Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

10K

like 0

The instant bail application was filed on 18 March 2020, i.e. prior to declaration of nationwide lockdown.The prayer made by the applicant - Lokeshwar Mishra is to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -670 of 2019, under Sections -420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station - Quarsi, District - Aligarh, during pendency of trial.3. Perused the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof.Considered the same.From perusal of the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:(ii) against FIR lodged on 10.07.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 13.12.2019;(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 17.4.2020 Shubham

['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.

19.11.13 Item No. 45 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 45And In the matter of: Moslem Sk & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Mala Banerjee For the Petitioners Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chapra Police Station Case No. 415 of 2013 dated 09.07.2013 under Sections 148/149/325/326/307/354/427/379 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and the other relevant material on record.Similarly in CRM 12894 of 2013, 19 Petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail on 08.10.2013 in the same case.The Petitioners here claim parity with those who have already been granted anticipatory bail.We have verified from the case diary and other relevant material on record that the Petitioners are similarly circumstanced as those who have already been granted anticipatory bail.Therefore there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

No.231/2019 registered with Police Station, Ural, Tq.Balapur, Dist.Akola for an offence punishable under::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2019 03:35:12 ::: 3 aba645.19.odt Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, applicant-Chandrakala Manohar Baghe be released on bail on she executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2019 03:35:12 :::(iii) Applicant is directed to attend Police Station, Ural as and when required by the investigating officer.However, for that the investigating officer shall give clear cut three days prior written communication to the applicant.Application is disposed of.JUDGE srwagh aba660::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2019 03:35:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2019 03:35:12 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Safiuddin Mondal & Ors.... ... petitioners Mr. Bitasok Banerjee, Mr. Abdus Salam ... ... for the petitioners Ms. Faria Hossain, Ms. Baisahali Basu ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Margram P.S. Case No. 118 of 2018 dated 25.09.2018 under Sections 341/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that a daughter of the family had been teased and traumatized by the son of the de facto complainant following which the petitioners went to warn such perceived delinquent and suffered a false complaint.The State refers to the injury report and it appears that some of the injuries were serious.According to the State, the relevant girl had an affair with the son of the de facto complainant and the petitioners beat up the person.Considering the nature of the incident and the fact that the petitioners have been identified, there may not be any need to take the petitioners into custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioners are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The FIR has been lodged against the applicant and Dr. Prabhat Kumar, the applicant is Chairman of Akash Education Society, 405 Ocean Complex, Sector 18, Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar and Dr. Prabhat Kumar is Director of the above mentioned Akash Education Society, alleging therein that a reliable information has been received to the effect that the approval of All Indian Council of Technical Education ( AICTE), Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi has been granted to the institutes, who do not fulfill the norms as laid down by AICTE, it has also revealed that the approval of AICTE is granted to the institutes to fulfil the norms of AICTE and without the approval of AICTE the Engineering College can not function.In order to verify whether the concerned institute fulfils the said norms, a Committee appointed by AICTE conducts physical inspection of the Institute.Thereafter on the basis of the recommendations made by AICTE Committee, the approval is granted to the institute to run Engineering Courses, it further revealed that the unknown officials of AICTE in conspiracy with the applicant Ved Ram Sharma, Chairman and Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Director had recommended for approval of R.V.Northland Institute of Technology, G.T.Road, Chithera, Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar being run by Akash Education Society by misrepresentation of facts in their report dated 12.6.2009 regarding physical verification conducted by them to ascertain whether the said institute fulfils the norms of AICTE in respect of requirement of land and other norms for running of