house of Bhangi Ahir (PW6) and abused him over the old dispute.On listening the altercation between them, Kehar Singh (PW1) came out from his house and saw that accused Bhura Gond (brother of Sikri), came with a lathi and both of them assaulted Vishnu.Vishnu fell down due to lathi blow on his head.This incident was also witnessed by Ganaram Sahu, Bhaizan of Kohka {Sheik Sabbu (PW10)}.They rushed for rescue, then the accused fled away from the spot.Vishnu was carried to hospital at Kewlari in the bullock-cart but the doctor declared him dead.Complainant Kehar Singh (PW1) lodged the first information report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Kewlari, and Marg Intimation (Ex.P/2) was recorded.Crime was registered against the accused persons.On 10.5.99, J.S. Patel (PW17), the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report Ex.P/4 and dead body was sent for postmortem.Dr. D.K. Shrivastava (PW2) conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Vishnu, and opined that cause of death of deceased was haemorrhage, due to injury to both Lungs (postmortem report Ex.P/8).J.S. Patel (PW17), the Investigating Officer also prepared the spot map Ex.HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. Solanki Bhura @ Rajkumar Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Amod Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri S.K.Rai, learned Government Advocate for the State.Criminal Appeal No. 926/2001 Sikri @ Chandra Kumar Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh Smt. Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri S.K.Rai, learned Government Advocate for the State.Date of hearing: 29/06/2010 Date of Judgment: 06/07/2010 J UD G M E N T As per G.S. Solanki,J.:The aforesaid appeals are arising out of the same judgment therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment.P/ 6, seized the cloths of the deceased and prepared seizure memo Ex.6. Accused Bhura @ Rajkumar was arrested and at his instance a lathi (danda) was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Later on accused Sikri @ Chandra Kumar was arrested and a wooden fanty was seized at his instance vide seizure memo Ex.On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against appellants under Section 302 of IPC.Appellants denied the charges and pleaded innocence and false implication.Learned trial Court found the appellants guilty and convicted them as mentioned herein above.9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the homicidal death of deceased Vishnu which is also proved by evidence of Dr. D.K.Shrivastava (PW2), who found one contusion on forehead, one contusion on back of right scapular region and one contusion on back of left scapular 4 region of the deceased.On internal examination he found left lung (lower lobe) contused posteriory, size 3" x 1" and right lung (middle lobe) lacerated posteriory, size 3" long.Cause of death was shock,due to haemorrhage and injury in both lungs.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that incident took place on the spur of moment.There was no premeditation or preplan to cause death of Vishnu.He also drew our attention to the fact that injury found on the dead body of Vishnu was caused by hard and blunt object.No fatal injury was found on vital part of the deceased therefore, no case under Section 302 of IPC was made out.He also submitted that all witnesses are related and interested witnesses, therefore reliance cannot be placed on their testimony.Learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.On the other hand, Shri S.K.Rai, learned Government Advocate submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.According to him, both the appellants dealt lathi blows on the head and back of deceased Vishnu, resultantly both lungs of the deceased were injured and he succumbed to injuries caused by the appellants.According to him, the learned Trial Court considered all these aspects and rightly convicted both the appellants under Section 302 of IPC.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, it emerged that conviction of the appellants is based on the eye witnesses account of Kehar Singh (PW1), father of the deceased, Rampyari (PW7), sister of the deceased, Rajkumari (PW13), wife of the deceased and Sheikh Sabbu (PW10).Kehar Singh (PW1), father of the deceased has specifically stated that on listening the quarrel between the appellants and deceased Vishnu, he reached at the place of the incident which was merely 100-125 feet from his house.He claims that both the appellants dealt blows on the head and back of shoulder of Vishnu.There are minor discrepancies in his cross examination, but they are not going to the root of the case.Another witnesses are Rampyari (PW7), sister of the deceased and Rajkumari (PW13), wife of the deceased.Both of them corroborated the testimony of Kehar Singh (PW1).Since place of incident was just near the house of complainant as the distance was only 100-125 feet from his house, therefore on listening the altercation between the deceased and the appellants, they could reach at the place of incident.Further more, the independent witness Sheikh Sabbu (PW10) whose name also find place in first information report Ex.P/1 has specifically stated that at about 7 O'clock when he was going to Kohka via 6 Village Baglai then he saw that accused Bhura and Sikri were abusing to deceased Vishnu and he tried to pacify them and when he started going towards Kohka, at that point of time, accused Sikri dealt a blow by Fanti (a wooden piece) on the head of deceased Vishnu, due to which he fell down, then accused Bhura also assaulted him by lathi.One more witness Bhangi (PW6) was though declared hostile but he admitted the presence of both appellants at the place of the incident.He was a person, whose house was situated near the place of incident which was proved by spot map Ex.The version of above mentioned eye witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. D.K. Shrivastava (PW2) and postmortem report (Ex.P/8) as well as by first information report (Ex.P/1) which was lodged within two hours of incidence.It seems that due to lathi blow on the scapular region of deceased, one of the lungs of deceased was contused and another was lacerated and due to haemorrhage in lungs, he succumbed to the injuries.Dr. D.K. Shrivastava was unable to express the opinion on the injury that it was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.Both the accused had not come together.It shows that there was no pre-planning or premeditation to cause death of Vishnu.According to the complainant, there was some altercation between the accused and appellant on old dispute due to trespass on the field of complainant, therefore incident took place on the spur of moment and on the above mentioned altercation, the accused Bhura @ Rajkumar came with a Fanty (a wooden piece) which itself shows that there was no intention to cause death.Further more, there is no medical evidence on 8 record that injuries caused by appellants were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the aforementioned aspect of the case.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,522,368 |
The remaining two convicts werehowever, acquitted of all the charges.Briefly stated.The prosecution case as narrated in thetrial was that on September 8.1977, at or about 8.00 A.M.Kamla Shankar Dubey (PW 1) accompanied by his brother RamSurat Dubey (PW 2) and uncle Loghar Dubey (the decoased)left their house for going to Bhadoni.When they reached theMirzapur Bhadhi Road near the local market all the sixaccused persons.who were armed with various weaponsincluding pistols accosted them and.on the exportation ofJadunath (since acouitted).All three ofthem then started running away in different directions onlyto be chased by the miscreants.While PW 1 succeeded in hisattempt other two could not as PW 2 fell down nit by Ranvir(the other appellant with a candasa and loonar.Who hadtaken refuge in the shop of one lalta.met with his death atthe hands of the other miscreants.The four appellants herein and two others were tried bythe Additional Session Judge.302/149 and 307/149 of theIndian Penal Code (IPCD for short).The trial ended with anorder of conviction and sentence recorded against all ofthem.Aggrieved thereby they preferred an appeal in the HighCourt which, as regards the appellants was allowed only inpart in that their conviction under Section 148 IPC was setaside but the other convictions were only altered to section302/34 and 307/34 IPC.Thereafter PW 1 went tothe police station and looced an information about theincident.AsPW 2's condition was grave he was referred to the DistrictHospital Varanasi and there a Magistrate recorded his dyingdeclaration.PW 5 went to the scene of occurrence and aftercompleting the inquest proceeding forwarded the dead body ofLagnar to the Government Hospital.Gyanour for post-mortemexamination.After examining the witnesses and completingother formalities of investigation he submitted charge-sheetand in due course the case was committed to the Court ofSession.The accused persons pleaded not puilty to the chargeslevelled against them and contended that they had beenfalsely implicated due to enmity.To bring home the charges levelling against the accusedthe prosecution examined Kamla Shankar Dubey (PW 1) andinjured Ram Surat (PW 2) as the two eye witnesses.The trialCourt found that notwithstanding the fact that they wereclosely related to the deceased their evidence could besafely relied upon as it stood corroborated by otherevidence on record.In appeal, the High Court held that theclaim of Kamla Shanker Dubey that he had seen the incidentcould not be entertained as his house was at a distance of2.1/2 furlongs away from the scene of occurrence and in allprobabilities he had reached the place of incident onlyafter it had taken place.The High Court, however, found theevidence of PW 2 reliable and sufficient to sustain theprosecution case but nonetheless felt inclined to dive thebenefit of reasonable doubt to the other two accused asthere was no evidence of their participation in the actualassault either of PW 2 or the deceased.Having regard to the fact that the High Court has, forjustifiable reasons.found the presence of PW 1 at the timeof the incident doubtful we are left with the only questionas to whether the evidence of PW 2 is of such a sterlingquality that it could be made the sole basis for upholdingthe conviction of the appellants by the High Court.Toanswer this question we have carefully considered hisevidence in the light of other evidence on record andparticularly his statement.According to his sworn testimony the entire assaulton the deceased took place in the shop of Lalta which as theevidence on record shows.was at a distance of about 40/50feet to the east of Varanasi-Bhaoohi Road.In his earlierstatement he however stated that his uncle was shot at anddied on the road.Indeed, in his earlier statement he didnot even mention about the shod