Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

10K

like 0

It is not disputed by the appellant that the deceased Hansa Kuwar was his wife.The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.11.2006 at about 10:00 in the night after hearing some clamour, Gopal Singh woke up, came out of the house and saw the appellant having sword in his hand and shouting that he has killed his wife.Neighbours Mokam Singh and Raghunath @ Chotelal also came out of their houses.They immediately called 2 Criminal Appeal No.1254/2007 Bahadur Singh, who also came and saw the appellant shouting at his door that he has killed his wife.He was having blood stained sword in his hand.He also set his house on fire.Bahadur called Salam Khan.They all pacified the appellant, took the sword from his hand and tied him with a pole and went inside the room and found dead body of the wife of the appellant lying on the floor.Her bed was burnt.Parents of the appellant were not in the village at that time, therefore, Bahadur sent Gopal and called uncle (elder brother of father of the appellant) Prahlad Singh, who asked Gopal to intimate the police.Gopal informed the police station Kurawar on telephone.His information was taken on record in Roznamcha Sanha.SHO Hitendra Rathore, who was on patrol, was informed on wireless.He directly rushed to the spot, where he found the appellant sitting amongst villagers and inside the house of the appellant, dead body of his wife was lying.There were several injuries on her body.Some burnt or semi burnt clothes were also lying there.Bahadur Singh narrated the incident before him.He (SHO Hitendra Rathore) deduced it as Dehati Nalishi Ex.Merg intimation Ex.P/19 was also recorded at the same time and spot map was also prepared.Panch witnesses were called and Panchnama Lash was prepared.Several articles like burnt/semi burnt clothes, plain as well as soil smeared with blood, bangles made by wax (Lakh), some pieces of Lakh, nylon shoes, hair of the deceased were also seized vide memo Ex.The appellant was arrested on the spot.His blood stained shirt was seized vide Ex.The appellant was intermittently becoming apprehensive and excited.DW 3 deposed that on 20-4-1992, he examined the appellant brought by his wife.There was a history of psychiatric illness in his father at the age of 65 years and in 1989 his father ran away from the house.People used to take advantage of his mental condition and cheat him.After marriage, his mental condition worsened.On examination, he was found suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.The patient had visual hallucinations (seeing images of wife and children).He was brought to hospital 25 times as above.The nature of delusions thus may change from persecutory to the grandiose type.He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner.The patient usually retains his memory and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversation is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering.When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others.(Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edn.)Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known but heredity plays a part.The irritation and excitement are effects of illness.(Delivered on 11/07/2019) Per : Virender Singh, J. :The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under section 302 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation recorded vide judgment dated 14.09.2007 by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghar District Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.18/2007, therefore, he is before this Court.A sword kept near a platform (Chabutra), which was kept by the villagers after 3 Criminal Appeal No.1254/2007 taking it from the appellant, was also seized.On the basis of Dehati Nalishi crime No.330/2006 under section 302 of the IPC was registered.The dead body was sent for post-mortem, which revealed the death was due to the injuries caused to the deceased and that the death was homicidal in nature.After completing the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet.The accused is charged tried and convicted as stated in para no.1 above .The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment of the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts available on record.The learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and in relying upon the statements of interested witnesses and in discarding the defense version.The learned trial Court has committed error in not appreciating that no evidence regarding intention or motive was available on record, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.The fact that on the alleged date, time and place, Hansa Kunwar died due to fatal injuries and her death was homicidal in nature is not challenged by the appellant, therefore, we need not to discuss the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court to establish this fact.Before the Trial Court, the prosecution has examined Bahadursingh (PW-1), Gopal S/o Dayaram (PW-2), Salam Khan (PW-3), Prahaladsingh (PW-4), Raghunathsingh @ Chhotelal (PW-5), Gopalsingh S/o Pratap Singh (PW-6), Sagir Khan (PW-7), Dilip Singh (PW-10) and Vishnu Prasad (PW-11).Though, out of these witnesses, some have turned 4 Criminal Appeal No.1254/2007 hostile or have not supported the case of the prosecution and some of them were little hesitant to reveal complete truth before the Court but sum and substantive of the statements of these witnesses or cumulative effect of the evidence given by them is that on the date of the incident the appellant was shouting outside the house that he has killed his wife and set the house ablazed.He was having blood stained sword in his hand.people gathered there and tried to pacify him.They exhorted him and when he calmed-down, they took the sword from his hand and tied him with a pole.They called his uncle (elder brother of father) and were waiting for him.In the meantime the appellant requested them to untied him assuring them that he will not flee.He was untied and set with the people present there calmly and quietly.After some time his uncle came, who advised to report the matter to the police and accordingly; the police was informed.The information was recorded as merg intimation (Ex.P/19).The police reached on the spot, deduced Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/4), prepared memo of corpse (Ex.P/3), sent the dead body for postmortem and received the report (Ex.P/18), sketched spot map (Ex.P/5), seized the sword (Ex.P/6), seized plain and blood smudged soil (Ex.P/7), arrested the accused (Ex.P/1), seized several articles like burnt/semi burnt clothes, bangles made by wax (Lakh), some pieces of Lakh, nylon shoes, hair of the deceased (Ex.P/8), arrested the appellant and seized his blood stained shirt (Ex.P/12).On the basis of Dehati Nalishi FIR No.330/2006 under section 302 of the IPC was registered.The post-mortem revealed that the death was due to the injuries caused to the deceased and that the 5 Criminal Appeal No.1254/2007 death was homicidal in nature.To bolster his contention, the learned counsel referred particular parts of the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses.He also referred statements of witnesses examined in defence, namely, Rampalsingh (DW-1), Shivrajsingh (DW-Deposition of the defence witnesses are more or less the same.They have also stated that earlier the appellant was not normal rather he was insane.He used to do abnormal activities like jumping in the well, tarnishing his clothes, shouting abuses in public or doing such other abnormal activities, earlier also once he poured kerosene on his wife, he was suffering from Schizophrenia (Dr. S. K. Tandan (DW-4), but none of them have specifically stated that at the time of the incident he was unsound mind or was under treatment for insanity or some other such diseases or was doing some abnormal activities or was unable to understand pros and cons of his act.The law is well settled that exemption provided under Section 84 of the IPC is available only when it is established that at the time of the incident due to unsoundness of mind the appellant was unable to understand the nature or result of his act.Section 84, which provides the exception reads thus:-Act of a person of unsound mind.-- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 144 at page 751 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:Criminal Appeal No.1254/2007On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant to establish the plea of unsoundness of mind, drew our attention to the depositions of Dr Arun (DW 2) and Dr Pramod (DW 3).The case history and other proved medical record shows that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.He was an indoor patient at a government hospital from 28-10-1993 to 5-11-1993 for getting treatment for the said ailment.He was examined by DW 3 on 20-4-1992 having visited the said doctor with his wife.He suffered from suspicious ideas, persecutory delusions, loss of sleep and excitement and was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic.The Division Bench of the High Court with reference to the conduct of the accused seen before the incident, has arrived at the conclusion that he was working on a plan on the day he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 31-7-Criminal Appeal No.1254/2007 2003, there were no signs of unsoundness of mind.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This is an appeal under section 14-A of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, preferred by the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail against the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Umariya (M.P.) in connection with crime no.442/2016 whereby application filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with crime no.442/16 registered at Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan (AJK), Umariya, for the offence under sections 147, 148, 186, 294, 332, 333, 353 and 506 of the IPC and 3(1) (da)(dha) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the appellants/accused is that appellants along with other 10 to 12 persons beaten the Mining Inspector Prabhat Kumar with kicks and fists and irod rods, humiliated him by referring to his caste; intimidated him to kill with a view to deter him from discharge of his official duty as a Mining Inspector.During the incident, Prabhat Kumar sustained grievous injury.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are innocent and not committed any offence.They are reputed person of the society and if they are arrested, their image will be tarnished.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the appellants be entitled on anticipatory bail.Learned PL for the respondent/State opposes the submissions on behalf of the appellants and states that against the appellants there is sufficient material to connect them with the alleged crime and they have also committed the crime under Section 3(1) (da)(dha) of the SC/ST( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the aforesaid Prabhat Kumar belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and, therefore, prayed for rejection of the bail application.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this impugned order is not required to be interfered with.Hence, appeal is rejected.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE pm

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment, for offence under Section 306 of IPC sentenced them to undergo nine years rigorous imprisonment and to pay of fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 304B of IPC sentenced them to undergo nine years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2.The case of the prosecution is that the 1st appellant is the son of the 2nd appellant.After the marriage, they were residing at Aziz Nagar, Mathavaram.The 2nd appellant was also residing with them.On 26.09.2004, the appellants had demanded dowry of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the deceased to be got from her parents.Unable 2/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 to bear this, on 26.09.2004 the deceased poured kerosene on herself and committed self-immolation and died.Between the period of marriage from 11.06.2004 to 26.09.2004, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused by demanding dowry often.Initially a demand of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was yielded by PW1/father of the deceased and thereafter, the second demand of Rs.30,000/- could not be met by him immediately.This led to continuous harassment of the deceased by the accused and thereby pushed her to commit suicide by self- immolation.3.1.PW1 the father of the deceased lodged complaint [Ex.P1].He further stated that he and his family 3/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 belonged to Hindu religion and the appellants are Christians.Since the deceased was in love with the 1st appellant, PW1 accepted and conducted their marriage.During the marriage, he gave 20 sovereigns of jewels and household articles as Sridhana.After the marriage, they resided in Moolakadai and thereafter shifted to Aziz Nagar, Madhavaram near PW1's house.He further stated that the marriage between the 1st appellant and the deceased was not his choice.Further, he deposed that the deceased complained about the continuous harassment and dowry demand of the appellants.Initially, PW1 has given Rs.50,000/- as dowry and thereafter within a short period another Rs.30,000/- was demanded which could not be paid by him, aggravated ill-treatment against his daughter and finally she committed suicide by self-immolation.3.2.PW2 is the mother of the deceased.Further, she reiterated the dowry demand made by the appellants.On the fateful day, the deceased had come to her house crying and she stated the demand of dowry consistently made by the appellants and she was ill-treated by them.Immediately, PW1 to PW3 rushed to the house of the deceased and saw the 1st appellant standing there.The deceased was taken to Hospital where she was declared dead.3.3.PW3, the son of PW1 and PW2 and brother of the deceased has stated about the marriage of his sister, constant demand of dowry made by the appellants and the death of the deceased by self-immolation.PW5 and PW6 are the house owners of the deceased.They heard the cry of the deceased, rushed to her house and found she was on fire and attempted to drowse it.Further, they have also spoken about the presence of the 1 st appellant in the scene of occurrence.PW5 and PW6 are the witnesses for the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P3] for articles found in the scene of occurrence.3.5.PW7 and PW8 are witnesses for arrest and confessions [Ex.P6 and Ex.P7] of the appellants.Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are the signatures of PW7 found in the admitted portion of confessions [Ex.P6 and Ex.P7] of the appellants.3.6.PW9 is the Tahsildar, who conducted inquest on the body of the 5/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 deceased.PW10 the Postmortem Doctor conducted Autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued the Postmortem Certificate [Ex.P8].PW11 is the son-in-law of PW5 and PW6, who on hearing the cry of the deceased, rushed to the scene of occurrence.3.7.PW12/RDO conducted enquiry and marked his report Ex.According to Ex.P9, the death occurred due to demand of dowry.PW13, the Sub-Inspector of Police on receipt of the complaint [Ex.P1] from PW1, registered F.I.R [Ex.P10] in Crime No.266 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 304B and 306 of IPC.3.8.PW15, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar [Ex.P11], Rough Sketch [Ex.P12] and the Mahazar [Ex.P13], examined the witnesses present in the scene of crime.4.On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.4.1.DW1 is a preacher of the local area Church.He has stated that the deceased has taken baptism confirmation as per Christian faith and the 1st appellant used to help DW1 during religious preaching.He further stated that the 1st appellant and the deceased were living happily and there was no demand of dowry.4.2.The 1st appellant examined himself as DW2, the marriage certificate [Ex.D1], letter of the deceased to the 1st appellant, Accident Register [Ex.D3] and diary maintained by the deceased [Ex.D4] have been marked.According to DW2/1st appellant, he and deceased/wife were living happily and no demand of dowry was made.In order to prove the same, he marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D4, he attempted to save the deceased when she was on fire and thereby he sustained burn injuries, as could be seen from the Accident Register [Ex.D3].5.The appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 498(A), 7/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 the fateful day at the request of her mother/PW2, she went to her parents house to help her in shifting to a new house.The deceased left her parents house to serve dinner to the appellants.For this, the deceased parents scolded the deceased very badly, which triggered her to commit self- immolation.Only two hours prior to the occurrence, she came from her parents house.This appeal arises out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ponneri in S.C.No.165 of 2005, dated 18.12.2009, the appellants were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 304B of IPC.On the complaint [Ex.P1] of PW1, PW13 registered a case in Crime No.226 of 2004 [Ex.P10] for the offence under Sections 498(A), 304B and 306 of IPC.On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and committed and tried in S.C.No.165 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ponneri.3.Before the trial Court, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and marked 13 exhibits.She stayed with PW2 for sometime and left to her house.Within two hours, she was informed by PW5, the house owner of the deceased, about her daughter's 4/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 self-immolation.Since the death had occurred within 7 ½ years of the marriage, PW15 made a request to RDO for inquest and enquiry and forwarded F.I.R and other materials.6/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010A.No.288 of 2010 306 and 304B of IPC.On questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellants denied the charges.On appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, the trial Court by Judgment dated 18.12.2009 in S.C.No.165 of 2005 convicted the appellants.Against which the present appeal.6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.7.M/s.M.G.Udayashankar appearing on behalf of M/s.Edinbrough, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the marriage between the 1st appellant and the deceased was held on 11.06.2004, which was a love marriage and hence the question of demand of dowry does not arise.Infact, the deceased had voluntarily adopted to Christianity faith and regularly attended the church.The 1st appellant never demanded any dowry and jewels.The deceased following Hindu religion got married with the 1st appellant by converting herself into Christianity, was not liked by her family members and she was not been treated properly by them after her marriage and conversion.This caused psychological effect on her and she was in a state of morse.Added to it on 8/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.At that time, the 1st appellant had gone to attend nature's call, the deceased had set fire on her own and the 1st appellant attempted to save her.Hence, the reason for her death is due to the attitude of her parents and not for any dowry demand.8.The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that PW1 to PW4 are the family members of the deceased and they were unhappy since the deceased married the 1st appellant.Hence, the question of the 1st appellant's demand of dowry is the cause of her self-immolation is false.From 11.09.2004 to 26.09.2004, there was no dowry demand, harassment.Therefore, the reason and cause of death attributed against the appellants is false and motivated one.9.PW4 and PW5 are the house owners and PW11 is the neighbour of 9/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 the deceased.They have not spoken about any dowry demand or harassment made by the appellants.PW9 the Tahsildar conducted inquest on the deceased.His report as well as the statement of records have not been produced in this case.Further, the 1st appellant sustained burn injuries, while he attempted to save the deceased, which is an admitted fact.The appellants had probablized that there was no dowry demand and the relationship between the 1st appellant and the deceased was cordial.The attempt of saving the deceased by the 1st appellant and sustaining burn injuries would prove his conduct.The investigation has not been carried out independently.With a pre-conceived notion, the case has been worn around the appellants.Hence, he prayed for acquittal from all the charges against them.10.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution in this case has proved the charges against the appellants by examining PW1 to PW15 and marking Ex.P1 to Ex.PW1 to PW4 are the family members of the deceased.In a case of offence under Section 304B of IPC, the family members would be the right person to speak about the dowry demand and the harassment caused to her.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are cogent and in conformity to each other as regards 10/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 dowry demand.Both witnesses have clearly stated about the initial dowry demand of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter within a short period another demand of Rs.30,000/-.On the fateful day just few hours before the self- immolation, the deceased had visited her parents.According to PW2, she was in a sober mood and cried about persistent demand and harassment and suffering at the hands of the 1st appellant and that is the reason for the deceased to take extreme step of self-immolation and for her death.All the witnesses in the case have supported the prosecution case.11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that PW9/Tahsildar conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and PW12/RDO conducted enquiry and marked his report Ex.P9 with a finding that the appellants have made dowry demand.PW10, the Postmortem Doctor has spoken about burn injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of death is due to burn injuries.PW13, the Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint [Ex.P1] immediately forwarded the same to the Revenue officials.PW14 and PW15 have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case.12.The trial Court on proper appreciation of evidences and materials 11/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 produced by both sides, had come to a finding that the prosecution had proved the charges and the evidence of defence witnesses are incomplete and improbable.DW1 admitted that the 1st appellant assisted him in religious works and he is an interested witness to the appellants.His evidence does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that Ex.D1 is dated 07.06.2004 before the marriage conducted by the parents.D2 is the letter, Ex.D4 is the diary, which are written by the deceased prior to the marriage.Only after the marriage, the harassment has been caused to the deceased.It could be seen from Ex.D3 that 14 percent of burn injuries has been sustained by the 1st appellant.13.Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants.The trial Court findings needs no interference and the appeal to be dismissed.14.This Court considered the submissions made by either side perused the available materials and records.15.PW1 and PW2 are the parents of the deceased, who stated about 12/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 the dowry demand made by the 1st appellant.PW3 and PW4 are the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased who corroborated the same.PW5, PW6 and PW11 seen the deceased on fire and also attempted to drowse it.Further, PW5 and PW11 have also spoken about the presence of the 1st appellant in the scene of occurrence.PW10, Postmortem Doctor has proved the fact that the deceased died due to burn injuries.PW9 and PW12, the Revenue officials conducted inquest and enquiry and further the enquiry report of PW12 has been marked as Ex.On receipt of the complaint [Ex.P1] from PW1, PW13, registered F.I.R [Ex.P10] in Crime No.226 of 2004, immediately forwarded the same to revenue and higher officials.PW14 and PW15 are the investigating officers in this case.One thing is certain that the deceased died within three months of her marriage, which is a love marriage and it is an admitted fact that the death has occurred by self- immolation.16.It is admitted by PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 that from 11.09.2004 the 1st appellant and the deceased were living separately.There is no evidence to show that the 2nd appellant had any contact with the deceased soon before the death and was present in the scene of occurrence.Further, PW9/Tahsidar has conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased, 13/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 strangely there is no statement of witness in Ex.P9 report marked through PW12/RDO, though there is a finding that there was dowry demand without supporting materials.P9 is based on the inquest forwarded by the Tahsildar/PW9, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no reason given on what basis such finding has been arrived.The enquiry report [Ex.P9] of PW12 is based on the report of Tahsildar-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai.The signature of the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai in Ex.Hence, PW9 is not a person, who conducted inquest and forwarded the report to PW12 cast cloud on the report.17.Further, the evidence of PW9 cannot be acted upon that PW9's evidence has been stopped in between at the request of the Public Prosecutor in the lower Court and his evidence is completed and no opportunity was given to test his evidence by cross-examination of the defense.Hence, the evidence of PW9 is of no use.The enquiry report/Ex.P9 is without supporting materials.18.In view of the irregularities and infirmities found in the enquiry report/Ex.P9, the appellants/A1 & A2 cannot be held guilty for dowry death under Section 304B IPC.Hence, both appellants are acquitted from the charge of 304B IPC.19.As regards the appellants' conviction and sentence under Section 498(A) of IPC, the lower Court convicted them for two years rigorous imprisonment, this Court confirms the conviction and sentence of 1st appellant/A1 and acquits the 2nd appellant/A2 by setting aside his conviction.20.As far as the 2nd appellant is concerned, it is admitted that he was living separately and had no contact with them soon before the death of the deceased and was not present in the scene of occurrence.Hence, he is acquitted from the offence of abetment to commit suicide and his conviction under Section 306 of IPC is set-aside.15/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 201021.As regard the 1st appellant, it is admitted that the 1st appellant and the deceased were living together after the marriage.From 11.09.2004 to 26.09.2004, they were living separately and the death had taken place in the matrimonial house.The explanation given by the 1st appellant that he was attending the nature call is not acceptable.PW5, PW6 as well as PW11 confirms the presence of the 1st appellant in the scene of occurrence.From the Accident Report [Ex.D3], it is seen that the burn injuries is only 14 percent which is on both ear lobe, nose and lips.Thus, the explanation that he attempted to save the deceased and sustained injuries is not acceptable.22.The death of the deceased has occurred inside the house of 1st appellant and on the materials, this court finds that the 1 st appellant abetted and he is the reason the self-immolation of the deceased.Hence, the 1st appellant is liable to be punished under Section 306 of IPC and the conviction of the trial Court is confirmed and the sentence of nine years is modified to five years.23.With the above said modifications and observations, this Criminal 16/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 Appeal is Partly-Allowed.The Court below is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the 1st appellant to undergo his remaining period of sentence, if he is outside.25.09.2019 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vv2 To1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madhavaram Milkcolony Police Station.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.17/18http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2 Crl.A.No.288 of 2010 25.09.2019

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC").Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 11/6/06 at about 8.30 p.m., near the house of Kishore Kachchi at Gangasagar Mohalla, Chhatarpur, respondents in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of Purshottam alias Bhaiya Dhobi.Sunita, wife of deceased, admitted that deceased was a criminal and had enmity with many people.All the material witnesses except Maniram belonged to the same family.Independent witness Maniram deposed that he could not see the assailants due to darkness.Darkness on the spot, was also admitted by Investigating Officer Shiv Shankar Mishra (PW 12).In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Respondent no.2 Heeralal Panika is also present in the Court.As per the prosecution case, on 18.05.2018 at about 11:30 pm the prosecutrix, who is aged about 11 years 4 months was missing from her house situated at Village Sohi Belha under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bhalumada, District Anuppur.The father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing person's report.On the basis of which offence under Section 363 of IPC under Crime No.190/2018 was registered at Police Station Bhalumada.She narrated the incidence to her parents that the applicant and other co-accused Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 28/11/2018 21:14:11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.8833/2018 (MOHD.BAIS MANSURI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 persons have taken her to village Bijuri where co-accused Gulsher committed sexual intercourse with her.On that basis offence under Sections 343, 366 (A), 368, 376, 376 (2) (i) and 34 of IPC, Section 3, 4, 5g, 5m and 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been added in the already registered offence.2) and her father Heeralal Panika (PW-3), they have not uttered a single word against the present appellant.In cross-examination of the prosecutrix, she has accepted that she does not know the appellant and he was not with co-accused Gulsher Mansuri at the time of said abduction and commission of rape.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 28/11/2018 21:14:11

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

As deposed to at the trial by HC Krishan Kumar PW-15, at around 12.30 mid night of October 3rd and 4th, 2010 one Ramesh Kumar and one Usha Rai brought a minor girl aged about 10 years to the police station who disclosed her name as 'Star' (pseudo name), who informed that a man had sexually assaulted her near Nizamuddin Dargah, New Delhi.In the presence of Ramesh Kumar and Usha Rai (social workers) he deputed Ct.Vinod Kumar to take the child to AIIMS for medical examination.As deposed to at the trial, Dr.Prajnanika Gurung PW-7, Senior Resident, Gynaecology at AIIMS, he examined 'Star' and recorded the MLC Ex.PW- 7/A in which it is written that the hymen of 'Star' was torn and a tear was noted posteriorly.Further examination could not be conducted because the child was un-cooperated.He took a vaginal swab and the clothes of 'Star' CRL.A. 175/2014 Page 1 of 6 which he handed over to Ct.Vinod Kumar.CRL.A. 175/2014 Page 1 of 6Over the telephone information aforesaid was conveyed to P.S.Hazrat Nizamuddin, where w/SI Kamini Gupta PW-16 was present and hence she was deputed to take custody of 'Star' and conduct further investigation.She proceeded to AIIMS where HC Krishan Kumar handed over to her two sealed pullandas with seal of the hospital, one pullanda containing the vaginal swab of 'Star' and the other her clothes, which she seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-15/B.Accompanied by HC Krishan Kumar she took 'Star' to Prayas and produced her before the Child Welfare Committee.Before the Members of the Child Welfare Committee she recorded statement Ex.PW-2/A of 'Star'.Ruchi PW-3 and Mohd.Usman Ali PW-2 working with a Child Welfare NGO named : Butterfly Child Helpline, were also present and have deposed to the fact that 'Star's' statement Ex.PW-2/A was recorded by SI Kamini Gupta in their presence.FIR Ex.5. 'Star' was lodged at Prayas.The child was traumatized and could not speak.A child councillor Ms.Megha Bhatnagar PW-4, working with Prayas was contacted.PW-6/B.CRL.A. 175/2014 Page 2 of 6Since a person around Nizamuddin Dargah had molested the young innocent girl, the investigating officer kept an eye on the males in the area, and as was to be expected, the word spread.Padam PW-13 and Ct.Virender, she was searching for the accused when a person named Asif informed them that the accused they were looking for was sitting near a grill on the wall of the Dargah and as the three proceeded towards the place at a crossing near Ghalib Academy, Asif pointed out towards the appellant; who was arrested and arrest memo Ex.PW-13/B was prepared.He got recovered the clothes which he was wearing on the day of the incident which were seized vide memo Ex.PW- 13/E.The appellant was got medically examined at AIIMS.Hari Prasad PW-8, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic, opined on the MLC Ex.PW-8/A that there was nothing to suggest that the appellant was incapable to perform sexual intercourse.The money would be kept in a fixed deposit till 'Star' attains the age of 21 years.Such interest which accrues thereon may be paid to the NGO where 'Star' is housed as of today.If, on attaining majority, 'Star' leaves the NGO, interest accruing be paid to her every month or on quarterly basis depending upon the nature of the fixed deposit, which would be with a nationalized bank.On attaining the age of 21 years, 'Star' would be handed over the fixed deposit receipt.CRL.A. 175/2014 Page 5 of 6CRL.A. 175/2014 Page 6 of 6On October 11, 2010, 'Star's' statement Ex.PW- 6/C was recorded by Sh.Vikrant Vaid who, at the trial proved the said statement and the proceedings conducted by him as Ex.He collected the blood sample of the appellant on a gauze and handed it over to the investigating officerThe appellant was produced before Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, PW-5, the Metropolitan Magistrate for TIP proceedings and as recorded in the TIP proceedings Ex.PW-5/B (collectively) 'Star' identified the appellant as the one who had sexually molested her.The vaginal swab of 'Star', her clothes, the clothes which appellant had got recovered and his blood sample were sent for forensic examination, but regretfully the report obtained has neither being formally tendered nor proved at the trial, and thus, as has been done by the learned Trial Judge, I CRL.A. 175/2014 Page 3 of 6 also eschew any reference to the same.CRL.A. 175/2014 Page 3 of 6Highlighting that 'Star' identified the appellant as her tormentor when TIP proceedings were conducted on October 23, 2010, I note that 'Star' has deposed in Court that she had three siblings, a brother and two sisters and came by train to the Dargah at Nizamuddin.She was alone.She had no place to stay - obviously she had none.She deposed that she did not know the name of the appellant who had sexually molested her after removing her clothes and his paijama.He inserted his penis in her vagina.The young girl, three years away from her teens, had successfully withstood the test of cross-examination, and keeping in view that at the TIP proceedings she identified the appellant as the person who committed rape upon her I have no reason to disbelieve 'Star' when she identified the appellant in Court as the one who sexually molested her.That 'Star' was sexually molested is apparent from what has been recorded in her MLC by Dr.Prajnanika Gurung : hymen was torn and a tear was noted posteriorly.Useless for me to note the testimony of the police officers who had, upon pointing out by the appellant, pursuant to his disclosure statement, got recovered the clothes which he was wearing and which were exhibited in the Court during trial.TCR be returnedSince the appellant is in jail copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent Jail for being handed over to the appellant.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE MAY 19, 2016 skb CRL.A. 175/2014 Page 6 of 6

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

as (Allowed).C.R.M. 9157 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Durgapur Women P. S. Case No.34 of 2020 dated 24.07.2020 under Sections 498A/323/406/506/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.In the matter of : Sri Rasu Gorain & Ors.... Petitioners.Mr. Pawan Kr.Gupta, Mr. Sougata Mitra, Ms. Sofia Nesar, Mr. Santanu Sett....for the Petitioners.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 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.

Kashinath Gunjal, Respondent/Accused at the relevant time wasworking in a private company as a wireman.He married deceasedTrupti 1/6 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 ::: 212-apeal-746-2000.docSangita before 12 years.He was addicted to liquor and used to ill-treathis wife Sangita.On the day of incident i.e., on 15 th May, 1999 at about2.00 p.m. he quarreled with Sangita and thereafter, theRespondent/Accused set her on fire.She was admitted in the SasoonHospital, Pune by the Respondent /Accused.She gave her dyingdeclaration before the Special Executive Magistrate that she wasaccidentally burnt due to flaring of stove.The medical officer examinedher and found that she sustained 100% burns.Her relatives at Kedgaon,District Ahmednagar were informed by the respondent/accused.On thenext day i.e., on 16 th May, 2000, Sangita, the deceased, gave anotherstatement before the Executive Magistrate and changed her earlierversion.She stated that on account of petty quarrels, her husbandslapped her and abused her and thereafter, by pouring kerosene on her,set her on fire.The police who had received an information about theincident recorded the complaint at Exh. 34 of deceased Sangita.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 :::The second dying declaration of Sangita was treated as F.I.R. beingCrime No. 179 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 306 ofthe IPC.The Respondent /Accused was arrested.The investigatingofficer completed the investigation and filed chargesheet.Since the casewas triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the SessionsCourt.The charge was framed at exhibit 5 and after full fledged trial theTrupti 2/6 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 ::: 212-apeal-746-2000.docRespondent -Accused has been acquitted.Hence, this Appeal filed by theState of Maharashtra.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 :::With the able assistance of the learned APP, we have carefullyperused the notes of evidence.At the outset, it would be apt to reproducehereinbelow relevant portion from the dying declaration at exhibit 22given by Sangita and recorded on 15 th May, 1999 at 16.20 hours by theSpecial Executive Magistrate (PW-1).In reply to question No.3 i.e., rqEgh dls Hkktykr\ Sangita answered,"vkt nqikjh 2-00 oktrk LVksOgoj Lo;aikd djhr vlrkuk inj iMwu eh Hkktys- HkktY;kcjkscj eh ckgsj iGkys- eyk dks.kh fo>oys ekfgr ukgh- ek>k uojk ?kjkr >ksiyk gksrk-ek>k dks.kkoj la'k; ukgh o rdzkj ukgh-"::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 :::On 16th May, 1999, Sangita again gave another dying declaration, atexhibit 24, at 13.00 hours.In reply to question No.3 i.e., " rqEgh dlsHkktykr\ Sangita answered, "vkeP;k uojk ck;dksaph pkj o"kkZiqokhZiklqu okn fooknvkgsr- vkeP;k yXukyk ckjk rs rsjk o"ksZ >kyh vkgsr- eyk nksu eqys vkgsr- dky ek>kuojk dkeko#u nq- 12&30 oktrk vkyk- eh Lo;aikd dsysyk rs ,dVs tsoys- ek>h eqys'kstk&;kaP;k ?kjkr dscy igkr gksrh- ?kjkr vkEgh nks?ksp gksrks- eh laMklyk tkoqu vkys otso.k dsys vlrs ijarq R;kauh eyk tso.k vxksnj ok< vls Eg.kkys eh tso.k ok<ys rs tsoysijr vka?kksGhyk fjdkeh cknyh iq.;ir ?ksoqu tk.;klkBh ekxhryh- Hkjysyh cknyh eh xVkjkrvksryh Eg.kqu ik.kh dk vksrys Eg.kqu eyk uo&;kus ekjgk.k dsyh- gkrkus pkiVk ekjY;k of'kohxkG dsyh o rq dk ejr ukgh- eqyklkBh eh lgu djhr gksrs- ek>k uojk dke/kankdjhr uOgrk eh /kq.kh HkkaMh d#u [kkr gksrs- uo&;kus ekÖ;k vaxkoj jkWdsy vksrys o isVoqufnys- eh ckgsj iGkys o Hkjdu isVY;keqGs eyk dkghp dGkys ukgh-dky eh e`R;qioZ dFku dsys gksrs rs LVksOgpk HkMdk >kyk [kksVsp lkafxrys ijarq dkyuojk ekÖ;kdMs nok[kkU;kr vkyk o Eg.kkyk rq esyhl rj cjs gksbZy- ek>s pqyrs oMhy obrj ukrsokbZdkauk uo&;kus Qksu d#u cksykoqu ?ksrysys gksrs- eh ekÖ;k oMhykauk ekÖ;kuo&;kyk nok[kkU;krqu ckgsj ?ksoqu tkok vls lkafxrys rks eyk =kl nsrks vls lkafxrys-uojk eyk ijr vlkp =kl ns.kkj Eg.kkyk Eg.kqu eh ijr tckc nsr vkgs- uo&;kusisVfoY;keqGs eh Hkktys-lnjps eh Lor% LoPNsus dsysys Qsj e`R;qi= dFku eyk rqEgh ejkBhrqu okpqu nk[kfoysrs cjkscj o [kjs vlqu eyk dcqy vkgs-In order to prove the aforesaid two dying declarations, theprosecution examined Kantilal Rajaram Adsul (PW-1).In his deposition,Trupti 4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 ::: 212-apeal-746-2000.doche stated that before recording dying declaration at exhibit 22 by puttingcertain questions to Sangita, he ascertained that Sangita was mentally fitto give dying declaration and thereafter her statement was recorded.Thesaid statement at exhibit 22 has been recorded as per her narration.Inrespect of another dying declaration at exhibit 24 he stated that thestatement given by Sangita at exhibit 24 has been recorded as per hernarration.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 :::Upon careful perusal of answer given by Sangita to question No.3 indying declaration at exhibit 22, she stated that while cooking food atabout 2.00 p.m., the border of her saree came in contact with flames ofstove and then she sustained burn injuries.Her husband was sleeping inthe house.She has not given any complaint against anybody.However, inthe second dying declaration at exhibit 24 recorded on 16 th May, 1999, inreply to question No.3, she stated that there is dispute between herselfand her husband from last four years.The marriage was solemnizedbefore 12 to 13 years back and out of the said wedlock, there are twochildren.Yesterday, her husband returned from the work at about 12.30p.m. and had lunch.Children were watching T.V. in the neighbour's house.Only husband and herself were in their house.There was quarrel betweenherself and her husband, and husband assaulted and abused her.Husbandwas not doing any work and she used to wash clothes and utensils so as toTrupti 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 ::: 212-apeal-746-2000.docearn livelihood.Thereafter, her husband poured kerosene on her bodyand set her ablaze.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 :::On comparison of two versions in reply to question No.3 in twodying declarations, at exhibits 22 and 24 respectively, there is totalvariance.In the first dying declaration, Sangita did not attribute any overtact to the husband, however, in second dying declaration, she hasmentioned the name of the husband stating that the husband pouredkerosene on her person and set her ablaze.There is total variance in theversion of Sangita in the aforesaid two dying declarations.Hence the followingorder :-ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 746 of 2000 stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 05:37:38 :::

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.He has further submitted that a writ petition Writ-C No. 9130 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner, in which another Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2019 has protected the interest of petitioners.Besides above, the victim has got married with the applicant and now she is pregnant by 14-16 weeks.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.06.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and 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- Lallu, 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. 0030 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 34, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Churkhi, District Jalaun, with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Arguments heard.Perused the case-diary.This is first bail application preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.371/2014 registered at P.S. Civil Lines Morena (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506B and 307 of IPC.As per prosecution story, incident occurred on 16.07.2014 at about 09:30 pm when Sonpal and Rajesh were standing before the house of Ganesh.At that time, all of a sudden one Safari vehicle came over there and named accused Twinkle came out of it.Thereafter Sonpal was beaten by him by means of a bottle due to which injury was sustained by Sonpal on his head.When Rajesh Tomar rushed to rescue Sonpal he was also beaten by one unknown person.Meaning thereby as per the prosecution case incident was committed by two persons; one i.e. Twinkle and another was unknown person.Thereafter, statement of Sonpal was recorded.Allegations were made against accused Twinkle and one unknown person.When statement of Rajesh was recorded on 19.07.2014 some allegation for instigation was made against the present applicant and one Jackie Jain and this is the only evidence against the present applicant.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.

ORDER K.S. Gupta, J.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-accused for quashing the order dated 15th January, 1994 by which the application dated 9th March, 1990 seeking discharge was dismissed and also the charges framed under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988) by a Special Judge.2. Charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed by the CBI, inter alia, alleging that Sita Ram Dubey made a complaint in writing to SP/CBI on 28th September, 1988 stating that he is running fair price shop No. 6612 allotted by Delhi Administration at Netaji Nagar Market, New Delhi and the ratio to that shop is supplied by FCI.On 24th September, 1988, Sh.Y.P. Vij, F.S.O., Sh.S.K. Walia, Inspector and Sh.R. Tiwari, Inspector in Enforcement Repartment came to his shop and took away the records of the shop with direction to him to attend their office at Underhill Road on Tuesday morning.It is also alleged that during the course of investigation, a trap was laid on 29th September, 1988 by associating two independent witnesses, namely, M.S.Mehton and C.M. Uppal, both from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner demanded and accepted Rs. 4,000/- from said Sita Ram Dubey in the presence of the members of the trap party.After accepting the tainted money, he put it in the dickey of his scooter No. DBJ-7177 and from there the same was recovered.On attending the office on that date, said officials told that the goods sent from the godown of FCI on 23rd September, 1988 were not entered in the stock register and those had been seized at Dakshinpuri.They further told him that for that lapse, his shop could be cancelled and he be prosecuted.They demanded Rs.15,000/- to save the cancellation of shop and prosecution.On 27th September, 1988, he apprised Pramod Kumar Sharma/Petitioner, then posted as area rationing Inspector, about the said facts and he too threatened him to get the shop cancelled.He demanded Rs. 5,000/- to show the delivery of goods in back date.Petitioner further told him to pay Rs. 4,000/- by 29th afternoon.Left and right hands of the petitioner were dipped in two colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink.The solutions were preserved into two separate clean glass bottles and sealed and were sent to CFSL for opinion.According to CFSL report, both the hand washes gave positive test for the presence of Phenolpthalien powder and Sodium Carbonate.These facts disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act by the petitioner.Petitioner filed application dated 9th March, 1990 seeking discharge on the grounds which I will be referring hereinafter, which was contested by the CBI.It is this application which was dismissed by the said order dated 15th January, 1994 and charges framed against the petitioner by the Special Judge.During the course of investigation, a trap, was laid.Petitioner No.1 demanded and accepted the amount of Rs.10,000/- from said Surinder Kumar and passed on the bribe money to petitioner No. 2 from whose pant pocket the same was recovered.On departmental enquiry being initiated against both the petitioners in regard to the said incident dated 12th September, 1988, they filed CWP No. 2545/92 for quashing the departmental enquiry and said WP alongwith CMs.

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In the mid night the appellants knocked the door of the said room to open giving it out that they were from police station.The door was opened and the appellants entered the room.Mr. Moitra has further argued that there was actually only one First Information Report and the evidence of the P.W. 1 in this regard that there were two F.I.Rs.was the sequel of confusion created in her mind.Mr. Moitra has also referred to a number of case laws which will be dealt with at the appropriate place and time.There are, in fact, two parts of the case.The first part relates to the occurrence of rape and the second one relates to the reporting of the same to the Police Station.As regards the first part it appears from the F.I.R. itself that the victim girl had described herself as Mahasweta Majhi and her male-mate as Susanta Chowdhury.It is also in the F.I.R. that she along with her male-mate had been putting up in 'Chowdhury Lodge' and at about mid night some persons knocked the door and out of them one disclosed himself as the O.C. of the Police Station for which Susanta opened the door when he was taken to the verandah and the appellants committed rape upon her one after another.Thereafter all the appellants left the victim girl alone in the room and within a minute the appellants Rudrababu entered the room in a inebriated condition.Rudrababu then committed rape upon the victim girl while the other appellant Nupur was keeping guard of the room from outside.The P.W. 1 further stated in her examination-in-chief:After this Nupur Pattanaik opened the door and found that Rudrababu was lying in a totally drunken condition.The other accused persons namely Sena Roy and Topi also entered the room following Nupur Pattanaik.These three persons then called Rudrababu when they replied that as he was not fully satisfied so he wanted to have further sexual intercourse with me....Accused Topi, Sena Roy and Nupur Pattanaik then performed physical torture on me by way of kissing me on several parts of my body as well as by pressing my breasts severely.He opined that the victim girl was not habituated with sexual intercourse and further opined "features of forcible sexual intercourse of recent origin are present in her private parts." In his cross-examination the P.W. 11 also admitted that a short factual history of the incident was not mentioned in his records.The P.W. 11 also admitted that he did not mention the age of the bruise.It is also in the cross-examination of the P.W. 11 that he did not notice any spermatozoa on the body of the victim girl either in her inner part or on the outside.JUDGMENT Nure Alam Chowdhury Narayan Chandra Sil, J.These two appeals were directed against the judgment dated 20-1-1995 and conviction dated 21-1-1995 for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code passed in connection with S. T. Case No. XXXV of 1993 by Sri R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore.The learned Judge was pleased to sentence the appellant Debidas Rudra to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year.The learned Judge was again pleased to sentence the other appellants namely Sena alias Soumendra Ray, Nupur alias Amitava Pattanayak and Topi alias Sarnendu Chowdhury to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year.The fact of the case in brief is that on 28-8-1991 at about 7.30 p.m. Mahasweta Majhi a girl of 17/18 years along with Sk.Abu Taher went to 'Chowdhury Lodge' at Contai town and stayed there in a room.They recorded their particulars in the register of the lodge in different names.They took out Abu Taher and confined him in some other place.The appellants thereafter committed rape on the defacto-com-plainant, Mahasweta Majhi one after another.It is pointed out by him that from the very beginning the victim girl started hiding her name and the purpose of her going to the lodge in question and she also appeared to have used the different names at different places.Mr. Roy has further argued that the conduct of the accused persons as claimed by the victim girl is not in consonance with the natural human conduct inasmuch as, it is claimed, the accused persons allowed the victim girl to go away instead of keeping a close vigil on her movement immediately after the alleged occurrence of rape.Mr. Roy has heavily banked upon the statement of the victim girl as a witness before the trial Court that she had lodged complaint twice and that she was examined twice by the medical officer.It is further argued by Mr. Roy that the purported report of the examination of the victim girl for the first time had not been produced before the Court.Mr. Roy has pointed out that there was no mark of Siemens or blood on the bed-sheet and the saya (petty coat) was washed after the occurrence.Mr. Roy has further argued before us that from the evidence of the witnesses it appears that one Kayum and the other Minu Gharai are the best witnesses in the case, but Minu Gharai had not been examined by the prosecution and the evidence of Kayum is contradictory.It is further pointed out by Mr. Roy that there was delay in examination of the witnesses by the I.O. and such delay remain unexplained.Mr. Roy has referred to a number of case laws which we shall discuss at the appropriate point of time.Mr. S. Moitra, the learned Additional P. P. appearing on behalf of the State submits before us that the defence had hit the bush around in the cross-examination of the P. W. 1, the victim girl and except some suggestions there was no substantive evidence coming out from the P.W. 1 to help the defence in any way.In her examination-in-chief as the P.W. 1, the victim girl described the name of her male-mate as Abu Sheikh.As regards the incident of rape she stated that when they were taking preparation to retire to bed, the appellants started knocking the door of 'Chowdhury Lodge' disclosing that they had come from Police Station.Abu Sheikh opened the door and the appellants charged Abu Sheikh for lifting of a Hindu girl and thereafter demanded huge money from Abu Sheikh which was out of the capacity for him to pay.Abu Sheikh was then taken out of the room.The appellants started introducing themselves to the P.W. 1 when the appellant Nupur identified him as a doctor to have gone there to check the victim girl and the appellant Sena Roy introduced him as a Constable of Police while the appellant Topi introduced him as a Police Inspector.They also lied on body of myself.In the cross-examination of the victim girl her statement in the F.I.R. was confronted by the defence and it was stated by her that it was not written in the F.I.R. that Nupur Pattanaik asked the accused Rudrababu to complete the work quickly and he was giving guard at the room from outside.Some other statements of the victim girl in the F.I.R. had been Confronted in her cross-examination but those are not actually, in respect of rape to have been committed by the appellants Rudrababu.It appears that the victim girl had made her statement under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate and her statement before the Magistrate had been confronted in her cross-examination.There is absolutely nothing in any form not even in the form of suggestion as to why she had falsely implicated the appellants/convicts.In her statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. P. C. the victim girl described Abu Sheikh as her boy friend.She stated further that Rudrababu and Nupur were in the room while the two others were outside at the time of occurrence.She claimed that all the appellants drunk in the room and thereafter Rudrababu asked the others to go outside.It is also in her statement before the Magistrate that thereafter Rudrababu committed rape on her and soon thereafter the other three appellants entered there and committed rape on her one after another.Seikh Abu Taher is the P.W. 2 who was with the victim girl in 'Chowdhury lodge' on the fateful night of occurrence.He stated in his evidence that he along with Mahasweta Majhi went to the Chowdhury Lodge on the fateful night of the occurrence and after having taken their dinner they retired to the bed, but in the mid night some one started knocking the door from outside and he opened the door.He further stated that after opening the door he found Rudrababu who assaulted him and took him out of the room while Mahasweta was inside the room.He further stated that Sena and Pattanaik caught hold of him and started assaulting him.They introduced them as Barababu and Chotobabu.He also found Topi present there.It is also in his evidence that the accused appellants entered the room one by one where the victim girl was there.It appears from the cross-examination of the P.W. 2 that he was born and brought up in Contai town.The 'Chowdhury Lodge', it may be mentioned, was situated in Contai town.A suggestion was put to the P.W. 2 in his cross-examination that on the night of occurrence he did not meet the accused persons at all and also that he had deposed falsely against the accused persons under the pressure of the CPI(M).There is nothing coming out from the evidence of the P.W. 2 particularly in his cross-examination as to why the CPI(M) created pressure, as claimed by the defence, upon the P.W. 2 to depose falsely against the appellants.The P.W. 2 also appears to have given his statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. It appears from the statement of the P.W. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. that he had some affairs with Mahasweta Majhi.He stood to support his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. in his evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge and it was stated by him that the accused persons went to 'Chowdhury Lodge' in the mid night of the occurrence and after taking him out of the room Rudrababu and Nupur had entered the room.Cervix and uterus - healthy, no disease.The main point which had been seriously canvassed by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant before us is as regards two medical reports on the examination of the victim girl.On our scrutiny it appears that the medical officer has explained the reason for making such reports twice and there appears absolutely nothing in the record that the medical report which has been placed and relied upon by the prosecution was in any way different from the earlier one.In fact, it has been clarified by the medical officer in his evidence that such medical reports were prepared within the difference of some minutes as because the case number had been written wrongly in the former medical report.It appears that after the occurrence the victim girl could anyhow manage to escape from the hotel leaving her belonging there and started running through the roads.On the way she met some persons who had come to her rescue.The learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has also raised questions as to why the bed-sheet of the hotel room does not contain any mark of blood or semens.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(2) Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear and contest this appeal.Accordingly Ms. Nidhi, Advocate, has been appointed by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee as amicus to contest the appeal on behalf of the respondent.(3) We have heard Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State and Ms. Nidhi, learned amicus, and also perused the impugned judgment and theSignature Not Verified evidence/materials on record.Digitally signed byMAHABIR SINGHDate: 2018.09.0416:54:37 ISTReason:On 6 th March, 1993 at about 9.00 p.m. the prosecutrix (PW-1) along 2with her two sisters i.e. Hirkanbai (PW-3) and Anitabai hadgone outside the village to a field to attend nature’s call andwhile returning back the respondent-accused is alleged to haveforcibly taken the prosecutrix to the field and committed rapeon her.(5) Since the Moti Ram (PW-2) who is father of Hirkanbai (PW-The prosecutrix was medically examined on 9th March, 1993by Dr. U.S. Vasnik (PW-6), who has noted that the hymen ofprosecutrix was torn; swelling was present on the edges of tornhymen.Dr. U.S. Vasnik (PW-6) has opined that though vagina ofthe prosecutrix was admitted two fingers easily, theprosecutrix felt pain and the doctor (PW-6) has opined that theprosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse within 2-3 daysof examination.(6) Based upon the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) andMangrulal (PW-4) who went to the place of occurrence afterhaving been told by Anita and saw the accused running fromthere and also on the evidence of Dr. U.S. Vasnik (PW-6), thetrial court convicted the respondent-accused under Section 376I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a periodof seven years.(10) In the present case evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) issupported by the medical evidence and also by the evidence ofMangrulal (PW-4) who saw the accused running away from thescene of occurrence.Insofar as the consent of the prosecutrix 4(PW-1) pointed out by the High Court is concerned, we find itdifficult to agree with the view taken by the High Court.Inher chief examination, Dr. U.S. Vasnik (PW-6) has stated thatthe age of the victim could be between 13 and 17 years.The trial court hasneither acted upon the evidence of Bhaulal (PW-8) nor on theschool certificate on the ground that the person who hasadmitted the prosecutrix in the school was not examined.(12) In our considered view, the approach of the trial courtwas not correct.In each and every case the prosecution cannotbe expected to examine the person who has admitted a student inthe school.The school registers are the authentic documentsbeing maintained in the official course, entitled to credenceof much weight unless proved otherwise.In our view,considering the evidence of head master, Bhaulal (PW-8), and 5the school certificate produced by him i.e. Ex.P/13-A, age ofthe victim has to be taken as 12 years at the time ofoccurrence.(13) Of course, Dr. U.S. Vasnik (PW-6) in her chief examinationhas stated that the age of the prosecutrix would be between 13and 17 years.At the most, adopting the doctor’s evidence, ageof the prosecutrix at the relevant point of time can only bearound 15 years.After medical examination of theprosecutrix (PW-1) on 9th March, 1993, F.I.R. was registered on10th March, 1993 and the delay in registration of the F.I.R. has 6been properly explained, which has not been considered by theHigh Court.(15) The impugned judgment of the High Court reversing theconviction of the respondent to acquittal, cannot be sustainedand the same is liable to be set aside and the judgment of thetrial court convicting the respondent under Section 376 I.P.C.is to be restored.The trial court has sentenced therespondent-accused to undergo imprisonment for a period ofseven years.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The case is listed today for admission.Heard on admission.Case diary is available.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.272/12 registered at P.S. Hujrat Kotwali, District Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 427, 294, 506-B/34 of IPC.As per prosecution case, at about 6.50 am the complainant was sleeping in the house and his daughter was working on computer, at that juncture, somebody knocked the door and called the complainant.When the daughter of the complainant opened the gate, 7-8 boys entered in the house and started abusing.On hearing the cries, the complainant awoke and came out from the room, then the boys gave abuses to him and damaged the computer, fax machine, printer, telephone causing loss of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.They also threatened the complainant to vacate the house in 24 hours otherwise they will kill him.It is alleged against the applicant that he is absconding.2 M.Cr.C. No.1 0 7 5 5 / 2 0 1 4Co-accused Rakesh and Sonu Jain have been acquitted by the trial Court.It is further submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR.In the statement recorded before the trial Court in the trial of co- accused the complainant has stated that only on the basis of suspicion he had lodged the report and he does not know any of the accused.In such premises, prayed for anticipatory bail.

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

ad C.R.M 15682 of 2013 In re: Uday Chand Choudhury @ Uday Choudhury & Ors.......... petitioners Re: An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed on 28th November, 2013, in connection with Katwa Police Station Case No. 351 of 2013 dated 11.09.2013 under Sections 341/354/354B/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.Accordingly, the application is rejected.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Subal Baidya, J.)

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT Dixit, C.J.In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the question for consideration arises, upon what the Election Tribunal, Raipur, determined in regard to a preliminary objection of the petitioner to the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1 challenging the petitioner's election to the State Legislative Assembly from Kasdol constituency.The petitioner was; duly etected to the M. P. State Legislative Assembly at a bye-election held in May rg63 from Kasdol constituency.The respondent No. 1, who was defeated at the election, filed an election petition praying that the petitioner's election be declared void as the petitioner was guilty inter alia of having committed certain corrupt practices enumerated in the petition.To support the allegations of corrupt practices and the particulars thereof the respondent No. 1 filed an 'affidavit' along with the election petition.In his reply to the petition, the.applicant raised the preliminary objection that the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) required that if allegations of any corrupt practices are made in an election petition then the petition should be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of corrupt practice or practices and the particulars thereof; that this provision was mandatory; that the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 was not in the form prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in that it was not sworn before a Magistrate at the first class or a notary or a Commissioner of Oaths; that the non-compliance of Rule 94-A rendered the petition ineffective and liable to be dismissed under Section 90(3) of the Act; and that in any case the allegations of corrupt practices in the petition were liable to be struck out as they were not supported by any affidavit in conformity with the proviso to Section 83(1) and Rule 94-A. On this objection, the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issues:The Tribunal further observed that the affidavit, purported to be in the prescribe form, supported the allegations of corrupt practices made in the election petition.In regard to the other issue, the Tribunal stated its finding, thus:"The petitioner has alleged various acts of corrupt practices against the respondents.They are set forth in the various paragraphs of the petition and in the affidavit filed by the petitioner he has parawise supported the various alleged acts of corrupt practices and their particulars.Nothing was shown as to how, in what manner and to what extent the affidavit purports to omit to support the alleged acts of corrupt practices and the particulars thereof.The petitioner further said in the application dated 14th February 1064, that:of ...... 196......Before me.Magistrate of the first class / Notary / Commissioner of Oaths.*Here specify the name of the corrupt practice'."Issue No. 20 was also not so worded as to raise this question specifically.But the Tribunal did not by any of its orders passed on 31st October 1963, 30th November 1963 and 24th February 1964, or by any other order, decide the point about the effect of the 'affidavit' accompanying the election petition on the allegations of corrupt practices made therein.The learned Judges observed--By that application the petitioner only drew the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that certain points raised by him remained to be decided and that they should be decided by the Tribunal.

['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:The Hon'ble Justice Shivakant Prasad C.R.A. No. 6 of 2016 Daya Shankar Shaw @ Lal Babu Shaw Vs.The prosecution case leading to this appeal in brief is that on 27.09.2013 when victim girl was returning from the toilet, Lal Babu Shaw son of Ghanashyam Shaw caught her forcefully and took her to a godown and raped her.According to the written complaint when she tried to oppose him she was beaten up and she received scratch marks on her body.P.W. 3, 4 and 6 are the neighbours.P.W. 8 is a witness of seizure list.It is alleged that a month ago, the accused had tried to rape her but she managed to escape.On the written complaint of the victim, Belgharia PS Case No.419 dated 27.09.2013 under Section 8 was registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 4/6/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused-appellant was submitted.Thereafter, trial started with framing of charges under Section 376(2)(j)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to which the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to bring home charges against the appellant.P.W. 1, 2 and 7 are the victim girl, mother of the victim and elder sister of the victim respectively.P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and 12 are the Doctors who examined the victim child.P.W. 13 is the Doctor who examined the accused to test his potency.P.W. 11 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.P.W. 14 and 15 are the Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer.The prosecution also adduced in evidence some documents being Exhibits 1 to 16 before the trial Court to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant.The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which he inclined to adduce defence evidence and examined one witness, D.W. 1, Jayanta Bain, Staff of Registry Office who proved the certified copy of the deed, Exhibit - C as the accused-appellant has taken the alibi that he was at the A.D.S.R., Cossipore, Dum Dum at the material point of time for execution and registration of the deed.Two photographs of the place near place of occurrence marked as material Exhibit-A and B to explain the place of occurrence.The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment to a term of seven years for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months with further direction that the fine realized be paid to the victim child and also directed that pre-trial detention undergone by the convict would be set off from the substantive period of sentence as per the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge, has illegally found the appellant guilty without proper appreciation of evidence on record.It is submitted that the P.W.1 victim in her First Information Report and her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code made departure and are not in general agreement, therefore, the first information report not being corroborated by its maker.Yet, the learned Judge illegally arrived at a finding of guilt against the appellant on surmises and conjectures.It is contended that the victim girl was 18 years of age at the alleged date of occurrence.The place of occurrence has not been proved in the trial.The learned Judge ought to have discarded the versions of P.W. 6 and 7 as their evidence fall under the category of hearsay evidence.It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses suffers from gross contradictions and embellished statement rendering them unreliable.Lastly, it is submitted that the appellant while being examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code took alibi that he was not at the place of occurrence at the alleged time and the date as he was all along present in the Registry Office at the ADSR, Cossipore and his alibi has been proved by evidence of D.W. upper division clerk of Registry Office.He produced the Registry Volume and the certified copy of the deed.It is submitted that a false case has been foisted against the appellant due to inimical relationship with the complainant and the accused appellant.Admittedly, the appellant has a shop room near the place of occurrence and the complaint party used to spread their cloths in front of the door of the shop room.For that, there was a quarrel between them.It is contended that the learned Trial Judge has not mentioned the specific time in the charge form as framed under Section 376(2) Clause (j) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as the charges with four heads would go to show that there is no mention of the time of occurrence.The occurrence alleged is on 27.09.2013 at 1 p.m. when the victim girl allegedly went to toilet near her house and while returning the appellant caught hold of her and took her to a godown which belongs to a person named, Md. Muslim and when she tried to shout the appellant put his hand forcibly on her mouth and then he raped her and also beaten her and inflicted scratch mark on her body.Mr. Debasis Kar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the F.I.R. does not find corroboration while the maker of the F.I.R., P.W. 1 who has otherwise stated on oath during examination that when she was going to relief herself to the Chhai maidan toilet of the jute mill the shop keeper held and dragged her to a room in the line quarter and thus the place of occurrence defers on evidence of victim girl.The place of occurrence, time of occurrence are not mentioned in the charge form, inimical relationship between the parties, major contradictions which appears in the evidence of victim as well as other witnesses of the prosecution and the alibi taken by the appellant create a doubt in the prosecution case entitling the appellant an order of acquittal.P.W. 1 has deposed in cross-examination that she was a student of Sri Babaji Sitaram School whereas the mother of the victim girl said that her daughter had no schooling.Admittedly, the victim girl has five sisters and one brother but none of them have been examined to corroborate the evidence of the victim girl.It is also contended that the I.O. should have taken steps for collection of certificate from the said school to ascertain her age.It is submitted that the place of occurrence has not been proved as Md. Muslim has not been examined to ascertain as to whether he has any quarter or any room at the place of occurrence.It is further pointed out that at the time of alleged occurrence the victim was putting on a white kamij and brown coloured salwar along with dupatta and her kamiz were stained with blood and were not washed, but, there is no F.S.L. report to prove presence of sperm or stain in the seized wearing apparel of the victim girl.One credible evidence outways the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.The victim was sent to the Doctor on the day the information was reported and was examined by the Doctor and medical evidence supports the victim versions.She also collected the vaginal swab of the victim girl.The victim girl narrated so to this Doctor about rape on her by the appellant-accused.It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the nail mark was self inflicted to falsely implicate the appellant but such submission has no leg to stand as the conviction is not only based on the sole testimony of the victim girl but her testimony finds corroboration by medical evidence and also her statement earlier made before the Judicial Magistrate vide Exhibit-10 proved by Tshering Yangchen Lepcha, learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court Barrackpore who recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reflects that the victim was raped by the appellant.In the context above, in this case the testimony of the victim girl is not only corroborated by her mother and other witnesses but also by the medical evidence that the victim girl was raped by the appellant, the evidence that the victim aged 17+ years well corroborated by the other circumstances convincing the judicial mind, so the evidence of the victim cannot be discarded especially when she has sufficient understanding.PW15, Anupam Mondal, SI of Police, took up investigation and examined the witnesses including the victim girl and arranged for sending the victim girl for medical examination.He conducted raid and arrested the accused as named in the FIR.The I.O. has further deposed that the wearing apparels of the victim girl were seized but the same were not sent for forensic test since the clothes were already mixed up with mud and dust.This is the reason as to why the wearing apparels were not sent for FSL report.The I.O. has visited the place of occurrence as displayed in the sketch map.Now coming to the point of alibi, it is submitted that the accused-appellant has specifically answered to question no.30 during examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., that he was present at the registry office at Cossipore, Dum Dum in between 12 noon to 6 p.m. on 27.09.2013 for registration of a shop room which he purchased and the case has been falsely filed against him.In respect of the alibi taken on behalf of the appellant, the learned Trial Judge has categorically observed that DW 1 had failed to establish conclusively that Daya Shankar Shaw @ Lal Babu Shaw, the appellant, was present at the registry office at that hour.No one has said that the appellant was present at the registry office at that hour.Accordingly, the learned Judge did not accept the contention advanced on behalf of the defence that the accused had to remain present in the ADSR, Cossipore, Dum Dum on 27.09.2013 throughout the day but such contention cannot be accepted because the process of registration of sale deed, he was not required to be present throughout the day, or during the period between 12.30 p.m. to 1 p.m. in the afternoon.He could have gone to the office some time later and put his signature on the deed.Apart from certified copy of deed (Ext.D) and the DW 1, no other evidence had been placed in Court even there were other purchasers in the deed being the brothers of the accused-appellant who were not examined in support of plea of alibi.I am of the view that the Trial Judge has rightly held that the alibi has not been proved satisfactorily.It has also been urged that in order to harass the accused, the victim girl has been set up and tutored to speak lies and no importance should be given to her deposition.

['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 1st May, 2000 at about 2235 hrs.DD No.22A Ex.PW-8/A was recorded at PS Mandawli in respect of a person being stabbed by the occupants of TSR CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 5 of 10 No.DL1RC3079 (TSR number given in FIR) in front of Aman Petrol Pump on National Highway.The DD was assigned to ASI Vikram Singh.At 2305 hrs.another information was received from SDN Hospital and recorded vide DD No.25A (Ex.PW-8/C) at PS Mandawli in respect of the admission of injured Vivek Kumar which was also sent to ASI Vikram Singh through Ct.Heera Lal.ASI Vikram Singh reached the hospital and collected the MLC of the injured.As the patient was declared fit for statement, he recorded his statement Ex.PW-2/A and made his endorsement Ex.PW8/D thereon and sent the Rukka for registration of the case.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 5 of 10During investigation PW-8 ASI Vikram Singh interrogated the three-wheeler scooter driver of TSR No.DL1R3079 and brought the two-wheeler scooter as well two persons, who were shown to PW-2 Vivek Kumar.But PW-2 - the complainant/injured did not identify either the TSR or the two persons to be the same who were involved in the occurrence.Thereafter the investigation was transferred to SI Sanjay Gupta.PW-13 SI Sanjay Gupta, who was posted at PP ISBT, Anand Vihar at the relevant period, has stated that on 26th May, 2000 in the night time he alongwith Ct.Puran Singh and HC Shivaji Singh was on patrolling duty in the area.At about 10.15 PM the accused persons were coming from the side of drain but on seeing the police persons, they started running back.He suspected and both the accused persons were overpowered.On interrogation, both the accused persons made disclosure statements Ex.PW13/A and B and confessed their involvement in this case also.Thereafter he informed SI Sanjay Gupta CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 6 of 10 and SI Vikram Singh of PS Mandwali who came there and he handed over the custody of both the accused persons to SI Sanjay Gupta and SI Vikram Singh.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 6 of 10PW-17 SI Sanjay Gupta has stated that he apprehended accused Vikram Singh and Mohd.Yunis on 27th May, 2000 in this case and recorded their disclosure statement.At the instance of the accused persons, he seized one TSR No.DL1R2930, one sword, katta, one cartridge from under the rear seat of the TSR No.PW-2 Vivek Kumar (injured) in his examination-in-chief has stated that he hired the TSR No.DL1R3079 for going to Noida and at that time he was having 39,000/- in his possession.In the TSR two persons were already seated.He also made himself seated in the TSR and the driver said that he would charge 50/- from him for taking him to Noida.The driver turned the scooter towards Nizamuddin side.The person sitting on his right side took out a knife from his pocket and the person sitting on his left side took out a katta and snatched 29,000/- from him.He tried to run away from there and got down CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 7 of 10 from the scooter when he received injuries with the knife.Then he went running to Aman Petrol Pump where he met PW-1 (Sunil Jaiswal) to whom he handed over 10,000/-.Then he went to Shivam Petrol Pump and police officials were called by giving information on telephone.The police officials came there and sent him to the hospital in three wheeler scooter.The MLC has been prepared with the alleged history of being stabbed by somebody around 10:30 PM.Although during his cross-examination the complainant has stated that he remained unconscious for 15 days but the medical record of the injured reveals that at the time of preparation of MLC he was conscious and oriented, gave the alleged history himself and when ASI Vikram Singh reached the hospital, PW-2 Vivek Kumar, the injured was declared 'fit for statement'.FIR has been registered on the basis of his statement.The appellant Vikram Singh has preferred the instant appeal assailing the judgment dated 23rd October, 2001 and order on sentence dated 29th October, 2001 whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC and 397 IPC and sentenced as under:(i) U/S 394/34 IPC : to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 1 of 10Both the sentences awarded to the appellant were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.Vide impugned judgment and order on sentence, co-accused Mohd. Yunis has also been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC and sentenced in the same manner.Perusal of record reveals that vide order dated 30th March, 2017, this appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.Thereafter the appellant Vikram Singh moved Crl.M.A. No.8993/2017 seeking restoration of the appeal which was allowed vide order dated 26th July, 2017 and the appeal was restored to its original number.During the hearing of this appeal bearing Crl.A. No.918/2001 filed by the appellant Vikram Singh, it was informed by learned APP for the State that co-convict Mohd.Yunis had also preferred an appeal bearing Crl.A. No.144/2002 challenging his conviction and sentence awarded to him for committing the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC and the said appeal bearing No.144/2002 was also dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22nd October, 2007 but no application seeking restoration of the appeal was moved by convict Mohd. Yunis.Vide order dated 1st November, 2017, Registry was directed to place before the Court the judicial file of Crl.A.144/2002 preferred by co-convict Mohd.Fresh nominal roll of the appellant herein namely Vikram Singh and that of co-convict Mohd. Yunis was also called for.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 2 of 10On 6th November, 2017 judicial file of Crl.A. No.144/2002 preferred by co-convict Mohd. Yunis has been placed before this Court.Nominal roll of the co-convict has also been received.A.No.144/2002 reveals that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22nd October, 2007 and thereafter the appellant did not move any application seeking restoration of the appeal.Fresh nominal roll of co-convict Mohd.Yunis has also been received which reveals that he has already undergone the sentence awarded to him in this case.Hence so far as Crl.A.144/2002 filed by co-convict Mohd.Yunis is concerned, which is lying dismissed for non-prosecution, neither the appellant Mohd. Yunis has appeared nor he seems to be interested in continuing with the appeal, on his release after undergoing the sentence awarded to him.Case file of Crl.A.No.144/2002 filed by co-convict Mohd. Yunis be returned to the Registry.The appellant Vikram Singh (Crl.A.No.918/2001) and co- convict Mohd. Yunis (appellant in Crl.A. No.144/2002) were sent to face trial for committing the offence under Section 392/394/34 IPC, 397 IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act in case FIR No.144/2000 registered at PS Mandawli.Since the LCR in this case has been misplaced in the Branch, for purpose of reconstruction of the LCR, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the appellant have placed on record the copy of the report under Section 173 CrPC as well the copy of the memos and DD entries and submitted that authenticity of the copies placed on record is not disputed by them.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 3 of 10I have heard Mr.Yash Anand, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, learned APP for the State.In addition to oral submissions, written submissions have also been filed by learned counsel for the appellant Vikram Singh.Yash Anand, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been convicted for committing the offences punishable under Section 394/34 and 397 IPC but the injury received PW-2 Sh.Vivek Kumar - the complainant was caused by knife.He has stated before the Court that the knife was used by another person not produced before the Court.Hence, the appellant Vikram Singh could not have been convicted under Section 397 IPC which, in case of conviction, provides the minimum sentence of seven years.Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant Vikram Singh was got identified by the complainant at the police station, before producing him for Test Identification Parade (TIP).In that circumstance, he had good reason to refuse for TIP.In that case, the Court should not have drawn any adverse inference against him.The three-wheeler scooter No.DL1R3079 (number given in the FIR) along with two other persons connected with that scooter was shown to the injured Vivek Kumar (PW-2) but he did not identify either the TSR No.DL1R3079 or the two persons produced before him to be involved in the crime.There is no evidence on record to connect the appellant with second CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 4 of 10 TSR i.e. TSR No.DL1R2930 and that except the disclosure statement, there is neither any recovery from the appellant of the robbed amount nor the TSR No.DL1R2930 could be connected to the appellant Vikram Singh in any manner whatsoever.Hence, the impugned judgment and the order on sentence cannot be sustained.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 4 of 10Yash Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, also submitted that the appellant had remained in custody for almost a period of about five years which can be ascertained from his nominal roll.He has no criminal antecedents and except this case, which pertains to the year 2000, during past 17 years till date, he is not involved in any criminal case.In the given circumstances, if the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC is held to be not proved against the appellant, the appellant does not wish to challenge his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence.Kewal Singh Ahuja, learned APP for the State submitted that the learned Trial Court has given good reasons for convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 394/34 and Section 397 IPC.As per the statement of PW-2 Sh.Vivek Kumar - the complainant, injury was caused by the appellant Vikram Singh, hence he has been rightly convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and awarded the minimum sentence of seven years.On completion of the investigation, he produced both of them for TIP.The appellant Vikram Singh refused to take part in the TIP taking the plea that he had been shown to the witness.Since the main witness to prove the offence in this case is the complainant/injured i.e. PW-2 Sh.Vivek Kumar, learned Trial Court relied on his statement and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 394/34 and 397 IPC observing that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant Vikram Singh on his refusal to take part in TIP.The police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. PW-2 Vivek Kumar after seeing both the accused persons stated that Mohd. Yunis was driving the scooter and Vikram Singh was seated in the scooter No.DL1R3079 and that the person having knife with him was not present in the Court.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 7 of 10The time of examination has been given as 1.5.2000 at 11:20 PM.Only two accused persons namely Vikram Singh and Mohd. Yunis were sent to face trial.The role attributed to the appellant Vikram Singh is that he took out 29,000/- from him and the person who caused knife injury was not present in the Court.The CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 8 of 10 role of Mohd. Yunis, the co-convict is that of TSR driver.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 8 of 10The prosecution has not led any evidence to connect the second TSR No.DL1R2930 with the appellant either in the capacity of driver or owner.It has come in the statement of IO ASI Vikram Singh (first IO) that he brought TSR No.DL1R3079 from Jamia Nagar with two persons but the complainant did not identify either the TSR or the persons brought by him to be involved in the occurrence.So far as the appellant Vikram Singh is concerned, no recovery has been affected from him.The stab injuries received by the complainant PW-2 Vivek Kumar was not caused by him and at the most it can be said that he robbed the complainant of 29,000/-.Thus, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded under Section 397 IPC to the appellant Vikram Singh cannot be sustained for the reason that it can be awarded to the offender who used the deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt.In the instant case, neither the TSR No.DL1R2930 could be connected by the prosecution with the appellant Vikram Singh nor the sword claimed to have been found therein has any connection with this occurrence.So far as the refusal of the appellant Vikram Singh to take part in TIP is concerned, PW-2 Sh.Vivek Kumar - the complainant has admitted that he was made to identify both the accused (Mohd. Yunis and Vikram Singh) at PS Anand Vihar after calling them from lock- up.If the appellant had already been shown to the witness in the lock- up, he had every reason to refuse to take part in TIP on the plea that he had already been shown to the witness.In the circumstances, it was CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 9 of 10 not proper for the learned Trial Court to draw adverse inference against him on his refusal to take part in TIP.CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 9 of 10In view of the above discussion the conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant Vikram Singh for committing the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC is set aside.As the appellant is not challenging his conviction under Section 394/34 IPC, his conviction for the said offence is maintained.Coming to the quantum of sentence, except the instant case, which was registered against him about 17 years ago, he has no other involvement.As per nominal roll, as on 18 th September, 2004, he has already undergone sentence of 3 years 11 months and 22 days and earned the remission of ten months and 26 days, meaning thereby that he has already undergone almost four years and eleven months in this case.Taking into consideration that the appellant has spent about four years and eleven months in custody, the substantive sentence awarded to him for committing the offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone in custody.The appeal stands allowed in above terms.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.PRATIBHA RANI (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 10, 2017/'hkaur' CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 10 of 10CRL.A. No.918/2001 Page 10 of 10

['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC') has been filed for quashment of FIR lodged against the petitioners by the respondent No.2 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').As per the terms of application No.50/2019, parties have entered into compromise and the matrimonial dispute has been settled amicably between them.The parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of their compromise.They had appeared on 22.07.2019 and the report of Principal Registrar is placed on record who after verifying the same has expressed his satisfaction that the parties have arrived at compromise without any threat, inducement or coercion.They have amicably 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.14705 OF 2019 (Amit and Others vs State of MP and Another) resolved their dispute by mutual consent.Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out a citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 condenscenced the proceedings relating to matrimonial proceedings.Learned counsel for the State was also heard.Learned counsel for the complainant/objector was also heard.After due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and view of the citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and the fact that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily, the FIR dated 11.02.2019 registered in Mahila Police Thana, Indore and consequential proceedings are directed to be quashed.The bail bond furnished by the petitioners shall stand discharged.With the aforesaid, this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is disposed of, in above terms.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(i) A.1 was the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Kanyakumari; A.2 was the Assistant Engineer (Rural Roads); A.3, A.4 were the Junior Engineers; A.5 was the Section Officer, A.6 was the Divisional Accountant in Rural works Division;/ A.7 was the Assistant in the Special Division (Rural Roads), Thakkalai; A.8 was the draughtsman in the Divisional Office, Highways; A.9 and A.10 were the draughtsmen; A.11 was the Assistant; A.12 to A.34 were the contractors.ii) As per G.O.1212, dated 17.6.1972, an amount of Rs.28.39 lakhs was sanctioned for laying certain new road and improving certain roads.In the meanwhile, on 23.3.1973, to conduct a preliminary enquiry, an order was passed by D.V.A.C. Thereafter, on 24.4.1973, a detailed enquiry was ordered.The detailed enquiry was conducted by B.D.Jayaraman; he filed a report.Based on that, a complaint was registered on 27.11.1974; thereafter, investigation proceeded; for the purpose of aiding in the investigation, D.V.A.C. requested the Chief Engineer to depute some officers for conducting checks; Accordingly, P.W.81 was deputed.They were sent to Highways Research Station for testing; Test Report was received on 14.2.1977 from the Highways Research Station.After obtaining sanction, the prosecution was launched.JUDGMENT A.K. Rajan, J.1. C.A.Nos.115 and 141 of 1992 are appeals against conviction.Initially, 34 accused were charged under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B, 109, 467, 477-A I.P.C. To prove the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 108, Exs.P.1 to P.886 and M.Os.1 to 24 were marked.On the side of the defence, Exs.D.1 to D.9 were marked.After considering the evidence on record, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge acquitted 19 accused; 15 accused were convicted.All the convicted persons have filed appeal challenging their conviction.Pending appeal, A.1 and A.18 died; Therefore, C.A.No.142 of 1992 and C.A.No.116 of 1992 abated.In all about, 131 charges were framed.(iii) After trial, the trial Court(a) acquitted all the accused of the charge under Section 120-B I.P.C.(b) A.2 was found guilty of charges-2, 16, 20, 28, 32, 44, 48, 66, 70, 78, 82, 96 and 100 and was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.100/-; A.2 was also found guilty of the charge Nos.30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 80, 84 and 102, convicted for the offence under Section 477-A I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo one year R.I.(c) A.3 was found guilty of the charge Nos.2, 28, 32, 78 and 82, and convicted under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) and sentenced him to undergo two years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-; further, he was also found guilty of the charge Nos.30, 34, 38, 42, 80 and 84 and convicted under Section 477-A I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo one year R.I.(d) A.5 was found guilty of the charge Nos.16, 20, 44, 48, 66, 70 and 100, convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to two years R.I. and was imposed a fine of Rs.100/-; he was also found guilty of the charge Nos.46, 50 and 102, convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 477-A (three counts) I.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I.(e) A.12 to A.22 were found guilty, convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 109 and 477-A I.P.C. and were sentenced to two years R.I. and were imposed a fine of Rs.100/-.(f) Accused-4, 6 to 11, 23 to 29, 31 to 34 were found not guilty and were released.These samples were sent for chemical analysis; P.W.86, Research Assistant (Concrete), Highways Department, Guindy tested the cement content and sent his report, Ex.P.628; He has spoken about the details as to how the test was conducted.He followed A.S.D.M. method for analysis.He has stated that he would take representative samples for analysis and after analysis, he sent the report, Ex.Criminal Appeal No.115 of 1992:The counsel for the appellant submits that the construction work was done in the year 1972 and the samples were taken in 1975 and 1976; 3 to 3 1/2 years after construction.The quality of the sample would definitely vary and that would not conform to the standard; Even P.W.86 has admitted this in the cross-examination.Further, the counsel for the appellant submits that the samples were taken only with the help of coolies using pickaxe, etc. Therefore, the result of test of such samples would not reflect the real standard of construction.The trial Court has convicted the accused only as it found the cement mortar used for the construction did not satisfy the standards.With respect to other charges in respect of laying of roads etc., they were not found against any of the accused; also there is no appeal against such acquittal.Perusal of Ex.A perusal of Ex.Merely because they were working on deputation in the D.V.A.C. department, their estimate cannot be rejected.So far as A.2 and A.5 are concerned, Charge No.16, "M" book-883-A, Ex.P.171, this sample was also taken after 3 1/2 years.Regarding Charge No.20-"M" Book, Ex.P.113, sample was taken on 12.6.1976 after 3 1/2 years.Regarding a.2 and A.3, Charge No.32, Ex.Wall was constructed on 14.2.1973; sample was taken on 12.6.1976 after 3 1/2 years.When the cement mortar used was not 1:6, but was varying from 1:11 to 1:23; the records contained particulars that cement mortar of 1:6 was used.