the engineering college.It has also been revealed that the Committee of the AICTE has mentioned in its report that the Institution is having 15.1503 Acres of land and as it is located in rural area, it requires 10 acres of land as per norms of AICTE.Thus by the aforesaid acts, the unknown officials of AICTE in conspiracy with Ved Ram Sharma, Chairman and Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Director had cheated AICTE by facilitating the approval of R.V.Northland Institute of Technology, G.T.Raod, Chithera, Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar by AICTE on 24.6.2009 for running the engineering courses.The above facts prima facie disclosing the commission of the offence punishable under section 120-B read with 417 I.P.C.and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the applicant and Dr. Prabhat Kumar.After making the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet No., 07 (03) dated 31.8.2010 under section 420 I.P.C. against the applicant, during investigation it has been revealed that a proposal /application was submitted by Shri Ved Ram Sharma, Chairman, Akash Education Society vide his letter No. 198/AES/RVNOIT/07 dated 28/12/2007 along with the enclosures for opening of new technical institution by the name of RV Northland Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad at the Regional Office, Northern Region Office, AICTE, Kanpur.Subsequently as per the handbook of approval process, which is a legal document as per notification No. F37-3/Legal/2006 of AICTE dated 14.09.2006, the proposal was scrutinized by the Regional Committee.Further on perusal of the record submitted by Shri Ved Ram Sharma, Chairman, Akash Education Society to the Regional Officer, AICTE, Kanpur vide letter No.Investigation further discloses that the said application of Shri Ved Ram Sharma was forwarded to the AICTE HQ.,New Delhi for further action Subsequently on the basis of application/proposal received from Regional Office, Hearing letter was issued to the Chairman /Secretary Akash Education Society, N. Delhi vide F No. 06/05/UP ENGG/2009/46 dated 09.03.2009 by Shri Dev Vrat Singh, Advisor ( E & T) AICTE Head Office, N. Delhi.As per the said letter the Chairman/ Secretary of Akash Education Society were requested to present their proposal before the hearing committee on 19/03/2009 for establishment of RV Northland Institute of Technology Ghaziabad.Thereafter on 19/03/2009 Shri Ved Ram Sharma, Chairman of Akash Education Society appeared before the hearing committee.Also at the time of hearing Shri S.P. Bhati, General Secretary, Akash Education Society had submitted a declaration giving the details of land area, Details of fund along with the date of Land user certificate and date of approval of Building plan.Subsequently on the basis of the recommendation of the Hearing committee & approval of Member Secretary a Letter of Intent was issued to The Chairman/ President Akash Education Society, N. Delhi vide F No. 06/05/UP/ENGG/2009/46 dated 20.3.2009 by Shri Dev Vrat Singh, Advisor ( E & T ) AICTE N Delhi.Further as per the Letter of Intent the Akash Universal Education Society was required to submit/furnish certain documents with the concerned Regional Office, AICTE for further processing of their proposal for grant of approval.The details of the documents were as under-1.A registered undertaking on non - judicial stamp paper of not less than Rs 100/- stating that the institute shall abide by all the regulation guidelines norms and standard of the council as applicable from time to time.2.A joint Fixed Deposit of Rs. 35 Lakh is to be created for a period of 8 yrs.In the name of the President/Chairman of the Applicant Society/Trust and the concerned Regional Office of AICTE.Also as per the Letter of Intent it was informed to Akash Education Society that an expert committee will visit the institute within 15 days from the date of intimation of readiness from the applicant society/trust.Investigation has also revealed that with reference to AICTE letter of intent dated 19/03/2009 regarding grant of approval , Shri Ved Ram Sharma, Chairman, Akash Education Society had vide letter No. 406/AES/B.Tech/2009 dated 14/05/2009 conveyed his readiness for the visit of the Expert Committee for issuance of Letter of Approval for the academic session 2009 -2010 to the Regional Officer, AICTE Kanpur, Also along with his letter Shri V.R Sharma had also submitted details of the Joint Fixed Deposit for Rs. 35 Lakh.Processing Fee of Rs. 80,000/- and Registered Affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper.The Expert Committee, which visited the institute, comprised of Prof. Abid Haleem, Department of Mechanical Engg.Jamia Millia Islamia University, Delhi, Prof, Kuldeep Singh, Professor of Computer Science & Engineering IIT Roorkee and Prof. R.K.Trivedi, Director Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology for Handicapped, Kanpur Shri GS Negi, Under Secretary, AICTE New Delhi was nominated as Convenor of the said Committee .In its Report dated 12/06/2009, the Committee certified that it had physically verified i) The registration document of the Society/Truest ii) The documents related to land and the land area iii) Built up area, iv) Library, laboratory