of Lalta.The reason forsuch shifting of the place of occurrence is not far to seek.The investigation Officer stated in his evidence that hefound blood only in the shop of lalta and nowhere else.Obviously to fit in with the presence of blood only in theshop of Lalta, PW 2 mace the above concocted statement inCourt.At the trial hestated that as soon as they reached the road the miscreantsbounced upon them.But his earlier statement was that aftercoming out of their house they went to a petal shop andthere while they were waiting for the betels ordered by themto be served the miscreants came there and attacked them.PW2 next stated in his deposition that after being assaultedhe rushed to the courtyard of Ramdular which was on thewestern side of the Varanasi, Bhadohi Road and from there hesaw the assault on his uncle in the shop of Lalta.butearlier he had stated that after being assaulted when hewent running to the house of Ramdular he did not allow himto enter apprehending that he (Ramdular) might be fired atalso and that he fell down in front of his gate.There isalso material discrepancy as regards the nature of weaponscarried by the appellants and used for assault or him andhis uncle.In appears that when PW 2 was confronted with differentportions of his earlier statement in accordance with Section145 of the Evidence Act. he claimed that he was unconsciousand denied to have made the statements attributed to him.That such claim of PW2 was false - and was obviously made toripple out of the earlier statement - would be patentlyclear from the unimoachable evidence of Dr. B.P. Singh(D.W.I who was the Medical Officer of Varanasi Hospital atthe material time.He testified that in his presence ShriS.M. Maurya.Deputy Collector, Varanasi recorded the dyingdeclaration of Ram Surat in his presence and that Ram Suratwas in his senses.In support of his testimony he not onlyproved the dying declaration but also his endorsement andthat of the Magistrate thereon.In cross examination hedenied the suggestion that Ram Surat was senseless and wasnot able to give the statement.For the foreading discussion we are unable toconclusively infer solely relying upon the evidence of PW 2that the four appellants committed the murder of his uncleor attempted to commit his murder.The appeal is therefore,allowed.The impugned order of conviction and sentence ishereby set aside and the appellants are acouitted of all thecharges.The appellants who are in jail be releasedforthwith.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,522,400 |
(30/09/2010) Since the above mentioned appeals arise out of common impugned judgment, this judgment shall govern disposal of aforesaid three appeals.These criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 8/2/2008 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Panna in Special Case No.38/2004 whereby each appellant has been 2 convicted for commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and whereas except the appellant of Cr.A.No.417/2008, the remaining appellants were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 352 of IPC and sentenced for 3 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- each.(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently).During the pendency of Cr.A.No.417/2008, appellant Bhaiyan @ Sunil died, therefore, this Court vide order dated 16/9/2009 has dismissed his appeal as abated and his name was deleted from the array of appellants of Cr.Prosecution case, in short, is that on 8/1/2004 complainant Parwati Bai (PW-11) had lodged an FIR Ex.P8 at Police Station Kotwali, Panna to the effect that the appellants visited in the Kandhi Dhaba at about 6:00 in the evening and held the complainant.Appellant-accused Ajju started pressing her breasts and tried to take her towards the forest.On her shouting, one Raju @ Gulab Singh came to save her and then all the appellants-accused assaulted him by kicks and fists.Ultimately, the complainant Parwati Bai (PW-11) ran away from the spot.The appellants-accused also abused her by denoting her caste.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt and took the defence before the trial Court that they were falsely implicated in the matter.They were innocent, but no defence witness was produced by them before the trial Court.The learned Special Judge, Panna after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the appellants for commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC and inflicted the aforesaid sentence, whereas all the appellants except Ajay Pratap Singh @ Ajju were convicted for commission of offence under Section 352 of IPC and inflicted the aforesaid sentence.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants-accused do not want to challenge their conviction directed against them, but they want to challenge the sentence only.The incident took place in the year 2004 and in last six years they have faced the trial including the tensions of the present appeals etc., and therefore, looking to their guilt, they may be inflicted with sentence of fine only for commission of offence under Section 352 of IPC and since they did not use any weapon in the incident and they have already undergone 4-5 days' custody, therefore they may be released by imposition of maximum fine as provided in Section 323 of IPC and they may not be sent to the jail, again.After going through the entire evidence, considering the fact that the complainant has turned hostile to the factual aspect of the offence under Section 354 of IPC and the crime under Section 352 of IPC committed against her is of very minor nature, I find that it would be appropriate that only sentence of fine would be sufficient for the alleged offence.Similarly, it is true that the victim Raju @ Gulab Singh received 7-8 injuries in the incident, but neither any weapon was used in the incident nor the injuries were grave, therefore since the appellants-accused have already undergone the jail sentence for 4-5 days (appellant-accused Aniruddha Singh @ Anuruddha Singh has undergone the jail sentence for 3 months even), it 5 would be proper that they may be inflicted the sentence of a period which they have already undergone and in addition to the maximum fine prescribed for the offence under Section 323 of IPC.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, all the three appeals are partly allowed.The conviction awarded by the Court below under Sections 323 and 352 of IPC is hereby maintained and their sentence is reduced as under:-
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 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.
|
152,242,343 |
Facts are quite simple.Appellant and deceased both were resident of village Karaudi.On 27th March 2004 appellant, on account of domestic fight with his wife, was about to set on fire their crop.When villagers including Ajit Kumar hearing outcry of the appellant's ~1~ wife intervened in the matter to mollify the appellant and averted any unfortunate incident.Next day i.e. on 28th March, Ajit Kumar(since deceased) alongwith his mother had gone to Amarpatan to make purchases and after doing shoping when they were returning home, about 11 am, the appellant attacked the Ajit Kumar with a dagger.FIR Ex.P.4 was lodged by Ajit Kumar himself at Police Station Amarpatan at 11.30 am.Initially, on the basis of the FIR case under Section 294, 323 and 307 IPC was registered.And Ajit Kumar referred to CHC Amarpatan for treatment.At CHC Dr. V.K.Tiwari(P.W.3) examined Ajit Kumar.The MLC report is Ex.(Delivered on 21/06/2017) Per Seth, J:-By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has found him guilty on both counts and sentenced him to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 2000 under section 302 IPC and RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 25(1-B)(B)of the Arms Act with default stipulations.In the opinion of Dr. Tiwari(P.W.3) injury no. 1 and 2, the stab wounds, were dangerous to his life, he therefore immediately shifted Ajit Kumar to District Hospital, Satna after giving him the First aid.Ajit Kumar succumbed to injuries at the District Hospital at Satna.Dr. Alok Khanna(P.W.13) vide Ex.P.12 gave the intimation of his death to the Police therefore offence under 302 IPC was added and which set the investigation rolling.After taking usual steps like holding inquest, enquiry and post mortem, etc. investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed against the appellant.Appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried; therefore, he was committed to face the trial.The first question to be decided in this appeal is whether Ajit Kumar died a homicidal death.For this purpose we have carefully examined the evidence of autopsy surgeon Dr. P.C.Notwani (P.W.12).Perusal of evidence on record shows the fact that deceased died an unnatural death.Autopsy was performed by Dr. P. C. Notwani (P.W.12).In the autopsy, he found two incised wounds on the vital part i.e. chest and 3rd wound on the buttock and 4th wound in the right middle finger.The post mortem examination report of Dr. Notwani is Ex.In his cross examination he absolutely ruled out the possibility of accidental death.In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, learned trial Court rightly concluded that deceased died a homicidal death.Now the next question is whether appellant caused the fatal injury which led to the homicidal death of Ajit Kumar.The evidence of Bhaiya Prasad (P.W.1), Shitla Kumari (P.W.2) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.10) is material in this regard.All of them are eye witnesses.Shitla Kumari (P.W.2) is the mother of the deceased.On the fateful day she had gone to Amarpatan along with her son Ajit Kumar to make certain purchases.After finishing purchases she accompanied with the deceased were about to board tempo on their way back home, the appellant armed with dagger suddenly came and assaulted Ajit Kumar and inflicted lethal blows with dagger.She further deposed that soon after the incident, her son lodged the FIR Ex. P. 4 he was taken to the CHC Amarpatan and after providing first aid treatment injured was referred to Dist.Hospital Satna where Ajit Kumar succumbed to injuries.Story of Shitala Kumari(P.W.2) is fully corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses Bhaiya Lal (P.W.1) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.10), who were present at the spot at the time of ~3~ incident.Nothing has come out in their cross examination to render their testimony unreliable.Except for few minor contradictions, which are quite natural, nothing substantial was brought out in their cross-examination to doubt their testimony.The minor discrepancies are not sufficient to detract from the substantial evidence of the eye witnesses, who have been consistent on the major issues regarding the incident.At trial, learned Sessions Judge, accepted the prosecution evidence and found the appellant guilty of offences charged with.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.