['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This appeal under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Sarwar Khan for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.159/2017 registered at Police Station Niwari, District Tikamgarh for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act.According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant herein, who is in judicial custody since 22.04.2017 in the aforesaid offence is alleged to have committed rape with the prosecutrix, who is aged a little over 16 years.The case of the prosecution as narrated in the 164 statement of the prosecutrix is that the prosecutrix was taken to the Photo Studio of the appellant herein by her friend Soniya and there she is stated to have introduced the prosecutrix to the appellant herein and compelled the prosecutrix to make friendship with the appellant.Thereafter, the prosecutrix has stated that during the photography session, the appellant is stated to have had sex with her.Thereafter, on 17.04.2017 on account of certain objectionable actions by her father of touching her improperly, the prosecutrix goes to a temple and after meeting some woman there and telling her about her plight, goes to the Police Station and registers the present FIR against the appellant herein under Section 376, IPC and also a separate FIR against her own father for the offence under Section 354, IPC.Looking at the delay in the registration of the FIR, which is over two months and also the fact that the MLC is inconclusive of any external injuries and does not show any resistance injuries or any kind on the body of the prosecutrix, I am inclined to allow the appeal and direct that the appellant-Sarwar Khan 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.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE taj

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

as per rules.The case is listed today for admission.Heard on admission.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.Complainant came in the bank for depositing Rs. 300/-.Applicant refused to deposit fake hundred rupees note which was brought by the complainant .Applicant is permanent resident of Distt.Bhind and there is no likelihood of his absconsion.In such premises, applicant prayed for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No.29 5 0 / 2 0 1 5The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and he will co-operate in the investigation.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court.

['Section 406 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.

as C.R.M. 15884 of 2013 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 4.12.2013 in connection with Krishnaganj P.S. Case No.337 of 2013 dated 17.10.2013 under Sections 147/148/149/325/326/307/186/332/333/353 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Ujjwal Biswas & Ors. ... Petitioners......For the Petitioners......For the State.Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

['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 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

sm Rejected CRM No.4795 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.06.2016 in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No.07 of 2013 dated 01.01.2013 under sections 326/34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, adding section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan Dip Singh .. .. Petitioner.Jeenia Rudra... for the petitioner Ms.Anusua Sinha .. for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner is in custody for about 74 days.He came to be arrested after he absconded for more than three (3) years.Now considering his conduct and the materials collected during investigation, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

I. Anticipatory bail applications are hereby allowed.In the event of arrest of applicant Khushalsing Waluba Sundarde in anticipatory bail application No. 61 of 2019 and the applicant Paramjitsingh Kartarsingh Dhillo in anticipatory bail application No. 1384 of 2018, in connection with crime No. 0271 of 2018 registered with Phulambri police station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506, r.w. 34 of I.P.C., they be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount on following conditions:-::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 01:22:02 :::a) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till filing of charge sheet.::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 01:22:02 :::

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2018 the S.H.O., Police Station Jhanshi Road, Gwalior along with other members reached Phooti Colony to remove illegal constructions in compliance of the direction issued by this court.At that time more than 2,00 persons came there and intervened in discharging official duties and pelted stones at police party whereby S.D.M sustained injuries.as per rules.(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE ar ABDUR Digitally signed by ABDUR RAHMAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, RAHMAN 2.5.4.20=d604b5a66b413c436e6af99c6fe547304e1bc26 d2b510cc133f1b56faa63e77b, cn=ABDUR RAHMAN Date: 2018.11.16 17:53:42 +05'30'A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard and perused the case diary.This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the present applicants, who are in custody since 25.5.2018 in connection with Crime No.82/2018 registered at Police Station Hatta District Balaghat for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 307, 34 of IPC.The allegation against the present applicants is that they caused injuries to injured Doman Singh in the marriage.Certified copy as per rules.(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Digitally signed by MANZOOR AHMED Date: 2018.07.04 10:23:23 +05'30' Ansari

['Section 307 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.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously submits that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are self contradictory in nature, but this prime fact was not taken into account by the trial court at the time of passing the impugned Judgment.Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / A.1 that the trial court had not taken into account of the essential fact that the evidence of P.W.7 was not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6 as to the individual, who took the victim to the hospital.In response, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the Respondent submits that the trial court in S.C.No.48 of 2013, on the side of the Respondent / Prosecution Witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked.25. P.W.4 in his evidence had stated that on 02.12.2011 he went to the Karunanithi Tailor Shop for receiving the stitched cloth at about 7.00 p.m. and when he was indulging in talking in the down below, he heard a noise and Karunanidhi went downwards and he also went to that place and he went and saw Narayanan in unconscious stage and when he saw from the top of the Karunanithi Tailor Shop, Narayanan was beaten by 4 or 5 persons he had not known their names and further that he could not identify them.Furthermore it is the evidence of P.W.4 that the injured P.W.2 was taken to hospital by P.W.1 and he had returned to his house and next day he was examined by the police.Significantly P.W.4 was also treated as hostile witness.26. P.W.5 in his evidence had stated that 10 months before when he went to Jayankondam in connection with his personal job and when he passed the place, Narayanan (P.W.2) was talking with Karunanithi, Raja, Samidurai's son, Senthil, Basker, Sathish and at that time, the Appellant informed P.W.2 (Narayanan) as to whether he had got the guts to give a petition and by so saying beat him and later (P.W.2) (Narayanan) was dashed against the wall by said Raja and Senthil (A.1 and A.2 respectively) and subsequently Sathish and Basker (A.4 and A.3 respectively) with the R.S.Pathy Wooden logs beat P.W.2 and later Ambulance arrived and that P.W.2 was taken by Karunanithi in the 108 Ambulance and these incidents took place in front of his eyes and next day he was enquired by the police and he informed them the same thing and the occurrence had taken place at 8.00 p.m.It is the evidence of P.W.5 (in cross examination) that immediately after the incident, he went to his house straight away and at that day he came in a cycle and from the place of occurrence the police station was situated on the eastern side at the distance of 100 meters and there were about 25 persons at the place of occurrence and he does not know any one except P.W.2 ((Narayanan) and Karunanidhi).28. P.W.6 (Doctor) in his evidence had deposed that personally he is serving as Assistant Doctor at the Jayankondam Government Hospital and on 02.12.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. in the night Narayanan aged 40 son of Rajamanickam, Mella Street, Mellur came for treatment before him based on his wife's brother Rajadurai's information, the said Narayanasamy was beaten with a hand by three unknown persons on 02.12.2012 about 8.00 p.m. near Jayamkondan, Annasalai and he examined P.W.2 and at that time he was conscious but he could not talk and he informed that he had a pain in his chest and also he informed that he had a headache and he was admitted as inpatient at Kumbakonam Sugam hospital for further treatment.Really speaking, P.W.6 (Doctor) who examined P.W.2 (Narayanasamy) had found the following simple injuries:-1. Pain over the chest (by shaking the head)2. Pain over the head.It transpires from Ex.P.2 discharge summary that P.W.2 was admitted on 03.12.2011 and the date of discharge was on 09.12.2011, the Inpatient Number was 33331 and the X ray taken on the Chest AP/PA showed no bony injury and the opinion tendered was 'simple'.It is the evidence of P.W.7 that on 02.11.2011 at Senkunthapuram he was talking along with Karunanidhi and Narayanan about the quarrel which took place and when they were talking to lodge a complaint in regard to the occurrence of quarrel at that time, the accused who were present came there to beat Narayanan and the said Narayanan was beaten by the accused, who were present and the four accused caught hold of the shirt of Narayanan who fell down and dashed him against a wall and later Narayanan fell down after becoming unconscious and later the four accused took R.S.Pathy from the floor and beat Narayanan and when they went to them, the four accused informed them, that if they come with a view to disperse they would finish them and the injured Narayanan was taken to Jayankondam Government Hospital by himself and Karunanidhi and since the treatment was not proper at the Government Hospital, for further treatment, they took Narayanan to Kumbakonam Sugam Hospital and that he was examined by the police.It is the clear cut evidence of P.W.7 (in his cross examination) that when the problem erupted at Malarkodi's house at that time he was not there and from the Malarkodi's house, the place of occurrence was at the distance of 2 Kms and that he came to the place of occurrence in a bike and within 10 minutes after the occurrence P.W.2, Narayanasamy was taken in a Ambulance and he along with Karunanithi went to the hospital in connection with the injured (P.W.2) and he informed the Doctor as to the place of the body in which the injured had sustained injury.32. P.W.7 had proceeded to state in his evidence that Narayanan is his uncle's son and that he was examined by the police at the hospital at 11.00 a.m.33. P.W.8 in his evidence had stated that the police came to his house situated near by the book shop on 13.12.2011 and asked him to affix his signature as evidence for happening of occurrence.The police had also prepared a map and his signature was found in Ex.P.3, observation mahazar and seizure mahazar was Ex.P.4 in relation to R.S.Pathy sticks (series 4) (M.O.1 series)The Appellant / A.1 has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court, as an aggrieved person, as against the Judgment dated 22.11.2013 in S.C.No.48 of 2013 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.The Learned Sessions Judge, Ariyalur while passing the Impugned Judgment in S.C.No.48 of 2013 on 22.11.2013 at Paragraph No.27 had convicted the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 294(b) of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, directed them to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.Furthermore under modified Section of 323 of IPC, the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 were convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further directed them to undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment.As a matter of fact, insofar as the Accused Nos.3 and 4 were concerned, they were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in terms of Section 324 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment.However, in respect of the Charge No.1 namely, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC (obscene language), A.3 was acquitted by the trial court.Assailing correctness, validity, legality of the Impugned Judgment dated 22.11.2013 in S.C.No.48 of 2013 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, the Appellant / A.1 has focused the present Criminal Appeal before this Court basically contending that the trial court had miserably failed to appreciate an important fact that the contents of Ex.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant / A.1 urges before this Court that the trial court should have discarded the evidence of P.W.1 solely on the ground that the occurrence took place in the busy area and furthermore, except P.W.1 (maternal uncle of the victim), others were not examined by the Respondent / Prosecution.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant / A.1 projects an argument that the trial court ought to have been acquitted the Appellant / A.1, based on the evidence of P.W.6 (Doctor), who treated the victim and in fact the Doctor had deposed that the brother- in-law, Thangadurai had stated that the victim was assaulted by three unknown persons with hands at nearby Anna Statue, Jayankondam.Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / A.1 contends that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence of P.W.6 (Doctor), who in his cross-examination had stated that the injury in the nature of contusion or abrasion might be caused if the victim was dashed against the walls and assaulted with 'wooden logs'.Besides the above, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / A.1 proceeds to take a plea that the trial court had failed to consider that the fact of non examination of one Rajadurai, who according to P.W.6 (Doctor) brought P.W.2 to the hospital and narrated the occurrence to the Doctor at the time of admission for treatment and the same is very much fatal to the case of prosecution.It is represented on behalf of the Appellant / A.1 that the so called first occurrence took place in the building of Malarkodi, but the said Malarkodi was not examined by the Respondent.Also on the side of the prosecution, M.O.1 series (Four in Number  R.S.Pathy  sticks) were marked on the side of the Appellant / A.1 and on the accused side, no one witnesses were examined.However, Ex.D.1, a certified copy of FIR in Crime No.129 of 2012 of Jayankondam Police Station was marked.It is the stand of the Respondent / Prosecution that the trial court had looked into the entire gamut of oral and documentary evidence available on record and ultimately delivered the Judgment by punishing the Appellant / A.1 and others concerned and imposed necessary punishments.Furthermore, in respect of Charge No.1, under Section 294(b) of IPC, A.3 was acquitted by the trial court and in short, the Judgment of the trial court is free from any flaw.For a better and fuller appreciation of the entire gamut of the main case in S.C.No.48 of 2013 on the file of trial court, at this stage, it is useful for this Court to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.16.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 2.12.2011 when he was in the tailor shop situated at Bazaar street, Jayankondam at about 8.00 p.m.,and that his sister's son Narayanan is running a tailor shop at Sengunthapuram and one Malarkodi is the shop owner and that there was a previous enmity between the said shop owner Malarkodi and the Appellant / A.1 (Raja) and in this regard the case was pending before Jayankondam Court.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that on 02.12.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., the Appellant (A.1) and along with four other persons had tress-passed into the house of aforesaid Malarkodi and beaten and at that time, his sister's son Narayanan, (after taking bath) came to the shop and when the said Narayanan, who went there to pacify and disperse them, was beaten by the Appellant (A.1) and others and they uttered that whether you are supporting Mudhaliar and by so saying beat him (Narayanan) and also removed the bead (malai) which he had worn around his neck and also they ransacked the articles which were available in the shop.Further, the Narayanasamy and Sivasamy came to his shop and they apprised P.W.1 and took him to the police station for lodging complaint and at that time he was purchasing articles required in connection with stitching from the eastern portion of his shop and at that time when P.W.1 who received the papers and was about to write a complaint, the accused (who were present) came in bikes and they attacked Narayanan near his shop and Senthil (A.2) by holding the body of Narayanasamy dashed his head against the wall and Narayanasamy sat down and they dispersed the quarrel by asking the people to move out from that place and that the persons had assembled and after seeing the crowd, the accused persons threatened by saying if intervention was made in their acts, then the same fate would follow.19.P.W.1 in his evidence proceeds to add that already the said Narayanasamy, who sat after (falling down) was kicked by Raja with his leg and Basker and Senthil (A.3 and A.2 respectively) brought the R.S.pathy sticks from the hotel and beaten Narayanan.Continuing further, the Accused, Basker (A.3) raised a sound when he dashed head of Narayanasamy against the wall and uttered now you are finished and because of the incident, the injured, Narayanasamy came to the level of unconscious stage and some one from the crowd phoned up to 108 Ambulance which came to the spot and the said injured, Narayansamy was taken to the Jayankondan Government Hospital for treatment and he was admitted, by then, since the said Narayanasamy was lying in that Jayankondam Government Hospital without any consciousness, an advise was tendered to take him to Tanjavur and he (P.W.1) took him to Kumbakonam Sugam Hospital wherein he was admitted as inpatient and on the next day, he lodged a complaint Ex.P.1 before the Jayamkondam Police Station.20. P.W.1 (in his cross-examination) had deposed that immediately after the occurrence 108 Ambulance came to the spot and in the Ambulance, he along with Sivasamy took Narayanasamy to the hospital and at that time of occurrence, in the occurrence place, nearly 100 people had assembled and further he had also proceeded to state in his evidence that the police station was situated at a approximate place of 350 feet from the place of occurrence.P.W.1 also (in his cross-examination) had candidly stated that on either side of the occurrence place there are shops and the movement of people will be on higher side and immediately after the occurrence he had not informed the police.21. P.W.2 (Narayanasamy  Injured / Victim) in his evidence had deposed that on 02.12.2011 when he was in the tailor shop situated in a place belonging to Malarkodi at Sengunthapuram main road, the Appellant / A.1 and together with him 2, 3 persons went to the house of Malarkodi and thereafter there was a heavy noise and he went and saw, at that time, Malarkodi raised a cry by saying help help and he asked the Appellant / A.1 as to what was happening and he dispersed the quarrel and at that time, the Appellant uttered prostitute's son and by so saying beaten him and since at that time he was wearing the bead (Malai) he got palpitation and the Appellant had broken the tube light which was there and also took the cutting player and by so dashing, scolded him (P.W.1) by asking him (P.W.2) to come out immediately took the vehicle and went to the shop of P.W.1 to lodge a complaint.Moreover, he narrated the incident to his uncle, who was standing down below and at that time accused Sathish (A.4) scolded in obscene language by stating that Narayanan is standing and later Raja and Senthil also spoke in vulgar / obscene language and further suddenly Raja (A.No.1) caught hold of him and pushed him down and he made an enquiry with Senthil as to why they were beating him, and as he informed that he when he beat him he would give a complaint, at that time, Raja by uttering the words 'kuchikari son' beat him and the said Raja (A.1) and Senthil (A.2) beat him with the aid of R.S.Pathy Sticks and when he resisted and enquired about the same with them he was lifted and near the book shop of victory they dashed him against the wall and he fell down and since he lost his conscious he had not known as to what had happened to him and when he regained his consciousness he came to know that he was admitted at the Kumbakonam Sugam Hospital and P.W.1 in connection with the incident had given a complaint before the police and he took treatment at the said Sugam Hospital for nearly 7 days and got discharged and he was subsequently advised to see Psychiatrist Doctor and based on that he took treatment at Kumbakonam Vijaya Hospital and that he was enquired by the police.P.W.2 (in his cross-examination) had clearly deposed that he was enquired by the police at Sugam Hospital at one time and that the police station is situated at a distance of 100 feet from the place of occurrence and from the place of occurrence, if one goes to Government hospital it will take 15 minutes and the Government hospital was situated at a distance of 1 1/2 or 2 kilometers from the place of occurrence.24. P.W.3 in his evidence had stated he does not know anything about the police incident and that he was not examined by the police.In fact P.W.3 was treated as an hostile witness.34. P.W.8 in his cross examination had also stated that M.O.1, four sticks were shown to him and he affixed his signature in two papers in out of portion of his house.P.W.9 in his evidence had stated that personally he was working as Special Assistant Inspector, Jayankondam Police Station on 03.12.2011, Karunanithi son of Manickam, Senkunthapuram came to the police station and he received the said complaint from him and registered a case in police station Crime No.366 of 2011 under Sections 294(b), 307, 323, 324, 355 and 506(ii) of IPC and that Ex.P.5 is the printed copy of FIR registered by him.Further, he handed over the case file for the purpose of further investigation to the Inspector of Police and concerned higher officials.P.W.10, served as in-charge Inspector of Jayankondam Police Station in his evidence had stated that after taking up the investigation, he visited the scene of occurrence, examination witnesses, Ayyappan, Govarthan and in their presence prepared observation mahajar, rough plan and also received statement from Karunanidhi, Narayanasamy, Ramachandran and Rajendran from the occurrence place and recorded the same.Later he seized R.S.Pathy sticks four in numbers (3 = feet length) under Mahajar which was identified by complainant Karunanithi at the place of occurrence and later he arrested the accused Satish (A.4) at Suriya sand bus stop on 04.12.2011 and brought him to the police station and sent him for judicial custody.P.5 was a rough plan prepared by him and also proceeded to state that P.W.3 and 4 had given statement at the time of his enquiry and later on had given a contradictory evidence.As far as the present case is concerned, so far as the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 and A.3 are concerned, the first charge that levelled against him before the trial court was that they had used vulgar / obscene language as against the victim at the time of commission of occurrence.A perusal of contents of Ex.P.1, First Information Report indicates latently and patently that the obscene language was employed at the time of occurrence by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and in fact P.W.2, injured Narayansamy had clearly stated that the Appellant (Raja) had scolded him as son of prostitute and subsequently the Appellant / A.1 (Raja) and the 2nd Accused, Senthil used abusive filthy and foul language and attacked him.In fact, the evidence of P.W.2 (Narayanasamy, injured / victim) is a cogent, coherent, trust worthy one in the considered opinion of this Court.In this connection, it is to be borne in mind that the Appellant / A.1 alone had preferred the instant Criminal Appeal and hence this Court confines only with him and not further stating anything about other accused.In so far as the Charge No.2 is concerned under Section 307 of IPC attempt to murder levelled against the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 to the effect that the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 holding the head of P.W.2, Narayanasamy dashed his head over or against wall.It is to be relevantly pointed out that P.W.1 (Karunanithi / complainant) in his evidence had stated that by then, the accused came in bikes and attacked Naraynanasamy, Senthil held the body of Narayanasamy and dashed his head against the wall.Narayanasamy had fell down and they intervened and pacify them and then crowd thronged there and accused seeing the thronging crowd uttered that if any one pocks their nose in their affairs this would be the result and left the place.As a matter of fact, the Appellant / A.1 had kicked Narayanasamy (P.W.2 injured / victim) Baskar and Senthil (A.3 and A.2) took out R.S.pathy sticks / logs from the near by shop and struck him with its assistance and when Baskar (A.3) dashed head of Narayanasamy, (P.W.2) he shouted to the effect that 'with this he is finished'.Moreover Narayanasamy, P.W.2 was lying in unconscious stage and some one in the crowd telephoned the 108 Ambulance, which rushed to the spot.It is the evidence of P.W.2 (injured) that accused came there and Sathish (A.4) pointed out him to other accused and that Senthil (A.2) used filthy language and attacked him.In fact the Appellant / A.1 Raja pushed him back and abused in vulgar language and attacked him.Thereafter the Appellant/Raja/A.1 and A.2, Senthil attacked with R.S.Pathy with wooden logs and when he challenged the same, accused simply lifted and dashed him against the wall and fell in unconscious.After regaining conscious he found himself in the Subam hospital at Kumbakonam.The evidence of P.W.2 in the present case was corroborated by P.W.5 who had stated that 19 months while he was crossing place of occurrence he found that Narayanan was talking with Raja (A.1) Senthil (A.2) Basker (A.3) and Sathish (A.4) and by then, Appellant / A.1 Raja attacked P.W.2 challenging as to whether he had enough courage to lodge a complaint against him.Subsequently, the Appellant / A.1 and Senthil/A.2 held P.W.2 and spoke vulgar / obscene language and dashed him against the wall.In fact A.4, Sathish and Basker(A.3) gave a blow with R.S.Pathy wooden logs to P.W.2 and after the happening of occurrence P.W.2 was carried to the hospital in 108 Ambulance.From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as coupled with the evidence of corroborative evidence of P.W.5, it is candidly clear that the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 had caught hold of P.W.2 dashed his head over the wall.But in the instant case, no external injury was caused to P.W.2 and in this regard, the evidence of P.W.6 Doctor assumes significance.At the risk of repetition P.W.6, Doctor had stated in his evidence that there were no injuries but had deposed that P.W.2 was admitted as inpatient and P.W.2 complained chest and head pain through signal and he referred to Subam Hospital, Kumbakonam and discharged from the hospital (Ex.P.2).In fact the act of the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 in hitting the head of P.W.2 (victim) over the wall and causing simple injuries to him would certainly attract the ingredients of Section 323 of IPC and viewed in that perspective, the act of causing simple injuries by the Appellant / A.1 clearly comes within the domain of Sections 323 of Indian Penal Code and he was rightly found guilty by the trial court, in the considered opinion of this Court.Since the Charge No.3 under Section 324 of IPC against A.3 and A.4 and Charge No.4 against A.3 and A.4 in respect of an offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC were not related to the Appellant / Accused No.1, this Court is not traversing upon the same in the present Appeal.In the case evidence on record established, that the appellant was one of the purpotaters / miscreants and he took part in the attack / assault of the victim / complainant as the case may be.In fact in a given case, the Appellant's act ought to be a one not covered in terms of ingredients of Section 324 of IPC.Like wise it found the Appellant guilty in respect of offence under Section 323 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-In so far as the imposition of fine of Rs.500/- and fine of Rs.1,000/- in respect of an offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC, in respect of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, is slightly on the higher side.Therefore, this Court, exercising its Judicial discretion while upholding the judgment of the trial court in finding the Appellant / A.1 guilty in respect of offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC reduces the fine of Rs.500/- in respect of offence under Section 294(b) of IPC to that of Rs.250/- and in respect of offence under Section 323 of IPC, the fine is reduced by this Court from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.500/-, which in the considered opinion would meet the ends of justice, (of course based on the facts and circumstances which float on the surface).Consequently, the Appeal succeeds in part.In fine the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part stated in above terms.In this regard, the Appellant / A.1 is at liberty to file necessary Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for payment out.If an Application / Petition is filed by the Appellant / A.1 before the trial court (As per Criminal Rules of Practice) for refund of the excess fine amount paid, then, the trial court shall dispose of the said Miscellaneous Petition within a period of one week thereafter.17.10.2016Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NossdM.VENUGOPAL,J.,ssdToThe Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.State rep.By The Inspector of Police, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.A.No.485 of 2015 17.10.2016http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.

Since both the miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.Heard on these first applications for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Mutti @ Mohit Raikwar and Golu @ Adesh Patel in Crime No.457/2018 registered by P.S. Adhartal, District- Jabalpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 452, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act.petitioners Mutti @ Mohit Raikwar and Golu @ Adesh Patel accompanied by Vinay Sahani, Ranjeet Chakarwati, Anand Patel, Vijay Naidu and Jordan Fransis and armed with sword, knife and sticks assaulted Kamlesh Patel, Shailendra Patel, Atul Patel and Shiv Kumar Sahu.They caused several incised wounds to aforesaid victims.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners are omnibus in nature and no specific role has been ascribed to them in the first 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR M.Cr.None of the victims namely Kamlesh Patel, Prashant, Atul Patel, Shivkumar and Chooti Bai have sustained any injury to the vital part of their bodies; therefore, Section 307 of IPC would not be made out.Similarly placed co-accused Vinay Sahani has been released on bail by order dated 20.07.2018 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.22494/2018; therefore, it is prayed that the aforesaid two petitioners be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the applications mainly on the ground that the victims together have sustained 10-12 incised wounds amongst themselves.It is directed that petitioners Mutti @ Mohit Raikwar and Golu @ Adesh Patel shall be released on bail on 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR M.Cr.C No.31835/2018 Mutti @ Mohit Raikwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.29515/2018 Golu @ Adesh Patel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Case dairy is available.This is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicants for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506-B and 34 of IPC.Further added Section 326 of IPC registered at Crime No.105/2019 at Police Station Kachnar, District Ashoknagar.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that on account of some dispute regarding water pipe line which passes across the field of one Gappu, applicants and other co-accused persons abused the complainant and when they tried to stop them, applicants and other co-accused caused injuries by means of an Axe due to which complainant party have received the injuries which are established in the medical opinion.Learned counsel for applicants submits that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the case.The investigation is almost complete.Cross case has also been registered bearing Crime No. 106/2019 for offence under Sections 324, 323, 294 and 506/34 of IPC THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-20322-2019 (DEVI SINGH AND ANR.Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) against the applicants.They further submit that in a case of free fight, individual act is to be seen.On these grounds, the applicants pray for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for State opposed the prayer on the ground that the present applicants have actively participated in the present case.Hence, this application is dismissed.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance as well as copy of this order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor/Panel Lawyer with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) V. JUDGE LJ* LOKENDRA JAIN 2019.05.20 14:22:21 +05'30'

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

I. The application is hereby allowed.In the event of arrest of the applicant CHANDRAKANT GOVARDHAN CHIRMADE in connection with crime no. 14 of 2019 (FIR No.37/2019) registered with Jilhapeth Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 r/w 34 of IPC, he be released on bail on his furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions;a. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 03:06:48 :::17-ABA-595-2019 -4- III.The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the applicant shall be transferred to the trial court and the trial court may pass appropriate orders about the same at the conclusion of trial.The application is accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 03:06:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 03:06:48 :::

['Section 465 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']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The prosecution's case in short is that, on 30.6.1987 at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening, Nanda Bai expired.It is alleged that she committed suicide by setting herself on fire.(Delivered on 7th day of September, 2012) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2nd February 1996 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.316/89, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC.On 22.7.1987, Jamna Prasad (PW-3) father of the deceased had given a letter Ex.P/1 to S.P. Jabalpur 2 Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997 that the death of the his daughter Nanda be considered as homicidal and proper investigation be done accordingly.Thereafter, nothing was found against the respondents.In the February 1989, Jamna Prasad (PW-3) and his family members gave the statements against the respondents about harassment and torture relating to the dowry demand etc. and also on so many counts, therefore, a case was registered.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the C.J.M. Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.The respondents abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea but they have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter.Jamna Prasad was an Ex-MLA and a renowned advocate of Vidisha District and therefore, he had falsely implicated the respondents in the case.In defence, one Dr. J.C. Wadera (DW-1) was examined to show that the respondents were keeping the deceased with comfort.After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur acquitted the respondents from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC.During pendency of this appeal, the respondent No.1 expired and therefore, the present appeal remains against the respondent No.2 only.3 Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.In alternate, he can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC also and sentenced him accordingly.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that soon after the death of the deceased Nanda, no allegation was made by her father.After keeping silence for 3-4 weeks, a letter Ex.Thereafter, father and relatives of the deceased Nanda had kept silence for two years and thereafter, they gave the statements after two years.There is no reason as to why they kept silence for two years.Under such circumstances, it would be clear that a concocted case was created against the respondent No.2 after two years of death of the deceased.It is also submitted that it is not proved beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was of suicidal nature, whereas it could be an accident and therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted on the basis of evidence given by Dr. B.M. Shrivastava (PW-8) that there was no smell of kerosene found on the body of the deceased and therefore, it is submitted that death of the deceased Nanda was an accident.However, in this connection if merg report Ex.P/22 is perused then, it would be apparent that father of the respondent No.2 had lodged a report that when he went back to his house, he found that his house was giving a smell of kerosene and in the adjacent room of the kitchen, someone was found burnt and a cane of kerosene was present in the kitchen with a burnt Sadi.Looking to the merg intimation Ex.P/22, it is apparent that it is not a case of accident but the deceased Nanda had committed suicide.The prosecution had examined Shakuntala Chourasiya (PW-1), Sudhir Kumar (PW-2), Jamna Prasad (PW-3), Damyanti (PW-4), Ram Awtar (PW-5) and Smt. Laxmi Chourasiya (PW-7) etc. to show about the story of harassment told by the deceased Nanda 5 Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997 to them.Similarly, Rajendra Kumar (PW-9) was also examined to that extent.It is apparent that these witnesses had not alleged initially about any dowry demand etc. and therefore, no charge of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC was framed against the respondents.Under such circumstances, the story told about the dowry demand by these witnesses appears to be an afterthought and concocted, which cannot be believed.If, gist of the entire allegation is considered simultaneously then, it appears that it is a story of ego of the father of the deceased and the respondents.If the deceased was not informed that there was a phone of her relatives, then that incident was stated in an exaggerated manner.Jamna Prasad (PW-3) father of the deceased has stated about the various letters written by him to the respondents and reply received from them.If those letters are read in detail then, it would be apparent that the harassment as alleged by the complainant party were not proved to be harassment at all.For an instance, Jamna Prasad (PW-3) has stated that there is a custom that they could not send the bride by her own, whereas it was for the bridegroom to visit the house of his in-laws to bring his wife at every time and therefore, when the respondent No.2 had no time to visit the house of the parents of the deceased then, Jamna Prasad did not send his daughter to her husband's house and on the contrary, he took her to visit some tourist place.6 Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997 If the complainant Jamna Prasad was a well worse person and his daughter could not do the domestic work, then he himself must have married his daughter to a person, who had a fleet of servants.Looking to the entire evidence of this witness, it appears that the deceased was reluctant to do the domestic work and her wishes were fulfilled by her father beyond her capacity.If, in-laws of the deceased were scolding the deceased to improve the domestic work, then it does not an amount to be a harassment.Learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned so many instance in his judgment to show that it was the whim of Jamna Prasad and his relatives to behave with the respondents in such a manner so that they made the deceased to be an arrogant person.She was in habit to visit various marriage ceremonies and festivals without getting any permission from her husband and parents in-laws.Looking to the contradictions in their statements, it is apparent that a story of harassment was cooked afterwards and the witnesses gave the statements, according to that cooked story.No overt act of the respondents is established beyond doubt by which, it can be said that it falls within the purview of Section 107 of IPC.If the deceased was directed to do the domestic 7 Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997 work and she was scolded to do the domestic work in the house then, such type of directions given by the respondent do not amount to be the harassment.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent No.2 from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.So far as the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, it is apparent that the respondent No.1 has expired, whereas mother of the respondent No.2 was not made a party in the appeal.The respondent No.2 being a private practitioner, who was visiting to his clinic and he remained in the house for a very little time.However, there is no allegation against the respondent No.2 that he personally harassed the deceased, whereas only allegations are made against the respondent No.2 that he was not followed the custom to take his wife from the house of her parents' in-laws and he objected that his wife went in the marriage ceremony at Bhopal without getting his permission.The complainant party appears to be an orthodox that the custom should be observed by the respondent No.2, but they did not think proper that before taking the deceased Nanda in some marriage or some other ceremonies of her friends and relatives, a permission is necessary from her husband.The parents of the deceased did not take care to send the deceased to the house of her husband, if he 8 Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997 had no time of visit.On the contrary, due to their interference the deceased could not settle in the house of her husband.She could not understand that being a private practitioner, there were limitations to the respondent No.2 so that he could not arrange for the servants.Under such circumstances, though the statements given by the various witnesses in an afterthought manner and still they could not prove any harassment from the side of the respondent No.2, which may fall within the purview of Section 498- A of IPC.Under such circumstances, the respondent No.2 cannot be convicted even for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent No.2 from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 306 or 306/34 of IPC.There is no basis by which the present appeal can be accepted.Hence, the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court in the case.The respondent No.2 is on bail.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K .GUPTA) 9 Criminal Appeal No.1654/1997 JUDGE 07.09.2 pnkj

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Accused no.4 Ashok Marakwad was acquitted, while accused no.6 -Prakash Waghmare died during the pendency of the trial.According to the learned Sessions Judge, it was a case of commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder so far as appellant - Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad i.e. original accused no.1 is concerned.Madhav Shinde on one hand and the deceased as well as his father i.e. complainant Saya Goud due to the business of operation of two different wine bars at Bhokar.In the circumstances, on 24/09/1999, appellant- Santosh and appellant - Madhav had come to the house of the complainant and threatened to kill him.About the same, a police complaint was filed, however, no action was taken.In the circumstances, on 27/09/1999, while the complainant and his son PW9 - Venkatesh and Ramesh were attending the counter of their hotel at Bhokar named and styled as 'Kanaka Bhuvan' at about 10.00 to 10.15 pm in the night, deceased Ramesh i.e. son of the complainant and his friends like PW1 - Narayan Solanke, PW8 - Balaji Ingle and Laxmikant Alewar went towards a pan stall in the square.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT Santosh and appellant - Madhav started assaulting the deceased with knives while appellant - Keshav and appellant - Anand @ Gater assaulted him with sticks.Complainant Saya Goud and his another son PW9-Venkatesh rushed to the spot.The deceased was on the ground.Friends of the deceased had received certain injuries due to the assault by sticks.Thereafter, however, the assailants fled away.The deceased was taken to the hospital, however, he was found dead and, therefore, the complaint came to be filed in the same night at about 11:30 pm. .The Investigating Officer - PW17 - Vithal Angole took over the investigation.Usual exercise of drawing of inquest panchanama was carried.Panchanama of the spot of occurrence was drawn.Post Mortem examination notes were collected from the Medical Officer PW14 - Dr. Lalita Swami.DATE : 27/01/2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :Heard both sides.Therefore all the three appeals are decided by the present common judgment.Present 4 appellants alongwith other 2 accused were charged of the commission of the offences ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (3) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT punishable under section 147, 148, 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded after trial however came to the conclusion that out of the six accused, present four appellants i.e. accused nos.1,2, 3 and 5 have participated in the offence.As regards appellants in Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2001 - Madhav Laxmanrao Shinde i.e. original accused no.2 and appellant - Keshav Laxmanrao Shinde i.e. original accused no.5 are concerned, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that he alongwith original accused no.3 - Anand @ Gater S/o Namdeorao ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (4) CR. APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT Jadhav i.e. appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2002 have committed the offences punishable under section 324 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::Appellant - Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/-.Appellant - Madhav Laxmanrao Shinde was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-.Keshav Laxmanrao Shinde was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-.Appellant - Anand @ Gater Namdeorao Jadhav was directed to be released on probation for a period of three (3) years on his execution of bond to keep good behaviour.Hence, the present appeals by these four accused.The prosecution case, in short is as under:-That there was long standing business rivalry ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (5) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT between appellant - Santosh Marakwad and appellant -::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::At that time, in the square, all the present appellants alongwith the other accused came there.Appellant - Santosh, appellant - Madhav, appellant - Keshav and appellant - Anand @ Gater were having knives and sticks in their hands.All the accused were arrested.Statements of the witnesses including the eye witnesses were recorded.Clothes from the person of the accused were seized.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT .While in custody, appellant - Sanotsh made a statement leading to the recovery of the knife.Appellant - Madhav also made recovery of the knife while other accused made recovery of the sticks.Necessary articles were sent for chemical analysis and ultimately, the chargesheet came to the filed.Before the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, in all 17 witnesses were examined.Out of them, five witnesses were examined as eye witnesses.Those included PW1 - Narayan Solanke, PW6 - Mohan Joshi and PW8 - Balaji Ingle.While these three eye witnesses did not support the prosecution in the witness box, only two eye witnesses i.e. complainant - father of the deceased PW7 - Saya Goud and the brother of the deceased PW9 - Venkatesh had supported the prosecution case.All the panch witnesses turned hostile.Yadav Suryawanshi, the Circle Officer, Tehsil Office, Bhokar has drawn the sketch map of the scene of the offence while PW17 - Vitthal Angole had carried the investigation.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::(8) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, passed the judgment and order, as detailed supra.Hence, all these criminal appeals.Learned counsel for the appellants took me through the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.It was submitted that a deep animosity between group of the complainant and the appellant - Santosh has been amply proved from the cross-examination of the relevant witnesses.Even earlier, the deceased had assaulted appellant - Santosh and, therefore, a criminal case was already pending against him.The deceased was a known goonda in the locality.It was further submitted that the material on record would show that father and brother of the deceased i.e. PW7 and PW9 could not have seen the activities on the spot, as the same was not visible from their hotel.On the other hand, the prosecution evidence would show that the spot of occurrence is near Tehsil Office and during the relevant period, some ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (9) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT agitators were sitting in a pendal on dharna on fast.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::Those were the natural witnesses, but those were not examined.In the circumstances, it was submitted that only due to earlier enmity, due to suspicion, the father and brother of the deceased have falsely involved the appellants and his friends in the present case.Mr. Santosh C. Bhosale, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2001 submitted that the appeals be allowed and all the present appellants be acquitted of all the offences.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that though in the immediately FIR, the names of the witnesses i.e. friends of the deceased i.e. the eye witnesses are recorded, all these eye witnesses, in the witness box have turned hostile.The immediately filed FIR would also show that PW7 - Saya Goud - the complainant and PW9 - Venkatesh, the brother of the deceased were also the eye witnesses.In the ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (10) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT circumstances, it was submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve these prosecution witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination:-I) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 27/09/1999, in the night at about 10:15 pm, at Bhokar, Dist.Nanded, near a square near the Tehsil Office, the present appellant - Santosh Ganpatrao Marakwad has caused homicidal death of the deceased ?II) Whether the prosecution has proved that the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2002 i.e. Madhav Laxmanrao Shinde, Keshav Laxmanrao Shinde and Anand @ Gater Namdeorao Jadhav have voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased by dangerous weapons at the given date, time and place ?No. 509 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 62My finding to point no. (I) is in the negative as regards the homicidal death caused by appellant -::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::(11) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT .- Santosh.While the prosecution failed to prove the offences against the rest of the appellants.Hence, my finding to point no. (II) is in the negative.Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2001 is therefore partly allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2002 are allowed for the reasons to follow.R E A S O N SIt is no doubt true that three independent eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case.The FIR of the incident was filed by PW7 - Saya Goud -The incident has occurred between 10.00 pm to 10:15 pm.on that date.Thus, within a period of 1-1/2 hour, the FIR came to be filed.In the said FIR, ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (12) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT not only the names of the eye witnesses are referred but the tone and tenor of the FIR would show that the complainant had seen the present appellants alongwith the other accused rushing towards the spot of occurrence with weapons in their hands.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::The FIR would show that the complainant as well as his son i.e. PW9 - Venkatesh therefore rushed to the spot and has seen the occurrence.It would show that certain trees are planted in front of the hotel of the complainant and the distance between the said hotel and the spot of occurrence was 87.50 meter.Not only this, the complainant has admitted that he is required to use a ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (13) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT spectacle while driving a motorcycle.Therefore, considering the fact that the incident has occurred after 10.00 pm in the night and about more than 87 meter away from the hotel, according to them, it would not have been possible for the complainant to see the incident.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::It was further submitted that the natural witnesses i.e. the agitators who were sitting on dharna on fast near the Tehsil office, just opposite the spot of occurrence, were not examined.It should however be borne in mind that according to the prosecution, there were three more eye witnesses as examined by the prosecution i.e. Narayan Solanke, Mohan Joshi and Balaji Ingle.Unfortunately however, none of them has supported the prosecution case.The version of the prosecution i.e. PW7 - Saya Goud and PW9 - Venkatesh i.e. father and brother of the deceased, respectively, that they had opportunity to witness the incident, is natural in the set of facts, as already appreciated.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::(14) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+This however would take us to find out the injuries and the nature of the same those were found on the person of the deceased by PW14 - Dr. Lalita Swami when the Medical Officer had examined the dead body on 28/09/1999 at Civil Dispensary, Bhokar.Her evidence coupled with the post-mortem examination notes at Exhibit 95 would reveal that following external injuries were found on the person of the deceased :-1) Cut injury (incised wound) on right arm in axillary region encircling half arm and dimension 20 cm X 8 cm X 5 cm cutting skin subcutaneous-tissue, tricaps muscle tendon.Brachial artery, Vein and nerves leading to severe haemorrhage cut ends of vessels exposed.clotted blood-seen.Humerus bone is intact.2) Abrasion with contusion below & lateral to right eye on cheek bone 3 cm X 3 cm.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::(15) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+3) Superficial incised injury on right cheek 7 cm X 1/2 cm X 1/4 cm.transverse extending from angle of lip in backward direction.4) Infected wound on left thumb of palm dorsal aspect 1 cm X 1 cm.5) Abrasion on waist left side on left hip joint laterally 1cm X 1 cm.The age of injuries no.1 to 3 and 5 was estimated as 2 hours before death.The Medical Officer has admitted in the cross-examination that injury nos.2 to 5 were minor injuries.Out of them, injury no.4 was the old injury.Only injury no.1 was fatal injury.Except injury no.1, other injuries were possible due to fall or due to contact with blunt object.As regards injury no.1 also, the Medical Officer deposed that it was not a stab wound but a slash wound and ordinarily, slash injury is unlikely to endanger human life unless it is on vulnerable area like throat.It was also deposed that such an injury on hand would not be on vital organ.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::(16) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+If all these facts are taken into consideration, in my view, the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the present appellant -Santosh has caused culpable homicide not amounting to murder i.e. offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code would not stand.It would be a grievous injury by dangerous weapon as the injury no.1 being 20 cm X 8 cm X 5 cm would necessarily require immobilization for 20 days.Therefore offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code as regards appellant - Santosh is made out.We have seen the contents of the FIR while appreciating the prosecution case.To repeat, in the immediately filed FIR, PW7 Saya Goud had complained that while appellant - Santosh had assaulted with knife, rest of the appellants i.e. Madhav, Keshav and Anand @ Gater though had knives and ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (17) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT sticks in their hands, appellant - Madhav had assaulted with knife and appellant - Keshav and Anand @ Gater assaulted with sticks.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::As against this, the very same witness, in the witness box deposed that while appellant - Santosh had caused the injury by knife, accused no.4 and accused no.6 held the hands of his son Ramesh as they were standing on the either side of his son - Ramesh.His deposition is that only appellant - Santosh stabbed his son with knife.If we peruse the deposition of PW9 -Venkatesh, he has given his own version though he stuck to the prosecution that appellant - Santosh was the author of the injury caused by the knife.According to him, appellant - Anand @ Gater and appellant - Keshav bet the deceased with wooden stick while appellant -Madhav was merely holding a knife.This contradictory version of the two eye witnesses would clearly go to show that the prosecution ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (18) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+ JUDGMENT failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these appellants had caused any injury to the deceased.The learned Sessions Judge however appears to have placed reliance on the one testimony to the other and convicted these appellants.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::Considering all these facts, in my view, appellant - Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad has committed offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code while the prosecution has failed to prove that any offence is committed by rest of the appellants.They are therefore required to be acquitted from all the offences.As regards the sentences awarded to appellant- Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel submits that the deep animosity between the parties, the fact that the appellant was earlier assaulted by deceased, who was a known goonda in the locality and the fact that appellant - Santosh was required to remain behind the bar for a period of of 2 years and 4 months, would show that his further ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 ::: (19) CR.He further submits that while the incident has occurred in the year 1999, after a period of 16 years, again sentencing appellant -::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::Santosh behind the bar, would not be reasonable.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that though this Court has come to the conclusion that culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not committed by appellant - Santosh, keeping in mind the nature of the injury found on the person of the deceased, no leniency is required to be shown.Upon hearing both sides, in my view, appellant- Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad is required to be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.He is also required to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 years.The fine amount is already deposited by appellant - Santosh.In the circumstances, the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::(20) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2001 filed by Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad - original accused no.1 is hereby partly allowed.His conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded vide judgment and order dated 08/11/2001 passed in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2000 for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside.Consequently, the sentences awarded to him for the aforesaid offence are also set aside.Instead, the appellant - Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad is convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.6000/-, which is already deposited by him.Learned Sessions Judge, Nanded to take steps for securing presence of appellant - Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad to serve the remaining sentence, now awarded to him.::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::(21) CR.APPEAL NO. 495/2001+Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2002 are hereby allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 08/11/2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2000, convicting all the three appellants in these two Criminal Appeals is hereby set aside.Instead, the appellants in these two Criminal Appeals are acquitted of the offences for which they were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge.On the request of Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2001, eight (8) weeks time to surrender the appellant -Santosh S/o Ganpatrao Marakwad in Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2001 is hereby granted.All Criminal Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE arp/ ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 02:34:56 :::

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in S.C.No.33/2016 dated 17.10.2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Siva, aged 29 years, S/o.Sungaiyan, residing at No.10/11, 4th Street, Gandhi Nagar, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :Harur Police Station Crime No.546/2015 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.Palacode Police Station Crime No.114/2016 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.Harur Police Station Crime No.461/2016 registered under Sections 392 @ 395 of Indian Penal Code.Pennagaram Police Station Crime No.255/2016 registered under Sections 393 @ 395 of Indian Penal Code.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 24.07.2016, one Veerasamy, S/o.Chinnasamy, residing at Velampatti Village, Veppampatti Post, Harur Taluk, has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, wherein, it is averred that on the same day at about 2.45 p.m. he has withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from Federal Bank at Thiru.Nagar in Harur-Salem bye-pass road and place the same in a yellow colour bag.After sometime, two persons who have crossed him told that some currency notes have fallen from his bag and all of a sudden, they have shown deadly weapons and forcibly taken Rs.10,000/-.On the basis of averments made in the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.479/2016 under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code against the detenu and others and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the mother of the detenu as petitioner has filed the present petition.In the counter filed on the side of the respondents, it is averred that most of the averments made in the petition are false.Sungaiyan, residing at No.10/11, 4th Street, Gandhi Nagar, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District, is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.There is general allegation against all the accused and co-accused Faim & Nasir having an identical role has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 6083 of 2020 & 11840 of 2020 vide orders dated 25.2.2020 & 17.6.2020 respectively.The case of applicant stands on similar footing, hence the appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Many villagers of Amdari had started agitation against thevillage Sarpanch due to her inaction in respect of absence of facilitieslike water and electricity.9) The third case is chapter case filed under section 107 ofCriminal Procedure Code.It appears that only after alleged incidentdated 27.3.2018 this proceeding was started by police against thepetitioner.11) It is not disputed that the petitioner had taken lead inmany agitations and in raising many issues in the past.He had madecomplaints against many educational institutions, particularly,against those who were not taking care of triable students.Someother issues were also taken by him through Bhartiya AadiwasiPanther Sangathna which is headed by him.As per the directionsgiven by this Court, some record of activities of this association wasproduced.The petitioner had already produced along with thepresent petition some record like paper cuttings and copies ofrepresentations to show that he was raising many issues in publicinterest and which were mainly in respect of implementation ofschemes of the State Government.The record shows that the affectedstudents were agitating on those issues and he was leading thosestudents.The students had taken many processions.(iv) 2013(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 329 [Praful Bhausaheb Yadav Vs.K.K. Pathak and Ors.],::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::The ordermade by the appellate authority, another officer, DivisionalCommissioner, Aurangabad is also challenged.3) The submissions made and the record show that on25.7.2018 show cause notice was issued under section 59 ofBombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)against the petitioner and he was informed that externment wasproposed against him in respect of Hingoli city and surroundinglocality as due to his presence danger is created to the life andproperty of persons and even after taking preventive measuresagainst him, he has not improved his conduct.The proposal wasmade to make the order of externment in respect of entire Hingolidistrict.Specific material was mentioned as C.R. No. 83/2018registered against him in Kalamnuri Police Station for the offencespunishable under section 384 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafterreferred to as 'IPC' for short) and Crime No. 242/2017 registeredagainst him for the offences punishable under sections 353, 323,149 etc. of IPC and one chapter case filed by Kalamnuri policebearing No. 79/2018 under section 107 of Cr.P.C. The chapter casewas filed on 12.6.2018 and C.R. No. 83/2018 was under ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 3investigation.The petitioner filed his reply on12.9.2018 and he submitted that he is a social worker and isPresident of Adiwasi Panther Association created for the benefit oftriable people and particularly the students of tribes and due to thefact that he has become popular, some persons who want to opposehis activities must have become angry and so, the aforesaid crimesare registered and they want to stop his activities.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::In the externment order, he mentionedaforesaid three specific circumstances appearing against thepetitioner and it was also mentioned that confidential witnessdescribed as "A" had informed that the petitioner was creatinghatred amongst people of Hindu and Muslim communities and hewas giving threats to public servants and his associates are havingcriminal intention and due to his activities nobody is willing to comeforward to give evidence against him as they are afraid of harm totheir person or property.Though the crimes were registered only inHingoli and Kalamnuri Police Station of aforesaid nature, the SubDivisional Magistrate has observed that the contiguous tahsils will beaffected due to his activities considering the means of transportation ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 4and so the order was made in respect of entire Hingoli district andthe period given is of two years.This order is confirmed by theDivisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::5) The petitioner has produced the record in respect ofN.G.O. registered under the name of Triable Panther Association andhis activities of social work are given by him along with the cuttingsof newspaper in which his agitations were published.It wassubmitted that these activities were not for the interest of thepetitioner, but they were in the interest of public at large andparticularly, for the interest of triable students and he had unearthedthe illegal activities of some authorities and some institutions whichwere affecting the interest of triable students.6) This Court feels that it is necessary to first quote therelevant facts of the matter.In show cause notice which is requiredto be issued under section 59 of the Act, information needs to begiven to the proposed externee about the activities informed bypolice and which in the opinion of the officer exercising powers arecovered by the provisions of section 56 of the Act. The submissionsmade and the record show that "Rasta Case" mentioned in thecrime punishable under section 353 of IPC was the case for thevillagers of village Malai.The road of these villagers was blocked by ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.Thus, theGovernment record was available to show that such road was inexistence and it was necessary for having access to the world to thevillagers of village Malai.Initially 18 persons were opposing to use ofthis road, but 10 of those persons withdrew the objections and thenonly 8 persons were opposing the removal of obstruction.On28.4.2017 The Mamlatdar had made order in favour of villagers ofvillage Malai and this order was challenged by aforesaid eightpersons by filing proceeding before the appellate authority, SubDivisional Revenue Officer.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::7) The incident quoted in the aforesaid crime took place ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.They had not appointed counsel, but counsel was appointedby other side.When the other side's counsel requested foradjournment and the appellate authority expressed inclination togrant adjournment, alleged incident took place.He questioned as towhy the adjournment was given when entire village Malai wasaffected due to obstruction created on the road and the order ofremoval of obstruction was already passed.Then the alleged incidenttook place and the crime came to be registered for offencepunishable under section 353 of IPC against the petitioner and 10other persons who include four ladies of village Malai.The nature ofthe allegation needs to be kept in mind while considering theproposal made by police to make the order of externment.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::8) The second crime is registered on the basis of reportgiven by Village Sarpanch of village Amdari, Tahsil Aundha, DistrictHingoli.Some persons were sitting for agitationand they were observing fast.On 26.3.2018 the Tahsildar intervened ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 7and promised to do something and due to that on 26.3.2018villagers had temporarily suspended the agitation.It is the allegationof the village Sarpanch that on 27.3.2018 the petitioner approachedher and demanded Rs.50,000/- as a ransom and gave threat thatagitation will be started again if his demand was not met with.Whenthe alleged incident took place on 27.3.2018 she gave report on29.3.2018 and the crime on the basis of such allegation is registeredfor offence punishable under section 384 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::On thebasis of aforesaid material, he formed opinion and issued notice fortaking action under section 56 (k) and (kh).When only aforesaidcircumstances are mentioned in show cause notice, the order ofofficer dated 10.4.2017 shows that he considered the othercircumstances like in the past, order of externment was made ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 8against the petitioner in respect of Aurangabad district for the periodof two years.The statements of two confidential witnesses are alsomentioned in the externment order and these two circumstanceswere not there in show cause notice.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::They had ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 9arranged Dharnas and as per the record, the Government had takenaction and inquiry was also made against the institutions and evenpermissions of some institutions were cancelled for the irregularities.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::12) There is record in respect of Dharna agitation arrangedby villagers of Malai in respect of aforesaid dispute.The record shows that the villagers had walked the distance of25 k.m. to reach the district headquarter to give representation.Similar agitations were made for creation of road, removal ofobstruction made on the road of the villagers by villagers fromBaralwadi, Sonuli Vasti, Vanjarwadi, Kadkad etc. This record showsthat even after many years of the independence, the villagers ofthese villages were not having proper access road.One can imagineas to how much harassment the students of those villages and thepeople of those villages must be facing.There is record to show thatthe villagers of village Amdari were agitating against the VillageSarpanch and when the crime was registered against the petitioner,they had given representation to Sub Divisional Police Officer ofHingoli to see that the crime registered against the petitioner iswithdrawn.That representation bears signatures of few members ofVillage Panchayat also.The submissions show that till today, no caseis filed against the petitioner in that crime.The representation was ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 10of more than 100 villagers to support the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::13) The record produced shows that the Government and it'sauthorities had found substance in the allegations made by thepetitioner about the irregularities noticed by him.There is specificrecord in respect of Garden Hill School Kalamnuri, Girish Sarode,(public officer) and there was allegation that there wasmisappropriation of Rs.56.6 lakh.Irregularities were pointed out bythe petitioner in respect of tender published for residential hostelsfor triable girls in August 2016-17 and against the Head MasterFunde of Triable Boys School Aurangabad in respect of which WritPetition No. 14189/2018 was filed in this Court.Similar record isthere of similar five cases.14) It is a fact that many cases are brought before the HighCourt by N.G.Os.and irregularities are pointed out to the High Courtin respect of functioning of schools and absence of basic facilities tothe citizens.Only due to initiative taken by N.G.Os.and socialworkers, the High Court can come to know the grievances of thepeople and then the High Court passes some orders against theauthorities.It is noticed that routine inspections arranged by theGovernment and it's authorities are not proving to be helpful andpersons who have no backing are not coming forward to express the ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 11grievances.Thus, only due to the activeness of the social workersand N.G.Os.many times irregularities are detected and in thepresent matter also, on the basis of record, it can be said that thepetitioner had pointed out many irregularities and he was workingfor the interest of triable people and for villagers where there waspopulation of triable people.He must have made many enemies notonly in politics, but in the various departments like revenue andpolice.Due to the activities of such persons, the politicians and thepublic servants feel harassed.These circumstances and probabilitiesneed to be kept in mind by the officer empowered under section 56of the Act as he is expected to act fairly and see that the activitiesare covered by section 56 of the Act. Against every social workerscrimes are registered and so only registration of crime cannotbecome a ground for externment order.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::15) In Criminal Writ Petition No. 699/2019 (Dnyaneshwars/o.Sopan Gite Vs.The State of Maharashtra and Ors.] decidedby this Court on 10.6.2019, this Court had occasion to considerthe law developed on externment proceeding under the Act. Thediscussion about the facts which can be called as relevant and theinterpretation of the law can be found at paregraph Nos. 13 to 30.That discussion is as under :-"13) The learned APP submitted that the aforesaid ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 12 material was more than sufficient and on that basis, the subjective sanctification of the officer was based and so, this Court is not expected to interfere in the matter.The learned APP placed reliance on observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1002/2017 decided with other matters on 8.2.2019 at Nagpur Bench [Sumit s/o.Ramkrishna Maraskolhe and Ors.Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors.].He placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1973 SC 630 [Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra].::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::(2) Whether it is necessary to state in the show cause notice the details of incamera statements recorded by the externing authority to reach to the satisfaction that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence or depose in public against the proposed externee due to fear of alarm, danger or harm to their person or property?"In paragraph Nos. 26 and 45, the findings are given by the::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 13 Full Bench and they are as under :-::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::It would be enough if the order discloses that the subjective satisfaction has been reached by considering the material available on record and it would and should be a matter of legitimate inference that the authority, while considering materials to satisfy itself about the need for the extent of externment to be ordered, also considered all the options available to it and selected in::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.W.P.No.567/2019 14 it's wisdom the one which it thought to be most appropriate.The facts of the present matter show that the order of externment made by the officer was stayed by the appellate authority and stay was continued till the decision of the appellate authority.However, this Court did not grant stay after filing of the present proceeding and due to that the petitioner could not campaign for his political party for the election to the parliament.So, the following discussion.As such order restraints or put restrictions on fundamental rights, the procedure if that is valid, needs to be strictly followed.22) When there is law made for externment, every aspect of law including the title of the Chapter in which the provision can be found and also the title of the provision itself need to be given due importance for interpretation of the provision and for ascertaining the object behind the provision.The validity of such law depends on the object behind the law::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::(v) If the order of externment is proposed on the grounds mentioned in section 56(1)(a) of the Act, there need to be many acts of proposed externee available for consideration and these acts must have already caused or there must be probability of causing alarm, danger etc. to person or property in future from the proposed externee.Such activity must be in respect of public order.W.P.No.567/2019 25 be given to proposed externee and in respect of those allegations opportunity needs to be given to the proposed externee to refute the allegations.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 04:14:58 :::(ix) In the externment order, there may not be detail reasons, but mentioning of the material on the basis of which the order is made needs to be there."16) The relevant facts of the present matter are alreadyquoted.Only two crimes were registered.In the result, the following order :-

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The respondent was originally a tenant cultivating this land.The petitioner had not taken possession through the Court.The surrender deed was a nominal and sham document, not intended to be acted upon.The respondent also contended that in October, 1963 the petitioner had agreed to sell this field to the respondent for Rs. 1500/- and the sale deed was to be executed in the month of the following year.After recording evidence, the Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad by his order D/- 14-1-72 negatived the contentions of the respondent and came to the conclusion that the possession of the respondent over the suit land was unauthorised and wrongful, within the meaning of Section 120 (c) of the Tenancy Act. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, therefore, allowed the application of the petitioner, and, ordered summary eviction of the respondent from the suit land.Aggrieved by this decision of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, tile respondent preferred a revision application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which by its order dated 1-2-1973 allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, and dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 120 (c) of the Tenancy Act. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged this order of the Revenue Tribunal.The Revenue Tribunal concurred with the finding of the Sub Divisional Officer on the point of validity of the surrender and also observed:The tenancy was therefore terminated." However the Revenue Tribunal observed:"Pusad, dated 14-1-1972 shall stand restored.In the circumstances of this case, which turns mainly on the legal interpretation governing the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the application under Section 120 of the Tenancy Act, there shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed.

['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-P.W.1-Varalakshmi is the daughter of P.Ws.2 and 3 and she was aged about 18 years old at the time of occurrence.The accused is related to her.P.W.1 and her parents were residing at Karaipettai in Kancheepuram District.The sister of the accused, who visited the village assured her to get a job for her in Chennai.But, she could not secure a job.Another sister of the accused by name Maheswari was working in a S.T.D. Booth.As there was no possibility of getting job, P.W.1 wanted to return back to her village.In the meantime, on 05.01.2003, as the brother of the accused went to Sabarimalai temple, all the inmates except P.W.1 had gone to the temple.Therefore, P.W.1 alone was in that house and she received a phone call from the sister of the accused Maheswari to send somebody to bring her back to the house from the S.T.D. Booth, since it was late night.When the accused came to the house at about 9.00 p.m., P.W.1 informed him about the phone call made by Maheswari.The accused asked P.W.1 to accompany him to go and bring Maheswari from the S.T.D. Booth.P.W.1 went along with the accused and on the way near K.P. Park, since it was dark, taking advantage of the said situation, the accused pulled her hand and took her nearby the corner of the said ground and raped her in spite of her cry.She became unconscious and after some time, she regained conscious and questioned the accused as to why he did like this to her.The accused promised her on god that he would marry her and asked her to go to her village and also asked her to give her phone number.The accused also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone.In spite of the threat made by the accused, the next day, P.W.1 informed about the incident to the mother of the accused and also to her sister-in-law, and she was taken to her village.P.W.1 also informed about the incident to her mother and the mother of the accused was summoned to the village and there was a talk.Though the mother of the accused left the village by saying that she would return with a proposal within four days, she did not return back.The mother of the victim girl scolded her for bringing disrepute to the family.Jeevanantham, had examined the victim girl-P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.8-Accident Register.After recovery, P.W.1 came with her father to Chennai and gave a complaint under Ex.P.1 on 04.03.2003 in B.4, Basin Bridge Police Station.Ex.P.12 is the First Information Report.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred the above criminal appeal.Therefore, P.W.1 made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison.(ii) P.W.7-Dr.(iii) P.W.10-Rajaram, the Inspector of Police received the complaint from P.W.1 on 04.03.2003 and registered a case in Crime No.119 of 2003 for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. against the accused.He took up the case for investigation and recorded the statements of the victim and other witnesses.On 06.03.2003, P.W.9-Dr.Thageera Begum examined P.W.1-victim girl and noted the following:-"Examination of private parts:After completion of the investigation, P.W.10 arrested the accused on 13.03.2003 at about 11.00 a.m. in front of salt quarters in the presence of witnesses P.W.4-Jeyapaul and Mohan.He recorded the confession given by the accused.P.13 is the admissible portion of the confession given by the accused.5. P.W.8 Dr.Selvakumar examined the accused on 17.03.2003 at about 11.15 p.m. On examination, he found that there was no symptom to suggest that the accused was impotent and he gave a certificate Ex.P.W.10, after completing the investigation, laid a final report on 23.07.2003 for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. against the accused.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10; marked Exs.The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and he denied his complicity.He further submitted that the victim girl stayed in his house for 10 days and he returned from Sabarimalai temple only in the evening on the alleged date of occurrence and on the night, his brother was left to Sabarimalai temple and no occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution.The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence as stated above.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that there was two months delay in preferring the complaint and P.W.1 was not a minor and her evidence that she was forcibly raped is not corroborated by any material.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused further submitted that even as per the available evidence, it is only established that even if the occurrence is taken place, it was not against the consent of the alleged victim girl and the Doctor also has not stated that the victim girl was not subjected to forcible intercourse.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that P.W.1 was aged about 18 years at the time of occurrence and she was taken from her house on the pretext of accompanying with the accused to bring his sister.But on the way, it was dark place, P.W.1 was forcibly raped.Though P.W.1 had not given the complaint immediately to the police, she had informed about the occurrence to the mother of the accused and also to her mother.The medical evidence also shows that there was rupture in hymen, which leads to show that she was subjected to sexual intercourse.This Court considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the records carefully.The evidence of P.W.1 in the chief examination is that she accompanied the accused and she was going out in the night hours.On the way near K.P. Park as the place was dark, the accused pulled her hand and took her near by the corner of the said ground and raped her and then, he promised to marry her.In the cross-examination, P.W.1 had stated that the distance between the house of the accused and the place of S.T.D. Booth, where Maheswari is working, is one kilometer and it is possible to reach the place within fifteen minutes and on that road several buses and autos were running and shops were also available in both sides.But she had stated that the place of occurrence was dark.She also admitted that both the accused and herself were staying in the ground for one hour and no other person was available at that time.She returned to the house along with the accused only.After returning to home, she had not informed about that to anyone.Though she had stated that she informed the incident on the next day to the mother of the accused, she has not given any complaint.According to the evidence of P.W.2, he was not informed by his daughter.He came to know about the incident only from the neighbours and his wife enquired his daughter.Though there was a promise, for the marriage of the accused with P.W.1, no arrangement was made and therefore, P.W.1 made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison.While so, there had been a delay of two months in preferring the complaint.Normally, the delay in preferring the complaint for an offence of rape may not affect the case of the prosecution.But in the circumstance of this case, there is a delay in preferring the complaint.On the side of the defence, D.W.1-Prakash, Watchman of the Gim, which is in the K.P.Park was examined.He had stated that the area is busy area and he should be there in the park from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and people used to visit the park.P.W.1 also had admitted that near the place, shops were available.In any event, after the occurrence, she accompanied the accused to return to the house.Though P.W.1 was examined by P.W.9-Dr.Thageera Begum after two months, according to the certificate Ex.P.10 given by her, it was found the vagina admitting one finger easily and the hymen had a laceration in 3,5,7,9 and 11 O'c clock position.The learned Trial Judge also observed in the Judgment at paragraph No.22 as follows:-"Obviously consent involves no denial and no resistance.It cannot be equated to resist out of helplessness.The absence of violence or stiff resistance in this case, which could be inferred from the testimony of P.W.1 is due to sheer timidity."All the circumstances put together throw considerable doubt with regard to the version of P.W.1 that she was forcibly raped.She also admitted in her cross-examination that she would not have given a complaint, if the accused had married her.From the evidence available, though it is to be held that the ingredients of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. are not made out, the ingredients of the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. has been made out.18. P.W.1 herself had been a consenting party.Since the accused had promised in the name of God that he would marry her and subsequently, though the mother of the accused also promised to arrange the marriage of the accused with P.W.1 and the marriage did not take place, being dejected, P.W.1 also consumed poison and made an attempt to commit suicide.In the said circumstances, the accused is found guilty for an offence under Section 417 I.P.C., though no specific charge is framed against him.In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 376(1) I.P.C. are set aside instead, he is convicted under Section 417 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the appellant was already in jail for more than one year and also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as fine, which was imposed on him for the offence under Section 376(1) I.P.C. The fine amount paid already by the accused will be adjusted to this.The said amount also to be paid to P.W.1-Varalakshmi as compensation under Section 357(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.T.SUDANTHIRAM, J.With the above modification, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.The Inspector of Police, P-4, Basin Bridge Police Station, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A.No.30 of 2006