facilities and computers & v) Director/Principal and Faculty and submitted their report that the total land area and built up area of the institute was as per norms of AICTE.Investigation has further revealed that on 10/09/2009 a CBI team along with Shri Sachin Sahu, Jr.Engineer, CPWD ( Civil), CGO-1 Complex Hapur Road, Ghaziabad and Shri Ravi Purna, Inspector, Central Excise Ghaziabad visited the campus of Bhagwant Institute of Technology, VIII Parsoon Hapur, Ghaziabad to verify whether the said institute fulfils the norms of AICTE on the basis of which the said institute has been accorded approval, for running of Engineering Courses by AICTE.The area of the institute along with the area under construction and the built up area was video recorded.As per the memorandum of inspection dated 10/07/2009 prepared by CBI team the instructional area was 2808 Sqr.against the required area of 2770 Sqr.Mtr as per AICTE norms.Investigation has further revealed that Shri Ved Ram Sharma in his capacity as President Akash Educational Society had on 26/05/2009 also submitted before the AICTE an undertaking and vide para 7 of the said undertaking it has been claimed that the land building is not mortgaged or under any lien or charge or any other kind of encumbrances.This application has been filed by the applicant Ved Ram Sharma with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No. 3101 of 2010 ( CBI Vs.Ved Ram Sharma) under section 420 I.P.C. arising out of the Charge-Sheet dated 31.08.2010 submitted in F.I.R.No.RC-1202009A0006 dated 07.09.2009, Police Station CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate ( CBI), Ghaziabad and to quash the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad whereby the discharge application under section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant has been dismissed.Subsequently the said letter of Shri Ved Ram Sharma was forwarded to the Advisor ( E & T), AICTE N. Delhi by DS Bagri, Regional Officer, AICTE Kanpur vide letter No.F-11-117 ( E & T)/2009-NRO/AICTE-335 dated 19.05.2009 for necessary action.Further he had also submitted vide the said undertaking that if fulfilled/complied or if found to be false, it will disentitle the institution from grant of approval for conduct of courses applied for.He had deliberately withheld the information from AICTE that the land on which the RV Northland Institute of Technology is built has been acquired by the State Government.Investigation revealed that Shri Ved Ram Sharma, President, Akash Education Society has deliberately hidden the fact regarding the dispute of land on which RV Northland Institute of Technology was to be established from AICTE Further Shri Ved Ram Sharma, President Akash Education Society had submitted undertaking before AICTE on 26/05/2009 claiming that the land was free from all disputes.Investigation further revealed that the U.P.Govt.vide notification dated 11.07.07 had ordered for acquisition of khasra no 1040, 1041, 1044, 1045, 1049 and 1051 having land measuring 10.8962 acres.This order of acquisition was issued much before the submission of application for grant of approval by Shri Ved Ram Sharma on 28.12.07 who withheld this important Government Notification from AICTE and falsely claimed that the land measuring 15.15 Acres was free from all encumbrances.Further, the matter ws taken to the High Court by Shri Ved Ram Sharma challenging the said Notification.The High Court vide its order dated 1.4.08 directed the parties to maintain status quo as on date.The dispute is still unresolved and sub- judice.These facts about the dispute of ownership of land measuring 10.8962 acres was not presented before any Committee/ Member of AICTE by Shri Ved Ram Sharma, who on the other hand gave an undertaking to the AICTE on 26.5.09 that the land in his possession is " not mortgage or under any lien or charge or any other kind of encumbrances" Further it is revealed that at the time of inspection, the owner Shri Ved Ram Sharma had not reported the facts about the acquisition of land by UPSIDC to the expert committee members and if this fact was brought to their notice at that time, they would not have recommended for the approval of the Institute.It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, no evidence has surfaced to substantiate the allegations of criminal conspiracy against the official of AICTE and Expert Committee members and Shri Prabaht Kumar, Director RV Northland Institute of Technology.Hence Shri Prabhat Kumar, Director RV Northland Institute of Technology, Dadri, Distt.Gautam Budh Nagar ( UP) may be discharged from the case.The above acts constitute the commission of offence punishable under section 420 IPC against Shri Ved Ram Sharma, President, Akash Education Society.Heard Sri Keshri Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant , Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of C.B.I., O.P.No. 2 .The Society has been established for the purposes mentioned in its memorandum.The Society has been renewed time to time and the last renewal has been made on 29.5.2007 for next five years.The Society has established an Educational Institution, known as R.V.Northland Institute of Technology, situated at G.T.Raod, Village Chitehra, District