|
1,522,453 |
Initially four persons had faced trial.Three of them were acquitted.The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:-On 8th of July, 1990, in the evening Naseeb Alam (PW-1) was going to his house from Sadullanagar market.At about 4.30 P.M. in front of Village Parsarampur on the road, four accused persons, who were co-villagers met him.Due to old animosity, they began to utter vulgar abuses.Jesulla and Idrish (PW-2) coming towards to the village from Sadullanagar reached there upon hearing his cries, rescued him.They had seen the incident.The accused persons fled away from the spot of the incident while threatening to kill.The accused Anwarulhaq fled away while leaving behind his bicycle at the spot.First information report was written by Rajkumar Srivastava, it was lodged at the police station on the basis of which the first information report was registered on the same day at 17.20 hours vide no. Ex.The memo for the bicycle was drawn vide Ex.The wounded informant was sent to the Primary Health Centre, Sadullanagar along with a written letter through the constable Chandraz Bhushan Pathak and his medical examination was done which is Ex.After the investigations, charge-sheet was filed for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 IPC, on the basis of which cognizance was taken.J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4321-22 of 2004)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench affirming his conviction for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the trial court.The revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was dismissed.The four accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 34, 504, 506(2) IPC.Accused persons pleaded innocence and faced trial.The accused persons took the plea that they were falsely implicated because of animosity.On behalf of the prosecution side, the witnesses of the facts viz., PW-1Naseebalam, PW-2Mohd.Idrish, and formal witness PW-3Dr.S.N. Pandey, PW-4Chandrabhan Yadav were examined.Out of the four persons who were tried, three were acquitted and only the appellant was convicted.The three persons were acquitted on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient so far as they are concerned.Doctor (PW-3) who had examined the injured found the following injuries:-Incised wound of 6 Cm.x 1.5 Cm.x 1 Cm.at the wrist of right hand in frontal portion.2. Complaint at the back of the chest.Placing reliance on the evidence of the injured, the accused was found guilty and convicted.Accordingly the conviction was made and sentence was awarded as aforesaid.The revision before the High Court was dismissed.An application for review was also dismissed.Both the orders are under challenge in these appeals.The High Court found that the plea regarding unreliability of the evidence of eye witnesses was clearly without substance and there is no infirmity in the order of the trial court.Accordingly the Revision Application was dismissed.Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment and stated that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court was affirmed by the High Court in revision and no interference is called for.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,247,129 |
Both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by common order.The petitioners in Crl.Rev. P. 316/2011 are the father-in-law and married sister-in-law of respondent no.2 whereas, the petitioner in Crl.Rev P Nos.316/2011 & 322/2011 Page 1 of 7The above named petitioners have put up a challenge to the order dated 23.03.2011 passed by the ASJ, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Crl.Rev. No. 148/2010 whereby the order dated 04.05.2010 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi has been set aside and case has been remitted back to the court of the learned MM with a direction to frame charges against the petitioners in both the petitions under section 498A IPC.The petitioner in Crl.The learned MM took note of the allegation that when the respondent no.2 (complainant) gave birth to a dead child, no one from the matrimonial home came to see her or provided any monetary support/help.The allegation that the respondent was suggested by Rachna Joshi, petitioner no.2 in Crl.Rev. P. 316/2011, to get her pregnancy terminated, was not viewed as an instance of cruelty.P. 322/2011 (Jaya Upreti) has also challenged the order of the Revisional court whereby no interference was made with respect to framing of charges against her under section 406 IPC.The respondent no.2 filed a complaint on 01.05.2003 in CAW cell, Nanakpura against accused persons namely the petitioners and another, alleging that she was treated with cruelty because of non- fulfillment of dowry demand.Pursuant to such a complaint FIR no. 437/2013 (PS Najafgarh) was registered on 17.08.2003 under sections 498A/406 IPC.After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the Petitioner on 02.02.2004 whereupon cognizance was taken.It was only in the year 2010, that the matter was taken up for framing of charges.The learned MM on going through the allegations in the FIR and the investigation papers found the allegations against the petitioners, in both the petitions, to be vague and general and discharged them for the offence under section 498A IPC.Charge was framed under section 406 IPC against Jaya Upreti (Mother in law) (petitioner in Crl.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,225,118 |
Rajiv Crl.Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor .Sub Inspector Veer Singh, PS Najafgarh Mr. P. D. Gupta and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocates for R2/Complainant.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.306/2012 registered under Sections 448/451/380/427/506/34 IPC at police station Najafgarh on 23.09.2012; on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Mr. P. K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent No.2, enter appearance and accept notice.The complainant, as well as the petitioners, are present in person, and are identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Veer Singh.It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by the complainant who was the tenant in the portion of the plot bearing No.579, Shivaji Marg, Chara Mandi, Najafgarh, Delhi, the landlord was Sh.M.C. No.4176/2014 Page 1 of 7 Rattan Aggarwal.Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioners, at the instance of Rajiv Rattan Aggarwal, had demolished part of the tenanted premises unauthorizedly, and further, held out threats to the tenant to vacate the premises.M.C. No.4176/2014 Page 1 of 7Both the accused / petitioners have obtained bail on 26.09.2012 from the court below.At the same time, both parties also instituted civil proceedings against each other seeking various reliefs, including injunction etc. Ultimately, the parties have compromised the matter, and in terms whereof, all the proceedings filed against each other have been withdrawn by them.The premises in question are also stated to have been handed over by the complainant / tenant to the landlord.Consequently the petition is allowed, and FIR No.306/2012 registered under Sections 448/451/380/427/506/34 IPC at police station Najafgarh, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.25,000/- each as costs with the Advocates Welfare Fund of Bar Council of Delhi within one week from today.Proof of deposit will be filed in the Registry of this Court within one week thereafter, with a Crl.M.C. No.4176/2014 Page 6 of 7 copy to the Investigating Officer.M.C. No.4176/2014 Page 6 of 7The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 dr Crl.M.C. No.4176/2014 Page 7 of 7M.C. No.4176/2014 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,251,608 |
Case diary is not available.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the police has filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 323, 342, 363, 34 of IPC.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge van Digitally signed by VANDANA VERMA Date: 2018.07.07 10:28:14 +05'30'
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,522,534 |
a)P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Balakrishnan.P.W.2 is the youngerbrother and P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased.The daughter of the deceasedP.W.5 was given in marriage to the elder brother of the first accused.The firstand second accused are close relatives.After the death of her husband, P.W.5came to the house of the deceased and stayed with her parents along with herchildren.Later, P.W.5 and her children were sent back to her matrimonial homeand she lived there.On knowing about the same, the deceased insisted the firstaccused to marry her, but the first accused refused to marry her, stating thatshe has undergone family planning operation.A panchayat was convened, but itdid not fructify.In the meanwhile, the first accused also married an anotherlady.b)Prior to the occurrence, at the time of Deepavali, there was a wordyquarrel between the deceased and the first accused, in which the first accusedwas assaulted.He was aggrieved over the same.On the date of occurrence, namelyon 1.11.2005 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased Balakrishnan was inside of hishouse.The first and second accused went inside of the house and the firstaccused stabbed him on his left side Chest and the second accused also stabbedhim on his right side Chest with knife.At that time, the deceased tried to holdthe knife and since the accused pulled it, he sustained injury on his hand.Immediately after the occurrence, both the accused came out of the house andthis was witnessed by P.W.1 and the other.Both the accused fled away from theplace of occurrence.c)P.Ws.1 and 2 and others took the deceased to the Rajaji GovernmentHospital, Madurai, where he was given treatment by P.W.20, the Doctor and he hasalso noted down the injuries found on him.An intimation was given to therespondent police station.P.W.21, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt ofthe intimation, went over to the Rajaji Government Hospital and recorded thestatement of severely injured Balakrishnan, which was marked as Ex.On thestrength of the said statement, a case came to be registered in Crime No.2636 of2005 under Sections 452 and 307 IPC.Ex.P.14, the F.I.R. and Ex.P.13, thestatement were sent to the court.d)P.W.22, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R.,took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in thepresence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.18, the rough sketch.He also recovered the material objects from the placeof occurrence under a cover of mahazar.(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Division,Madurai made in S.C.No.231 of 2006, whereby the appellants, two in number, stoodcharged under Sections 449 and 302 r/w S.34 IPC, tried, found guilty as per thecharges and awarded life sentence for each offence.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedas follows:Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recoveredunder a cover of mahazar. A-2 also voluntarily gave a confessional statement,which was also recorded in the presence of the witnesses.Then, both the accusedwere sent for judicial remand.g)An intimation was received from the hospital by the respondent policestation that Balakrishnan, who was under treatment in the hospital, died on14.11.2005 at about 21.00 hours.The case was altered to Section 302 IPC.Ex.P.21, the alteration report was despatched to the Court.On 15.11.2005,P.W.22, the Inspector of Police, conducted inquest on the dead body of thedeceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and has preparedEx.P.22, the inquest report.Then, the dead body was sent for the purpose ofpost-mortem.h)P.W.19, the Doctor attached to the Medical College, Marudai, on receiptof the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased andhas noted the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased in Ex.P.12, thepost-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear tohave died due to external stab injury No.1 and its corresponding internalinjuries and its complications thereof.i)All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, fromthe deceased and the M.O. recovered from the accused were sent for chemicalanalysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in two reports.P.10 is the Chemical Examiner's report and Ex.P.11 is the Serologist'sreport.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filedthe final report.3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary chargeswere framed and both the accused went for trial.In order to substantiate thecharges, the prosecution marched 22 witnesses and also relied on 23 exhibits and3 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.They denied themas false.No defence witness was examined.The lower court, after hearing thearguments advanced and looking into the materials available, took the view thatthe prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found both theaccused guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment on both thecharges.Hence, this appeal has been brought forth.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel, inhis sincere attempt in assailing the judgment under challenge, has made thefollowing submissions:Twowitnesses were examined as occurrence witnesses, who are P.Ws.1 and 4. P.W.4 hasturned hostile.According to P.W.1,he has not seen the occurrence, but when he was just coming near his house, hefound both the accused coming out of his house.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 wasnot useful to the prosecution side.According to the prosecution, it was P.W.20,the Doctor who actually examined the deceased medically and gave treatment tohim at the hospital on the date of occurrence, but neither the wound certificatenor the accident register was marked.Had it been marked, it would have revealedthe statement made by the deceased.In the instant case, according to theprosecution, P.W.21, the Sub Inspector of Police, rushed to the hospital andrecorded the statement of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.P.13.Subsequently, on requisition, P.W.14, the Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Madurai,has gone to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased,which was marked as Ex.Thus, these two dying declarations were availablefor the prosecution, but when a comparison was made, it is found that both thedying declarations were inconsistent to each other.So far as Ex.P.13, the statementgiven to P.W.21, the Sub Inspector of Police, was concerned, it would indicateas if A-2 had a role to play and that he was holding the hands of the deceasedin order to facilitate the crime and thus, there was discrepancy found, whichwould go to the root of the matter.Even as per the post-mortem Doctor, there was septicemia and the deceased died due to injury No.1 onhis chest and its complications.Thus, it would indicate that the first accusedhad no intention to kill and the death was not due to the direct consequences,but the complications in respect of the injury No.1 was the reason for death andhence these aspects have got to be considered by this court.5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.A case wasoriginally registered under Section 307 IPC and on his death, it was altered toSection 302 IPC.7.In order to substantiate the accusations made against the appellants,the prosecution has relied on the evidence of two witnesses, who are P.Ws.1 andAccording toP.W.1, he saw both the accused coming out of his house.8.Further, in order to substantiate the charges levelled against theappellants/accused, the prosecution had relied on two statements, one was givento P.W.21, the Sub Inspector of Police, who has recorded the statement from thedeceased and the same was marked as Ex.P.13, while the other one was the dyingdeclaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, which was marked as Ex.Itis true, when these two statements were compared, the court is able to see someminor discrepancies, but at the same time, it is pertinent to point out that theonly test that has got to be applied is whether the dying declaration hasinspired the confidence of the court.After being certified by the medicalperson that he was in a fit state of mind, the concerned Judicial Magistrate hasrecorded the same.A perusal of Ex.P.9, the dying declaration given to the JudicialMagistrate and also the statement given to P.W.21, which was marked as Ex.P.13,would indicate that it was the first accused who stabbed the deceased on hischest and has caused two stab injuries.Thus, there is nothing to suspect thedying declaration and the statement given by the deceased.From the medicalopinion, it would be quite clear that despite treatment, he died in thehospital.The medical opinion, which was givenby P.W.19, the doctor, would reveal that the deceased died due to the externalinjury No.1 and its corresponding internal injuries and its complicationsthereof.Hence, it could be easily inferred that the act of the first accusedwas not an intentional one to cause death or to cause such injury that wouldcause death in the ordinary course of nature.Under these circumstances, the actof the first accused would attract the penal provisions of Section 304(II) IPCand awarding a punishment of 5 years R.I. would meet the ends of justice.12.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court onA-1 under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC are set aside and instead, A-1 is convictedunder Section 304(II) IPC and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. Consequently,the conviction of A-1 under Section 449 IPC is confirmed, however, the sentencealone is reduced to 5 years R.I. Both the sentences are directed to runconcurrently.The sentences already undergone by A-1 is ordered to be given setoff.In respect of A-2, the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 449and 302 r/w S.34 IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelledagainst him.A-2 is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence isrequired in connection with any other case.13.With the above modification in conviction and sentence, this appeal ispartly allowed.1.The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai.2.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,225,350 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.48290/2019 (Manohar s/o Bhurji Baberiya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 22.11.2019 Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the bail application.Prayer allowed.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.48290/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.11.22 15:49:52 +05'30'
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,259,947 |
Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of U.P.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant with prayer to release him on bail in pursuance to First Information Report dated 04.04.2019, registered as Case Crime No.233 of 2019, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the gang chart (Annexure-2 to the application) only one case has been shown to be registered against the applicant i.e. Case Crime No. 208 of 2019, under Sections 376(D0, 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli.It has further been submitted on behalf of applicant that he is on bail in the aforementioned case and the copy of bail order of the cases has been annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 to the writ petition.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.03.2019 and further that he is on bail in all the cases shown against him in the Gang Chart.He next submits that the applicant undertakes that he will not indulge in any criminal activity or misuse the liberty of bail, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.Learned Additional Government Advocate though opposed the bail application but fairly conceded that the applicant is on bail in all the cases shown against him in the Gang Chart.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the record.From perusal of record, it reveals that applicant is on bail in all the cases shown against him in the Gang Chart, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Let the applicant Raj Kumar Bari, be released on bail, involved in Case Crime No.233 of 2019, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- and furnish two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on 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.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(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 or 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 bail application stands disposed of.Order Date :- 8.7.2020 A.K. Singh (Alok Mathur, J.)