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The death certificate was proved as Ex.She deposed that Late Ranjit Singh Jutla left behind the subject property, a FDR and a savings bank account.The complainant deposed that she was paying house tax of the said property.The house tax receipts for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were proved Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 2 of 56 as Ex.PW-1/2 and PW-1/3 respectively.Petitioner no.1 did not cross-examine PW-1 despite opportunity given.That the 1st party alongwith her counsel appeared before Honble High Court on 30.1.2013 and made Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 24 of 56 proposal for settlement of the matter.The 1 st party offered/demanded 1/5th share of the property of Late Sh.Ranjit Singh Jutla (as 5th legal heir of R.S. Jutla apart from the 2nd party and her three sons) bearing no.E-104 Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 24 of 56Now the present Memorandum of Understanding witnesseth as under:-A. The 2nd party shall give 1/5th share of the market value of property bearing no.E-104 Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi to the 1st party which, is to be calculated by respective counsel of both the parties.B. The above said amount equivalent to 1/5th share of the property shall be given to 1st party within three months from the date of signing of present MOU.D. The 2nd party shal have all the rights and liberty to take appropriate steps for compliance of present MOU.E. The 2nd party shall withdraw the criminal case by assisting 1st party to get the FIR quashed before Honble High Court of Delhi.F. Both the parties shall comply /fulfil all the statements given before the court and also abide themselves to comply with the terms given in the present MOU.In witness the present MOU is being signed by both the parties in presence of the following witnesses: Smt. Surjeet Kaur Smt. Jasbinder Kaur"M.A. 5018/2013, 2446/2014 and 2447/2014 in Bail Appl.On 18th April, 2013, the complainant filed Crl.5018/2013 seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have violated the solemn undertaking given to this Court not to interfere with the Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 25 of 56 peaceful possession of the complainant in the subject property.The complainant also attached the copy of the MOU dated 22 nd February, 2013 as Annexure P-5 to the application."Crl.The dispute between the parties relate to property bearing no.E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which was owned by late Ranjit Singh Jutla who died intestate in the year 2003 leaving behind five legal representatives, namely, petitioner no.1 (mother), Mrs. Jasbinder Kaur (wife) and three sons, namely, Mr. Sandeep Jutla, Harpal Jutla and Inderjeet Jutla.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioner no.1 has 1/5th share in the subject property which is of the value of about Rs.2 crores to Rs.2.5 crores.Learned counsel initially submitted that petitioner no.1 is ready to Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 26 of 56 handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the said property upon receipt of her 1/5th share.The dispute between the parties relate to property bearing Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 1 of 56 no. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which was owned by late Ranjit Singh Jutla who died intestate on 12th July, 2003 at U.K. leaving behind five legal heirs, namely, petitioner no.1(mother), the complainant(wife), and three sons, namely, Sandeep Jutla, Harpal Jutla and Inderjeet Jutla.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 1 of 56Probate Case 335/2006On 20th April, 2005, the complainant instituted a petition under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of her husband late Ranjit Singh Jutla in respect of his movable and immovable estate including property no. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject property").Petitioner no.1 contested the said petition on the ground that she was the owner in possession of subject property which was her self-acquired property.Both the parties led the evidence in the said petition.The complainant proved the receipt and Will executed by the seller, Rattan Singh in favour of her deceased husband as Ex.PW-2/1 and Ex.PW-3/1 by examining the witnesses from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.The complainant also proved the Will Ex.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 2 of 56She also could not produce any other evidence to prove the retiral benefits of her husband and payment of sale consideration to the seller for purchase of the subject property.On 10th July, 2008, petitioner no.1 filed an application under Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to serve the interrogatories on the claimant.Interrogatory mentioned in para 3The petitioner did not contest this position.Vide judgment dated 27th October, 2009, the learned District Judge allowed the petition and issued Letters of Administration in respect of the subject property in favour of the complainant.With respect to the FDR and savings bank account, the Letters of Administration were granted in favour of the complainant and petitioner no.1 in equal shares.The learned District Judge, however, clarified that he has not decided the title of the subject property and both the parties are liberty to get the title decided by the Civil Court by filing a regular suit.In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking Letters of Administration of the property of the deceased, Ranjit Singh Jutla.The case of petitioner is that deceased Ranjit Singh Jutla was owner of house No. E- 104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and he died intestate.The petitioner has proved copies of documents regarding purchase of the property by deceased Ranjit Singh Jutla, copy of registered receipt is Ex.Pw-3/1 and copy of registered Will in favour of the deceased is Ex.The petitioner has proved the said receipt and Will by examining one of the attesting witness namely Shri Paramjeet Singh (Pw-4).He has deposed that testator Rattan Singh had executed Will in favour of Ranjit Singh, which was registered on 25.05.1984, copy of said Will is Ex.He has also deposed that Rattan Singh executed receipt, which was also registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and copy of said receipt is Ex.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 4 of 56He has also deposed that Ranjit Singh purchased the property from Rattan Singh in his presence.He was cross examined on behalf of respondent No.2 but no question was put to him that Rattan Singh had not sold the property to deceased Ranjit Singh.It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner, Smt. JasbinderKaur has tendered her affidavit, which is Ex.By way of her affidavit, she has deposed that deceased Ranjit Singh left behind house No. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, she is paying house tax in respect of said property, receipt of house tax for the year 2005-06 is Ex.Pw- 1/2 and receipt of house tax for the year 2006-07 is Ex.She has also deposed that property belonged to her deceased husband Ranjit Singh Jutla.She has not been cross examined at all on behalf of respondent.Even no suggestion was put to her that deceased Ranjit Singh was not owner of the said property.Same amounts to admission on the part of the respondent.Moreover, the respondent No.2 has alleged that she is owner of house No. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.She has not adduced any evidence in this regard.The respondent No.2 has neither produced any document nor adduced any evidence in support of her plea.The respondent No.2 has deposed that deceased Ranjit Singh did not spend a single penny on the property in question and she is owner of the suit property.She stated that she purchased the said house from Shri Rattan Singh, she paid money to Karnail Singh and Trilochan Singh who handed over some documents to her and stated that Rattan Singh had executed said documents.But she has failed to produce said documents, alleged to have been executed in her favour.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 5 of 56It may be mentioned that petitions for grant of Letters of Administration are to be decided summarily and this Court cannot decide the right or title to the property.Both the parties are at liberty to get the title decided from the Civil Court by filing regular suit.As regards, FDR and bank account in the name of deceased Ranjit Singh Jutla, as mentioned in sub-para (ii) &(iii) of para 4 of the petition, it may be mentioned that petitioner, who is widow of deceased and respondent No.2, who is mother of deceased falls in the category of class-I legal heirs.Hence, both are entitled to Letters of Administration in respect of FDR No. 7703 DBD No.28107636 and amount lying in the saving bank account No. 17432 with Bank of India, Ajay Enclave, New Delhi in the name of deceased Ranjit Singh Jutla, in equal shares.ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)As a result of above discussion and my finding on issue No.1, petition is allowed.Letters of Administration for due administration of property No. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi be issued in favour of petitioner on furnishing administration bond cum surety bond with one surety and payment of requisite Court fees.Letters of Administration in respect of FDR No.7703 DBDNo.28107636 with Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch,New Delhi and amount lying in saving bank account No. 17432 with Bank of India, Ajay Enclave, New Delhi in the name of deceased Ranjit Singh Jutla be issued in favour of petitioner and respondent No.2 Smt. Surjeet Kaur @ Ajit Kaur in equal shares on furnishing administration bond cum surety bond with one surety and payment of respective court fees.File be consigned to Record Room."(Emphasis Supplied) Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 7 of 56 Misc.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 7 of 56The complainant filed an application before the District Court for directing petitioner no.1 to hand over the keys of the subject property which was contested by petitioner no.1 on the ground that subject property was vacant and both the parties have put their locks on it.Vide order dated 24 th November, 2010 in M- 11/10, the Court observed that no keys were required to be given as the house is vacant and both the parties have put their locks on it.The relevant portion of the order dated 24th November, 2010 is reproduced hereunder:"No keys are required to be given for that purpose to the petitioner as house is lying vacant and both the parties have put their locks on it.The question of handing over possession to one or the other party cannot be decided by this court.On 6th March 2010, petitioner no.1 instituted an appeal being FAO No.91/2010 against the judgment dated 27th October, 2009 before this court.Petitioner no.1 also sought stay of the impugned judgment dated 27th October, 2009 by filing CM No.4382/2010 under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.She also could not give the description of the documents.She further deposed that she paid the sale consideration to Karnail Singh and Trilochan Singh who handed over same documents which also she could not produce.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 8 of 56However, in FAO No.91/2010, petitioner no.1 raised a plea which is totally contradictory to the defence set-up before the Trial Court.In para 2(i), she set-up a plea that she purchased the subject property out of the pensionary benefits of her late husband in the name of her son, Ranjeet Singh Jutla meaning thereby that she is the benami owner of the subject property.In the grounds of appeal, petitioner no.1 made yet another somersault and restricted her claim only to 1/5th share in the subject property according to the ordinary rule of succession on the basis that her son Ranjeet Singh Jutla died intestate leaving behind five legal heirs namely, petitioner no.1 (mother), complainant (wife) and three children, meaning thereby she gave her claim of ownership.The grounds (ii) and (iii) of the appeal are reproduced hereunder:-(iii) Because the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that no objection given by the Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 9 of 56 Respondent No.2 to 4 in favour of the Respondent No.1 cannot be regarded as a relinquishment of their rights and therefore, no letter of administration can be issued to her except 1/5th share in the property or the FDR."With respect to the stay application CM No.4382/2010, this Court permitted the complainant and her children to manage the estate of the deceased but they shall not alienate or create third party interest in the property till the disposal of the appeal.Order dated 9th March, 2010 is reproduced hereunder:"FAO No.91/2010 Admit.List in due course.The respondents are permitted to manage the estate of the deceased but they shall not alienate or create third party interest in the property till the disposal of the appeal.The application is disposed of."(Emphasis Supplied)The order dated 9th March, 2010 was not challenged by any of the parties and has thus become final.On 6th July, 2012, learned counsel for the complainant submitted before this Court in FAO No.91/2010 that petitioner no.1 has broken open the lock of the subject property which was disputed by petitioner no.1 who submitted that subject property Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 10 of 56 was lying locked and nobody has broken open the lock.She further stated that lock was of both the parties.Relevant portion of the order dated 6th July, 2012 is reproduced hereunder:Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 10 of 56"Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant has broken open the lock of the suit property.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit property is lying locked and nobody has broken open the lock.FAO No.91/2010 is still pending before this Court.Vide order dated 22nd January, 2014 it has been directed to be listed in due course.Contempt Case(C)On 23rd May, 2011, the complainant filed a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the petitioner no.1 seeking direction to appellant no.1 to comply with the order dated 9th March, 2010 in FAO No.91/2010 by not disturbing her peaceful possession.The complainant claimed to be in possession of the subject property in terms of the order dated 9 th March, 2010 in FAO No.91/2010 and alleged that petitioner no.1 has twice broken open the locks whereupon the complainant has lodged complaints to the police on 5th February, 2011 and 4th March, 2011 recorded in DD Nos.67 and 79, P.S. Dabri.Para 5 of the contempt petition is reproduced hereunder:-That the appellant is living separately at Tilak Nagar in other house i.e. WZ-36A, Plot No.67, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, New.The appellant is acting in connivance with anti-social elements and has broken the locks (twice) of the suit premises i.e. E-104, Jeevan Park, Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 11 of 56 Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and threatened the respondent no to enter either in the area or in the property i.e. E- 104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi."Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 11 of 56Petitioner no.1 filed the reply dated 30th August, 2011 in which she admitted that the subject property is under the lock and key of the complainant and petitioner no.1 has also put her lock upon the lock of the complainant.Para 5 of the reply is reproduced hereunder:-That the contents of para 5 as stated are vague, false, incorrect and denied.The entire para is devoid of any specific particulars.There is no question of vacating or opening the locks as the premises are already under lock and key of non-applicant and the applicant also put her lock upon the lock of the non- applicant."(Emphasis supplied)Petitioner no.1, in para 1 of the reply dated 30th August, 2011, took a contradictory stand and stated that the complainant has broken the locks.She further submitted that she has moved an application before the learned District Court seeking directions to hand over the keys of subject property.The relevant portion of para 1 of the reply of petitioner no.1 is as under:-" 1. ...It is submitted that after the said order, the applicant moved an application before the ld.Trial Court seeking the directions to hand over the keys of House No.E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi which was opposed and the Hon'ble Court observed that no keys are required to be given as house is lying vacant and both the parties have put their locks on it. ..."Vide order dated 8th July, 2013, this Court dismissed the Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 12 of 56 contempt petition on the ground that the same have been instituted beyond the limitation period of one year.Relevant portion of the order dated 8th July, 2013 is reproduced hereunder:Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 12 of 56"Cont.Cas(C) No.377/2011 The order of which the initiation of contempt proceedings is alleged dated 9.3.2010 and the petition itself has been filed on 23.5.2011, that is, beyond the period of one year as envisaged under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act. Since, no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, the petition is barred by limitation and the same is dismissed."Criminal Complaint No.869/1On 14th August, 2012, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against petitioner no.1 on the ground that she was managing the subject property in terms of the order dated 9 th March, 2010 in FAO No.91/2010 and petitioner no.1 broke the locks which was reported to the police on 5th February, 2011 vide DD No.67B and no action has been taken by the police despite complaints dated 4 th March, 2011 and 3rd May, 2012 against the petitioners.The copy of the complaints dated 5th February, 2011, 4th March, 2011 and 3rd May, 2012 were filed along with the complaint.Vide order dated 21st August, 2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the SHO to register a case against the petitioners.Relevant portion of the order dated 21 st August, 2012 is reproduced hereunder:"Present application was filed u/s156(3) Cr.P.C. stating therein that accused No.1 and 2 committed serious offences regarding the property bearing No.E-104, Jeevan Park, Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 13 of 56 Uttam nagar, New Delhi.It is mention that complainant had filed a suit against accused no.1 which was decreed in favour of the complainant.Accused No.1 filed copy before the Honble High Court and vide order dt.09.03.2010, the complainant was allowed by the Honble High Court to manage the property.Thereafter accused No.1 threatened the complainant for dire consequences and broke open the lock of the property bearing No.E-104, Jeewan Park violating the court order and entered into the said property.As per order dt. 06.07.2012 of Honble High Court of Delhi, Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 stated before the court that the suit property is lying locked and nobody has broken open the lock and there was lock of both the parties.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 13 of 56The complainant already made complaints regarding the alleged incident before the concerned police station but police has not taken any positive action at the complaint of the complainant and therefore the present application is filed before the court.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, court thinks that a thorough Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 14 of 56 investigation is required in this matter.It is also well settled law that SHO is duty bound to register a case on receiving an information regarding commission of cognizable offence.In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 21st August, 2012, the police registered FIR No.325/2012 dated 27th August, 2012 under Sections 191/441/109/504/201/451/192/442/16/506/203/457/ 193/445/120B/218/503/197/446 IPC, P.S. Dabri.In the status report dated 18th February, 2013 submitted by the I.O. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it is recorded that accused persons are ready to give possession of the subject property to the complainant.The relevant portion of the status report is as under:-"...IO further submitted that both the alleged accused persons have contacted with him and stated that they are ready to give possession of house no.E-104, Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi to the complainant in compliance of their submissions made before Hon'ble High Court.Counsel for the complainant is apprised about this fact. ..."(Emphasis supplied)The orders dated 21st January, 2013, 24th January, 2013 and 18th February, 2013 are relevant and therefore reproduced hereunder:Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 15 of 56"21.01.2013 Ld. Counsel for complainant filed copy of order of Honble High Court dt.15.01.2013 whereby it is mentioned that the opposite party gave undertaking before the Honble High Court that they will not interfere in the peaceful possession of the said property by the complainant.Today, complainant submits that she is having fear that opposite party will not allow here to enter into the said premises.Complainant submits that she will contact the IO on 23.01.2013 at 2:00 pm for the said purpose to which IO also informed and agreed accordingly."(Emphasis Supplied) "24.01.2013 Status report filed by the IO stating that they had visited the spot on 23.01.2013 in furtherance of order dt.21.01.2013 and found that the house in question was found that the house in question was locked at main gate and from inquiry from neighbourers it was found that accused Surjeet Kaur not residing there for last 2-3 months.Counsel for complainant submits that I.O. is deliberately not conducting the investigation properly.An application is also moved by Ld. Counsel for complainant for taking appropriate steps regarding the Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 16 of 56 compliance of Honble High Court pertaining to undertaking given by the accused before Honble High Court and for taking steps against erring officials.Copy of application be supplied to I.O.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 16 of 56Put up for consideration on application/further proceedings on 31.01.2013 at 2:00 pm."(Emphasis Supplied) "18.02.2013 Status report filed by the IO regarding investigation stating that the investigation of the case is going on.IO is directed to expedite the investigation.IO further submitted that both the alleged accused persons have contacted with him and stated that they are ready to give possession of house no.E- 104, Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi to the complainant in compliance of their submissions made before Hon'ble High Court.Counsel for the complainant is apprised about this fact.Put up for filing of further report regarding investigation on 20.03.2013."(Emphasis supplied) Anticipatory bail application of the petitioners before the Sessions CourtThe petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was dismissed by the Ld.Sessions Court vide order dated 30th November, 2012 on the ground that this Court vide order dated 9th March, 2010 has permitted the complainant to manage the subject property.The learned Sessions Court further observed that the petitioner No.1 was not staying in Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 17 of 56 the subject property as recorded in their statement dated 16 th March, 2009 before the District Judge in the Letters of Administration case.Relevant portion of the order dated 30th November, 2012 is reproduced hereunder:Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 17 of 56"30.11.2012 Present: Sh.Devender Kumar, Ld. Chief Prosecutor on behalf of the State along with IO SI Dinesh.Ajay Bhardwaj and Ms. Sangeeta Singh.This order shall dispose of anticipatory bail application.Case of the prosecution is that complainant Jasvinder Kaur, who is widow of son of the applicant/petitioner Smt. Surjeet Kaur, filed a complaint before the police stating therein that she is owner of H.No.E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the applicants/accused person who are the mother in law and sister in law, have forcibly taken the possession of the said property and had also threatened her and she apprehend danger to her life and not in position to visit the area and that the accused persons are being helped by the local police personnels.The complainant had also filed a contempt petition against the present petitioner/applicant in Honble High Court of Delhi, in reply thereto, applicant/petitioner had stated that no such act was committed by her and her counsel made the statement that the property was still lying locked and nobody had broken open the locks and there is lock of both the parties.The said statement was totally false and same was Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 18 of 56 mentioned on behalf of the complainant before Honble High Court and Honble High Court had observed that the complainant has remedy of filing a complaint in case the police fails to take the action.The fact that the locks are being broken and both the accused have committed serious offences is well in the knowledge of the IO.Both the accused persons Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Balwinder Kaur have also removed movables from the Suit property.The accused persons have committed offence of house breaking and trespassing in addition to other offences.On this FIR for the offence under Section 191/441/109/504/201/451/192/442 /16/506/203/457/193/445/120B/218/503/197/446 IPC was registered.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 18 of 56It is also admitted fact that the husband of the complainant had died.It is also admitted fact that she was an NRI earlier and after the death of her husband she wanted to shift to India.It is admitted case that this house belongs to the husband of the complainant.After his demise, a case was filed for obtaining probate against the property and vide order dated 27.10.2009, the management of house No. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi was given to the complainant.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had permitted the respondent (complainant in this case) to manage the said estate of the Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 19 of 56 deceased and restricted her to create third party interest.It therefore, is apparent that neither the applicant, nor her daughter Balvinder Kaur had been staying in this house as per this statement.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 19 of 56From the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 6.7.2012, it is apparent that the accused had put her lock in that house.V.P. Vaish Ld.District Judge dated 27.10.2009 and Hon'ble High Court directions dated 9.3.2010, the accused/applicant tried to take forceful possession of the property by putting her lock.Nothing in the order shall tantamount to expression of opinion on merits of the case.Application is disposed of accordingly."(Emphasis supplied) Bail Application No. 64/2014This Court further granted liberty to the complainant to stay in the subject property.The order dated 15th January, 2013 is reproduced hereunder:Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 20 of 56"Bail APP No. 64/2013 By this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C the petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail.Addressing arguments, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is about 75 years old and happens to be the mother-in-law of the complainant and petitioner no.2 is sister-in- law of the complainant.Counsel further submits that the main issue of controversy between the parties is regarding the ownership with regard to the property bearing no. E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, which as per the petitioners was purchased by the petitioner no.1 in the name of her son i.e. husband of the complainant, while as per the case of the complainant the said property was solely and absolutely owned by her husband.Counsel submits that the petitioners are ready to give an undertaking that they will not interfere with the peaceful possession of the complainant in the said property and under no circumstance will take law into their own hands.Counsel further submits that the petitioners are already before the civil Court and for obtaining any kind of order they will approach the said court only.The present bail application is strongly opposed by Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the State and the counsel Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 21 of 56 representing the complainant on the instructions of the complainant present in the court.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 21 of 56The Letter of Administration to administer and manage the said property has been granted by the learned District Judge vide order dated 27.10.2009 in favour of the complainant and the said order is under challenge before the Civil Court.Once the parties are before the civil court, they are bound by the orders already passed or to be passed by the civil court.In the event of arrest, petitioners shall be granted bail, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/I.O. of the concerned police station, subject to the condition that these petitioners shall fully cooperate in investigation and will not create any hindrance or impediment during the course of investigation.The complainant shall be at liberty to stay in the said property, if she so wishes.The present petition stands disposed of accordingly."(Emphasis supplied)In para 4 of the Bail Application 64/2013, the petitioners pleaded that both parties are residing in the subject property.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 22 of 56That, the Investigation officer - Sub Inspector Dinesh Kumar, Dwarka Police Station has filed his report as on 30 th October, 2012 and clearly stated in the said report that both the parties i.e. the complainant and the accused persons are residing in the stated disputed property and that it is submitted that if the same fact is taken into account as true and correct that both the parties were residing at same place as per the status report then beyond any reasonable doubts breaking the locks was not required by any party as such.(A photocopy of Report by I.O. dated 30/10/12 is also attached herewith as Annexure)"(Emphasis supplied)The status report of I.O. dated 30th October, 2012 relied upon by the petitioners is Annexure C in the Bail Appl.The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:-"STATUS REPORT ...the complainant of this case told before Honble Delhi High Court through her counsel that petitioner had broken open the lock of the suit property.MOU dated 22nd February, 2013Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 23 of 56The original Memorandum of Understanding was filed in Contempt Case(C) No.377/2011 on 26th February, 2013 and is reproduced hereunder:-"Memorandum of Understanding This memorandum of understanding is made on this 22nd day of February, 2013 between Smt. Surjeet Kaur alias Ajit Kaur r/o WZ36A Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 1st party) which expression unless repugnant to the context shall include her successors, legal attorneys, heirs, executors and permitted assignees of the 1st part.And Smt. Jasbinder Kaur w/o Late Sh.Ranjit Singh Jutla, r/o (at present residing in Hotel Aman Palace, Raja Garden, Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as 2nd party) which expression unless repugnant to the context shall include her successors, legal attorneys, heirs, executors and permitted assignees of the 2nd part.That the 2nd party had filed a suit tilted "Jasbinder Kaur Vs.That the 2nd party also initiated criminal proceedings against the 1st party which culminated into registration of FIR against the 1st party and 1st party got anticipatory bail vide order dated 15.1.2013 after the statement that the 1st party shall not disturb the peaceful possession of the 1st party.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 25 of 56On 15th July, 2013, the petitioners present in Court along with their counsel submitted that petitioner no.1 has 1/5 th share in the subject property which is valued about Rs 2 to 2.5 crores and she is willing to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession upon receipt of her 1/5th share which was agreeable to the complainant.She, however, submitted that the complainant should disclose the other estate of her husband whereupon the complainant was directed to file the affidavit of the entire movable and immovable of her husband within one week.The order dated 15th July, 2013 is reproduced hereunder:However, later on learned counsel submitted that she is ready to make the payment of 4/5th share to the wife and children of the deceased and would like to retain the property as she has sentimental value attached to the same.Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.1 is permanently settled in UK and, therefore, she would sell this property and go back to UK.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 26 of 56Learned counsel for respondent no.2 (wife) submits that respondent no.2 has now shifted permanently to India and she would like to stay in the subject property.Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the wife should disclose the other estate of the husband as petitioner no.1 has got 1/5th share in the entire estate of her son, namely, late Ranjit Singh Jutla.Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that late Sh.Ranjit Singh Jutla has no estate other than the subject property in question.Let the affidavit of respondent no.2 with respect to the entire movable and immovable estate of her husband be filed within one week.List for hearing on 19th August, 2013."(Emphasis supplied)In terms of the aforesaid order dated 15th July, 2013, the complainant filed an affidavit dated 22nd July, 2013 in which she deposed that there is no movable or immovable estate of the deceased except the subject property.The parties agreed to identify a builder and negotiate the terms of the collaboration agreement.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 27 of 56On 24th January, 2014, petitioner no.1 changed her counsel who submitted that petitioner no.1 has changed her mind and is not agreeable to execute the collaboration agreement.On 11th February, 2014, the complainant filed Crl.Vide order dated 14th February, 2014, notice of both these application was issued to the petitioners which was accepted by their counsel and the petitioner have filed their reply.On 21st March, 2014, the parties again agreed to meet learned mediator to make an endeavour to resolve their disputes.Mr. B.R. Handa, learned senior counsel appeared on 26th March, 2014 and sought time to amicably resolve the disputes between the parties.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 28 of 56On 16th April, 2014, there was again change of the counsel by the petitioners.Dr. Shyamlha Pappu, learned senior counsel appeared on 25th April, 2014 submitted that she has been instructed to contest the matter.40.1 On 26th April, 2014, the petitioners filed an affidavit in which she disowned the undertaking given by her counsel.Submissions of the petitionersAppl.5018/2013 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail is not maintainable as the complainant was not a party in the main Bail Appl.No.64/2013 and, therefore the complainant should have filed a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.The petitioners disown the undertaking given by their counsel to this Court on 15th January, 2013 on the ground that their counsel did not know that the complainant was not in possession of the subject property and he unknowingly made a statement that the petitioner shall not interfere with the peaceful possession of the complainant.The petitioners further claim to be in continuous possession of the subject property and therefore, there was no occasion for them to give any such undertaking.Petitioner no.1 is Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 29 of 56 not willing to leave the possession of the subject property where she has stayed for the last 30 years.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 29 of 56The petitioners also disown the statement made by her before this Court on 15th July, 2013 on the ground that her counsel made the statement without her consent and such admission is not binding on her.The statement of the complainant was recorded by this Court on 6th September, 2013 in which the complainant stated that the petitioners never handed over the physical possession of the subject property to her and she was never in physical possession of the subject property.Submissions of the StateIt is submitted that but for the said undertaking, this Court would not have granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.It is further submitted that the petitioners withdrawal of the undertaking dated 15th January, 2013 is malafide and highly belated having been raised for the first time after more than a year.46. Learned APP for the State has referred to the order dated 30th November, 2012 whereby the learned Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.It is submitted that the petitioners were present in Court at the time of hearing dated 30th November, 2012 which records their presence.Submissions of the complainantThe statement of petitioner no.1 that she has been Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 30 of 56 continuously staying in the subject property for the last 30 years is absolutely false.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 30 of 56The challenge to the order dated 15th July, 2013 is also frivolous.The order dated 15th July, 2013 was followed by order dated 1st November, 2013 which was signed by both the petitioners as well as complainant along with their counsels.The petitioner no.1 admitted before this Court on 6th July, 2012 that the subject property was lying vacant and locked by both the parties which falsifies her stand taken before this Court that she is continuously residing in the subject property.With respect to the statement dated 6th September, 2013, it is submitted that after the death of her husband, the complainant being the co-owner had put her lock on the subject property as the property was lying vacant and this position was admitted by petitioner no.1 as back as in September 2008 in the probate proceedings as well as in other proceedings.Vide the order dated 9th March, 2010 in FAO 91/2010, the complainant was permitted to manage the subject property during the pendency of the appeal whereupon petitioner no.1 was required to remove her locks.Consequences of filing false affidavitIn para 4 of the bail application BA-64/2013 (reproduced in para 28 above), petitioner no.1 has pleaded that both parties are residing in the subject property.Prior thereto, petitioner no.1 as back as on 24th November, 2010 filed an application M-11/10 before the District Judge in Probate Case No.335/2006 in which she stated that the complainant had broken her locks and therefore, the complainant be directed to hand over the keys of the subject property to her which was refused by the learned District Judge on the ground that the house was lying vacant and both the parties have put their locks on it.Relevant portion of the said order is produced in para 9 above.It is, therefore, clear that as back as on 24 th November, 2010, petitioner no.1 had admitted being out of possession and had put her lock on the lock of the complainant and further that the property was lying vacant.On 6th July, 2012, the complainant submitted before the High Court that petitioner no.1 had broken Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 38 of 56 open the lock which was disputed by petitioner no.1 who submitted that the subject property was lying locked; there was lock of both the parties and nobody had broken open the lock.On 24th January, 2013, learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded in her order that the subject property was lying locked.Petitioner no.1 has not challenged any of the aforesaid orders which have thus become final.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 38 of 56On 24th November, 2010, she again admitted that the property was lying vacant and both the parties had put their lock on it.As such, the statement of the counsel for petitioner no.1 before this Court that the complainant was in possession of the subject property on 15th January, 2013 is not contrary to the facts on record.Since there is no order of the Court for removal of the complainants lock from the subject property, it is clear that petitioner no.1 has broken open the complainants lock to enter into the property.The question then arises as to the date on which petitioner no.1 has broken the lock of the complainant to enter into the property.The complainants contention that the petitioners broke the locks of the complainant on 5th February, 2011 and 26th February, 2011 appears to be true.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 39 of 56M.A.5018/2013 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant on 18 th April, 2013 and the notice was issued to the petitioners on 26 th April, 2013 in pursuance to which the petitioners appeared before this Court along with their counsel on 10th May, 2013 and the case was thereafter listed on more than 15 occasions but no such stand was ever taken by the petitioners before this Court.On 24th November, 2010, the complainant was in possession of the subject property in terms of the order dated 9 th March, 2010 and therefore, petitioner no.1 in her reply dated 30 th August, 2011 in Cont.Cas(C) 337/2011 claimed back the possession which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24th November, 2010 on the ground that the subject property was lying vacant and both the parties have put their locks on it.It appears that the same status was continuing even on 15th January, 2013 when petitioner no.1 admitted before this Court that the complainant was in possession and therefore, she gave an undertaking not to interfere with the possession of the complainant.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 41 of 56In the evidence by way of affidavit dated 16th March, 2009 also, petitioner no.1 has given the same address.(ii) In FAO No.91/2010, petitioner no.1, in her affidavit dated 1st February, 2010 has given her Vishnu Garden address.(iv) In Bail Appln.64/2013, the affidavit dated 14th January, 2013 of petitioner no.1 in support of the bail application bears her Vishnu Garden address.The same address is given in the affidavit along with the exemption application.Affidavits dated 26 th February, 2014 of petitioner no.1 in support of the replies to Crl.Applns.2446/2014 and 2447/2014 also contain the same Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 42 of 56 address.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 42 of 56In the affidavit dated 26th April, 2014 before this Court petitioner no.1 for the first time mentioned her address as E-104, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi which is contrary to her earlier affidavits and is therefore, false.Apart from the addresses given by petitioner no.1 in all the proceedings, petitioner no.1 has admitted before the different Courts that the subject property was lying vacant and under the lock of both the parties meaning thereby that petitioner no.1 was not staying in the subject property.Even if the statements of petitioner no.1 in her affidavit dated 26th April, 2014 are taken to be true, the previous statements made by petitioner no.1 on oath would become false and, therefore, petitioner no.1 would be liable to the consequences of making false statements on oath.This is a classic case where petitioner no.1 herself has given so many contradictory statements.With respect to the contention of petitioner no.1 that on 15 th July, 2013 her counsel made a statement that she has 1/5 th share in the subject property without her instructions, is absolutely false.Counsel for the petitioner no.1 had talked to petitioner no.1 in the open Court within the hearing of this court before making the statement and this Court recorded the statement after satisfying that petitioner no.1 admitted her share in the subject property as 1/5 th only.As such, the blame put by petitioner no.1 on her counsel Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 43 of 56 with a view to wriggle out of the admission made in this Court on 15th January, 2013 is clearly contemptuous.That apart, petitioner no.1 admitted her right in the subject property to be only 1/5th in the MOU dated 22nd February, 2013 as well as the grounds (ii) andBail Appln.64/2013 Page 43 of 56The claim of petitioner no.1 to be absolute owner of the subject property is not sustainable in law as the title documents in respect of the subject property are in the name of her son late Ranjeet Singh Jutla.She was also not aware as to the date, time and place of execution of the said documents.She has not paid any sale consideration to the seller Rattan Singh.She claims to have paid the sale consideration out of the pensionary benefits of her husband which also have not been proved.However, petitioner no.1 has made an attempt to wriggle out of the statement made before this Court on 15th July, 2013 in her affidavit dated 26th Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 44 of 56 April, 2014 which also amounts to contempt.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 44 of 56On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioners are guilty of wilful disobedience of the undertaking given to this Court as well as making false statements on oath before this Court.The petitioners have time and again changed their stand and have misled this Court.The conduct of the petitioners is also clearly contemptuous which is clear from the sequence of events summarized hereinbelow:-Petitioner no.1 did not contest this position.27th October, 2009 The Letters of Administration in respect of the subject property were issued in Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 45 of 56 favour of the complainant.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 45 of 566th March, 2010 Petitioner no.1 filed FAO No.91/2010 before this Court to challenge the judgment dated 27th October, 2009 in which she restricted her claim to only 1/5th share according to the ordinary law of succession.Petitioner no.1 admitted 1/5th share of the complainant and 3/5th share of the three children of the complainant.Petitioner no.1 did not challenge this order which has thus become final.24th November, 2010 Petitioner no.1 admitted that subject property was lying vacant and both the parties have put their locks on it - The complainant filed an application M-11/10 before the District Judge to seek the keys of the subject property from petitioner no.1 who admitted that the subject property was lying vacant and both the parties have put their locks on it.30th August, 2011 Petitioner no.1 admitted that subject Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 46 of 56 property was lying vacant under the lock of the complainant - Petitioner no.1 in para 1 of the reply to Cont.Case(C)No.337/2011, admitted that the subject property was lying vacant under the lock of the complainant.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 46 of 56Petitioner no.1 submitted that she has also put her lock.6th July, 2012 Petitioner no.1 admitted that the subject property was lying locked and there was lock of both the parties -Petitioner no.1 in FAO No.91/2010 admitted that the subject property was lying locked and nobody has broken the lock; and there was lock of both the parties.30th November, 2012 First contradicting statement - The petitioners claimed to be in continuous possession and occupation of the subject property and that the complainant was never in possession -During the hearing of the anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court, petitioner no.1 claimed to be in possession and occupation of the subject Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 47 of 56 property and that the complainant was never in possession.15th January, 2013 Petitioners admitted the complainant to be in possession of the subject property- The petitioners admitted before this Court at the time of hearing of BA 64/2013 that the complainant was in possession and undertook not to interfere with their peaceful possession.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 48 of 5624th January, 2013 The Investigating Officer visited the subject property for compliance of the order dated 21st January, 2013 when the subject property was found locked at the main gate.The status report is noted in the order dated 24th January, 2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.18th February, 2013 Petitioners agreed to hand over the possession of the subject property to the complainant - The petitioners submitted before the Investigating Officer during the investigation of FIR No.325/2013 that they were ready to hand over the possession of the subject property to the complainant in terms of the submission before the High Court.22nd February, 2013 Petitioner no.1 admitted her share in the subject property to be 1/5th according to the ordinary law of succession - In the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22nd February, 2013, petitioner no.1 admitted her share in the subject property to be 1/5th and agreed to Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 49 of 56 accept the amount equivalent to 1/5th share within three months.However, from the admissions of petitioner no.1, it is clear beyond doubt that the subject property was lying vacant under the lock of both the parties from as back as on 10th July, 2008 recorded in the Probate Case.This situation continued up to as late as on 15th January, 2013 when the petitioners, who were unsuccessful in getting anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, admitted the possession of the complainant and gave an undertaking to secure anticipatory bail.However, after securing the anticipatory bail, the petitioners again turned dishonest and removed the lock of the complainant and again started claiming the exclusive possession.The conduct of the petitioners is clearly contemptuous.From the complainants statement before this Court on 6th September, 2012 that the petitioners never handed over the Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 50 of 56 physical possession to her, it appears that both the parties had put their lock on the subject property which was lying vacant.In the eyes of law, upon the death of Ranjeet Singh Jutla, all the legal heirs of late Ranjeet Singh Jutla, namely, petitioner no.1(mother), complainant(wife) and three sons would be in possession of the subject property and petitioner no.1 cannot claim the same to the exclusion of others.The petitioners are guilty of playing tricks and misleading the Court which is clear from the fact that the petitioners, after being unsuccessful in getting anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, approached this Court in Bail Appln.64/2013, secured the anticipatory bail from this Court after giving solemn undertaking.The petitioners continue to enjoy the order dated 15th January, 2013 for more than a year and only at the stage of hearing of the application for cancellation of bail, the petitioners are seeking to wriggle out of the solemn undertaking given to this Court.During this period, petitioner no.1 admitted before this Court on 15th July, 2013 that she has only 1/5th share in the subject property and she is ready to accept the market value of 1/5th share.After the statement was recorded, petitioner no.1 again changed her mind and Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 51 of 56 submitted that she is ready to make payment of 4/5th share to the complainant and her children and would like to retain the property.Since both the parties were keen to stay in the property and the present construction could not be divided by metes and bounds, petitioner no.1 later agreed for construction of a building by a collaboration agreement through a builder and to retain 1/5 th share of the built up structure which was accepted by the complainant.The complainant accepted even this.Petitioner no.1 is now trying to wriggle out of this also on the ground that all this was being done without her consent.Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 51 of 56During the course of the hearing dated 29th April, 2014, learned senior counsel for the petitioners admitted that vide order dated 9th March, 2010, this Court has permitted the complainant to manage the subject property till the disposal of the appeal subject to the condition that they shall not alienate or create third party interest.Learned senior counsel further admitted that the petitioners have not challenged the said order which has become final.Since substantial arguments have already been advanced by both the parties, this case shall be treated as part-heard.The petitioners as well as the complainant shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.No.869/1 as well as FAO No.91/2010 be returned back forthwith.J.R. MIDHA, J MAY 30, 2014/dk Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 56 of 56Bail Appln.64/2013 Page 56 of 56

['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT D.G. Deshpande, J.Appeal No. 42 of 1990 is filed by the accused No. 1 against his conviction.Appeal No. 173 of 1990 is filed by the State against acquittal of the accused and Criminal Revision application No. 118 of 1990 is filed by the complainant.They were all college going boys.The case of the prosecution against them was that these accused assaulted number of other boys of the same college and caused the death of Sanjay Dhumma.As per the prosecution case, there was annual gathering of Walchand College of Arts Faculty.On 8.2.1989 in the morning between 8.30 A.M. to 10.30 A.M. fun-fair was arranged but because of bursting of crackers, it was abandoned.Many students including Arvind Zagade (P.W. 3) and Ashok Nimbargi (P.W. 8) were chit chatting in front of the staff room of the college where accused No. 1 Deepak picked up a quarrel with Shankar Pawar.Ravi Kore and Arvind Zagade intervened and stopped the quarrel.Shanker Pawar and Narsayya Jangam made a complaint to the Principal of Walchand College of Arts, about this incident.In that complaint accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were also implicated.When Dashrathsing Chavan (P.W. 2) came out of his office, he saw accused No. 1 Deepak Shinde in a violent mood.He tried to catch hold of Deepak Shinde but accused No. 1 Deepak Shinde ran away.This was made to one Ramesh Bhogade but in the hospital Sanjay was declared dead.The trial court found that out of the five accused, accused No. 1 Deepak Shinde was found guilty and was convicted under Section 304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default R.I. for three months.The other accused were acquitted by the trial court.The State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1990 against the acquittal of the accused.We have heard the Advocates for the Accused, Complainant and the learned APP for the State at length.We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial court so far as it relates to acquittal of other accused i.e. accused Nos. 2 to 5 from all other offences and acquittal of the accused No. 1 from the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and conviction of accused No. 1 under Section 304 (Part - II) of the I.P.C. for the following reasons:On the same day at about 1.45 p.m. P.W. 3 Arvind Zagade, P.W. 8 Ashok Nimbargi and others had assembled at college premises as they wanted to practice a programme which they were going to perform in the variety entertainment programme.They were standing near the staff room.At that time accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 came there.Accused No. 1 Deepak Shinde threatened Ashok Nimbargi (P.W. 8).Arvind Zagade (P.W. 3) and Ravi Kore intervened but accused No. 1 Deepak Shinde abused Arvind Zagade and his friends and expressed that he would teach a lesson to Sanjay Dhumma.At that time Sanjay Dhumma entered the college premises.Then accused No. 1 roared at Sanjay Dhumma.Some bricks were thrown at him.Accused Nos. 2 and 4 threw the bricks at the other group.Deepak Shinde - Accused No. 1 and Jainoddin Shaikh - Accused No. 3 started beating Sanjay Dhumma with fist blows and kicks and at that time Deepak Shinde - accused No. 1 brandished a knife and gave blow on the left cheek of Sanjay Dhumma and another blow on the left side stomach of Sanjay Dhumma.It is alleged that the other accused were holding Sanjay Dhumma at that time.Thereafter the Accused ran away.Sanjay Dhumma was admitted to the hospital.While on way to the hospital, Sanjay Dhumma told about the assault on him by Deepak Shinde.Accused were arrested, statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded, particularly, from accused No. 1 regarding the knife stained with blood.It was seized.All those Articles were sent to C.A. and charge sheet was filed.Trial court minutely scannned the evidence of the witnesses, who were mostly students.These accused were also students in their early 20's and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to hold that any unlawful assembly was formed.The trial Court also found that there was no evidence to come to the conclusion that other accused Nos. 2 to 5 were guilty and it was also found that the knife was taken out by Deepak Shinde - Accused No. 1 in a heat of moment.Other accused were not supposed to know that accused No. 1 was carrying the knife and therefore they could not be foisted with the knowledge.Then according to the trial court injury on the cheek of Sanjay Dhumma was superficial, second blow on the stomach was given during scuffle and there was no intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury which could be sufficient to cause death.The object of giving blow was found to be simply to over-barge Sanjay Dhumma.The trial court also found that accused No. 1 had received certain blows on his face because he was referred to the Medical Officer as per Exhibit 47 and which was clear from the evidence of Gajanand Mitragotri (P.W. 9).As rightly observed by the trial court both the groups of boys were college going students, quarrel between them was very petty.No inference of any intention to take revenge of such a brutal nature could be drawn against them.The quarrel was between two group of students which sparkled on the spur of moment regarding role attributed to accused Nos. 2 to 5 that they held Sanjay Dhumma and then accused No. 1 dealt knife blows to him, we do not find the evidence of the witnesses is consistent and credible.Sanjay Dhumma was actually not figured in the earlier quarrel, he wan not the person to lodge complaint to the Principal.It is not that the dispute between Accused No. 1 and Sanjay Dhumma was started earlier and then it culminated into this.Witnesses are not consistent as to why Sanjay was involved in this quarrel.The incident in the morning on that day had nothing to do with Sanjay and therefore there was no reason for all the five accused to hold Sanjay and then accused No. 1 to give a knife blow.Mere forming of two groups because of a petty quarrel, would not in such circumstances, and, particularly, in college campus, amount to formation of unlawful assembly.Therefore, the Appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 5 cannot be allowed.So far as appeal filed by the accused No. 1 is concerned, he was rightly convicted by the trial court under Section 304 (Part-II).Apart from the evidence of eye witnesses, who were other students, recovery of the knife at the instance of accused No. 1 under Section 27 was sufficient for the Court to hold him quality.For the same reason, we do not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Application filed by the complainant.It appears from the cross-examination of P.W. 3 Arvind Zagade, who is an eye witness that the defence of the accused was that Sanjay was aggressor he had given fists blow on the face of accused No. 1 and then accused No. 1 took out a knife.The fact that accused No. 1 was referred to doctor in this background shows that there was not only quarrel about exchange of fist blows between two groups when the knife was taken out by accused No. 1 and followed by two blows; one causing superficial injury on the cheek and the other causing injury on the stomach.The said injuries as per the post mortem report "an incised stab wound on the left side chest 6th interposed space oblique in direction about 6 inches laterally to centre of chest merging regular and clean cut".This is the injury which has caused the death of Sanjay, the cause of death is Traumatic & Haemorahagic shock due to stab injuries of chest.In the circumstances, we pass the following order.ORDER Appeal filed by the accused along with Revision Application of the Complainant, so also Appeal filed by the State against acquittal, are dismissed.He should surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today.If he fails to surrender, the trial court will take action under Criminal Procedure Code to sent him to jail to undergo the sentence.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

http://www.judis.nic.in 4 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any basis, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioners in Crime No.12 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 494 of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act. Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.6.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.12 of 2019 within a period of Three Months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.vsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2387 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1223 of 2020 12.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that :- A. The appellant is younger brother of the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix-Diplesh.Her parents and elder brother left for the market leaving the prosecutrix and her younger brother in the house.(f) Even small finger could not be admitted in her vagina without pain to her.(g) Her posterior fornix also had a tear of 1cm and blood clot was also present.This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.11.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1228 of 1992 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, by way of which it reversed the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Seoni, Madhya Pradesh dated 16.7.1992 in Sessions Trial No.82 of 1990, by which the appellant stood acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).The appellant found the prosecutrix alone as her brother was merely a child and raped her.The prosecutrix fainted and on regaining her consciousness, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her father who lodged the FIR with the police on the same day.B. The appellant was arrested on 15.6.1990 and after investigation, the prosecution filed chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 IPC.C. The Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1990 acquitted the appellant vide judgment dated 16.7.1992, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, and secondly that she had consented for having sexual intercourse with the appellant.D. Aggrieved, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.1228 of 1992, before the High Court.The High Court reversed the judgment of the Sessions Court, convicted the appellant for the said offences and awarded punishment of 7 years on both counts.The State appeal has been allowed.Hence, this appeal.Shri Ashok Mahajan and Shri B. Sridhar, learned Amicus Curiae have submitted that there is nothing on record to show that at the relevant time, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age.The trial Court had rightly came to conclusion that it was a case of consent and such a finding was based on evidence on record.There was no occasion for the High Court to reverse the said finding as there was no perversity in it.Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.Per contra, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Standing counsel for the State has submitted that the trial Court erred in understanding the meaning of consent and reached a wrong conclusion that the prosecutrix was not below 16 years of age.Thus, the consent, even if it was so, looses its significance.Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Sawan Lal (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix while lodging an FIR stated that the prosecutrix was 15 years of age.The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and found bangles and also recovered blood stained underwear, saree and petikot of the prosecutrix and also the blood stained earth and plain earth.Dr. Kiran Katre (PW-8) examined the prosecutrix medically and opined that the prosecutrix was about 14-15 years of age.According to Dr. Katre, it was difficult even to put the little finger in the vagina of the prosecutrix.She was referred to the Radiologist, however, no such report was made available.The prosecutrix was examined in the Court on 12.11.1991 as PW-1 and the learned Sessions Judge assessed her age on the basis of her appearance as about 14 years.In addition thereto, one Kabir Das (PW-4) who was a Teacher in the night school where the prosecutrix was studying, deposed that according to the school register, her date of birth was 7.3.1975 and thus, her age was about 14 years.The said date of birth had been recorded several years prior to the incident.It was in view thereof that Kabir Das (PW-4) had issued a Certificate, Exh.P/5, and he proved the said Certificate in the Court.The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was not less than 16 years at the relevant time, on the ground that Dr. Katre (PW-8) had referred her for Radiologist test and she had not been examined by the Radiologist.Withholding such an evidence would give rise to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.Secondly, the school certificate could not be relied upon as it was not a strong and material evidence.More so, such an entry had been made in the school register on the basis of the information furnished by Sawan Lal (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix who deposed in the court that such an entry was based on an entry made in her horoscope which stood destroyed in the fire.In view of the above, the trial Court examined the second issue in respect of consent.The court found certain discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), and her deposition recorded in court.In her statement before the police she had told that the appellant had threatened to kill her if she shouted.The trial Court further observed that when her saree, petikot and even her panty were removed, she did not resist with full force as it was not possible for the accused to remove her panty unless she extended her cooperation.In case she had not given the consent she could have resisted the same with her full power.But, she has not deposed in court that she resisted with full power when her panty was being removed.The prosecutrix was supposed to attack the appellant like a wild animal, but she did not even resist.Thus, her conduct suggested only and only, her consent and will.The court further held that as per the medical evidence even a single finger went inside her vagina with difficulty then it was bound to be some injury in her vagina by forcible intercourse, but the Doctor did not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix apart from certain injuries mentioned in the medical report.Therefore, there could not be any question of forcible intercourse.The trial Court while recording such finding had taken note of the fact that because of the sexual intercourse lot of blood oozed out of her vagina and as a result of the same she became unconscious.The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and particularly, the medical report which contained the following features:-(a) Her gait was painful.(b) There was also blood clot near her vagina.(c) Her forcet had a tear of 1/2cm x 1/2cm.(d) There was also an abrasion of 1/2cm above urethra.(e) Her hymen tear was in 3-9 'o' clock position.The FSL report Exh.P/12 revealed that underwear, petikot and saree of the prosecutrix were having blood stained and human spermatozoa.Similarly, in the slides as well as in the underwear of accused-appellant, the blood stains and human spermatozoa were found.The said clothes had been seized from the prosecutrix and the appellant soon after the occurrence.Jagarnath (P.W.4) and Dr. Asha Prasad (P.W. 14).Certain care has to be taken by the Doctor who medically examine the victim of rape.The victim of rape should generally be examined by a female doctor.Simultaneously, she should be provided the help of some psychiatric.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(Passed on this the 07th day of August, 2018) This criminal revision has been filed by applicant No.1 Dilip Kumar and applicant No.2 Satish Kumar under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.07.2000 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Rewa in Criminal Appeal No.169/2000 whereby the learned lower appellate Court has convicted the applicants under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer six months' R.I. with fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 15 days.By the aforesaid judgment, the learned lower 2 CRR No.1079 of 2000 appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the applicants against the judgment dated 22.06.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Teother District Rewa in Criminal Case No.490/1996 whereby the applicants were convicted under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one and half years' R.I. with fine of Rs.200/- under each offence with default stipulation.In appeal the conviction u/s.457 and 380 of IPC has been set aside but they are sentenced u/s.411 of IPC as aforesaid.2 CRR No.1079 of 2000In brief the facts of the case are that on 20.07.1996 at around 12.00 in the noon, complainant Motilal lodged a report that he is a resident of village Panasi and also has an agricultural field around half kilometer away where he has installed an electric motor pump at the Well and for the safety of which a room has also been constructed.When he went to his field, he found that some unknown person has entered into the said room after breaking the lock open and has stolen the 7.5 HP motor pump of Crompton Greaves Company along with its switches.The value of the motor pump was said to be Rs.10,000/-.The report was lodged against the unknown person but during the course of investigation, 3 CRR No.1079 of 2000 the applicants were arrested and on the basis of memorandum given by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the motor pump along with its switches so stolen were recovered.3 CRR No.1079 of 2000After the evidence was led, the applicants were convicted by the learned JMFC/Trial Court vide judgment dated 22.06.2000 under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.So far as the sentence part is concerned, the same requires reconsideration as the date of incident is 20.07.1996 and from that date till day it has been almost around 22 years and the case was triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class in which the applicants have already undergone 16 days of incarceration.The applicants must have joined the regular stream of the 6 CRR No.1079 of 2000 society, and they have already undergone the ordeal of criminal trial, criminal appeal and now the criminal revision hence at this juncture no fruitful purpose would be served to send them behind the bars once again after more than two decades hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be met if the applicants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.6 CRR No.1079 of 2000In the result, the revision stands partly allowed.7 CRR No.1079 of 2000A certified copy of this order be sent to the learned courts below for compliance, if any.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge 07/08/2018 DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2018.08.08 15:09:25 +05'30'

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The case of the prosecution is as follows:- The appellant hadmortgaged his property to the deceased.The deceased asked the appellant torepay the mortgage amount.But, the appellant attempted to resume the landwithout paying the mortgage amount, so there was enmity between the two.On24.11.1995, at about 04.30 p.m., near Pattalammal Koil, Puduputhur road, theappellant with an aruval approached the deceased.The deceased tried to escape.But, the appellant cut the deceased near the left ankle, which resulted in hisdeath.P.W.1, the eye witness is the brother of the deceased.The wife of thedeceased and the wife of the accused are sisters.P.W.1 has spoken about themotive viz., the enmity between the parties on account of appellant's refusal toreturn the mortgage amount.According to P.W.1, the deceased gave a complaint tothe police and the police warned the appellant / accused and sent him away.Consequently, there was enmity between the deceased and the appellant.On24.11.2005, P.Ws.1,2 and 3 and the deceased went to work in their lands.Theywere returning at 04.30 p.m., after planting wheat and carrot.The appellant approached withan aruval and threatened the deceased.The deceased immediately dropped theagricultural implements and attempted to run away.But, the accused cut thedeceased in his left ankle with a hard blow.The deceased fell down.Theappellant ran away with the aruval.There was heavy blood flow from the wound.P.W.1 raised a hue and cry.Thereafter, one Vellaiyan, Suppan and others camethere and all of them took the injured person to the house.They informed thewife of the deceased and tied a cloth on the ankle to arrest the blood flow.Thereafter, they decided to take the deceased to the hospital and to go to thepolice station, with the help of P.W.5 and another.When they reached the placeat Kollamanam, the deceased asked for water.They gave him some water and soonafter he died.At that time, it was 05.00 p.m. Thereafter, they took the deadbody back to the house.Since there was no bus facility in the night, they tookthe first bus in the morning and at 08.30 a.m., P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P.1to the Kodaikanal Police Station.The printed copy of F.I.R is Ex.P.12.P.W.10 forwarded the printed copy of F.I.R to the higher authorities viz., theInspector and the Court.P.W.11 handed overthe same to the D.S.P at 10.30 a.m. Since Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal wasnot in station, P.W.11 went to Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai and handed overthe same.Edges of the wound are retradedand are deeply blood stained.The gastrocheniuis muscles are severed and aredeeply blood stained.Blood clots are seen within the muscle fibres, fracture ofthe upper one third of fibula present.Popliteal A and V are severed andadjoining nerves are severed".The opinion of the doctor as to the cause of the death is as follows:- "The deceased would appear to have died of acute external Haemorrhage andshock caused by the injury".The Post Mortem Report is Ex.The Secretary, Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of MadrasHigh Court is directed to pay appropriate fee to Mr. Subaharan appointed asamicus curiae by this Court.The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.The Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.P.W.12, the Inspector of Police in Kodaikanal Police Station at therelevant point of time, on receipt of the F.I.R at 09.00 a.m., rushed to thescene of occurrence at 11.00 a.m. In the presence of witnesses, he preparedObservation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.13).He also seized bloodstained earth and sample earth under Ex.He recorded the statement ofwitnesses at 05.30 p.m., On conclusion of the inquest, he sent the dead body ofthe deceased with a requisition for conducting Post Mortem.P.W.7 was the dutydoctor at Kodaikanal Government Hospital.On 26.11.1995, P.W.7 conducted autopsyon the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:- "A deep cut wound of 6" length x 2 ." depth x 2" width over dorsum of theleft lower leg just below the propliteal fossa.Continuing the investigation, P.W.12 seized blood stainedblanket, shawl, three blood stained white cloth and one cloth from the scene ofoccurrence.He also recorded statements from the witnesses.On 26.11.1995, herecorded the statements of some more witnesses.On 27.11.1995, at about 05.00a.m., accompanied by one Alagar, he went in search of the appellant and nearPoombarai bus stop, he arrested the appellant in the presence of P.W.6 - VillageAdministrative Officer.The appellant came forward with a voluntary confessionand the admissible portion of the same is Ex.On the basis of theinformation given by the appellant, he recovered Aruval (M.O.1) and Polythenebag (M.O.11) from the bushes.At about 10.30 a.m., he returned to the PoliceStation.He seized the blood stained lungi worn by the appellant and gave himanother lungi to wear.He recorded the statement of witnesses.On 28.11.1995 heforwarded the seized Material Objects for Chemical Analysis.4. P.W.2 is an acquaintance of the deceased.He also spoke of theenmity between the deceased and the accused and his evidence is along the samelines of P.W.1. P.W.3 is also an acquaintance of the deceased and the accusedand his evidence is also along the same lines of P.W.1. P.W.4 was in the houseof one Vellaiyan on the date of occurrence.When he heard the hue and cry raisedby P.Ws. 1 to 3, he and Vellaiyan rushed there and they saw the deceased withhis injured leg and according to his evidence, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were standing thereand when he enquired, he was informed that the appellant had cut the deceasedand fled.P.W.6 is the witness to Ex.P.W.8 is the Head Clerk.P.W.9is the constable.P.W.12, the Investigating Officer received Exs.P.10, theChemical Report and Ex.P.11, the Serology Report.After concluding theinvestigation, on 28.11.1995, P.W.12 framed the charges and filed the Report.Before the Trial Court, the Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12,marked Exs.On the side of the defence, noevidence was adduced.The appellant / accused in his examination under Section313 Cr.P.C, denied his guilt.Notice sent to the appellant / accused was returned unserved andthe Village Administrative Officer has also filed a certificate that theappellant / accused, who was enlarged on bail, has not been residing in thegiven address.Therefore, this Court, by an order dated 29.10.2007 appointedMr.S.Subaharan as an amicus curiae.According to the learned counsel, because of the enmity between the deceased andthe accused, the prosecution witnesses had implicated the accused.Next, learned counsel forthe appellant submitted that though P.Ws.1 to 3 speak of the enmity between theparties with regard to the Mortgage, no documentary evidence has been producedto corroborate the same.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that none of theinfirmities pointed out on the side of the appellant deserves consideration.Hesubmitted that it is the specific case of P.W.1 that they did not go to thePolice Station immediately since they did not get any bus.The occurrence hadtaken place at 04.30 p.m., and they attempted to take the injured person to thehospital and to the Police Station immediately, but on the way, the deathoccurred and therefore, they returned to the house of the deceased and could nottake further action on account of lack of bus service.As regards the lack of documentary evidence with regard to themotive, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when the evidence ofeye witnesses are credible and trust worthy with regard to the manner in whichthe occurrence took place, the importance of motive recedes to the background.In any event, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consisting with regard to themotive and there is no reason to reject the same.Finally, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor submitted that there was heavy blood flow on account of theinjury and the Doctor's evidence clearly shows that the deceased died on accountof acute external Haemorrhage and shock and therefore, even it is a single cut,since it was sufficient in its nature to cause the death, the prosecution casestands proved to the full.We have carefully considered the rival submissions of thelearned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State.As regards the events that took place on the fateful day, theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent.They were all working in their own landson 24.11.1995 and were returning at 04.30 p.m., When the deceased was goingahead, the appellant came with an aruval and threatened the deceased.Thedeceased immediately dropped the agricultural implements and attempted to runaway.But, the appellant cut the left ankle of the deceased with hard blow.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to reject the evidence of theeye witnesses.Therefore, the case of the prosecution that there was enmitybetween the parties on account of mortgage had been proved by documentaryevidence.Therefore, this ground isalso rejected.The Doctor only opined that the death could have occurred on account of acutehaemorrhage and the resultant shock.It is in evidence that the deceasedsustained injury at 4.30 p.m. and he breathed his last at 5.00 p.m. Thus, thedeceased was not given any medical treatment.P.W.7 further opined that thedeceased would have been saved provided that he had been given medical treatmentimmediately.Thus, in the absence of any positive evidence from the Doctor thatthe injury found on the deceased would be sufficient to cause the death inordinary course of nature, it cannot be stated that the offence would fallwithin the ambit of the third clause of Section 300 IPC'.Admittedly, the deceased and the accused were co brothers.".......... We are, however, of the view that keeping in view the nature ofinjuries on the person of the deceased and the facts and circumstances of thiscase the offence committed by the appellants comes within the mischief ofSection 325 read with 34 IPC.Thirteen external injuries were found on the deadbody of Jawahar.Out of those 11 were on lower legs and arms.Even according to Jawahar'sstatement (Ex.P6) all that A-1 had remarked was that the attack on him was inretaliation for the injuries Jawahar had caused on A-1 a few weeks earlier."This Court, by an order dated 24.08.2007 cancelled the bailalready granted to the appellant / accused in Crl.M.P.No.4256 of 1999 dated30.07.1999 and directed to issue non-bailable warrant to the appellant /accused.Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal was also directed to takeaction against the sureties also.The appellant / accused must surrenderforthwith to serve out the remainder of the sentence, failing which, the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Dindigul must take steps to apprehend him and sendhim to custody.The Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.-do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station.The Secretary, Legal Service Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Shri Rajesh Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.Dr.(Smt) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the State.The present petition invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking correction in the Crime number as well as in mentioning section of one of the offences in the order of enlargement of petitioner on bail granted on 8/3/2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2145/16, which have wrongly been mentioned as 48/14 in place of 46/14 as well as 338 of I.P.C. in place of 336 of I.P.C.