Gautam Budh Nagar.The Society has submitted the application form by completing all necessary formalities before All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE) for granting the approval.On 9.3.2009, the Advisor ( E & T), AICTE, Head Office, New Delhi issued a letter requiring the society to submit its proposal for establishment of the institution before the Hearing Committee on 9.3.2009, in response to which the applicant being Chairman and General Secretary appeared before the Hearing Committee and clarified all the queries raised by AICTE Kanpur.It was further informed that an expert committee shall visit the institute within 15 days from the date of request letter.It is surprising that on information received, the C.B.I. has lodged the FIR on 7.9.2009 in which certain allegations have been made, the allegations made in the FIR are not correct.On 11.7.2007, the State Government issued declaration under section 6 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of Plot Nos. 1040, 1041, 1042, 1044, 1045, 1049 and 1051 situtated in village Chithera, acquiring it for the purposes of planned industrial development in District Gautam Budh Nagar.The validity of the aforesaid notification has been challenged by the applicant Society before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 17029 of 2008 in which interim order dated 1.4.2008 in favour of the Society has been passed, which is still continuing.The matter is sub-judice before the High Court for final adjudication.A bare perusal of the FIR as well as charge sheet shows that the main allegation against the applicant is that deliberately he did not disclose the fact of acquisition of the land to the Expert Committee of AICTE, the correct fact is that such information is neither required to be disclosed under the guidelines of AICTE nor it was demanded at any point of time by the AICTE.During investigation, the Assistant Director AICTE Sri Sanjeev Batra was also interrogated who had provided the procedure required for grant of approval, the statements of members of the Expert Committee namely, Rakesh Kumar Trivedi, Sri Govind Singh Negi, Sri R.K.Srivastava, Sri B.P.Singh and Sri Harish Kumar Gupta have been recorded by the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C. The team of the C.B.I.also visited the campus of the Institution on 13.8.2010 and has made physical verification also.But without doing the proper and fair investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted under section 420 I.P.C.only against the applicant.The other co-accused person has not been charge sheeted.The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act have not been substantiated in the investigation.In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of C.B.I. that the allegations made against the applicant are prima facie disclosing the commission of the offence under section 420 I.P.C., the I.O.has collected the material during investigation which shows that the constitution of the offence is punishable under section 420 I.P.C., after perusing the same, the learned Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 420 I.P.C. vide order dated 7.9.2010, the order dated 7.9.2010 has been challenged by the applicant by way of filing criminal revision No. 4231 of 2010 but the prayer to quash the order dated 7.9.2010 has been refused, the order dated 7.9.2010 has been affirmed by another bench of this Court vide order dated 5.10.2010 , on the same material on which the cognizance taken under section 420 I.P.C. by the learned Magistrate concerned has been approved by another bench of this Court, the applicant filed the discharge application before the court concerned.The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. has not committed any error in taking the cognizance and in dismissing the discharge application under section 239 Cr.P.C. The another bench of this Court has perused and considered all the materials on which the cognizance has been taken and has affirmed the order of cognizance on 5.10.2010 by dismissing the revision filed by the applicant by holding that the impugned order dated 7.9.2010 was having no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error.The impugned order was perfectly correct.The reconsideration of the same material by way of filing the present application only by changing nomenclature.The present application is devoid of the merit, the same may be dismissed.The order dated 7.9.2010 has been passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I.after perusing the material collected by the I.O. The order dated 7.9.2010 has been challenged by the applicant by way of filing criminal revision No. 4231 of 2010, the same has been dismissed by another bench of this Court on 5.10.2010 by passing the following order :" Heard Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Uma Nath Pandey for the revisionist and Mr. Anurag Khanna for the respondent no.2 and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record.This is a revision against the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad in criminal case no. 3101 of 2010, CBI vs. Ved Ram Sharma, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 420 IPC on the charge sheet filed by the CBI and issued a process against the revisionist.It is also alleged that the society intended to establish R.V. Northland Institute of Technology, Gautam Budh Nagar and applied for approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (in short 'the AICTE').It is also alleged that the AICTE required the society to furnish an undertaking that the land and building owned by the society was not mortgaged nor they were under any lien or charge or any other kind of encumbrance and shall also not be subjected to such charge in future.Accordingly the revisionist furnished a written undertaking to that effect, which was subsequently found false.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