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,522,608 |
JUDGMENT R.N. Ray, C.J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, V Court at Farrukhabad in Session Trial No. 3/7/79 which arose from crime No. 118 of police station Kama Ganj, District Farrukhabad dated 18-6-79 appellant (sic) The prosecution case runs as follows:--According to the informant he was returning from his field at village Ahmadpur Devaria and reached near his Kathal grove when accused Rameshwar, Ram Narain, Ram Das, Rakesh, Radhey and Satish armed with lathis, Kripal armed with pistol, Prahlad armed with a sword and Ram Roop armed with a Kanta surrounded him and told him that he had broken the medh of their field.The complainant told them that he had not done so.An exchange of hot words took between them.Then the accused Rameshwar exhorted to kill him whereupon accused Prahlad gave a sword blow to the complainant.On the alarm raised by complainant his sons Rajeev Kumar, Arvind Kumar and Ors.namely Devi Dayal, Ram Bharosey, Pati Ram, Shahjadey, Phool Chand and Ved Ram reached there and tried to save him.Accused Kripal fired a shot from his pistol causing fire armed injury to Rajiv.The remaining accused persons assaulted the complainant Arvind Kumar, Devi Dayal Ram Bharosey and Pati Ram with their weapons.It is alleged that for the last 4-5 years there had been litigation between the complainant and the accused persons regarding some culti vatory land on account of which the accused persons were on inimical terms with the complainant.The investigation of the case was conducted by Sri Mohd. Muskin Khan (P, W. 8) who was posted as S.I. at police station Kamalganj.On 18-6-79 he recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Bhoodev Singh who scribbed the chik report and G.D. entries.Thereafter he proceeded to the hospital where he recorded the statements of the injured Kamta Prasad, Arvind Kumar, Rajeev Kumar and others.He returned to the police station and thereafter at about 4.30 p. m. he reached to the place of occurrence.He first interrogated the witnesses Ved Ram and Shahjadey and others and recorded their statements.He visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-17 on the pointing out of-complainant and witnesses.He sealed the samples Ext. 4 & 5 in two separate tins.He searched the accused persons but could not find any of them.On the next date and on 20-6-79 he also searched the accused but could not arrest any of them.A written report has been lodged at Police Station Kamalganj on 18-6-79 at 10.10 a.m., the Police Station being at a distance of five miles from the place of occurrence.On the basis of the Said report a case under Section.147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 149, I.P.C. was registered.He submitted charge-sheet after completion of the investigation.Rajeev who had sustained fire armed injury subsequently died in district Hospital, Eatehgarh on 19-6-79 at 8.30 P.M. Inquest on the dead body of Rajeev was heldon 20-6-79 by P.W. 5, S.I. Hari Singh who was then posted at P.S. Kotwali, Fatehgarh.He had handed over the dead body to constable Ram Sewak and Raj Kumar Singh for taking it for postmortem examination.The case was altered from section 306 IPC to section 302 IPC at 5:05 p.m.The injured Kamta, Ram Bharosey, Pali Ram, Arvind Kumar, Devi Dayal and Rajeev Kumar were medically examined by Dr. Arjun Kumar (P.W. 2)) on 18-6-79 who was then Medical Officer Incharge P.H.C. Kamalganj, He examined all the injured between 11.35 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. He found following injuries on the person of each of the injured : --Injuries of KamtaContusion right side of nose upper part just inner to right eye size 2 cm x 1 cm reddish in colour.Incised wound over dorsal aspect of left thumb proximal 1/3rd cm x 00.5 cm x bone deep edged clean cut, wound is spindle shape, bleeding direction right to left.Both the injuries were simple.Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object and No. 2 by sharp edged weapon duration fresh.Injuries of Ram Bharosey :Lacerated wound over base of left thumb dorsal aspect 5 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep edges irregular bleeding wound is extending over to middle side.Lacerated wound over left palm lateral side 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep edges irregular bleeding.Incised wound over terminal phalynx of right ring finger palmar aspect 2 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep edges clean cut clotted blood present.Incised wound over palmar aspect of terminal phulyns of right middle finger in line with injury no. 3, 2 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep edges clean cut.Contusion over back in Lumber region extending from 4 cm above left illiac crest crossing over to right side 17 cm x 2 cm reddish colour.Injuries No. 3 and 4 caused by sharp edged object, 1 and 2 and 5 caused by blunt object, simple in nature and fresh.Injuries of Pati RamLacerated wound over inner part of left eye brow 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep, edges irregular, bleeding.2. Abrasion over dorsal aspect of left forearm 15 cm above wrist 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm bleeding.3. Abrasion over dorsal aspect of left forearm 0.5 cm above injury No. 2 size 2.5 cm x 0.1 cm blood is oozing.Abrasion over dorsal aspect of left forearm 4 cm above wrist 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm reddish colour.Contusion over left lumber region of back size 3 cm x 2 cm reddish colour.All the injuries are simple caused by blunt object duration fresh.Injuries of Arvind Kumar1. Contusion over right parietal region of scalp 9 cm' above right ear size 5 cm x 4 cm reddish colour surface abraided with contusion size 0.7 cm x 0.2 cm blood is coming.2. Contusion over right anterior scapular region of back of chest size 5 cm x 2 cm reddish colour.3. Contusion over left inter scapular region of back of chest 9 cm x 3 cm reddish colour.Contusion over left inter scapular region of back of chest inner to injury No. 3, 3 cm x 1.5 cm reddish colour.Contusion over dorsal aspect of terminal part of left middle finger 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm reddish colour.Simple in nature, caused by blunt object and within half day.Injuries of RajeevGun shot wounds of entry over pubic region of anterior abdomenal wall just above penis 4 cm x 3.5 cm depth not probed edges irregular, there is black suit around the margins wound is bleeding, no scorching, tattooing or burning present patient was complaining of pain in abdomen, no corresponding wound of exit, edges were inverted.Circular aberrasions about 60 in number around injury no. 1 in an area of 13 cm x 13 cm spread overpenis,senotum, upper part both thighs and anterior abdominal wall lower part each measuring o.2 cm x 0.2 cm margins are blackened, advised X-ray patient complaining of pain in abdomen there is no surrounding, tattooing or burning, the aberrasions are bleeding.Patient is restless conscious, pulseless, thirsty skin cold and clamy dehydrated in a state of shock injuries are dangerous caused by fire arm, duration within half day.Injuries of Devi DayalLacerated wound over right parietal region of scalp 6 cm above right ear size 7.5 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep edges irregular bleeding, suspected fracture of underline bone advised X-ray, there is bleeding from right ear.2. Contusion over both eye lids right side 5 cm x 4 cm reddish colour eye lids are swollen and could not be separated, and the eye could not examined.Two parietal contusions ovcrouteraspect of left arm each measuring 15 cm situated 0.5 cm apart, reddish colour verticle.Patient Semi-conscious-answers on loud voice pupil of left eye normally reacting to light right pupil cannot be examined.Patient is vomiting during examination.All injuries caused by blunt object injury No. 1 and 2 kept under observation, No. 3 simple, duration within half day.The Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rajeev was performed by Dr. S.C. Saxena (P.W; 7) who was Medical Officer at district hospital, Fatehgarh on 20-6-79 at 1.00 p.m. On external examination he found that the body was of average built, rigor mortis passed out from upper extremity and was partially present in lower extremities.Mouth, eyes closed.He found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Rajeev Kumar:Mutliple gun shot wound of entry in an area of 6" x 4" on the lower part of left side pubic region each rrjeasuring l/10"x 1/10"x superficial skin and muscle deep and abdomen margins and inverted, blackening and charring present small shots 30 in number recovered under-neath.On internal examination he found that there was two ounce blood in abdomen cavity.There was semi digested food, intestines were lacerated and full of gases and faecal matter.Bladder was also lacerated.In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.The accused Kripal was charged under Section 148, 307, 302, 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.HHe was also charged under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.All the accused persons were charged under Section 148/307/323/149 IPC.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.The accused persons while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the prosecution story.The defence suggested during cross-examination that the assault on Rajeev Kumar was taken in the Chapper of Ram Bharosey at about 4.00 a.m. when the marriage of daughter of Soney Lal was being held and there was some scuffle in that marriage and fire arm was also used and in that incident Rajeev sustained injuries and other accused persons also received injuries.In this respect all the accused persons have stated that out of enmity they have been falsely implicated in this case.In support of its case the prosecution has examined eight witnesses.Kamta Prasad (P.W. 1) is the complainant injured and eye witness.Arvind Kumar (P.W. 2) is injured and eye witness.Shahjadey (P.W. 3) is an eye witness.Dr. S.C. Saxena (P.W. 7) performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Rajeev.Hari Singh, S.I. (P.W. 5) held thejnquest on the dead body of Rajeev Kumar.Mohd. Mustqeem Khan (P.W. 8) S.I. is I.O. Constable Ram Bharosey (P.W. 6) is a formal witness who had presented the dead body before the doctor at the time of post mortem examination.The accused have not examined any witness in their defence.The factum of the death of Rajeev Kumar as a result of gun shot injuries sustained by him cannot be disputed.Dr. Arjun Kumar had examined Rajeev Kumar on 18-6-79 at 1.00 p.m. and found gun shot injuries on the said Rajeev Kumar.He has further stated that the injuries were dangerous to life and could cause death.Dr. S.C. Saxena (P.W. 7) who performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Rajeev Kumar on 20-6-79 has deposed that he had found gun shot injuries on the person of Rajeev.He has clearly stated that those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.There is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by Kamta, Ram Bharosey, Pati Ram, Arvind Kumar and Devi Dayal.Dr. Arjun Kumar (P.W. 2) proved the injury reports, who examined them on 18-6-79 at the Hospital except the injury of Rajeev Kumar who received gun shot injury which resulted in his death.The injuries of all other persons were simple injuries, which might have been caused by blunt weapon like Lathis.148/323/149 IPC would have been claimed to have been taken place.It has been further submitted that so for Kripal is concerned it is gathered from the prosecution evidence that not words have been used by the parties and at that stage Kripal fired aiming at Kamta Prasad which mis the target and hit his minor son a/a 9 years.Heard learned A.G.A. who supported the judgment of the Court below and further stated that though there was no injury by Kanta or sword as per medical evidence but still the fact remain that all of them have attack on Kamta Prasad and other who came to save Kamta Prasad, with the intention to finish him so the learned Court below was justified in holding guilty under Section 302/149 IPC.Duly considered the submissions from both sides and went