['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

a. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased.The deceased and P.W.2 were residing at Thalikan Nagar,Gandhi Nagar, K.K.Nagar. P.W.3 is working as Havildar in Indian DefenceService.P.W.4 is working at Chennai.P.W.5 is the brother's son of thedeceased.b. On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 29/3/2009, at about 7.45p.m., when A.1 and the deceased reached the scene of occurrence in a motorbike,both P.W.6 and P.W.7 enquired them, since they are in possession of beerbottles.Subsequently, A.1 and the deceased sat on a bridge wall nearSadasivam garden at Sengurichi to Mekkudi, A.1 mixed the cyanide poison withbeer and gave it to the deceased and caused the death of Sundaramoorthy/deceasedon the spot.c. On the same day, at about 9.30 p.m., A.1 went to the office of P.W.1Village Administrative Officer of Nagamangalam Village.On enquiry by V.A.O,A.1 stated that though she was already married and blessed with three children,she is having illicit intimacy with the deceased for the last two years.Sincethe deceased was giving sexual torture frequently, she had decided to kill himby administering poison.Therefore, she sought the help of A.2, who is theSiddha Doctor.On 27/3/2009, A.2 gave two pockets of sodium cyanide to A.1.The deceased was having the habit of consuming alcohol.Therefore, A.1 mixedthe poison with beer and gave it to the deceased.Having consumed the same, hedied on the spot.The extra judicial confession was recorded under Ex.P.W.1 along with P.W.8 Village Assistant, reached the scene ofoccurrence.A.1 identified the deceased at the spot.P.W.1 prepared Ex.O/E The edges are irregular and base is pale - post mortem in nature.No otherexternal, internal or bony wound.Other findings:- Peritoneum - intact, cavity - empty; pleura - intact,cavity - empty; Pericardium - intact, cavity - straw colour fluid; Hear - normalin size, Myocardium - normal, chambers - fluid blood; Valves - normal, Coronary- patent, great vessels - normal; The blood - Cherry red colour; Lungs - c/scongested; Larynx, trachea - intact, mucosa - pale; Hyoid bone - intact; stomach- dark brown colour thick fluid with undigested meat pieces, Alcohol smell withpungent odour, mucosa - congested; Oesophagus - intact; mucosa - bluishdiscoloration; Pancreas - intact, pale; Gall bladder - full, no stone; Omentumand Mesentery - intact, normal; Liver, Spleen and Kidneys - c/s congested; Smallintestine - yellowish chyme, Alcohol smell present, mucosa - congested; Appendix- intact, normal; Large intestine - filled with fecal material; Urinary bladder- intact, empty; Pelvis - intact; scalp, skull bones, Membranes - intact;Sinuses and Brain vessels - full; Brain - petechiae present; CSF - clearVertebral column and cord - intact; All other internal organs on c/s pale.h. Ex.P.13 is the Post-mortem certificate.He preserved the internalorgans and sample blood for chemical examination.After receipt of Ex.P.9viscera report, P.W.14 Doctor gave Ex.P.14 final opinion.The Doctor opined thatthe deceased would appear to have died of "Cyanide poisoning".i. P.W.16 in continuation of his investigation, recovered the motorcycleproduced by P.W.11 under Ex.He examined thetwo bottles to find out whether there is any finger prints available in the saidbottles.He has also taken photographs.Bail bonds executed, if any, are directedto be cancelled.Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to theappellant.mvs/gg ToThe Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy District.The Director General of Police, Chennai.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Special Prison for Women, Trichy.The District Collector, Trichy District.(Judgment of the court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J.)Sagunthala, who has been arrayed as the first accused, out of two accusedin this case, has come forward with this appeal, challenging her conviction andsentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, by the judgmentdated 26.02.2010 in S.C.No.88 of 2009 convicting her for the offence underSection 302 IPC and sentencing her to life imprisonment and imposing a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period ofthree months.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, by giving thebenefit of doubt to the second accused, acquitted him.The accused faced the trial under the following backdrop :d. P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the extra judicialconfession, Ex.P.1, produced by P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer, registereda case in Crime No.88 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC.P.20 is the printedFirst Information Report.He sent the report to the higher police officials andto the Court.e. P.W.16 Inspector of Police on receipt of the First Information Reportat 11.55 p.m., produced by P.W.15, arrested A.1 on 30/3/2009 at about 00.05hours.P.22 is the admissible portion of the confession statement.f. P.W.16 went to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.Ws.1and 8, prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.4 and drew rough sketch, Ex.P.23.He recovered M.O.1 beer bottle and M.O.2 seven-up bottle under Ex.P.W.16held inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 30/3/2009 at 7.00 a.m., at theGovernment Head Quarters Hospital, Trichy.P.24 is the inquest.Thereafter, he sent A.1 for judicial remand.He found the following injuries : Wounds:-Ant bite marks on the neck, both upper limb, front and back of trunk.He has examined andcompared the finger prints taken from the beer bottle, M.O.1 along with fingerprints of the deceased and the said finger prints found not tallied with thefinger prints of the deceased.He has also received the finger prints of A1 andon examination, P.W.10 found that the finger prints of A1 are tallied with thefinger prints found in M.O.1, beer bottle.He has sent the report, Ex.k. P.W.16, on receipt of the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.13, finalopinion, Ex.P.14, Serologist report, Ex.P.15, Comparison Report, Ex.P.17,Certificate of latest finger print examination, Ex.P.19, completed theinvestigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused on 30.04.2009 forthe offence under Sections 302 r/w 109 IPC.The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges levelled againstthe accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 16, filed Exs.P.1 to P.29 and marked M.Os.1 toWhen the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respectof the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidenceadduced by the prosecution, the accused had denied each and every circumstancesas contrary to the facts and stated that they have been falsely implicated inthis case and they have not chosen to examine any defence witnesses on theirside.V.Kathirvelu, learned counsel for the appellant/accused contendedthat the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case beyondreasonable doubt against the accused by adducing clear and cogent evidence andput forward the following contentions :a. The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and theprosecution has not produced any clinching and incriminating circumstancesagainst the appellant.b. The prosecution has chosen to place reliance on the alleged extrajudicial confession Ex.c. The extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accusedto the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1 cannot be relied on as the VillageAdministrative Officer is a total stranger to the accused and as such theaccused could not have reposed confidence on P.W.1 to give the extra-judicialconfession, Ex.d. The last scene theory said to have been spoken by P.Ws.6 and 7, whoare also total strangers to A.1 as well as to the deceased as per theircategorical admission in the cross-examination and the prosecution also notchosen to conduct any identification parade and A.1 was identified for thefirst time before the Court by P.Ws.6 and 7 and as such the evidence of P.Ws.6and 7 is unbelievable and unreliable.e. Though P.Ws.6 and 7 categorically stated in their evidence that thedeceased and A.1 came in a motorbike, the said motorbike was not found in thescene as per the admitted version of P.W.16 and P.W.16 categorically admitted inhis cross-examination that he has not recovered the motorbike M.O.4 from thescene of occurrence and the said motorbike M.O.4 was recovered from some otherplace and from some other person.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend thatthe prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence.The fact remains that the entire prosecution rests on thecircumstantial evidence.The prosecution has chosen to place reliance on thefollowing circumstances, namely :-P.1 alleged to have been given by A1to the Village Administrative Officer/P.W.1 ;At the outset, it is to be stated that the opinion of the fingerprint expert cannot be construed to be a conclusive one and the same is to betested only as a corroborative piece of material along with other materialavailable on record.We cannot lost sight of the contradictory version putforward by the prosecution in respect of the recovery of M.O.1, beer bottle.P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, has categorically stated that he hasrecovered M.O.1, beer bottle, and M.O.2, 7-Up bottle from the scene ofoccurrence under Ex.It is needless to state thatonce the recovery is made by the Investigating Officer, the articles recoveredshould be required to be taken in the safe custody of the investigating officertill the same is produced before the Court.But in the cross-examination P.W.16has categorically admitted that he has not taken M.Os.1 and 2 to the policestation and he has made some constable to guard the scene of occurrence.P.W.10 claimed thathe was summoned by the Investigating Officer and he went to the scene along withthe Investigating Officer and thereafter, he has taken M.O.1, beer bottle, fortests.But P.W.16 has categorically stated that he has recovered the beerbottle even before the arrival of the finger print expert, P.W.10 under Ex.Added to all these infirmities, it is pertinent to note that P.W.16,has categorically admitted that P.W.10, finger print expert, has not recoveredthe beer bottle and has taken the finger prints in his presence.Yet another factor to be borne in mind by this Court in respect of theevidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 is that both of them claimed that the deceased and A1came in a motorbike to the scene, but the said motorbike, M.O.4, admittedly wasnot recovered from the scene of occurrence as per the specific and categoricaladmission of P.W.16, the Investigating Officer.P.W.16 has categorically statedthat he has not recovered the motorbike from the scene as the same was not foundat the scene.In view of the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistibleconclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to put forward clear,clinching and consistent circumstances unerringly pointing to the guilt of theaccused and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable inlaw.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposedon the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, inS.C.No.88 of 2009 dated 26.02.2010 are set aside and the appellant is acquittedof the charges levelled against him.The Inspector of Police, Manikandam Police Station, Trichy District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Shambhu went to his room and returned with a knife.Jamun Singh r/o Kalon Village, P.S. Ladonia, Distt.Madhubani Bihar, present address Building of Devi Lal Vill.Mundka Delhi.Age 35 yearsI state that I reside at the above address with my family and earn my living by plying a cycle rickshaw.Today, on the occasion of Holi, I was in my residence, from where, at about 12:30 PM, I visited the room of my nephew Barun s/o Chandrashekar, r/o Village Saharwar, P.S. Ladaniya, Distt.State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhaakki Lal, (2019) 12 SCC 326 - which digests several earlier authorities CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 8 of 43 Madhubani, presently residing in the building owned by Dayanand at Rajendra Lakra Marg, Phirni Road, Vill.Mundka, Delhi, to play Holi.While we were partaking of food and drinks in the said room, his neighbour Shambhu, who was a resident of Bihar and was known to me earlier, as he owns a tea stall, started playing the tape recorder at a high volume.At this, Barun told him to lower the volume of his tape recorder.Shambhu, refused, stating that he would play the tape recorder at that volume, and taunted Barun to do what he could.On a quarrel erupting, Shambhu came with two of his friends, Dalip and Ram Parvesh, who were known to me earlier, and they entered into a scuffle (hathapaai) with Barun and myself.During the scuffle, Shambhu brought a knife from his room.Dalip and Ram Parvesh caught hold of both the hands of Barun and Shambhu stabbed my nephew Barun in his left lower abdominal region below the navel.When I tried to free my nephew, the three of them rained blows on me and as a result of which I suffered a slight head wound, which I got treated, privately.When I shouted for help, several Bihari boys, who used to stay in the neighbouring rooms, left their rooms, where they were celebrating Holi, and came outside.Blood was flowing freely from the stomach wound suffered by my nephew Barun, who lost consciousness as a result.Shambhu dropped the knife on the spot and fled.His two companions, Dalip and Ram Parvesh were apprehended on the spot with the help of the other Bihari boys.Barun was taken by his friend, Sushil Kumar, on a rickshaw, to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for treatment.At this point you arrived at the spot, and I handed over, to your custody, Ram Parvesh and Dalip as well as the bloodstained knife.Shambhu and Barun had been on bad terms since several days, and used to fight over trivialities.We never reported the matter to the police, but tried to get them to reconcile their differences.However, Shambhu used to threaten that he would not leave Barun and would eliminate him.He, along with his two companions Dalip and Ram Parvesh entered into a conspiracy to commit a murderous assault, using the knife, on my nephew Barun, and they wounded him with the intent of taking his life.I am a witness against all three of them, and request that they be proceeded against, according to law.My statement has been read over and explained to me, and is correct."CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 8 of 43"PW-8 Umesh Singh s/o Jamun Singh, age-35 years, rickshaw puller, r/o Yadav Nagar, Vill.Samay Pur Badli On S.A.Barun deceased was the son of my sister.At that time I was residing in village Mundka.Barun was also residing in Mundaka but separately from me.Barun was residing in the factory of Bittoo.At about 12 noon on the day of Holi I had come to meet Barun Singh and take to food with him.We took food together.Accused Shambhu pr.in court was also residing in Mundaka just across one gali from the factory of Bittoo.Accused Shambhu came to the room of Barun Singh.Stereo was being played by Barun Singh in his room.Accused Shambhu immediately after coming increased volume of stereo.Barun asked him to reduce the volume.Accused refused and said Main Nahi Karoonga Tu Kya Karlega.In the meanwhile accused Ram Parvesh and Dalip present in the court also arrived, and caught hold of the hands of Barun Singh.In the meanwhile many persons collected at the spot.Accused Shambhu went to his room and came back with a knife.Somebody hit a brick on my head.I raised hue and cry.People caught hold of Ram Parvesh and Dalip on the spot.PW-1 SI Ravi Kumar confirmed having received a message, at 1:37 PM on 13th March, 1998 (which was Holi), from the wireless operator, regarding an incident of a boy having been stabbed at Rajinder Lakra Marg, in village Mundka, and having marked the message to PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh.PW-1 was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.The rukka (Ex. PW-1/A) reveals that it was recorded, therein, by PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, that, at the time when he reached the spot where the incident had occurred, he found blood splattered on the floor of the Chowk in the building.It further records that he was made to understand that Barun had already been taken to the hospital, CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 13 of 43 whereupon he left PW-4 Const.Surender Singh at the spot and proceeded to the hospital, from where he collected the MLC of Barun (Ex. PW-15/A), in which it was recorded that he had been brought dead.Thereafter, ASI Pratap Singh records on the rukka (Ex. PW- 1/A), that he returned to the sport of occurrence, where he met Umesh Singh (PW-8), who claimed to have been an eyewitness to the occurrence, and proceeded to record his statement, under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is further recorded, therein, that Umesh Singh (PW-8) produced, before PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, a knife, alleged, by him, to be the weapon of offence.The rukka records the dimensions of the knife, and the fact that ASI Pratap Singh (PW-16) sealed the knife with his seal PS, which was, thereafter, handed over to PW-4 Const.Surender Singh.It is finally recorded, in the rukka (PW-1/A) that Umesh Singh (PW-8) produced, before ASI Pratap Singh (PW-16), the appellants Dalip and Ram, whom he took into custody.These facts, records ASI Pratap Singh in the rukka, indicated that an offence, under Sections 302 and 323, read with Section 34 of the IPC, appeared to have been committed, and that he, accordingly, forwarded the rukka, to PW-1 SI Ravi Kumar, who registered FIR on the basis thereof.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 13 of 43PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh testified, in his examination-in-chief during trial, that, on 13th March, 1998, Const.Sunita, from the PCR, informed the duty officer at PS Nangloi, that a boy had been stabbed near village Mundka, at Rajinder Lakra Marg, which was recorded in DD No. 13/A and sent through Const.Surender Singh (PW-4), whereafter the case was assigned to him.He further deposed that, on CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 14 of 43 receiving the said information, he proceeded to the spot of occurrence, which was in a building owned by Dayanand and that, on reaching the spot, he found that a great deal of blood had been spilt on the ground, and that the injured Barun had already been taken to the Hospital, whereupon he left PW-4 Const.Surender Singh to guard the spot and proceeded to the Hospital, from where he obtained the MLC of Barun (PW-15/A).Thereafter, he returned to the spot of occurrence, where he met PW-8 Umesh Singh, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident.He recorded the statement of Umesh Singh, under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-8/A).He further deposed that Umesh Singh produced, before him, a bloodstained knife, of which he prepared a sketch (PW-4/B), in the presence of Const.Surender Singh (PW-4) and Umesh Singh (PW-8), whereafter he sealed the knife, using his seal PS, and took the knife into possession vide Memo Ex. PW-4/C. The seal, after being used, it was testified, was handed over to Const.Surender Singh (PW-4).PW-16 further deposed that Umesh Singh also produced, before him, the appellants Dalip and Ram, claiming that they were the assailants.He identified the appellants, who were present in Court.P. S. Kansal, in the CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 15 of 43 presence of Umesh Singh (PW-8), and that Insp.P. S. Kansal took them into custody.Jitender, and PW-14 Insp.Per contra, in his earlier statement, under Section 161, Cr.P.C., PW-8 Umesh Singh deposed that he knew all the three appellants, i.e. Shambhu, CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 38 of 43 Dalip and Ram, earlier.This factor, again, is significant as, in cross-examination during trial, PW-8 accepted that, as it was Holi, the faces of the assailants, who assaulted Barun and himself, were covered with colour, and were difficult to identify.The appellants Dalip Kumar, Ram Parvesh and Shambhu Dass (who shall be referred to, hereinafter, for the sake of felicity, as Dalip, Ram and Shambhu respectively) are in appeal, before us, against common judgment, dated 26th November, 2001 and order on sentence, dated 14th December, 2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as the learned ASJ), whereby each of them has been convicted, under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for having committed the murder of Barun Singh (referred to, hereinafter, as Barun), and, consequently, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.The impugned judgmentThe case set up by the prosecution, as accepted by the learned ASJ, is as follows.On 13th March, 1998, Umesh Singh (PW-8) visited the deceased Barun, at his residence, on the occasion of Holi.He found an altercation, taking place, between Barun and Shambhu, resulting from a markedly trivial request, by Barun, to Shambhu, to lower the volume of the tape-recorder being played by him.Shambhu brought, with him, Dalip and Ram, the other two appellants before us.The fight, between Shambhu, Dalip and Ram on the one part, and CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 2 of 43 Barun, on the other, intensified.Ram held Barun, while Shambhu stabbed him, resulting in Barun losing consciousness.Umesh tried to intercede, but was also beaten up by the appellants.Umesh, thereafter, raised an alarm, resulting in the arrival, at the spot, of the neighbours.Shambhu dropped the knife and fled from the spot, whereas Dalip and Ram were apprehended by the neighbours.Barun was taken to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital"), where he was declared brought dead.Thus, as found by the learned ASJ, Dalip, Ram and Shambhu had, in concert, committed the murder of Barun, with the fatal stab wound having been administered by Shambhu.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 2 of 43The witnesses, on whom the prosecution chiefly relied, before the learned ASJ, were Umesh Singh (PW-8) and Anil Kumar (PW-12).The prosecution sought to contend that both these witnesses were eye-witnesses to the incident.While holding that the presence of Anil Kumar (PW-12), at the spot at the time of occurrence was not conclusively proved, the learned ASJ has found Umesh Singh (PW-8) to be a credible eyewitness, whose deposition, which - as the learned ASJ finds - had remained consistent, in the investigation as well as during trial, successfully withstood cross-examination.On the basis of the deposition of Umesh Singh (PW-8), seen in juxtaposition with the evidence of Dr. K. L. Sharma (PW-2) - who had conducted the post- mortem on Barun - to the effect that Barun had suffered an abdominal stab injury, from which blood was oozing out even at the time of conducting of his post-mortem, and which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that the knife, seized CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 3 of 43 from the spot of occurrence and produced before him, was capable of causing the said injury, the learned ASJ held that the twin facts, of the death of Barun having been homicidal in nature, and having been caused by the appellants Dalip, Ram and Shambhu, with Shambhu administering the fatal stab wound, stood conclusively proved.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 3 of 43The appellants also attempted to plead, before the learned ASJ, that, as the occurrence had taken place in the heat of the moment, the conviction of the appellants, if at all, ought to have been under Section 304, rather than Section 302, of the IPC.The learned ASJ has, however, rejected the said submission, relying, for the purpose, on the fact that Shambhu had gone back to his residence and returned with a knife, with which he stabbed Barun, while Dalip and Ram held him down.Given the gravity of the offence, and the manner in which it was committed, the learned ASJ has proceeded to sentence all the appellants, before us, to rigorous imprisonment for life.Having thus set out in the case of the prosecution, as accepted by the learned ASJ in the impugned judgment, in prcis, as it were, we proceed to an overview of the evidence in the case.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 4 of 43The prosecution led the evidence of 18 witnesses numbered, however, PW-1 to PW-16, as HC Sh.Bhagwan and Umesh Singh (the star witness of the prosecution, purportedly an eye-witness to the incident) were both numbered PW-8 and ASI Pratap Singh and Insp.We point this out for clarity, as we do not propose to tinker with the numbering of the various prosecution witnesses, as assigned by the learned ASJ.Of the various prosecution witnesses,(i) PW-1 S. I. Ravi Kumar, PW-4 Const.Surender Singh, PW-8 HC Sh.Bhagwan, PW-10 Const.P. S. Kansal (both designated PW-16) were the Police witnesses, involved with the investigation at one point or the other,(ii) PW-2 Dr. K. L. Sharma was the Sr. Chief Medical Officer, at Dr. N. C. Memorial Hospital, who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased Barun,(iii) PW-15 M. K. Sharma was the Record Clerk at the Hospital, who proved the MLC of Barun, and(iv) PW-8 Umesh Singh and PW-12 Anil Kumar were the supposed eye-witnesses to the incident (though the learned ASJ has rejected the testimony of PW-12 Anil Kumar, holding that his presence on the spot was doubtful).Other witnesses, cited by the prosecution, are not of significance.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 5 of 43A few guiding principlesReturning to the evidenceGiven the importance of the evidence of PW-8 Umesh Singh, this Court deems it appropriate to extract, in extenso, his statement, recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., on the basis whereof the rukka (Ex. PW-1/A) was prepared by PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, as well as his testimony during trial."Statement of Sh.Umesh Singh s/o Sh.(Emphasis supplied) CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 9 of 43 Testimony of PW-8 Umesh Singh during trialCRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 9 of 43The examination-in-chief of Umesh Singh, deposing as PW-8 during trial, and his cross-examination, were as under:Accused Shambhu gave blow of knife on the stomach of Barun Singh.I intervened.Barun Singh after receiving stabbing fell down.Sushil another worker took Barun to hospital.Police came at about 12.30 p.m. Again said between 1:30 or 2 p.m. I produced accused Ram Parvesh and Dalip before the police.and also pointed out the knife lying at the spot.Police prepared the sketch of the knife.I have seen the sketch Ex. PW 4/D bears my signature at point B. Police recorded my statement.I identify my signature on Ex. PW 8/A at .... .Deceased was wearing pant and shirt at the time CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 10 of 43 of incident which was blood stained.Some blood had also fallen down on the floor.Police has encircled the blood and has taken as sample of the blood and earth.Same were seized by the police and my signatures were taken on the paper which is Ex. PW 8/B and C respectively both are signed by me.Knife was kept in a cloth but I do not remember what was done.I have seen the memo Ex. PW 4/C which bears my signatures.I can identify the knife and cloth.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 10 of 43At the stage of a sealed envelope having seal of FSL opened.A knife and a cloth opened parcel containing seal of ALS are recovered.I have seen the knife carefully.It is the same knife.At this stage another parcel is opened sealed with seal of FSL.I am identifying underwear as I have seen him wearing underwear of this colour.XXXX by Sh.Gagan Preet, Amicus curiae for all three accused.My statement was recorded by police at about 2 p.m. My shirt also receive blood stains of Barun Singh when I tried to rescue him.Police did not take my shirt into possession.Incident took place inside the room of Barun Singh.Many persons had seen the incident.Anil was not present at the time of incident but he had come later on.I did not go with Barun to hospital as I was bleeding.Anil had gone alongwith Sushil to hospital.I did not go to P. S. I was not taken to hospital for medical examination by police.I personally went to a private hospital.I do not remember whether police sealed the knife and given the seal to me.It is correct that my statement was recorded at P. S. again said at the spot.I had turned to P. S. on that day at about 6:30 p.m. At that time I saw one Nandu alongwith accused Ram Parvesh and Dalip at P.S.At the time of stabbing down, he was being caught hold of by accused Dalip and Ram Parvesh.They had not released Barun Singh for about 5 to 10 minutes until he was stabbed by Shambhu.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 11 of 43Faces of almost everybody were covered with colours on that day as it was the day of Holi.It is correct that it was difficult to identify the faces of the persons present at the spot.I knew all the three accuseds from before the incident.Accused Shambhu was running tea stall.again said I did not know accused Dalip and Ram Parvesh previous to the incident.I did not know their parentage.It is correct that their faces were covered with colours, of different shades.Both the accuseds were identified by other persons present on spot by their names.It is correct that Dalip had told me at the P.S. that I have wrongly implicated him in this case.Police had asked me today whether I remembered my statement or not I told that I remember but I should be told a little bit about the incident.police man had read over my statement to me.I had not told the police in my statement that accused Shambhu had lovely played his stereo.Confronted with portion A to A on Ex. PW 8/A where it is so recorded.I did not tell police that incident had taken place at chowk.Volunteered quarrel had started in the room of Barun Singh and was stabbed in the chowk.Confronted with point B to B where it is stated that accused had been quarrelling at the chowk.I had told to police that accused Shambhu has come alongwith Dalip and Ram Parvesh, after Barun Singh had objected to play the deck at high volume.Barun Singh had been trying to evade himself from the clutches of accused persons.I do not know whether there was quarrel previously between Shambhu and Barun.I did not tell police that I and Barun did not file complaint against Shambhu and had solved the problem ourselves.It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot.It is also wrong that accused Dalip and Ram Parvesh were not arrested from the spot but were brought to P.S. by the police.It is incorrect that accused Shambhu did not come to the room of deceased.It is incorrect that I also did not know Shambhu and have named him falsely."(Emphasis supplied) CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 12 of 43 Police witnessesCRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 12 of 43Of the various Police Witnesses, the witnesses who were associated with the present investigation, since its inception, were PW-1 SI Ravi Kumar, PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh and PW-16 Insp.PW-1 also confirmed that, at 5:20 PM on the same day, i.e. 13th March, 1998, PW-4 Const.PW-16 further deposed that he, thereafter, made an endorsement, on the rukka, for registration of FIR under Sections 302 and 323, read with Section 34 of the IPC, against the appellants, and sent the rukka, through PW-4 Const.Surender Singh, to the Police Station for registration of FIR, which was duly registered.The investigation was, thereafter, handed over to the SHO, PS Nangloi, Insp.P. S. Kansal (also PW-16), who had reached the spot by then.PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh further testified that he produced the appellants Dalip and Ram Parvesh before Insp.It was further testified by PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, during trial, that Insp.P. S. Kansal seized a sample of the bloodstained earth vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW-8/B.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 14 of 43CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 15 of 4325. PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh further testified, during trial, that, on 14th April, 1998, Shambhu was arrested from a spot near the tea shop at Rajinder Lakra Marg, by Insp.He also agreed that, at the time when he first visited the spot of incident, he did not find Umesh Singh, or any other eye-witness to the incident, present, and did not see any of the appellants at the spot, in the custody of any independent witness or otherwise.He also confirmed that he had not sent the knife, produced before him by Umesh Singh, for forensic examination to any fingerprint expert.He denied all other suggestions, put to him, to the effect that he was falsely implicating the appellants.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 16 of 43P. S. Kansal, also testifying during trial as PW-16, confirmed that, at 1:40 PM on 13th March, 1998, he had received information regarding the incident of stabbing that had taken place at Rajinder Lakra Marg and that, following thereupon, he reached the spot at 2:30 PM, to find that Barun had already been removed to the Hospital.He further deposed that he, thereupon, went to the Hospital and returned to the spot, to find ASI Pratap Singh recording the statement of PW-8 Umesh Singh, on the basis whereof ASI Pratap Singh drew up the rukka, which was sent, for registration of FIR, to the Police Station, through PW-4 Const.Surender Singh.He confirmed that he had taken up the investigation from that point and that ASI Pratap Singh had handed over, to him, parcels sealed with the seal of ASI Pratap Singh (PS), which he seized vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW-4/C. He also confirmed having taken samples of the bloodstained earth found on the spot, and having recorded the statements of PW-8 Umesh Singh and PW-12 Anil Kumar.He testified, further, that the appellants Dalip and Ram had been produced, before him, by ASI Pratap Singh, and that he had interrogated and, thereafter, arrested the appellants, whom he identified in Court.He confirmed having sent the body of Barun for post-mortem, and having collected the MLC (Ex. PW-15/A) as well as the post-mortem report (Ex. PW-2/A) of Barun.He further confirmed the fact that, on 14th April, 1998, he arrested the appellant Shambhu, and that, on 28th April, 1998, the investigation was handed over to PW-14 Insp.Surender Singh, testifying as PW-4 during trial, confirmed having proceeded to the spot, in the house of Dayanand, where Barun had been stabbed, at about 1:40 PM on 13th March, 1998, consequent to DD No. 13A (Ex. PW-4/A), recording the receipt of information regarding the stabbing of Barun, having been marked to ASI Pratap Singh (PW-16) for enquiry and investigation.He confirmed that, on reaching the spot, they found blood splattered on the ground, and that they were informed that Barun had already been taken to the Hospital.ASI Pratap Singh (PW-16) proceeded to the Hospital, leaving him to guard the spot, and, on returning after some time (at about 4 PM), handed over, to him, the rukka (Ex. PW-1/A), for the purpose of registration of FIR under Sections 302 and 323, read with Section 34 of the IPC.PW-4 further testified that he, thereupon, proceeded to the Police Station and had the FIR (Ex. PW- 1/B) registered, and that he returned to the sport of occurrence and handed over, to ASI Pratap Singh, the FIR and a copy of the rukka.PW-4 corroborated the statement, of the other Police Witnesses, regarding the production, before PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, of the knife, by Umesh Singh (PW-8), and the preparation, by ASI Pratap Singh, of a sketch of the knife (Ex. PW-4/B), on which he appended his signature.He also confirmed that the knife was sealed by ASI Pratap Singh, using his PS seal, and that the seal was, thereafter, handed over to him.The knife was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW-4/C.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 18 of 43PW-4 Const.Surender Singh was cross-examined.During cross-examination, he confirmed that, when he had reached the premises where Barun had been stabbed, at about 2 PM, he did not find anyone having been apprehended.He deposed that PW-8 Umesh Singh met them on the spot, and that the sketch and seizure memo of the knife was prepared before drawing up of the FIR.At the same time, he accepted that the sketch and the seizure memo bore the number of the FIR, rather than that of the DD.Further confirmation, regarding sealing and seizure of samples, depositing of the samples with the FSL and obtaining the reports thereof, was provided by the depositions, during trial, of PW-8 HC Sh.HC Sh.Bhagwan, the Moharrir Head Constable (Malkhana) the "MHC(M)" being in charge of the Malkhana, where the seized goods were deposited before their dispatch for investigation and testing, testified as PW-8, and deposed, during trial, that, on 13th March, 1998, PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh had deposited, with him, a package, bearing his seal PS, allegedly containing the knife with which Barun had been stabbed.He also confirmed that, on 24 th May, 1998, PW-14 Inspector S. S. Ramela had obtained, from him, the said parcel, in order to secure an opinion, regarding the knife, after obtaining which he returned the parcel to him, sealed, this time, with the KLS seal of the doctor who had tendered the opinion, namely Dr. K. L. Sharma (PW-2).He further confirmed that, on 26th May, CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 19 of 43 1998, he sent all the parcels, through PW-10 Const.Jitender, to the FSL, for analysis, and deposed that, during the period when the parcels were in his custody, they remained intact, and were never tampered with.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 19 of 4333. PW-8 was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.The fact of depositing, of the four sealed parcels, two of which bore the PC seal and two the KLS seal, with the FSL, on 26 th May, 1998, after obtaining the parcels from the MHC (M) on the same day, was also confirmed by Const.Jitender, deposing, during trial, as PW-He, too, affirmed that, during the period the parcels had remained in his custody, they were not tampered with.He was not cross- examined, despite grant of opportunity.He also confirmed having dispatched the above- mentioned four parcels, two of which bore the KLS and two the PC seal, to the FSL, through PW-10 Const.He further confirmed, in his testimony, that, on 23 rd May, 1998, he had obtained the sealed parcel of the weapon of offence, duly sealed with the PC seal, from the MHC (M), and had submitted an application (Ex. PW- 14/A), for obtaining medical opinion in respect thereof.On the said request being allowed, he testified that he had taken the parcel to the Civil Hospital and handed over to PW-2 Dr. K. L. Sharma, who had tendered his opinion (Ex. PW-14/B) with respect thereto and returned CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 20 of 43 the knife, to him, after affixing his seal (KLS) thereon.Thereafter, he deposed, he had deposited the knife, sealed with the KLS seal, which the MHC (M).He, too, affirmed that, during the period when the parcel had remained in his custody, it was not tampered with.PW- 14 was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 20 of 43The MLC of Barun (Ex. PW-15/A) was approved by PW-15 M. K. Sharma, who was the Record Clerk at the Hospital.He confirmed having conducted the post-mortem on Barun on 14th March, 1998, and that Barun had been brought to the Hospital by PW-16 Inspector P. S. Kansal at about 12:10 PM on the said day.He also confirmed that the shirt, the baniyan and the underwear of Barun were blood smeared.He proved the post-mortem report prepared by him (Ex. PW-2/A), as well as the contents thereof, and reiterated, during trial, that, in his opinion, the cause of death of Barun was haemorrhagic shock consequent on a solitary stab injury, which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.He also opined that Barun had died within 20 minutes of infliction of the said injury and that over 24 hours had passed since his death.PW-2 was not cross-examined, despite grant of opportunity.PW-2 was recalled for examination, with the leave of the Court, regarding the opinion, tendered by him with respect to the knife, on the application (Ex. PW-14/A) submitted by PW-14 Inspector S. S.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 21 of 43He proved his opinion (Ex. PW-14/B), which was that the said knife, or any other such like weapon, could have inflicted the injury, which resulted in the death of Barun.He identified the knife, in court, as the knife which had been shown to him on 23 rd May, 1998, and on which he had tendered his opinion.He also prepared a sketch of the knife (Ex. PW-14/B), and confirmed the fact that the sketch prepared by Police (Ex. PW-4/B) had never been shown to him for comparison.It becomes necessary, at this point, to specifically allude to the evidence that has emerged, with respect to the knife, with which, allegedly, Barun was stabbed.The Seizure Memo, whereunder ASI Pratap Singh (PW-16) seized the knife, which had been handed over to him by Umesh Singh (PW-8), on 13th March, 1998, refers to the knife as bloodstained.However, the FSL report (Ex. PX) records that, on the knife, which had been submitted to the FSL for analysis, and to which the report refers as Exhibit 3, no blood could be detected.Similarly, PW-2 Dr. K. L. Sharma, too, in his opinion regarding the knife, as tendered on 23rd May, 1998 (Ex. PW-14/B), does not refer to any blood being found thereon.ASI Pratap Singh (PW-16) too, when shown the knife in court, testified that the knife was the same "which (he) had taken into possession when it was produced in bloodstained condition by Umesh Singh".Apparently, therefore, the knife, when produced in Court, was not bloodstained.Though, during his evidence during trial, Anil Kumar Singh claimed to be an eyewitness to the stabbing of Barun, the learned ASJ has rightly rejected his testimony as unworthy of credence, as his very presence, at the time and place of occurrence, was doubtful.A reading of the testimony of Anil Kumar Singh would justify this finding of the learned ASJ as, according to the said witness, the entire occurrence took place, not at the room of Barun, but at the house of one Ramcharit, his maternal uncle.This, the learned ASJ rightly holds, completely discredited the evidence of Anil Kumar Singh, as an eyewitness to the stabbing of Barun.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 22 of 43Depositions of appellants under Section 313, Cr.P.C.Following the conclusion of the recording of evidence of the various prosecution witnesses, the depositions of the appellants before us, under Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded by the learned ASJ.All the appellants denied having ever been involved, in any manner, in the stabbing of Barun or, for that matter, even having been present in the room of Barun on the day of incident.They professed ignorance regarding the results of the forensic investigation, the MLC of Barun, or his post-mortem report.They insisted that the case being foisted against them was false, and that the witnesses, who had deposed against them were interested witnesses.They did not choose to lead any defence evidence, though they claimed not to have been present at the time of incident.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 23 of 43Advancing submissions on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Satish Sharma, learned Counsel attempted to question the credibility of PW- 8 Umesh Singh, as an eye-witness to the incident.He submitted that the conduct of PW-8 was unusual as, if his nephew had been stabbed, there was no reason for him to send him to hospital with someone else, instead of himself taking him for treatment.He also pointed out that the report, of the FSL (Ex. PX) was that no blood had been found on the knife, which was alleged to be the weapon of offence.Blood, he pointed out, had been found only on the clothes sent to the FSL for analysis, which were all of the deceased Barun himself.He emphasised the fact that, in his cross-examination, PW-8 Umesh Singh had admitted that it was difficult to identify the faces of the persons present in the room at the time of the alleged incident, and that he had identified the appellants solely because other neighbours, who had arrived at the spot, referred to them by name.In any event, he submitted, there was no justification for the conviction of Dalip or Ram.He sought to submit that the testimony of PW-8 Umesh Singh, during trial, was contradictory to the statements of other witnesses, including PW-4 Const.Surender, who, in his deposition, did not refer to the production, before the Police, of Dalip or Ram.Especial emphasis was laid, by Mr. Sharma, on the cross-examination of PW-4 during which he admitted that, when the Police reached the site of occurrence, they did not find any person having been apprehended.Mr. Sharma took us through the testimony of PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, to CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 24 of 43 emphasise that it belied, in its entirety, the version put forth by PW-8 Umesh Singh, in his evidence.In sum and substance, Mr. Sharma sought to contend that the prosecution could not be said to have established the guilt, of the appellants, beyond reasonable doubt.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 24 of 43In all material particulars, Mr. Nayak would submit, the two depositions, of PW-8 Umesh Singh, corroborated each other.He emphasised the fact that PW-8 Umesh Singh, and the Police Witnesses, chiefly PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, were ad idem regarding blood having been present on the knife, at the time but it was produced by Umesh Singh.Inasmuch as the volume at which the tape- recorder was being played, supposedly acted as the catalyst that sparked off the fight between the appellants, on the one hand, and Umesh Singh (PW-8) and Barun, on the other, which culminated in the killing of Barun by Shambhu, any ambiguity or equivocation, in the testimony of Umesh Singh, with respect thereto, assumes significance.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 29 of 43(ii) Arrival of Dalip and Ram on the scene: Carrying the point further, the statement of Umesh Singh, during investigation under Section 161, Cr.P.C., is also discordant with his testimony during trial, regarding the entry, on the scene, of the appellants Dalip and Ram.In his statement, under Section 161, Cr.P.C., PW-8 Umesh Singh deposed that, consequent on the disagreement between Barun and Shambhu, regarding the volume at which the tape recorder was being played, Shambhu arrived at the spot with his friends Dalip and Ram (the exact words used, in vernacular, are "isi baat ko lekar Shambhu apne anya do saathi Dalip Kumar va Ram Parvesh ko lekar aaya"), whereas, in his examination-in-chief during trial, PW-8 testified that the quarrel between Barun and Shambhu had already started and "in the meanwhile accused Ram and the Dalip present in the court also arrived".On the issue of whether Shambhu arrived at the room of Barun with his friends Dalip and Ram, i.e. the appellants before us, or whether they arrived at the spot during the currency of the quarrel between Shambhu and Barun, too, there is discordance in the testimony of PW-8 during trial, vis--vis his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C.(iv) Arrival of the neighbours: PW-8 deposed, during trial, that the boys staying in the neighbouring rooms had arrived after the scuffle, between Shambhu and Barun had started, but before Shambhu went to his room and retrieved his knife.This was, to an extent, supported by his subsequent deposition, in cross-examination, that "many persons saw the incident".As against this, in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., PW-8 Umesh Singh stated that the neighbours had arrived after Barun was stabbed, he himself, i.e. Umesh Singh, was belaboured by Dalip, Ram and Shambhu, and he raised a hue and cry.Significantly, as would be noted hereinafter as well, PW-4 Const.Surender Singh and PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, in their testimony during trial, deposed that, when they reached the spot, they found neither Umesh Singh, nor any of the appellants, apprehended by any independent witness, present there, and that ASI Pratap Singh came across Umesh Singh only when he returned from the hospital.If the testimony of Umesh Singh, as tendered during trial, were to be treated as true, several imponderables would result.For one, it is, ex facie, difficult to believe that the neighbours, who had gathered at the spot during the initial quarrel between Shambhu and Barun, CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 31 of 43 patiently waited and watched while Shambhu went to his room, returned with his knife, stabbed Barun in the abdomen, with Dalip and Ram holding Barun down all the while, and swung into action only after Umesh Singh himself had been assaulted, and had raised a hue and cry - which is what happened, if the testimony, of PW-8 Umesh Singh, during trial, were to be believed.Moreover, if, in fact, many neighbours arrived during the scuffle, and witnessed the murder of Barun why did the I/O not record the statement of any neighbours, or co-opt the neighbours who had witnessed the incident, as prosecution witnesses? There is no ready answer.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 31 of 43(v) Arrival of the Police: Insofar as the arrival of the Police was concerned, PW-8 deposed, in his examination-in-chief during trial, that the Police had arrived at 12:30 to 1 PM, whereupon he produced the appellants Dalip and Ram before them, and handed over the knife with which, allegedly, Barun had been assaulted.Per contra, in his deposition under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., during investigation, PW-8 Umesh Singh maintained that the neighbours had arrived at the spot, and had got hold of Dalip and Ram, thereafter Sushil had taken Barun to the Hospital, and that it was at this stage that the police arrived, and he handed over, to them, Dalip and Ram.In stark contradiction, both PW-4 Const.Surender Singh, as well as PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, testified, during trial, that, when they reached the place of occurrence, they did not find anyone to have been apprehended by any independent witness, and did CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 32 of 43 not find Umesh Singh at the spot, either.Rather, maintained PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, it was only when he returned from the Hospital, later, that he met Umesh Singh.Even at that stage, according to the testimony of ASI Pratap Singh, no independent witness was present when Umesh Singh produced, before him, the appellants Dalip and Ram.These are significant contradictions, as, if the testimony of ASI Pratap Singh were to be believed - and there is no reason why his testimony should be accorded any less credibility than that of PW-8 Umesh Singh; if anything, as a disinterested witness, the testimony of PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh would be entitled to greater weight - the entire sequence of events, prior to the return, from the hospital, of ASI Pratap Singh, is shrouded in obscurity.On the one hand, PW-8 Umesh Singh deposed that a quarrel had erupted between Shambhu and Barun; Shambhu had arrived with a knife, with which he stabbed Barun; in the melee, the appellant, too, sustained injuries and, during this time, the neighbours arrived and witnessed the incident and, thereafter, apprehended Dalip and Ram, at which time the police arrived.On the other, Const.Surender Singh and ASI Pratap Singh maintained that, when they arrived at the spot, they neither found Umesh Singh, nor any of the appellants, apprehended by any independent persons, present there.ASI Pratap Singh went on to depose that, even at the stage when, after his return from the Hospital, he met Umesh Singh, who produced Dalip and Ram before him, no one else was present.The appellants, in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied the CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 33 of 43 entire incident, as well as their presence in the room of Barun at the time.In view thereof, the significance of the aforenoted inconsistency, between the deposition of PW-8 Umesh Singh, and that of PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, cannot be gainsaid.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 32 of 43CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 33 of 43(vi) Injuries suffered by Umesh Singh: While, in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., as well as in his testimony in examination-in-chief during trial, PW-8 Umesh Singh made no mention of the injuries suffered by him, or of his having bled at any point of time, in cross-examination, he testified that he was bleeding and that, in fact, there were bloodstains on his shirt.This version is not supported by any of the Police Witnesses.In fact, PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, on being queried, specifically testified that he did not remember whether the shirt of Umesh Singh was, or was not, bloodstained, but confirmed that he had not taken the shirt for being subjected to forensic examination.The deposition, of Umesh Singh, that he had undergone treatment, for the injuries suffered by him, "privately", is also not supported by any documentary material, such as the prescription of a doctor, or other evidence of his having undergone private treatment.In the present case, the knife, with which, allegedly, the offence had been committed, was stated, by Umesh Singh (PW-8), in his testimony during trial, to have been "bloodstained" - though, in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., he does not say so.ASI Pratap Singh, deposing as PW-16, also testified, during trial, that the knife, handed over to him by Umesh Singh, was bloodstained.Mysteriously, however, the FSL report (Ex. PX) specifically states that no blood was detected on the knife which was submitted to the FSL for examination.The testimony of PW-8 HC Sh.Bhagwan, PW-10 Const.In fact, the conduct of Mohammad Akhtar in taking the dagger with him to the Hospital itself seems to be suspicious, particularly when, according to him, the assailants were captured and were left behind at the scene of occurrence.The alternative explanation that the blood had disintegrated by the time the scrapings from the dagger could be tested by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist is also improbable, because the Serologist in his report was quite definite that there were no traces of blood in the scrapings.If he had failed to find the blood due to disintegration, he would have said so in his report, as is usual in such cases where the Serologist feels that there was blood, but, due to disintegration, proper test could not be applied, so that he could not certify its presence."CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 35 of 43The medical opinion, dated 23rd May, 1998 (Ex. PW-14/B), regarding the knife, as obtained from PW-2 Dr. K. L. Sharma, too, is of no help either way, as PW-2 merely opined, in a markedly ambivalent vein, that the fatal abdominal injury sustained by Barun, could have been caused by the said knife, or any such like weapon.In his statement, recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., Umesh Singh specifically stated that Shambhu and Barun had been on bad terms since several days, and were prone to fight over trivialities, and that, as they were both Biharis, efforts were made to have the matter reconciled, instead of reporting it to the Police.Even so, stated Umesh Singh in his testimony under Section 161, Cr.P.C., Shambhu used to threaten that he would not leave Barun, and would eliminate him.While, in his examination in chief, PW-8 did not refer to the existence, or non-existence, of any earlier animosity between Shambhu and Barun, in cross-examination, PW-8 executed a complete volte face on his deposition under Section 161, Cr.P.C., not only denying knowledge of any pre-2012 SCC OnLine Del 5485 CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 37 of 43 existing animosity between Shambhu and Barun, but also denying having ever told the Police that he, and Barun, chose not to file any complaint against Shambhu, for his indiscretions, and had solved the problem themselves.This, again, is a significant aspect, impacting, as it does, substantially, the aspect of motive, for the commission of the crime in question.The involvement, at least of Dalip and Ram, in the incident, would also become doubtful, if, as PW-8 testified in cross-examination during trial, he did not know who they were, and merely identified them on the basis of the statements of the neighbours.CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 38 of 43Surender Singh and PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh - when they arrived at the scene.If the testimony of PW-8, during trial, is to be accepted, it would mean that the neighbours had gathered at the spot during the initial stages of the scuffle between Shambhu and Barun and that it was while they were so present, and witnessing the incident, that Shambhu left the room, proceeded to his room, returned with a knife, and proceeded to violently stab Barun, using the knife, resulting in Barun falling unconscious, with an open abdominal wound from which blood was profusely flowing.Even then, Shambhu managed to drop the knife and free from the spot, and it was only at this point that the neighbours, who had been silently watching till then, were galvanised into action, and apprehended Dalip and Ram.If this were so and, as PW-8 maintained during cross-examination, there were many who had witnessed the incident, at defies comprehension that the I/O did not choose to interact with or co-opt as prosecution witnesses, the said neighbours.As against this, the statement of Const.Surender Singh and ASI Pratap Singh was that, when they reached the spot at about 2 PM, they did not find Umesh Singh there, nor did they find anyone having been apprehended.Rather, according to ASI Pratap Singh, he met Umesh Singh, for the first time, only when he returned from the hospital, and it was only then that Umesh Singh produced, before him, the appellants Dalip and Ram - at which time, too, according to ASI Pratap Singh, there was no one else on the scene.The appellants, for their part, completely denied, in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C., having ever been at the spot, any involvement in the stabbing of Barun.The very happening of the incident, and the manner in which it transpired, therefore, is cast in CRL.A.45/2002, CRL.A.315/2002 & CRL.A.470/2002 Page 40 of 43 serious doubt, as a result of the stark dissonance between the testimonies of PW-8 Umesh Singh, on the one hand and PW-4 Const.Surender Singh and PW-16 ASI Pratap Singh, on the other.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The second accused is the elder brother of the deceased.The first accused isthe son of the second accused.The first accused was working as a Watchman inSPIC, a private firm, and residing at Muthiapuram.(ii) The houses of the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses 1 and2 were abutting each other.On 26.11.1998 at about 6.45 p.m., PW.1 and PW.2 andthe deceased were in the house.Goats of the second accused used to enter intothe house of PW.1 and ate the rice boiled for them.Following which, there was a wordy altercation betweenthe women folk.At this juncture, the deceased intervened.The second accused onseeing this came with a stick.The first accused came with an aruval from thehouse.It was the second accused who attacked with the stick while the firstaccused attacked the deceased on his head with aruval.The deceased fell down.The first accused attacked him indiscriminately on different parts of the body.PW.1 when went to rescue the deceased, PW.1 was also attacked by the secondaccused.PW.3 and PW.4 raised alarm on seeing the incident.The accused fledaway from the place of occurrence.(iii) The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntamwhere PW.7 the Doctor, was on duty.He found the deceased died.He sent Ex.P.4requisition to the respondent police.(iv) PW.1 and PW.2, who were also taken to the same hospital, wereexamined by the Doctor PW.7, who found the injuries as noted in the AccidentRegister Copies Exs.P.5 and P.6 issued to PW.1 and PW.2 respectively.He foundthe injuries simple in nature.(v) On receipt of the intimation Ex.The said statement wasmarked as Ex.He came back to the Police Station and registered a case inCrime No.438/1998 under Sections 302, 323 and 324 IPC.F.I.R. Ex.P.16 alongwith the statement Ex.P.1 was sent to the Court.(vi) Then, he took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to theplace of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses andprepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 and also rough sketch Ex.Herecovered blood-stained earth MO.3 and sample earth MO.4 under a cover ofMahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of witnesses.All the four witnesses have clearly spoken to the fact that there was awordy altercation between the women folk and at that time, the deceasedintervened.Actually, the occurrence hadtaken place on 26.11.1998 at about 6.45 p.m., in a village.Immediately, afterthe occurrence, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntamwhere he was found dead.PW.1 and PW.2 were also taken to the same Hospital.An intimation was given to the respondent police station.The sentences are to run concurrently.(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division,Tuticorin dated 20.3.2001 made in S.C.No.310 of 2000 whereby thisaccused/appellant stood charged, along with the other ranked as the secondaccused, under sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and 324 IPC, while the second accusedstood charged under sections 302 r/w 34 and 323 IPC and on trial, thisaccused/appellant was found guilty under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and awardedthe punishment of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a defaultsentence of three months simple imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one yearrigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of onemonth simple imprisonment under Section 324 IPC while the second accused wasacquitted of the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and he was found guiltyonly under Section 323 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergoone month simple imprisonment.Hence, the appeal at the instance of theaccused/appellant.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated thus:-On the date of occurrencealso, it happened so.PW.1 shouted on this.Further, she added that they wouldreap a stern punishment.Thereafter, he proceeded to theGovernment Hospital, where the dead body of the deceased was kept in themortuary.He conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and prepared anInquest Report Ex.(vii) Following the inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem byPW.7 Doctor, pursuant to the requisition made by the investigating officer.Hefound the injuries as described in the Post-Mortem certificate Ex.P.9 wherein hehas also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhaemorrhage due to multiple injuries particularly to the vital organ brain, 12to 24 hours prior to post-mortem.(viii) Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested theaccused on 27.11.1998 in the presence of witnesses.During the course ofinvestigation, the first accused gave a confessional statement and theadmissible part of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.Pursuantto his confession, he produced an aruval MO.1, which was seized in the presenceof witnesses by the investigating officer under a cover of Mahazar Ex.(ix) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, fromthe accused and from the dead body of the deceased were subjected to chemicalanalysis, which resulted in two reports viz., Chemical Analysis Report Ex.x) On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed afinal report before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikuntam, which in turncommitted the case to the court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.xi) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, theprosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on 20 exhibits and 7 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused/appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.They denied them as false.On the side of the defence, neither witness wasexamined nor document was marked.After hearing the arguments of the counsel andlooking into the materials available meticulously, the lower court, took theview that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and foundthe accused guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above, which is thesubject matter of challenge before this Court.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr. C. Mayil VahanaRajendran, learned counsel, would submit as follows:PW.1 to PW.4 were examined as the occurrence witnesses.Out of whom, PW.1 is the wife of the deceased and PW.2 is the son of thedeceased.PW.3 is the brother's son of the deceased and PW.4 is another brotherof the deceased.Thus, they are closely related to the deceased.Out of thesewitnesses, PW.1 and PW.2 have been shown as the injured witnesses.In thatregard, Accident Register Copies issued to PW.1 and PW.2 were marked as Ex.P.5and Ex.P.6 respectively.It could be seen in the earliest document Exs.P.5issued to PW.1 that 4 known persons have attacked him.As per Ex.Thus,there is discrepancy in respect of the assailants involved in the case and theprosecution has not come forward to offer any explanation in that regard.(ii) The ocular testimony was not corroborated by the medical evidence.Immediately,after the occurrence, PW.1 and PW.2 were actually taken to the GovernmentHospital, Srivaikuntam.A communication was given to the respondent policestation.On receipt of the intimation, PW.13 the Inspector of Police, attachedto the respondent Police Station, went to the Government Hospital and recordedthe statement of PW.1 at about 9.30 p.m., on the date of occurrence and he cameback to the Police Station and registered the case at about 11.30 p.m.,.and theF.I.R. Ex.P.16 has reached the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikuntam only on thenext day at about 6.00 a.m.,.Under the circumstances, the delay remainunexplained and it has actually affected the prosecution case.(iv) The learned counsel would further add that the delay caused if viewedfrom the discrepancies found in the Accident Register Copies Exs.P.5 and P.6issued to PW.1 and PW.2 respectively would go to the root of the prosecutioncase.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsoscrutinized the materials available.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theaccused/appellant, at the time of trial, the prosecution has examined fourwitnesses.At this juncture, the accused/appellant attacked the deceased onhis head and as a result, he succumbed to injuries.PW.1 and PW.2 have alsosustained injuries.On receipt of theintimation Ex.P.4, PW.13 the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondentPolice Station rushed to the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntam and has recordedthe statement of PW.1 at about 9.30 p.m., on the date of occurrence and he cameback to the Police Station and registered the case at about 11.30 p.m.,.and theF.I.R. Ex.P.16 has reached the Judicial Magistrate's residence at Srivaikuntamat about 6.00 a.m., on the next day.It is true, there is some delay but takinginto consideration the case was registered in the night hours and has alsoreached the concerned Judicial Magistrate's residence in the early hours of thenext day i.e. at about 6.00 a.m., it has got to be taken as has happened in thenatural course of events.So long as the prejudice was not shown to have takenplace against the interest of the accused/appellant, there would be noquestion of giving any benefit in view of the delay so noticed.Insofar as the other contention put-forth by the learned counsel forthe appellant that the Doctor PW.7 has well admitted that the contents found inthe documents were made by PW.1 and PW.2 and in Ex.P.5 A.R.Copy issued to PW.1,it is found that PW.1 was assaulted by four known persons while Ex.P.6 A.R.Copyissued to PW.2, he was attacked by 3 accused persons, it is pertinent to pointout that it is a well settled proposition of law that in a given case where theeye-witnesses happened to be the injured witnesses, unless and until, a strongcircumstance or reason is noticed, their evidence can not be discarded.Theseeye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased one is the wife and the otheris the son.In the occurrence, PW.1 has last her husband and PW.2 has last hisfather.When they were taken to the Government Hospital, they were in anxiety,and so such statements could have been given to the Doctor PW.7 who recordedExs.The house of PW.1 was abutting to the house ofthe accused.On the date of occurrence also, it happened so and at about 6.45p.m., it was PW.1 who shouted at the accused party and there was a wordyaltercation between the women folk for some time and at that time, the deceasedintervened; on seeing this, A.1 being got provoked by the act of the deceased,took an aruval and attacked him.Due to sudden provocation, he has acted so andcausing the death was neither intentional nor premeditation.Considering the factual background of the case, the Court is of theconsidered opinion that the act of the accused would attract the penal provisionof Section 304 (Part-I) and awarding seven years rigorous imprisonment wouldmeet the ends of justice.Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court inconvicting and sentencing A.1/the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set asideand instead he is convicted under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC and awarded sevenyears rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount imposed under Section 302 IPC istreated as the one imposed under Section 304(Part-I) IPC.The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused/appellant shall begiven set off.The Court concerned is directed to secure the presence of theaccused/appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period ofsentence.The bail bonds executed by the appellant stand terminated.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the abovemodification.1.The Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, Tuticorin District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.

A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 1 of 10 offence punishable u/s 392/506/34 IPC.For the sake of felicity, the facts noted by the trial court are reproduced hereinunder:"Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.08.2013, an information was received at Police Station Farsh Bazar vide DD No.27-A that the purse and chain of the caller have been snatched.ASI Ami Chand rushed at house No.390, NSA Colony, Vishwas Nagar where complainant Vicky @ Ved Prakash met him but due to anxiety, he could not give the statement.DD No.27-A was therefore kept pending.On 18.08.2013, Vicky @ Ved Prakash came at the police station and gave the statement that on 16.08.2013 at about 04.30 pm when he reached at Gali No.14, Vishwas Nagar, accused Noor Mohd @ Noora, Pankaj and Bhim, who are the residents of NSA Colony and were known to him, stopped him.Pankaj made demand of money.On refusal, Bhim put knife type weapon on his back, Pankaj caught his both hands and Noor Mohd. @ Noora took out Rs.10,000/-, voter I card and pocket diary from the left pocket of his pant.They threatened Vicky that in case he made complaint to the police, they would kill him.After extending threats, they ran away from the spot.On the said statement of Vicky, FIR under Section 392/397/34 IPC was registered.He got recovered Rs.2000/- from his house.On 31.08.2013, Crl. A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 2 of 10 accused Pankaj was arrested.He got recovered Rs.1200/- from his house.On 08.09.2013, accused Bhim was arrested.The chhura, used in robbery, was recovered from his possession.Investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed in court under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC."Crl. A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 2 of 10After completing the investigation, charge under sections 392/506/34 IPC was framed against both the appellants as well as against one co- accused Noor @ Noor Mohd. A separate charge U/s 397 IPC was also framed against the appellant Bhim.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Learned counsel for Pankaj contended that inspite of the fact that accused were already known to him prior to the incident, the complainant did not mention their names in the first information recorded i.e. DD no.27A. It was also contended that no public witness was associated during investigations.Lastly, it was stated that the knife was not shown to the complainant during his examination.Learned counsel for Bhim contended that whereas the DD no.27A mentioned only robbery of purse and a chain, the FIR mentioned robbery of Voter ID Card, Pocket diary and Rs.10,000/-.He deposed that on 16.08.2013 at about 04:30 PM while he was going on foot to buy copper wire, the appellants who were residents of his colony met him.While Pankaj demanded money from him and on his refusal, Bhim put Crl.A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 3 of 10 a knife like weapon on his back.He went back to his house and from there gave a call to police at 100 number mentioning only the robbed articles i.e., a purse and a chain.The police reached his house but he did not give any statement that day as he was perplexed.Two days after the incident, he gave a statement to the police on which FIR was recorded.He proved his statement made to the police as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that during investigations, he was called to the police station where he identified Pankaj and Bhim on 31.08.2013 and 08.09.2013 respectively.In court, during his testimony, he identified both appellants as well as the case property recovered at the instance of accused Noor @ Noor Mohd. i.e., 4 notes of denomination of Rs.500/-, a pocket diary and Voter ID card.He also identified currency notes of denomination of Rs.500 out of Rs.1200/- (2 notes of denomination of Rs.500/- and 2 notes of denomination of Rs.100/-) which were recovered at the instance of Pankaj.In cross-examination, he admitted that he was not aware about the address of Bhim.He also admitted it to be correct that accused Noor Mohd. was a BC (bad character) of the area.The present proceedings are instituted impugning judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2015 whereby the appellants were convicted for Crl.Vide order on sentence dated 28.09.2015, the appellants were directed to undergo RI for five years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under sections 392/34 IPC in default whereof to undergo SI for 6 months.They were also sentenced to RI for one year for the offence punishable under sections 506/34 IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was granted to both the appellants.Crl. A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 1 of 10As both the appeals arise out of one common judgment, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of vide this judgment.The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case.The appellants also examined three witnesses in their defence.I have heard learned counsels for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State.Crl. A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 3 of 10The other witnesses examined were police officials who were associated with various stages of investigation.HC Suresh proved the FIR as Ex.PW2/B. Ct.Rahul (PW3) took copy of the FIR and original Rukka from the duty officer and handed it over to ASI Ami Chand.He was also witness to the recovery of case property made at the instance of accused Noor Mohd.Crl. A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 4 of 10Sandeep (PW4) was witness to recovery of knife at the instance of Bhim.Anil (PW5) was witness to the recovery of Rs.1200/- (wrapped in a paper) recovered from the bed lying in the house of Pankaj.ASI Ami Chand (PW6) was the investigation officer.Both of them deposed that the accused persons were falsely implicated, however, in their cross-examination they stated that they did not make any complaint to any senior officer.She deposed that on 13.03.2012 the police officials apprehended the appellant in a false case under Arms Act for which they also made a complaint dated 16.03.2012 to the concerned SHO vide DD No.14B (Ex.DW3/A).A perusal of the testimony of Ct.Sandeep shows that during his examination in chief conducted on 04.07.2014, he did not identify the knife, however on the subsequent date i.e. 29.08.2014, he identified it.The trial court had put a question to him as to on what basis he identified the knife to which he could not offer any explanation.The trial court acquitted Bhim for the offence punishable under section 397 IPC.The State has not challenged Bhim's acquittal under the aforesaid section.It has been brought to the notice of this court that co-accused Noor @ Noor Mohd preferred an appeal bearing Crl.Two days later, the complainant gave a statement resulting into the present FIR, where besides giving names and specific role of each of the accused, it was stated that the accused had snatched Rs.10,000/- (20 notes of Rs.500/-), a voter ID Card and a pocket diary.During his deposition, the complainant did not give any explanation for the delay of two days in giving statement for the first time on 18.08.2013 except stating that he was threatened by the appellants.Had he felt threatened by the appellants, the complainant would have not even made the PCR call on 16.08.2013 after the incident.The appellants were well known to the complainant being residents of the same locality.Additionally, in the facts of the case, I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsels for the appellants that no reliance can be placed on the identification of currency notes as neither serial numbers of currency notes were mentioned in the complaint nor the notes had any distinguishing identification mark.The recovery of vote ID card and pocket diary is also doubtful as the said articles were not mentioned in the first information given by the complainant vide DD No.27-A. In fact, ASI Ami Chand in cross-examination admitted that persons from neighbourhood gathered around them while they were making investigation and no one supported the version of the complainant.Crl. A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 8 of 10From the above discussion and analysis, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and they are entitled to benefit of doubt.The pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.As per the Nominal Crl. A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 9 of 10 rolls received from Jail, the appellants have already been released on completion of their sentence.Crl. A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 9 of 10A copy of this order be sent to the trial court alongwith the records.(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2020 Crl.A. 1246/2015 & Crl.A. 1149/2015 Page 10 of 10

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Further, the accused No. 1 is alsoconvicted for an offence punishableU/sec.In default to pay fine,the accused shall further undergosimple imprisonment for a period ofthree more months.The accused No. 2 Mallanna, accusedNo.[ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................[ HEMANT GUPTA ]New Delhi;KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Sh.The following order was passed on the sentence :-Digitally signed byJAYANT KUMAR ARORADate: 2019.01.1910:33:21 ISTReason:Indefault to pay fine, the accused shallfurther undergo simple imprisonment fora period of three more months.Further, the accused No.1 is herebyconvicted for an offence punishableU/sec.354 of Indian Penal Code andsentenced to undergo simpleimprisonment for a period of twoyears and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-In default to pay fine, theaccused shall further undergo simpleimprisonment for a period of three moremonths.3 Anaveerappa and Accused No. 4Basavaraj are also convicted for theoffence punishable u/sec.448 R/w of 34of Indian Penal Code and sentenced toundergo simple imprisonment for aperiod of one year and to pay a fine ofRs. 500-00 each.In default to payfine, the accused shall further undergo 3 simple imprisonment for a period of three more months.No. 3 Anaveerappa and Accused No. 4Further, the accused No. 2, 3 and 4are also convicted for an offence punishable u/sec 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500-00 each.In default to pay fine, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three more months”The conviction has been upheld by the High Court.An affidavit dated 22.08.2017 filed by the defactocomplainant has been produced before us by way ofadditional documents.Paragraphs 2 and 3 of theaffidavit read as under :-The deponent is the complainant, the deponent says and submits that the incident in question took place on 27.01.2008 between her and the Petitioner.In the said incident she is the victim.The learned District & Sessions Judge, Yadagiri by his judgment and order dated 08.06.2011 had pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 448, 254 of IPC & U/Sec.The petitioner thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No.3607/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of 4Karnataka.The Hon’ble High Court byits judgment and order dated 28.04.2017has pleased to confirm the judgment ofthe Ld. Trial Court.ThereafterPetitioner has filed the Special LeavePetition before this Hon’ble Court andthe same is pending for consideration.That the deponent further submitsthat the incident in question tookplace on 27.01.2008 i.e. almost before09 years due to misunderstanding and inthe spur of moment.The Petitioner andthe deponent to the same clan and theyall live in same city.With passage oftime, the relations between thepetitioner and the deponent have beenvery cordial.The petitioner and thedeponent are now closely related.Thepetitioner’s land and deponent’sfamilies participate in the functionsof each others.With the huge timegap, the grudges amongst each otherhave vanished away and have taken ashape of friendship.The petitioner isthe only earning member of the family.They have old age parents, wife andchildren to look after, their entirefamily would suffer irreparable loss ifthe petitioner go behind bars at thisstage.The deponent does not have aslightest desire to make the petitionerundergo the remaining sentence.Therefore, in the interest of both theparties and so also in the interest ofthe peace and harmony between both the 5 families, the complainant has filed his affidavit seeking permission to compound the offence”We have also gone through the evidence availableon record.Accordingly, the appeals are allowed as follows :-ii) As far as Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned,we set aside their conviction and acquit them of thecharges.

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Four persons received stab injuries, they being Shahid (who resultantly died), Sheikh Pappu (PW-4), Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) and Mohit Dhingra (PW-19).Mohit Dhingra (PW-19) is the son of Rajesh Dhingra who, in turn, owns the restaurant.He (PW-19) would assist his father in running the establishment.Shahid (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), Sheikh Pappu (PW-4), Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) and Raju (the first informant) were employed in the restaurant- the former three as cooks and the fourth one as a bearer (waiter).The FIR (Ex.PW-1/B) was registered at 02:20 hours on 12.10.2008 on the basis of rukka (Ex.PW-12/C), sent by ASI Yashpal (PW-12) primarily founded on the statement (Ex.PW-12/B) made by Raju before PW-12, after the latter had reached the place of occurrence pursuant to intimation vide DD No.32A (Ex.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 2 of 33On the basis of evidence gathered during the investigation into the aforesaid FIR, the four appellants were put to trial in sessions case No.13/2009, they being Rahul @ Puneet @ Philip (Accused No.1), Pankaj Kumar (Accused No.2), Sandeep (Accused No.3) and Chet Ram @ Ravi (Accused No.4).The trial was held on the charge for offence under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC for the murder of Shahid, under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for attempted murder of Sheikh Pappu (PW-4) and Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5), and under Section 324/34 IPC for simple injuries inflicted with sharp edged weapon to Mohit Dhingra (PW-19).In addition, Rahul (A-1) was Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.The evidence showing that Mohit Dhindra (PW-19) is the son of the owner of the restaurant and would assist him in running the same and was present at the place when the incident occurred was not disputed at the trial.Further, the evidence showing that Sheikh Pappu Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 4 of 33 (PW-4), Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5), Shahid (the deceased) and Raju (the first informant) were employed in the restaurant has also gone unchallenged.The testimonies of Sheikh Pappu (PW-4) and Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) about the stabbing of Shahid in the kitchen area of the restaurant some time around 10.30 PM on 11.10.2008 is confirmed by the Medico Legal Report (MLC) of the deceased, prepared in Max Balaji Hospital where three of the injured persons had been taken.The admitted document shows that deceased Shahid, then in injured state, had been brought to the said hospital at 11.30 PM on 11.10.2008 with stab injury across his abdomen.The document notes that the deceased had been first taken to Shanti Mukund Hospital from where he was shifted to Max Balaji Hospital.Shahid was unconscious and not responding to the commands.His vital signs indicated he was in critical state.The deep injury across the abdomen showed owenter and intestines in exposed condition.He was referred to surgery department for further management.He succumbed to the injuries at 08:30 hours on 12.10.2008 during treatment.Information about the said event was communicated to the Police Station immediately whereupon it was recorded vide DD No.17A, PW-1/D by Head Constable Rajender Kumar (PW-1), the duty officer.It was also documented in the death Crl.Page 5 of 33 report (PW-20/C) prepared by Inspector Bageshwar Kaushik, the Investigating Officer (IO), who had prepared the inquest papers including brief facts (Ex.PW-20/D), with which he had later submitted application for post-mortem examination on the dead body (Ex.All injuries were antemortem in nature and fresh in duration.Time since death was approximately consistent with the time mentioned in the death certificate."Similarly, according to the MLC (Ex.PA4), Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) had been brought in the hospital at 11:50 PM with history of stab wound inflicted over the abdomen around 11 PM at Zaika Restaurant.The stab injury found suffered by Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) was described in the MLC as linear horizontal wound on the upper abdomen.Noticeably, both Sheikh Pappu (PW-4) and Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) were found by the examining medical officers to be conscious and oriented.The left subdiaphrag fossa and left paracardiac gutter were found full of fresh blood to the extent of 750 ml.Mohit Dhingra (PW-19) had also been taken, with the other victims of stabbing incident, to Shanti Mukund Hospital.He was entertained there and MLC (Ex.PW-7/A) in his regard was prepared Crl.PW-4 and PW-5 have stated in their respective depositions that though they were able to identify the appellants as the assailants, they had not known them by names or otherwise prior to the occurrence.PW-19, on his part, also did identify the appellants as the persons responsible for the stabbing incident, but referred to assistance given by the investigating officer in such identity being established.The defence has argued that the dock identification by PW-4, PW-5 and PW-19 should not be Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Mohit Dhingra (PW-19) avoided appearing as a witness on account of such threat perception for quite a long time.In these circumstances, the evasion on the part of Raju (the first informant) from deposing in the court cannot come as a matter of surprise or cause for adverse inference against the Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 11 of 33 prosecution.No wonder then that Sheikh Pappu (PW-4), Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) and Mohit Dhingra (PW-19) also showed hesitation in confirming that they knew A-1, A-2 and A-3 from before.The presence of Rahul (A-1) at the scene of the incident is proved beyond the pale of all doubts by the fact that he was apprehended at the spot.The FIR (Ex.PW1/B) noted the well documented fact that after the stabbing incident while his accomplices had run away, Rahul (A-1) had attempted to flee away in Maruti No.DL 3CM 7755 (hereinafter referred to as "the Maruti car") stationed in the parking.The Maruti car, the trial court record shows, was owned by mother of Rahul (A-1).The car was seized during the course of investigation formally vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-8/D) by the Investigating Officer, in the presence amongst others, Constable L.K. Sharma (PW-8) and ASI Yashpal (PW-12), Raju (the first informant) and Constable Dinesh Maan being other signatories.The FIR had mentioned that Rahul (A-1) was apprehended by Constable Lalit Kumar (PW-8) and Constable Dinesh, who was accompanying him, both on patrolling duty in the area, when their attention was drawn by the commotion resulting from the stabbing incident, they finding Rahul (A-1) trying to start the car to hurriedly move away.The evidence of PW-8, as confirmed by PW-12 to whom custody of Rahul (A-1) was handed over in due course, has gone unimpeached.In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Rahul Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 12 of 33 (A-1) claimed that he was lifted from his house to be falsely implicated in the case.Suggestions to this effect were given during cross-examination of PW-12 and were suitably denied.Noticeably, however, no such suggestion was given to the Investigating Officer.Further, the evidence about the recovery of the Maruti car from the parking outside the restaurant has gone unchallenged.In these circumstances, the finding of the trial court that Rahul (A-1) was arrested from outside the restaurant in the parking lot after being apprehended by PW-10, assisted by the other Constable on beating duty with him, must be upheld.From this, it naturally follows that since Rahul (A-1) has not explained his presence at the place in any other manner, the evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-19 about his visit to the restaurant and, consequently, their ability to identify him, at least on the basis of the said visit and the incident which happened during their stay, must be believed.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 12 of 33The evidence on record shows that the names of Pankaj (A-2) and Sandeep (A-3) on the basis of their past acquaintances and earlier visits in the company of Rahul (A-1) had figured in the DD No.32-A (Ex.PW-1/A) and the statement (Ex.PW-12/B) of Raju (the first informant) at very initial stages of the police proceedings.The FIR, however, contained an admission on the part of the first informant that he had not known Chet Ram (A-4) from before and that he had picked up the said name only on the basis of the exchange between the four said visitors to the restaurant on the date of the incident.Thus, the full identity of Chet Ram (A-4) would have been revealed, upon interrogation, by Rahul (A-1) around the time he was shown to Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 13 of 33 have made the disclosures (Ex.PW-12/E) to the IO in the presence, amongst others, of ASI Yashpal (PW-12).Be that as it may, A-2, A- 3 and A-4 were not immediately traceable.A copy of the FIR No.285/2008 (Ex.DW-2/B) was proved by Head Constable Dinesh (DW-2), MHC (R) of Police Station Gokulpuri.DW-2/B).It may be mentioned that the evidence of Head Constable Dinesh (DW-2) has also proved on record copy of FIR No.268/2008 (Ex.DW-2/A) regarding another case involving offence under Section 307/34 IPC pertaining to an incident of 29.09.2008 in which role of Sandeep (A-3) had also come up besides the names of two others.The FIR No.268/2008 of Police Station Gokulpuri indicates that Sandeep (A-3) was wanted by the officials of the Police Station Gokulpuri in Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 14 of 33In the case at hand, we need not go into the correctness or otherwise of allegations made against Pankaj (A-2) and Sandeep (A-3) in the case(s) of Gokulpuri.Information about the said arrests was conveyed by ASI Subhash Chand (PW-17), the IO of FIR No.285/2008 of Police Station Gokulpuri, to the Investigating Officer (PW-20) of the present case on 14.10.2008 vide DD No.41B. The Investigating Officer has proved that on the basis of his applications (Ex.PW-20/J and Ex.PW-20/M), the Magistrate at Karkardooma courts had granted him permission to interrogate and cause formal arrests of Pankaj (A-2) and Sandeep (A-3), in the case at hand, at a stage when both of them were being produced in the said court in connection with the extension of remand of case of Gokulpuri.The Investigating Officer has also proved formal arrest of Pankaj (A-2) and Sandeep (A-3) on 23.10.2008 and 27.10.2008 respectively after the said initial interrogation, vide memos Ex.PW-11/B and PW-10/B, in the Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 15 of 33 presence of Constable Avinash (PW-11) and Constable Vinod Kumar (PW-10) respectively.P.C.. While Sandeep (A-3) refused to join the TIP on the ground that he had been shown to the witnesses by the Investigating Officer in Police Station Gokulpuri, Pankaj (A-2) declined to join TIP stating that the witnesses including Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) knew him well before the date of incident.Interestingly, Pankaj (A-2) also admitted Crl.It is Raju (the first informant), who is stated to be responsible for serving at the table where the four appellants were sitting.Though PW-4 and PW-5 did Crl.Both have confirmed the role of A-2, A-3 and A-4 in assisting A-1 in the stabbing incident.PW-4 specifically pointed out Sandeep (A-3) as the person, who had caught hold of him to facilitate he to be stabbed in the abdomen by Rahul (A-1).Similarly, PW-5 identified Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 20 of 33 Pankaj (A-2) as the person who had held on to him at the stage when he was given the knife injury in the abdominal region by Rahul (A-1).Page 27 of 33 which he had openly used to cause injuries against four persons, including the owners son who had tried to intervene, would have added to the element of deterrence against others to come forward.The other two appellants viz., Rahul (A-1) and Chet Ram (A-4) are in custody.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 1 of 33This case may be described as one of murder over paaparh (a savoury Indian snack made with round flattened wafer-thin dough, generally served after roasting or frying).The four appellants herein have been held guilty, primarily on the basis of ocular evidence, on the allegations that they, on feeling infuriated over not being timely served with the savoury, in spite of demand and wait, in furtherance of their common intention knifed four persons, one after the other, one of the wounded ones dying as a result.The venue of the incident that occurred statedly at about 10.30 PM on 11.10.2008, which is subject matter of the case from which these appeals arise, was an eatery run in the name of "Zaika Bar and Restaurant", Community Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter Crl.Page 3 of 33 also charged for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act on the allegations that he had been found in possession of a country-made pistol of prohibited category with one live round of ammunition.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 3 of 33By judgment dated 30.03.2012 of the trial court, all the four appellants were held guilty, as charged, by the Additional Sessions Judge.By separate orders, each passed on 04.04.2012, the trial court awarded life imprisonment with fine of 1,000/- for offence under Section 302/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of 1,000/- for offence under Section 307/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of 500/- for offence under Section 324/34 IPC to each of the four convicts.It was directed that, in case of default in the payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month, one month and fifteen days respectively.Rahul (A-1) was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of 500/- and in default simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently with benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. also accorded.Feeling aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.02.2012 and orders on sentence dated 04.04.2012, the convicted persons have come up with these appeals.PW-20/D1) reiterating the date and time of reported death in the hospital.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 5 of 33The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shahid was conducted by Dr. S. Lal (PW-9), who proved his report (Ex.PW-9/A) confirming, with no contest from the defence, the fact that the autopsy had revealed the following ante mortem injuries :Surgical laprotomy would in middle abdomen from xiphi to paraumblicus region of size 21 x 0.1 cm with stitches and the drainage wound on left side middle abdomen.Stab incised wound surgically stitch, on opening the stitches the size of the wound is 4.5 x 0.2 cm x cavity deep, obliquely placed over left side upper abdomen.The lower outer angle of wound is acute and the other angle is blood.The wound is placed 5 cm away from midline and 16 cm below the left nipple.The wound enter the abdomen cavity in downward and backward direction by cutting lower inter costal cartilage and then given the nick in small intestine which is surgically repair in hospital.The total depth of the wound is approximate 14 cm.Stab incised wound surgically stitched, on opening the stitches the size of the wound is 3.2 x 0.2cm x cavity deep in left side upper abdomen, obliquely placed.The lower outer angel is acute and the other angle is blunt.The wound is placed 15 cm left to midline and 17 cm below the left nipple.The wound enter the abdomen cavity in downward and inward direction to cut the intestine Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 6 of 33Stab incised wound 0.9 x .0.2 x 1 cm deep present over left side lower chest over anterior axillary line, obliquely placed.The lower inner angle is acute and the other angle is blunt.Stab incised wound surgically altered by midline incision of size 1.6 x 0.2 cm x cavity deep over left side epigastric region, horizontally placed outer angle is acute and the other angle is merged with the incision given in the midline.The wound is placed just outer to midline and 2 cm below the xiphi-stenum.The wound enter the abdomen cavity and cut the distal part of greater curvature of stomach which is surgically repaired in hospital.The total depth of the wound is about 10 cm.Incised wound surgically stitched of size 6 x 0.1 cm x muscle deep over left dorsum of lower one-third of arm, obliquely placed and 4.5 cm above the knuckled of elbow."Opinion of the autopsy doctor is as follows :"the cause of death is hemmorahgic shock consequent upon stab injury on abdomen produced by single pointed sharp edged weapon and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Injury No.1 was caused by surgical intervention and injury No.2 to 6 was caused by single pointed sharp edged weapon.Injury No.2,3,4 and 5 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature both individually and collectively.The autopsy report vividly shows that Shahid was stabbed thrice in the abdominal region and once in the lower chest on the left Crl.We reserve to a later stage our judgment on the issue as to whether this culpable homicide amounted to murder or not, in the light of the ocular evidence to be noted in due course hereinafter.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 7 of 33The evidence about the stab injuries suffered by Sheikh Pappu (PW-4), Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) and Mohit Dhingra (PW-19) is also beyond reproach.Dr. S.K.Tiwari (PW-6) has referred to MLCs (Ex.PA2 and PA4) of Sheikh Pappu and Mohd. Jaffar respectively as documents Mark A and Mark B respectively.The MLCs had been prepared in the casualty of Max Balaji Hospital.The authors of these MLCs have not been examined as the documents (Ex.PA-2 and Ex.PW-6 with Dr. A. Sabharwal had examined both the said injured persons and had recorded opinion thereupon in the general surgery unit of the hospital.Both the documents show that these persons had been earlier taken to Shanti Mukund Hospital from where they were shifted to Max Balaji Hospital.The MLC Ex.(PA2) in respect of Sheikh Pappu (PW-4) shows that he was brought in the hospital at 11:50 PM on 11.10.2008 with history of stab injury across abdomen suffered at 10 PM in the Zaika Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 8 of 33 Restaurant.The MLC noted that Sheikh Pappu (PW-4) had suffered two stab injuries, one in the abdominal region and the other on the mid right arm.In the opinion of PW-6, recorded in due course, the injuries were dangerous.Thus, the history of the injuries would have been narrated by the said persons on their own to the medical officer.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 8 of 33The injuries of Sheikh Pappu (PW-4) were apparently quite grave and serious.He has deposed that he had remained hospitalised for 20-22 days.During cross-examination of Dr. S K Tiwari (PW-6), questions were raised as to the correctness of the opinion given by him, when he referred to the operation notes (Ex.PW-6/DA) which prove that Sheikh Pappu (PW-4) had undergone surgical procedure, which had brought out that the incised wound was of the length of 4.5 cm linear (horizontal) in anterior axilla above the costal margin.PW-19 was also conscious and oriented and apparently would have given the history to the medical officer on his own.They would come to the place quite often and, thus, were known to the restaurant owner and staff by their names and faces.PW-1/A) based on telephonic intimation given by the first informant (Raju) and also in his statement (Ex.PW- 12/B) leading to the registration of the FIR.The first informant (Raju) has not been examined by the prosecution.The fact that Raju was employed as a bearer in the restaurant has not been questioned by the defence at any stage.It has to be remembered that Raju was a menial employee for whom an incident of such nature where his co-worker had been stabbed to death in front of his eyes would have come as a matter of utter shock.The trial court record shows that PW-19, the owner of the restaurant had received threat calls asking him to desist from giving evidence at the trial.He brought the facts relating to such intimidatory tactics, which could not have been made but at the instance of the defence, to the notice of the learned trial court on several occasions, seeking measures to be taken for his security.It shows arrest of Pankaj (A-2) and Sandeep (A-3), along with another associate, at a time when they were also found in possession of a button actuated knife, a country-made firearm and ammunition respectively.Interestingly, Ved Prakash Sharma (DW-1), father of Sandeep (A-3) also appeared as a witness in his defence to confirm his arrest by the police officials of Police Station Gokulpuri on 13.10.2008 setting up the theory of he having been picked up from the house rather than in the circumstances narrated in the FIR No.285/2008 (Ex.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 15 of 33The Investigating Officer (PW-20) has proved that after he had arrested Pankaj (A-2) on 23.10.2008 with the permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate, he had moved an application (Ex.PW-20/K) for test identification parade (TIP) and the matter was made over by the jurisdictional Magistrate for necessary action to Mr. Vivek Kumar Guliya, Metropolitan Magistrate.Similarly, after Sandeep (A-3) had been arrested on 27.10.2008, with permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate dealing with the Gokulpuri case, the Investigating Officer had moved an application (Ex.C1) for TIP to be conducted in this case.This application came to be dealt with eventually by Ms. Sunaina Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate.Page 16 of 33 before the Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of TIP (Ex.PA-7) that he was present at the site at the time of incident though the role alleged against him was questionable.Chet Ram (A-4) came to be arrested in FIR No.279/2008 under Sections 302/323/324/201/109/212/34 IPC of Police Station Gokulpuri.Upon information in this regard coming his Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 17 of 33 way, the Investigating Officer (PW-20), moved an application (Ex.The Investigating Officer had made a fresh request informing the Magistrate that TIP of the accused was to be got conducted and so the jail administration be directed to ensure that he was produced in muffled face.The Metropolitan Magistrate, however, recorded his displeasure over the fact that the Investigating Officer himself was not present in the court and issued show cause notice to him for the following day.He (A-4) was formally arrested in the prison as per arrest memo (Ex.PW-15/A).Since no fact is shown to have been discovered pursuant to the statement attributed to Chet Ram (A-4), the document described as disclosure statement (Ex.PW-5/C) cannot be read against him.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 17 of 33In the wake of his arrest on 17.11.2008, Chet Ram (A-4) was produced in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate on 18.11.2008 Crl.Both of them were employed, with Shahid (the deceased), as cooks in the restaurant of Mohit Dhingra (PW-19).They would not know any of the appellants prior to the incident by names or faces.PW-4 and PW-5 testified that after about five minutes, four persons including the two, who had come earlier, came into the kitchen and one of them at that stage was holding a knife.Both identified Rahul (A-1) as the person wielding the cutting instrument.The two witnesses stated that while each of them including Shahid (the deceased) were held by one each of the said persons, the one wielding the knife, i.e. Rahul (A-1), stabbed them, starting with Shahid (the deceased), one after the other.He had tried to intervene.But, Rahul (A-1) had attacked him with knife aiming at his stomach upon which he had tried to save himself by ducking and received a stab injury on his left knee.He has stated that he had raised alarm and the assailants ran away.Both PW-4 and PW-5 deposed that after receiving the stab injuries they had become unconscious.In these circumstances, we are constrained to reject the evidence about the recovery of the weapon of offence (the knife).A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 22 of 33As mentioned earlier, two Constables of the local police station, viz., Constable Lalit Kumar Sharma (PW-8) and Constable Dinesh were on patrolling duty of the area of the restaurant around the time the incident was happening.It is but natural that after the stabbing when the assailants were fleeing away, there was commotion.The defence did not object at any stage to this reason.Thus, on the seizure we have the word of ASI Yashpal (PW-12) and Constable Lalit Kumar (PW-8) but on recovery of the said articles from the possession of Rahul (A-1), the prosecution rests its case on the sole word of Constable Lalit Kumar (PW-8).A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 23 of 33In our opinion, the evidence of PW-8 deserves to be believed.It appears from the said document that the Medical Officer, who prepared it had initially recorded the history of stab injury to be one inflicted by a colleague of Shahid.The word "colleague", however, was scored off and instead the medical officer added the words "unknown person".The argument of the defence is that since even the MLC (Ex.PA-4) of Mohd. Jaffar (PW-5) shows the history narrated to the medical officer attributing a role to an "unknown person", the involvement of the appellants is rendered doubtful inasmuch as, per the prosecution case, they were regular customers of the restaurant and would be "known" to the restaurant staff rather than be described as "unknown persons".At the same time, the appellants argued, the reference to stabbing by a "colleague" initially recorded in the MLC of the deceased indicates the possibility that the restaurant staff, for some reason, had gone berserk in the kitchen area and may have stabbed or injured each other in the process.We have considered the above noted arguments of the appellants but find no substance therein.The absence of Raju (the first informant) from the witness box has been duly explained.The same was collected, inter alia, vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-12/D).In the facts and circumstances, it was not difficult for the four assailants to come in and round up the intended victims holding them physically and leaving them with stab wounds.The appellants had come together to the restaurant and had ordered drinks.They had demanded savouries to be served along with the drinks.The order was not complied with.The delay angered them.This led to the two of them going into the kitchen to lodge protest.Page 31 of 33Given the nature of charge brought home, in our opinion, the sentences awarded against the appellants cannot be said to be disproportionate or unduly harsh.The appellants Pankaj (A-2) and Sandeep (A-3) are on bail, the sentences awarded against each of them having been suspended, pending consideration of their respective appeals by orders dated 21.12.2014 and 05.12.2014 respectively.They are directed to surrender to custody within fifteen days of this judgment to undergo the sentences awarded against each of them in the impugned Crl.A.Nos.549/2012 & conn.Page 32 of 33 judgment and order.The learned trial judge (successor judge) and the Station House Officer of Police Station Anand Vihar are directed to take necessary steps to ensure due compliance.Page 32 of 33

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(01/12/2017) PER JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA:This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and sentence dated 24-8-2007 passed by IVth A.S.J., Morena, District Morena in Sessions Trial No.44/1994 by which the appellant No. 1 Ramkrishna @ Sanju has been convicted under Sections 341, 307, and 324 of I.P.C. and the appellants No.2, 3 and 4 have been convicted under Sections 341, 323 of I.P.C. Appellant No.1, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a 2 Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2007 fine of Rs.2000/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of 1 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. The appellants No. 2 and 3 have been sentenced to the period already undergone by them and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and the appellant No. 4 has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- for offence under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C. respectively.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that Shriram Sharma, the father of the complainant Rajesh Sharma, appellant Siyaram and Prosecution witness Ramnath Sharma (P.W.9) are real brothers.One Ratiram is a cousin brother and was issueless, therefore, he had given his property to Ramlakhan and appellant Ramkrishna by way of "will" and "sale deed" and accordingly Ramlakhan and appellant Ramkrishna were in possession of the same.The parties were at loggerhead due to this property dispute.One civil suit as well as criminal cases had taken place between the parties.According to the prosecution story, two days prior to 21- 6-1993, the complainant Rajesh had come to his village to look after his fields.His uncle, namely Ramnath Sharma and his son Shrikant Sharma had also come to the village and were staying in the house of Ramswaroop Goswami.On the date of incident, the appellant Siyaram and Ramnath had a talk in the house of Siyaram on the issue of partition.The talks took place in a cordial atmosphere.Thereafter, the complainant went to fetch water from a well.When he reached in front of the house of Siyaram, he was caught hold by the appellant Bhagwati and appellant Ramlakhan gave a lathi blow 3 Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2007 on his head.The appellants Siyaram and Ramkrishna @ Sanju also started assaulting him by lathis, as a result of which the complainant Rajesh Sharma fell down.On hearing the screams of the complainant, Ramswaroop Bharti (P.W.8), Ramnath Sharma (P.W.9) and Shrikant Sharma (P.W.10) reached on the spot.At that time, the appellant Ramkrishna @ Sanju went to the roof of his house and fired a gun shot, but the said fire did not hit the complainant Rajesh Sharma, but a pellet hit on the forehead of Ramjilal (P.W.5), who was sitting in front of the door of his house.The F.I.R. Ex. P. 11 was lodged.The police after concluding the investigation, filed the charge sheet.The Trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 341,307 of I.P.C. against the appellant no.1 and under Sections 341, 323 of I.P.C. against the remaining appellants.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The Trial Court after recording evidence and hearing both the parties, convicted appellant No. 1 Ramkrishna @ Sanju under Section 341,307, and 324 of I.P.C. and the appellants no.2, 3 and 4 under Section 341,323 of I.P.C.The counsel for the appellants did not challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the parties have resolved their disputes and an application for permission to compromise was also filed before this Court which has been verified by the Principal Registrar, of this Court, therefore, the appellants may be acquitted or may be saddled with the jail sentence of period already undergone.Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellants."Statement of Accused/Appellant No.1 Ramkrishna @ Sanju, No.2 Bhagwati, No.3 Ramlakhan & No.4 Siyaram and Complainant/victim No.1 Rajesh Sharma and Ramjilal are recorded.Matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.After verifying parties present before me that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.According to under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. offences under Section 323,324 & 341 of I.P.C. are compoundable.But offence under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable."Thus, the application filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the appellant no.1 is acquitted of charge under Sections 324, 341 of I.P.C. and the remaining appellants are acquitted of the charge under Sections 323,341 of I.P.C.We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise 5 Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2007 between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court.Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court.There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatchet.As the parties who belong to one family have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not necessary to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period.Apart from the fact that a settlement has taken place between the parties, there are few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on the question of sentence awarded to the appellants.The parties are related to each other.Both Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were at the time of the incident in their twenties.Thus, it is clear that where the offence is non- compoundable and the parties have come to a compromise, then the factum of compromise can always be considered while determining the question of sentence.If the facts of the present appeal are considered, then it would be clear that according to the prosecution case, the appellant had fired on Rajesh Sharma but the gun shot missed and caused pellet injuries to Ramjilal who was sitting under the tree.The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. for firing at complainant Rajesh Sharma.The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing pellet injuries to Ramjilal.The other injuries 11 Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2007 found on the body of complainant Rajesh Sharma were simple in nature and appellant Ramlakhan and Siyaram who had caused those injuries, were sentenced with fine and for the period already undergone by him.Thus, he has remained in jail for a period of 105 days.The complainant has withdrawn the criminal revision in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties.Accordingly, maintaining the fine amount, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant no.1 for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is modified to the period already undergone.Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.The appellant No.1 Ramkrishna @ Sanju is acquitted of the charge under Sections 324 and 341 of I.P.C. and the appellants Bhagwati, Ramlakhan and Siyaram are acquitted of the charge under Sections 323, 341 of IPC.12 Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2007The conviction of appellant No.1 for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is hereby affirmed and while maintaining the fine amount, he is sentenced to the period undergone by him.Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated 24-8- 2007 passed by IVth A.S.J., Morena in Sessions Trial No. 44/1994 is modified to the extent mentioned above.The appellant No.1 is on bail.His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Since both the above criminal revisions have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.Criminal Revision No.825/2002 has been filed by applicants Khub Singh, Vikram Singh and Kallu Dubey and Criminal Revision No.848/2002 has been filed by applicant Kishorilal being aggrieved by the same judgment dated 10.07.2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.93/2001, arising out of judgment dated 6.10.2001 passed by C.J.M., Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No.570/1995, whereby the applicants have been convicted under sections 452 and 323/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I. for 1 month and R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I. for 1 month each respectively.Prosecution case in short is that on 22.06.1995 at about 9:00 a.m. daughter of Pachua Dheemar was handling the pump with a speed and creating noise, on this complainant Phoolwati told her to not handle the pump in such a speed.Meanwhile the daughter of applicant Khub Singh who was standing there said that the handpump is not of her father.The complainant went in her house and thereafter applicants Khub Singh, Vikram Singh, Kallu Dubey Kishorilal armed with lathi committed house trespass after preparation for causing heart and committed marpeet with Phoolwati Bai who received injuries.Just after the incident named F.I.R. Ex.P-1 was lodged at police station Bameetha and injured Phoolwati was referred for medical examination at P.H.C. Bamitha where PW-7 Dr. B.L. Bindra has examined her and found various injuries as described in Ex.After due investigation the charge sheet was filed.Applicants abjured the guilt and produced defence witness Ganesh Singh and Ku.Ranjana Singh alleging that no incident took place and Phoolwati fell down and received injury.I have gone through the statement of Phoolwati injured duly supported by PW-2 Brijesh Kumar, PW-3 Aradhana Tiwari, PW-4 Jeewan Singh corroborated by medical evidence Ex.P-9 given by Dr. B.L. Bindra who examined the complainant on the same day and found various abrasions.After appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the applicants under sections 452 and 323/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned above.On appeal, the learned appellate court has affirmed the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court.The incident is of 1995 which took place between two girls on the dispute of fetching water from handpump.At the time of incident applicant Khub Singh was 55 years of age and at present he must be 72 years of age.The applicants seem to be the first offenders and no previous criminal conduct of the applicants has been proved by the prosecution.In these circumstances, the applicants can be released on the period already undergone.Resultantly, these criminal revisions are partly allowed.Let the fine amount be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of this order, failing which they shall suffer additional R.I. for 3 months.Out of the total recovered fine amount of Rs.6,000/-, Rs.3000/- be paid to the complainant PW-1 Phoolwati as compensation under section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, these criminal revisions stand disposed of.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.C.C. as per rules.(S.C. Sinho) Judge psm

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Applicant - Ramesh Sutar is implicated in crime no.7/13, registered at police station - Chapiheda Dist.Rajgarh, for the offence punishable under section 307/34, IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to police statement of injured and submits that the allegation against the present applicant that he caused injury by hand and fist and in main case, which has been registered against him vide crime no.3/13, under Section 364-A/34, IPC, his application for grant of bail has been allowed vide order dated 12.5.2017, passed in M.Cr.He further submits that the present applicant is in custody since 16.1.2017 and looking to the period of custody, so also the nature of allegation made against him, he prays that this application for grant of bail be allowed and applicant be released on bail.Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer and prays for it's rejection.On due consideration of the aforesaid and police statement of material prosecution witnesses, so also the fact that except present applicant, application for grant of bail of other accused persons have already been allowed, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am incline to allow the bail application.Accordingly, the bail application for grant of bail is allowed and it is directed that the present applicant - Ramesh Sutar, be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC/CJM for his appearance before him or trial Court, as the case may be on each and every date of hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.This order will remain operative subject to the compliance of the following conditions :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will co-operate in the trial/investigation, as the case may be;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant will mark his presence at Police Station - Chapiheda Dist.Rajgarh once in a month till the trial is completed.A copy of the said order be sent to the concerned trial court for its compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(P.K. JAISWAL) JUDGE SS/-

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Turning to the Bye-laws ofthe Society, bye-law no. 41 prescribes the duties of theSecretary.According to this bye-law the Secretary hasinter alia :"(3) To make disbursement and to obtain vouchers and to receive payments and pass receipts, under the general or special orders of the Board of Directors on this behalf from time to time.(4) To keep all accounts and registers required by the rules.(13) To countersign cash book in token of the balance being correct and to produce the cash balance.whenever called upon to do so by the Chairman or any person authorised to do so."(1) The Board of Directors shall, at the beginning of the session, fix the amount of advance, indicating the percentage of the market price of produce or goods pledged with the society, that may be granted to a member.Such limits may be fixed for different com- modities and varied from time to time according to fluctuation in markets or otherwise.(7) The fact that a discount of Rs.10/- was paid to cash a cheque on 29-6-1959 shows that the society had no funds on that day.(8) None of the alleged loanees was a Jute grower and no jute was deposited in the godowns of the society before the advances were made and in this regard the mandatory provisions of sub-r.(2) of r. 42 were also disregarded by the 1st respondent.(9) A number of adjustments were made in the Accounts to show that the sum of Rs. 18,200/- was disbursed.(10) The three persons to whom ultimately the amounts were said to have been disbursed are interested in the 1st respondent.M. K. Ramamurthi, J. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, forthe appellant.H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.(3) The same amount was again said to have been ,disbursed in a few days in the first week of July commencing with the next cooperative year (1959-60).(4) Except the 2nd and 4th respondents, the others were not members of the Co-In the case in hand no substantial question oflaw or principle was made out at the bar and the certificatewas clearly misconceived though it vaguely states thatseveral questions of law are involved.The appeal fails andis dismissed.V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.