She has suffered injuries both to the head and shoulder as reflected in Ex.P3, wound certificate.Though Ex.Prosecution case is that owing to a dispute over irrigation rights, petitioner/accused entered the house of PW-2 and struck blows to the head and shoulder of PW-2, mother of PW-1 on 15.01.2010 at about 7 a.m. A case in Crime No.26 of 2001 was registered by respondent police for offences under Sections 452 and 324 IPC and after filing charge sheet, petitioner was tried in C.C.No.584 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.Before trial Court, prosecution examined 5 witnesses and marked 5 exhibits.None were examined on the side of defence nor were any exhibits marked.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 07.07.2011, convicted petitioner/accused for offence u/s.452 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month R.I. for offence u/s 452 IPC and 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d 1 month R.I. for offence u/s.324 IPC.There against, petitioner/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.157 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Tiruppur.Appellate Court, under judgment dated 24.08.2011, modified the sentence from 1 year R.I. to 6 months R.I for offence under Section 452 IPC and modified the conviction for offence u/s.324 IPC to one u/s.323 IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I. Hence, this revision.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.Learned counsel for petitioner has sought to impress upon this Court that a false case stands foisted against petitioner/accused owing to a pending civil dispute over irrigation rights, that the First Information Report was registered belatedly and the same reached the Court only 7 days later, that neither the wooden log allegedly used by accused nor blood samples had been lifted from the place of occurrence and hence, the case is one where petitioner ought to be acquitted.6. PW-2 clearly has spoken to the manner in which he suffered an attack at the hands of petitioner/accused and on his unlawfully entering her house.P3 would indicate that PW-2 has suffered a fracture to the head, appellate Court, in the absence of X-ray or other medical reports, rightly has found petitioner/accused guilty of offence u/s.323 IPC.Admittedly, there is dispute over irrigation rights between the parties.Petitioner has undergone custody for 13 days.Requiring petitioner to suffer any further incarceration at this distance point of time would only open old wounds.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court considers it appropriate and accordingly, confirms the finding of conviction and reduces the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone but enhances the fine to a sum of Rs.5,000/- in respect of each offence i/d 3 months S.I.The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as indicated above.21.08.2017Index:yes/no, Internet:yeskmi/gmTo1.The Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Tiruppur.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.3.The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District.R.C.No.1408 of 2011

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A1 to A3 in S.C.No.79 of 2003 on the file of the Assistant Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pondicherry, are the petitioners herein.Totally, there are 5 accused.P.W.1, one Parameswari is the victim in this case.She was residing at No.18, Thideer Nagar, Pooranankuppam .On 13.08.2001, at about 24.00 hours , all the 5 accused trespassed into her house unlawfully with an intention to commit rape and they have abducted her and took her behind her house and when P.W.2, her son, who was also present in the house, was trying to prevent them, they tied him with a rope in a wooden post in her residence and also caused simple injuries.Then, A3 assaulted her and pushed her down and committed rape .P.27) and drew a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.Then, he sent the victim to the Government Hospital, Pondicherry for medical examination and he recorded the statement of other witnesses .3. P.W.11, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, examined the victim and found a small abrasion near the breast and right thy and another abrasion in the knee and small abrasions all over the body and also bleeding found in the private part of the victim and she was of the opinion that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse, and she found the following injuries :They stood charged for the offences under Sections 448, 342, 323, 366 and 376(2)(g) r/w. 34 IPC.The trial Court, by a judgment dated 10.03.2006, convicted A1 to A4 and sentenced them as detailed below :-Accused Section of lawSentenceA.1 to A.3448 r/w. 34Rigorous imprisonment for 6 monthsA.1 to A.3323 r/w.34 I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for one yearA.1 to A.3342 r/w.34 IPCRigorous imprisonment for 6 months.A.1 to A.3366 r/w. 34 IPCRigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two monthsA.1 to A.3376 (2)(g) IPCRigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.A.4448 IPCRigorous imprisonment for one year A4354 IPCRigorous imprisonment for one yearA4366 IPCRigorous imprisonment for 2 yearsThe trial Court has ordered the above sentences to run concurrently and A5 was acquitted from all the charges.