through the evidences minutely.Since the parties are animical terms so with due caution and care we looked the evidence on the record.It has been amply proved by P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 that Rajeev Kumar received gun shot injury and he died out of gun shot injury.The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 remain all through unshaken and each of them corroborated the other in material particulars.The defence suggestion that Rajeev Kumar was injured during the marriage ceremony of Sone Lal does not get support from any evidence other than only suggestion and making statement while examination of the accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took (sic) The evidences of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 put beyond doubt that Rajeev Kumar was injured by the fire shot made by the country made pistol which was fired by the accused Kripal who had an intention to finish Kamta Prasad and it missed the target and it hit the innocent minor boy Rajeev Kumar who was a/a 9 years.Since under provocation Kripal fired from his country made pistol with the intention to finish Kamta Prasad which missed the target and hit his minor son Rajeev Kumar so we think that Kripal did not commit an offence Under Section 302 IPC but committed an offence u/S 304 IPC.The hot words were exchanged between them i.e. to say provocation came from whose side first cannot be ascertained.Kripal fired by country made pistol while he was in very exciting condition with an intention to finish Kamta Prasad but that fire shot resulted in the death of Rajeev Kumar so we hold that Kripal is held guilty for the offence u/S 304 IPC and justice would be met if he sentenced to R.I. for 10 years.We sentence him accordingly and find all other accused persons guilty for the offence u/Ss 148/323/149 IPC and we sentence each of them to R.I. for six months for each account.All the appellants are exempted from other charges.Sentences to run concurrently.The appeal thus stands partly allowed.If they do not surrender in that event the learned C.J.M. at Farrukhabad will take all measures in his command to get them produced before him and send them to jail to serve out the sentence.The exhibits be disposed of according to rules.Be it noted that the accused appellants will be entitled to get set off Under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,517,556 |
Criminal Revision Case against the judgment dated 2.3.2009 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry at Karaikal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner/accused by judgment dated 23.1.2008 in C.C.No.219 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Karaikal.The respondent-complainant filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused stating that on 23.9.2004 at about 8 am, near Sea Shore, Karukkalacherry, Neravy, the accused assaulted the de-facto complainant Swaminathan with a blue metal stone on his left cheek and hand and also assaulted Swaminathan's wife Anjammal and caught hold of her hair and pushed her down with an intention to outrage her modesty and thereby caused simple injuries to them due to wordy quarrel.The incident was witnessed by P.W.1 Ravi and P.W.2 Mariappan.Swaminathan went to the Police Station and gave a complaint in Ex.P-5 and the complaint has been received by P.W.4 Head Constable who registered a cases in Crime No.131 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 324 and 354 IPC and prepared Ex.P-4 FIR.He inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and prepared Ex.P-1 observation mahazar and seized M.O.1 under Ex.P-2 seizure mahazar.He sent Swaminathan to P.W.3 Dr.M.Balaji Rao who examined him and gave Ex.P-3 wound certificate and P.W.5 Dr.M.Danasegaran examined the wife of Swaminathan and issued Ex.P-6 wound certificate.P.W.6 Sub-Inspector of Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 354 IPC.The trial Court, after following the procedures, framed necessary charges against the accused and after considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and documentary evidence of Exs.P-1 to P-6 and the material object in M.O.1, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC and 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and simple imprisonment for three months respectively, and ordered to run the sentences concurrently.As against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner/accused preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.1 of 2008 before the appellate Court, which after considering the arguments of both sides' counsel, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the present Crl.Admittedly, he is alive, but he was not examined before the trial Court.The other witness is Anjammal, wife of Swaminathan, and the accused caught hold of her hair and pushed her down with an intention to outrage her modesty.Admittedly, the deponent/author of the document/Ex.P-5 complaint, was not examined before the trial Court.While perusing the records, it has been proved that the bailable warrant of the witnesses 1 and 4 (Swaminathan and Anjammal) had been issued on 27.7.2007, but no reason has been assigned as to why the bailable witness warrants were not executed and produced before the trial Court.It is relevant to consider the evidence of P.W.1 Ravi and P.W.2 Mariappan to find out as to whether the ingredients of Sections 354 and 324 IPC, have been made out.While considering the evidence of P.W.2, he stated that when he went for walking, he heard an alarm and that he witnessed that the revision petitioner/accused assaulting the said Swaminathan on his cheek and shoulder with M.O.1 granite stone.Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry at Karaikal.Judicial Magistrate-II, Karaikal.The Station House Officer,Neravy Police Station,Karaikal, Puducherry State.(Crime No.131 of 2004)The Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), High Court, Madras
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,802,325 |
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.2374/2018 Jabalpur, Dated :02.4.2018 Mr. S.B. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned G.A. for the State.Heard on I.A. No.4647/18, an application U/s.389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The appellants have been convicted U/s.120-B, 420, 467, 468, 467 read with Section 471 of I.P.C. and the maximum sentence of three years has been imposed U/s.467 of I.P.C. and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for 3 months, respectively.Looking to the short sentence of three years, the I.A. is allowed and it is directed that the remaining part of jail sentence of the appellants herein shall remain suspended and it is directed that the appellants herein shall be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.Call for the record of the trial Court and list immediately thereafter for orders on admission.C.C. as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge a ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, ou=P S, postalCode=482008, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=39687ae2c05d9fbaae8af68cd0db0f2d72ea51435fe1da821 DATTA e718b7963f8eeba, 2.5.4.45=0321009FFBC4775F25A882B8A6233418905D27AA9BED4 D5486CEF84C16DFB5884A7E01, cn=ASHISH DATTA Date: 2018.04.04 16:49:08 +05'30'
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,828,753 |
Rajesh Jha) under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P Act, P.S Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 304B, 498A I.P.C and Section 4 D.P. Act and he has been, further, sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, three years simple imprisonment and Rs.10000/- fine and, further, one year simple imprisonment and Rs. 5000/- fine respectively with usual order to undergo imprisonment of further three months and one month for default in payment of fine.Immediately after the marriage, Rajesh Jha started to torture his daughter.He was alcoholic and took drugs.He used to, abuse his daughter for dowry and daily after taking liquor, beat her.His daughter gave birth to two children namely, Adi aged about three years and Bony aged about two years.His daughter thrice came to his house, leaving her marital home but each time Rajesh Jha, after apologizing and promising that he would not repeat such behaviour in future, took her back.Rajesh Jha informed him on phone that his daughter was no more, he reached at the spot at 11:00 a.m. and saw blood stains in one room and in the other room and dead body was lying.There were marks of hanging on her neck.He believed that Rajesh Jha had murdered his daughter.In the past Rajesh Jha used to threaten him that he would murder the first informant.Request had been made that after registering the report, legal action be taken.On this report, chik F.I.R Exhibit (Ka-2) was scribed and Case Crime No. 621/09 was registered at P.S. Indirapuram and investigation was started inquest proceedings were held Exhibit (Ka-4), spot was inspected, witnesses were examined, postmortem on the dead body was conducted Exhibit (Ka-3) and after completing the investigation charge sheet Exhibit (Ka-11) against the present appellant was submitted.He has proved the inquest report and accompanying papers Exhibits (Ka-4) to (Ka-8).Rahul Srivastava (PW4) I.O/ Deputy S.P is the Investigating Officer.In his statement he has deposed the progress of the investigation and steps taken by him.He has proved site plan prepared by him Exhibit (Ka-9), recovery memo Exhibit (Ka-10), papers and articles given him by K.M Jha and identified them.Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2012 passed by Sri Mangal Prasad, Additional District and Sessions Judge (Court No. 7), Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 854 of 2009 (State Vs.In the Sessions Trial the accused was charged under Sections 498 A, 304 B and 120 B IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.P.C was recorded.In the defence three witnesses were examined namely, Rajesh Jha (DW1), Deepak Yadav (DW2) and Dr. Nishar (DW3).K.M Jha (PW1), has supported the version contained in the written report Exhibit (Ka-1) he has, further, disclosed the amounts spent by him on his married daughter on account of conduct of the present appellant.He has claimed and proved one paper to be written by the appellant and some endorsement made in English language by his daughter Exhibit (Ka-2).Dr. Anil Prakash (PW2) is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Anuradha on 23.03.2009 at 01:00 p.m. He has proved the postmortem report Exhibit (Ka-3) narrated the ante-mortem injuries and opined that the cause of death was smothering.The ante-mortem injuries recorded by the said witness are as under:Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm near right pinna.Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on front surface of the (left) leg 20 cm below knee joint.Contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on back surface of right leg, 8 cm above ankle joint.Jai Prakash Yadav (PW3) is Naib Tehsildar who conducted the inquest proceedings on 22.03.2009 on the dead body of Anuradha.He has further proved the charge sheet Exhibit (Ka-11), photograph of the marriage and C.D. of marriage are exhibited as material exhibits 25 and 26 respectively.Dinesh Kumar (PW5) is the Head Moharir who has scribed the chik F.I.R and made entries of the registration of Case Crime No. 621 of 2009 in the general diary.He has proved the chik F.I.R as Exhibit (Ka-12) and copy of the report of G.D Exhibit (Ka-13).Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal (PW6) was the Emergency Medical Officer at M.M.G Hospital, Ghaziabad, on 24.03.2009 when Constable Hari Shankar came to him with the appellant and handed over the request of the S.O Indirapuram for appellant's medical examination.According to him at 2:30 p.m, he examined the person of the appellant and prepared the injury report Exhibit (Ka-15).According to the witness at the time of medical examination on the body of the appellant following injuries were found:Blue contusion 6 cm x 4-1/2 cm in front of left forearm 6 cm above left wrist joint oval with teeth mark, 3 cm above and below the contusion.Blue contusion 4 cm x 2 cm in front left forearm 7 cm below elbow joint.Blue contusion 3 cm x 2 cm in front of right upper arm 2 cm above elbow joint.According to the Doctor duration of the injuries was estimated to be three days old and their nature was simple.