['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT J.S. Verma, J.This appeal raises the question whether, on construction of the various provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (No. 15 of 1970)(hereinafter referred to as the Bal Adhiniyam), a 'child' within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act when charged with the offence of murder has also to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that Act.The appellant Rupsingh, admittedly, aged 14 years when tried for the offence of murder was charged with having committed the murder of Mst.The challan was filed in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur for the said offence against the appellant on 15-5-1970,who after holding an inquiry in accordance with Section 207A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the order dated 3-9-1970 passed under Sec-213 of the Code committed the appellant for trial by the Court of Session.The first Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur after holding the requisite trial on such commitment has held the charge proved and convicted the appellant on 29-1-1971 for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and passed the sentence of life imprisonment.The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Pursuant to the Court order dated 08.05.2017, the learned Government Advocate has placed on record a list of criminal cases so far registered against the applicant.As per the list, only one case under Section 364- A of the IPC is registered against the applicant in addition to the present case.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.According to the prosecution, in the night of 28.3.2016 the police got a tip-off that a gang of dacoits with arms are hiding in the forest area of Murum Khadan situated on Satna-Chitrakoot Highway and they are making a plan to commit a dacoity.Thereupon, the police parties surrounded the gang to catch them red-handed.Seeing that, the applicant and the co-accused persons fired at the police-parties with an intention to kill the police personnel.However, the police caught red-handed co-accused persons namely, Ganga Ram and Shiva.The police seized a 315 bore of hand made katta from the possession of co-accused Ganga Ram.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 03.02.2017 and that the charge-sheet had been filed.He submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the case.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE sp/-

['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent herein has registered the case against the petitioner herein and others in Crime No.114 of 2011 on 12.09.2011 under Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 471 I.P.C r/w 109 I.P.C, but, thereafter no steps have taken by the respondent to complete the investigation and hence he requests to direct the respondent to file final report at early.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation is completed and in the meanwhile, one of the accused died and after getting death certificate, the respondent will file final report within two weeks.She further submitted that now the case is pending before the Inspector of Police (Land Grabbing Cell), Kanchipuram District.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the Inspector of Police (Land Grabbing Cell) Kanchipuram District is directed to expedite the investigation and file final report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5.With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of .17.09.2018Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking ordervvThe Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram District.The Inspector of Police, (Land Grabbing Cell), Kanchipuram DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.RAJAMANICKAM., J.OP.No.22241 of 2018

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.The third bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Siddharth Singh @ Shilpi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Session Trial No. 127 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 591 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, IPC and 34 IPC, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad, during pendency of trial.As yet about 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the total witnesses are 22 in numbers.(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court.As directed earlier by this Court vide order dated 08.4.2019, trial court is directed to make all endeavors to conclude the trial expeditiously.Order Date :- 22.1.2020 Ruchi Agrahari

['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

( 18 .2017) Sheel Nagu, J.The present order shall govern the disposal of CRA.625/2015 and CRA.The present appeals preferred u/s. 374(2) Cr.P.C. assail the judgment dated 31st March, 2003 passed in S.T. No. 38/2001 & 2 CRA.625/2015 & CRA.626/2015 S.T.39/2001 rendered by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant Rajjan as enumerated below :-The bare facts giving rise to the present case are that arising out of an incident that took place in the night intervening 27 th and 28th February, 1999, two offences of like nature i.e. 364(A) / 34 IPC were registered separately as Crime No. 12/1999 and 13/1999 at Police Station Surpura, District Bhind against 23 accused including the appellant herein, who is common in both the present appeals.In both these judgments all the 22 accused ( except the absconding appellant herein) were acquitted of the charges u/S. 364(A)/ 3, 212, 216(A) , 500 IPC and Section 25(1) (B) (A) / 27 of Arms Act.The appellant herein was arrested late on 16.04.2002 whereafter he was subjected to trial which ended in the judgment dated 31.03.2003 convicting the appellant in both the cases u/s 364(A) / 34 IPC for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation of 2 years further R.I.Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that in the night intervening 27th and 28th February, 1999 abductee Ramsiya (PW-7) and Siyaram (PW-6) (in criminal appeal No. 625/2015) and abductee 3 CRA.625/2015 & CRA.626/2015 Jaswant (PW-8), Mukesh (PW-9) and Ramvilas (PW-7) ( in Criminal Appeal No. 626 /2015) were abducted by 15-16 armed miscreants by way of kidnapping / abduction and were taken to and confined in the ravines.When the abductees were not found by their family members a report in that regard was made Ex.P-1 pursuant to which crime No. 12/1999 ( in Criminal Appeal No. 626/2015) and Crime No. 13/1999 ( in Criminal Appeal No. 625/2015) were registered alleging offence punishable u/s 365/34 IPC.Charge u/s 364A / 34 IPC was framed in both the cases against the appellant who abjured guilt and sought trial by pleading that he has been falsely implicated in the case.In criminal appeal No. 625/2015 (S.T. No. 38/2001) the prosecution in all produced fourteen witnesses namely Radhamohan (PW-1), Shrinath (PW-2), Prayag Devi (PW-3), Shrinarayan Sharma @ Bhoora (PW-4), Ramvilas (PW-5), Ratan Singh (PW-6), Ramsiya S/O Nawab Singh (PW-07), Siyaram (PW-8), Ramveer (PW-9), Jaswant (PW-10), Mukesh Kumar (PW-11), Ramvilas @ Gutte (PW-12), P.K. Chaturvedi (PW-13), Ram Siya S/o Ramdayal (PW-14).Prosecution also exhibited documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.In criminal appeal No. 626/2015 (S.T. No. 39/2001) the prosecution in all produced fifteen witnesses namely Ramlal (PW-1), Ramveer (PW-2), Ramvilas (PW-3), Ratan Singh (PW-4), Ramsiya (PW-5), Sukhdhyan (PW-6), Vishvanath Garg (PW-07), Suresh Dubey (PW-8), Rafeeq Khan (PW-9), Narsingh (PW-10), Jaswant (PW-11), Mukesh Kumar (PW-12), Ramvilas @ Gutte (PW-13), P.K. Chaturvedi (PW-14) & Avdhesh Sharma (PW-15),.Prosecution also 4 CRA.625/2015 & CRA.626/2015 exhibited documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.AS REGARDS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.625/2015The abductee Siyaram (PW-6) did not support the story of the prosecution and was declared hostile.Infact PW-6 went to the extent of disclosing that the appellant was not one of the abductors / accused.The other abductee Ramsiya (PW-7) however supported the prosecution story.In his testimony PW-7 has stated that he had been abducted and confined and kept in the ravines and was released only after his father paid the ransom of Rs. 1,50,000/-.As regards the allegation of demand and payment of ransom, the father of PW-7 has not been examined.The other witness in shape of PW-3 Ratan Singh has also turned hostile and has denied even knowing or having seen the appellant.Shri Nath (PW-2), who is brother of the abductee Siyaram has averred that Karu (son of Ramsiya one of the abductee) came to him in search of Ramsiya when he came to know of the incident.The said Karu, who happens to be the son of one of the abductee Ramsiya has not been examined.Radha Mohan Sharma (PW-1) is the complainant and son of one of the abductee Ramsiya has testified that he came to know that some persons have been abducted from village Surajpur and that Ramsiya has also been abducted.Whereafter PW-1 reported the matter to the police and informed the police of the spot where the abduction took place and signed on the spot map prepared by the police.PW-7 is the abductee Ramsiya who testifies that he was kidnapped by a gang comprising of several persons including the appellant.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals No. 625/2015 and 626/2015 are disposed of in the following manner :-

['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

ORDER R.N. Pyne, C.J.Rule D. B.2. To be heard today with the consent of both the parties.The petitioner, Captain Satish Kumar Sharma, a resident of Delhi is a member of the Parliament and owes allegiance to Indian National Congress.He actively campaigned in Amethi Parliamentary Constituency for Sh.Shri Sanjay Singh, who was earlier a sitting Congress (I) M.L.A., defected from the party and joined the Janta Dal.On the ticket of Janta Dal he fought from Amethi Assembly Constitutency but lost to the Congress candidate, viz., Harcharan Singh Yadav by a big margin, with the result, he became very inimical to the petitioner.F.I.R. Crime No. 182 of 1989 was registered at the instance of Shri Ashish Shukla at about 3.45 p.m. on 22-11-1989 at P.S. Munshi Ganj in which allegation was that Shri Sanjay Singh fired with his rifle as a result of which persons, namely - Majoj Kumar, Satya Narayan Yadav, Sitla Prasad etc. were injured.F.I.R. Crime No. 182-A of 1989 was registered at about 6.45 a.m. on 23-11-1989 at the instance of Shri Jai Parkash Singh H. C. 24 according to which Shri Sanjay Singh sustained injuries.However, the assailants were unknown.In both the F.I.Rs.the name of the petitioner was not mentioned.In all these three charge sheets the petitioner was not charge-sheeted although it is stated in the return that the name of the petitioner was mentioned therein as an accused person against whom the investigations were pending.In these charge sheets there were 19 accused persons out of whom 15 have already been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur.According to the petitioner, there is absolutely no case against him.After Shri Sanjay Singh who returned from London after his treatment on 1st February, 1990 at his behest, pressure and undue influence the case against the petitioner was cooked up by the police and C.I.D. of U.P. It has been alleged that Sanjay Singh is the brother's son-in-law of Shri V. P. Singh, the present Prime Minister of India and is very close of him; and as such he is exercising tremendous influence on the Government of U.P. including CID and Police of U.P. as a result thereof lie has been able to fabricate a false case against the petitioner after his return from England.As already mentioned, Shri Sanjay Singh is doing so out of political vendetta as he considers the petitioner responsible for his defeat in his Assembly constituency in Amethi.In fact he is determined humiliated the petitioner by getting him arrested and paraded in the streets.According to the petitioner, there is no evidence to connect him with the commission of the crime nor was his name mentioned in the F.I.R. That is why no charge sheet under S. 173, Cr.P.C. could be submitted in the Court by the police till 21-5-1990 although three charge sheets in the case were already submitted in the Court by the police.This case was fabricated at the instance of Shri Sanjay Singh and police investigating Team added S. 120B, I.P.C. in the charge sheet already filed before the C.J.M., Sultanpur on the basis of evidence already recorded.No challan could be put up against the petitioner without any fresh evidence.S. 173 is a very important step as it requires investigation to be completed without unnecessary delay and in this case the petitioner has been charge sheeted after six months.After 7th May, 1990 when the last charge sheet was filed in Court and the petitioner, at that stage, as well was yet to be challenged, the respondents, under undue pressure from Shri Sanjay Singh got non-bailable warrant issued on 14-5-1990 from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur against the petitioner which was endorsed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for execution.After the said warrant of arrest was brought to Delhi and again endorsed in favor of various Delhi Police Functionaries like Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police and finally to Inspector of Police of P.S. Mehrauli who was authorised to execute the warrant and consequently to effect the arrest of the petitioner in Delhi within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court.Since the petitioner was about to be arrested and deprived of his liberty, he was constrained to file the present civil writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioner in case Crime No. 182-A/89 P.S. Munshi Ganj, Disstt.Sultanpur, U.P. In this writ petition the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the proceedings in Case Crime No. 182-A/89 and the warrant of arrest issued by C.J.M. Sultanpur against him.During the course of arguments, however, Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not press for quashing of proceedings and the impugned warrant although the arguments were addressed by him that there was no legal justification for the Magistrate for issuing of such impugned warrant.However, he confined himself only to the prayer of restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioner and for enlarging him on the anticipatory bail.The petitioner has also brought to our notice that he has also challenged the charge sheet and connected proceedings submitted before the Magistrate in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - Lucknow Bench - and a notice has been ordered to be issued by that Court.Further proceedings, have also been stayed.Certified copy of the order dated 25-6-1990 has been placed on record.Respondents 2 and 3 have denied that the case has been fabricated out of political vendetta and under undue influence of Shri Sanjay Singh.They have also raised preliminary objections about the maintainability of the writ petition.Petition allowed.

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 05.06.2019 in connection with Crime No. 464/2019 registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar District Katni (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC.A s per prosecution story on 14.06.2019 while the complainant Amarjeet Singh was performing his official duty and rushed the house of applicant and searching in compliance of order dated 15/06/2019 but the applicant and other co-accused persons obstructed the official work of complainant and thrown the stone upon the complainant due to which he sustained lacerated wound injuries, therefore, the police registered the case and arrested the applicants and sent him to judicial custody.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 05/06/2019 .The trial will take long time to conclude.There is no probability of absconding and tampering the evidence.Prosecution produce his criminal record but in almost cases he was acquitted as informed by the counsel for applicant.On these ground he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned PL for the respondent/State on the other hand opposes the application and submits that there are criminal antecedents of the applicant, so it is not a fit case for grant of bail.Considering the contention of both the parties, and evidence on record and the fact that applicant has been acquitted in three or four cases.Consequently, the first Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 08/08/2019 10:50:19 2 MCRC-30482-2019 application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant-Ajju @ Ajay Lalwani be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) wit h one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 08/08/2019 10:50:19

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

When the matter was taken up through Video Conferencing, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. appeared.Present bail application has been filed by the accused-applicant Vipul Singh, who involved in Case Crime No.55 of 2020 under Sections- 419, 420, 411 I.P.C. & and 66 of I.T. Act at Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar.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 misuse 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 fail 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.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 22.7.2020 Arun/-

['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In this case, totally there are three accused.They stood charged as detailed below:-Serial number of chargesRank of the accusedChargesA1U/s.364,302,201 r/w 302 & 404 IPC.2.A2 and A3U/s.364,302 r/w 34, 201 r/w 302 & 404 IPC364 IPCU/s.202 r/w 302 IPCU/s.The deceased was working as Staff Nurse in a Private Hospital at Dindugul.A-1 and the deceased loved each other and three months prior to the occurrence, she was missing whereabouts of the deceased was not known.Then they are searched them but unable to find them.Since they were under impression the deceased was living with the appellant, they did not give any complaint.(ii) On 12.12.2009, P.W.1, Forester working in the Forest Department found a skeleton covered with stones in Goondugul Forest, Kappukadu.He informed the same to the Forest Ranger and on his instruction, P.W.1 gave a complaint before the respondent police.(iii) P.W.12, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station, on receipt of the complaint registered a case in Crime No.502 of 2009, under Section 302 and 201 of IPC, and prepared first information report [Ex.P7], sent the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, and copies of the same were forwarded to the higher officials.(iv) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police, on receipt of the first information report, commenced investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar[Ex.P6], drew rough sketch [Ex.P9] in the presence of P.W.1 and other foresters.He conducted inquest over the skeleton in the scene of occurrence between 11.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., and prepared inquest report[Ex.P8] and after completion of inquest, he sent the requisition letter [Ex.P10] to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem for conducting postmortem.(v) P.W.14, Doctor, working in the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College & Hospital, Salem, on 13.12.2009 at about 5.00 p.m., conducted postmortem on the skeleton in the scene of occurrence and found the following injuries;-Body was found in right lateral prone position with flenion at the elbow joint with hip and knee semiflered.Head facing east foot facing towards west.All the soft tissues and skin over the body found missing due to skeletonisation.No evidence of antemortem injuries in the available bones.Few dry, head tissue masses present in the thorax cavity.At the organs could not be identified due to skeletonisation.The teeth in manilla and mandible 8 in each gradient, 2, 1, 2 , 3 and the surface of the teeth are equal.She has given postmortem certificate [Ex.P16].She collected skull bones and sent the same for superimposition test and for DNA test.She has given opinion that she is unable to give any definite conclusion as to cause of death.(vi) P.W.13, continued the investigation and during the course of investigation, he came to know that all the three accused committed murder and he further came to know that they were under judicial custody and confined in the Central Prison, Slaem.During enquiry, the first accused has voluntarily given confession and P.W.13 recorded the confession in the presence of P.W.8 and some other witnesses and based on the disclosure statement of A1[Ex.P2], P.W.13 seized a knife [M.O.4], Gold chain [M.O.1].Based on the disclosure statement of A-2[Ex.P3], P.W.13 seized ear stead [M.O.2], Silver anklets [M.O.3] and after recording the confession statement of the accused, he sent them back to judicial custody.Further, P.W.13 sent the skull bone for superimposition and thigh bone for DNA test to the Forensic Laboratory, Chennai.P.W.13, after identifying the deceased, and informed the same to P.Ws.5 and 6, father and mother of the deceased.According to him, he saw the skeleton and he was present at the time of taking skeleton from the forest area by the police.P.W.4 is a resident of Thoppur and he saw the skeleton.P.W.5 is the father of the deceased.P.W.11 is the Head Constable.(Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.Bharathidasan, J.) The appellant, in this appeal, is the first accused in Sessions Case No.299 of 2012, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.The trial Court, by Judgment, dated 28.01.2014, convicted the first accused and sentenced him as detailed below:-Rank of the accusedPenal provision(s) under which convictedSentence A-1U/s.302 IPCU/s.404 IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months.Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The scalp hair about 50 cms in length, black in colour found sticking on the occipital area.All the above and joins show postmortem diarticulation.P.Ws.5 and 6 came to the police station and identified the jewels recovered from the accused as that of the deceased.Then, P.W.13 handed over the investigation to P.W15, his successor.(vii) P.W.15, Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, continued the investigation, altered the case into one under Sections 302, 302 r/w 34 IPC, and prepared alteration report [Ex.P24], and sent the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false.In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 24 documents and 4 material objects were marked.Out of the above said witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the Forester, working in the Forest Department, Deniespet Forest Range, Thoppur.According to him, on 12.12.2009, when he along with P.W.2, were on patrol in the Gundakul Kappukadu forest, they found a skeleton covered with stones, immediately he informed the same to his higher officials and on instruction of his higher officials, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police.P.W.2 is the Forest Ranger, according to him, while he along with P.W.1 were on patrol in the forest, they found the skeleton covered with stone and P.W.1 gave a complaint before the respondent police.P.W.3 is a resident of Thoppur.Subsequently, after three months, at the request of the respondent police, he went to the respondent police station and identified the jewels worn by the deceased and received the said jewels from the Judicial Magistrate Court.In his cross examination, P.W.5 stated that the respondent police informed him that M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered from the dead body.P.W.6 is the mother of the deceased.She has spoken about the love affair between the first accused and the deceased.According to her, when the deceased was found missing, and she made an enquiry from her co-employees, they told her that the deceased went along with A-1, hence she did not give any complaint, subsequently after three months she went to the respondent police and identified the jewels as that of the deceased.P.W.7 is known to the accused and he saw him in the police station after his arrest and identified the jewels.P.W.8 is the Village Administrative Officer, Deevettipatti Village.P.W.9 is another Village Administrative Officer, Vellaru.According to him, on 15.12.2009, all the accused appeared before him and voluntarily given extra judicial confession and he recorded their statements and based on the confession, he produced the accused before the respondent police at about 3.00 p.m., and the respondent police arrested the accused and on such arrest all the accused voluntarily given confession before the Inspector of Police and he recorded the confession statement of the accused.P.W.9 along with his Village Assistant attested the confession statement of the accused.Based on the disclosure statement, the Inspector of Police recovered M.Os.1 to 3 jewels and also a cell phone.P.W.10 is a Forest Guard.He is witness to the observation mahazar.According to him, he submitted the express first information report to the Judicial Magistrate Court.P.W.12 -Sub Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station.He has stated that on receipt of the complaint, registered a case and sent the first information report to the Judicial Magistrate Court and copies of the same forwarded to the higher officials.P.W.13, Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station, on receipt of the first information report, he conducted the investigation.According to him, during the investigation, he came to know the accused have committed murder and since they are confined in Central Prison, Salem in connection with some other case, on 29.12.2009, he took them into police custody.During such custody, the accused voluntarily gave confession and recorded the same in the presence of P.W.8 Village Administrative Officer and based on the disclosure statement of A1, P.W.13 recovered knife[M.O.4] and Gold chain[M.O.1].Similarly, on the basis of the disclosure statement of A-2, he recovered ear stud [M.O.2], silver anklet [M.O.3] worn by the deceased.P.W.14, Doctor, working in the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College & Hospital, Salem, conducted postmortem autopsy on the skeleton and issued Postmortem Certificate.P.W.15, Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police has stated that he continued the investigation, prepared an observation mahazar and recovered material objects and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.He did not examine any witnesses nor marked any documents.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellant/first accused is before this Court.We have heard Mr.The first and foremost circumstance is that the appellant/first accused and the deceased loved each other before the occurrence.Both the first accused and the deceased went together from Dindugal.To establish the same, the prosecution has examined P.W.5, the father of the deceased.According to him, A1 used to come to his house frequently and one day the deceased was found missing and he was under impression that the deceased would have went only along with the appellant/first accused.P.W.6 is the mother of the deceased.According to her, both the accused and the deceased were moving closely and one day the deceased was found missing and she enquired her co-employees, who told her that the deceased went along with the appellant/first accused and when she called the deceased over cell phone, the deceased told her that she is with the appellant, thereafter, the cell phone was switched off.Since she was under the impression that the deceased is with the accused, she did not give any complaint.From the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, it cannot be concluded that both the accused and the deceased were seen together prior to the occurrence, the co-employee was not examined to prove the deceased went along with the appellant/first accused.Except the same, no other evidence was available to prove that both the accused and the deceased were together prior to the occurrence.Hence, the last seen together theory was not proved by the prosecution.The next circumstance is recovery of the jewels worn by the deceased, which were recovered from the accused.There are lot of contradiction in the prosecution case.According to P.W.9, the Village Administrative Officer of Vellaru, on 15.12.2009, all the accused appeared before him and voluntarily given an extra judicial confession and he recorded their confession and thereafter, he produced the accused before P.W.13, the Inspector of Police and the Inspector of Police arrested the accused and on such arrest, they voluntarily given confession and based on the disclosure statement of A-1, the Inspector of Police recovered M.Os.1 to 3 jewels worn by the deceased.But P.W.13, deposed that only during the investigation, he came to know that the accused have committed murder and all the accused confined in Central Prison, Salem and he filed the custody application before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem and he took the accused in police custody on 29.12.2009 and in the police custody, the accused voluntarily given confession and recorded the same in the presence of P.W.8, Village Administrative Officer of Deevatipatti and based on the disclosure statement of A-1, P.W.13 recovered Chain (M.O.1) and knife [M.O.4] and based on the disclosure statement of A-2, he recovered Ear stud [M.O.2] and silver anklet [M.O.3] worn by the deceased.P.W.8 also confirmed the same.Hence, there are two set of evidence given by the prosecution regarding recovery of material objects.As per the evidence of P.W.9, on 15.12.2009, all the accused appeared before him and given extra judicial confession and he produced them before the respondent police and the Inspector of Police arrested them and the accused voluntarily given confession and based on the disclosure statement, P.W.13 recovered the material objects.According to P.W.13, he came to know that the accused have committed murder and all the accused confined in Central Prison, Salem, and he filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem and he took the accused in the police custody on 29.12.2009, and in the police custody, the accused voluntarily given confession and based on the disclosure statement of the accused, P.W.13 recovered the materials objects.Hence, the above said contradiction create doubts about the recovery of jewels worn by the deceased.It is also the evidence of P.W.5, in his cross examination, that the police has informed him that the jewels were recovered from the dead body.Considering all the above evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the arrest and also consequential recovery of jewels of the deceased.In the above circumstances, in absence of any other circumstance available to prove the guilt of the accused, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.Hence, the appellant/first accused is entitled for acquittal.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in Sessions Case No.299 of 2012 dated 28.01.2014 is set aside and the appellant/first accused is acquitted and bail bond, if any executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts, if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded forthwith.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT Debabrata Mookerjee, J.The disobedience charged related to an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. which had been made on 24-8-1954 by Sri B. N. Poddar, a Magistrate of the First Class, Uluberia.In the absence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Pod-dar was in charge that day of his file and in that capacity made the ex parte order requiring the petitioners not to enter the disputed land or disturb the possession of one Annada Prosad Dalui and others, who were the first party, to the proceedings.The dispute related to possession of a portion of plot No. 2844 of khatian No. 299 in mouza Kan-krole.The order was served on the petitioners on 26-8-1954 and on the very next day, it was alleged the petitioners trespassed upon the land in violation of the order.But he was on the date functioning as Sub-Divisional Magistrate.Consequently, the order which was said to have been infringed or violated was the order of the Sub-Div.Apparently these petitioners were on the land.There were civil suits pending between the parties and as a result of this ex parte order dis obedience to which is the subject-matter of the present charge, the petitioners were thrown out and completely stranded.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Rajat Katyal, APP.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS.The brief facts of this case are that on 22nd October, 2007 at about 11.30 pm near E Block, public toilet, Patharwala Bagh, JJ Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi, the appellant alongwith two co- accused namely Shaukat Ali @Badka (aquitted) and Jameel @ Chonch (aquitted) assaulted Lakshman with fists and kick blows and that the appellant stabbed him on his left buttock with a sharp edged weapon.After the incident, information was conveyed to PCR through mobile phone no. 9910276881 and was recorded by Constable Meenakshi (PW-11) in document exhibit PW 11/A and the information was conveyed to PS Ashok Vihar at about 11.45 pm and was recorded vide DD No. 32 (Ex. PW 9/F).On receiving the said DD, ASI Dev Raj (PW-9) along with Constable Surender reached at the spot and found the PCR vehicle and the injured near the public toilet with his mother, Mrs. Kailashwati @ CRL.A.87/2011 Page 2 of 33 Radha (PW-2) along with large number of public persons.Injured Lakshman was taken to the BJR Hospital where Dr. Yashwant Singh (PW-10) examined him.The MLC (PW 10/A) was prepared.Doctor had noted three injuries on the person of Laxman which included :- (1) 2 cm CIW over left hip muscle deep (2) 2 cm CLW over left eye brow and (3) abrasion behind right ear.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 2 of 33After providing medical aid and treatment, Laxman was discharged.ASI Dev Raj (PW-9) recorded the statement of injured Laxman (Ex. PW 9/A) in the hospital on 23rd October, 2007 before he was sent back.In his statement, the injured had stated that he was going to the toilet at about 11/11.30 pm when the boy named as Teda met him and stopped him and questioned him as to where was he going and on being told to mind his own business, Teda along with his two associates started beating him and he received injuries on his left eye-brows and on his hip.ASI Dev Raj had recorded DD No. 7 at about 7 am on 23 rd October, CRL.A.87/2011 Page 3 of 33 2007 relating to the three different matters in which he had taken the action which also included the matter arising out of DD No. 32 (PW-9/F).CRL.A.87/2011 Page 3 of 33Doctor R.N Bansal (PW-12) prepared the death summary (PW-12/A).The information regarding death of Laxman was also received in police post J.J. Colony of PS Ashok Vihar at about 7.55 am on 24th October, 2007 and was recorded vide DD No. 9 (Ex. PW 8/A).On receiving the copy of the said DD, ASI Dev Raj (PW 9) went to Hindu Rao Hosptial.He made an endorsement on Ex. PW 9/A (the statement Ex. PW 9/A of Laxman which was recorded by him earlier on the day of incident).During the course of investigation, after registration of CRL.A.87/2011 Page 4 of 33 FIR, the blood stained clothes (T-shirt Ex. P-2, Trousers Ex. P-3 and Underwear Ex. P-4) of the deceased Laxman were seized vide memo Ex. PW 9/C. The site plan (Ex. PW 14/A) was prepared.The crime team inspected the dead body in the mortuary of Hindu Rao Hospital and prepared the death report.The post-mortem was conducted on the body and the report Ex. PW 15/A was prepared by Dr. Rajiv Sharma, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 4 of 33b) Stitched lacerated wound, 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm X 5cm deep over left eyebrow, extravasation of blood seen over the margin.c) Abrasion, reddish, 2 cm X 1 cm over the right mastoid behind the right pinna.d) Abrasion, reddish, 4cm X 2 cm over left acromian over the left shoulder.The autopsy doctor opined that the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage consequent to injuries including the injury no.1 and its corresponding internal injuries having been caused by sharp edged weapon and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Photographs of the dead body (Ex. PW 14/A-1,2,3) were also taken.He took the police to his jhuggi and produced the knife, Ex. P-1, seized vide memo PW-13/D. The knife was found to be button actuated and having a blade of 10 cm length.Its sketch (PW 13/C) was prepared and thereafter it was sealed in a parcel with seal of BL.The knife (P1) was shown to the autopsy doctor on 22nd November, 2007 and the doctor opined vide his opinion (Ex. PW 15/B) that the internal and external injuries mentioned in the post- mortem report were possible with the said weapon and similar CRL.A.87/2011 Page 7 of 33 other types of sharp edged weapons/objects.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 7 of 33The entire exercise was done by the learned trial court to dispel the impression of the investigating agency that they were not required to record the formal FIR (recording of which is now been computerised) till the receipt of medical opinion.The appellant has not taken any specific defence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and has only pleaded innocence and false implication.PW-2 has clearly deposed that her son had told her that he was stabbed by one Teda.She has deposed that she knew the accused Teda and identified him in the Court.This statement of the mother of the deceased was treated as dying declaration by learned ASJ.It has also come on record that all the accused as well as the injured and the witnesses were living in the same colony.The statements of Laxman (Ex. PW 9/A) and that of his mother were treated as dying declarations by learned ASJ.The facts proved on record shows that from the spot the injured was taken to BJR Hospital, where the deceased (the then injured) was examined by Dr. Yashwant Singh (PW-10).The doctor in his deposition has stated that on examination, he found the following injuries:-Dr. Yashwant after giving necessary medical aid (which was sufficient according to him) discharged the patient Laxman.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 22 of 33 Prosecution claims that despite the medical aid given to the injured, Laxman's condition deteriorated.The facts need to be proved on record.The appellant, therefore, is required to produce on record some evidence of preponderance to prove the fact that death was the result of lack of care by the attendants of the deceased or lack of medical care.No question was asked from any of the prosecution witnesses by the appellant in this regard.The contention of the appellant that the deceased died due to lack of medical aid and lack of care by his attendants do not found support from any material on record.Post Mortem report (Ex. PW 15/A) as noticed below does not support the appellant."After piercing the skin and subcutaneous tissues over 4 buttock, it pierces the left lateral wall of rectum then came out of the anterior wall of rectum and peritoneum and enter the pelvic cavity.Rectal vessels are found cut on the way on its way moving upwards and medially it perforates the ileum at multiple places about 10 cm proximal to the illiocecal junction with the contents of ileum and rectum are leaking into the peritoneal cavity mesentry and mesenteric vessels are also found cut on the way.Tract of wound: about 12 cm long.Direction of tract: from back to forward, upwards and medially."JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA DEEPA SHARMA, J:The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24th November, 2010 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and also against the order dated 29th November, 2010 by which the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, CRL.A.87/2011 Page 1 of 33 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 1 of 33The autopsy doctor found the following four injuries on the dead body:-a) Incised wound stitched 2.2 cm X 0.5 cm obliquely placed over the left hip, its margin being clean cut with extravasation of blood seen over the margin, the upper end of the wound being pointed and 10 cm below the sacral promontory and lower end being blunt, 83 cm above the left heel pad, the midpoint being 4 cm left to the natal cleft.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 5 of 33CRL.A.87/2011 Page 5 of 33Kailashwati (PW-2), mother of the deceased made a statement which was recorded wherein she had stated that her son had told her that there were three assailants who had picked up quarrel with him and caused injuries by hitting him with legs and CRL.A.87/2011 Page 6 of 33 fists and that he was stabbed by the appellant on his way to toilet.During investigation, it was found that the incident was witnessed by one Babbi Singh (PW-1), another local resident of the same slum cluster.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 6 of 33The appellant was arrested on 29th October, 2007 vide arrest memo (Ex. PW 13/B).The appellant made a disclosure statement (Ex. PW 15/F) admitting his involvement and also giving the information that the knife used by him in the incident was lying in his jhuggi which he could get recovered.The clothes of the deceased and the weapon of offence along with blood sample preserved during autopsy were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).The reports Ex. PX-1 and PX-2 were received.Blood of human origin was detected on the knife (P1), Trousers (P-3) and Underwear (P-4).The blood group however could not be ascertained.Prosecution has examined 15 witnesses.The alleged eye witness Babbi Singh, PW 1 has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.The learned trial Judge, during the course of arguments, on the question about the propriety of the procedure adopted by ASI Dev Raj (PW-9) and Inspector Babulal, (PW-14) during investigation, recalled both the witnesses and questioned them.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 8 of 33Relying on the testimony of the mother of the deceased and CRL.A.87/2011 Page 9 of 33 treating the statement of the deceased made to his mother and his statement (PW 9/A basis of recording FIR) the learned trial court had reached to the conclusion that it was the appellant who had caused the injury no.1 on the person of the deceased.The learned trial court has also relied on the Post Mortem Report (Ex. PW 15/A) wherein the doctor has opined that the injury no. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The ld.Trial Court has also relied on the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. the knife (P1) from the house of the appellant pursuant of his disclosure statement and the opinion of the doctor that injury no.1 has been caused either by P1 or any other weapon of the same nature.The findings of FSL whereby human blood was detected on P1 (knife), has also been relied upon while holding the accused guilty of the offence of murder.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 9 of 33The appellant has challenged the said verdict on various grounds.The first and foremost argument of learned counsel of the CRL.A.87/2011 Page 10 of 33 appellant is that the appellant is not involved in this offence and is innocent and falsely implicated and secondly that on the facts of the case no offence of murder has been made out and thus the conviction under Section 302 IPC is bad in law.It was culpable homicide.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 14 of 33The cause of death of Laxman were the injuries received by him on 22.10.2007 by appellant/accused.In order to prove that the appellant had caused the injuries including injury No. 1 upon the person of Laxman (deceased), the testimony of the mother of the deceased Laxman and statement of deceased (PW 9/A) are material and relevant evidence.From the statement of PW-9, the investigation officer, it is apparent that when he reached at the spot on the basis of information received from PCR, the injured Laxman was present near the public toilet with his mother (PW2).In cross-examination of PW 9 and PW2, presence of mother of deceased Laxman with him after incident is not disputed.There is ample evidence which prove that she had accompanied her son (injured) to hospital and brought him back CRL.A.87/2011 Page 15 of 33 to home from there.The presence of the mother with the injured at the place of occurrence thus stands proved.However, PW 2 is not an eye witness.She has stated that she reached at the spot as soon as she learned that her son had been stabbed.She has clearly deposed that she was present in her house and on hearing the news that her son had been stabbed near the public toilet, she reached there and saw her son bleeding from his buttock and having wound on right eye-brow and forehead.She was, therefore, possibly the first known person who met her son and it was natural for the injured to narrate the incident to his mother.The factum of fight between appellant and Laxman stands proved by the fact that PCR had received the information from mobile no. 9910276881 regarding this fight which it recorded vide Ex. PW11/A .PW9 ASI Dev Raj who reached at spot, removed the injured to hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW9/A. PW9 ASI Dev Raj also recorded statement of mother of Laxman who has clearly stated that Laxman told him that he was stabbed by Teda.(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.He was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital where he died and his death summary was prepared and is proved as PW12/A. Dr. Aryan Bansal had counter signed the death summary and deposed that the condition of Laxman deteriorated and he became serious and died on 24 th October, 2007 at 7.30 am.Thereafter, the post-mortem of the dead body of Laxman was done.The doctor has also opined that injury no. 1 and its correspondent internal injuries have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 22 of 33The MLC describe injury No. 1 as 2 cm CIW over left hip muscle deep and the post mortem report also shows the same diameter of external injury at the same place.No other injury on the hip or any other part of the body has been found which CRL.A.87/2011 Page 23 of 33 according to the doctor's opinion was fatal.At the time of post mortem, the doctor also found an injury on the shoulder of the deceased.It was treated as a minor injury and Laxman was discharged after first aid.This was a lapse, and a serious one.Although the injuries were found stitched by doctors of Hindu Rao Hospital, there is no record of the stitching in BJR Hospital.The injury, it is apparent went inside the body of the deceased and had damaged vital organs.There is no doubt that injury no. 1 mentioned in the post-mortem report is the same injury no. 1 mentioned in the MLC of the deceased which has proved fatal.However, it is also apparent, that Laxman after first aid/ treatment was satisfied with his recovery.He too did not feel that the said injury was life threatening.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 23 of 33CRL.A.87/2011 Page 24 of 33CRL.A.87/2011 Page 24 of 33It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the injury no. 1 shown in Ex. PW 15/A was not the immediate cause of death but the deceased had died due to lack of care by the attendants of the deceased and lack of proper treatment at the hospital.Let us examine the evidence on record and see if this argument finds some support even by preponderance.Moreover, the post mortem report (Ex.PW15/A) shows the track of the wounds as under:-CRL.A.87/2011 Page 25 of 33CRL.A.87/2011 Page 25 of 33This apparently shows that a very deep injury of the depth of about 12 cm had been caused and also in such a manner that it had damaged several internal vital organs.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence of murder under Section 300 (3) of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that act of the appellant had intended to cause bodily injury and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The CRL.A.87/2011 Page 26 of 33 prosecution thus is required to prove that the appellant had intended to cause bodily injury No. 1 on person of Laxman which as discussed above was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 26 of 33Although, the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant was the perpetrator but the question remains whether injury No. 1 it was the intended injury.The statement of deceased (Ex. PW 9/A) (then an injured) shows that a fight had ensued between the deceased and the appellant and his co-accused at the time when the deceased was going to the toilet.He was interrupted by the appellant and the appellant made an enquiry from the deceased as to where was he going.Upon that the deceased asked the appellant to mind his own business.It was at this time that there was a fight and the deceased (then injured) was beaten by the appellant and it was in this fight that he received injury.The call made to the PCR and recorded in the PCR vide Ex. PW 11/A shows that the information of incident CRL.A.87/2011 Page 27 of 33 was that of a quarrel.The evidence shows that there was a long standing enmity between the families of the two brothers (A-1 and PW-2).Neither Purushottam Reddy nor PW-1 and PW-2 were armed with any weapon.For the foregoing reasons, we convict the appellant for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.By order dated 29th November, 2010, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC by the trial court.This court has now convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under CRL.A.87/2011 Page 31 of 33 Section 304 IPC -'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'.From the nominal roll of the appellant, it is apparent that he has been in judicial custody since 30th October, 2007 till date which includes the under trial period from 30th October, 2007 to 29th November, 2010 and from 30th November, 2010 till date, he has been in judicial custody as a convict.He, therefore, is in judicial custody for the total period of about 6 years and 10 months approximately.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 31 of 33Keeping in mind all the facts and circumstances of the case, we sentenced the accused for the period already undergone by him for the offence under Section 304 IPC -'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'.The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for compliance and to supply the same to the appellant.CRL.A.87/2011 Page 32 of 33CRL.A.87/2011 Page 32 of 33A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court.(DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE JULY 22 , 2014 sapna CRL.A.87/2011 Page 33 of 33CRL.A.87/2011 Page 33 of 33

['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']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The complainant is the daughter of the petitioner herein.ORDER Somasundaram, J.The accused is the petitioner herein.The petition is to quash the proceedings in C. O, No. 2828 of 1948 on the file of the Special Honorary Magistrate of Egmore,There were some misunder-standing between her husband and her father over some money transaction and when a claim was made for the return of the moneys alleged to have been advanced by the complainant, the petitioner herein wrote a letter to his daughter in which he has stated that as he has got only old and torn shoes he has placed an order for better ones and that as soon as he gets them he will send them over to her and her husband.He also stated that old ones may not be satisfactory and therefore he was arranging to send new shoes.On this, the complainant's husband as her power of attorney agent, has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence Under Section 504, Penal Code.The petitioner has filed this revision petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that prima facie the contents of his letter to his daughter would not constitute an offence Under Section 604, Penal Code.This letter was written from Vellore where the petitioner resides to his daughter at Madras.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The first respondent executed the loan documents and the respondents 4 and 5 guaranteed the repayment of the loan.However, the loan was not repaid and on 25.1.1991, the SIPCOT issued foreclosure notice.On 30.4.1996, the SIPCOT invoked the powers under Sec.29 of the State Financial corporation Act (hereinafter called SFC Act) and took possession of the factory and mortgaged property.The property was sold and the sale amount was appropriated.Still there was a balance of a sum of Rs.4,89,14,379/-payable by the borrower.Therefore, SIPCOT filed a petition under Sec.31(1)(aa) of SFC Act before the District Court, Krishnagiri.The respondent/borrowers contested the claim and the main contention was that the claim made under Sec.31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act is barred by limitation.A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General, appeared for Mrs.Narmada Sampath, counsel for the appellant.On the other hand under Sec.31(1) the financial corporation has to approach the District Judge for the same relief as provided under Sec.29 but by filing an application.

['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

This Criminal Revision assails the order dated 19.05.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 70/2014 whereby the order passed in Criminal Case No. 987/10 has been confirmed sentencing the petitioners no. 1 and 2 Kanhai Ram and Mukesh respectively u/S. 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to Three-Three years RI with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for rival parties are heard.Record be requisitioned.Let the case be listed for hearing after record is received.Certified copy as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge ar

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The land bearing survey No.8833/4, 833/3/3, 838/3 & 866/1, total area 2.160 hectare was owned by housing co- operative society known as Vidyut Grah Nirmaan Sahkaari Sansthaa Maryadit, Dewas.In a liquidation proceeding the aforesaid land was put to auction by the Official Liquidator Shri R.L Parmar.Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of FIR dated 06.02.2020 registered as Crime No.96/2020 against him for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC at Police Station City Kotwali, Dewas.In a liquidation proceeding vide registered sale deed dated 23.06.2009 the aforesaid land was sold to one Dilip Parmar by way of auction proceedings.Thereafter vide registered sale deed dated 26.12.2009 Dilip Parmar sold the aforesaid entire land to the present petitioner.-2- WP No.3915/2020 petitioner presented the said sale deed before the Tahsildar and his name was mutated in the revenue record.Thereafter he filed an application seeking diversion of the aforesaid land to be used for non residential purpose and vide order dated 03.05.2010 the Deputy Director has granted permission for diversion.Thereafter vide order dated 19.07.2010 the SDO, Revenue has diverted the land and also assessed the premium amount and the lease rent.Petitioner presented the sale deed for registration before the Collector of Stamps and vide order dated 24.07.2010 the Collector of Stamps found deficiency of stamp duty and after assessment directed the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp duty of Rs.5,45,899/- within 30 days.The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Commissioner and vide order dated 11.06.2013 the appeal was dismissed.Thereafter, he preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and vide order dated 03.02.2014 the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Collector of Stamps and affirmed the valuation of the land mentioned in the sale deed.The State Govt. has now preferred a writ petition against the aforesaid order before this Court which is still pending.According to the petitioner, because of all these disputes he has not developed the land and same is still lying as barren land.Meanwhile, Dr.Komalchand and Mahindra Kumar Jain filed a civil suit on 09.09.2009 before the Ist Additional District Judge challenging both the saleVide judgment dated 29.07.2016 the Ist Additional District Judge has declared both the sale deeds as null and void and directed them to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the present petitioner has preferred first appeal No.873/2016 which is also pending before this Court.Vide order dated 07.02.2018 this Court has granted status quo in respect of possession of the suit property.5. SDO-cum-District Magistrate, Dewas vide letter dated 05.02.2020 requested the SHO, P.S, City Kotwali, Dewas to register an FIR against the petitioner alleging that he got mutated his name and got the order of diversion on the basis of forged unregistered sale deed.On the basis of the aforesaid letter the respondent No.4 has directly registered an FIR for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC against the present petitioner and started investigation.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid registration of FIR petitioner has approached this Court challenging the jurisdiction of the SDO as well as the SHO in registering the FIR against him.Vide order dated 19.02.2020 this Court directed the Govt. Advocate to call the case diary as the petitioner is seeking quashment of the FIR in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.If there was any illegality in the sale between the Official Liquidator and Dilip Parmar the petitioner was not aware about it.He purchased the property after verifying the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC as he has not committed any cheating or forgery.The respondents be directed to file a detail reply and meanwhile the petitioner may be protected from arrest and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation.After investigation the Police may submit a closure report or may file final report.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 1.12.2017 in connection with Amta P.S case no. 199/17 dated 28.5.2016 under section 448/354B/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, And Allowed In Re : Shantanu Roy @ Pacha @ Santanu ...... petitioner Mr. R. Mukherjee ...... for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Sujata Das ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the State.Petitioner is in custody for about 54 days and it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Having considered the materials in the case diary and bearing in mind the nature of allegations and the period of detention suffered by him, we are inclined in granting bail to the petitioner.Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Uluberia, Howrah on condition that the 2 petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and he shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event he fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court.The application being CRM 12123 of 2017 is disposed of.(Rajarshi Bhardwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard Sri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Janardan Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite no.2, learned AGA for State and perused the record.The instant application has been moved for transferring the Complaint Case No.190 of 2016, Bhagwan Shankar Sharma Vs.Smt. Geeta Devi and others, under section 406 IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh to the competent Court in District Ghaziabad.Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record and considering the fact of pendency of two cases at Ghaziabad as well as convenience of applicant, a lady, I find that there is sufficient ground for transferring the case from Aligarh to Ghaziabad.The transfer application is allowed.The Complaint Case No.190 of 2016, Bhagwan Shankar Sharma Vs.Smt. Geeta Devi and others, under section 406 IPC is transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh to the competent Court of Magistrate in Sessions Division, Ghaziabad The Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad is requested to transfer the Complaint Case No.190 of 2016 Bhagwan Shankar Sharma Vs.Office is directed to communicate this order to Sessions Judge, Aligarh and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad for ascertaining necessary compliance.Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Tamang

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

No.28 (Allowed) C.R.M. 5393 of 2019 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25/06/2019 in connection with Lake Town P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019 dated 03/03/2019 under Sections 448/354D/323/354/325/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Ramanuj Chatterjee @ Atosh Chatterjee ....petitioner.In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that he shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The appellant Daya Shankar Giri has preferred this appeal against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ballia on 20.12.2012 in S.T. No. 3A of 2009 (State vs. Daya Shankar and others), registered as Case Crime No. 28 of 2008, under Sections 376, 313, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phephana, District Ballia, whereby the accused appellant was convicted for 10 years R.I. and Rs. 5000/- as fine under Section 376 I.P.C., for 10 years R.I. and Rs. 5000/- as fine under Section 313 I.P.C. and for 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 506 Sub Clause (2) I.P.C. with default stipulation.All the sentences were to run concurrently.The prosecution case as unfolded is that, a written report was lodged by Nirmala Devi written by Shamsher Giri stating that she is resident of Police Station Phephana, District Ballia.Her daughter Ranjana Giri aged about 17 years was taken away by the accused, 3 to 4 months prior to 28.02.2008 and committed rape on her.When the victim came back to her house and narrated the whole story, the complainant went to the house of the accused to rebuke him but Daya Shankar Giri, Kamal Giri and Kripa Shankar Giri threatened to murder the complainant and said that her husband was a lunatic and she should stay away.They further said that they had nobody to take care of them and they were beggars, if they tried to lodge the case, they would be murdered.The complainant kept quiet since she was helpless.Her daughter got pregnant due to rape committed by Daya Shankar Giri.When the complainant revealed this fact to her neighbours, they asked Daya Shankar Giri about the matter.At this Daya Shankar Giri threatened to kill them too.On 23.02.2008, Daya Shankar Giri carried away Ranjana Giri at 07:00 P.M. to some unknown place at Ballia and got her fetus aborted.The complainant kept tracing her daughter, and on 24.02.2008, the accused Daya Shankar left the victim at the door of the house of the complainant and said that he had got the child aborted.The victim was having health problem due to abortion who was on the verge of death.She was admitted in the Government Hospital and the report was lodged.On the basis of this report, the case was registered as Case Crime No. 28 of 2008, under Sections 376, 313, 504 and 506 I.P.C. in the presence of S.I. Dilawar Hussain PW-6 to whom investigation was entrusted.On 06.03.2008, vegorous search was made for the accused.On 07.05.2008, the statement of the victim was got recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Some witnesses had filed the affidavits which were copied in the case diary.This witness proved the chick report and copy of G.D. as Exhibit Ka-6 and Exbibit Ka-7 respectively.The prosecution examined seven witnesses.PW-2 is victim Ranjana Giri.PW-3 is Rama Devi who is said to be an eye witness regarding certain matters.PW-5 is Dr. R.N. Upadhyay under whose treatment also the victim was kept.After examining seven witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence.The statement of Daya Shankar was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which while denying the allegations, he has stated that Babban Giri has got the case falsely registered against him and he is getting the case prosecuted by giving money to the prosecutrix.No defence witness was examined.After hearing the counsel for the parties, learned lower court has passed the impugned sentences which are under challenge in this appeal.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the original record.The following points were raised before this Court which needs consideration :-* (ii) That all the witnesses are related witnesses whose evidences are fully unreliable.* (iii) The complainant and the scribe are inimical to the accused.* (iv) The medical evidence and the ocular evidence are contradictory to each other.(i) + (iii) That the F.I.R. is delayed and the complainant and the scribe are inimical to the accused:-It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the first information report is delayed and in case the first information report is delayed it raises a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.The first information report is the backbone of a criminal case and the police machinery is set into motion as soon as the first information is lodged.In 2012 Cr.L.J. 2713 (Mahesh and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) it has been held that it is established law that so far as the first information report is concerned, it is only a report submitted informing the police about the commission of the crime.It is not required that the first information report should contain a detailed and vivid description of the entire incident.Further it cannot be expected that the informant to give each and every minute details of the incident in the first information report as the first information report is not an encyclopedia of the prosecution case.In the present case, according to the chick report, the occurrence took place about 3 to 4 months prior to the lodging of the first information report which was lodged on 28.02.2008 at 16:10 hrs.The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being 4 Kms.Now it has to be seen, whether any explanation has been given by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the first information report and whether the said delay is reasonable in the peculiar facts of the case.As far as Exhibit Ka-1, the first information in this matter is concerned it relates to two occurrences.The first one is when the prosecutrix was lifted by the accused and was raped and the second was on 23.02.2008 when the victim was taken by the accused and her pregnancy was got terminated.In the report, the informant being mother of the prosecutrix has specifically stated that after the victim was raped, she came back to her house and told her mother about everything.At this her mother went to the house of the accused but the accused threatened her, hence, she kept mum due to fear.As far as the second incident dated 23.02.2008 is concerned, she has stated that the accused dropped the victim at her house on the next day i.e. 24.02.2008 and told her not to reveal this fact to anybody since she had got the girl aborted.PW-1 Nirmala is the only witness who had explained about the delay in lodging the first information report.PW-1 Nirmala has said that 22 months prior to her statement, the accused took away her daughter and raped her.Her daughter returned weeping and told her all the incident happened with her.At this, PW-1 Nirmala went to the house of Daya Shankar where she was threatened, hence she kept mum due to fear.We cannot loose sight of the fact that generally, in cases of rape the parents are hesitant in lodging the first information report due to fear being caused to the reputation of the family because in rape cases, the conscious and personality of a lady are shattered and in the rural background also it is thought that a victim of rape would not be capable to show her face in the society.But in this particular case, the complainant kept mum not for the reputation of her family but she said that she kept mum due to fear and threaten to her life.For a moment, keeping a side this explanation, coming to the incident of 23.02.2008 when the accused again took away the victim who was returned and dropped her at the door of her house on 24.02.2008 but again the informant did not lodge the report and from 24.02.2008 to 28.02.2008, she waited for what, is not clear from the record.Thus, according to the informant, due to fear, she did not report both the matters to the police.The feeling of self-preservation is generally carried by the people but repeated injury to the reputation and self-respect and physical violence with a young daughter should not have been tolerable to the informant.The question mark has also been raised about the authenticity of the first information report inasmuch as the first information report is said to have been written by one Shamsher Giri son of Babban Giri who is said to be inimical with the accused.PW-1 Nirmala has stated that she dictated the report to Shamsher Giri but contradicting herself, she has stated that she had lodged the report at the police station after getting it scribed by an advocate.She had narrated the occurrence to an advocate who has scribed the report.She put her thumb impression and the thumb impression of her daughter on the report and presented it at the police station.Now this statement of PW-1 is contradictory to the documents on record because the first information report has been scribed by Shamsher son of Babban.The victim has stated in cross-examination that she does not know Shamsher son of Babban and according to her knowledge, there is no person named as Shamsher in her village.PW-1 Nirmala has stated that she is ignorant about any litigation between Babban Giri father of the scribe and the accused.Thus, shadow of doubt has been cast on the first information report itself.Whereas PW-2 the prosecutrix has admitted that there is enmity between her family and the family of the accused inasmuch as civil and revenue litigation were pending between both the parties.(ii) That all the witnesses are related witnesses whose evidences are fully unreliable :-A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime.Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge.It is to be emphasized that rape posses the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can definitely cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well.The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication.Coming to the evidence of the star witness PW-2 Ranjana Giri, she has stated that on the fateful day when she was going from her house two years prior to her statement, to buy chili, the accused Daya Shankar hung her and took her to his house, where nobody was present.the accused raped her in his house.Presently, I am dealing with only the offence of rape, regarding which in cross-examination PW-2 Ranjana Giri has stated that since she is illiterate, she has no knowledge of the directions but in her next breath contradicting herself she has stated that towards the south of the house of Daya Shankar, the house of Bhaiya Ji was situated who was also called as Bhuvneshwar.she has again specified the direction of the room and said that she was raped in a room which was situated towards the south of the entrance.As regards the rape is concerned, the prosecutrix PW-2 has stated that her panty was stained with blood.She was raped for half an hour but she did not sustain any injury except an abrasion but contradicting her daughter PW-1 Nirmala has stated that at the time of occurrence, her daughter has not wearing a panty.No doubt, she could be ignorant of this fact but she could have shown her ignorance but specifically stating that her daughter has not wearing a panty whereas the victim has stated that she had worn a panty, is a major contradiction between the statements of the mother and the daughter.PW-2 the prosecutrix has further stated that she had shown the place of occurrence to the I.O. whereas PW-1 Nirmala has stated that neither she nor any member of the family has shown the place of occurrence to the I.O.Again contradicting her mother PW-2 the victim has stated that she and her mother keep mum on the incident of rape due to her reputation.PW-3 Rama Devi who has given the hearsay evidence is an interested and related witness.She has stated in her statement that the informant Nirmala PW-1 is her younger Deorani.She has stated that she has not seen the occurrence but has stated what was told to her.Thus, the rape being committed on a girl by a man of 65 years of age continuously for half an hour, would definitely cause injury to the victim.In this case, there was no injury on the body of the victim as admitted by her except an abrasion.Although she has admitted that she was raped on the floor and no cloth was under her when she was being raped.Thus, the story of rape does not stand proved.Coming to the other incident, which has said to have taken place on 23.02.2008 when it is said that the prosecutrix being pregnant was taken away by jeep by the accused and the fetus of victim was aborted, again does not stand proved from the evidence of PW-2 inasmuch as PW-2 has stated that three months after the incident of rape the accused took her by a jeep to Ballia and said that she had problem in her abdomen, he would get her treated.At this pretext, he took her to an unknown place where an unknown lady gave an injection to the victim and when she became unconscious the child was aborted.It appears that when the prosecutrix and her mother came to know about the pregnancy of the victim, the whole story was built up.PW-1 has stated that due to rape by the accused, the prosecutrix got pregnant.When PW-3 and other went to the accused to scold him for that, all of them have threatened.What was the reason why the mother of the victim did not inform the police when the second time her pregnant daughter was picked up by same accused who had committed rape on her.A daughter is generally supposed to be close to her mother.Prosecutrix PW-2 has further stated that she was admitted in the hospital because she was suffering from abdominal pain.The statement of I.O. PW-6 Dilawar Hussain is very interesting who has stated that the place of occurrence was identified to him by the complainant.He has further stated that he did not inquire about the clothes of the victim and during the complete investigation, he could not find out as to who had aborted the victim.This was a revision against the order passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C., 29-Kha is copy of application, 30-Kha is copy of complaint, 31-Kha is copy of application, 32-Kha is copy of judgment in which the present appellant is the accused and the father of the scribe Babban Giri was informant, 33-Kha is copy of the order passed by S.D.M., Ballia dated 13.06.2011 which go to prove the enmity between the father of the scribe and the accused person.But surprisingly none of these public documents have been marked as exhibits.All the above circumstances if taken cumulatively, go to prove that the evidence of the prosecutrix is wholly unreliable, not worthy of credit and thus the whole prosecution story falls down like heap of cards.(iv) The medical evidence and the ocular evidence are contradictory to each other :-Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that some medical evidences have been produced to show that after abortion, some pieces of the body of the child were left in the uterus of the victim, due to which she was suffering from abdominal pain.PW-4 Dr. S.P. Rai who has conducted the check up of the victim, has referred her to gynecologist.PW-5 is Dr. R. N. Upadhyay has stated that the victim was suffering from abdominal pain because during abortion, some part of the body of the child were left in her uterus, which were visible in the ultrasound plates.PW-7 is Dr. Prabha Shankar Walia who conducted the ultrasound and found that some part of the body of the child and blood clots were present in the uterus of the victim but she has specifically stated that Dr. S.P. Rai had not referred the matter to her.It is reported as Exhibit Ka-8 in which the uterus was found bulky anteverted uterus containing abortus with mild amount of free fluid seen in pouch of douglus, possiblity of uterine perforation.This goes to show that definitely abortion took place and pieces of the body of the child were found in the uterus of the victim but who aborted the victim or who forcibly aborted her is not on record.A stray statement was given by the prosecutrix that she was taken in a jeep to Ballia by the accused and she was aborted there, would not be sufficient to prove the evidence against the accused under Section 313 I.P.C. Thus, the medical and the ocular evidence are contradictory to each other.No doubt it is settled law that in such situation reliance should be placed on the ocular evidence but in the present case, the ocular evidence is itself shaky, unbelievable and unworthy of credit.The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, as such the accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Hence the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2012 passed by Additional sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ballia, in Sessions Trial No. 3A/2009 is hereby set aside.Accordingly the appeal is allowed.The trial court sat as a spectator when the statement of the prosecutrix was being recorded, because her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not at all put to her.Besides the defence filed a bunch of public documents vide 27-Kha to 46-Kha but the trial court did not bother to take care of this matter.The trial court was expected to handle the file in a systematic way.Ex. Ka1, Ex. Ka2, Ex. Ka3 etc. and the documents admitted on behalf of the defence with the letter Kha followed by a numeral, thus-Ex. Kha1, Ex. Kha2, Ex. Kha3 etc;(c) In the same manner every material exhibits admitted in evidence shall be marked with numerals in serial order, thus-Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3, etc.

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Shri Jitendra Singh Kushwaha, Advocate for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 17.6.2014 in connection with Crime No.66/2014 registered at Police Station Daboh, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294, 506-B/34 and section 302 of 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.It was alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the complainant by stick, however, no fatal injury was found on his person.Therefore, prima facie no offence under section 307 of IPC has been made out against the applicant.There is no allegation against the applicant that he assaulted deceased-Virendra by any weapon.Deceased-Virendra died due to head injury and as per the allegations such injury was caused by co-accused Shishu Pal and Pushpendra.Actually Virendra has intervene in the scene of crime, and therefore there was no intention of anybody to kill him.Hence, common intention of the applicant cannot be presumed with the main accused.No offence under section 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section M.Cr.C.No.6118/2014(Narendra Singh Vs.State of M.P.) 2 34 of IPC.Remaining offences are not so grave.The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Narendra singh may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court Lahar, to appear before the committal Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.M.Cr.C.No.6118/2014(Narendra Singh Vs.State of M.P.) 3