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A1 to A4 filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.38 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Pondicherry, and the lower appellate Court, by a judgment dated 20.11.2013, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.So A4 is concerned, pending appeal, he has undergone the period, and he was given set off .Thereafter, other accused took her to another place, where A1 has committed rape, and A2 also attacked her with stick and he also committed rape and then they left the place and at about 5.00 a.m., she recovered conscious and managed to go to the house of one Rani/P.W.4 and she informed the occurrence to P.W.3, her uncle.Thereafter, she went to the police station and given a complaint.Based on her complaint, P.W16 Inspector of Police, registered the case in crime No.104 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 448, 324, 342, 366 and 376 (2)(g) r/w.34 IPC and prepared First Information Report (Ex.P.26) and then, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar(Ex.1.Upper jaw left central incisor  discoloured and shaking2.Upper jaw left lateral incisor slightly shaking3.No foreign bodies or matter could be visualized on the body4.No external injuries could be visualized on the breasts or on the vulva or inner side of thighs.The following injuries on the person was seen :1.One big contusion 11 x 6 cm o the outer aspect of middle 1/3 rd of left thigh, another 2 x 2 cm contusion just adjacent to it on the left thigh.2.A contusion with abrasion of 4 x 3 cm over outer aspect of left leg above the ankle joint.3.Abrasions of 1 x 1 cm over left lateral malleolus and on the heel of left leg, near archilles tendon.4.A small abrasion 1 x 1 cm over right back just above loin.5.Small nail marks sen on the epigastrium and below right breast and on the left cheek.6.Left eye had a small subconjunctival haemorrhage 2 x 1 mm and eyelids and cheek area surrounding left eye was mildly contused.7.Left side of upper lip was oedematous and mucosa was contused.Two teeth were mildly shaky on the left upper jaw.Thereafter all the accused were arrested and they have also been subjected to medical examination.P.W.12, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, had given a opinion that they are capable of sexual intercourse.Then after recordig the statement of the witnesses final report has been filed.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment and the accused denied the same.In order to prove its case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 35 documents were exhibited and 4 material objects were marked.Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the victim in this case.According to her, while she was sleeping in her house, all the accused trespassed into her house and took her to the nearby field, and A1 and A2 rapped her and also caused injuries.P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1, who was also available in the house at the time of occurrence and according to him, all the accused trespassed into her house and forcibly abducted his mother and he raised objection and they tied him in a pole and attacked him.P.W.4, neighbour of P.W.1, also turned hostile.According to her, on the next day morning, 6.00 a.m., when she went to the house of the victim, she found P.W.2 tied with a rope in a pole and thereafter, P.W.1 came and informed her about the occurrence.P.Ws, 6, to 10 turned hostile.P.W.11, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, examined P.W.1 and has given a medical certificate (Ex.P.15).P.W.12, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, examined the accused and has given certificates stating that the accused are all capable of sexual intercourse.P.W.13, another Doctor, has spoken about the examination conducted to the accused based on the record.P.W.14 Photographer, has taken photographs(Ex.P.22) on the place of occurrence.P.W.15, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.16, Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of case and commenced the investigation.P.W.17, Inspector of Police, continued the investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed a final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.According to him, P.W.1 is a lady of loose morals and she has given a false complaint against the accused, Accused did not mark any documents.