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C the appellant has denied the fact that he had tortured his wife Anuradha for dowry or any other reason.According to him K.M Jha (PW1) has given false statement about his marital or personal life.He has claimed that Anuradha had committed suicide, false report was lodged by the first informant.All the payments claimed to be made by the first informant were actually made by him.Postmortem report has been wrongly prepared in collusion with the first informant.He has denied that Exhibit (Ka-2 ) was written by him or Anuradha.He claims that F.I.R was anti timed.His medical examination was a procured one and as the first informant wants to grab his movable and immovable property for this reason false prosecution has been launched, his wife was very ambitious and short tempered.She wanted to pursue her career but for the welfare of small children he did not permit her to accept any low paid job as his financial condition was very good.On account of this frustration she had committed suicide.Rajesh Jha also appeared as (DW1) and elaborated his earlier statement on oath with further details about his financial condition and payments claimed to be made by him.Deepak Yadav (DW2) is the President of Resident Welfare Association where the present appellant and the deceased used to reside.According to this witness, relations between the present appellant and his deceased wife were very good.According to his knowledge the appellant never tortured or treated his wife with cruelty.On 22.03.2009 at 08:00 a.m. he was telephonically informed by the present appellant that his wife Anu had ended her life, when he reached there appellant was weeping.Dr. Nishar (DW3) is the witness of the fact that on 24.01.2005 Smt. Anuradha Jha was brought by her husband Rajesh Kumar to hospital due to her taking over dose of anti depressants.He has proved the page 1 of the treatment report as Exhibit (Kha-1) .He has, further, stated that Anuradha was referred to Dr. Ramjeet Jaiswal, a Psychiatrist who endorsed his opinion as Exhibit (Kha-2), thereafter he has proved opinion of Dr. Mukesh Gupta Exhibit (Kha-3), observation note of Dr. Faiyaz Exhibit (Kha-4) of Dr. Meenakshi Seth Exhibit (Kha-5) of Dr. Ankit Gupta Exhibit (Kha-6) of Dr. Amit Gupta Exhibit (Kha-7) observation noted by Dr. Ramjeet Jaiswal Exhibit (Kha-8) and advised for discharge signed by Dr. Faiyaz Exhibit (Kha-9).He has also proved the record of the treatment as Exhibit (Kha-10) and filed it before the Court.The learned Trial Judge after hearing arguments of the counsel for the parties has found the present appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 304 B I.P.C and Section 4 of D.P Act. The learned Trial Judge has also recorded his finding that against the appellant in the present case, facts do not make out offence of criminal conspiracy.Thereafter he withdrew/dropped the charge of Section 120B I.P.C. The learned Trial Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties sentenced the present appellant in the manner stated hereinabove.We have heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A for the State at length and perused the record.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,851,240 |
Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 18.08.12 in Sessions Case No.159/11 arising out of FIR No.516/07 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar by which the appellant-Naresh Kumar was held guilty under Section 304(1)/34 IPC.By an order dated 30.08.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine `5,000/-.The prosecution case, as projected in the charge-sheet, was that on 24.07.2007, Daily Diary (DD) No.23B (Ex.PW-14/A) was recorded at 9.37 a.m. at police station, Prashant Vihar on getting information from mobile number 9958386072 about an individual being mercilessly beaten near Metro Station, Sector-9, Rohini.The Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 1 of 16 investigation was assigned to HC Bharat Lal who with Ct.Mahabir Singh went to the spot.They came to know that the victim had already been taken to BSA hospital.Since the spot of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Police Post, Rohini, necessary intimation was given to the concerned police officers there.ASI Prem Singh, on receipt of call vide DD No.13 at 11.45 a.m. went to the spot along with Ct.Virender from that police post.After reaching at BSA hospital, he collected the MLC of injured Nand Lal Thakur and met HC Bharat Lal and Ct.Mahabir Singh.The injured was 'unfit' to make statement.At 12.30 p.m. when Nand Lal Thakur regained consciousness, ASI Prem Singh recorded his statement (Ex.PW-22/A) and lodged First Information Report by making endorsement over it under Sections 308/341/506/34 IPC.In the statement, Nand Lal Thakur disclosed that at about 9.25 a.m. when he was going to Rohini courts on foot after getting down from a bus and reached in District Park, Sector 14, Rohini, he was stopped by four/five individuals; two of them were armed with baseball bat and wooden danda; and they inflicted injuries to him.They asked him to withdraw the case filed against them or else they would kill him.He identified Naresh Kumar r/o Budh Vihar, as one of the assailants and claimed to identify the others also.Further investigation was taken over by SI K.P.Tomar.On the basis Crl.PW-3 (Dr.Bhawna Jain) medically examined the patient on 24.07.2007 by MLC (Ex.PW-3/A).Various injuries on different body parts of the patient were described therein.PW-4 (Dr.After death, the same was treated as dying declaration.PW-17 (Ct.Virender Singh), who accompanied him to the hospital, also corroborated his version in its entirety.He also deposed that at about 12.30 or 12.40 p.m., the victim was declared 'fit for statement' by the doctor and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement.Rukka was handed over to him and he lodged First Information Report with the Duty Officer.In the cross-examination, the statement made by the victim as recorded by the Investigating Officer was not challenged.PW-15 (Ct.Charan Singh), Computer Operator, at PS Prashant Vihar, at about 2.05 p.m. recorded FIR (Ex.PW-15/A) after getting rukka.He was not cross-examined.From the statements of these witnesses, no sound reasons exist to infer that the victim did not make statement (Ex.PW- 22/A) to the Investigating Officer Prem Singh (PW-22).The name of the appellant emerged in the statement (Ex.MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) records the arrival time of the patient at BSA hospital as 10.30 a.m. At 10.40 a.m., the victim was 'unfit for statement'.The MLC contains another endorsement 'fit for statement' at 12.30 p.m.. Dr.Bhawna Jain (PW-3) who medically examined the victim with the alleged history of assault by 'some people' proved MLC (Ex.PW-3/A).In the cross-examination, she revealed that the patient was under proper treatment in the hospital and left against medical advice.She was not questioned as to when the victim came to senses and how and in what manner endorsement 'fit for statement' appeared on MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) at 12.30 p.m. Nothing was suggested to her if the patient remained unconscious or was unfit to make statement till his discharge from the hospital by relatives, PW-3 (Dr.Their grievance was that it was not recorded correctly and the Investigating Officer left the name of some of the assailants.A.No.1047/2012 Page 9 of 16 Statement (Ex.PW-22/A) contains signature of the victim.The appellant did not challenge that it were not victim's signature.A.No.1047/2012 Page 2 of 16 of secret information, Naresh was apprehended near gate No.2, Japanese Park, Rohini in the evening same day and at his instance Parveen his associate in the crime, was arrested who recovered a baseball bat from the bushes.On the night intervening 28/29.07.07, Nand Lal Thakur succumbed to the injuries in the hospital and DD No.9A (Ex.PW-28/B) was recorded.Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted and Section 302 IPC was added.During investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Naresh and Praveen.Ram Niwas and Rakesh were kept in column No.2 in the charge-sheet.Naresh Kumar and Praveen were duly charged and brought to trial.The prosecution examined 28 witnesses to establish their guilt.In 313 statements, they denied their complicity in the crime and claimed false implication.They did not examine any witness in defence.On appreciation of the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court by the impugned judgment held the appellant- Naresh Kumar guilty for committing the offence mentioned previously.It is pertinent to note that the Praveen was acquitted of the charges.The Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 3 of 16 State did not prefer any appeal to challenge his acquittal and conviction of the appellant-Naresh Kumar under Section 304 (1)/34 IPC instead of 302 IPC.A.No.1047/2012 Page 1 of 16A.No.1047/2012 Page 2 of 16A.No.1047/2012 Page 3 of 16I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.Appellant's counsel urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective.PW-1 (Sunil Kumar), the informant, did not support the prosecution regarding identity of the appellant and was not declared 'hostile' by the prosecution.Dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer is highly suspect and doubtful.The victim was 'unfit' to make statement as he never regained consciousness after the occurrence.No permission from the concerned doctor before recording the dying declaration was obtained and it is mystery who had declared the victim 'fit for statement' at 12.30 p.m. that day in the absence of any certificate/endorsement of the examining doctor.Since the condition of the patient was critical, his family members got him discharged against medical advice and shifted him to Jaipur Golden hospital.The family members of the victim accused the Investigating Officer for not recording his statement correctly and lodged a complaint in that regard.The appellant, who is a Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 4 of 16 resident of Rithala Village never resided or carried out any business at Budh Vihar and it was a case of mistaken identity.Co-accused (Praveen) was acquitted on the same set of evidence though crime weapon was alleged to have been recovered at his instance.The appellant had no motive to inflict injuries to the victim.Learned Additional Public urged that the judgment is based upon fair appraisal of the evidence.The Investigating Officer had no ulterior motive to fabricate or manipulate the statement (Ex.PW-22/A) of the deceased-Nand Lal Thakur.A.No.1047/2012 Page 4 of 16Undisputedly, victim-Nand Lal Thakur suffered a homicidal death.Medical evidence is clear on this point.Following external injuries were found on the body:-(i) Diffuse coalesced bruises all over right arm, right elbow and upper two third of right forearm with ill define rail-road patterns over outer aspect of arm and at places over forearm, blueish- greenish in colour.(ii) Diffuse bruises all over medial aspect of left arm in area 8' X 3' inches.(iii) Diffuse coalesced rail-road patterns bruises in area 20 X 14 cm over right side back of chest.A.No.1047/2012 Page 5 of 16(iv) Diffuse bruises with rail road patterns 10 X 8 cm area over right side chest between right nipple and axilla.(v) Coalesced rail-road patterns bruises 12 X 7 cm area over right knee placed antero-lateral aspect.(vi) Surgical stitch wound 11 cm long over back of right forearm.On exploration there was fracture of right ulna bone which was fixed with nails and plate.(vii) Partly stitched laceration 5 cm long with diffuse bruising in area 15 X 12 cm around with ill defined rail-road patterns over upper middle front of right leg.(viii) Coalesced rail-road patterns bruises in area of 14 X 9 cm over front and lateral aspects left knee.(ix) Coalesced bruises with rail-road patterns scattered all over back of left thigh, left knee and left leg.