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

C.No.680/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.[2] Brief facts of this case are that prosecutrix lodged report on 24.01.2017 at Police Station Meghnagar, District Jhabua averting that appellant sexually exploited her for two years in the pretext of marriage.He also gifted her one mobile phone valued Rs.10,000/-.Her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 13.02.2005 in Baran (Rajasthan) and after marriage she resided with the applicant in his house at Kota (Rajasthan), but the behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.Respondent No.1 has no means of earning and she is not able to maintain herself and her minor sons.There he threatened deceased's mother to lodge court case against deceased.Nine or Ten days later, on 21/05/2016 deceased Firoz telephoned her daughter Roshney and applicant No.3 but applicant No. 2 did not let deceased talk with his wife applicant No.3 and daughter Roshni, due to which deceased Firoz committed suicide by consuming poison at his house in Alote.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of charge- sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case No.2130/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C., Indore for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of the IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, on 09.01.2013 respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore that she had known the applicant since 2009 both liked to each other so they married on 04.07.2012 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Indore and started living together at Nehru Nagar, Janta Quarter, Indore.The respondent No.2 was teacher at that time so she used to come to Satwas.After marriage they lived happily for two months, but from 15.09.2012 her husband started beating and abusing her and also demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) and on 07.10.2012 her husband and his family members were going to engage her husband with Usha Rathore, then she informed Usha Rathore that she is the wife of Mukesh and applicant and his family members are trying to get her married to him by fraud.Thereafter Usha Rathore's family refused to do the engagement.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered.During investigation it was found that applicant ill treated deceased Firoz.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant before the trial court averting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant.But, since marriage the behaviour of applicant and his family members was not good with her.After marriage she lived with her husband only for one & half year .Later applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her from there.Respondent is handicapped and is not able to maintain herself.Applicant is having 13 Bigha agriculture land situated at Village Utavad, Tehsil and District Dhar from which applicant earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum.But since marriage behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.They demanded dowry and for that subjected her to cruelty.Shri R.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Ishak Kha.Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.1628/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Ishak Kha S/o Rajjak Kha for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, Distt.Ujjain in ST No.6/15 and grant of bail.[2] Appellant No.3 Ishak Kha has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation respectively.[3] As per prosecution story, on 25.09.2014, complainant Bhadar Khan and his younger brother Mubarik came to Bargundaseri Badnagar Cattle Haat for selling a cow.At 9.30 a.m., appelland Ishak and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber came there and abused Mubarik.Javed assaulted Mubarik by knife on his throat.When Bhadar Kha tried to rescue him, Ishak and Zuber caught hold Bhadar Kha and Azad inflicted knife blow on his left palm and Javed also beated him by stick.On hearing the hue and cry Mehboob Kha, Mohd. Azhar, Irfan Kha came to rescue them, then accused ran away.On the report of complainant Bhadar Kha, Crime No.403/14 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber for the offence under Section 307, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Badnagar.[4] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statements of so called eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) are not reliable.Hearing of the appeal will take time, so sentence awarded by the Trial Court be suspended and appellant Ishak be released on bail.[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is clearly proved that at the time of incident appellant Ishak was present at the spot and also took part in the incident.Learned Trial Court after evaluating all the evidence rightly convicted applicant Ishak and prays for rejection.[6] From the statements of eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) it is clear that appellant Ishak was also present on the spot at the time of incident along with other co-accused and took active part in the incident in which Mubarik was murdered and Bhadar Kha (PW-1) also sustained injuries.So we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting bail to appellant No.3 Ishak.Hence, prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected.[7] The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Civil Revision No.46/2017 15.03.2017 Shri V.P. Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.None present for the respondent.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani in Civil Suit No.1400037/2016, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.1400037/2016 before the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani seeking declaration and injunction with the averment that suit property was purchased by him in the name of his sister late Sardar Bi D/o Dildar Khan on 04.02.1988 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. on which he did some construction.In the year 2012 Khurshid Bi wrongly got her name recorded on the said plot in the Municipal Register and sold that plot by registered sale deed dated 28.02.2012 to applicants No.1 & 2 without any legal right.So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit plot and in alternate plaintiff also sought relief that if learned court finds Sardar Bi owner of suit plot then it be declared that plaintiff is having half share in the suit plot as heir of Sardar Bi and applicants No.1 & 2 also be directed to not to interfere in his possession on suit plot.Although plaintiff also sought other alternative relief, but which is contradictory.So plaintiff is also not entitled for that alternative relief.Plaintiff also did not value the suit property according to value of sale deed, challenged by the plaintiff' in the suit.So suit is rejected.[4] Plaintiff/respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 17.02.2017 rejected the prayer observing that the objection raised by the applicant cannot be decided without recording evidence.Plaintiff is not a party to that sale deed against which plaintiff sought cancellation.So he is not bound to valued his suit according to value of that sale deed.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent clearly pleaded in his suit that the suit property was purchased by him in the name of Late Sardar Bi.So it is not a case where plaint could be rejected on the ground raised by the applicants at this stage.Hence, the Civil Revision is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar passed in Criminal Revision No.119/2016 whereby learned A.S.J., Manawar rejected the applicant's criminal Revision and maintained the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar wherein learned judge had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of Tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 and trolley attached to it seized by the Police on 23.07.2016 in Crime No.462/16 registered at P.S. Manawar for the offences under section 379 IPC and Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996( hereinafter referred to as rules).[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garage, on the way, near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR, Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Rule 53 of M.P.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involved in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal had prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against this applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Dhar also rejected that Criminal Revision observing that according to Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 intimation is necessary to invoke the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class for granting vehicle into custody but no intimation was sent by the authority under Rule 53 Sub Rule 3 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules.So, learned Magistrate has not committed any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules come into play when the vehicle is seized by the authority mentioned in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 but said vehicle was seized by the police.Even otherwise, it is clear from the record that police who seized the said vehicle also sent intimation regarding seizure of that vehicle to the Magistrate.So learned Additional Sessions Judge committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's Revision only on the ground that no information was sent by the authority to the concerned Magistrate.[4] Likewise learned Judicial Magistrate First Class also committed mistake in rejecting the application only on the ground that National Green Tribunal had imposed ban on mining activities as National Green Tribunal imposed ban only on mining activities and not on transportation of sand, therefore, transportation of sand does not come under ban imposed by the National Green tribunal.Even otherwise whether said vehicle was carrying illegal sand or not is a matter of evidence which cannot be ascertained without evidence at this stage and shall be decided by the court at the time of judgment of the case.[6] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.[7] It appears from the record that when learned Trial Court rejected the application of applicant charge-sheet had not been filed, but now charge-sheet has been filed so petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of filing of fresh application by the applicant before the Trial Court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for getting said vehicle in custody the Trial Court will decide that application according to law without taking notice of his earlier order.A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Trial Court for compliance.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1238/2013 15.03.2017 Shri Nitendra Vajpai, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.870/2017, an application to replace the surety gives in the High Court in the matter of Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in compliance of this Court's order dated 19.02.2014 applicant's surety was given by Smt. Saroj Singh on her plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.Now, Smt. Saroj wants loan on that property that's why she may be permitted to give surety on commercial shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain in place of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.After due consideration, prayer is allowed.She be permitted to give surety of appellant on shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain instead of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain and C.J.M., Ujjain is directed to permit the surety of appellant Smt. Saroj Singh to replace the property on which she earlier given surety of appellant.But, it is made clear that earlier property of surety only be discharged when CJM is satisfied with the property on which Smt. Saroj Singh wants to give new surety.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) ns Judge M.A.No.2308/2014 15.03.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 are avoiding service and they remained ex parte before the lower court and were not interested to contest the claim application.So, service of respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be dispensed with.Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the trial court, so IA No.742/2017 is allowed.Service of notice to the respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1202/2014 15.03.2017 Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appeal is already admitted, so list the appeal for final hearing in due course.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1723/2013 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file report regarding factum of death of appellant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.846/2012 15.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.558/2015 15.03.2017 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC.No.861/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1608/2015 15.03.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tejulal before this court.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tejulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R. No.80/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of order of Second Appeal.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.484/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file appropriate application regarding appearance of appellant No.2 Lakhan Singh.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.574/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Heard on IA No.4253/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 338 days.Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing the application.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.648/2016 15.03.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed along with recovery report after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A. No.57/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Praveen Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Harish Pal.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 20.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.97/2017 15.03.2017 Ms. Varunika Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded amount within one month.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.99/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Manish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for 7 days time to pay process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A. No.2086/2016 15.03.2017 Shri A.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1535/2016 15.03.2017 Shri P.K.Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after Three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1579/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3255/2016 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12192/2016 15.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Arguments heard.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 15.03.2017 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.72/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.194/2017 15.03.2017 Petitioner present in person.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.232/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Four weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1308/2017 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.286/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.13-A/2015, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent filed a Civil Suit No.13-A/2015 before the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain seeking declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant null and void, averting that he purchased one Maruti Car through invoice dated 08.01.2014 worth Rs.6,20,438/-.The applicant completed all the formalities of registration and insurance of the vehicle and delivered the car to him.Later on, it came to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner had prepared a new invoice dated 08.01.2014 for RTO purpose wherein there was change of Rs.26,998/- from the original invoice.That invoice was prepared for saving the tax and the petitioner had no right to prepare two invoices for one vehicle.So invoice of Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant on 24.08.2015 be declared null and void.The respondent valued his suit at Rs.5,51,232/- and paid a fixed court fees of Rs.1,000/-.[3] During trial of the suit Applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial court averting that applicant is bound to pay ad-valorem court fees on the valuation of Rs.5,51,232/-.[4] Respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 31.08.2015 rejected the prayer observing that applicant filed the suit only for seeking declaration, so the provisions of Article 17 of Schedule 2 of Court Fees Act are attracted according to which respondent is only bound to pay fix court fees and rejected the applicant's application.Being aggrieved with the order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent seeks a declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- null and void which has money value, so he is bound to pay ad valorem court fees on the valuation of suit.Respondent is not the party of that invoice, therefore, he is not bound pay ad valorem court fee on the suit value.[5] Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Sunil Radhelia and others V/s Awadh Narayan and others reported in I.L.R. (2010) M.P., 2454 held that, Court Fees Act (7) of 1870, 7 (iv) C and Article 17 Schedule II -- If plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, then ad valorem court-fee is not payable and he can claim declaration simpliciter from the court.In the instant case also Plaintiff neither executed nor is a signatory to the invoice which he wants to be declared null and void and claimed only the relief of declaration, So Plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee.Learned trial did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's prayer.So the revision has no force.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C.No.368/2014, whereby he rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from respondent.Since then she has been living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself, while respondent runs business of selling cloths and earns Rs.30,000/- per month and able to maintain her but is not doing so without any sufficient cause.So, respondent be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the applicant.Respondent in his reply denied the all allegations and averted that he and his family members never demanded any dowry from the applicant and respondent does not drink wine.Applicant herself threatened respondent to implicate him in false case as she did not want to live in Biaora.so she herself left respondent's house voluntarily without any sufficient cause and is living with her parents.Respondent tried to take her back but she refused.Applicant does sewing work and is able to maintain herself.On the other hand, respondent is an employee in a cloth shop and only earns Rs.2,500/- per month and is unable to maintain the applicant and pray for rejection.Learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties rejected the application observing that since applicant has been living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason, so she is not entitled to get maintenance.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that respondent and his family members demanded dowry from the applicant and subjected her to cruelty and owing to their ill-behaviour applicant was forced to live separately from the respondent.Learned trial court without appreciating the evidence only on the basis of some minor contradictions mistakenly disbelieving the statement of applicant and his Father Hari Om (PW-2) and wrongly assuming that applicant voluntarily lived separately from respondent rejected applicant's prayer.He also placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement passed in Deb Narayan Halder V/s.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.As far as trial court's finding that the applicant has no sufficient reason to live separately from respondent is concerned, although applicant had deposed that respondent's behaviour became bad with her after one and half months of marriage and that he used to beat her for dowry besides her father Hari Om (PW-2) also deposed that behaviour of respondent and his family members turned bad with applicant after one year of marriage and they demanded dowry and used to beat her and tell her that her father had not given them any cash at the time of marriage and demanded Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand due to which he brought his daughter back from her matrimonial house and that she has been living with him for the past two years during which respondent never came to take her back.But Applicant averted in the plaint that her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 03.04.2012 and that he expelled her from his house one year back from the date of filing of application i.e. 15.04.2014, which shows that applicant is living separately from 15.04.2013 meaning thereby that applicant lived with respondent only from 03.04.2012 to 15.04.2013 i.e. 1 year 12 days, while applicant herself averted in her application that behaviour of respondent and his family members was good with her upto one year from her marriage.So the statements of applicant and her father Hari Om regarding demand of dowry and ill-behavior of respondent and his family members becomes doubtful.Even regarding harassment and demand of dowry the statement of applicant and her father is contradictory.Applicant stated that respondent and his family members started torturing her only after 1 or 2 months of her marriage, while applicant's father stated that respondent started torturing his daughter after one year of marriage.Likewise Hari Om (PW-2) stated that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.1,25,000/-, while in the application it is mentioned that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and one Car.Applicant also stated that she does not remember the year or month or day her husband beated her.She filled report against respondent one year after returning from her parents' house.If respondent had demanded dowry and used to beat her and expelled her from his house after beating then she would have lodged the report of incident soon after the incident.So statements of applicant and her father Hari Om (PW2) that respondent and his family members used to beat her and demanded dowry are do not appear to be correct.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1381/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.R.No.313/2015 after two weeks.R.No.1510/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet and argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.A.No.554/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter along with service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9484/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.163/2014 10.03.2017 Learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks time to file affidavit.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2535/2017 10.03.2017 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1357/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet.Let the matter be listed 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8915/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after three weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5654/2015 10.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.164/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after second round.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.On 30.06.2016, learned counsel for the applicant was granted time to cure the defects, but till today counsel for the applicant has not cured the defects.Today, none present for the applicant even after second round.It appears that applicant does not want to prosecute this petition, therefore, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.744/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant Raghusingh on 06.03.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 15.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.11/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.581/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants No.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.Notice of respondents No.2 to 5 received unserved.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.431/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks three weeks' time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1271/2009 10.03.2017 None present for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Bailable warrant not received as yet.Office is directed to place the matter along with service report of bailable warrant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.54/2007 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Aviral Vikas, learned counsel for the respondents.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1373/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1270/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in S.T.No.344/2015, whereby learned A.S.J. framed charges against applicants under Sections 148 and 307/149 of IPC.[2] Brief facts which are relevant to this petition are that on 26.06.2015, at 11.30 p.m., when complainant Indersingh was satting on dice (chabutara) of Ram Mandir with his brother Liladhar and niece Dhirajsingh at Village Jabiya Gharwas, Kalapipal, applicants came there armed with farsi, lathi and rod and abused and beated Indersingh.Applicant Mansingh assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him while Mahendrasingh assaulted on his head by rod and Raghuveer Singh, Pappu and Santosh also beated him by lathi.When complainant's brother Leeladhar came to rescue him, Hindusingh also assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him and applicants Kapal Singh, Peer Singh and Raghuveer also beated him by lathi.Indersingh and Leeladhar sustained injuries on head and other body parts.On hearing hue & cry Praveen, Narendra Singh came there and tried to save them with the help of Dheerap Singh and admitted them in the hospital.On that report of injured Indersingh Crime No.250/2015 was registered at P.S. Kalapipal, District Shajapur under Section 307, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of IPC against the applicants and after investigation police filed charge-sheet against the applicants.On that charge-sheet ST No.344/2015 was registered and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur by order dated 05.08.2016 framed charges against applicants under 307/149 (in two counts) and 148 of IPC.Being aggrieved from that order applicants filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report injuries sustained by Indersingh and Leeladhar are simple in nature and not dangerous to life.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.46/2017 08.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellants.Let the matter be listed on any Wednesday after two weeks, as prayed.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2452/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.836/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9195/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.On 06.02.2017 none present for the applicant and today also none present for the applicant even after second round.It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1143/2014 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant and respondent No.1, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1267/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9829/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garrage, on the way near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Section 53 of M.P.Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 against Ganpat S/o Bhimsingh Bhilala.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involving in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against which applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3984/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed along with status report after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to supply the copy of judgment of trial court to the counsel for the respondent.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file affidavit of technical person, who is aware of the technology relating to the working of computer.Office is also directed to call for the status report of Criminal Case No.10053/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1119/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1187/2016 08.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12709/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch vide judgment dated 07.09.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003 convicted the accused for offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.Against that judgment applicant filed Cr.So, Jailor of District Jail, Neemuch be directed to release the accused.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during trial applicant remained in detention from 28.09.2005 to 05.03.2007 in other Sessions Case No.09/07 in Central Jail at Arthor Road Jail, Chinchpokli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).No written information regarding that detention has been received as yet from the said Jail.So applicant could not be released.[6] Considering the aforesaid, the Jail Superintendent District Jail, Neemuch is directed that if the applicant Mohammad Iqbal has undergone whole sentence awarded by the court in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003, excluding the period for which he was detained in other Special Sessions Case No.09/2007 then he be released, if not required in any other case.Accordingly, the petition is disposed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8748/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the non applicant.Heard finally at motion stage.[1] This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in brief "Code") against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.564/15; whereby learned Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and directed him to take cognizance against applicants for the offences under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC .[2] Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition are that non-applicant filed a private complaint against the applicants under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC alleging that the applicants had published defamatory news against the non- applicant/complainant.Being aggrieved from that order applicants have filed this petition.A copy of the order be sent to the Revisional Court as well as to the concerned Magistrate for compliance.Thus, the revision is allowed as indicated above.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE ns M.Cr.C.No.2098/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for applicant on 06.05.2016, 16.07.2016 & 01.08.2016 and on 29.08.2016 applicant seeks adjournment, then on 06.09.2016 none present for the applicant, thereafter on 28.11.2016, 14.12.2016, 03.01.2017 none present for the applicant.On 31.01.2017 applicant seeks adjournment and today also none present for the applicant even in the second round.C.No.7084/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11666/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Prayer is accepted.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4259/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11664/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.Let the matter be listed 28.03.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given on that ground.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12041/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.C.No.13029/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.22/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arguing counsel comes from Delhi and prays for a fixed date in the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.404/2017 07.03.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.410/2017 07.03.2017 Shri H.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.970/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Harshit sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.649/2007 07.03.2017 Shri Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As per office report, bailable warrant of respondent No.2 Dilip received unserved.Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 28.04.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.400/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T. No.62/2016, whereby Learned A.S.J.framed charges against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC..[2] As per prosecution story, on 19.11.2015, at 5.30 p.m., when complainant Omprakash and his family members were working in the field situated at Rajgarh near National High Way 12, applicants came there armed with lathi and farsi and applicant Ramprasad assaulted Omprakash on his head by farsi with an intention to kill him while Hukum Singh assaulted on Omprakash's hand by lathi and Kanchanbhai by stone.When complainant's son Jaiprakash came to rescue him Ramprasad inflicted farsi blow on Jaiprakash's head and other applicants also beated them.On that report Crime No.617/2015 in P.S. Kotwali, Rajgarh was registered under Section 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.After investigation Police filed charge-sheet before the court and on the basis of charge-sheet S.T.No.62/2016 was registered and then learned A.S.J. framed charges against the applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants No.2 Kanchanbhai No.3 Hukum Singh & Vishram Singh under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC.Being aggrieved by the orders of framing charges under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC applicants have filed this Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report, injuries sustained by Omprakash and Jaiprakash are simple in nature and not dangerous to life.In the X-Ray report it is clearly mentioned that they have not received any bony injury, therefore, there is no evidence on record to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC.Learned Trial Court committed mistake in framing charge against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that Omprakash and Jaiprakash received incised wounds by farsi on their head which is vital part of body.Therefore, learned trial court rightly framed charge against the applicants and prays for rejection of Revision.[5] For framing of charge strong suspicion about commission of offence and accused's involvement of offence is sufficient.On merits, materials/documents filed by accused can not be considered.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns 07.03.2017 Order passed signed and dated.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce registration of vehicle and other necessary documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record of Criminal Case No.616/2013, which is disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar - Malwa by judgment dated 28.11.2016 before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.652/2006 06.03.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.869/2011 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file rejoinder.He is directed to file rejoinder positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1322/2015 06.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.15/2016 06.03.2017 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed on 10.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to produce the case diary.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.702/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to produce the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.Office is directed to send back the record to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dewas.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4493/2016 06.03.2017 Smt. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.I.R. to continue.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.100/1993 06.03.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.765/2001 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tulsibai before this court.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tulsibai.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.895/2000 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Karulal before this court.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Karulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9742/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard finally at motion stage.This leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No.3517/2001, whereby he acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC.[2] Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is clearly proved that at the time of accident respondent/accused rashly and negligently drove the vehicle bearing registration No.MP09-K-7976 and dashed against Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries and one of them died.From the statement of Tarachand (PW-2) it is also proved that at the time of accident vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar.So, learned trial court committed mistake in acquitting the accused Mazhar from the aforesaid charge.[3] On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is not proved that driver of the vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving said vehicle rashly and negligently, at the time of incident.Also it is not proved that vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was being driven by the respondent at the time of accident.Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that respondent Mazhar was the driver on said vehicle on the date of accident but he is not an eye witness of the incident so only on the basis of his statement, it cannot be assumed that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So, learned trial court after appreciating all the evidence rightly acquitted the accused and pray for rejection.[4] This court perused the record and considered arguments put forth by the parties.Hemsingh (PW-1) only stated that at the time of accident driver of vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed and dashed against the Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries but he did not specifically deposed in his statement that as to at what speed the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven at the time of accident.So, only on the basis of statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) that driver of vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed, it cannot be assumed that the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident.Hemsingh (PW-1), who is an eye witness of the incident, did not even depose that the said vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So, from his statement it is also not proved that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.[5] Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that on the date of accident respondent Mazhar was the driver on his vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 but he is not an eye witness, so without any other corroborating evidence merely on the basis of his statement it cannot be assumed that the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So in the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not commit any mistake in acquitting the accused from the aforesaid charge.Hence, the petition is dismissed.Record be sent back to the trial court along with the copy of this order.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1558/2016 03.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.958/2017, which is an application for conversion of this Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.After due consideration, application (IA No.958/2017) is allowed.Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to convert the Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.After incorporation of necessary amendments, office is directed to register this Criminal Revision as a Criminal Appeal.Let the matter be fixed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.397/2013 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the appellants/State is directed to supply the copy of IA No.2997/2013 and IA No.2998/2013 to the counsel for the respondents.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11362/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.192/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.221/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.537/2017 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1541/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file whole copy of order-sheets of criminal case.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1783/2013 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Vishvakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.720/2014 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.R.No.1121/2016 03.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.9384/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 13days.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7863/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8510/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9386/2016 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11943/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.679/2017 02.03.2017 Ms. Isha Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.185/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.857/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Service report of respondent No.1 is still awaited.Office is directed to list the matter along with service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.9/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.Lower court record is not received as yet.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2340/2014 02.03.2017 Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 not appeared before the trial court and remained ex-party to the trial court.Service of notice to the respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1450/2015 02.03.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to verify the factum of death of applicant Mukesh.Office is also directed to call for report regarding death of applicant Mukesh from Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1575/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.555/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1103/2015 02.03.2017 Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Kumar Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent.Status report of MJC (Criminal) Case No.15/2013 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas is still awaited.Office is directed to call the status report positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the status report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Session Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Criminal Revision No.111/2016, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar rejected applicant's Criminal Revision No.111/2016 and maintained the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar in Criminal Case No.49/2016, wherein learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant for dishonor of cheque averting that petitioner and respondent were known to each other and out of that friendship when petitioner was in need of money, respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to him.In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.When the cheque given by the petitioner was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds.So action be taken against applicant.[3] During trial of the case applicant filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. averting that though respondent had filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- but he did not file any documentary evidence regarding that amount so respondent be directed to file all documents relating to his income, expenditure and income tax return.In his reply respondent opposed the prayer.Learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 23.09.2016 rejected that application observing that application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.was not maintainable at that stage against which applicant filed Cr.R.No.111/2016, which was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar observing that the impugned order was an interim order against which the Revision is not maintainable.Being aggrieved from that order applicant has filed this petition.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner averting that respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner.In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.When the said cheque was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds.Applicant wants to cross-examine the respondent on the point that whether respondent actually has the capacity to give Rs.20,00,000/- to the applicant for which documents regarding income and expenditure and his income tax return are required.so they be called from the applicant.Learned trial court committed mistake in rejecting his application.[5] It appears from the record that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant averting that applicant took Rs.20,00,000/- from him and to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.So prima facie burden for proving this fact lies on respondent and what documents he wish to file to prove this fact depends upon his will.In his application applicant has not mentioned the year/years for which he sought respondent's income tax return and regarding what documents or for what period he wants income and expenditure details of respondent.His application is vague, so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.Hence, petition is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.132/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.1006/2016, which is an application for stay.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.805/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.933/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Samdani, learned counsel for the appellants.None present for the respondents No.1 to 5, even after service of notice.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Soumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1131/2016 01.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2266/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of statement of prosecutrix and wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1295/2012 01.03.2017 Shri R.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the report from the Central Jail, Indore regarding detention of appellant Hemu @ Hemant.Let the matter be listed in the next week along with the report.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3685/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent, even after second round.Let the matter be listed in the next week.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.122/2000 01.03.2017 None present for the appellant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.On 13.01.2017, 13.02.2017 and 22.02.17 none present for the appellant even in the second round.It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.212/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents No.1 and 2 by registered A.D. mode on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1595/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.R.No.214/2017 be listed along with this petition.Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.214/2017 after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6381/2016 01.03.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.80/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and also wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1054/2015 01.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.None for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.594/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Let the matter be listed after three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to this petition are that, applicant filed a private complaint against the respondent before the J.M.F.C., Mahidpur, Ujjain averting that marriage of his daughter Heena was solemnized with respondent Firoz on 09.02.2013 at Mahidpur.In the marriage he gave jewellery, cloths, electric goods, almirah, fridge, T.V., washing machine, a cooler and other home appliances worth Rs.3,50,000/- to his daughter.On 20.04.2013, respondent Firoz gave divorce to his daughter Heena but he did not return the aforesaid house-hold goods, which he gave to his daughter as dowry at the time of marriage.That Revision was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur by order dated 12.05.2015 wherein it set aside the trial court's order observing that applicant's daughter Heena voluntarily left her matrimonial house in the night of 19.03.2013 and she clearly admitted in a letter that she does not want to live with respondent Firoz.She wanted to live with Nilesh Suryawanshi and also admitted that respondent Firoz Khan had voluntarily given divorce to her and she had received all house-hold goods which were given by her father as dowry.So offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the respondent.Being aggrieved with that order applicant filed this petition.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad respondent himself promised to return the house-hold goods which were given by the applicant as dowry to his daughter at the time of her marriage but he did not do so.The affidavit filed by the respondent before the Revisional Court alleging given by Heena is fake.Learned A.S.J. committed mistake in rejecting the trial court's order by relying on that fake affidavit.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that according to Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act a list of articles which were given in dowry at the time of marriage should be made but there is no such list.On the contrary Heena at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad clearly admitted before the Police Officers that she got all articles which were given to her at the time of her marriage.So no question of returning the articles arises.Learned A.S.J. rightly rejected the applicant's prayer.[5] First of all applicant himself averted in the application that he gave house-hold goods and other articles to her daughter in her marriage.So those articles are the property of her daughter and not the applicant.According to Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which reads as under :-Section 6 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.--(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman-- --(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman--"(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of marriage;(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of its receipt; orAlong with the complaint applicant also filed a copy of the notice given by him to the respondent before filing of complaint wherein it is mentioned that a list of articles given to the respondent at the time of marriage was prepared, but no such list was produced by the applicant before the court.The complainant filed complaint against nine persons alleging that all of them received the gifts given to Heena at the time of marriage.It is incredible that all the nine persons together received the gift items while in the notice it is mentioned that all gifts were received by respondent Firoz which is contradictory so in the opinion of this court learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any mistake in rejecting the trial court's order.Hence, petition is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.224/2017 28.01.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri R.C.Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Bail Application No.16/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Mohammad Zeeshan S/o Mohammad Anees under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.28/2017 registered at Police Station-A.J.K., Jhabua, District- Jhabua for the offence under Section 376 & 506 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 & Sections 3(2), 5(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)On 24.01.2017, at 1.00 p.m., at Meghnagar Bus Stand, when she asked appellant to marry her, he refused and abused her and clearly stated that he can't marry her.When she told appellant that she will lodge a report, he threatened to kill her.The appellant filed Bail Application No.16/2017 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for getting bail.Learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua rejected that application.Being aggrieved appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that complainant is major and she is a consenting party.She has wrongly lodged the report against the appellant.Appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime.Charge-sheet has been filed.The appellant is in custody since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, hence, counsel prayed for grant of bail.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State and complainant/prosecutrix opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that complainant was minor at the time of starting of the incident and that appellant sexually exploited her for last two years on the pretext of marriage and pray for rejection.[5] Looking to the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and appellant is in jail since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time and that on the date of lodging report prosecutrix was major so without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed.It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on 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.[6] 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;The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Accordingly, Cr.A. No.224/2017 is disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1176/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.8886/2016, which is an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC for service of summon on respondent No.3 by paper publication.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that service of summon on respondent No.3 has not been effected by ordinary process.So, summon be issued on respondent No.3 by way of publication.After due consideration, application is allowed.On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue notice to respondent No.3 by way of publication in the local newspaper published in the local area in Indore where respondent No.3 is said to be resided.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to supply copy of documents to respondents No.1 & 2, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after publication of notice in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.938/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.1640/2017, which is an application to add complainant Saradar Mohammad as party to the petition memo.After due consideration, application is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.141/2017 28.02.2017 Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Record is not received as yet.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12636/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.289/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Prafulla Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12749/2016 28.02.2017 Ms. Nidhi Bohara, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.75/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Bourasi, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1552/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Anushri Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1706/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Dinesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9548/2014 28.02.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.859/2016 28.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Matter is already admitted, therefore, let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 21.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1614/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2231/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Service report of respondents No.1 to 7 is still awaited.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10576/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to pay fresh process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.113/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.214/2016 22.02.2017 Shri K.K. Koushal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rohit Bhati, learned counsel for the respondents.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.6-A/2015, whereby he rejected the applicant's/defendent's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No.6-A/2015 before the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore for seeking arrears of rent and eviction of applicant from the part of suit house and in alternative for seeking a declaration to declare them owner of that part of the suit house and also declaring that part of the suit house in dangerous state and that it be demolished after eviction of applicant averting that respondents are the owner of the suit house No.181 situated at Netaji Nagar, Indore.In the back side of the suit house No.181 two rooms and kitchen were built in 14x20=280 sq.ft.Area, which was given by the respondents on rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant in the year 1993 by an oral agreement.In the year 2010 Municipal Corporation also gave a notice to the respondents that the said construction is in dangerous state and can't be used for human dwelling.That being so, applicant was directed to give vacant possession of that part of suit house to respondents and pay arrears of rent.[3] During trial of the suit applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC averting that the land of suit house was given to applicant's mother Munni Bai by the State Government on lease so the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act would not apply on the suit land.Respondents also did not file any documentary evidence showing that the respondent is owner while applicant is a tenant in his suit house, so respondents' suit is not maintainable.Even otherwise on one hand respondents filed a suit averting that applicant is a tenant in the suit house and for his eviction from the suit house and also for getting arrears of rent while on the other hand applicant sought that he be declared owner of the suit house and it be declared in a dangerous stage and a mandatory injunction be issued against the applicant to vacate the suit house which is contradictory so suit is not maintainable.[4] Learned Trial Court rejected the application observing that suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that respondents sought contradictory relief.To decide other objections it requires evidence which cannot be decided at this stage.Being aggrieved of that order applicant filed this Revision.[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court has committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's application without appreciating the fact that the respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit and that without amending pleading of the suit, the same is not maintainable.[6] Respondents in their reply opposed the prayer.[7] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.Although it appears from the averment of the plaint that respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit but the suit cannot be rejected only on that ground that there is no such provision under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.Likewise the suit cannot be rejected only on the ground that respondent has not filed any documentary evidence showing his ownership or landlordship over suit property.It is a matter of evidence so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant.Hence, the revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1397/2014 27.02.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.As per office report, notice of respondent No.2 received unserved for want of correct address.Respondents No.1 and 3 are served.Notice of respondent No.4 received unserved.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee along with the correct address within 15 days.Issue notice to the respondents No.2 and 4 on payment of process fee within 15 days, returnable within six weeks.Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 27.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to file copy of charge-sheet.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.C.No.1704/2015 27.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.84/2016 27.02.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.231/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7096/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel along with Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2211/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.349/2017 27.02.2017 Shri G.K.Neema, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.131/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1356/2014 27.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.857/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Prayer is accepted.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1283/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Monika Billore, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1518/2016 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Nagpal, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1570/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7743/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8500/2016 27.02.2017 Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2143/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of whole complainant and copy of statement recorded by the trial court on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.375/2009 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent.Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest for securing presence of respondent on furnishing correct particulars along with process fee within within 7 days, returnable within 8 weeks.Let the matter be listed after eight weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.621/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Lokesh Arya, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on admission.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.627/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Harshad Vadnerkar, learned counsel for the appellants.Issue fresh notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9393/2011 27.02.2017 Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1126/2007 22.02.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has already suffered sentence awarded by the trial court, therefore, he does not want to press his appeal.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1029/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1266/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.Office is directed to call for the report from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain, whether appellant has undergone whole sentence awarded by the trial court or not?Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1901/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Tribhuvan Kulmi, learned counsel for the applicant.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr.R.No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.By the common order dated 24.12.2016 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain decided Cr.R. No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.So office is directed to examine whether one single petition is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Five different Criminal Revisions.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1611/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Kaivalya Ratnaparkhe, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh in M.Cr.C.No.200/2015, whereby he allowed the application of respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the respondent.Applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns Rs.40,000/- per month.He also runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and earns Rs.30,000/- per month.He is also having 10 shops at Kota and earning Rs.50,000/- per month as rent from those shops and he is able to maintain his wife and children but has refused to do so without any sufficient cause, so applicant be directed to pay maintenance to the respondents.[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegations levelled by the respondents in his application and averted that he never demanded dowry from respondent No.1 and never harassed her.Respondent No.1 herself is voluntarily living with her mother without any cause.She is working as a Teacher in R.K.Academy, Biaora and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain herself and her children, while applicant is a Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns only Rs.17,685/- per month and his parents also depend on him.Therefore, prayed for rejection of application.[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties observed that respondent No.1 is having sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant and is not able to maintain herself and her children while applicant is able to maintain respondents but has refused to do so, therefore, he directed the applicant to give Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to each respondent.Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[5] Only contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the amount of maintenance is on higher side.He submits that it is clearly established from the evidence produced by the applicant that applicant earlier worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he left that job and presently has no means of earning so he is not able to maintain respondents.[6] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that applicant himself in his reply admitted that he works as Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.17,685/- per month.The Certificate (Ex.D/1) filed by the applicant is not correct.It is clear from the record that applicant is having many means of earning.He runs one talkies and also has many shops in the market and earns much and is able to pay Rs.15,000/-maintenance as awarded by the learned Trial Court.[7] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.Learned trial court itself in Para 22 of its judgment held that applicant earns Rs.17,685/-per month as salary but it awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance, which is clearly on higher side.Although respondent No.1 Dipika Chourasiya deposed that applicant runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan).He is also having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) and also has one house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor, which earns him rent.But applicant in his statement clearly denied the fact that he runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) or has any house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor which earns him rent.[8] Respondents have not filed any document which shows that applicant possess the aforementioned immovable property.So respondents' statement that applicant is having the aforesaid immovable property and he is earning from that property does not appeared to be true.Likewise although respondent No.1 stated that applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.40,000/- per month as salary and applicant also admitted in his reply that he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he got only Rs.17,685/- per month as salary from that job.Respondents have not filed any documentary evidence which shows that applicant's salary is Rs.40,000/- per month.[9] Although applicant in his statement deposed that earlier he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but form 15.11.2015 he has left his job and also filed Ex.D/1 resignation letter from that job.Applicant filed reply of respondents' application on 10.08.2015 in which he clearly admitted that he works at Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and got a salary of Rs.17,685/-.Although on the stage of his evidence on 18.11.2016 applicant filed Ex.D/1 showing that he resigned from the said service from 15.11.2015 but has not produced the person, who gave Certificate (Ex.D/1) in this regard, so this Certificate is not believable.Even otherwise it appears strange that he left his job at the time of evidence without any cause so it is incredible and does not appear to be correct.[10] So from the evidence produced by the parties applicant's income appears only as Rs.17,685/- per month.Learned trial court also in Para 22 of his judgment held that applicant's income is Rs.17,685/- per month.In these circumstances, the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is on higher side looking to the income of applicant.So it is appropriate to reduce the maintenance amount.[11] Hence, Revision is partly allowed and applicant is directed to pay a maintenance Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each to respondents No.2 and 3 instead of Rs.5,000/- per month as directed by the trial court.Remaining conditions of the trial court's order shall remain same.Accordingly, Revision stands disposed of.as per rules.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6771/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.268/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1872/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1417/2017 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1067/2016 22.02.2017 Shri M.S.Gurjar, learned counsel for the appellants.Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2016, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.R.No.1535/2016 22.02.2017 None for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.Heard on the question of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5739/2016 22.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Office to verify and thereafter list the matter in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10286/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents No.2 to 4 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.33/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.42/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.129/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Arti Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.238/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1184/2017 22.02.2017 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1338/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the parties seek time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1245/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State has filed copy of Handwriting Expert's report, alleged suicide note and copy of charge-sheet, which are taken on record.It appears that applicant has not filed whole copy of charge-sheet, so applicant is directed to file whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1549/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and also seeks time to produce the complainant before the court regarding compromise application.Let the matter be listed on 24.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1042/2014 21.02.2017 Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Both the parties are directed to appear before the Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya tomorrow at 5.00 p.m.. Parties are also directed to co- operate with the Mediator in mediation proceedings.Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya is directed to submit her report after mediation process.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017 along with the Mediator's report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 09.03.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1422/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10446/2016 21.02.2017 None for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.108/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.881/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed tomorrow, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.249/2015 21.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.934/2015 21.02.2017 Shri R.K.Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9023/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.R.No.1069/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel from the applicant.Shri R.S.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.120/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Kaushiyal Malya, learned counsel for the complainant.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act District - Rajgarh, in Criminal Case No.13/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Gopal S/o Shankarlal Jat under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station - Malawar, District - Rajagarh for the offence under Section 376, 294 and 506 of IPC & Section 3(1)(B)(2), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (further refer as "Act").[2] As per prosecution story, on 30.08.2016, prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Police Station A.J.K., Bhopal averting that appellant Gopal is threatening her since 1 years and keeps asking her to come to his field otherwise he would kill her husband.In the month of August, 2016 four days before Rakhi between 12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m., when she went in Gopal's field for taking kanda (dung cake) Gopal caught her and raped her and threatened to kill her if she narrated the incident to anybody.She narrated the incident to her husband, who asked Gopal as to why he raped his wife, on which Gopal abused them and also tried to kill her husband.On this Police of P.S. A.J.K., Bhopal sent report to P.S. Malawar, Distt Rajgarh, where Police registered Crime No.184/2016 for the offence under Section 376, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) & 3(1)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and investigated the matter.During investigation it was found that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant Gopal.In these circumstances, Police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the court of Special Judge, Rajgarh.On that report Special Judge Rajgarh took cognizance against the appellant and registered Special Case No.13/2017 and issued arrest warrant for securing the presence of appellant in the case.Learned Special Judge also rejected the appellant's application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. observing that from the case diary it prima facie appeared that appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix and got FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) filed in this case using his influence.From the case diary, provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act get attracted.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant to harass him.During investigation, from the statement of prosecutrix herself it appeared that prosecutrix filed false report against him, so police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the crime.Learned Trial Judge wrongly took cognizance against the appellant and issued warrant and that provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted from the case diary and prayed for anticipatory bail.Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited.[9] So appellant is entitled to get anticipatory bail, his appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station Malawar, District Rajgarh, in pursuance of the arrest warrant issued by the learned Special Judge Rajgarh or if he surrenders before Special Judge Rajgarh in S.T. No.13/2017 the present appellant namely Gopal Jat S/o Shankarlal Jat be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Atrocity, Rajgarh.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-Accordingly, Cr.C.No.583/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1053/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Pravir Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.Let the matter be listed 03.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed 02.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on IA No.470/2017, which is an application filed under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.After due consideration, application is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record of Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.680/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the applicants is also directed to file the copy of charge-sheet and present status of the case.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondents /State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file the reply of the petition on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.672/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.2..Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10928/2015 20.02.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3552/2016 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 17.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.243/2014 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.239/2015 20.02.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.313/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1813/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.On 18.10.2016, learned counsel for the applicant prays for adjournment and on 31.01.2017 also none present for the applicant even in the second round.It shows that applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7539/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the status report of Crime No.161/2013 of Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam and case diary of the case.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.793/2016 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.52/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1892/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1838/2014 17.02.2017 Shri Surendra Pal, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As per report of non-bailable warrant of arrest of appellant Jitendra Mukhi, appellant is in custody in District Jail Phulwani (Orisa).(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.348/2015 17.02.2017 Shri P.Newalkar, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of appellant No.3 Mohan before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.532/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce applicant Sohan before this court.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the applicant Sohan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1020/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil before this court.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.284/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 17.02.2017 Shri S.Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the intervener.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.26/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1275/2016 17.02.2017 Ms. Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1331/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 17.02.2017 Shri V.Asava, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11593/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12691/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.25/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.484/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Meanwhile, applicant is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance instead of Rs.5,000/- as directed by the learned Family Court.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.780/2017 17.02.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to verify the factum of death of applicant No.1 Smt. Shakuntala Khandelwal positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 14.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.3466/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 246 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.3466/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.Let the matter be listed for admission in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.825/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant Suresh is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant on 03.02.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 17.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10551/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Pawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.619/2016, whereby he affirmed the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Cr.M.J.C. No.2/2006, whereby he rejected the applicant's prayer that since he has already undergone whole sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine so recovery proceedings be not carried out against the applicant.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque.On the complaint Criminal Case No.1801/2001 was registered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and after trial Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore found applicant guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded three months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, against which applicant filed Cr.That appeal was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore by judgment dated 29.09.2004 and affirmed the order of Trial Judge, against which applicant has also filed Cr.No.777/2004 in this court which was also rejected by this court by order dated 24.08.2005 and the judgment of the Trial Judge became final.Applicant has undergone the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.[3] After that respondent filed Cr.M.J.C. No.2/2006 to procure the compensation amount from the applicant.During prosecution of this case applicant filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore averting that because applicant has undergone one month's RI in default of payment of fine so the recovery proceedings of compensation amount cannot be carried out against the applicant.[4] Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore rejected the prayer observing that even after undergoing the sentence in default of payment of compensation court issued recovery warrant against the applicant for recovering of compensation amount, against which applicant filed Cr.R. No.619/2016, which also was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this petition.[6] He placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court passed in Ramnath V/s.Jagdish Prasad Garg and another reported in 2000 Bank J. 29, in which court held that, "Petitioner having already undergone the punishment awarded minus the fine; petition becomes infructuous as no other mode of realisation of amount under criminal law is provided.Complainant may if he desires file civil suit for recovery."But in that case point whether the accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and so recovery proceeding be not carried out was not in issue that Criminal Revision was filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court against him.Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision regarding this issue.Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under :Warrant for levy of fine.(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.[7] Even in the judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in Y.Vishnu V/s."Section 421 of Cr.P.C. provides for recovery of fine by one of the two ways or by both of them.The second mode of recovery is to issue a warrant to the Deputy Commissioner of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue.[8] So, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in issuing recovery warrant to procure the fine amount from applicant.Hence, petition is rejected.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.466/2007 15.02.2017 Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.Heard on IA No.1084/2017, which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.1 Kalyanmal S/o Laxminarayan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7010/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file the reply of the petition.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9680/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Singh Jhala, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the document within one week.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.28558/2014 pending before the learned ACJM, Indore be stayed till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.367/2017, an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment of trial court.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks, along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.91/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file reply.He is directed to file reply positively before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.161/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.861/2015 15.02.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.81/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.403/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Jai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant Bherusingh is in jail and he wants time to file an appropriate application in this regard.Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.474/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Surendra Patwa, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10571/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners.Heard on the question of admission.Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Case No.13654/2016 be stayed till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1723/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.837/2017 15.02.2017 Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1410/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.None present for the respondents No.2 to 5 even after second round.Heard on IA No.8314/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 287 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.8314/2015) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8642/2015 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9564/2015 15.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.Heard on IA No.266/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The petition is barred by 290 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.266/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.53/2017 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Let the matter be listed after a week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1171/2016 15.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of learned counsel for the applicant even in the second round, case is adjourned.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for admission along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.725/2016 10.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Second A.S.J., Jaora, Link Court, Alote in S.T.No.119/2015, whereby he framed the charge against respondents under Section 306 of IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C..During investigation it was found that applicant no. 1 and 2, are the parents in law of deceased and applicant no.3 is the wife of the deceased.she is also having one daughter Roshni aged 3 years.Due to some dispute between applicant no3 and deceased their matrimonial life got strained.So applicant no. 2 came to deceased's house at Alot and took applicant No. 3 and her daughter Roshni with him.He also left a suicide note.On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.From the statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet, only allegation against the applicants was that applicant No.3 wanted deceased to live with her parents at their house.Firoz committed suicide because applicant No.2 took his wife applicant No.3 and daughter with him to their house since deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family.On that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.Applicant No.2 took applicant No.3 and her daughter Nine or Ten days before the incident.[7] In the matter of Babbi @ Jitendra V/s.Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of section 306 IPC is not sustainable."[10] So in the considered opinion of this court evidence collected against the applicants by the prosecution are totally insufficient to infer that the applicants abetted for suicide, they may be cause for the suicide but not the abetted.Resultant, the petition is hereby allowed.The impugned order framing charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside.On the said refusal the applicant beat and threatened her.Then on 09.01.2013 she lodged the report at Mahila Thana, Indore against the applicant.On that report Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.2/2013 for the offence under Section 498-A, 294 and 506 of IPC.After investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant.On that charge-sheet Criminal Case No.2130/2013 was registered before the J.M.F.C., Indore and J.M.F.C., Indore framed charges under Section 498A of the IPC against the applicant and tried the matter.The case is pending for evidence before the trial court.Respondent did love marriage with applicnt and after marriage she never resided with the applicant.From the very same day she returned to Satwas.Before that report respondent also filed a report in Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that applicant solemnized temporary marriage with her and soon after the marriage applicant left her.She had lived with applicant only three hours after marriage then applicant left her.So there is no question of applicant's demanding money or torturing the respondent.The FIR lodged by the respondent is false.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the FIR prima facie case under Section 498A of the IPC is made out.On the charge-sheet learned trial court prima facie found that offence under Section 498A, 506 and 294 of IPC is made out and framed the charge against the applicant for those offences.So there is no question of quashment of criminal case.The respondent filed another application before the Mahila Thana averting that she only lived with the applicant for three hours after marriage is not a part of charge-sheet under which circumstances, that application is filed, is a matter of evidence.The application filed by the applicant along with petition is not a part of charge-sheet.The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.218/2012 14.02.2017 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.None present for the respondent.Heard on IA No.997/2017, which is an application for taking legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal on record under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC.Counsel for the petitioner has also filed a Death Certificate of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal along with the application.After due consideration, application is allowed.Legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal be taken on record.Necessary amendment be incorporated within seven days.The matter is already admitted for final hearing, therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.619/2011 14.02.2017 Shri K.K.Kaushal, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply the copy of IA No.978/2017, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for legal representatives of respondent No.5 Narendra Kumar to be brought on record.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and also prays for a fix date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Bhagwan before this court.Let the matter be listed on 03.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant Bhagwan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.229/2007 14.02.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellants No.1 Khima and No.3 Hurji are present in person before the Court and they have been identified by their counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellants on 04.01.2017 is hereby condoned.They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 10.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.830/2013 14.02.2017 Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let bailable warrant issued to secure the presence of respondent Pradeep by order dated 03.02.2017 be recalled.Applicant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be listed along with the record for hearing on admission after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.126/2015 14.02.2017 Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent by registered as well as ordinary mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.447/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant Nana @ Dilip is not present.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of applicant Nana @ Dilip before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.822/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Section 421 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973Warrant for levy of fine.(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner In which warrants under clause (a) of sub- section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.M.C.C.No.931/2016 14.02.2017 Ms. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.9418/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The petition is barred by 5 days.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to calculation mistake he could not file the petition in time.Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.After due consideration, application (IA No.9418/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned..The M.C.C. is for restoration of SA.No.68/2015, which has been dismissed on 27.10.2016 for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 27.10.2016 he was engaged on another board, therefore, he could not appear for arguments on 27.10.2016 and Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and SA No.68/2015 is restored to its original position.M.C.C.No.931/2016 stands disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.2/2001 13.02.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants.They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.728/2017 13.02.2017 Shri Amit bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1669/2013 13.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.664/2004 13.02.2017 Shri Bharat Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to secure presence of appellants Bhawla and Keru before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.69/2005 13.02.2017 Ms. Archna Jadiya, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.158/2008 13.02.2017 Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent.Today both the parties submitted that new arbitrator Shri S.N.Sharma be appointed in place of Shri N.K.Porwal.Office is directed to take his consent for the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns NATIONAL LOK ADALAT 11.02.2017 Since settlement is not possible, therefore, the case is released from the National Lok Adalat.List the matter before the regular Bench.Criminal Revision No.981/2015 10.02.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Complaint No.26409/2015, whereby he took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 506 and 393 of IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a criminal complaint against the respondents averting that on 30.01.2015, at 2.45 p.m., applicant went to Life Insurance Corporation's Office, Indore, where respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla abused and beated him and another 25-30 persons confined the applicant and respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla tried to loot money from applicant.On that applicant informed Aditya Garg on phone then he came there.Respondents No.1 Sunil Jhinjhore, No.2 Abdul Jalal Mulla and No.3 Bhupendra Rathore with the aid of other persons beated Aditya Garg also and tore his shirt.Applicant and Jitendra lodged report about the incident at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore but Police did not lodge the FIR.So cognizance under Section 294, 506, 323, 342 and 393 read with Section 34 of IPC be taken against the respondents.Learned trial court recorded statements of applicant and Aditya Garg under Section 200/202 of Cr.P.C., then by order dated 01.07.2015 on the complaint took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 342, 506 and 393 of IPC against them.Being aggrieved from that applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the complaint and statements given by the applicant and Aditya Garg (PW-2) offence under Section 393 and 506 of IPC is clearly made out.[4] Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no prima facie evidence on record to take cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC, so learned trial court has not committed any mistake in not taking cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC.[5] This court perused the record and arguments put forth by both the parties.[6] Applicant only deposed that at the time of incident respondent Sunil Jhinjhore, Abdul Jalal Mulla and Dilip Jain tried to snatch money from him and respondents also threatened to break his legs that if he lodged the report in Police, he would break legs and hand of him.Words used should indicate as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action, but it is does not appear from the statement of complainant that complainant felt, as reasonable man, that the accused was going to convert his words in action, on the contrary complainant himself stated that after the threat of respondent to break his hands and legs if he lodged the complaint, he went to Police Station Tukoganj, for lodging the report which shows that respondent's threat caused no fear to complainant.So trial court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance under Section 506 of IPC, likewise complainant deposed that respondents tried to snatch money from him but it is not stated that from where respondents tried to snatch money either from his pocket or from his hand.Moreover he did not even disclose the amount he was carrying that respondents tried to snatch and where he kept that money.Due to this reason he committed suicide in his house.On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is clear from the evidence collected by the Police against the applicant that deceased Firoz died due to consuming poison.The statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet.Only allegation against the applicants was that applicants want to deceased live with them at their house.Firoz committed suicide because applicants took his wife and daughter with them in their house because deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family.Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee is serving in school, due to this reason applicants not sent their daughter with deceased, apart from that evidence there is no any other evidence against the applicants that they ill treated the deceased.Only on the ground that applicants not sent their daughter with deceased it cannot be said that applicants abetted deceased Firoz for committing suicide.He further submitted that as per prosecution case deceased Firoz was Driver by profession and he was habitual for consuming liquor and after consuming liquor he beated his wife and forcefully took with him.Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee stated to deceased that if he leaves liquor and not ill treat her.Due to this reason Firoz has committed suicide, so as per whole charge-sheet there is no whisper of evidence collected by the prosecution under Section 107 of IPC and there is no evidence of any abetment or instigation for committing suicide found by prosecution.But despite this learned trial court committed mistake in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that deceased Firoz himself in his letter mentioned that he committed suicide because applicants not sent her wife and daughter with him and applicants are liable for his suicide.So, there is ample evidence against the applicants to frame charge against the applicants under Section 306 of IPC and reject their prayer.[5] It appears from the record that only allegation against the applicants is that applicants who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased took their daughter with them and not sent with deceased Firoz on that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.[6] Learned counsel for the applicant in this regard also placed reliance on the judgment of this court passed in Hariom S/o Ramesh Kumar V/s.State of M.P. reported in 2007(1) M.P.L.J. Page 195 in which this court held that, "Abetment to commit suicide - Proof - The act of the accused must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of IPC.It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide.In the present case there is no direct or indirect connection between the act of applicant and the act of deceased of commission of suicide.Applicant is said to have entered the house in the night, but the deceased hanged herself in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. It appears that under great stress and depression and feeling ashamed by the conduct of applicant, she committed suicide.Apparently, the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against applicant merely on the ground that deceased felt ashamed by the said conduct of accused.However, there is material on record to indicate that applicant had entered the house of complainant in the night.from the time of quarrel - Act of did not fall within the ambit and scope of abetment as defined under Section 306 Penal Code - No prima facie case of framing of charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 Penal Code is made out - Order of trial Court directing framing of charge against set aside - Revision application allowed."(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge F.A.No.682/2015 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.3/State.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicants/State.The M.C.C. is for restoration of FA.No.322/2016, which has been dismissed on 20.07.2016 in compliance of peremptory order.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on 20.07.2016 office-in-charge could not attend the office, so defect could not be cured, because of that FA no.322/16 was dismissed.His absence is bona fide, so FA No.322/16 be restored to its original position.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and F.A.No.322/2016 is restored to its original position.M.C.C.No.717/2016 stands disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.854/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.10019/2016, which is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to renew applicant's passport.The applicant, who is an MLA is required to travel abroad for many government official works, therefore, he may be permitted to renew his passport.Prayer is allowed with the condition that the applicant will not leave India without permission of this court.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.978/2016 10.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1185/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 16.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1431/2017 10.02.2017 Mrs.K.Mundra, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1498/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Jitendra Shejwar, learned counsel for the applicant.The M.Cr.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1512/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.222/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellants/State.None present for the respondent.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This matter has wrongly been listed today.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1136/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1138/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Record is not received as yet.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1347/2015 09.02.2017 Shri Kantesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.306/2016 09.02.2017 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.38/2017 09.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1445/2015 08.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur in M.Cr.C.No.432/2014, whereby he allowed the application of respondent's filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are minor children of the applicant.Earlier they filled M.Cr.C.No.52/2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant, In that case trial court vide order dated 19.05.2010 directed the applicant to give Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance for each of the respondents.On 04.12.2013, respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court for enhancement of maintenance amount on the ground that the awarded amount is not sufficent for maintaining them, so amount of maintenance be enhanced.Although applicant opposed the prayer but learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties allowed the application and enhanced the amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- for each of the respondent.Being aggrieved with the order applicant has filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that applicant is not able to give enhanced amount because his income is on lower side, on the contrary respondents are living with their mother and their mother running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and she is able to maintain the respondents wrongly enhanced the amount of maintenance.[4] It is appeared from the evidence on record that applicant himself admitted that between the year 2010 to 2015 went inflation has doubled and also admitted that the respondents are gradually getting older so need of respondents are also growing.There is no reliable evidence on record which shows that mother of respondents is running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.Although applicant deposed that he is a laborer and only earns Rs.4,500/- per month.but he also admitted that his mother having shop he works in the house of his mother.It is not believable that applicant is working as labourer in the house of her mother, so it appears that applicant for hiding his income wrongly deposed the facts.in these circumstances learned trial court has not committed any mistake in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.Hence, the Revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, the respondents had filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (henceforth the code) in Criminal MJC No.21/1999 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Neemuch which was allowed and Respondent No.1was granted Rs.1300/- per month from 10.9.1996 and respondent No.2 was granted Rs.700/- per month from 10.9.1996 till attaining majority or till her marriage.This proceeding was transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class to Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch.[3] The applicant raised the objection that respondent No.2 has become major so she has no right to get the maintenance.Even otherwise in view of section 125(3) of the code recovery of the amount should be confined to one year prior to filing of the application.The rest of the amount stands time barred in view of subsection (3) of section 125 of the code.[4] The Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch, by order dated 21.11.2015 rejected the applicant's objection by observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and she filed the application on 02.01.2013 within one year of attaining majority.So her application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.The applicant is bound to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 from 10.09.1996 to till attaining the age of majority and of her marriage.Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed Cr.R.No.1591/2015, which was decided by this court vide order dated 14.12.2016 and maintained the order of the trial court observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and respondent No.2 filed the said application on 02.01.2013 i.e. within one year of attaining majority which is well within time.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this petition.[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant in the revision filed before this court took an objection that respondent No.2 had become major before filing of execution but respondent No.1 Rashida filed an execution on behalf of respondent No.2 as guardian hiding the fact that she is a major.The minor could have filed an application within a year after attending majority and claimed maintenance from 1999 but the application was filed by her mother which cannot be filed after lapse of so many years.The application is time barred so impugned order may kindly be recalled.The application for getting maintenance was filed by both the respondents.Hence, this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants prays for time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, along with the record.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.110/2017 08.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 08.02.2017 None present for the appellant.Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1648/2015 07.02.2017 Smt. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant filed a copy of statement of respondent Smt. Pooja Sarkar recorded by the trial court in MJC No.120/2015, which is taken on record.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C.No.3881/2015, whereby applicant is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Second Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for getting maintenance from the applicant and also filed an application for getting interim maintenance during trial of the case.Learned trial court observing that respondent is the legally wedded wife of applicant and presently living separate from the applicant and it is the duty of the applicant to maintain her, directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that respondent voluntarily without any cause is living separately from the applicant, so she is not entitled for any maintenance.Even otherwise respondent helps her parents in business and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and she is able to maintain herself while applicant is unemployed and unable to give maintenance to the respondent.Thus, learned trial court has wrongly ordered the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that applicant without any cause refused to maintain the respondent.So learned trial court has not committed any mistake in awarding Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.It is admitted that respondent is a legally wedded wife of the applicant and at present living with her parents.In that circumstances, respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.Whether respondent is voluntarily living separately from the applicant or she is able to maintain herself is a matter of evidence.It cannot be decided at this stage without evidence.Although applicant stated that he is unemployed presently and it is admitted that applicant is a Software Engineer.It is not the case of the applicant that he is unable to do work because of any inability.So under these circumstances, if learned trial court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case to the respondent, it cannot be said to be wrong.So, Revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As per report received of non-bailable warrant of appellant, Remsingh has died on 03.01.2016, so appeal is abated against appellant No.1 Remsingh.Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of appellant No.1 Remsingh from appeal memo.Learned counsel for the appellants wants time to produce appellant No.2 Vinod before this court.Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Vinod.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 07.02.2017 Shri P.K.Sohani, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed along with FA No.998/16 in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1324/2017 07.02.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 07.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8654/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.Learned counsel for the parties seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 23.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Both the parties are directed to remain present before the court on the next date of hearing.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.846/2012 07.02.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply of IA No.1715/2016, IA No.1716/2016 and IA No.1717/2016 positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1688/2014 07.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Sanjay before this court.Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant Sanjay.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Chakrawarti Swami received unserved.Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 30.03.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.146/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.3 Ramlal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1273/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.After due consideration, application (IA No.9277/2016) is allowed.Appellant is directed to change his appeal into leave to appeal.Necessary amendments be carried out.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 28.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.89/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Heard finally at motion stage.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a Civil Suit No.30-A/2014 before the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Nagda against the respondents for declaring him owner of suit land and restraining the respondent to interfere in his possession in the suit land.For setting aside that judgment and decree respondents filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC on 01.09.2015 before the trial court and also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application before the trial court.In reply applicant opposed the prayer.But Learned trial court allowed the application observing that the disposal of case should be on merits and not only on technical grounds.Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court wrongly allowed the application of respondents without giving an opportunity for producing evidence.[4] It appears from the record that the applicant in his reply opposed the prayer of respondents.The application filed by the respondents is also time barred and respondent also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.In that circumstances it is the duty of the court to give opportunity to the parties to give evidence in support of their contentions.Learned trial court without giving proper opportunities to both the parties to produce evidence in support of their contentions decided the application, which cannot be said to be correct.Thereafter, give an opportunity to the applicant for rebuttal and then again decide the application on merits.Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the learned First A.S.J., Mandleshwar in Special Case No.18/2013, whereby learned Judge rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant Nawal Singh for further cross-examination.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant is facing trial for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for taking bribe from complainant Naval Singh for correcting entries of revenue record.[3] During trial of the case on 22.09.2015 applicant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. averting that according to the information received by the applicant from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone complainant did not file any application before the office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone for correcting the revenue entries and procuring new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika.So, he wants further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.[4] Respondent in his reply opposed the prayer and averted that from the documents produced with charge-sheet it is clear that the work of complainant was pending before the applicant at the time of incident and pray for rejection.[5] Learned trial court rejected his application observing that earlier also applicant had filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2015 which was rejected by this court.Applicant again filed the application on the same ground.There is no need to recall the complainant for re-examination and that applicant is free to file document in his defence.Being aggrieved from this applicant has filed this petition.[6] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is facing trial for allegedly demanding and taking illegal gratification for correcting revenue entries of complainant's land and issuing new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika while the information received from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone after completion of examination of complainants Naval Singh (PW1) before trial court shows that no such work of complainant was pending before the revenue authority at the time of incident.So it is essential to cross examine the complainant on the point on the basis of information received.The trial court wrongly rejected his application for further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.[7] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant had full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and he has filed this application only for delaying the trial.Learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer.At that time trial court gave full opportunity to the applicant to cross- examine the complainant.Applicant himself averted in the petition that he received the information on 11/11/14 while applicant filed the application for further cross examine the complainant before trial court on 03/06/15, almost seven months after receiving the information.Applicant also had full opportunity to file the said documents in his defence.So trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the prayer.Hence, the petition is dismissed.Criminal Revision No.1422/2015 03.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.C.No.552/2013 whereby he allowed the application of respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent.Applicant and his family members asked for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- cash, a tractor and a car from the parents of respondent for taking her back.Aggrieved by such behaviour of the applicant and his family members respondent filed a petition before the Family Court, Indore for restitution of conjugal rights.Learned Trial Court allowed the applicant's petition.In compliance of that order applicant took the respondent along with him on 01.02.2013, but his behaviour with the respondent remained same but after sometime he left the respondent at her parental house.Then respondent lodged the report against the applicant in Police Station Malharganj.On the report Crime No.251/2013 was registered, which is already pending against the applicant.Applicant is also having business of selling milk and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain respondent, but has refused to maintain the respondent without any sufficient cause.So, the applicant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegation levelled by the respondent against him and averted that family members of the respondent solemnized the marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that she is handicapped .Also, at the time of marriage applicant was minor, so applicant's marriage with respondent is void.Applicant never demanded any dowry and never harassed the respondent.Respondent made false allegation in this regard in her application.Respondent works as Beautician and also works in a private company and earns Rs.13,000/-per month and is able to maintain herself, while applicant earns only Rs.30000-35,000/- per year and he is not able to maintain respondent and prays for rejection of application.[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties allowed the application of respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent observing that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant who is able to maintain her is not maintaining respondent without any sufficient cause.[5] Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this revision.[6] Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Trial Court by the order dated 18.03.2015 wrongly closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent due to which because applicant was debarred from his right.It is also proved from the evidence that respondent was minor at the time of marriage and the family members of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped.Since applicant was minor at the time of marriage, so marriage of respondent with applicant is void.In these circumstances respondent has no right to claim maintenance.Even otherwise it is clearly proved from the evidence produced by the parties that respondent is able to maintain herself while applicant is having only 1/6th share in 10 Bigha of his agriculture land and only earns Rs.30000-35,000/- per annum.Trial Court without appreciating the fact wrongly awarded Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance.[7] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Trial Court after appreciating all the evidence rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/-.There is no need for interference in that order and pray for rejection of the petition.[8] The court perused the record and arguments put forth by the parties.It appeared from the record that learned Trial Court by order dated 18.03.2015 closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent but at the same time it also appeared from the record that on 22.09.2014 respondent and her brother was present in the court for giving evidence but applicant sought time to cross-examine.On that date applicant yet again sought time to cross-examine the respondent whereupon trial court gave one more opportunity by way of last indulgence and case was fixed for 18.03.2015 but again on that date applicant sought time to cross-examine the respondent.Then Trial Court closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.Where, even after taking four opportunities the applicant did not cross-examine the respondent, the trial court did not commit any error in closing the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.[9] Although applicant stated that parents of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with him deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped so marriage is void but it does not appear to be correct.Because applicant himself admitted that after marriage respondent lived with him for three years and if parents of respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped then applicant should have filed the suit for declaring the marriage void on that ground then and there.[10] Applicant also stated that at the time of marriage he was minor so his marriage with respondent is void but as per hindu marriage Act the marriage of a minor is not void.It is not the case of applicant that he after attaining the majority filed any suit for annulling the marriage on that ground.[11] Respondent clearly deposed that after marriage she lived with the applicant for three years but after that applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her back.Then she filed the petition before the Family Court.On the order of Family Court applicant took her but after one & half year applicant again left her in her parental home.Since then respondent is living with her father.The statement of respondent is corroborated by the statement of Pradeep (PW-2).Respondent also deposed that applicant did natra with Pooja and at present Pooja is living with the applicant as his wife.Applicant himself in his cross-examination clearly admitted that he was not ready to keep respondent with him which shows that applicant himself not willing to keep respondent with him.[12] Respondent also deposed that she is handicapped and she has no earning.Although applicant stated that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20000 to 22,000/- per month but respondent clearly denied this fact.Applicant did not produce any cogent evidence which proves that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20,000 to 22,000/- per month.[13] So it is clearly proved that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant is able to maintain respondent but has refused to maintain her without any sufficient cause.In these circumstances respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.[14] As far as the amount of maintenance is concerned.It appears from the record that learned trial court on the basis of Ex.P/4 and P/5 revenue papers of agricultural land of applicant assumed that applicant is having sufficient income but it is clear from Ex.P/4 and P/5 that applicant has only 1/6th share in total 2.516 hectare land mentioned in Khasra and Khatoni.So the maintenance awarded by the trial court to the applicant appears to be on the higher side.It is appropriate to reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.Accordingly, the Revision is partly allowed and the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court to the applicant is reduced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-per month.Remaining conditions of the trial court order shall remain the same.The revision is disposed of accordingly.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.135/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.193/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Dinesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent No.9/State.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.861/2016 06.02.2017 Shri M.J.Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, lerned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file fresh application before the Juvenile Justice Board .Prayer is accepted.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9813/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 06.02.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the First A.M.A.C.T., Mandleshwar whereby he rejected applicant's application to pay the amount of Rs.57,375/- in cash which was kept by the Tribunal in Fixed Deposit in the name of the applicant in the Nationalized Bank.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant and other person filed the Claim Case No.3/2012 before the Trial Court in which the Trial Court awarded him Rs.4,25,000/-.The Trial Court deposited Rs.4,25,000/- in the Fixed Deposit in the Nationalized Bank for five years.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant's dwelling house has been damaged because of heavy rains and she wants money to repair the same.[4] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court has wrongly rejected her application.Hence, the Revision is allowed.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.134/2017 03.02.2017 None present for the applicant.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after a week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.351/2016 03.02.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.74/2015 03.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Heard on IA No.10593/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 180 days.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.765/2014 03.02.2017 Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Respondent wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 02.02.2017 Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - present in person.None present on behalf of respondent No.2, even after service of notice.seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.793/2016 02.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the .Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Respondent No.3 - Shri Irfan Ahmed Khan is present in person with learned Panel Lawyer wants four weeks time to file reply.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.226/2012 02.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri Rahul Verma, learned counsel for the surety.Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks along with the report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.663/2013 02.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1115/2016 01.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Abid.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.714/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Abid S/o Abdul Patel for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Appellant Abid has been convicted under Sections 148, 326/149, 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively.According to prosecution story, on 21.6.2016, at 5.30 p.m., in village Multanpura when injured Fajju (PW-4) and deceased Afzal were putting sticks on bullock cart, accused Ishaq, Yusuf armed with swords, Abid, Salim armed with guns, Shabbir armed with Axe, Ahmed armed with Dhariya, Akilabi, Shamshadbi, Abdul Salam, Rafique armed with Lathis came there and beated Fajju and Afzal with their weapons with an intention to kill them.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated.Since co-accused Shamshad, Abdul Salam and Akila Bi were released on bail by this Court and appellant's case is similar to their case, therefore, on the ground of parity appellant also deserves to get bail.Hence application for suspension of sentence be allowed.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5), Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun and he also beated Fajju along with other co-accused and prayed for rejection.This Court has carefully gone through the case and judgment delivered by the Court below and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties.The case of the appellant Abid is not similar to other co-accused, who have been earlier granted bail by this court.It is clearly mentioned in the FIR lodged by eye witness Ibrahim (PW-2) that Abid was also present on the spot with gun and assaulted deceased Afzal by butt of gun in his legs.Injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5) and Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun.He also beated Fajju (PW-4) along with other co-accused and injured Fajju (PW-4) also deposed that Abid break the leg of deceased Afzal.According to the postmortem report, deceased Afzal sustained 13 injuries including on legs, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not appropriate to release the appellant on bail, hence, the application is rejected.The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Heard on IA No.697/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.The appeal is barred by 2,283 days.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.183/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Paurush Ranka, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two months.Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.1604/2016 on 13.02.2016, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of the respondent No.7 Sunil before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.159/2015 01.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce the applicant Javed before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1765/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Akash Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.53/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.94/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.Office is directed after curing the defect record be called.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1430/2016 01.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.160/2006 01.02.2017 Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5799/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 30.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 01.03.2017, with the consent of both parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6710/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR of Crime No.69/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC against the on the complaint of respondent No.2 Smt. Neha.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.05.2016, respondent No.2 Smt. Neha lodged a report against the applicant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that she is a legally wedded wife of the applicant.Her marriage was solemnized with applicant on 09.02.2010 at Sagar.Earlier also she had lodged report against the applicant regarding demand of dowry but after some time in June, 2013 she compromised with the applicant and started residing with him and she also got the case disposed of in compromise.But, applicant again tortured her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- as dowry and in the month of February,2016 applicant by force got divorce papers signed by her and expelled from house.Since then she has been living with her parents at Indore.On 10.04.2016, applicant came to her parental house at 73, Ashish Nagar, Kanadiya Road, Indore and abused her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- and also threatened to kill her.On that report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC was registered against the applicant.After investigation charge- sheet was filed.Being aggrieved with the FIR applicant has filed this application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier also respondent No.2 lodged a report against the applicant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and after some time she compromised with the applicant and again after some time to harass the applicant lodged a false report against the applicant.Respondent No.2 Smt. Neha herself tortured the applicant by her act.Earlier respondent No.2 and applicant had filed an application under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act for taking divorce with consent.But after that respondent No.2 wrongly lodged the FIR mentioning that applicant forcibly got the divorce papers signed from her.So, this report be quashed.[4] Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that on the report of respondent No.2 Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of IPC against the applicant and after investigation of that crime charge-sheet has been filed by the Police before the court.Let the matter be listed after two months.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.813/2016 31.01.2017 Dr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.261/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondents No.1 to 5 even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1468/2013 31.01.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondents No.1 and 2 even after service of notice.As per office report, respondents No.4 and 5 died.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1691/2016 31.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 01.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the chargesheet has already been filed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary and probation officer's report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4477/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.81/2015 31.01.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13068/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.[2] It is appeared from the record that on 11.01.2017 this court has directed the Principal Registrar to verify the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar in its report dated 23.01.2017 has stated that complainant/respondent and s No.1 to 3 admit that they amicably settled their dispute.It appears from the record that it was a land dispute which was amicably settled between the parties.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record from the Family Court, Neemuch.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after receiving of the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.971/2017 30.01.2017 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.On payment of fresh process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.39/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the appellant even after service of notice.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.Let the matter be listed after six weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1287/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file fresh application under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court regarding amount.Thus, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1376/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1635/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri J.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8585/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round, therefore, the case is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9210/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on IA No.8271/2016, an application for condonation of delay in filing petition.After due consideration, application (IA No.8271/16) is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of Cr.R.No.353/2016, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 30.04.2016 counsel could not appear before the court due to some reason, so Cr.R.No.353/16 has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and Cr.R.No.353/2016 is restored to its original position.A.No.1735/2016 27.01.2017 Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.C.No.13007/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed along with MCC No.980/16, MCC No.981/16 and MCC No.982/16 in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.106/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call the report from the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Mandsaur regarding appellant Lalchand @ Sudama S/o Banshilal resident of Garoth, District Mandsaur, whether he has suffered the sentence imposed against him in S.T.No.106/08 or not?Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9304/2014 27.01.2017 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondents No.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 &Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.776/2015 27.01.2017 Shri Shivendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Applicant is also directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.981/2015 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1370/2015 27.01.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5859/2015 27.01.2017 Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file inquiry report conducted by the Police Mahila Cell, District Ratlam as desired by the counsel for the applicant on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.165/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Meanwhile, execution of the impugned order remain stayed till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.224/2016 25.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.966/2001 25.01.2017 None present on behalf of the sole appellant Rajesh.Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Rajesh before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 25.01.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.Thus, the application (IA No.587/2017) is dismissed as withdrawn.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.151/2014 25.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1527/2015 25.01.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.5/2016 25.01.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.475/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.None present on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice.In the absence of respondent matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1017/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed along with FA No.9982/2016 after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.595/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the service report along with the record on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8348/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11620/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13019/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Anita Gaud, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.300/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Mohammed Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file necessary documents.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1133/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2490/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.None present on behalf of the respondent.In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.85/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, notice issued to respondents No.1 to 5 received unserved and notice of respondent No.6 not received yet.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to service on respondents by hamdast mode.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.460/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, non-supply of copy of appeal memo notice not issued to the respondents.is directed to produce the copy of appeal memo within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1460/2010 24.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Mohammed Salim before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1025/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Deepesh Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Naushad received unserved.Again issue non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the applicant Naushad before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1497/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.Ms. Aditi Mudgal, learned counsel for the respondent.By way of last indulgence, time is given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to pay process fee.Prayer is accepted.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.2, returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1761/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1634/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7009/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.128/2017 24.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.He is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.849/2017 24.01.2017 Shri J.C.Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.8480/2016, which is an application for conversion of this First Appeal into Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.Due to mistake in legal advise the original appeal was filed as "Civil First Appeal" under Order 41 read with Section 96 of CPC.It should have been filed as a "Miscellaneous Appeal" under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC.So, this First Appeal be converted into Miscellaneous Appeal.Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.Amendment be carried out within three days.Let the matter be fixed after Four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.125/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.It is also directed to reflect the name of Shri Sunil Yadav as counsel for the appellant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1135/2015 24.01.2017 Ms. Prerana Kataria, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12415/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.10/State.The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to mistake and oversight the case could not be marked by the counsel and, therefore, on account of this bona fide mistake the counsel for the applicant could not appear at the time of hearing of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 which was dismissed for want of prosecution.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 is restored to its original position.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 13.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.C.No.422/2017 23.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.58/2017 23.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.104/2017 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.One month's time is granted to pay remaining court fees.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, with the consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8921/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Vinod Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.396/2014 23.01.2017 Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.5/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.454/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.726/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.765/2016 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017 as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.864/2016 23.01.2017 Ms. Sophiya Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for both the parties seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.201/2006 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Appellant Lavkush is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.Heard on IA No.454/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 05.10.2016 and for recall of order dated 12.01.2017 for issuing non-bailable warrant.Appellant submits that he was in jail on 05.10.2016 in other case, therefore, he could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on the said date.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, application is allowed and absence of appellant Lavkush on 05.10.2016 is hereby condoned and order for issuing non- bailable warrant is recalled.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.746/2013 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.As per office report, notice of respondent No.1 received unserved in absence of correct address.Counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.1, returnable within six weeks.Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2675/2013 23.01.2017 Shri J.M.Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant.None present on behalf of the respondent though served.The appeal is already admitted.List for final hearing in due course.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.246/2015 23.01.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Pappu Mansuri on 02.01.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Appellant Abdul is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Abdul on 02.12.2016 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.475/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.No one is present on behalf of proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1, even after service of notice.Respondent No.2 is also not present, even after service of notice.Heard on IA No.7815/2016, which is an application for taking legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, IA No.7816/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of filing application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and IA No.7817/2016, which is an application for setting aside of abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC.After due consideration, IAs (IA No.7815/16, IA No.7816/16 and IA No.7817/16) are allowed.Applicant is directed to incorporate the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 in place of respondent No.1 in appeal memo.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.725/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.None present for the respondent.Service report of respondents is awaited.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 23.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC No.39/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.C.C. No.42/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Kaushal Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.84/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Hemant Kumar Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.125/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is directed to call for the record.List next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.144/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.146/2017 20.01.2017 Shri M. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant.As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.67/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.75/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.109/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.He is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.List next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.654/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, which is an application for stay.Applicant's counsel submits that the non-applicant has filed a private complaint against the applicants and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.10.2015 took the cognizance for the the offence under Section 420 of IPC and issued non-bailable warrant against the applicants.He prays that the further proceedings before the trial Court be stayed till the next date of hearing.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the non-applicant on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, returnable within four weeks.Meanwhile, learned trial Court is directed that if the non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants, it be recalled.Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.680/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.698/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Apporva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.List after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.755/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.78/2014 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks two weeks' time to file reply of the petition.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR.No.93/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR. No.100/2016 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent, even in second round.In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.214/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondent(s) seeks time to file reply.Prayer is allowed.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.535/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply.Prayer is allowed.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.539/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicants.Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file compliance report.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.581/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Notice issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is received unserved with a note that they are not residing at given address.Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.Prayer is allowed.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.628/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file reply.List after two weeks.List after three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6044/2016 20.01.2017 Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6905/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.10120/2016 20.01.2017 Shri A. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11297/2016 20.01.2017 Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.12948/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.29/2017 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for respondent/ State is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.List the matter in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.77/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record before next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi F.A No.123/2005 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Prayer is allowed.He is directed to file positively on next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.513/2010 20.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant/State.After due consideration, application is allowed.Counsel for the respondents is directed to delete name of respondent Nos.1 and 3 from the appeal memo.Necessary amendment be incorporated within three working days.Office is directed to call for the record.Office is also directed to send reminder.List the matter in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.2168/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment will be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1384/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.On payment of PF within 15 days issue notice to respondent, returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11242/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sijonia, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.44/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Vinay Sharaf, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the State is directed to produce case- diary before next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.824/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri B.L. Yadav, learned senior counsel for the respondent.In absence of counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1029/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.As per office report, notice issued to respondent received unserved.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay PF within seven days.On payment of PF issue notice to the respondent within one week, returnable within four weeks.Office is directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1149/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.None for respondent even after service of notice.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

(a) The deceased Shankar Govind Katkar was the husband of Rajjakka, the first informant.They were residing at Village Falakewadi, Taluka : Walva, District Sangli.The deceased was an horticulturist.The routine of the deceased was to collect the vegetables by the evening and sell the same on the next morning in the vegetable market at Sangli.The gunny bags containing vegetables were dispatched daily in a tempo.(b) The deceased was actively involved in politics.The deceased was the Sarpanch of the Villagepanchayat Falakewadi for a period of eight years.Eknath Gunda Apugade, the accused No.3 led the rival political group.In the Villagepanchayat elections held in 1992-93, the Panel led by accused No.3-EknathShraddha Talekar PS 3/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.doc Apugade was elected.Thus, there was political rivalry.(c) On the morning of 31 st October 1994 at about 5:00 a.m., as usual, the tempo came to the house of the deceased for transporting vegetables.The deceased and the first informant loaded the bags of coriander.Balasaheb Ramchandra Apugade (P.W.7), another horticulturist, was travelling in the said tempo with his vegetables.The deceased informed Balasaheb Ramchandra Apugade (P.W.7) to proceed ahead and he would follow them on his M-80 moped.After few minutes, the deceased left the house on M-80 moped on his way to Sangli via Falakewadi-Nagaon road.(d) Usually the deceased used to return home after selling the vegetables by 9:00 a.m. On 31 st October 1994, the deceased did not return home.At about 7:00 p.m., Balasaheb Ramchandra Apugade (P.W.7) came to the house of the deceased and informed the first informant that the deceased had not come to the vegetable market at Sangli and thus he had sold the bundles of coriander, and tendered the sale proceeds and the empty gunny bags to the first informant.Thereupon, the firstShraddha Talekar PS 4/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.doc informant, Ramchandra Govind Katkar (P.W.6), the brother of the deceased, and others did search for the deceased in the nearby villages and the places which the deceased was expected to visit.Despite search, the whereabouts of the deceased could not be known.Hence, on 1 st November 1994, Ramchandra Govind Katkar (P.W.6) lodged missing report (Exh.35) at Ashta Police Station.(e) On the vary day, Ramchandra Katkar (P.W.6) claimed to have noticed blood stains on Falakewadi-Nagaon road and apprised the police about the same.The panchnama at the said spot came to be drawn and the samples of blood-mixed and plain earth were collected thereunder.(f) The prosecution claimed that inquiry into the missing report of the deceased was underway.In the F.I.R., the first informant alleged that there was a long standing political feud between the deceased and Eknath Gunda Apugade,Shraddha Talekar PS 5/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.doc accused No.3 and his associates.In addition, the maternal aunt of the first informant Sou.Shantabai Sakharam Apugade had purchased an agricultural land from Shamrao Ghadage.In the said transaction, the deceased had played a prominent role.Baban, the son of Shamrao Ghadage, was insisting that the said land be re-conveyed.A civil suit was subjudice between her maternal aunt Sou.Shantabai and Baban Ghadage.Yet, Banda Ganpat Apugade, accused No.4, who is the brother in law of Baban Ghadage, Eknath Apugade, accused No.3, his sons; accused No.1 Rajendra and accused No.5 Ravindra, and accused No.2 Arjun, a friend of accused No.1 had threatened the deceased with dire consequences if the said land was not re- conveyed in favour of Baban Ghadage.On account of the political rivalry and dispute over the said land, Rajjakka, the first informant alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 5 had abducted the deceased.(g) On the strength of the said F.I.R. (Exh.41), crime was registered at Ashta Police Station vide C.R.No.On the very day, the accused No.1-Rajendra made a disclosure statement to show the place where the dead body of the deceased was buried.Consequent to the disclosure statement, the investigating officer requested the Executive Magistrate, Islampur and the Medical Officer to accompany the police party.The accused No.1 Rajendra led the police party to the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 254/10, which stood in the name of accused No.3 Eknath Apugude and had standing sugarcane crop.The accused pointed out the spot which was at a distance of 30 to 32 paces inside the boundary.Upon excavation, the dead body of the deceased was found buried.The legs were amputed.The Medical Officer opined that the death was caused due to 'shock due to cranio-cerebral injury associated with cutting of both thighs'.The deceasedled one group.The accused No.2-Arjun led the police party to a placewhich was abutting the cattle-shed and took out one sword and ironbar which were concealed under the heap of dry sugarcane leaves.There were blood stains on the sword.Thereafter, accused No.2 ledthe police party to his house and took out the spade, pati and pickaxewhich were kept under the cot.Those articles were seized under theseizure panchnama (Exh.20).AnilFalake (P.W.2) conceded in the cross-examination that accused No.2-Arjun had not accompanied them when they left Ashta Police Stationpursuant to the disclosure statement made by accused No.1-Rajendra.Anil Falake (P.W.2) went on to admit that accused No.2-Arjun wasnot present at the place wherefrom the dead body of the deceasedwas taken out.Thepanchnama whereunder the dead body of the deceased was exhumedrecords that it was commenced at 11:00 a.m. and concluded at 12:25p.m.Accused No.2-Arjun allegedly made disclosure statement at about4:35 p.m. The same witnesses were shown to have witnessed the saiddisclosure and that too in the field of accused No.3-Eknath.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3 rdFebruary 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangliin Sessions Case No.61 of 1995, whereby and whereunder theappellants Rajendra and Arjun (original accused Nos.1 and 2) came tobe convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code') andsentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each, on the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for five years andfine of Rs.2,000/- each, on the second count, with default stipulationfor having committed murder of Shankar Govind Katkar ('thedeceased') and caused disappearance of evidence of the offence withintention to screen themselves from legal punishment.The background facts leading to this appeal can be stated inbrief as under :-The police interrogated several persons.The whereabouts of the deceased, however, could not be located.On 8 th December 1994, Rajjakka, the first informant, lodged the first information report (Exh.41).71 of 1994 for the offences punishable under section 364 and 506 read with 34 of the Penal Code.Shivaji Katkar, another brother of the deceased, and Rajjakka, the first informant, identified the dead body.(i) Since the body was in a decomposed state, the Medical Officer, who accompanied the police party, conducted the post- mortem examination at the said spot and found injuries onShraddha Talekar PS 7/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.doc skull.(j) On the very day, the accused No.2-Arjun made a discovery leading to the recovery of the weapons of offence, i.e., a sword and an iron bar, and the instruments used for digging the pit and burying the deceased.The accused No.2- Arjun made a further disclosure on 13 th December 1994 pursuant to which Bajaj M-80 moped of the deceased came to be recovered from Kochi Dam (Bandhara).(k) On 14th December 1994, the accused No.6 Suresh Shivaji Khot also made a disclosure statement to point out the scene of occurrence from where the earth was collected to spread over the blood spilled over Falakewadi-Nagaon Road.The investigating officer interrogated the witnesses and recorded their statements.After finding the complicity of the accused, charge-sheet came to be lodged in the court of jurisdictional Magistrate.framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under section 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Penal Code.The accused abjured their guilt and claimed for trial.(m) At the trial, to bring home the charge to the accused, the prosecution examined in all ten witnesses, including Ramchandra Katkar (P.W.6); the brother of the deceased, Rajjakka (P.W.9), wife of the deceased-the first informant, Dr. Dattatraya Appasaheb Kadam (P.W.3); the Autopsy Surgeon, Vasant Bahurao Patil (P.W.5); the Executive Magistrate, Anil Nanasaheb Falake (P.W.2) and Shivaji Vasant Apugade (P.W.4); the public witnesses to the discovery, and Deelip Ganpatrao Katake (P.W.10); the investigating officer who furnished the details of investigation.The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence which consisted of denial and false implication on account of political rivalry.However, the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 was established.Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to be convicted and sentenced as indicated above.judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.We have heard Mr.Prosper D'souza, the learned counsel for theappellants and Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor at length.To begin with, the aspect of homicidal death.DattatrayaKadam (P.W.3) affirmed that as the body was in a decomposed state,he conducted post-mortem examination at the spot wherefrom thedead body of the deceased was disinterred.Dr. Dattatraya Kadam(P.W.3) informed the Court that, on external examination, thefollowing injuries were noticed :-"(1) Linear fracture of skull bone 12 cm.x ½ cm.cavity deep extending from glabella, left lateral forehead upto the parietal region posterior upto bregma.Fracture skull bone was ½ cm.To left from sagittal suture, margins of fracture shows tattooing.(2) Right Lower limb at junction of Lower 1/3 and middle 1/3 of femur sharp edged cutting of bone through and through separating Lower portion of leg totally.Cut margins of femur shows tattooing.Surrounding muscle tissue decomposed at places.(3) Left Lower limb at junction of lower 1/3 and middle 1/3 of femur sharp edged, cutting of bone through and through separating lower portion of leg totally.Cut margins of femur shows tattooing surrounding muscle tissue decomposed at places." On internal examination, Dr. Dattatraya Kadam (P.W.3)Shraddha Talekar PS 13/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.doc noticed as under :"(ii) Skull Linear fracture 12 cm.x 1½ cm.cavity deep extending into anterior fossa.Fracture extending from gabella anteriorly to bregma posteriorly, cut margins shows tattooing.(iii) Brain-Dura cut below fractured site of skull.In his opinion, the cause of death was shock due to craneo-cerebral injury associated with cutting of both thighs.The aforesaidinjuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course ofnature.The nature of injuries noted by the Autopsy Surgeon justifies aninference of homicidal death.He affirmed that ShivajiKatkar, the brother of the deceased, did identify the body to be thatShraddha Talekar PS 14/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.docof the deceased.To add to this, Rajjakka (P.W.9) testified to the factthat after the body of the deceased was disinterred, the police hadshown the same to her and she had identified the dead body on thebasis of the clothes which the deceased wore when he left the houseon the morning of 31 st October 1994, including the multi-colouredthread which was wrapped around the waist of the deceased.Secondly, no credible material could be brought on record to establishShraddha Talekar PS 22/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.docthe relationship between the accused/appellants and Baban.Theinvestigating officer Deelip Katake (P.W.10) conceded in the crossexamination that he had recorded the statements of Shamrao Ghadage,Baban Ghadage and Vilas Ghadage but did not arrest them onsuspicion.In the absence of cogent evidence, it would be ratherhazardous to draw an inference that the accused would pick upcudgels on behalf of Baban Ghadage.The contemporaneous conduct of Rajjakka (P.W.9), the firstinformant, and Ramchandra Katkar (P.W.6) also assumes criticalsignificance.Rajjakka (P.W.9) was candid enough to concede that afterRamchandra Katkar (P.W.6) lodged the missing report, the policerepeatedly visited her house, almost every alternate day, for inquiry.The police did record her statement.She went on to admit in nouncertain terms that the police made inquiry with her as to whetherthe deceased had enmity with any person.Rajjakka (P.W.9) furtheraffirmed that she also used to visit Ashta Police Station regularly toascertain the progress of the inquiry into the missing report.Ramchandra Katkar (P.W.6) also conceded that he used to visit AshtaPolice Station every alternate day to ascertain the progress in theenquiry and that the police regularly visited Village Falakewadi andShraddha Talekar PS 23/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.docdid ask him and the first informant as to whether the deceased hadinimical relations with anybody.He admitted that the police hadrecorded his statements in the said inquiry.It would be contextually relevant to note that Deelip GanpatraoKatake (P.W.10), the investigating officer feigned ignorance as towhether police had recorded the statements of Rajjakka (P.W.9) andRamchandra Katkar (P.W.6) in the said inquiry.Deelip GanpatraoKatake (P.W.10) had the audacity to assert that he did not find itnecessary to take into account the statements of the witnessesrecorded in the said inquiry.The aforesaid admissions are required to be appreciated in thelight of the fact that the grounds, on which the enmity was sought tobe attributed, were well within the knowledge of both, Rajjakka(P.W.9) and Ramchandra Katkar (P.W.6).The political rivalry wassince decades.It is in the evidence of Anil Falake (P.W.2) thaton 9th December 1994, at about 8:30 a.m., the accused No.1 made astatement that he would show the place where the dead body of thedeceased was buried.It was reduced into a memorandum (Exh.16).Thereafter, accused No.1 led the police party to the sugarcane fieldwhich stood in the name of accused No.3, and pointed out the placewhich was at a distance of 30 to 32 paces from the outer boundary.Whereupon, the said spot was dug up.Shivaji Apugade (P.W.4), another independent witness, affirmedthat on 13th December 1994, the accused No.2-Arjun made adisclosure statement to the effect that he would show the place wherethe Bajaj M-80 moped was lying.Thereafter, accused No.2 led thepolice party to Kochi Bandhara (Dam) and pointed out the spot, inbetween the pillar No.12 and 13 of the bund, where the moped wasimmersed.Thereupon Laxman Ghongade (P.W.8), the diver, dived intothe dam and located the Bajaj M-80 moped, which was thereafterpulled out.Shraddha Talekar PS 31/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.docAn endeavour was made on behalf of the accused todemonstrate that the investigating machinery had known from beforethat the body of the deceased was buried at the said spot and thevehicle was drowned in the Dam and to falsely rope in the accused,on account of political rivalry, a farce of discoveries was made byemploying pliant public witnesses.The facts that F.I.R. came to be registered on 8 th December 1994and immediately on the next morning the accused were shown tohave been arrested, and made discoveries almost instantaneously, wereurged to throw a cloud of doubt over the genuineness of thediscoveries.Why therest of accused were brought to the field of accused No.3 and thepublic witnesses were detained despite the completion of exhumationby 12:25 p.m. remained unexplained.It would be contextually relevant to note that Vasant BhauraoPatil (P.W.5), the Executive Magistrate admitted that spectators hadgathered when the dead body of the deceased was being exhumed,but they were kept at a distance of about one furlong from the saidspot.In the circumstances, the evidence of discovery allegedly madeby accused No.2-Arjun appears to be unworthy of credence.It wouldShraddha Talekar PS 35/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.docbe extremely hazardous to place reliance on the claim of theinvestigating officer that after about four hours of exhumation of thedead body of the deceased, the rest of the accused were brought tothe said field and the accused No.2 was interrogated, in the publicgaze, and the latter made the disclosure statement.The accused were produced before the learned Magistrate on 9 thDecember 1994 at 10:30 p.m. Interestingly, in the Remand Report(Exh.55), which was proved in the cross-examination of theinvestigating officer, the police custody of the accused was claimed onthe ground that the iron rod and the instruments used for burying thedead body of the deceased namely spade, pati and pickaxe were to berecovered.However, the evidence led by the prosecution shows thatthe aforesaid articles were already recovered pursuant to the discoverymade by accused No.2-Arjun at about 4:35 p.m., itself.The necessary corollary is that accused No.2-Arjun cannot befastened with the knowledge of the concealment of the weapons ofassault and instruments used for burying the dead body of thedeceased.The nexus between the accused and the weapons of assaultand those instruments thus cannot be said to have been established.On account of failure of the prosecution to prove the discoveryleading to the recovery of the weapons of offence and theinstruments, allegedly made by accused No.2-Arjun, a vital link in thechain of circumstances gets snapped.The claim of recovery of Bajaj M-80 moped from KochiBandhara (Dam) at the pointing out by accused No.2, is also requiredto be accepted with a pinch of salt.The investigating officer claims tohave interrogated the accused No.2 on 9 th December 1994 and elicitedthe information pertaining to the weapons of offence and instruments.The time lag assumes significance,especially when the accused No.2 allegedly made the disclosurestatement in the field of accused No.3 on 9 th December 1994 itself.The missing report itself indicated that the deceased had proceeded toSangli on Bajaj M-80 moped.It does not stand to reason that theinvestigating officer would have missed to inquire about the vehiclewhen he claimed to have successfully elicited most incriminatoryinformation from the accused on the very day of arrest.In the backdrop of the nature of accusation and the attendantShraddha Talekar PS 37/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.doccircumstances, the evidence is required to be appreciated on thetouchstone of previous statements and probabilities.The fact that thepublic witnesses have subscribed to the prosecution version on theaspect of the discoveries allegedly made by accused Nos.1 and 2cannot be taken at par where it is shown that the village was factionridden and the public witnesses had affinity towards the deceased.Allthe factors, including the delay in lodging the report, despite therebeing an apprehension of foul play and knowledge of thecircumstances which were banked upon to show enmity between thedeceased and the accused party, bear upon the credibility of theprosecution.The fact that there is no other evidence except the discoveriesputs the Court on guard.To draw an inferenceof authorship of offence on the basis of ownership of the said land,sans evidence, would be a matter of surmise and conjecture and, thus,legally impermissible.There is evidence to indicate that the said fieldwas at a close distance from Bavchi Road.It had standing sugarcanecrop of about 11 ft. height.Thus, neither the possibility of access toothers could be totally ruled out.Nor it could be disputed that theShraddha Talekar PS 38/41 CRI-APEAL-113-1996-J-F.docstanding crop provided the opportunity for surreptitious burial.It was elicited in the cross-examination of the investigatingofficer Deelip Katake (P.W.10) that the distance between the placewhere the dead body was found and the spot where the blood stainswere found on the Falakewadi-Nagaon Road was about 1½ k.m.Therewere fields on both sides of the said road leading to the place wherethe dead body of the deceased was found.It is not the claim that anytrail of blood was found.This assumes significance as the prosecutionclaimed that on 1st November 1994 itself Ramchandra Katkar (P.W.6)had pointed the blood stains on the said spot on Falakewadi-NagaonRoad and the panchnama (Exh.14) was drawn.Hence, the following order :-O R D E R