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the accused 1 to 4 as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment and acquitted A5 from the offences.Aggrieved against the same, Accused 1 to 4 filed an appeal in C.A.No.38 of 2006 before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Pondicherry and the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.I have heard Mr.Prakash Adiapadam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry, appearing for the respondent.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that P.W.1 is the victim and her evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence.Eventhough P.W.1 has stated that A1 to A3 has raped her and medical report is not corroborated her evidence and there is no symptom of gang rape on her.Apart from that other independent witnesses were turned hostile and the evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy and it cannot be formed basis for conviction of the petitioners.The Court below without considering all those materials had convicted the petitioners.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent would submit that P.W.1, victim, clearly deposed that while she was sleeping in her house, all the accused trespassed into her house and took her to the nearby field, where A1 to A3 raped her and medical evidence also corroborated her evidence and stated that various injuries found on her body.P.W.2, her son also present in the scene of occurrence.Eventhough the other witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and it is trustworthy as medical evidence also corroborated her evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of her.Considering all the materials, Courts below rightly convicted the accused and there is no reason to interfere with their findins.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record carefully.The occurrence took place in the mid night, where P.W.1 and P.W.2, the victim and her son were sleeping in her house.According to P.W.1, all the accused trespassed into her house and forcibly abducted her .When P.W.2, , her son resisting the same, they have beaten him and tied him in a pole with a rope.According to P.W.1, she was taken to a nearby field and A1 raped her, when she resisted, he attacked her.Thereafter, A2 took her to another place and he also committed rape and then, A3 came there and he also raped her and left her there.On the next day morning, at about 5.00 a.m., she recovered and informed the same to her mother P.W.5 and her uncle P.W.4, immediately, she has lodged a complaint before the respondent police and on the very same day, she was subjected to medical examination.The Doctor has also given a opinion that she was subjected to intercourse and she has also found as many as 7 injuries all over the body and she also found the upper jaw lateral incisor slightly shaked.P.W.2, her son , who was also present in the scene of occurrence, has clearly deposed that while he was sleeping inside the house, all the accused trespassed into their house and the accused forcibly abducted his mother and when he intervened, they attacked him and they tied him in a pole with a rope and then, he slept there.On the next day morning at 6.00 o clock, his grandmother,P.W.5 came and thereafter they found his mother and lodged a complaint.P.W.5 is the mother of P.W.1 and she has corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 saying that on the next day at about 6.00 a.m., she went to the house of P.W.1 and she saw that P.W.2 was tied in a pole and he informed her about the occurrence.Thereafter, they lodged a complaint.Even though P.Ws.3, and 4, who are related to P.W.1 turned hostile.In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed and the conviction imposed by the Courts below on the petitioners/A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 448 r/w. 34, 323 r/w.34, 342 r/w.34, 366 r/w.34 and 376(2)(g) of IPC are confirmed and the sentencces imposed on them by the courts below are modified to that of the period already undergone by them.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard and perused the case diary.The applicant has filed this first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.156/2014 registered at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of IPC.As per prosecution story, incident occurred on 19th February, 2014 at about 10 AM.FIR was lodged in the evening by prosecutrix having age of 19 years against the applicant to the effect that when she was taking drinking water from tap all of sudden applicant came there and caught hold her right hand and trying to snatched her scarf.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that prosecutrix was a tenant of present applicant.So many time quarrel took place between the parties for vacating rented house.The attention of the Court was drawn towards the FIR lodged on 09.07.2014 against the prosecutrix.One FIR bearing Crime No.657/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 457/380 of IPC was lodged on 20.07.2014 against Neeraj and his wife shweta.One more FIR bearing M.Cr.C.No.10441/2014 (Neeraj Saxena Vs.State of M.P.) Crime No.105/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B/34 of IPC was lodged by wife of the applicant (Shweta) against the prosecutrix and her mother.