(x) Surgical stitched wound about 13 cm long over middle front of left leg and 8 cm long over upper front of left leg.On exploration fracture of left tibia was found fixed with nails and plate.In his opinion, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard blunt forced impacts.On 27.09.07, he examined the crime weapon i.e. baseball bat and was of the opinion that the injuries with rail-road patterns mentioned in the post-mortem report were possible with the said baseball bat or similar type of such bat.The victim was hale Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 6 of 16 and hearty before the incident.Various injuries of different dimension inflicted to him on his body proved fatal and he expired after five days.Apparently, it was a case of culpable homicide.A.No.1047/2012 Page 6 of 16Crucial testimony is that of PW-22 (Prem Singh, the then ASI) who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 24.07.2007 at BSA hospital.He deposed that on 24.07.2007, on receipt of Daily Dairy 13 (Ex.PW-21/A) at around 11.45 a.m. he and Ct.Virender went to BSA hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Nand Lal Thakur who was unfit to make statement.He (SI Prem Singh) waited in the hospital and at about 12.30 p.m. when the victim was declared 'fit for statement' by the doctor, he recorded his statement (Ex.PW-22/A).He lodged First Information Report by making endorsement from point 'C' to 'C' on Ex.PW-22/A. A broken danda (Ex.P-1) handed over to him in the hospital was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-12/A).In the cross-examination, he disclosed that he reached the hospital at about 12/12.15 p.m. and did not meet any family member of the injured there at that time.Apparently, the testimony of the witness regarding recording of the dying declaration of the victim remained unchallenged in the cross-examination.A.No.1047/2012 Page 7 of 16 him was not questioned in the cross-examination.No ulterior motive was assigned to him to fabricate or manufacture a false declaration.The statement (Ex.Initially, the FIR lodged on the day of incident itself was for the commission of offence under Section 308/341/506/34 IPC.When the victim succumbed to the injuries on 29.07.2007, Section 302 IPC was added.PW-22/A) on 24.07.2007 itself Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 8 of 16 and he was arrested that day at around 08.30 p.m. At no stage the appellant suspected the authenticity of the statement (Ex.PW-22/A) recorded by the Investigating Officer.Bhawna Jain) had no motive/reason to furnish a false certificate.PW-2 (Madhu Thakur), victim's daughter, and PW-8 (Durga Devi), deceased's wife, have also deposed that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of victim in the hospital.A.No.1047/2012 Page 7 of 16A.No.1047/2012 Page 8 of 16A.No.1047/2012 Page 9 of 16On scanning the statement (Ex.PW-22/A), it reveals that Nand Lal Thakur gave detailed account of the incident and stated that on 24.07.2007 at around 09.25 a.m. when he was going on foot to Rohini Court (where he was a Reader in the court of Sh.Vijay Shankar, MM) after alighting from the bus through District Park, Sector 14, he was surrounded and obstructed by four/five boys.Two of them caught hold of him and the other two who were armed with baseball and wooden danda gave beatings to him.They threatened him to kill in case he did not withdraw the case.He identified Naresh r/o Budh Vihar doing cable business/job as one of the assailants with whom he was acquainted prior to the occurrence.He claimed to identify his associates.Obviously, Naresh r/o Budh Vihar, was named as one of the assailants who inflicted injuries to the victim.The victim gave sufficient description to fix Naresh's identity and informed that he was involved in the cable business.His identity was never questioned or challenged during trial in the cross- examination of the Investigating Officer or family members of the victim.It has come on record that Ram Niwas who was one of the suspects, shown in column No.2, was facing trial in a rape case.The appellant- Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 10 of 16 Naresh is his nephew and was associated with him in his cable business.PW-2 (Madhu Thakur), victim's daughter, admitted that Naresh used to reside at village Rithala.Specific suggestion was put to her that Naresh was falsely implicated because she had personal enmity with Ram Niwas with whom Naresh was working.PW-8 (Durga Devi), deceased's wife, disclosed that Ram Niwas cable operator in the locality where she was residing, was known to her and he was an accused in a rape case in which her daughter was a prosecutrix.She admitted that Naresh was Ram Niwas's nephew.She disclosed that she knew Naresh as he was also working with Ram Niwas in operating cable network.It is relevant to note that Budh Vihar and Rithala are located nearby.The appellant's plea that it was a case of mistaken identity has no force at all and deserves outright rejection.A.No.1047/2012 Page 10 of 16In the dying declaration, the victim disclosed that the crime weapon was a baseball bat.This finds corroboration in the testimonies of informant PW-1 (Sunil Kumar) and PW-11 (Virender Singh Mann).On 24.07.2007, PW-1 (Sunil Kumar) present at the District Park noticed that two or three persons were giving beatings to an individual with a baseball bat.He deposed that after some time, PCR van came and he pointed out the place where Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 11 of 16 the victim was given beatings.He also showed them the broken danda of the base ball.In the cross-examination, he informed that the PCR van came to the spot within 10/15 minutes.PCR official summoned the ambulance.The victim was unable to speak at that time.The two pieces of base ball bat were taken by PCR officials.A.No.1047/2012 Page 11 of 16PW-11 (Virender Singh Mann) posted at CATS Ambulance station, Mangol Puri deposed that at about 09.50 a.m., on receipt of PCR call, he along with Ajay Kumar Sharma went to the spot.The victim was in a delirious condition; was not in a position to disclose anything and had injuries on his hands, legs.He was admitted vide MLC No.3832 CR No.61504 in BSA hospital.His personal belongings were handed over to the duty constable.Form (Ex.PW-11/A) was filled.Local police met him in the hospital and he pointed out the place where the injured was found lying.In the cross-examination, he disclosed that he had handed over the base ball bat to the duty constable.PW-12 (ASI Vijay Kumar) duty constable in BSA hospital, also corroborated his version and stated that Incharge of CATS Ambulance, Mr.V.K.Maan had admitted Nand Lal Thakur in the hospital.Base ball/danda on which a label of RBK (Dhoni) smash was affixed, was produced by him stating that it was found lying Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 12 of 16 near the injured at the spot.This bat (Ex.P-1) was handed over subsequently to ASI Prem Singh.A.No.1047/2012 Page 12 of 16Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer.It is a settled proposition of law that dying declaration can be made a basis of conviction.There can be no dispute that for basing the conviction on the dying declaration, it must pass all the tests of voluntariness, the fit condition of mind of the maker of the dying declaration and the witness not being influenced by any other factors and truthfulness of the declaration (Laxman vs.In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the statement (Ex.PW- 22/A) was the result of any tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination.There was no material on record to suspect that the Investigating Officer had any animus against the appellant or was in any way interested in fabricating the dying declaration.The deceased fully possessed the power to understand the implication of his statement and the same was made without any exterior influence or ulterior motive.The victim was fair enough not to name the other assailants though he had specific grudge against Ram Niwas and the trial court despite his name shown in column No.2 in the charge-sheet, did not initiate any Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 13 of 16 proceedings against him.Even Praveen who faced trial with the appellant, was not named by the victim and was acquitted of the charge.The deceased was hale and hearty prior to the incident and was on his way to attend his duty.He had direct confrontation with the assailants during day time for sufficient duration and had reasonable and clear opportunity to observe and identify them.Since the appellant was acquainted with him prior to the incident, the victim was able to name him in his dying declaration.The other assailants who were not known to him and perhaps were hired goons could not be identified and named by him in his statement.A.No.1047/2012 Page 13 of 16The prosecution has adduced evidence that Ram Niwas, appellant's uncle, was facing criminal proceedings in a rape case where deceased's daughter, was a prosecutrix.PW-8 (Smt.Durga Devi) clearly deposed that her husband was murdered because of the enmity due to rape case of her daughter in which Ram Niwas etc. were the accused.She and her husband were also implicated in case FIR No.502/2006 (Ex.PW-9/A) registered at PS Rohini lodged by Rekha Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 14 of 16 (Krishan Pal @ Babloo's wife) against them.The appellant being Ram Niwas's close relative had motive to inflict injuries and criminally intimidate the victim to withdraw the said criminal case lodged against his uncle.A.No.1047/2012 Page 14 of 1610. PW-1 (Sunil Kumar) was the informant to the police.In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he did not claim to recognize the assailants.DD No.23B recorded on the basis of information conveyed by him even does not record the number of assailants.When PW-11 (Virender Singh Maan) went to the spot, he did not find him there.Only PCR officials were found at the spot.PW-1 claimed that he left the spot between 09.30-9.45 a.m. He did not stay to record his statement and to inform the police about the number of assailants and their broad features.Only in the cross-examination, he disclosed that he could identify the assailants and the accused facing trial before the court were not the assailants.Since this witness was not relied on as an eye-witness, his statement in the cross-examination that the accused persons were not the assailants has little value.Acquittal of co- accused Praveen is inconsequential.Praveen was acquitted for lack of evidence and his name did not find mention in the dying declaration.The Crl.A.No.1047/2012 Page 15 of 16 prosecution was able to establish appellant's guilt by leading cogent and clinching evidence.The impugned judgment is based upon fair appreciation of the evidence and needs no interference.Since an old man was mercilessly beaten and multiple injuries were inflicted on his body without any fault of his, the sentence awarded to the appellant cannot be termed unreasonable or excessive.A.No.1047/2012 Page 15 of 16In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed as unmerited.Trial court record be sent back forthwith along with the copy of this order.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE April 16, 2014/sa Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,918,685 |
The Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Sahib Singh also identifies the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 as well as the complainant in Court.CRL.M.C. No.3568/2014 Page 1 of 7Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioners 4, 5, 6 and 7 being ladies, and all residents of Sitapur (UP), have been unable to come today.M.A. No.12283/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.M.C. No.3568/2014 & Crl.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.371/2011 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC on 05.08.2011 at police station Jagat Puri, on the ground that the parties have settled the matter amicably.2. Issue Notice.Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, accepts notice.Counsel for the petitioner states that he has filed the vaklatnama on CRL.M.C. No.3568/2014 Page 1 of 7 behalf of the complainant as well.Rev. No.102/2013, that was moved by the petitioners, as a result of which, a number of meetings took place before the Mediator, and ultimately, on 05.07.2013, the matter came to be settled.A copy of the Settlement Deed dated 05.07.2013 has also been filed in this petition.I am of the opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been settled, and the first petitioner and the complainant have obtained a divorce by mutual consent; and the complainant is now not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby greatly reducing the chances of conviction.Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.371/2011 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC on 05.08.2011 at police station Jagat Puri, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition, along with Crl.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,952,273 |
as (Rejected) C.R.M. 8925 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Chandrakona P.S. Case No.303 of 2019 dated 25.08.2019 under Sections 341/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Debasish Ghosh.... Petitioner.Mr. Ranajit Roy....for the Petitioner.Mr. Tanmoy Kr......for the State.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,013,776 |
(Passed on 03.01.2018) As per S.K. Gangele, J:The Trial Court held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded the sentence of life.Prosecution story in brief is that accused-appellant was living with the wife of his younger brother Laxmi Bai along with her daughter Rinki aged about one year.On 16.2.1994 appellant came in drunken condition, he was quarreling with Laxmi Bai, in that event he had thrown the girl on the floor.The girl was in the lap of her mother.Due to aforesaid act girl was died.The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station.Police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet.Appellant abjured the 2 guilt during trial.Ramkumar P. W.2 and Shyamabail P. W. 3 are the eyewitnesses of the case.Ramkumar P. W.2 deposed that the accused was living in his house on rent along with Laxmi, who was the wife of his younger brother and one daughter Rinki.Rinki was born from the wedlock of Laxmi and younger brother of the appellant.In the month of February I was sitting in the courtyard of my house and I had seen that quarrel was going on between appellant and his wife Laxmi and thereafter appellant snatched girl Rinki from the lap of Laxmi and thrown her on the floor due to which child was died on the spot.I lodged report of the incident at Police Station (Ex. P.2) and signed the same.At that time Shyama Bai and Sushila Bai were also present.The appellant was in a drunken position.Police prepared spot map (Ex. P.5) and I signed the same.In his cross-examination he admitted the 3 fact that when he called brother-in-law of the appellant and came there the appellant was unconscious and he was lying on the floor.Shyama Bai (P.W.3) is neighbour of the appellant.She deposed that appellant was living on rent in the house of Tikaram.Appellant was quarreling with his wife in between quarrel he had taken Rinki from the lap of her mother and thrown on the ground due to which she died, at that time I was rolling Bidis.The court held appellant guilty and awarded sentence of life.Shri Anand Nayak and Shri D. D. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant have submitted that even if the evidence of prosecution is accepted as it is then the offence alleged to be committed by the appellant will fall under Section 304-I of IPC and for that the appellant has already undergone near about ten years jail sentence including remissions and prayed for allowing the appeal up to the above extent.Contrary to this Shri S. D. Khan, learned G. A. has submitted that the appellant applied sufficient force to kill the girl.The intention of the appellant was to kill the girl.Hence, the trial Court has awarded proper sentence to the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.I had seen all the incident.Mangal Singh (P. W. 4) investigation officer deposed that Ramkumar lodged the report (Ex.P.2) at the Police Station.Thereafter, I prepared dead body Panchnama (Ex. P.4) and signed the same.I also prepared spot map (Ex.P.5) and signed the same.P. W. 1 G. C. Dubey is the Doctor.I noticed one lacerated wound size 2" x2" on the head and there was a contusion.On internal examination I noticed that there was a hematoma in temporal region and the deceased was died due to aforesaid head injury.The incident was happened on 16.2.1994 at about 3.00 O'clock in the evening.FIR was lodged by Ramkumar (P.W.2) at around 5.15 O'clock.There is no other evidence produced by the prosecution except this.From the evidence of P. W. 2, P. W.3, FIR and evidence of Doctor P. W.1 this fact has been established that the deceased was died due to injury caused by the appellant.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,092,815 |
C. No. 14881/2012 18.01.2013 Petitioner by Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,160,925 |
Heard on IA No.5731/2017, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Appellant has been convicted under Sections 450 and 376of IPC with a direction to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/- separately in both the counts.It is submitted the learned counsel for the appellant that subsequently an offence has been registered against the prosecutirx under Immoral Traffic Act and her evidence is not reliable.Prosecutrix P.W.1 deposed that appellant had come to her house from roof and committed rape with her.She admitted the fact that appellant used to come her house, she also used to meet him alone.She also admitted that she had deposed in favour of the appellant in another case.In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and nature of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, IA is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) by the appellant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he be released on bail with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 9.4.2018 and on other dates as may be notified by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.C. C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE kkc
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,226,698 |
The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as a District Revenue Officer cum Additional District Executive Magistrate Pudukottai.The defacto complainant along with others were visiting and monitoring the restoration and relief works, which were carried out over the places, where the devastation has taken place on 16.11.2018 early hours due to “Gaja” cyclone.On 17.11.2018, at about 6 'O' clock, the officials visited the “Gaja” cyclone affected place viz., 'Alangudi' along with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangudi, the Block Development Officer, Thiruvarankulam, on the vehicles belonged to the Government, bearing Reg.TN 55 G 0649, TN55G 0591, TN 55 G 0644, TN 55 G 0648 and TN 55 G 0397 respectively.The Restoration Team were travelling through Kallangudi, Sikkapatti, Sooranvidhuthi, Vellangulam and receiving the grievance from the general public and attending the rescue and relief work on those areas.When the crew reached the Keeramangalmhttp://www.judis.nic.in way through Kothamanagalam, they came to know 5 that some of the agricultural officials such as, Joint Director and Assistant Director and others were detained by the Villagers, while they were performing their assessment work near Kuravar Colony of Keeramangalam.While proceeding to that place, suddenly a mob, about 500 Villagers, consisting of men and women, gathered and waylaid with fallen trees.Thereafter, the respondents herein with iron rod , kerosone bottles, flamed out the tyres on the road.Among the accused Duraiarasan, Pandian, Ranjith, Arun, Matheena Ravi and Piraman gave trouble to them and violently pierced the tyres of Government Vehicles using screw driver and knives.Further, some of the villagers threw stone on the Government vehicles.In the occurrence, some of the Government Officials got injured.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondents/ accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai in Cr.The Inspector of Police, Keeramangalam Police Station had filed the present petition, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused / respondents by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai in Crl.M.P No.3122 of 2018 dated 20.11.2018 for offences under Sections 147,148, 341, 294(b), 285, 324, 333,435, 307 of IPC r/w.3(1) of TNPPDL Act.The accused turned the situation violent and raised slogans against the Government.Further, the mob, unlawfully assembled together, abused the Government officials, restrained them from discharging their official duties and pelted stones on them.In the said circumstances, the accused were arrested by the Inspector of Police, Keeramangalam Police Station, on 18.11.2018, and the learned Magistrate remanded them on the same day.Thereafter, the accused moved an application for bail before the learned District Sessions Judge, Pudukottai and upon hearing on either side, the learned Sessions Judge, granted the relief of bail to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in accused with certain conditions.5.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the Petitioner / State would submit that the act of the accused is serious in nature and without taking into consideration of the entire situation, the learned Sessions Judge, granted the relief of bail to the accused.The accused had indulged in destruction of public and private properties, which caused huge loss to the Government and hence, the Court below has not taken into consideration the relevant materials, while releasing the accused on bail, that to, when the situation is still volatile.Further, injuries were caused to the Revenue Officials, public and police officials and they were immediately taken to the hospital for treatment.Hence, he prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents / accused would submit that the respondents herein are poor agriculturalists and daily wagers.They were severely affected by the natural calamity and lost their home, livelihood, and suffering a lot.After arrest the respondents/accused were kept in a 'Kalyana Mandapam' and they were not provided with adequate water and food and even they were not allowed to attend natural calls.They were treated in an inhuman way.After their release on bail, as per the order of Court of Sessions, they complied with the conditions regularly, without any default.He would further submit that respondentshttp://www.judis.nic.in / accused are not indulging in any activities against the 7 State, but instead, they joined together and stand united, by way of protest, for the inaction on the part of the officials to meet out their immediate need of shelters and starvation, due to 'Gaja' storm.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.Admittedly, on 20.11.2018 the bail was granted to the respondent, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai after giving notice, opportunity and hearing the submissions of the Public Prosecutor with condition that the petitioners/accused t,o appear and sign before respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for one month.Of course, the High Courts, being superior Court in the hierarchy of Courts, can cancel even bail granted by the Sessions Court, under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., But, in the present case, the bail was granted to the accused, on condition that they should report before the Keeramangalam Police Station daily at 10.00 am for a period of one month.http://www.judis.nic.in In this case, the accused have complied with the 10 conditions imposed by the Court below, which is not disputed by the prosecution.The bail cancellation application stands dismissed.22.02.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No aav ToThe Inspector of Police Keeramangalam Police Station Pudukottai DistrictThe Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Maduraihttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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.