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

JUDGMENT N.H. Patil, J.The appellant Khandu Wagh was married to deceased Hansabai, who was daughter of P. W. 2 Kaduba prior to six months of her death.The appellant was offered Rs. 15000/- as dowry in the marriage, After marriage, Hansabai started residing with the appellant.Seven to eight days after the marriage, she visited her parents house along with her husband.The husband returned back after leaving her at her matrimonial house.During stay of Hansabai.She disclosed to her parents that she was being harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law on the ground that she was not knowing household work.She even complained against her husband of harassment.After few days, the appellant again visited the house of the complainant to take Hansabai along with him.The appellant had stayed overnight with the parents of deceased in their house.Next day morning, the appellant started with Hansabai to proceed to his village.The prosecution alleges that on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. the appellant and other three relations of the accused, who were charge-sheeted along with the appellant but, were acquitted by the trial Court, reached village Rohini, Taluka Chalisgaon, where the father of the deceased resided.At that time Kaduba father of the deceased was in his field.The appellant, along with his relations, came in a jeep.The jeep was stopped at a distance of 40 to 50 feet away from the residence of Kaduba.The dead body of Hansabai was lying in the jeep.The appellant and other persons left the dead body on the ground and they ran away from the place.P.W. 6 Karbhari made enquiries with the appellant and others and they informed him that as Hansabai was serious, they had come to leave her at that place.The Sarpanch and Police Patil of the village also arrived at the spot.The dead body was brought to Government Hospital at Chalisgaon.The doctor examined and declared her as dead.P.W. 2 Kaduba father of the deceased states that he had seen ligature mark around her neck and abrasions on the body of the deceased.He saw one abrasion on toe also.The face of the deceased had turned blackish.Police visited the spot of incident, recorded spot panchanama (Exh. 19).The statements of witnesses were also recorded.The clothes of the deceased were seized under panchanama (Exh. 22).On 14-5-1997 the Investigating Officer visited the village Rohini and recorded panchanama (Exh. 21) of the place where the dead body was allegedly thrown by the appellant.Post mortem was conducted on the dead body.Police filed charge sheet after completion of the investigation.The Prosecution Witness No. 2 Kaduba is father of the deceased Hansabai.P.W. 3 Daga Chaudhari is a panch of the spot panchanama.P.W. 4 Shantaram Bagul is also a panch in whose presence, panchanama of the place where Hansabai was lying, was recorded.Both these witnesses had deposed in the Court and nothing is found to discard their testimonies.Initially, four accused persons were charge sheeted and tried by the Addl.Sessions Judge.By a judgment and order delivered in Sessions Case No. 104/1997 dated 20-12-1997, the original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34, 498-A read with 34 of IPC.The appellant was also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.The appellant-original accused No. 1 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month.The appellant has preferred this appeal against the said judgment and order.The prosecution has examined in all twelve witnesses.With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone through the evidence of the witnesses and the relevant record and proceedings of the case.The prosecution examined Baliram P.W. 1 as Panch witness of inquest panchanama, who deposed that the face of the deceased hansabai had turned into bluish-blackish colour.There was abraison on her waist and her neck was having ligature mark of about 6" length.Her mouth was swollen.Her tongue was protruding.Nothing much was elicited from this witness by the defence to discard his testimony.He has supported the prosecution case.He categorically stated that the appellant, along with other accused persons came in a jeep while he was in his field and kept the dead body of Hansabai there and ran away.He had witnessed ligature mark on the neck of Hansabai and abrasions on her waist and toe.He has dented the suggestion of the defence that when his daughter was brought back in the evening, she was unconscious.This witness further stated that before marriage, her daughter was not suffering from any ailment.The distance between the village of Kaduba P.W. 2 and the village of the appellant was stated to be about 30-35 kms.Waghali village is 4 kms.away from the village of the appellant.This witness further deposed that deceased Hansabai had proceeded along with the appellant to the Bus Stand.After getting down at village Javare, one has to go on foot to the village of appellant by crossing a distance of about 3-4 kms.On material particulars like arrival of appellant in a jeep along with dead body of the deceased Hansabai and immediately returning back, the evidence of this witness was not shattered by the defence.P.W. 5 is Dr. Rajendra Bapurao Chavhan who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Hansabai.The dead body was brought from Chalisgaon Police Station.This witness had stated that the face of the deceased Hansabai had turned blackish and bluish.Her tongue was protruding and swelling was present around her eyes.Blood stained clot was oozing from her mouth.The doctor had noticed following external injuries on the dead body of Hansabai :(1) Abrasion on greateo medially 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm.(2) Contused abrasion at right illiceacord anteriorly 2 cm.in length x 5 cm in depth.(3) Compression contused abrasion all around neck size 1 cm.all around neck.The doctor opined that it was a asphyxical death due to strangulation.He further stated that on the basis of external injury No. 3, according to him, it was a case of throttling.The doctor opined that all the injuries were ante mortem injuries.In the cross-examination, the Medical Officer stated that in this case he had noticed vomiting but did not notice purging.Chalisgaon taluka is hot in the month of May between 10.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. Exposure to heat, exertion may result into sunstroke.The deceased was of average constitution and she had no previous history of any disease.He denied suggestion that it was a case of sunstroke.The cause of death, according to the post-mortem report was "death due to asphyxia due to strangulation".P.W. 6 Karbhari Sagale in his deposition stated that when he saw hansabai, she was dead.He further stated that when Kaduba lodged complaint, he was present in the police station.His evidence also supports the stand taken by the father of the deceased.P.W. 8 is Narayan Sonwane, who stated in his examination that the deceased was kept by her husband on a cot in her father's house and at that time, she was alive.P.W. 9 Gangubai states that she had seen the deceased following her husband while they were proceeding to the village of her husband.She states that the deceased was sick and she was carrying a bag in her hands.In her cross-examination, she states that due to heat in summer days, the deceased was looking tired.At Chalisgaon, the deceased had asked for some water.P.W. 10 is Dr. Motiram Patil.In his evidence, he states that the appellant had visited his house between 2 to 2.30 p.m. on 12-5-1997 and told that his wife was feeling giddiness, she was uneasy and vomiting and therefore, he should accompany the appellant to his house at Chambhardi.This witness examined the deceased and found that he was not getting her pulse.Her eyes were dry.Though, he did not give any treatment to her, he informed that the deceased was serious and therefore, she should be shifted to Chalisgaon.In the cross-examination, this witness stated that when he saw the deceased Hansabai, she was not in a position to speak.She had vomiting and as he did not get her pulse, he did not record her blood pressure.P.W. 11 is Bhausaheb Sonawane who is driver by occupation.He made a statement in the cross-examination that when Hansabai was taken to her father's house, she was alive.This witness was driver on the vehicle in which Hansabai was brought to village Rohini.SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENCE :The conduct of the appellant absolves him from suspicion that he must be the author of the crime.The learned counsel placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 8 Narayan Sonwane and P.W. 9 Gangubai to support the probability of the defence which the appellant had taken.The evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Rajendra Chavhan, who noticed a ligature mark on the neck, according to the learned Counsel, could not be sole circumstance to attribute guilt to the appellant in absence of cogent and reliable evidence brought on record by the prosecution.The learned counsel further submitted that the charge was framed against the appellant and three acquitted accused.The charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC was framed against all the four accused and in absence of sim-pliciter charge framed against the appellant the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, some of the prosecution witnesses are interested one and, therefore, they are deposing against the appellant.The appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased.The deceased was in his custody as wife.There is evidence to this effect that the appellant and his wife were seen going to the village of the appellant.The prosecution had made allegations against the appellant regarding harassment meted out to the deceased Hansabai.The conduct of the appellant is also blameworthy.The appellant had brought the dead body of the deceased to the village of the P.W. 2 Kaduba and by leaving the dead body-there, the appellant had left the place unmindful of the fact that the deceased was his wife.The prosecution had completed the chain of circumstances and the only inference that could be drawn is that it is the appellant alone who must have committed the offence.APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE :From the totality of the evidence led by the prosecution, it could be gathered that the prosecution has led credible evidence and completed the chain of circumstantial evidence while pointing out accusation against the appellant.It has come on record that the deceased was in the company of the appellant as her husband.They had gone to the village of the husband and in the evening the appellant returned to the village of the complainant P.W. 2 Kaduba in a jeep along with the dead body of the deceased.The dead body, according to the prosecution, was kept in the field where P.W. 2 Kaduba was working.Though the defence had suggested that the body was brought to the house of the P.W. 2 Kaduba and the deceased was alive but, the said theory does not get credibility if we consider the attending facts and circumstances and the evidence of other witnesses who were present when the appellant arrived in the village, kept dead body and ran away.The evidence of P.W. 2 Kaduba is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 6 Karbhari whose evidence cannot be discarded merely due to the fact that he is distant relation of P.W. 2 Kaduba.It was suggested by the defence that the ligature mark as noticed by the Medical Officer around neck of the deceased, was not a mark of strangulation and such a mark would not be there at all.The inquest panchanama (Exh. 15) was proved by P.W. 1 Baliram who states in his evidence that the deceased had a ligature mark of 6" length and her mouth was swollen and her tongue was protruding outside.The appellant could not break this chain of circumstances by his explanation.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of Dr. Rajendra and the medical certificates.Minor discrepancies here and there would not affect the prosecution case.If in its entirety the evidence led by the prosecution is worth reliable and the prosecution is successful in establishing the chain of events leading to the guilt of the accused.The prosecution established that the deceased died due to homicidal death.The appellant failed to explain the injuries which were noticed on the person of the deceased.Considering the nature of the, evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the view that the prosecution has completed the chain of circumstances which leads to the only conclusion that the appellant is the author of the crime.The prosecution has proved vital circumstances establishing guilt against the appellant such as :(a) homicidal death of the deceased was established;(b) the deceased was in the company of the appellant prior to her death;(c) there was no past history of the deceased having any ailment;(d) the medical evidence shows that death of Hansabai was due to asphyxia due to strangulation;(e) the conduct of the appellant was vulnerable who had carried the dead body of the deceased to the village of the complainant and kept the dead body in front of the complainant and hurriedly ran away along with others in a jeep;(f) the explanation provided by the appellant and the defence taken, are not probable.We may usefully refer to a reported judgment in the case of Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala, .The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, inter alia held thus (Para 10) :"It is often said that though witnesses may lie, circumstances will not, but at the same time it must cautiously be scrutinised to see that the incriminating circumstances are such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused.There can also be no hard and fast rule as to the appreciation of evidence in a case and being always an exercise pertaining to arriving at a find-ing of fact the same has to be in the manner necessitated or warranted by the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.The whole effort and endeavour in this case should be to find out whether the crime was committed by the appellant and the circumstances proved, form themselves into a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant."The trial Court, therefore, had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and ar- rived at the conclusion of convicting and sentencing the appellant - original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.In our opinion, for the reasons stated above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.We accordingly, dismiss the appeal.The appellant was released on bail by this Court.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for sufficient time for the appellant to surrender.We grant six weeks time from today to the appellant to surrender to his bail.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Office is directed to allot a regular number to appeal if there is no other defects.Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.Present appeal under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Baghpat in S.T. No. 527 of 2011 (State Vs.Sukram Pal), arising out of Case Crime No. 79 of 2011, Police Station- Chhaprauli, District- Baghpat, convicting the appellant under Section- 186 I.P.C. for simple imprisonment of three months alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- in default of fine the appellant has to under 7 days additional imprisonment, under Sections- 323 IPC for simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in case of default of fine the appellant has to undergo 7 days imprisonment, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. for 02 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine the appellant has to undergo 07 days additional imprisonment in both sections, under Section 3 (2)7 of SC/ST Act, 01 years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of fine, the appellant has to undergo 07 days additional imprisonment; all the sentences as awarded aforesaid shall run concurrently.Learned AGA is directed to file objection/counter affidavit stating evidence against the appellants within four weeks.Let the appellant Sukarm Pal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.Order Date :- 7.11.2019 Shivangi

['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.

The appellants herein while discharging their duty as Agricultural Officer and Demonstration Assistant respectively in the Agricultural Department of Puducherry Union Territory Government were entrusted to identify farmers near Karaikal affected in the heavy rain and flood during October  November 2004 and to pay compensation.The appellants with common intention to cause wrongful loss to the Government and to dishonestly misappropriate the Government fund, fabricated documents such as claim applications in the name of fictitious persons or forged the applications in the name of existing persons without their knowledge and misappropriated a sum of Rs.97,750/-.Based on the preliminary report of P.W.6, the Additional Director of Agricultural Department, lodged a detailed complaint dated 10.03.2007 and the same was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation which is marked as Ex.P.1, during the trial.2.As per the complaint dated 10.03.2007 given by Mr.Thyagarajan  P.W.1, the Joint Director of Agricultural Department.D.Karunakaran (first Appellant) Agricultural Officer and Mr.T.Francis (second appellant) Demonstration Assistant, in charge, Keezhamanai Revenue District, jointly colluded and manipulated the original applications submitted by the affected farmers and made excessive claim over and above the entitlement and also made fake claims in the name of fictitious names or in the name of person who never applied thereby they jointly misappropriated a tune of Rs.97,750/-.The complaint  Ex.P.1 also enlisted 13 claimants, out of which, 5 were fictitious persons, four of them never applied and four applications were manipulated by the appellants so as to withdraw more money than the entitlement.3.The respondent Police has registered the case and after completion of investigation, has filed final report.The Lieutenant Governor who is the person competent to grant sanction to prosecute the appellants has given sanction and the same is marked as Ex.P.2 through P.W.2 Mr.Manickasamy.The trial Court, after considering the evidence has convicted the accused for offences under Sections 465 r/w 34 I.P.C., 468 r/w 34 I.P.C., and Section 13(1)(c)r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced both the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each for offence under Section 465 r/w 34 I.P.C; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days each for the offence under Section 468 r/w 34 I.P.C., and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days each for the offence under Section 13(1)(c)r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.5.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the prosecution case, out of 13 beneficiaries, 5 are fictitious persons and no such persons available in the given address.In four applications, it is alleged that excessive claim was made by the appellants than the entitlement and rest of the claim applications which were not made by the real applicants but forged by the appellants themselves with excessive claim.The fraud came to light on the petition complaint from public and through preliminary enquiry held by Mr.Jaishankar, Assistant Director (P.W.6).Both the so called complaint of the public and the enquiry report of Mr.Jaisankar (P.W.6) have not seen the light of the day.Without marking these two documents, the charge sheet filed by the respondent and the trial Court failed to note the grave omission on the part of the prosecution.6.Further, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the allegation made by the respondent against the appellants that, in the name of fictitious persons, the claim applications were made, is not proved by the prosecution.The addresses of the applicants were admitted by not checked with either the Tahsildar, or the Village Assistant, or the local body representatives.The cheques issued by the Government to the applicants were neither seized nor marked and the bank officers concerned were also not examined.Without marking these vital documents, the forgery or fraud as alleged by the prosecution against the appellants cannot be presumed.However, the trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 465 r/w 34 I.P.C., 468 r/w 34 I.P.C., and Section 13(1)(c)r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, inspite of lack of evidence.The inordinate delay in filing the Final report itself has caused serious prejudice to the appellants.The evidences of Ms.Gowri  P.W.3; V.Jaishankar  P.W.6; and Mr.R.Muthuramalingam  P.W.10 carries bundle of contradictions and false hood.They are not reliable witnesses and the conviction cannot be based on these contradictory, unworthy un- corroborated witnesses.When the villagers noticed gross violation and fraud in disbursement of relief fund, they went on protest and agitation which, prompted the Government to make preliminary enquiry about the issue.Accordingly, Mr.Jaishankar - P.W.6, the Assistant Director of Agricultural Department made enquiry and found the relief fund applications were forged and manipulated by the appellants thereby cheated the Government making false and excessive claim.Thereafter, Mr.S.Thiyagarajan  P.W.1, gave the complaint - Ex.P.1 to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cell, Puducherry.The investigation disclosed that the accused/appellants have made excessive compensation to (1)Mr.K.Natarajan (P.W.5); (2)Ms.A.Gowri (P.W.3); (3)Mr.K.Thandapani (P.W.8); (4)Mr.R.Mathiazhagan, (4)Mr.R.Samikannu and (5)Mr.9.The hand writing experts who have compared the disputed signatures of Mr.K.Natarajan (P.W.5) ; Ms.The ocular evidence of the individuals who were worn over by the accused shall be ignored.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.5; P.W.7; P.W.8 and P.Ws.11 and 12 have turned hostile.They have identified the signatures found in the applications as their signatures and received compensation by them as found in the claim applications.Their evidences are contradictory to their previous statements.The manipulations and corrections found in her application form were done without her consent and knowledge.She was given a cheque for Rs.8,000/- towards compensation later, the appellants/accused came to her house and collected Rs.6,000/- under the pretext that she was paid excessive compensation.The opinion of the hand writing expert marked as Ex.P.39 states that both the signatures found in the application - Ex.He was paid only Rs.2,500/- as compensation.As per the record, P.W.10 was paid Rs.5,375/- as compensation.Thus, forging the signatures of P.W.10 in Ex.P.19 is proved both through the oral evidence of the person concerned and by the scientific opinion - Ex.P.39 which opines that the signatures found in Ex.

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The case is pending trial.The second adverse case relates to Chengalpattu Town Police Station in Cr.The offences involved are under Section 395 r/w 397 IPC.The case relates to an occurrence that took place on 06.10.2001 night at 08.00 hours, where the accused Raji @ Uralai Raju @ Rajesh, along with his associates robbed Rs.69,500/- of Mahaveerchand Petrol bunk owner by attacking him with knife and absconded.Later, he was arrested and charge-sheeted.The case is pending trial.(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu by name Raji @ Uralairaju @ Rajesh, who was detained as a "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14, 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 01.12.2005, challenges the same in this petition.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.This is a second petition filed by the father of the detenu.It is not in dispute that by order dated 20.03.2006, in H.C.P.No.1334 of 2005, after considering all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court after satisfying itself, dismissed the said petition as devoid of any merit.The said petition was filed by a friend of the detenu and the present petition is filed by the father of the detenu.According to him, investigation was completed on 03.10.2005 itself.In the absence of proper explanation, the detention order is to be interfered by this Court.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.However, the learned Public Prosecutor by taking us through the details relating to four adverse cases, out of which the fourth adverse case relates to 302 I.PC.The first adverse case relates to Otteri Police Station in Cr.The offences involved are under Section 399, 402 and 395 r/w 397 IPC.It is seen that on 30.09.2001, at about 23.45 hours, the accused Raji @ Uralai Raju @ Rajesh along with his associates came to Sakthi Mariyamman Petrol Bunk and robbed Rs.22,200/- in the bunk and absconded.Later, he was arrested and charge-sheeted.The offences relate to Section 394, 397 IPC.r/w 120B IPC.It shows that on 07.12.2001, at about 9.45 hours, the accused along with his associates waylaid the container lorry and attacked the lorry driver and the cleaner near Pachaiamman Koil between Trichy and G.S.T. Bye-pass road and absconded.Later, he was arrested and charge sheeted.The case is pending trial.The fourth adverse case relates to Uthramelur Police Station in Cr.No.206 of 2005 and the date of occurrence is 22.03.2005, which shows that on 21.03.2005 evening at 06.30 hours, the accused, along with his associates, murdered one Jayabalan and absconded.Later, he was arrested and charge sheeted.The case is pending trial.It is brought to our notice that apart from the detenu, seven others were also involved and the said case relates to Mangalam Police Station Cr.The offences are under Section 147, 148, 302 IPC and Sec.4, 5 and 6 of Explosives Substances Act 1908 and Sec.25(1), 27 of Arms Act.Accordingly, we reject the said contention.As already observed, in view of the fact that the detenu and his associates were involved in Explosives Substances Act and Arms Act, normally it would take considerable time to get report from the concerned laboratory.In such circumstances, we are satisfied that the detention order cannot be interfered with on the ground of delay.Except the above said contention, no other ground is urged, disputing the detention order.In the light of what is stated above, we find no valid ground for interference.Consequently, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department,St.2.The District Magistrate cum District Collector,Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.[PRV/7721]

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

On 11.1.2000, the deceased Narayan Singh alongwith his brother Hargovind went to see his crops of wheat in the field situated at village Sagoni Kalan (Police Station Tejgarh, District Damoh).At about 8 p.m., Hargovind came back to his house but, the deceased Narayan Singh stayed in the field for the entire night.At about 9 p.m., the deceased Narayan Singh left the field to go to his house.Near a trivia in the village, the appellant met the deceased Narayan Singh and started assaulting him with a lathi (stick).On hearing his outcry, Hargovind, Hari Singh etc. rushed to the spot.Since the incident took place near the house of Arti Bai, therefore, Sultan Singh, Inder Singh and Arti Bai also went immediately to the spot.The appellant assaulted the deceased Narayan Singh on his head 4-5 times with his lathi.The deceased Narayan Singh therefore fell down on the ground and expired.Thereafter, Sunderlal Vishwakarma, father of the appellant and brother of the appellant, came to the spot alongwith other companions and took the appellant to their house.The dead body of the deceased Narayan Singh was sent for post-morten to District Hospital Damoh, where Dr.S.K.Khatri (P.W.7) had performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and gave his report, Ex.He found six injuries to him caused by hard and blunt object most of them were on the head of the deceased and on opening various wounds he found that there were so many fractures in his head, pieces of bones from left parieto occipital region were missing.Also there was a fracture on right parietal and temporal region.He preserved the viscera of the deceased alongwith pieces of bones and handed over to the concerned constable after sealing them for forensic science analysis.The police also recovered clothings of the appellant and all such articles were sent for forensic science analysis.In report, Ex.P/4, given by Forensic Science Laboratory, some blood was found on pant of the appellant Kamlesh and in report, Ex.( .8.2014) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by: N.K.Gupta, J. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 5.2.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.52/2000, whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-.In default of payment of fine, 6 months rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the appellant Kamlu @ Kamlesh had some dispute with Arti Bai (P.W.3), wife of Malkhan Singh, a quarrel took place between them in the past and in that quarrel, the deceased Narayan Singh intervened and therefore, the appellant felt someDue to aforesaid assault, various bones in the head of the deceased were broken and pieces of such bones, scattered on the spot.On 12.1.2000, at about 2 a.m., Hargovind Singh went to outpost Imaliya of Police Station Tejgarh and intimated about the incident and the case was-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 registered.P/22 given by serologist, it was found that human blood of Group 'B' was present on the pant of the appellant, which was the same as found on the Baniyan of the deceased.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Damoh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 Actually, Prahalad Singh S/o Sultan Singh was with the deceased Narayan Singh soon before the incident, who was still absconding and he was responsible for the crime.In defence, Khalai Singh @ Khilan Singh (D.W.1) and ASI Shri P.R.Prajapati (D.W.2) were examined.After considering the prosecution's evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.In the present case, Dr.S.K.Khatri (P.W.7) has stated that he performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Narayan Singh and found six wounds on his body.A large lacerated wound over left parietal region of scalp, extending backward upto the Lt. Occipital region, size is 11 cm x 3 cm.Brain tissue is oozing from it.A large lacerated wound over left occipital region, below injury No.1, size is 12 cms x 2.5 cms.A piece of brain tissue mixed with blood and pieces of bone is seen here.Another large lacerated wound over left occipital region below injury No.2, placed obliquely downward from mid line.Size is 3 cm x 1.5 cms.-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001A small lacerated wound behind left ear.Size is 3 cm x 1.5 cm.An abrasion over lateral surface, Rt.Elblow, size is 2 cm x 1 cm.Another abrasion below injury No.5, size is 1 cm x 1 cm.Subcutaneous tissue over both side of skull over post part shows side of haemotoma skull bones over left parieto occipital region shows multiple, irregular pieces.Three pieces of bones are present in the brain tissue lacerating the meninges brain tissue and blood vessels.Once line of fracture extended irregular to anterior part is midline upto parieto occipital region, while another line extended over right parietal and temporal bone.Fracture also present in posterior and middle fozza of bone of skull.Suture line of fronto- parietal Suture is open.Below various injuries on head, he found that there were so many fractures on the various bones of the skull and so many pieces of left parietal occipital region were missing.According to Dr.Khatri, death of the deceased was homicidal, which could be caused by a lathi.The learned counsel for the appellant did not agitate that the death of the deceased-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 was not homicidal and therefore, it is not necessary to discuss much on that point.The prosecution had examined 4-5 eye witnesses.Out of them, Hargovind (P.W.1), Sahab Singh (P.W.2), Arti (P.W.3), Inder Singh (P.W.4) have stated about the incident, whereas Sultan Singh (P.W.11) and Lal Prasad (P.W.12) have turned hostile.However, they have accepted that Narayan Singh was lying at a trivia and nobody informed them as to who assaulted the deceased.The witnesses Hargovind (P.W.1), Sahab Singh (P.W.2), Arti (P.W.3) and Inder Singh (P.W.4) have stated that they saw that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a lathi and due to such assault, head of the deceased was broken and upper portion of his body was filled with blood.It is true that an enmity of the appellant with the deceased is accepted by these witnesses but, enmity is a double edged weapon.Due to enmity, someone can falsely implicate his enemy or assault the enemy.Under such circumstances, the evidence of these witnesses is to be examined as to whether they are telling a truth or not.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Hargovind was brother of the deceased and Arti was the person for whom a quarrel had began between the deceased and the appellant in the past.-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 witnesses have claimed that when they reached to the spot, they found each other standing prior to the incident.However, it is a minor contradiction because if two witnesses had arrived on the spot from different directions then, there main attention must be on the deceased and the appellant and therefore, when they saw the persons surrounding the spot then, it was possible that they could found each other standing prior to their arrival.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that these witnesses were the created witnesses.According to the defence witness Khalai Singh @ Khilan Singh (D.W.1), he was working with Arti Bai in her field on the next day of the incident and Hargovind came to the field and took Arti Bai with the pretext that he wanted her consent to make her as witness in the case relating to death of his brother Narayan Singh.In this context, if FIR, Ex.P/1 is perused then, the incident took place at about 9 p.m. in the night and the FIR was lodged at 2 a.m. in the same night, in which it was mentioned that Arti Bai, Sultan Singh and Inder Singh were the eye witnesses.Under such circumstances, there was no need to the complainant Hargovind to contact Arti Bai in the noon of 12.1.2000 to get her consent to be a witness in the case.The testimony of the witness Khalai Singh @ Khilan Singh has no evidentiary value.-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001The appellant has also proved a report, Ex.D/5 with help of ASI Shri P.R.Prajapati (D.W.2) that one Sunderlal has lodged an FIR against Narayan Singh on 4.1.2000 to show that the deceased Narayan Singh had a quarrel with Sunderlal, 7 days ago.However, by a report that the deceased had abused Sunderlal Vishwakarma after consuming liquor was registered as a report of non cognizable offence and no action was taken against the deceased Narayan Singh by police and therefore, if any grievance was caused to anyone then it was caused to the deceased Narayan Singh.Sunderlal had already lodged an FIR against the deceased and hence thereafter, it was not possible that Sunderlal would have killed the deceased due to such a small quarrel and hence, the proof of the report, Ex.D/5 has no evidentiary value in the present case.Detailed cross-examination was done to the eye witnesses but, nothing could be brought on record to shake their testimony.Various minor contradictions were recorded in the evidence of these witnesses with their case diary statements but, by such minor contradictions, their testimony cannot be brushed aside.The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that amongst the eye witnesses, Hargovind was brother of the deceased and therefore, he was expected to intervene in the incident-:- 9 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 he would have also received some injuries.However, in para 7 of his evidence, he has given an explanation that since he did not have any weapon in his hand and therefore, he was unable to stop the appellant.Therefore, due to fear, he did not try to save his brother.The testimony of these witnesses is duly corroborated by timely lodged FIR, Ex.P/1 and the post-mortem report, Ex.P/8 proved by Dr.S.K.Khatri (P.W.7).Khatri found the injuries to the deceased on various parts of his body as described by the eye witnesses relating to blows caused by the appellant and therefore, due to appropriate corroboration, the testimony of the eye witnesses should be believed.Sub Inspector D.N.Raj (P.W.14) has proved the documents, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 by which one pant and one shirt of the appellant were seized from the appellant by removing them from his body.Though the witness Ramakant Patel (P.W.5) and Hamid (P.W.6) relating to those documents have turned hostile, there is no reason to disbelieve Sub Inspector D.N.Raj.The investigation officer took the shirt and pant of the deceased on the next day of the incident and therefore, it cannot be said that any manipulation was done by him.After seizure of such clothes those were sent to the forensic science laboratory alongwith other articles and by reports, Ex.P/21 and Ex.-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 Forensic Science Laboratory and serologist, it is established that on article 'E' pant of the appellant, human blood of Group 'B' was found, which was the same as it was found from article 'I-2' at serial No.32 jersey of the deceased.The appellant did not try to prove that his own blood group was "B".Hence, by such evidence it is also established that the appellant was the culprit, who caused death of the deceased Narayan Singh, otherwise his blood could not be found on the pant of the appellant.Under such circumstances, the testimony of the eye witnesses is also corroborated by the blood stains found on the pant of the appellant.The prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the appellant assaulted the deceased Narayan Singh for 5-6 times by lathi and caused his death.State of Madhya Pradesh", [(2014) (1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 64] and judgment dated 7.1.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal-:- 11 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 No.568/2001 "Sunil Datta and others Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh" to show that in similar circumstances, the accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 (1) of IPC.In the light of aforesaid judgments, if the facts of the present case are considered then, it would be apparent that no quarrel took place at the time of incident but, it was a planned step taken by the appellant that when he found the deceased Narayan Singh all alone, he took the advantage of such a situation.If the quarrel would have started in a spur of moment and during the quarrel, the appellant would have assaulted the deceased then, it could be said that there was no pre-meditation in the matter.The appellant targeted the head of the deceased and gave four powerful blows on his head, so that the head of the deceased was broken and pieces of bones had spread all over the spot.According to the eye witnesses, by one blow on his head, the deceased Narayan Singh fell on ground and thereafter, the appellant continued to assault on his head.If all of the assaults were caused on the head when the deceased Narayan Singh was standing then, there was no possibility of spreading the pieces of bones from his head and therefore, when the investigation officer found so many pieces of bones at the spot then, the overt-act of the appellant is proved that he continued to assault the-:- 12 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 deceased on his head though after one assault, he fell down on ground.In this connection, the report, Ex.P/18 given by medico legal institute, Bhopal is important, in which it is found that the pieces of the bone recovered from the spot were of the same person whose bones were sent by taking sample from the body of the deceased and therefore, it was duly established that the appellant assaulted the deceased Narayan Singh on his head 3 times in a forceful manner, when he was lying on the ground and hence, the bones of his head had broken and spread all over the spot.Looking to the overt-act of the appellant, he continued to assault the deceased even when he fell down on the ground, after getting one blow on his head and therefore, due to such an act, it is established that the appellant was intended to kill the deceased, otherwise when the deceased fell down on the ground, he could have left the deceased.Under such circumstances, due to factual difference, the aforesaid judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be applied in the present case.It is proved beyond doubt that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by lathi causing his death.He was intended to kill the deceased and therefore, the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 302 of IPC.The learned Sessions Judge has committed no error in convicting the-:- 13 -:-Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2001 appellant for the aforesaid offences.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.Ka.1) which was lodged by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram at P.S.- Alapur, District- Budaun on 08.01.2005 at about 2:20 p.m. on the basis of which Case Crime No. 10 of 2005 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. & 3 (2) (v) S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act was registered against the appellants as well as one Vikas Bhardwaj, who was declared absconder on 25.08.2014 and his trial namely S.S.T. No. 39A of 2009 was separated from that of other co-accused and those deposed by the two witnesses of fact, P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh before the trial court, is that 08.01.2005 was the date fixed for filing nominations by the candidates desirous of contesting elections for the office of Director of Cooperative Society, Block- Myau.P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram along with his co-villager Pyare Lal, son of Pransukh had gone to block office to file nomination of Pyare Lal but Patanjali Bhardwaj, son of Shyam Sundar, the then Block Pramukh, resident of Kasba, P.S.- Alapur refused to issue nomination form to them.Therefore, he met the Secretary of his Gram Panchayat and obtained the backward caste certificate of Pyare Lal from him on which Block Pramukh started abusing him with the name of his caste and told him that no caste certificate shall be issued to him and then he slapped him and got him thrown out of the block office.P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram then went to meet S.H.O of P.S.- Alapur with P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and Summer Singh (Vishanpuri) at about 2 p.m. At that time, both his sons, Pravendra Singh (injured) and Arvendra Singh (deceased) and his nephew, Ashok (deceased) had also joined him.They then went to the block office together and on noticing them, Patanjali Bhardwaj shot his son Arvendra Singh.Vikas Bhardwaj, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj shot his nephew, Ashok while Monu, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj fired at P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and thereafter, simultaneously Cheenu, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj and Vashistha Bhardwaj, son of Shyam Sundar also opened fire causing fire-arm injuries to several persons including P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram.His son died on the spot.The injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and his nephew, Ashok were taken to District Hospital for treatment.The accused apart from possessing licensed revolvers and guns also had illicit arms with them.On the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka.1) given by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram at P.S.- Alapur, District- Budaun, check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.7) and the corresponding G.D. Entry vide rapat no. 24 at 2.20 hours on 08.01.2005, carbon copy whereof was brought on record and proved as (Ext.Ka.8) were prepared by P.W.5 Head Moharrir Niranjan Singh.After the registration of the case, the then S.H.O. of P.S.- Alapur reached the place of incident along with his police force and conducted inquest on the dead body of Arvendra on 08.01.2005 at about 15.30 hours, prepared the inquest report and other related documents.After completing the inquest, he got the dead body of Arvendra sealed and dispatched through Constable Tula Ram and Constable Pransukh to the District Hospital for conducting postmortem.The postmortem on the dead body of Arvendra was conducted by P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav on 09.01.2005 at about 4 p.m. who also prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Blackening around the wound present.3) Fire-arm wound of exit 1.5 cm x 1 cm on back of left chest, lateral side 10.0 cm below from inferior angle of left scapula, 9 cm lateral of midline.According to P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav, deceased Arvendra Singh had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries.Ashok, who had received gunshot injuries in the occurrence, also died on 09.01.2005 while undergoing treatment in District Hospital, Budaun.Information of his death was given by ward boy, Ramdas through a memo to P.S.- Kotwali, Budaun on the basis of which P.W.6 S.I. Awadesh Singh was authorized to conduct the inquest on the body of deceased Ashok.P.W.6 Awadesh Singh conducted the inquest on the body of deceased Ashok on 09.01.2005 at 10.15 a.m. within the premises of District Hospital, Budaun and after completing the inquest at 11.30 a.m., prepared his inquest report and other related documents namely photo nash, specimen seal, challan nash, letter addressed to R.I., letter addressed to C.M.O and proved the same as (Ext.According to P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury.The investigation of this case was transferred to Superintendent of Police, CB-C.I.D., Lucknow pursuant to the order passed by this Court and in compliance of the said order, Superintendent of Police, CB-C.I.D., Lucknow ordered P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter.During the course of his investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan at the behest of P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram, Pravendra Kumar and injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh.Upon his transfer, the investigation of the case was entrusted to R.N. Shukla, Deputy S.P., CB-C.I.D., Bareilly Division who after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2)."I was elected as Pradhan of my village in June, 2000 and was also holding office of District Treasurer of the association of Gram Pradhans and Block President of association of Block- Myau.In March, 2001, the election to the office of Block Pramukh was held.The election was to be fought between Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Udayveer Singh.At that time my son Pravendra Singh was a member of B.D.C. I and my son had supported Udayveer Singh in the election of Block Pramukh but Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) had fraudulently succeeded in winning the election by four votes and ever since then Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) had been harbouring animosity towards me and my family.Apart from that, huge quantity of wheat meant for distribution in the Gram Panchayats under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana was misappropriated by Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) on the strength of his henchmen.Consignment of wheat were forcibly lifted from the Gram Panchayats.In my capacity as the President of the association, I had filed several complaints against Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) before District Magistrate as a result of which the District Magistrate had ordered distribution of wheat directly by the B.D.O. That apart, out of the huge amount which was allocated by the government for tree plantation, Rs. 5,000/- was illegally misappropriated by Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) but I being the Pradhan did not permit the Block Pramukh to draw any cut from the amount allocated for tree plantations.I belong to Scheduled Caste (jatava) and all the accused are Brahmins by caste.Then, I took Pyare Lal to block and got the backward caste certificate prepared by Vijendra Pal Singh, Secretary on which Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) slapped me and said "saale chamaar" you will not get any caste certificate.The caste certificate was in my hand.Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) pushed us and got us thrown out of the block premises.I had kept the certificate in the pocket of my coat.Feeling greatly insulted on being slapped and abused, I and Pyare Lal went to the godown of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and narrated the entire episode to him.Then P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh called several officers on phone and talked to them and then he left the godown and came to block with us where S.H.O., Chandrapal Singh of P.S.- Alapur was also present.P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh complained to the S.H.O. At that time, apart from P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, my sons Pravendra and Arvendra and nephew Ashok Kumar, Pyare Lal and Summer Singh etc. were also present there.At about 1:30-2:00 p.m., we entered the block by walking through the gate unarmed but Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) armed with rifle, his younger brother Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) armed with DBBL gun, his son Vikas Bhardwaj armed with mauser gun, his second son Monu armed with rifle and his third son Cheenu armed with single barrel gun, Dandpal Singh Yadav, S.H.O.- Alapur and Aditya Prakash Yadav, S.H.O.- Izratpur along with their force were already present there and on seeing us on the exhortation of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) to finish all of us, they started firing at us with the intention of causing our death.Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) shot my son Arvendra in his chest who fell then and there on the ground and died on the spot.Vikas Bhardwaj shot my nephew Ashok while P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh was shot by Monu Bhardwaj.The firing resorted to by Cheenu and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) caused injuries to several persons and we all fled from there to save our lives.Ashok died on the same day during treatment in District Hospital, Budaun.Outside the block gate, I have a shop in which, keeping in view my security and the operation of moral code of conduct, I had kept my licensed weapons. S.H.O.- Alapur got the lock of my shop forcibly broken and removed one rifle, one DBBL and one revolver together with cartridges from there and with the intention of shielding Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and other accused, fired shots from the aforesaid weapons and thereafter threw them in the block premises and thereafter, a false report was lodged by him and his family members as a counterblast falsely stating therein that I and my son were arrested on the spot while other had succeeded in escaping.The incident was witnessed by me, Pyare Lal, Summer Singh, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, Arshad Ali, my son Pravendra and Puttu Lal and several other persons.S.H.O.- Alapur and other police officers were under the pressure of Block Pramukh who was a member of Samajwadi Party.Ka.1).During the investigation, I had given the photo copy of the caste certificate of Pyare Lal to the Investigating Officer."The english translation of examination-in-chief of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh is being reproduced hereinbelow:-"I own several shops and godowns near Block- Myau.In the mandi area of Block- Myau and in one of my shops, I have my office.I am the President of Rice Mill Association.On 08.01.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., I was sitting in my office.On that day, nomination papers were being filed by the delegates for election to the office of Director of Cooperative Society.While I was sitting in my office with several other persons, Sukhram and Pappu of Alapur and Puttu Lal of Nagaria came to my office and complained that the sitting Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) was not allowing anyone other than those who were his supporters to file nominations.They told me that on the strength of his weapons, he was threatening everyone.After sometime, informant Madhav Ram and Pyare Lal accompanied with two or three persons also came to my office.Madhav told me that Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) had insulted him and prevented him from filing nomination papers and had chased him out of the block.I immediately talked to S.H.O.- Alapur on phone and tried to inform him about it but the S.H.O. was not present at the police station.I therefore, rang S.D.M.- Dataganj but could not contact him either.Lastly I spoke to Sri Omkar Singh, District President of Congress party on phone and narrated the entire episode to him who assured me that he would immediately talk to S.S.P. and D.M. and communicate them about the occurrence.After sometime Sri Omkar Singh informed him on phone that he had talked to D.M. and S.S.P. and they would arrange requisite police force and ensure that nomination papers are filed peacefully.We were then informed that S.H.O.- Alapur was present in the block.While I was going to complain to the police, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) exhorted his companions to finish all of us and fired at Arvendra with his rifle.His shot hit him on his chest.Arvendra fell on the ground as soon as he was shot.Patanjali's sons and his brother also started firing at us with the intention of causing our deaths.One shot hit Ashok while I received a bullet injury on my right shoulder and Arshad, resident of Kakraal also received gunshot injuries.As a result of the firearm injuries received by us in the firing, we fell on the ground.We were taken to different hospitals in Budaun for treatment by the people present there.Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the facts stated by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh in their cross-examinations to which our attention has been drawn by him and to which we shall refer as and when the context so requires, reflect glaring discrepancies in the manner of incident as narrated by the two witnesses of fact in their evidence tendered before the trial court vis-a-vis the recitals contained in the F.I.R. which indicate that it was the informant's side which was the aggressor that had started firing at the appellants, causing injuries to their servants although they managed to save themselves by hiding inside the rooms of the Block Office and the informant's side itself caused injuries to his own people as a result of the indiscriminate firing resorted to by them in which one Arvendra died on the spot while another Ashok succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.During his posting at village- Kora Gujjar, he had to visit every village of his area.On 05.01.2005, he had gone to village- Kora Gujjar under his area.Pyare Lal Gujjar had met him on that date and had asked him to give his caste certificate to him.Pyare Lal belonged to "guzzar" caste which was a backward caste.He told him that his caste certificate was ready.Pyare Lal went away promising to return soon but he did not return till evening and when he did not return till evening, P.W.7 Vijendra Pal Singh also went back to his house.After preparing the caste certificate of Pyare Lal, he had signed the same after putting his seal and mentioning the date thereon.At that point of time, the then Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) came and enquired from him about the paper given by him to Madhav Ram on which he told him that he had given him the caste certificate of Pyare Lal on which Block Pramukh abused Madhav Ram and tried to snatch the caste certificate from him which was followed by his manhandling and physically assaulting them.Madhav Ram was thrown out of the block premises.He proved the caste certificate of Pyare Lal which he had prepared on 05.01.2005 as (Ext.He also deposed that Block Pramukh abused Madhav with the name of his caste.P.W.9 Hulasi Ram in his examination-in-chief deposed that the incident had taken place about 8-9 years before the date on which his statement was recorded.On that date, nomination papers were being filed for the election for the office of Director of Cooperative Society.He had gone to the block along with several other villagers.On reaching the block at 2:30 a.m., he learnt that a few moments before, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1), his sons and his brother had resorted to firing in which Arvendra, Ashok and several other persons had received firearm injuries.He had also learnt that P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh had received gunshot wounds.When he reached the place of incident, he saw that the dead body of Pappu alias Arvendra was lying inside the gate of the Block Office and Ashok was lying in an injured state nearby.Ashok was taken to the hospital by the police.He also died later in the hospital.The inquest report of deceased Pappu alias Arvendra was filled up by him and other inquest witnesses namely Ved Ram, Jai Singh, Gyan Singh and Tika Ram.After the inquest proceedings were completed, the dead body was sealed before him.Neither any belt with live cartridges nor any gun or cartridges were recovered either from the body of deceased Arvendra or from the place where Ashok had died.The police officer had not recovered any gun or cartridge from the spot.He proved the injury report, supplementary report and x-ray report of injured Omendra Pratap Singh as (Ext.Ka. 4, 5 and 6) respectively.P.W.5 Head Constable Niranjan Singh, who was posted as Head Moharrir at P.S.- Alapur on 08.01.2005 proved the check F.I.R. and the carbon copy of the corresponding G.D. Entry vide rapat no. 24, time 14.20 hours as (Ext.Ka. 7 and 8) respectively.He proved the certified copy of the G.D. entry issued by Police Office, Budaun as (Ext.10) as the original G.D. had been destroyed.P.W.6 S.I. Awadhesh Singh deposed that on 09.01.2005, he was posted at P.S.- Kotwali as H.C.P. On that day, pursuant to the memo received by him from District Hospital, Budaun, he had conducted inquest on the body of deceased Ashok in the mortuary of the District- Hospital and prepared his inquest report and other related documents namely photo lash, specimen seal, challan lash, letter addressed to C.M.O and letter addressed to R.I. and proved the aforesaid documents as (Ext.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) respectively.P.W.8 S.I. Ranvir Singh deposed that on 08.01.2005, he was posted as Additional Magistrate, C.B.C.I.D.- Bareilly.He in his evidence tendered before the trial court narrated the various steps taken by him during the course of investigation including the inspection of the place of incident done by him, preparation of the site plan ((Ext.Ka.17) and obtaining the details of five licensed arms of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) from the office of Additional S.P., Budaun and criminal history of all the five accused from P.S.- Alapur.It is also not disputed that there is a cross case.Delivered by Hon'ble B. K. Narayana, J.Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned G.A. assisted by Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Amit Kumar Singh and Sri N.D. Rai, learned counsel for the informant.Death reference case no. 10 of 2012 has been connected with the criminal appeal which has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 09.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC & ST (PA) Act, Budaun in SST No. 39 of 2009, State Vs.Patanjali Bhardwaj & others, u/s 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act, P.S.- Alapur, District- Budaun.Ka.3).He noted following antemortem injuries on the body of Arvendra Singh :-1) Fire-arm wound of entry 4 cm x 4 cm on right side of chest, 4.0 cm below from right clavicle cavity deep, surrounded by multiple pellet marks of wound in an area of 10 cm x 10 cm.Blackening around the wound present.2) Fire-arm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on right side of chest, lateral side 4.0 cm below from injury no. 1, cavity deep.Ka.10, Ka.11, Ka.12, Ka.13, Ka.14 and Ka.15).Autopsy on the body of deceased Ashok was done by P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav on 09.01.2005 at about 3 p.m. who also prepared his postmortem report (Ext.Ka.2).He noted following antemortem injuries on the body of deceased Ashok :-1) Fire-arm wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm on back of left chest, 2.0 cm above from inferior angle of left scapula.Bleeding present from the wound.2) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on left elbow lateral side.3) Abrasion 1 cm x 2 cm on back of left forearm, 3.0 cm below from back of left elbow.4) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on back of left forearm, 6.0 cm below from back of left elbow.5) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on right arm outside, 13.0 cm below from tip of right shoulder joint.6) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on back of right elbow.7) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right forearm on back, 2.0 cm below from right elbow joint.8) Fire-arm wound of exit 2 cm x 1 cm on back of right chest, 10.0 cm below from tip of right shoulder joint.9) Intracath present on dorsum of right hand.Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused-appellants were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Budaun where their case was registered as SST No. 39 of 2009, State Vs.Patanjali Bhardwaj & others and made over from there to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC & ST (PA) Act, Budaun who on the basis of material collected during investigation and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act against the appellants.The accused-appellants abjured the charge and claimed trial.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses out of whom P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, P.W.7 Vijendra Pal Singh and P.W.9 Hulasi Ram were examined as witnesses of fact while P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav, P.W.4 Dr. R.K. Verma, P.W.5 Head Constable Niranjan Singh, P.W.6 S.I. Awadhesh Singh, B.D.O.- Budaun, P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, Deputy S.P. and P.W.10 Shiv Ram Yadav, Deputy S.P., Gautam Buddh Nagar, were produced as formal witnesses.The accused-appellants in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as false.Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. further stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram who was inimical towards him due to political rivalry and under political pressure.On the date of the incident, he was Pramukh of Block- Myau.He had been elected Pramukh after defeating Udayveer Singh whose candidature was supported by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and the injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh on account of which they had become inimical towards him.On the date of the incident, the informant along with his companions including the deceased despite the Moral Code of Conduct being in force, with common object had entered the precincts of the block office armed with lethal weapons and had fired at him and his brother Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2).Since he and his brother were unarmed, they ran away from there to save their lives and hid themselves.In the firing done by the side of informant, Arvendra and Ashok had received gun shot injuries and died while P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, Babloo and Chhotey had received gunshot injuries.The police had recovered fire-arms and cartridges from the place where the dead body of Arvendra Singh was lying.Report of the incident lodged by him contained correct facts.Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. reiterated the facts stated by Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1).Rahul Bhardwaj (A3) in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on the date of the incident, he was not present at the place of occurrence and he had been falsely implicated by P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram due to political rivalry between him and his father.Varun Bhardwaj (A4) in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. also denied his presence at the place of occurrence and alleged false implication due to political animosity.The accused-appellants although did not examine any witness in defence but they filed documentary evidence in support of their defence, application 182 kha, copy of F.I.R. vide list 163 kha to 164 kha and vide list 170 kha to 170 kha/2, the charge-sheet filed in the cross case and other documents.Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC & ST (PA) Act, Budaun after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted all the appellants and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment each u/s 148 I.P.C., ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default of payment in fine, one year additional rigorous imprisonment each u/s 307/149 I.P.C., simple imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- each and in default of payment in fine, two years additional imprisonment each u/s 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act. The trial court further convicted all the four appellants u/s 302/149 I.P.C. and awarded death penalty to Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) (deceased) while Rahul Bhardwaj alias Monu (A3) and Varun Bhardwaj alias Cheenu (A4) were awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- each and in default of payment in fine, additional imprisonment of two years.Hence, this appeal.Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that from the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it is proved that three persons from side of the appellants had received injuries in the incident and the incident admittedly having taken place within the precincts of office of Block- Myau on the day when Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) was Block Pramukh and as per the prosecution story itself, he along with his sons was present within the premises of the block office when P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram along with his sons, his nephew and his other companions who were armed, had entered the block office and started firing at the appellants.He next submitted that S.H.O. of P.S.- Alapur who had conducted the initial investigation and reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, had recovered five empty cartridges of brass and four cartridges of unknown bore from different spots at the place of occurrence and a double barrel gun no. 21176 (S/H) Made in Betejeren with a live cartridge inserted in its barrel and a pouch containing eight live cartridges from the place where deceased Ashok had fallen on the ground after being hit by gunshot and one rifle no. AB 94-488290F which was lying besides the place where dead body of Arvendra was lying along with a belt which was tied around his waist which contained eleven live cartridges and one cartridge which was inserted in the barrel of the rifle.Two empty cartridges were also recovered from the deceased Arvendra's possession and although recovery memos of the aforesaid articles were prepared by him but the same were neither exhibited nor proved by the prosecution during the trial which clearly indicates that the investigation in this case was not impartial and the material collected during the investigation by the first Investigating Officer which suggested that the incident had not taken place in the manner described in the F.I.R., was deliberately suppressed.He further submitted that both the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial are highly interested witnesses who were admittedly political rivals of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and seriously interested in getting him convicted falsely so that the local political arena was stripped of any opposition and the trial court clearly erred in law in convicting the appellants on the basis of their interested and untrustworthy testimony.He also submitted that there are glaring contradictions and material improvements in their testimony recorded before the trial court which go to the core of the prosecution story rendering it wholly unreliable.He also submitted that the conviction of the appellants u/s 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. is wholly erroneous in view of the fact that the evidence on record does not even remotely suggest that the deceased had been attacked by the appellants in pursuance of a common object.The ingredients of the offence u/s 3 (2) (v) SC & ST (PA) Act having neither been recorded in the F.I.R. nor proved in the trial, the recorded conviction of the appellants under the aforesaid sections is also liable to be set-aside.He further submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is deemed to be true for the sake of arguments, even then the imposition of death penalty on Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) is wholly unwarranted and uncalled for.The death reference deserves to be dismissed.The contradictions, if any, in their evidence are not so material so as to effect their credibility.There is no law that the evidence of relative or inimical witnesses cannot be relied upon despite the Court coming to the conclusion that such witnesses have given a correct and cogent description of the incident.The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the ocular version.The injuries received by the injured from the side of the informant have been fully explained by the two witnesses in their evidence and it is incorrect to allege that the prosecution has not approached the Court with clean hands and the true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed.This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the entire lower court record.Apart from eight formal witnesses, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.It is on account of the aforesaid reason that the aforesaid accused were inimical towards me and my family members and were after my life.08.01.2005 was the date fixed for filing nominations for the office of Director of Cooperative Society.My Gram Panchayat is reserved for backward tribe (guzzar).From my Gram Panchayat, Sri Pyare Lal Guzzar was desirous to contest the elections.I was supporting Sri Pyare Lal Guzzar.On 08.01.2005, I went to Block-Myau with Pyare Lal and demanded nomination form from Prem Singh, Village Development Officer who was sitting on the counter on which Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1), who was already standing there, rebuked Prem Singh and instructed him not to issue any form and after abusing us, he got us chased out of the block premises.When we got out from the gate of the block, Pyare Lal said that he does not have the certificate of backward caste so please get my caste certificate prepared.I had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court with a prayer for tranferring the investigation of the case to C.B.C.I.D. to ensure fair investigation as I did not expect fair investigation of the matter by the local police although neither me nor any person from my side had caused any injury either to the accused or any other person but the accused concocted a false cross case against me and my family members by inflicting superficial injuries on the persons of their servants and got their injury reports fabricated.All the accused are known to me and the accused also know me that I belong to jatava caste.The written report of the incident was scribed on the same day by Raju alias Rajpal Singh, son of Ram Swaroop, resident of Officer Colony, Budaun on my dictation.He proved the written report of the incident paper no. 5 Ka as (Ext.On receiving the aforesaid information, I along with all the complainants, left my godown for the block to lodge a complaint before S.H.O.- Alapur.At about 1:45 p.m., I along with all the complainants reached the gate of Block- Myau.When we reached the gate of the block, none of us were armed on account of moral code of conduct being in force.As soon as we crossed the gate, I saw that Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) armed with rifle, his brother Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) armed with DBBL, his son Vikas Bhardwaj armed with mauser gun, his sons, Monu armed with rifle and Cheenu armed with single barrel gun were present within the precincts of the block office along with Chandrapal Singh, S.O.- Alapur and Aditya Yadav, S.O.- Hazratpur along with their force.Arvendra had died on the spot while Ashok expired in the hospital during treatment later on the same day.I got myself discharged from the District Hospital and got myself admitted to Saran Hospital for better treatment.Later Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1), after inflicting superficial firearm injuries on his servants Babloo and Chhotey lodged a false F.I.R. against me and my brothers and several other persons.Thereafter, my mother and my wife filed an application for transferring the investigation of the case from civil police to C.B.C.I.D. Then the local leaders under the pressure of regional party, succeeded in prevailing upon the administration to re-transfer the investigation of the case from C.B.C.I.D. to local police on which I filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court passed an order for investigation of the matter by C.B.C.I.D. All the accused were known to me previously."On 08.01.2005, he was assigned the duty of A.R.O. in Block- Myau, which was the date fixed for filing of nomination papers for the office of Director of Cooperative Society.While he was on his seat, Master Madhav Ram and Pyare Lal came to him.Madhav Ram who was the sitting Pradhan of village- Kora Gujjar asked him to give the caste certificate of Pyare Lal to him on which he gave it to Master Madhav Ram.P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Ashok on 09.01.2005 at about 3 p.m. According to him, the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries.He further deposed that on the same day at about 4 p.m., he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Arvendra Singh who was aged about 26 years.P.W.3 Dr. R.S. Yadav proved the postmortem reports of deceased Ashok and Arvendra Singh as (Ext.Ka. 2 and 3) respectively.P.W.4 Dr. R.K. Verma, in his evidence tendered before the trial court deposed that he was posted as C.M.O. On 08.01.2005 in District Hospital, Budaun at about 3:10 p.m., he had examined the injuries of injured Omendra Pratap Singh and noted following injury on his person :-Firearm wound of entry 3 x 1 cm, depth whereof could not be proved, on the front of right shoulder.He also deposed that on his advice, the injury of Omendra Pratap Singh was x-rayed.He also deposed that with the permission of District Magistrate, Pilibhit dated 03.07.2006, he had inspected the firearms of the accused deposited in safe custody of the licensed arms dealer Raj Kumar Gun House, Visalpur, District- Pilibhit on 11.07.2006 and had prepared the recovery memo of the copy of safe custody register,telephone diary and receipt book and proved the same as (Ext.Ka.18).Before he could complete the investigation, he was transferred to District- Auraiya.P.W.10 Shiv Ram Yadav, Deputy S.P., C.B.C.I.D.- Bareilly who had taken over the investigation of the case from P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, Deputy S.P. upon his transfer to Auraiya, deposed that after completing the investigation, he had filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellants, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2).He proved the charge-sheet filed against them as (Ext.Ka.20).The charge-sheet filed by him against the accused Vikas, Rahul alias Golu and Varun alias Neetu after the accused had surrendered before the Court on 17.07.2007, was proved by him as (Ext.Ka.21).The cross-version of this case namely, S.S.T. No. 41 of 2009 and 40 of 2009, which arises out of Case Crime No. 10A of 2005 u/s 148, 307/149 I.P.C. & Section 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act was registered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1).According to the prosecution story as spelt out in the F.I.R. of the cross case (Ext.Ka.1) on 08.01.2005 at about 1 p.m., the informant had gone to the block head office along with some other persons in connection with the election for the office of Director of Cooperative Society.He was accompanied with his servants, Babloo, s/o Kalyan and Chhotey s/o Ajuddi, residents of Alapur.Suddenly, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, Ravindra Singh, both sons of Brajmohan Singh, residents of Myau, Pravendra, Arvendra, both sons of P.W.1 Madhav Ram and P.W.1 Madhav Ram and Ashok, residents of Kora Gujjar, accompanied by 8-10 persons armed with rifles and guns, came and after surrounding them, they shouted that they would not allow the informant Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) to contest the election and with the object of causing his death, they started firing at him.The informant Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) along with his brother Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2) ran inside the room of Block Office to save their lives.In the firing which ensued, both the servants of informant, Babloo and Chhotey were injured and in the cross firing done by the informant's side, Arvendra and Ashok died and Omendra Pratap Singh had received injuries.The incident was witnessed by Subedar, Ram Singh and Sneh.The injured were sent to the hospital and the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the informant.The brother of accused Omendra Pratap Singh had contested the election for the office of Block Pramukh and ever since then, he had been receiving information that he was after his life.Upon perusal of the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, the place and time of occurrence stands admitted to the parties.According to the prosecution, in this case, in the incident, two persons had lost their lives while one person had received injuries.The authors of the injuries received by the injured according to the prosecution case are the appellants while according to Patanjali Bhardwaj, the informant of the cross-case, two persons from his side i.e. the servants of the informant had received injuries.Thus, there are counter allegations of one against other of being the aggressor.From the reading of the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Madhav Ram, we find that he has materially supported the prosecution case as spelt out by him in the F.I.R.As regards the motive, P.W.1 Madhav Ram in his examination-in-chief on page 18, 19 and 20, has narrated the various instances of rivalry between the informant's side and the appellant's side which fully establishes the motive for the accused-appellants to commit the offences with which they have been charged.As far as P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh is concerned, who had received injuries in the occurrence, his evidence on the point of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) not allowing anyone else accept his supporters to file nomination for the election for the office of Director of Cooperative Society, is hearsay.He, however is the witness of the incident which had taken place within the premises of the Block headquarters of Alapur at 2 p.m. and he has fully corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram on all material points pertaining to the incident namely the time, place, manner of assault, weapons used and the identity of the perpetrators of the crime.Upon a conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram, P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and P.W.9 Hulasi Ram, it transpires that the occurrence which had taken place on 08.01.2005 within the precincts of the Block Headquarters, Alapur can be divided into two parts.The first part of the occurrence comprises of the incident which had taken place when P.W.1 Madhav Ram and Pyare Lal had gone to the Block Headquarter, Alapur for obtaining Pyare Lal's backward caste certificate from the Secretary of Gram Panchayat on 08.01.2005 and were allegedly abused by Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) by the name of their caste and who had further told them that caste certificate shall not be given to him and had thereafter, slapped P.W.1 Madhav Ram and got him thrown out of the block premises.The second part of the incident took place at about 2 p.m. when P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram came back to the block headquarter with P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh, his sons Pravendra Singh and Arvendra Singh and nephew Ashok in which Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) shot dead informant's son, Arvendra, Vikas Bhardwaj, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) shot his nephew, Ashok while Monu, son of Patanjali Bhardwaj fired at P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and several other persons received injuries from the gunshots fired by Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2).Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is proved from the evidence collected by the first Investigating Officer who had reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident had taken place that the claim of the informant's side that he and his companions were unarmed when they had entered the premises of Block Headquarter, Alapur, is false to the hilt.He invited our attention to three memos on page 8, 9 and 10 of the paper book.The first memo pertains to recovery of plain and blood-stained earth collected by the Investigating Officer from the place where the dead body of Arvendra was found lying on the ground which contains a recital that a belt was tied around his waist with eleven live cartridges, one rifle No. AB 94-488290F and two empty cartridges which were found lying close to the dead body of Arvendra.The second memo relates to recovery of five empty cartridges of brass and four cartridges of unknown bore from the place of occurrence while the third memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer with regard to recovery of a DBBL gun, in one of its barrel, an empty cartridge was stuck and a pouch containing 8 live cartridges from the place where the deceased Ashok had fallen on the ground after being hit by a gunshot and from where plain and blood-stained earth were collected by the Investigating Officer.By relying upon the aforesaid recovery memos, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution deliberately did not exhibit the aforesaid documents as in case the aforesaid documents were exhibited, the same would have exposed the hollowness of the prosecution's claim that P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and his companions were unarmed at the time of the incident and it was the accused-appellants who had fired at them unprovoked.However, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission of Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants for the simple reason that P.W.1 Madhav Ram has, in his examination-in-chief on page 21 of the paper book, given a foolproof explanation for the alleged recovery of the licensed rifle beside the dead body of Arvendra Singh together with a belt containing 11 live cartridges, two empty cartridges, a DBBL gun, one empty cartridge and a pouch containing 8 live cartridges from the spot where the deceased Ashok had fallen after receiving gunshot injuries by deposing that outside the gate of the Block Office on the road, he had a shop in which due to security reasons and due to the fact that moral code of conduct was in force, he had kept his licensed arms. S.H.O.- Alapur after getting the lock of his shop broken open, had taken out one rifle, one DBBL and one revolver along with live cartridges and with the object of shielding the accused, he kept the aforesaid arms and ammunition near the dead body of Arvendra and at the place of occurrence where injured Ashok had fallen after receiving firearm injuries.Thereafter, he had lodged a false F.I.R. implicating him and his son Pravendra showing therein that they had been arrested on the spot and giving an opportunity for the accused to run away from the place of incident.We have very carefully gone through the cross-examination of P.W.1 Madhav Ram done by the defence counsel on the aforesaid point but we do not find that the defence has been able to extract anything out of him which may indicate that the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram on the aforesaid aspect of the matter is false.It is true that P.W.1 Madhav Ram had not stated the aforesaid facts in his F.I.R. but he has furnished a satisfactory explanation for the aforesaid omission in his cross-examination on page 44 of the paper book by deposing that the fact that the lock of his shop had been broken open and the weapons kept there removed and scattered all over the place of occurrence, came to his knowledge when he had returned from the police station after lodging the F.I.R. of the occurrence.He denied the suggestion given to him that the fact deposed by him that the police had removed the weapons belonging to his children from his shop and after firing from the same, the police had planted the same at the place of incident was an afterthought.He further denied the suggestion that the weapons were not removed from his shop.The evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram on this point finds full corroboration from the facts deposed by P.W.9 Hulasi Ram who had reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident on page 94 of the paper book in his examination-in-chief where he has categorically deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence, he found the dead body of Pappu alias Arvendra lying inside the gate of the Block Office and near him Ashok was also lying on the ground in an injured state.He was taken to the hospital by the police personnel for treatment where he had died later.The inquest on the dead body of deceased Arvendra was held in the presence of the inquest witnesses which included him.The dead body was sealed in his presence.He had neither seen any belt tied around the waist of Arvendra nor any belt with live cartridges or any gun was lying near the deceased or the injured Ashok.The police inspector had not recovered any cartridge or any gun from the spot.There is no cross-examination of P.W.9 Hulasi Ram by the defence on the aforesaid point.Now coming to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that investigation in this case was tainted as material collected by the first Investigating Officer who had arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence which indicated that informant, his companions, the two deceased and one injured were armed, was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution with the object of protecting the informant's side is concerned, the same is without any merit for the reason that in case there was any material collected by the first Investigating Officer of the case which supported the defence, the appellants could have got the same proved by examining the first Investigating officer as a defence witness which they failed to do.We have very carefully scanned the record and we have not found any material which may even remotely suggest that the matter was not investigated fairly.The postmortem report of deceased Ashok and deceased Arvendra Singh (Ext.Ka.2 and 3) respectively and the injury report and supplementary report of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh (Ext.Ka. 4 and 5) fully corroborate the prosecution story that both Arvendra and Ashok had died as a result of gunshot wounds received by them in the occurrence while gunshot injury was also found on the person of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh.Both the witnesses of fact deposed in unison that the author of firearm wound received by Arvendra was Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) while author of those sustained by Ashok was his son Vikas Bhardwaj and the injuries received by injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh and other injured were attributed to Monu and Vashishtha Bhardwaj (A2).The evidence of the two witnesses of fact examined during the trial on the point of specific roles assigned to the four appellants is throughout consistent and clinching.We do not find any reason to disbelieve them.The presence of P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh who is an injured witness at the place of incident has not been challenged by the prosecution.The said witness has been subjected to extensive cross-examination.However, the defence has not been able to elicit any material contradiction in his statement.Now, coming to the improvements and discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 informant Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram are not so material so as to affect the core of the prosecution story rendering it unbelievable.Whenever he went to attend the meetings of the block committee, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) used to address him in unsavoury language.However, the aforesaid fact does not find mention either in the F.I.R. or in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which facts stood admitted to P.W.1 Madhav Ram in his cross-examination on page 25 of the paper book.However, on page 29 of the paper book P.W.1 Madhav Ram categorically denied the suggestion given to him that he had come to the block office with Pyare Lal on 08.01.2005 for the first time at about 10 a.m. and reiterated that he had come to the block office on 08.1.2005 at 12 noon.Learned counsel for the appellants has further invited our attention to the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Madhav Ram on page 21 of the paper book in which he had for the first time deposed that S.H.O. of P.S.- Alapur and other police officers were under the pressure of Block Pramukh, Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) who was a member of the ruling Samajwadi Party and had considerable influence in the area; he had moved the High Court for fair investigation of the matter for transferring the investigation from the local police on which he had no faith to CB-C.I.D. However, on being contradicted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which contained no such recital, he stated that he had no explanation for the omission on the part of P.W.8 Ranvir Singh, the Investigating Officer to record the aforesaid fact in his statement.On being further cross-examined as to why he had not stated the aforesaid fact in the F.I.R., he stated that he was in a state of shock as his two sons had died and in the F.I.R., he merely narrated the facts relating to the incident.In our opinion, the contradictions and the improvements in the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram to which our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not so material so as to persuade us to disbelieve his evidence tendered by him with regard to the time, place and manner of assault and the identity of the perpetrators of the crime.On the aforesaid four aspects of the matter, his evidence is throughout consistent and clinching and we do not find any reason to disbelieve him.Moreover, his evidence further finds full corroboration from the evidence of injured witness P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh.The medical evidence on record also fully corroborates the prosecution story.In State of Rajasthan Vs.These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence and the like material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.The admissibility of the evidence of P.W.1 Madhav Ram and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh who is an injured witness, has also been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that since P.W.1 Madhav Ram is the father of Arvendra (deceased) and uncle of Ashok (deceased) and P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh is a political rival of the appellants, they fall in the category of interested witnesses and hence, no reliance can be placed on their testimony for the purpose of recording the conviction of the appellants.Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness.He had been examined by the doctor.He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence.We have already taken note of the fact that from the side of the prosecution while two persons Arvendra Singh and Ashok had lost their lives, Arvendra had received two gunshot wounds of entry on his chest and one gunshot wound of exit, deceased Ashok had received one gunshot wound on the left side of his chest and that apart injured P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh had received one gunshot wound on his shoulder whereas on the contrary, from the side of the accused, neither anyone died nor received any life threatening injury.The appellants claim that their two servants Babloo and Chhotey received gunshot injuries but their injuries are on their non-vital parts.The version given by the appellants that although the informant, his sons, nephew and his other companions had fired at them with rifles, revolvers and guns after surrounding them but while two persons from the side of the informant, Arvendra and Ashok died while P.W.2 Omendra Pratap Singh received gunshot injuries while all the accused-appellants managed to save their lives, appears to be wholly unbelievable and childish.As regards the three persons who had allegedly received injuries in the incident, from the side of the appellants, Arshad Ali does not appear to be connected with the dispute between the informant and the accused side.The injuries which have been received by them are pellet injuries and are on their non-vital parts with no blackening.Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the charges framed against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.He had been awarded life sentence by the judgement and order dated 05.08.2010 passed in Special Session Trial No. 53 of 1994 arising out of Case Crime No. 448/92, P.S.- Alapur on his conviction u/s 364 I.P.C. Apart from the aforesaid, he on the date of the passing of the impugned judgement and order by the trial court, was also accused in Case Crime No. 2287/2013 u/s 323, 504 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 1260/2013 u/s 60 of the Excise Act.Thus, from the material available on the record, it is apparent that Patanjali Bhardwaj (A1) has criminal antecedents.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

On the complaint of Resham Singh Lally (the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 4155/2016), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, by his order dated 09.05.2013, exercising his power and jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Crl.M.C. No.1987/2016 & 4155/2016 Page 1 of 7 (Cr.P.C.) directed an investigation to be carried out by the police, the complaint revealing cognizable offences having been committed.Pursuant to the said order, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police registered first information report (FIR) no.114/2013 and took up the case for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).M.C. No.1987/2016 & 4155/2016 Page 1 of 7The petitioner Kulwinder Singh is named as the accused in the aforesaid FIR.During the course of investigation, the police issued notices in the wake of which the accused (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1987/2016) was constrained to move initially the court of sessions for release on bail.He remained in police custody for three days.This was followed by certain further applications and, then on 10.01.2014, he was enlarged on interim bail for ten days.He failed to surrender immediately, this leading to non-bailable warrants being issued.It was against the above said backdrop that he moved an Crl.M.C. No.1987/2016 & 4155/2016 Page 2 of 7The order dated 05.12.2014 passed on Bail Application no.938/2014 may be quoted as under:-"This is an application under Section 439 read with Section 482(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." seeking bail in case FIR No.114/2013 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC registered at PS EOW, Delhi.Thereafter, the applicant filed the present application seeking bail and the applicant was admitted to interim bail on 06.05.2014 by this Court for a period of three weeks.Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the parties have settled the matter and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.12.2014 has been placed on record.In terms of the settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores (Rupees two crores), without prejudice to the rights of both the parties.The remaining amount of Rs.1 crore (Rupees one crore) shall be paid to the complainant by way of fixed Crl.M.C. No.1987/2016 & 4155/2016 Page 3 of 7It is also agreed that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, on instructions from the complainant, submits that he has no objection if the applicant is admitted to bail, in terms of settlement.The other issues would be decided by the trial court during the course of trial.Learned APP for the State submits that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, the applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.However, the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court, as agreed by both the parties and parties shall abide by the terms of the compromise.The application stands disposed of.In this context, it may be added that on subsequent applications - Crl.M.A. 1773/2015 and 4722/2016 - the time for deposit of the said amount of Rupees one crore in the form of FDR or bank guarantee was extended Crl.M.C. No.1987/2016 & 4155/2016 Page 4 of 7 by three more months and five more weeks respectively by orders dated 08.10.2015 and 23.05.2016 by learned Single Judges of this Court.The accused, by another subsequent application - Crl.The counsel for the accused on being asked would not give any explanation as to why the question of charge remains unaddressed till date.The petition by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Crl.M.C. 1987/2016) questions the registration of the FIR on merits, the contentions being that false accusations have been made.The challenge to the order dated 09.05.2013 by such a petition presented in May, 2016 after the investigation into the said FIR has been completed and even a charge-sheet presented in the court of cognizance which Crl.The petition for quashing of the order dated 09.05.2013 directing registration of the FIR is, therefore, dismissed.The accused while resisting the other petition - Crl.The order, thus, stands exhausted.The accused being in breach cannot avail of its benefit and must surrender to custody forthwith.Ordered accordingly.M.C. No.1987/2016 & 4155/2016 Page 6 of 7The trial court is directed to take appropriate steps to ensure due compliance with the letter and spirit of these directions.The petitions are disposed of in above terms.9. Dasti.R.K.GAUBA, J AUGUST 10, 2018 srb Crl.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Learned counsel for the State informs that the case diary is not available.On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the nature of the case, the case may be decided with the help of impugned order.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.267/2014 registered at Police Station Sabalgadh, Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 452, 323, 506-B/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except of offence under Section 452 of IPC, remaining offences are bailable.It is nowhere alleged against the present applicant that he entered into the premises with any weapon.No offence under Section 452 of IPC is made out against the applicant.At the most offence under Section 451 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Under Bunty Goswami Vs.State of M.P.such circumstances, they pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and 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 application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant namely Bunty Goswami shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).The applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.However, it is made clear that due to non- appearance of the applicant(s) if the concerned Court issues a warrant of arrest in future, against the applicant(s), then in such event this order be deemed ineffective relating to that applicant(s).Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.

Investigation revealed that on getting an information that the said M/s. Bengal Communication System had installed unauthorisedly a V-SAT Antenna and other Satellite equipment and was further indulged in making and receiving ISD Calls while bypassing the V.S.N.L. Gateway Shri P.S. Bhattacharya arranged for the surprise inspection along with the officers of the Calcutta Telephones Vigilance Department, V.S.N.L., Department of Telecommunication Satellite Wing and CBI Telephone Cell etc. During the surprise inspection the V-SAT Antenna along with other sophisticated instruments such as Satellite Modems, Mux Equipment, Channel Banks etc. were found to be installed inside the premises of M/s. Bengal Communication System.The same were taken into custody from the spot.The total system was found to be in switched off condition during the inspection.Investigation revealed that on 16.1.2000 during the visit of Shri T.K. Nandan, SDE/External of concerned Krishnapur Exchange the total system was found to be in operation and voice transmission was being made through the system instead of Fax Transmission.During investigation opinion of experts and witnesses confirmed that voice calls landing from distant locations were being switched from this location unauthorizedly to International locations bypassing the V.S.N.L. Gateway.As the V.S.N.L. Gateway was being bypassed in respect of the International voice calls transmitted or received through the system the Government of India lost substantial amount of revenue.Investigation revealed that V.S.N.L. is the sole carrier of the ISD Calls generated from India or coming to India.During the investigation the total V-SAT System was found in a witched off condition and thus the suspected Foreign Satellite through which M/s. Bengal Communication was operating in an illegal manner to make and receive.International calls could not be traced.Moreover, no recording of the local call particulars received or made from the local facility telephones of Bengal Communication system which were switching the calls was maintained at the concerned 6 telephone exchange for which exact loss in terms of revenue for the switched calls could not be ascertained.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Item No. 60And In the matter of: Smt. Beauty Sarkar Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal .Opposite Party Mr. Dwipanjan Chatterjee Mr. Apalak Basu For the Petitioner Mr. Syed Arif Ahmed For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ranaghat Police Station Case No.153 of 2013 dated April 21,2013 under sections 498A/307/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the sister-in-law of the victim (wife of the husband's brother).The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) 2

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

1St APRIL 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT :1 By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 8th May 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2012, convicting and sentencing him as under :::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC') to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for 6 months;- for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for 6 months;- for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for 6 months;The aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.Out of the fine amount, Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation under Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::was listed for final disposal on more than 3 to 4 occasions, however, the learned counsel for the appellant took time and assured that he would work out the matter today.The appellant is languishing in jail and hence, considering the same, today Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh was requested to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court and to espouse the cause of the appellant.Mr. Deshmukh has graciously accepted the request.3 The prosecution case is as under :On 11th April 2012, PW 2 (prosecutrix) was kidnapped by the appellant, when she went to school.Thereafter, the appellant took her to a room, where he had forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereafter left her alone in the room and went away.PW 2 (prosecutrix) left the room and went to Goregaon Checknaka, where she called her father PW 1 and informed him about the incident, pursuant to which, PW 1 lodged a police complaint/FIR with the Aarey Police Station.Pursuant to the FIR, the statement of PW 2SQ Pathan 3/12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 ::: apeal.808.14.24.doc (prosecutrix) was recorded; clothes of the PW 2 (prosecutrix) were seized; appellant was arrested on 13th April 2012; his clothes were recovered at his instance; certain articles were seized from the spot i.e. the room where the appellant was residing i.e. bed-sheet, container with articles of PW 2 like her hairpins, lipstick, bindi, school uniform, school books, etc. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed as against the appellant in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai.Since, Section 376 was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::Learned Sessions Judge framed charge as against the appellant, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 9 witnesses i.e. PW 1- Dharishan Gupta (complainant-father of PW 2- prosecutrix); PW 2 (prosecutrix), who at the relevant time, was about 13 years of age; PW 3-Ramkailash Yadav (panch to the recovery of clothes of the appellant and seizure of articles from the room, whereSQ Pathan 4/12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 ::: apeal.808.14.24.doc the appellant was residing); PW 4-Mehrunisa Shaikh (panch to the seizure of clothes of the prosecutrix); PW 5-Rakesh Yadav (the owner of the room, where the appellant was residing and from where articles were seized); PW 6-Dr.Pratap Anand (who examined the prosecutrix as well as the appellant); PW 7-Ramashankar Yadav (School teacher, who produced the School Register to prove the age of the prosecutrix i.e. date of birth); PW 8-Dattatray Desai (Investigating Officer) and PW 9-Girish Anavkar (Investigating Officer).::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::The defence of the appellant was of denial and false implication.According to the appellant, he was having an affair with the prosecutrix and that the prosecutrix had left the house on her own accord.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::5 Learned A.P.P supported the impugned judgment and order.6 Heard learned amicus curiae and the learned A.P.P at length and with their assistance, perused the evidence and the documents on record.At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the appellant has not disputed the finding of articles i.e. article No.10 (plastic container, having ear rings, finger rings, bangles, etc.), article 11 (school uniform), article 12 (Geography book) and article 13 (one metal watch), which were seized from the appellant's room after his arrest.The appellant has also not disputed the evidence that has come on record of the panch (PW 3) that he led both the panchas and the police and showed his residential house in the chawl, from which police seized mattress (article 8), Chaddar (article 9), plastic tin, containing hairpins, lipstick, sindoor, hairband (article 10), school uniform (article 11), geography book (article 12), metal watch (articleSQ Pathan 6/12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 ::: apeal.808.14.24.doc::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::13), nicker (article 14).The appellant has also not disputed in his 313 statement that PW 5-Rakesh Yadav (owner of the room) had given him the said room on rental basis and that he was staying in the said room; the appellant has also not disputed that he was referred for medical examination after his arrest and that blue colour jeans pant (article 6) and green colour full shirt (article 7) were seized under a panchanama.7 A perusal of the evidence of PW 2 (prosecutrix) shows that at the time of the incident, she was about 12 years and 11 months and was studying in the 7th standard.She has stated that the appellant was residing near her house and was a rickshaw driver; that the appellant used to drop her, her brother and sister to school in the auto rickshaw; that in the absence of her parents, the appellant would enter their house and would have physical relations with her against her consent.PW 2 has stated that on 11th April 2012, after her last paper, when she was standing on the ground near Unit No. 29, the appellant came there and asked her to come with him; that he forced her to sit in the auto rickshaw and took her to Nallasopara in one house, where heSQ Pathan 7/12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 ::: apeal.808.14.24.doc had physical relations with her; that he left her in the room and did not return; that thereafter, she came to Nallasopara and boarded the train and came to Borivali, stayed on the Borivali platform for the night and thereafter came to Goregaon checknaka on the next day and called her father (PW 1) to come to the said checknaka; that her father came with the police and took her to the police station.After PW 2's statement was recorded, she was referred for medical examination.PW 2 also handed over her clothes to the police.During her evidence, she identified the clothes which she had worn and other seized articles belonging to her.She has also identified the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::8 The said evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated by of PW 1 i.e. complainant and father of the prosecutrix.PW 1 has given the date of birth of PW 2 as 18 th May 1999 and has stated that she was born in Laxmipur in District Kushi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.He has further stated that the incident had taken place on 11 th April 2012, when his daughter PW 2 did not return home, pursuant to which, he lodged a missing complaint.He has further stated that after meetingSQ Pathan 8/12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 ::: apeal.808.14.24.doc Mushtaque, he learnt that the appellant has kidnapped his daughter and therefore, he lodged a case of kidnapping as against the appellant on 13th April 2012 (Exhibit 18).He has further stated that after three days, his daughter (PW 2) called and disclosed that she was at Goregaon checknaka, pursuant to which, he along with the police went to Goregaon checknaka and brought her to the police station.9 The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 that the prosecutrix was taken by the appellant to his room at Nallasopara has also not been disputed by the appellant.As noted earlier, the appellant has admitted the articles that were found in his room as well as the fact, that he had taken the room on rent from PW 5 and hence, it is not necessary to spell out the evidence that has come on record of PW 3 (panch) and PW 5 (the owner of the room, where the appellant was residing).According to PW 6-Dr.Pratap Anand, on 14th April 2012, the prosecutrix and the appellant were referred for medical examination to him.He has stated in hisSQ Pathan 9/12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 ::: apeal.808.14.24.doc evidence that during examination, he found no external injury on PW 2; that the type of hymen was fimbriated and in a torned condition; that the position of tears was 3, 6, 9 O'clock position; that the age of tears was old healed, hymenal orifist admits two fingers.He has further stated that he carried out ossification test and on examination of X-ray, found the age of the prosecutrix to be between 15 to 16 years with error of 6 months on either side.He has produced the medical certificate on record (Exhibit 36).11 As noted earlier, the defence of the appellant is that the prosecutrix had gone on her own accord with the prosecutrix and as such, it was a case of consent.The said defence of the appellant is noted only to be rejected.PW 2 (prosecutrix) and PW 1 (complainant) have, in their evidence clearly stated that the prosecutrix was born on 18th May 2019 and as such, her age was 12 years 11 months at the relevant time.It is pertinent to note that there is no cross-examination by the appellant of the said witnesses on this aspect i.e. with respect to the age that has come on record.Thus, the evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix has practically gone unchallenged.Infact, noSQ Pathan 10/12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 ::: apeal.808.14.24.doc reason has come on record to show that either PW 1 or PW 2 had any reason to contrive and confabulate a false case against the appellant.12 The prosecution has also examined PW 7 - Ramshankar Yadav to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix.PW 7 is the teacher who was working in the said school, where the prosecutrix was staying.He has also produced the original bonafide certificate, which bears the signature of the head mistress of the school Smt. Vidya Rajput.There is hardly any cross to discredit or disbelieve PW 7, with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix.PW 6-Dr.Pratap Anand, after conducting the ossification test, has stated that the age of the prosecutrix was between 15 and 16 with a margin of 6 months on either side.Thus, his evidence also shows that the prosecutrix (PW 2) was below 18 years of age at the relevant time.Hence, the question of consent does not arise.The appellant, aged 22SQ Pathan 11/12 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 ::: apeal.808.14.24.doc years, a rickshaw driver, used to take the prosecutrix and her brother and sister to school.The appellant has taken advantage of the prosecutrix aged around 12 years, by sexually exploiting her.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.14 I would like to record a word of appreciation for the able assistance provided and the efforts taken by Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, the learned amicus curiae in conducting the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 09:41:55 :::

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants, Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.By means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order dated 28.8.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hapur in Sessions Trial No. 1350 of 2013 (State vs. Kafeel and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 422 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Simbhawali, district Hapur, whereby compromise application dated 28.8.2019 of the applicants has been rejected.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of Mrs. Kishwar Jahan elder daughter of opposite party No. 2 was solemnized with applicant No. 1, Mohd Kafeel and marriage of Mrs. Akleema, younger daughter of opposite party No. 2 was solemnized with applicant No. 2, Shah Alam in the year 2004, but on account of acrimonious relation of daughters of opposite party No. 2, first information report was lodged on 19.12.2009 by opposite party No. 2 with regard to harassment and torture of his daughters by the accused-persons in her matrimonial home, in which charge sheet was submitted and trial proceeded against the applicants/accused persons.In the trial, prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is pending at the stage of defence evidence.In the meantime, the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the court on 19.9.2017, and pursuant to said settlement, Case No. 63 of 2015 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. filed by Mrs. Kishwar Jahan and Case No. 89 of 2015 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. filed by Mrs. Akleena have been dismissed vide orders dated 22.4.2018 and 19.9.2017 respectively.Thereafter, compromise application dated 28.8.2019 was also filed by the parties concerned before the trial court praying therein to decide the case in terms of compromise.It is also submitted that after compromise both daughter of opposite party No. 2 are living with applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 respectively in their matrimonial home and now there is no dispute of any kind between the parties concerned, but the said compromise application dated 28.8.2019 has been rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hapur vide impugned order dated 28.8.2019 on the ground that offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable.The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that it is a matrimonial dispute between the husbands and wives and after settlement of the matrimonial dispute, they are living together and leading their life happily along with their children, therefore, the trial court has committed legal error in rejecting the compromise application of the applicants in the matter.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Shri B. J. Chourasia, Advocate for the applicants.Shri R.K. Kesarwani, PL for the State.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Co-accused Banti @ Idrees has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 2.4.2013 passed in M.Cr.Charge sheet has been filed.The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Five accused that were charged with offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 302, 307 323 and 149 of I.P.C, were Atma Singh, his son Gurbax Singh, son of brother-in-law of Atma Singh, named Gurjant Singh, another son of Atma Singh, named Bachint Singh and one Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh.He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-.Bachint Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 307, IPC for causing injuries to Nachhattar Singh and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.The remaining -- Gurbax Singh, Gurjant Singh and Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh were acquitted by the trial court.Two appeals were filed before the High court against the judgment and order of the trial court.295-DB of 1995 was filed by Atma Singh and his son Bachint Singh to challenge their conviction and sentence.A.No.56-DBA of 1996 was filed by the State against four persons, namely, Gurbax Singh, Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh, Gurjant Singh and Bachint Singh.The first three had been acquitted by the trial court and Bachint Singh was convicted only under Section 307, IPC but acquitted of offence under Section 302, IPC and other provisions for which he had been charged.The High court by common judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal, dismissed the appeal that had been filed by Atma Singh and Bachint Singh (Crl.A.No.295-DB of 1995) and allowed the State appeal against acquittal (Crl.A.No.56-DBA of 1996) and aforesaid four respondents in the appeal have been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and to suffer further imprisonment of three months in default of payment of fine.They have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 307, 323 read with Section 149, IPC besides fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three months each.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The conviction of Atma Singh by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court has become final.Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. J. K. Das, submits that Atma Singh has not challenged the impugned judgment of the High Court.Two appeals were filed by the four respondents who had been convicted by the High Court allowing the State appeal against acquittal.Gurjant Singh preferred separate appeal (Crl.154 of 2002).The remaining three-- Gurbax Singh, Angrez Singh and Bachint Singh have preferred this common appeal.The appeal of Gurjant Singh has been dismissed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 3.9.2002 by a bench of which one of us (Justice H.K. Sema) was a member.Therefore, the judgment of the High Court in so far as it convicts Gurjant Singh has also attained finality.Reverting now to the present appeal filed by the remaining three, it is necessary to notice in brief the prosecution case so as to examine the submission of Mr. Das so as to distinguish the case of the appellants from that of Gurjant Singh.The occurrence took place at about 9.30 a.m on 15th October, 1990 in the fields in village Khialivala.The deceased Kaka Singh @ Lachhman and the injured witness PW3- Nachhattar Singh are brothers.The prosecution story was revealed on the statement of PW3 to the effect that he along with his brother Kaka Singh, PW4- Sukhdev Kaur- wife of PW3- Nachhattar Singh, and a labourer Ram Chand had gone to the fields to pick cotton.While they were so doing Atma Singh and Gurjant Singh armed with gandasas, Gurbax Singh and Bachint Singh armed with spears, Geja Singh and three more armed with dangs reached their fields.Atma Singh raised a lalkara that they should be taught a lesson for buying their land.He gave a gandasa blow to Kaka Singh on the left side of his head.Gurjant also gave a gandasa blow on the head of Kakka Singh, Gurbax Singh gave a spear blow on the left flank of Kaka Singh.Bachint Singh gave a spear blow to PW3 and a second blow on the portion above the naval.Resultantly, PW3 fell down.Geja Singh gave a dang blow on the head of PW3 and also on his left arm.It was also alleged that there was previous enmity between the two groups.Civil litigation was pending in court.There was also criminal cases.They had blamed complainant party for the murder of elder brother of Gurjant Singh.The High Court on appreciation of evidence reverse the acquittal of these three appellants and Gurjant Singh as already noticed.In respect of Bachint Singh, one of the contention urged by Mr. J.K. Das is that no appeal had been filed by State of Punjab against his acquittal for offence under Section 302/149 IPC and, therefore, the High Court committed a serious illegality in convicting him for the said offence reversing the judgement of the trial court.Our attention has been drawn to a factual statement in the impugned judgment while narrating facts that State of Punjab has filed Crl.A.No.56-DB-A of 1996 to challenge the acquittal of Gurbax Singh, Gurjant Singh and Geja Singh.It is true that at the particular portion of the judgment pointed out by learned counsel, name of Bachint Singh has not been mentioned.It is evident that it is on account of slip or typographical error that while narrating fact at particular portion of judgment name of Bachint Singh has not been mentioned.That, however, does not lead to the conclusion that State did not challenge the acquittal of Bachint Singh for offence under Section 302/149 and other offences.It is evident from the perusal of the record that Crl.A.56.DB-A of 1996 was filed not only challenging the acquittal of the affronted three persons but also challenging the acquittal of Bachint Singh for the offence for which he was not found guilty by the trial court.Bachint Singh was admittedly respondent no.4 in Crl.He was represented by a counsel before the High Court.In the course of the judgment the High Court has referred to detail facts and the evidence against Bachint Singh as well before coming to the conclusion that he too is guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other offences.We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that State had not challenged the acquittal of Bachint Singh in the appeal filed by it before the High Court.In respect of the appellant Gurbax Singh, a submission was sought to be urge to create a doubt in respect of injury said to have been inflicted by him on the left flank of deceased Kaka Singh with a spear blow submitting that on the shirt of Kaka Singh that had been seized there has no hole which makes, according to the learned counsel, the infliction of injury, by Gurbax Singh, doubtful.In respect of appellants Bachint Singh and Angrez Singh, @ Geja Singh the contention sought to be urged was that even according to the case of the prosecution, they had allegedly inflicted injuries not to Kaka Singh but to PW3 and, therefore, it was submitted, that these two appellants could not be held guilty for offence under Section 302/149, IPC and other offences as noticed hereinbefore.All the five accused armed with weapons had gone to the fields where Kaka Singh, his brother PW3 and others were working has been fully established from the evidence.It has also been fully established that there was previous enmity between the two groups.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Heard finally.This is the third application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 15/12/2012 in connection with Crime No. 231/2012 registered at P.S. Silwani, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 307, 353, 332, 333, 294, 506, 427, 149 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after withdrawal of second application charge sheet has been filed but despite repeated efforts complainants are not appearing before the trial Court.In support of aforesaid contention, he has filed the order sheets of the trial Court.It is further submitted that as per prosecution itself at the time of incident applicant was in the bullock cart alongwith his father and they said to have assaulted the forest personals.During this incident someone has made the fire.In these circumstances, applicant was not the person who said to have fired the gun.Applicant is in jail since more than 13 months.Under such circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.On due consideration of the facts and contention raised on behalf of the parties alongwith the period of custody suffered by applicant under trial, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release him on bail.Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. Solanki) Judge navin

['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 506 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.

Brief facts of the case are that on 2/8/2006, Pannalal (PW1) brother of deceased Hiralal lodged the report at P.S. Khurai, Distt.Sagar averring that at 6 AM Janak Rani (PW4), wife of deceased Hiralal told his younger brother Rajaram that on 1/8/2006 at about 9 p.m., appellant had taken Hiralal with him and Hiralal did not return thereafter.On that, he went to appellant's house but found no one there.Appellant's house was locked.On searching, he found the dead body of Hiralal lying in a pit outside Govind Pateriya's 2 stockade and his dead body was injured.He also saw a streak of blood going from the spot to the appellant's house.His nephew Ramsingh and appellant's wife were missing since 5 or 6 days prior to the incident.Appellant Pajan Singh took his brother Hiralal from his house and murdered him.On that, police registered Crime No.353/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and investigated the matter.The investigation was conducted by Inspector Vinod Kumar Sharma (PW10).During the investigation, he went to the spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P-2).He also seized blood stained and simple soil from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-5) and also prepared inquest memo (Ex.P-4) of dead body of deceased Hiralal and sent it to CHC, Khurai for autopsy along with application (Ex.P-6), where Dr D.V.S. Chauhan (PW5) conducted autopsy of the dead body of Hiralal and gave autopsy report (Ex.P-6).On 2/8/2006 Vinod Kumar Sharma (PW10) also searched appellant's house and prepared search memo (Ex.P-12).In the search, he found one bloodstained bamboo stick, one bloodstained scissor and one bloodstained quilt cover in the house of the appellant.He seized these articles and also seized blood stained and simple soil from the house and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-14).During the investigation, he also recorded case diary statement of Pannalal (PW1), Prem Singh (PW3), Janak Rani (PW4), Gopal Singh (PW7) and Bhikam Singh.Further investigation was carried out by Sub-Inspector R.N. Suryawanshi (PW9).He on 14/08/06 arrested the appellant and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P-9) and on the information of the appellant, seized one bloodstained Baka (cutting object), bed-sheet, two pillow covers and his trouser and shirt and prepared information memo (Ex.P-8) and seizure memo 3 (Ex.P-9 and 11).He also sent the seized Baka and scissor to Dr D.V.S. Chauhan (PW5) and queried from him whether the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by these articles.On that, Dr D.V.S. Chauhan (PW5) gave the query report (Ex.P-7) to the effect that the injuries found on dead body of deceased by him during postmortem could be caused by these articles.So only on the ground that Pannalal (PW1), Prem Singh (PW3) and Janak Rani (PW4) are the close relatives of the deceased and no other witnesses was produced by the prosecution on that point their statements can not be discarded.Although, appellant took the defence that at the time of incident he was not at village and went to search his wife and in this regard also produced Manak (DW-1) and Maujialal (DW-2) in his defence.They deposed that on the date of incident the appellant was not at the village and had gone to search for his wife 5 to 6 days before Hiralal's death and returned 4-5 days after the incident, but the appellant did not give any suggestion to Pannalal (PW1), Prem Singh (PW3) and Janak Rani (PW4) that appellant had gone to search his wife 5 to 6 days before the death of Hiralal and returned 4-5 days after Hiralal's death.On the contrary, he gave suggestion to Prem Singh (PW3) in his cross examination that on the date of incident, police arrested the appellant.From the statement of Janakrani (PW4), Prem Singh (PW3) and Pannalal (PW1) it is clearly proved that on 01/08/2006 at 9 pm appellant went to Hiralal's house and took him to his house.Prem Singh (PW3) also last saw Hiralal with the appellant in his house at night.Thereafter, next day in the morning at about 6 a.m., Hiralal's dead body was found in a pit near appellant's house and appellant was absconding from his house.Vinod Kumar Sharma (PW10) deposed that on 2/8/2006 he was posted at SHO, Khurai, Pannalal lodged the report (Ex.P-1).On that report, he registered Crime No.353/2006 and investigated the matter.During investigation, he went to spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P-2) and prepared inquest report (Ex.P-4) of dead body of Hiralal and seized simple soil and blood stained soil from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-5).He further deposed that on the same day, he searched appellant's house and prepared search memo (Ex.P-12).The appellant's house was locked, so before entering in to the house, he got the lock of the appellant's house broken and prepared a memo (Ex.P-13).Thereafter, he seized blood stained soil, simple soil, one blood stained stick, one blood stained scissor and one blood stained quilt cover and prepared seizure memo (Ex.Gopal (PW7) in his examination in chief deposed that police seized scissor, stick, quilt cover and blood stained soil from the spot.He did not deposed that police seized these articles from the appellant's house.(Delivered on 21/02/2017) Per R.K.Dubey, J.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23/5/2007 passed by ASJ, Khurai, Distt.He also sent all seized articles to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination along with draft (Ex.P-15) and from FSL Sagar, report (Ex.16) was received.He also took photographs of Hiralal's dead-body (Ex.17) and after investigation, police filed charge sheet against the appellant before JMFC, Sagar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where on that charge-sheet S.T. No.372/2006 was registered.Learned Additional Session Judge, Khurai, Distt.Sagar framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.The appellant abjured the guilt and took the defence that he was innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case and at the time of the incident, he was not in the village.He had gone in search of his wife.In this regard, he also produced Manak (DW1) and Maujilal (DW2)in his defence.However, after trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge found appellant Pajan Singh guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as mentioned above.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant Pajan Singh filed this criminal appeal.The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.If any of the said circumstances are consistent with the innocence of the accused or the chain of the continuity of the circumstance is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.On the point that deceased Hiralal died on the intervening night of 1- 2/8/2006 at Village Nirtala and his death was homicidal.On that day, Constable Shiv Kumar brought dead body of Hiralal in the hospital.He conducted autopsy of dead body of Hiralal and found following injuries on his body:Incised wound 12 cm x 2cm transverse situated over the back of neck at the bone of skull upper and lower ends of wound sharply cut wound extended from left ear to mid of back of neck.Wound track is 4 cm deep directed upwards and medially and pierced up to 1 cervical vertebrae.Left ear is cut off and completely divided into two parts.2.Incised wound 5cm x 2cm transverse situated 3 cm below from injury no.1 wound track is 2 cm deep directed downwards and medially (2cm.deep) upto ramus of the mandible.Incised wound 4 cm.x1 cm transverse bone deep situated over left cheek 4 cm below from left eye.4.Incised wound 17 cm x 3cm transverse situated lower 1/3 portion of left side of back 6 cm above from waist.The wound track is 5 cm deep directed upwards and medially pierced up to back bone underneath muscles cut off.Multiple stab wounds size 1cm to 3 cmx0.5 to 1 cm x muscle deep situated over middle and lower portion of the back, both the hands post aspect, right forearm and abdomen.Multiple superficial incised wounds size 4 cm to 24 cm x 0.1 cm to 0.3cm x skin deep transverse parallel to each other situated over back and left arm.9.Incised wound 4cm x 1cm x bone deep vertically placed.Situated over right cheek.10.Incised wound 2.5cmx0.5cm x bone deep transversely placed.Situated over forehead right side 5 cm above the right eyebrow.He also opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the body.Injuries were caused by sharp and penetrating object and death was homicidal.Duration of death was within twenty-four hours since postmortem.His statement also corroborated from the autopsy report (Ex.P/6).There is no infirmity in their statement in this regard.So, there is no reason to disbelieve their statements.From their statements, it is clearly proved that Hiralal died on the intervening night of 1& 2/8/2006 at Village Nirtala and his death was homicidalAs regards to the point that appellant murdered deceased Hiralal, although there is no eye witness of the incident and prosecution story is solely based on circumstantial evidence but prosecution produced evidence against appellant regarding following circumstances:-(i) On 01/08/2006 at 9 PM in the night, appellant took deceased Hiralal from his house and thereafter in the night Premsingh (PW-3) last saw deceased Hiralal in appellant's house with him.(ii) Next day i.e. on 02/08/06, at 6 AM in the morning, dead body of Hiralal was found near appellant's house and appellant was absconding.His house was locked.(iii) On 02/08/06 police broke lock of appellant's house and seized one quilt cover, stick and scissor from the house of appellant Pajan Singh.Stains of human blood were also found on these articles.(iv) A Baka and clothes (Shirt and trouser of appellant), bed-sheet, pillow cover were seized on the instant of appellant.Stains of human blood were found on these articles.(v) The son of deceased Hiralal had taken wife of appellant, so appellant had a motive to kill Hiralal.In this regard, Janak Rani (PW4), the wife of deceased Hiralal clearly deposed that on the date of the incident at about 9 p.m., appellant came to his house and took Hiralal with him.Thereafter, when her son Prem Singh (PW3) came from the temple, she told him that appellant Pajan Singh had taken his father to his house.On that, Prem Singh went to appellant's house and after returning from appellant's house told her that deceased Hiralal had told him to go and that they would come shortly.On this, she put his bed in his room and slept with her son in another room.When she got up in the next morning and saw that Hiralal had not come back, she told this to her brother-in-law (dever) Rajaram.He went to see Hiralal and came back and said that Hiralal's dead body was lying in the pit in front of Govind's house.In this regard, her statement is also corroborated by the statement of her son Prem Singh (PW3), who also deposed that on the date of incident at 9.30 p.m., he had gone to temple and when he returned back, his mother Janakrani told him that at 9.00 p.m. appellant Pajan Singh had come to the house and took Hiralal with him.On that, he went to appellant's house, 8 where he saw Hiralal sitting on the box in the appellant's house and talking with him.When he asked his father Hiralal to come home he asked him to go and that he would come shortly.On this, he returned to his house.Next day, in the morning when he wake up and saw that Hiralal did not return home, so at 6 a.m., he went to appellant's house to see Hiralal but no one was there and appellant's house was locked.On that, he returned to his house.Then, her mother told Rajaram and then he, Rajaram and other persons went in search of Hiralal and saw his dead body lying in a pit in front of Govind Pateriya's stockade.Janakrani's statement is also corroborated by the statement of Pannalal (PW1), who also deposed that on the date of incident at 6 a.m., his brother Rajaram came to his house and told him that Janak Rani (PW4) told him that appellant had taken Hiralal to his house in the night.On that, at 6 a.m. he went to appellant's house but no one was there.His house was locked.On that, he searched his brother Hiralal and he found dead body of Hiralal in a pit situated at in front of Govind Pateriya's stockade.He also saw marks of injuries on the dead body of Hiralal.In this regard, Pannalal's statement is also corroborated from the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by him.Learned counsel of appellant submitted that Pannalal (PW1), Prem Singh (PW3) and Janak Rani (PW4) are the close relatives of deceased Hiralal, so their statements can not be relied but his arguments has no force Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of A.P vs S. Rayappa & Ors (2006) 4 SCC 516 observed :-"By now it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness.The appellant did not put any suggestion to prosecution witnesses as to where else he was if not present in the village on the relevant date.Even, in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, appellant did not disclose anything about where he was if not in a village at the time of incident.So in this regard, statement of Manak (DW-1) and Maujialal (DW-2) appear to be afterthought and only on the basis of the statements of Pannalal (PW1), Prem Singh (PW3) and Janak Rani (PW4) that deceased Hiralal was last seen with the appellant cannot be discarded.At this point, learned counsel for the appellant cross examined these witnesses at length but there is no 10 such thing coming out on the basis of which the statements of the above mentioned witnesses are considered to be false.So, there is no reason to disbelieve their statements on the point.P-14),which was also proved by Gopal (PW7),who also deposed that on the date of incident at 7 a.m., Pannalal informed him that the dead body of Hiralal was lying in front of Govind Pateriya's house.On that, he went to spot and saw the dead body of Hiralal, where police prepared inquest report of dead body of Hiralal.Thereafter, police searched appellant's house and prepared search memo (Ex.P-12) and also prepared one memo regarding opening of lock of 11 appellant's house (Ex.P-13) and police also seized one scissor, one stick, one quilt cover from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-14).Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of Gopal (PW7) regarding seizure of articles from the appellant's house.Even in his cross-examination admitted that he did not know what the police wrote in documents.He also stated that documents were prepared by R.N. Suryawanshi (PW9) while in the Ex.P-12, 13 & 14, it is mentioned that these documents was prepared by Vinod Kumar Sharma (PW10).So, the recovery of blood stained soil, scissor, blood stained quilt cover and stick from appellant's house become doubtful.Although, Gopal (PW7) in his examination-in-chief deposed that police seized one scissor, stick and one quilt cover from the spot but he in para 8 of his cross examination clearly stated that police seized quilt cover (Palli) from one of the room of appellant's house, which was put on bed and stick found in the courtyard and scissor was also found in the almirah of the room and he also denied from the suggestion given by the appellant's counsel in his cross examination that he did not see blood stains in appellant's house.So, the contradiction came out in his statement regarding seizure of one scissor, one stick and one quilt cover and blood stains from the house of the appellant by the police no 12 longer remain important.It is also proved that on 02/08/06 police seized one stick, one scissor and one quilt cover from the house of appellant after breaking the lock of the house.R.N. Suryawanshi (PW9) also deposed that on 14/8/2006, he was posted as Sub-Inspector.On that date, he arrested the appellant and prepared the arrest memo (Ex.P-10).In the interrogation, the appellant informed that he had concealed one Baka (Article C) in his house and also stated that he concealed a trouser, a shirt, one bed sheet and pillow cover behind Shrimant Seth's petrol pump.On that, he prepared memorandum (Ex.P-8) and seized one Baka from the house of the appellant and prepared seized memo (Ex.11) and also seized one pant, one shirt, one bed sheet and pillow cover from a pit situated behind Shrimant Seth's petrol pump on the information of appellant and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-9).In this regard, his statement is also corroborated by the memorandum (Ex.P-9) and seizure memo (Ex.P- 11 and 12) which were also proved by the independent witness Jagat Das (PW-6) and Sanjeev Kumar (PW-8).Learned counsel of the appellant submitted that Jagatdas (PW-6) admitted in his cross examination that appellant Pajan Singh did not give any information to the police in front of him.So the memorandum (Ex.P/8) prepared by the R.N. Suryavanshi (PW-9) before this witness become doubtful.On that, R.N. Suryawanshi (PW9) prepared information memo (Ex.P-9).This witness in his cross examination also deposed that police had questioned appellant for 10 to 15 minutes in front of him Which shows that the facts of this effect have come in his cross examination due to not understanding the question correctly.There is no material contradiction and omission in this regard in the statements of Jagatdas (PW-6), Sanjeev Kumar (PW-8) and R.N. Suryavanshi (PW-9).So, it is also proved that police seized one Baka from the house of the appellant, and one bed sheet, pillow cover, shirt and pant from a pit situated behind the Shrimant Seth's petrol pump on the information of appellant.R.N. Suryawanshi (PW9) also deposed that he also sent sized scissor and Baka for query and Dr D.V.S. Chauhan (PW5), who conducted autopsy of dead body of Hiralal deposed that on 19/8/06 he examined scissor and one Baka which was brought by the constable and gave query report (Ex.P-7) to the effect that the injuries found by him over the dead body of deceased Hiralal at the time of autopsy can be caused by these articles.R.N. Suryawanshi (PW9) also deposed that he had sent all seized articles for chemical analysis to FSL Sagar through S.P. Sagar along with draft (Ex.15) from where report (Ex.P-16) was received.In that report, it is mentioned that the blood was found on appellant's shirt, pant (article B1 and B2) , bed sheet (article B3), pillow cover (article B4), stick (article C), scissor (article D), quilt cover (article E) and blood stained soil (article F and H) and the blood found on stick (article C), quilt cover (article E) and blood stained soil (article F and H) were of human blood.From the report, it is also proved that blood was found on the articles i.e. stick (article C), scissor (article D), quilt cover (article E) and blood stained soil which were seized from the appellant's house and the blood found on the stick (article C) and blood stained soil were of human blood and blood was also found on bed sheet, pillow cover (article B3 to B5) which was seized by the police on the information of appellant.Janakrani (PW4) deposed that five days before the incident, her son Ramsingh took the appellant's wife and did not return till the date of incident.Pannalal (PW1) and Prem Singh (PW3) also corroborated this fact.The defence witness Manak (DW1) and Maujilal (DW2) also deposed that before the incident, Ramsingh had taken appellant's wife.So, it is also proved that before the incident Ramsingh, son of deceased Hiralal took appellant's wife.Facts of the cases Sangili alias Sanganathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police, Babudas vs. State of M.P., Lakhanpal vs State of M.P. (supra), relied by the learned counsel of appellant do not match with the present case.In the first case, evidence of last seen together was not established.While in this case evidence of last seen together is clearly established from the prosecution evidence.In the second case, Apex Court opined that sole circumstance of false plea of alibi, is not enough to prove the guilt of accused.In third case, learned Apex Court opined the sole circumstance of last seen together is not enough the prove the guilt.While in this case, apart from the false plea of alibi and last seen together other circumstance are also proved against the appellant.So, these judgements do not help the appellant much.Learned counsel of the appellant also submitted that at the most, act of the appellant comes under the purview of section 304 part II of the IPC.In this regard, he also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgements passed in the case of Arjun and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2017)3 SCC247 and Adu Ram vs. Mukna & Ors.2004 (crims) 175 (SC) but facts of these cases also do not match with the instant case as in the first case, at the time of incident, deceased and other witness were cutting trees and there was exchange of words which resulted in altercation and during the said altercation, the appellants attacked the deceased.The incident occurred due to a sudden fight, while in this case the appellant did not take plea that the incident occurred due to a sudden fight and in the second case incident occurred over a trifling issue of damage of crop by the goats.While in this case, appellant took the deceased from his house to his house, where he committed murder of the deceased.So, these cases also do not help to the appellant much.(i) On 01/08/2006 in the night at 9 p.m., the appellant took deceased Hiralal from his house and thereafter in the night Premsingh (PW-3) also last saw deceased Hiralal in appellant's house with the appellant.(ii) Next date i.e. 02/08/06 in the morning, at 6 a.m.,dead body of Hiralal was found near appellant's house and appellant was absconding.His house was locked.(iii) On 02/08/06 police broke lock of appellant's house and seized one blood stained stick, scissor and quilt cover and blood stained 16 soil from the house of the appellant and the blood found on stick and soil was human blood.(iv) Police also seized one blood stained bed sheet, pillow cover, shirt, pant and one Baka on the information of the appellant.Appellant did not give any explanation regarding these circumstances.On the contrary, appellant took the false plea that he had gone to search for his wife 5 to 6 days before the death of Hiralal and returned back 4-5 days after the death of Hiralal.That false plea filled the gap and provided the "missing link" to complete the chain of circumstances which do not permit any other inference to be drawn but one that points towards the guilt of the appellant.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

The members of the CISF Unit at Bokaro hadformed an all-India association in March 1979 and oneSadanand Jha, Respondent No. 1, was elected as its GeneralSecretary.Thereafter, a country wide agitation was carriedon for recognition of the said association.In June 1979some of the members of the said association were called uponto meet the Home Minister at Delhi.A delegation of the saidassociation went to Delhi.While there they staged ademonstration.Some of the demonstrators, including SadanandJha, were arrested.What happened thereafter can best berelated by extracting paragraphs 3 to 9 of the supplementaryReturn filed by Shri Madan Gopal, the Deputy Inspector-General, CISF Unit of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, pursuantto the leave granted by this Court.These paragraphs read asfollows :The said persons were arrested at Delhi, but subsequently released on bail.Out of 1900 persons belonging to CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro about 1000 persons participated in the processions and violent demonstrations.The said employees indulged in agitational acts and violent indiscipline.The said personnel unleashed a reign of terror in the unit lines and openly incited others to disobey the lawful orders.The said persons indulged in several acts of violence and created a very serious law & order problem and an atmosphere of collective violence and intimidation.Annexed hereto and marked Annexure AFD- I is the request from the Home Commissioner, Bihar Government to the Ministry of Defence, Government of India dated 23.6.1979 requesting for the deployment of the Army so as to restore normalcy in the area.The State Government had also deployed 9 Magistrates to assist the Army authorities as also the CRPF for restoring the normal conditions at the Bokaro Steel Plant.A copy of the order is enclosed herewith and market as Annexure AFD-IIOn 24.6.1979, on seeing the arrival of the Army, the agitators started making preparations for armed resistance by putting up sand bags, flood lights and barricades in the CISF Lines.They had gained the control of CISF Lines and the Officers were not allowed to have any access to the Lines or to other ranks of CISF.On 25.6.1979, the Army along with 9 Magistrates took up positions round the CISF Lines in the early hours and called upon the agitators to give up charge of the Armoury.Inspite of giving repeated warnings by the authorities to give up charge of the Armoury, the agitators did not give up arms, but, instead, resorted to violence.The agitators started firing at 0320 hours at the Army.The Army returned the fire.The said exchange of fire continued for 3 hours before the Army could spell out the violent retaliation of286 the agitators.The said violent exchange of fire resulted in the instant death of one Army Major and 2 more Army personnel were also killed as a result of firing by the CISF personnel.It may also be stated that there were 22 death in the course of the said pitched battle, which went on for three hours between the violent armed agitators and the Army.In regard to the aforesaid violent activities and the commission of offences, about 800 personnel were rounded up by the Army and later on arrested by the local police.It is pertinent to mention here that at the relevant time, about 1900 personnel were deployed in CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.More than 1000 personnel participated in the aforesaid agitational activities.Besides the persons arrested by the authorities concerned, a substantial number of agitators were at large.Most of them either fled away or went underground and large number of arms and ammunitions were also with them.The search and seizure of arms and ammunition were going on and as a result thereof up till 1.7.1979, 65 rifles along with large quantity of ammunitions, 11 Molotov cooktails, 20 kgs.of sulphur, 20 kgs of glass chips and other explosives and 1048 empties of .303 ammunition were recovered from the area after the Army action.A copy of the FIR lodged in connection with aforesaid commission of offences is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure (AFD-III).Notwithstanding the arrest of the said about 800 employees, as aforesaid, atmosphere at the Bokaro Steel Plant continued to be vitiated due to terror and collective fear and the functioning of the CISF Unit and its administration at Bokaro had completely broken down.It was only Army which could control the situation by its continued presence.no. 602, 2nd Bn.However, the claim of privilege was waived by the Governmentand all the materials produced at the hearing and inspectiongiven to the other side.These materials disclose that anincident took place on January 18, 1981, at the annual Melaheld at Gwalior in which one man was burnt alive.Somepersons, including a constable from each of these twoForces, were arrested.These persons were remanded intojudicial custody.L. N. Sinha, M. K. Rammamurthy, K. K. Vinugopal, V. M.Tarkunde, P. R. Mirdul, P. P. Singh, R. N. Poddar, UmeshMishra, M. A. Krishnamoorthy, Indira Sawhney, KittuBansilal, Chandan Malhotra, J. Rammurthy, R. Vaigai, H. K.Puri, V. K. Bhal, K. V. Sreekumar, R. Sathish, S. S.Khanduja, Yashpal Dhingra, P. H. Parekh, P. K. Manohar, C.L. Sahu, A. K. Jha, T. G. N. Nayar, A. K. Panda, S. K.Gambhir, S. Gambhir, Ashok Mahajan, Sunita Kriplani, C. V.Subba Rao, G. D. Gupta, Hemant Sharma, Indu Malhotra andJayshre for the appearing parties.R. K. Garg, S. N. Singh and K. M. K. Nair for theintervener.Ultimately, on orders from the High Court, the prosecutionwas dropped.The appellant was also exonerated in adepartmental inquiry held against him.The appellant'swrit petition was dismissed by the High Court.Reforms)Notification No. 11012/2/77 - Ests.The SeniorCommercial Officer wrote a letter to the appellant callingupon him to submit his explanation with regard to twelvecharges of gross indiscipline mostly relating to the DeputyChief Commercial Superintendent.The appellant submitted hisexplanation and on the very next day the Deputy ChiefCommercial Superintendent served a second notice on theappellant saying that his explanation was not convincing andthat another chance was being given to him to offer hisexplanation with respect to those charges.It appearsthat orders were issued by Headquarters, C.D.A. C.C.,Meerut, stopping the increment of the Respondent for oneyear.One Raj Kumar Jairath was at the relevant time theRegional Audit Officer, M.E.S., Jabalpur.On July 27,1976,the Respondent went to Raj Kumar's office and demanded anexplanation from him as to why he had stopped his incrementwhereupon Raj Kumar replied that he was nobody to stop hisincrement.The Respondent then struck Raj Kumar on the headwith an iron rod.Raj Kumar fell down, his head bleeding.The Respondent was tried and convicted under section 332 ofthe Indian Penal Code by the First Class JudicialMagistrate, Jabalpur.The Magistrate instead of sentencingthe Respondent to imprisonment applied to him the provisionsof section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, andreleased him on his executing a bond of good behaviour for aperiod of one year.The Respondents appeal against hisconviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.The Controller General of282Defence Accounts, who was the disciplinary authority in thecase, imposed upon the Respondent the penalty of compulsoryretirement under clause (i) of Rule 19 of the Civil ServicesRules.The said order was in the following terms :Auditor, (Account No.8295888) shall be compulsorily retired from service with effect from 25.11.1980."The Respondent thereupon filed a departmental appeal whichwas dismissed.Thereafter the Respondent filed in the Madhya PradeshHigh Court a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution.We are unable to agree with either of the two reasonsgiven by the High Court for setting aside the order ofcompulsory retirement.So far as the first ground upon whichthe High Court proceeded is concerned, as already pointedout that part of the judgment in Challapan's case is notcorrect and it was, therefore, not necessary to give to theRespondent any opportunity of hearing before imposing thepenalty of compulsory retirement on him.It was, however, argued that the penalty imposed uponthe Respondent was not of dismissal or removal from servicebut of283compulsory retirement and, therefore, clause (a) of Article311(2) did not apply.The argument cannot be accepted.Thecompulsory retirement of the Respondent was not by reason ofhis reaching the age of superannuation or under other ruleswhich provide for compulsorily retiring a government servanton his completing the qualifying period of service.Shyam Lal Sharma, [1972] 1 S.C.R. 184,189 and the casesreferred to therein).The second ground upon which the High Court rested itsdecision is equally unsustainable.The circumstances whichwere taken into consideration by the disciplinary authorityhave been sufficiently set out in the order of compulsoryretirement, they being that the Respondent's convictionunder section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and the nature ofthe offence committed which led the disciplinary authorityto the conclusion that the further retention of theRespondent in the public service was undesirable.Themention of section 332 of the Indian Penal Code in the saidorder itself shows that Respondent was himself a publicservant and had voluntarily caused hurt to another publicservant in the discharge of his duty as such public servantor in consequence of an act done by that person in thelawful discharge of his duty.The facts here are eloquentand speak for themselves.The Respondent had gone to theoffice of his superior officer and had hit him on the headwith an iron rod.TheRespondent was lucky in being dealt with leniently by theMagistrate but these facts clearly show that his retentionin public service was undesirable.Allexcept one of them filed a writ petition in the Patna HighCourt while the remaining one filed a writ petition in theMadhya Pradesh High Court.Both the High Courts allowed thewrit petitions relying upon the decisions in Challappan'scase.Civil Appeal No. 3484 of 1982 is directed against thejudgment of the Patna High Court while Civil Appeal No. 3512of 1982 is directed against the judgment of the MadhayaPradesh High Court.Before dealing with the relevant facts, we may mentionthat the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition inboth the said High Courts were unsatisfactory.At thehearing of these Appeals an application was made on behalfof the Appellants for leave to file a supplementary return.This application was granted by us in the interest ofjustice and the supplementary Return annexed to the saidapplication was taken on the record.We will now briefly setout the facts which led to the passing of the impugnedorders.On January 20, 1981, several members ofthese two Forces indulged in violent demonstrations andrioted at the Mela ground, demanding the release of theircolleagues.They attacked the police station at the Melaground, ransacked it and forced the operator to close downthe wireless set.The situation became so dangerous thatsenior district and police officers had to approach theJudicial Magistrate at night and get the two arrestedconstables released on bail.The incident was discussed at aCabinet meeting, a decision was taken and the advice of theCouncil of Ministers was tendered to the Governor of MadhyaPradesh who accepted it and issued the impugned orders.Onfurther scrutiny some names were deleted from the list ofdismissed personnel and some others included.As a result ofthis, some other members of these Forces began carrying onan active propaganda against the Government, visitingJabalpur and other places in the State of Madhya Pradesh,holding secret meetings, distributing leaflets, and incitingthe constabulary in these places to rise against theadministration as a body in protest against the action takenby the Government.On this information being received, theytoo were similarly dismissed.These facts speak forthemselves.The police normally oppose the grant of bail toan accused but here we have the paradoxical situation ofsome of the highest police and district officers going atmidnight to the Magistrate's house to apply for bail for297the accused.The police are the guardians of law and order.They stand guard at the border between the green valleys oflaw and order and the rough and hilly terrain of lawlessnessand public disorder.If these guards turn law-breakers andcreate violent public disorder and incite others to do thesame, we can only exclaim with Juvenal, "Quis custodietipsos' Custodes?"- who is to guard the guards themselves?"(Satires, VI,347).These facts leave no doubt that thesituation was such that prompt and urgent action wasnecessary and the holding of a inquiry into the conduct ofeach of the Petitioners would not have been expedient in theinterest of the security of the State.All these fourPetitions, therefore deserve to be dismissed.Final Orders in the Appeals and Writ Petitions For the reasons set out above, we pass the followingorders in the above matters :(1) Civil Appeal No. 6814 of 1983 is allowed and the judgment and order appealed against are reversed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent in the High Court is hereby dismissed.(2) Writ Petitions Nos. 1953,7393,1392 and 2022 of 1981 are hereby dismissed.

['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

On 19.12.2007, the deceased - Shilpi, daughter-in-law of the appellant, who was having severe burn injuries on her body, was brought to RML Hospital by her husband Madan Kumar.On receipt of information in this regard, ASI Khursid of Police Station Pahar Ganj reached the RML Hospital and on learning that Shilpi was married only married one and a half year, requested the Executive Magistrate to reach the hospital.He then went to the house number 9964, Multani Danda, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, where Shilpi had sustained burn injuries and after inspection of the spot and getting it photographed, came back to the Crl.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 1 of 14 hospital.The Special Executive Magistrate, who reached the hospital on receipt of intimation from ASI Khurshid, recorded the statement of Shilpi.In her statement, she alleged that after 5-6 months of her marriage, her mother-in-law Maya Devi started beating her so as to coerce her to bring more dowry and sometimes, on being instigated by her mother-in-law, her husband Madan Kumar also used to beat her.She further alleged that for last 2-3 days, her mother-in-law had been quarreling for dowry and on that day at about 12.30 pm, she started quarreling with her and then took out kerosene oil from a bottle, poured on her and set her on fire.She, crying in pain, came down from stairs and ran towards the street where some people poured water on her and she was brought by her husband in auto rickshaw.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 1 of 14The Investigating Officer also seized partly burnt bucket as well as its lid, a bottle of plastic containing some kerosene oil and one partly burnt match stick from the spot.The dupatta of Shilpi was found stuck on the lid of the bucket in burnt condition.Shilpi expired on 25.12.2007, whereupon the case was converted from under Section 307/498A/34 of IPC to 302/498A/34 thereof.In his deposition in the Court, he stated that on the aforesaid date he reached the hospital at about 6.45 pm and recorded her statement Ex.PW1 Rajinder, is father of the deceased Shilpi.In his statement, he stated that Shilpi was married about one and a half years before her death, and her in-laws used to harass her for dowry.He further stated that whenever Shilpi visited him, she used to complain about her in-laws and tell him that her husband used to beat her at the instigation of his mother.He also stated that when he met his daughter in the hospital on the fateful day, she told him that her mother-in-law had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.PW2 Ritu is the sister of the deceased Shilpi.According to her, for about 4-5 months after marriage Shilpi was kept nicely, but thereafter she was harassed by her mother-in-law as well as by her husband for want of dowry and she used to complaint against them whenever she visited the house of her parents.She further stated that about one and a half months before the incident of burning, Shilpi had an injury in her thumb and had told her that she had been beaten up by her mother-in-law, whereas her husband had given a danda blow on her thumb.She claimed that Shilpi had told them that she was beaten on account of demand of dowry.She also claimed that a few days before Crl.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 4 of 14 the incident Shilpi had spoken to her on telephone and informed that the accused were demanding more dowry and were beating her.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 4 of 14PW3 Beena is the mother of the deceased Shilp.She stated that 4- 5 days after marriage, both the accused i.e. mother-in-law and husband of Shilpi started harassing her for want of dowry and giving beatings to her.She claimed that Shilpi used to tell them about her injuries and harassment, whenever she visited their house.She further stated that about 2 months before this incident, Shilpi had injuries on her thumb and had told her that the said injury was received on account of her husband giving a blow to her and beating her at the instigation of his mother.She further stated that about 10-15 days before the incident, she went to the house of Shilpi, on receiving telephonic information about the beatings given to her by her mother-in-law and she advised the appellant Maya Devi to keep Shilpi as her daughter, but she insisted on treating her the way she was treating her.She also claimed that when she spoke to Shilpi in the hospital, she told her that her mother-in-law had set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body from the backside.PW5 Lata is another sister of the deceased Shilpi.She stated that on 11.12.2007, Shilpi informed her on telephone about the accused Crl.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 5 of 14 harassing her on account of dowry and thereupon she accompanied her mother to their house and tried to reason out with the accused persons.At that time, Maya Devi insisted that she would continue to harass her if her demands were not fulfilled.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 5 of 14PW7 Smt. Kaushal is the aunt of the deceased Shilpi, who had arranged her marriage to Madan Kumar.She stated that Shilpi used to complaint her that Maya Devi wanted a gas stove.She also claimed that in the hospital, Shilpi had told her that her mother-in-law had poured kerosene oil on her and had set her on fire from the backside.Dr. Amit Saxena stated that on 19.12.2007, he had examined Shilpi in the hospital and found her fit for statement.After completing investigation, the mother-in-law and the husband of Shilpi were charge-sheeted.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 2 of 14Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 2 of 14Since the appellant as well as her son pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses in support of its case.Two witnesses were examined in defence.Vide the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2009 and order on sentence dated 26.10.2009, the appellant Maya Devi was convicted under Section 304B of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years, whereas her son Madan Kumar, who was convicted only under Section 498A of IPC was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-.Being aggrieved from her conviction awarded to her, the appellant Maya Devi is before this Court by way of this appeal.According to him, before recording statement of Shilpi, it was opined by the doctor attending upon her, that she was fit for making statement.He also stated in his Crl.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 3 of 14 cross examination that no one else was present when he recorded the statement of Shilpi.He also stated that while declaring her fit for making statement, he found her to be oriented and conscious to record time, place and person.PW14 - Dr. Abhishek Yadav conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Shilpi and found superficial to deep ante mortem flames burns involving chest and abdomen, half of back at flanks, both upper limb, face and head along with neck, front of lower limb till the level of knee and back of thighs.In his opinion, the cause of death of Shilpi was septicemic shock produced by the complication of ante Crl.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 6 of 14 mortem, superficial to deep and inflected flame burns involving about 70% of total body surface area.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 6 of 14In her statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, the appellant Maya Devi denied the allegations against her and claimed to be innocent.DW1 Jaspal Singh stated that on 19.12.2007, he came to the street on hearing voice of persons from public and saw Shilpi coming down stairs in burnt condition.The persons from the public tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water on her and thereafter her husband took her to hospital.He also claimed that mother-in-law of Shilpi had come after she had been removed to hospital.DW2 Prabhu Dayal stated that on the aforesaid date, he came out on hearing noise and saw Shilpi coming down stairs in burning condition.They then poured water on her body and informed the police control room.PCR van reached there and took her to hospital.The persons from the locality including the appellant Maya Devi went with them to the police station.However, in the present case, the doctor attending the deceased had certified in writing that she was fit to make a statement.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 7 of 14The aforesaid statement, inter alia, shows that the appellant Maya Devi used to instigate her son to beat the deceased so as to coerce her to bring dowry, besides herself giving beatings to her in that connection.The dying declaration made by the deceased Shilpi with respect to her physical torture finds amble corroboration from the deposition of her father, mother, sisters and aunt, to all of whom she complained about the treatment meted out to her, and her husband beating her on being instigated by the appellant.The deceased Shilpi used to complain to them in this regard and in fact she complained to her mother and sisters, just a few days before she sustained burn injuries and was taken to hospital.The testimony of the Crl.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 10 of 14 parents, sisters and aunt of the deceased Shilpi cannot be rejected merely because they happen to be related to her.A perusal of her MLC coupled Crl.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 11 of 14 with her postmortem report leaves no doubt that she died an unnatural death, having sustained severe burn injuries.Since there is ample evidence to prove that the deceased Shilpi was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, the court needs to draw a statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that a person who had subjected her to cruelty had caused the dowry death.It has come in the evidence that the appellant had subjected the deceased Shilpi to cruelty as late as 2/3 days before her death.Therefore, it cannot be disputed that she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant, soon before she died.Since the evidence produced by the prosecution including the dying declaration of the deceased Shilpi proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant Maya Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased had subjected her to cruelty soon before her death.The statutory presumption would be that she had caused her death.Neither any evidence has been led nor has the appellant shown existence of circumstances which would rebut the aforesaid statutory presumption.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 11 of 14As held by the Supreme Court in Shanti vs. State of Haryana: AIR 1991 SC 1226 before a person can be convicted for the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the following:Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 12 of 14Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 12 of 14(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.All the aforesaid ingredients stand duly proved in this case since the deceased Shilpi died within seven years of her marriage, her marriage occurred on account of burn injuries, she was subjected to cruelty by her mother-in-law, soon before her death and such cruelty was in connection with the demand of dowry.When confronted with the overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution established charge under Section 304B of IPC, the learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant, who is present in the Court, submits that in the face of the said evidence, he cannot find fault with the conviction of the appellant under Section Crl.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 13 of 14 304B of IPC and would only seek reduction of the sentence on personal grounds of the appellant, including that she is a woman, aged more than 55 years and is suffering from several ailments.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 13 of 14However, considering all the facts and circumstances, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 304B of IPC is reduced from ten years to seven years.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.One copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.The LCR be sent back forthwith, along with a copy of this order.Appeal No.1096/2010 Page 14 of 14

['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

[a] The 1st respondent had registered ECIR No.CEZO/3/2013 [APS] under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [Central Act 15 of 2013  in short PMLA] against the petitioner and his four minor children, namely, Harshavardhan, aged about 13 years, Dharanidharan, aged about 17 years, Kushal, aged about 11 years and Harish, aged about 7 years, for the alleged offences of Money Laundering and it based on the First Information Report registered in Crime No.573/2013 on 21.03.2013 by R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station, Chennai City, for the commission of the offences u/s.341, 147, 148, 427, 302 506[i] IPC read with 120[b] and 109 IPC.The registration of the First Information Report pertains to alleged offence of murder of one Kathiravan and his brother by eight assailants.[b] The name of the petitioner did not find place in the FIR and in connection with the said crime on 30.03.2013, one Venkatesan and Johnson had surrendered and they have alleged to have given confession statements based on which, FIR was altered.The police effected seizure of Rs.74,47,700/- at about 11.30 a.m. On 30.03.2013 from the house of one Prabhakaran under the cover of Mahazar.In pursuant to the Alteration Report, sections 212 and 213 IPC were added.Even as per the alleged confession statements, the role of the petitioner have not been stated and so also in the Seizure Mahazar, as to the alleged recovery of Rs.74,47,700/- which forms the basis of the proceedings under PMLA.One of the wives of the petitioner, viz., Tmt.[e] The petitioner, initially started his career as a Cable TV Operator and thereafter, migrated to Real Estate and Construction business and carrying on business under the name and style Ravi Builders. The petitioner's another wife, namely, Tmt.Banumathi, to screen/conceal the evidence of the involvement of the petitioner in the murder.The family members of the deceased Kathiravan were also threatened with dire consequences.By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2 The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, avers as follows:-Banumathi, was said to have been arrested on 30.03.2013 and she is also said to have given a confession statement and it also does not find place in the report submitted for alteration of FIR.[c] The 1st respondent, based on the above said FIR, initiated an enquiry and according to the petitioner, in an illegal manner, without any basis whatsoever, had registered ECIR against the petitioner and his four minor children stated above, under the provisions of PMLA.Insofar as non-service of notice is concerned, in paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Show Cause Notice u/s.8[1] of PMLA was dispatched to the petitioner and to his minor sons vide speed post Nos.726 to 730 on 18.02.2016 and therefore, the procedural formalities were fully complied with and therefore, the petitioner cannot make any complaint.5 This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, had taken note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the non-service of the notice u/s.8[1] of PMLA and directed the matter to be called on 24.06.2016 for production of acknowledgments and on that day, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for further time for production of the same and also to file an additional counter affidavit and accordingly, the matter was directed to be called on 27.06.2016 and an additional counter affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent was filed on 27.06.2016 and in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the additional counter, it is averred that the Provisional Attachment Order in PAO No.3/2016 dated 17.02.2016, was served on the petitioner and four others by speed post vide Dispatch Nos.726 to 730 dated 18.02.2016 and the same was delivered by the postal authorities and the Show Cause Notices u/s.8[1] of PMLA were sent to the petitioner and four others vide respondents Department Office Dispatch Nos.962 to 966 dated 14.03.2016 and the same were dispatched by the postal authorities vide receipts dated 14.03.2016 and it was delivered on them on 22.03.2016 vide Delivery Report dated 22.03.2016 and the copies of the Postal Delivery Receipts and Reports were also furnished in the typed set of documents.Since the learned counsel made the complaint as to the non-service of the Show Cause Notices, once again the Show Cause Notices to the petitioner and to the minor sons were sent by Speed Post on 26.04.2016 and were delivered on 27.04.2016 by the Postal Authorities.The petitioner had also canvassed merits of the complaint.

['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

CRM No. 3736 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.5.2016 in connection with Belda Police Station Case No. 18 of 2016 under Sections 342/376/323/307/506210B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:-Abdul Ohid Sha & another ... Petitioners Mr. Abdul Hassem Ansari ... for the petitioners The matter is adjourned for a week.(Patherya,J.) (Debi Prosad Dey J.) 1

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

In Re: Arun Das .. Petitioner.Mr. Arindam Jana, Mr. Pradipto Mukherjee .. For the Petitioner.Mr. Subrata Roy .. For the State.The petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with Mongalkote Police Station Case No. 128 of 2012 dated 02.10.2012 under sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal has come to this court for anticipatory bail.We have considered the case diary and other relevant material.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned court within seven days of being released on bail.The application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

Brahm Dev stated that the petitioner would come at night to supervise the construction.The petitioner would discuss with M.G. Agarwal and Pravin Sharma about what should be constructed and how it should be constructed.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenges an order dated 7th April, 1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Delhi in FIR No. 131 of 1995 holding that there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner under Sections 337 and 304A IPC.This petition also challenges an order dated 26th November, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), dismissing Crl.Revision No. 41 of 1998 affirming the order passed by the learned MM.M.C. 824 of 1999 Page 1 of 11The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 20 th June, 1995 at around 11.15 am a building at 4883-84, Kucha Ustad Dag, Chandni Chowk, Delhi collapsed resulting the death of three persons and injuring several persons.Pursuant to the collapse, enquiries were ordered independently by the Delhi Administration and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.An FIR No. 131 of 1995 was registered under Sections 288/337/304- A/427/34 IPC at Police Station Town Hall.On the conclusion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against 3 persons namely the petitioner Vijay Singhania who was described as the owner of the building, Pravin Sharma was described as contractor and M.G. Agarwal an associate of the Pravin Kumar in the construction of the building.The learned MM discharged Pravin Kumar and M.G. Agarwal but framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 304A/337 IPC.Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner as well as the State filed criminal revision petitions.While the revision petition of State was allowed, the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned ASJ.Submissions of CounselMr. I.U.Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the enquiries made by the MCD as well as by the Delhi Administration revealed that the petitioner was not in any way responsible for the collapse of the building resulting into casualties and injuries to the persons working there.Some repair and renovation work was going on for the purposes of which some material was lying on the top floor.Heavy rains resulted in the collapse of the roof.M.C. 824 of 1999 Page 2 of 11 building consisted of the ground floor, first floor and barsati.The petitioner occupied the ground floor in the year 1993 paying Rs.107/- per month.The first floor and barsati were in the possession of Indo European Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IEMCPL).The repair and renovation activity which was going on in the premises at the relevant time was in the control and supervision of two persons namely M.G. Agarwal and Pravin Kumar, the contractor.Those two persons had arranged for the material to be kept on the site and it was on their direction that it was placed on top of the building.The petitioner was not at the site at the time of the incident.M.C. 824 of 1999 Page 3 of 11In 1988 the petitioner along with one Rishi Kedia were inducted as tenants in the ground floor.IEMCPL decided to dispose of the ground floor and an agreement to sell was entered into in respect of their tenanted portions for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs.Subsequently IEMCPL decided to dispose of the first and second floors as well.Thereafter IEMCPL moved out of the premises.It is stated that pursuant to the earlier agreement to sell Rs. 2 lakhs was received from the petitioner and Kedia on 17th August, 1994 and 8th November, 1994 respectively.Reliance is placed by the prosecution on the statement under Section 161 CrPC of one Inderjit Wadhwa who states that Vijay Singhania in August 1994 had made additions and alterations on the ground floor and constructed unauthorized shops.He engaged Pravin Sharma (Builder) and M.G. Agarwal, Junior Engineer, MCD to carry on construction.Wadhwa claimed Crl.M.C. 824 of 1999 Page 6 of 11 that he and other persons in the locality had warned the petitioner that the building was very weak and in case he made any addition or alteration, the building would collapse.However the petitioner did not heed those warnings.Wadhwa stated that on 19th June, 1995 Pravin Sharma and M.G. Agarwal were allowing steel girders to be carried to the upper floors through labourers.Wadhwa who was present at that point questioned them for doing so.M.C. 824 of 1999 Page 6 of 11Brahm Dev corroborated the statement made by Inderjeet Wadhwa who had on 19th June, 1995 questioned M.G. Agarwal for allowing steel girders to be carried to the top of the building.

['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.

130/2016 &131/2016 Page 1 of 24130/2016 &131/2016 Page 2 of 24 addicted to liquor and her husband had never gone for work and used to quarrel with her after drinking liquor.He was of suspicious nature and always doubted her character.He also used to suspect her relations with his brother-in-law (jija).She stated that there used to be quarrel between them on petty issues but was never subjected to cruelty relating to dowry.Due to his drinking habits, unemployment and suspicious nature of her husband, she requested him to allow her to do some stitching or beauty parlour course, as she did study upto 8th class and was a housewife but he did not allow her to learn anything and to go outside the house.She stated that on previous night, at 08:00/09:00pm, her husband was heavily drunk and "his mother used to harass her on the ground that her husband (Suresh) used to sit idle and never used to work".On hearing this, her husband became annoyed with her and uttered that "kya main tere baap ki khata hoon".Her mother-in-law came downstairs from first floor and her husband strangulated her neck and gave kick blow on her stomach, due to which she fell down.Her mother-in-law came with a bottle of kerosene oil and poured kerosene oil from backside.Bhawna further alleged that her husband threw a burning match stick on her and went outside from the house .Subsequently, when her kurti and salwar received fire through chunni, then her mother-in-law poured water to extinguish fire and it was told to her that she received burn injuries while making food on stove.Thereafter, her in-laws took her to a private dispensary, which was found closed and then she was shifted to Safdarjung hospital.Both these appeals arising out of a common judgment and order dated 07.11.2014 were taken up and heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.Criminal Appeal No. 130/2016 has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment by which the mother-in-law and husband of the deceased have been acquitted of the Crl.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 1 of 24 charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Appeal No. 131/2016 has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment by which the father-in-law of the deceased has been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.A. No's.Mother of the deceased had also preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 328/2015 which was disposed of by this Court on 03.02.2016 with the liberty to urge all grounds in the present State Appeals.The present appeals have been filed by the State under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 07.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 49/2011 by which the respondents have been acquitted of all the charges against them.The brief facts of the case are as under:"1...At about 12:45 am (night) in the intervening night of 29th/30th August, 2011, an information was received at Police Station Sangam Vihar vide DD no. 66-A to the effect that "Bhawna w/o Suresh Singh aged 25 years, r/o D-485/5, Sangam Vihar is admitted by Hari Singh (father-in-law) in 30 % burnt condition at safdarjung hospital".ASI Rajender Singh alongwith Ct.Virpal reached at Safdarjung hospital and collected MLC no. 79884 of injured Bhawna having alleged history of "thermal burn when her clothes caught fire while cooking on kerosene stove".Nature of injury was opined by the attending doctor as "dangerous caused by fire".IO/ASI Rajender Singh intimated Kuldeep Singh (PW-1) SDM, Kalkaji regarding admission of Bhawna in a burnt condition at Safdarjung hospital, who reached at the hospital on 30th August, 2011 and recorded her statement, wherein she stated that she got married with Suresh on 06th May, 2006 at Faridabad.After six months of her marriage, she came to know that her husband was Crl.A. No's.She further stated that whenever there was a quarrel, her father-in-law used to increase volume of television so that neighbours would not know that they were abusing her".A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 2 of 24To bring home the guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses in all.Statements of the accused persons were Crl.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 3 of 24 recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied all the incriminating facts and claimed to be tried.The accused Suresh Singh took a plea that the complaint was lodged by his father-in-law in anger after the unfortunate incident occurred with his daughter.It was further stated that at the time of incident, he was not present in his house.The accused Shanti Devi and Hari Singh stated that they were present at the first floor whereas Bhawna (deceased) was alone on the ground floor and she was cooking food using a kerosene oil stove, where she used to reside with their son Suresh Singh.It was further stated that they heard the alarm 'bachao' and rushed to the ground floor and saw her burning.They extinguished the fire and changed her burnt clothes and took her to the hospital.They further stated that Suresh Singh was not at home and the in-laws of Suresh had deposed falsely against them and they had never demanded any dowry or money from them.Statement of one more witness i.e. Hayat Singh was recorded as CW1 who proved the death summary of the deceased.A. No's.The trial court disregarded and failed to take into account the relevant material on record and has based its findings on mere conjectures and surmises.Further, the trial court gravely erred in disbelieving the dying declaration duly recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate without any cogent and justifiable reasons and the judgment suffers from serious infirmities and deserves to be set aside.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 4 of 24The counsel for the State urged that the deceased suffered an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and thus attracts Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The counsel further clarified that if an offence is committed inside a house, the burden would be on the inmates to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed and that onus would shift on the accused persons.Counsel for the State further urged that the trial court gave undue advantage to the fact that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind at the time of making the dying declaration.Further, the court erred in disbelieving the testimony of PW14 ASI Rajender Singh who fairly conducted investigation of the case in the best possible way.The counsel for the State further contended that the evidence of the PW1 Sh.Kuldeep Singh (Sub Divisional Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration), PW3 Sh.Hari Singh Jakhad (father of the deceased), PW12 Smt. Malti Devi (mother of the deceased) and PW14 ASI Rajender Singh (Initial Investigating Officer) is concise, cogent and satisfactory for holding the respondents guilty of the charged offences.Mr. Rajiv Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant Smt. Malti Devi (mother of the deceased) adopted the Crl.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 5 of 24 arguments raised by the counsel for the State and further contends that the trial court has failed to appreciate the forensic evidence adduced by the prosecution on record which categorically suggests the presence of kerosene oil on the clothes of the deceased as well as bottle seized from the spot.A. No's.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 6 of 24 dying declaration even though she had received 30% burns and that it is highly improbable that the deceased was unfit to give any statement at around 2.30 AM and was declared fit at about 10.00 in the morning; hence it has no probative value.A. No's.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the judgment in detail rendered by the trial court.In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have independently scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and examined the judgment of the trial court.At the outset, it would be relevant to mention para 25 and 27 of the impugned judgment wherein it was held as under:Smt. Malti Devi (PW-12) categorically deposed that she had met her daughter Bhawna before SDM had recorded her statement.In her examination in chief, PW- 12 deposed that she had gone inside the ICU Ward at about 09:30am and she had inquired from her daughter as to what had happened and in the cross examination, she deposed that SDM had come later on who might have Crl.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 7 of 24 come after one hour of talk with her daughter.Similarly, Hari Singh Jakhad (PW-3) father of deceased deposed that he had gone inside the ICU to see his daughter.This testimony of parents of deceased shows that they had met the deceased before SDM had recorded her statement and therefore had the opportunity to tutor and prompt the deceased and this fact also makes it further doubtful that the alleged dying declaration was true and voluntarily.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 7 of 2426. xxxxTo sum up, prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt that Bhawna (deceased) was in a fit state of mind at the time when her statement was recorded by the SDM.Furthermore, in view of the apparent discrepancies in the two statements of Bhawna (deceased), it would be unsafe to convict the accused persons.Thus, it cannot be concluded that Bhawna (deceased) was set on fire on the intervening night of 29th August, 2011 by the accused persons or was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused persons in connection with demand of dowry at any point of time beyond reasonable doubt..."At the outset, before dealing with the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to discuss the material testimonies on which the case of prosecution is based upon.PW3 Hari Singh Jakhad (father of the deceased) in his testimony deposed as under:"In the morning at about 10.00 am SDM came there.He recorded statement of Bhawna.SDM told me that Bhawna appeared to be in a state of fear and we were asked to make her understand.SDM did not record my statement on that day."A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 8 of 24PW3 in his cross-examination stated as under:"I was allowed to enter in the hospital only after arrival of SDM.My wife also went inside the hospital after the arrival of SDM.SDM had not recorded my statement or of my wife statement.We all met him at around 10.00am and he informed us that Bhawna was hopeless."PW12 Smt. Malti Devi (mother of the deceased) in her testimony deposed as under:"On 30.08.2011, at 05.00 am, we reached at Safdarjung Hospital and met with our daughter Bhawna.My daughter was not in a condition to speak and she was in a unconscious state.At about 09.30 am, I again went inside the ICU Ward, then I saw tear in the eyes of my daughter.Although, I was allowed to remain in the ICU only for sometime.On asking from my daughter as to what had happened, my daughter told me that her mother-in-law had poured kerosene oil from a bottle and her husband Suresh threw a burning matchstick on her body and after setting her ablaze, he went out of the room."PW12 Smt. Malti Devi in her cross-examination stated as under:"Bhawna had not told me that Suresh Singh had pressed her neck and because of hitting on stomach, she fell at some distance.Bhawna had not told me that her mother in law had brought the kerosene oil from outside.Bhawna had not told me that her mother in law had sprinkled kerosene oil from the back side.It is wrong to suggest that I have stated that kerosene oil was sprinkled from front side as Bhawna was found burnt from the front side."However in later part of the cross examination, she stated as follows:"Bhawana had told me that kerosene oil was sprinkled from her front side."A. No's.SDM had come later on.He might have come after one hour of my talk with my daughter.I had no talk with SDM.SDM had met my daughter and I only heard in saying that my daughter was hopeless.I cannot tell for how much time, SDM stayed in the hospital.My husband was also present in the hospital.I cannot say if my husband had a conversation with SDM."Hari Chand (neighbor of the deceased) who deposed as under:"CQ: Whether you or any of the neighbour did not feel it necessary to take the injured to the hospital or to help her in your TSR?No. Hari Singh or his wife had not requested myself or any other person to help them, therefore, we had not taken injured to the hospital or offered help.PW21 in his cross examination deposed as under:"TSRs are available at Ratia Marg which is about half km from our house.A clinic is also situated on the Ratia Marg.I had heard that Bhawna had expired after about four five days in the hospital but I had not visited the hospital or the house of Hari Singh.I am not on visiting terms with the family of Hari Singh except exchange of greetings."Medical Evidence:PW19 Dr. Shishir Kumar prepared the MLC Ex.PW18/A and deposed as under:"On that day I medically examined at 10 pm Bhawna W/o Suresh Singh, brought by her father in law namely Hari Crl.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 10 of 24 Singh with the alleged history of thermal burn when her cloth caught fire while cooking over kerosene stove."A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 10 of 24It is important to notice that PW19 in his cross-examination stated as under:"The alleged history of burn was given by Bhawna herself.No police man met me on that day or thereafter."After reading the testimonies of the above witnesses, we find several lacunas that makes the case of the prosecution not trustworthy as PW21 stated that he was not on visiting terms with the family of Hari Singh except exchange of greetings and the accused persons did not requested him to help them.Furthermore, it is in evidence that the deceased was brought to the hospital by the father-in-law which is suggestive of this fact that PW21 had made every best possible effort to save the life of the deceased.In the above backdrop, we conclude that the testimony of PW21 is not sufficient to convict the accused persons for the offences they have been charged with.So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the doctor who prepared MLC Ex.18/A in his testimony categorically deposed that deceased herself told him that her clothes caught fire while cooking over kerosene stove.The MLC of the deceased also suggests two things firstly it was her father-in-law Hari Singh who brought the deceased to the hospital and secondly the time on the MLC shows that the deceased was admitted to the hospital at 10.00 pm however, the alleged incident is of about 9.00 pm.Had it been the case, if the intention of the accused persons was to kill her then they would not admit her to the hospital.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 11 of 24As far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned, it is relevant to take into consideration the testimonies of PW14 ASI Rajender Singh and PW17 SI Tika Ram, as well as FSL report Ex.PW16/A which are necessary to decide the present State appeals.PW14 ASI Rajender Singh (initial investigating officer) in his testimony deposed as under:"SI Tika Ram reached at the spot.IO/SI Tika Ram had inspected the spot at my instance.The burnt clothes of Bhawana (deceased) from which the smell of kersosene was coming and one stove was sealed in separated three pullandas with the seal of TR.xxx At this MHC (M) produced one parcel No. 1 sealed with the seal of FSL."PW14 in his cross-examination stated as under:"Soon thereafter, SDM had recorded statement of Bhawna (sic).SDM had handed over to me the statement of Bhawna at 11.00 AM.I was standing 5 feet inside the ward.I was present inside the ward when SDM was recording the statement of Bhawna.xxxx I had not seen burnt chunni, portion of the cigarette or match stick at the place of occurrence."PW17 SI Tika Ram in his testimony deposed as under:"The stove was appeared to be in a condition as if, it was not being used since long time.I sealed all the said articles in separate cloth pulinda with the seal of TR and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW14/D bearing my signature at point B."A. No's.Burnt match stick was not recovered from the spot by me.xxxx I did not seized the clothes of Bhawna, which was wearing when taken to the Safdarjung Hospital and was replaced by the Hospital clothings."FSL report Ex. PW16/A reads as under:"DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN THE PARCEL (S) /EXHIBIT(S) Parcel-1 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seals of "TR".It was found to contain exhibits 1A & 1B. Exhibit-1 : One orange coloured salwar damp and semi-burnt with few dirty stains on it and One green coloured cloth piece with range, golden & yellow embroidery designs charred & burnt with dirty deposits on it stated to be "Kerosene oil and water soaked deceased cloths.Parcel-2 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "TR".Exhibit-2 : One medium size white plastic bottle having dirty deposits sticking inside it stated to be "half ltr.Plastic bottle.Parcel-3 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seals of "TR".Exhibit-3 : One metallic stove with burner and oil tank having few dirty deposits stated to be "kerosene operated stove made iron".RESULTS OF EXAMINATION On GC examination, exhibits 1, 2 & 3 were found to contain residue of kerosene."A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 13 of 24The deceased in her dying declaration recorded by the SDM stated that her mother-in-law had brought kerosene oil from outside and sprinkled the same on her chunni from behind and her husband ignited a cigarette and threw burning match stick on her, went out of the house as a result of which she caught fire.The deceased in her dying declaration categorically stated that her mother-in-law had brought kerosene oil from outside and sprinkled the same on her chunni from behind.PW 12 Malti Devi (mother of the deceased) also stated the same fact that her daughter her that kerosene oil was sprinkled from her back side and Suresh was sitting on a sofa, who lighted a cigarette with a match stick.Both the deceased and her mother stated that the kerosene oil was sprinkled from the backside.In this context it is necessary to peruse the postmortem report of the deceased Bhawna Ex.PW 9/A wherein PW 9, Dr. Chetan Kumar has opined that Infected epidermal-dermal deep burn injuries present over the lower half of face, neck, front of chest and abdomen, in patches over both upper limbs, upper part of front of thighs, spared right hand and both pains.Bare reading of the post mortem would suggest that the burns suffered by the deceased were on the front portion of her body.Presence of burn injuries on the front portion creates a doubt in the statements of the deceased as well as the mother of the deceased that the kerosene oil was sprinkled from her backside.PW14 ASI Rajender Singh (initial investigating officer) in his examination in chief deposed that the burnt clothes of Bhawana (deceased) from Crl.A. No's.From the above statements of the Investigating officers they have admitted to the fact that there was no burnt chunni and match stick was found at the spot.It is further established that no efforts were made by them to ascertain the fact that the burnt injury suffered by the deceased was due to kerosene.Keeping in view the above contradictions in the testimonies of the aforestated witnesses it would be highly unsafe to convict the respondents solely on their testimonies and we are of the view that the dying declaration of the deceased must be looked into.A. No's.It was further stated by the deceased that the accused Shanti Devi came downstairs from first floor with a bottle of kerosene oil and poured kerosene oil Crl.A. No's.130/2016 &131/2016 Page 15 of 24 on her and accused Suresh Singh threw an ignited matchstick upon her and went outside from the house, thereafter when her kurti and salwar caught fire through chunni, then her mother-in-law poured water to douse the fire and then her father-in-law and mother-in-law took her to a private dispensary which was found closed and then she was taken to Safdarjung hospital.The deceased also stated that the accused person forced her to say that she received injuries while making food on stove.A. No's.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.