['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 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.

R.K. Garg, Sunil K. Jain and Vijay Hansaria for theRespondents.The prosecution case in short is that on 2nd November,1978 at about 7 p.m. two accused respondents Muhim ChandraBarkataki and Dulu Dutta came together to the shop of NagenDey since deceased and sprinkled and poured kerosine oil inthe shop as well as on the person of Nagen Dey and then setfire.Immediately fire caught and spread over the shop aswell on the body of Nagen Dey.The shop was a Guliamal(grocery) shop where rice, Dahl, soap, mustered oil,kerosine oil, etc goods were sold and situate at Na-Ali Roadof Jorhat Town in front of M/s Baruah Printers.Nagen Deycame out of the shop house with ablazing condition all overhis body.The witnesses Arun Barua, Prabin Barua and KironSaikia on seeing the fire rushed to the place of occurranceand put off the fire from the body of the Nagen Dey butNagen Dey suffered extensive burnt injuries all over hisbody.Pradip Jyoti Sarma, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Policealso came to the place of occurrence a few minutes later andhe also witnessed the fire on the person of Nagen Dey aswell as in the shop of Nagen Dey.Prosecution case is,further, that Nagen Dey made a dying declaration before thewitnesses stating that the two accused persons namely MuhimBarkataki and Dulu Dutta set fire on his body after pouringkerosine oil.P.W. 6 KiranSaikia also stated in his statement under Sec. 164 ofCriminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, thatNagen Dey, deceased made a dying declaration that these twoaccused persons sprinkled kerosine over the body of thedeceased Nagen Dey and then set fire to him.These witnessesalso proved that the accused Muhim Barkataki was caught holdof red handed at the place of occurrence whereas Dulu Duttafled away from the place.It is also in the evidences of P.W. 4 and C.W. 1Pradip Joyti Sarma, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police that thedeceased Nagen Dey made a dying declaration to the effectthat the accused persons Muhim Barkataki and Dulu Duttapoured kerosine oil in his shop and sprinkled kerosine oilon his person and then set on fire.It is also evident fromthe depositions of P.W. 4 and C.W. 1 that the accused MuhimBarkataki was caught hold red handed on the spot and he wasdetained there by the public while Dulu Dutta fled away fromthe place of occurrence.It is also evident from the G.D.Entry No. 47 i.e., telephonic message received at the JorhatPolice Station at about 7.15 p.m. on the date of occurrencethat the said two men set fire to the person of Nagen Dey,deceased as well as to his Guliamal shop which is in frontof Baruah Printers after pouring kerosine oil.One of theaccused persons was caught hold of by local rija (public)while it was informed that Shri P.K. Khatoniar wasinvestigating for local investigation after giving allentries in the diary.This is proved by Investigation Officer P.W. 7 and marked asExt.7(1).It also appeared that immediately after theenquiry and investigation into the incident the Town Sub-Inspector Shri Khatoniar returned to the Police Station andinformed that Muhim Barkataki and Dulu Dutta entered in theGuliamal shop of Nagen Dey which was in front of BaruaPrinters of Na-Ali and poured kerosine oil kept in the shopfor sale and set fire on it and as a result the Guliamalshop was burnt.S.K. Nandy for the Appellant.It was also the prosecution case that both theaccused were found at the place of occurrence and publiccaught hold of the accused Muhim Barkataki red handed at theshop of occurrence whereas other accused Dulu Dutta fledaway.Injured Nagen Dey was immediately removed to JorhatCivil Hospital for treatment, but he died at the hospital.Accused Muhim Barkataki was handed over to the Police by thewitness Pradip Joyti Sarma, Assistant Sub-Inspector ofPolice.The information of the incident was received overtelephone message at 7.15 p.m. by the Officer-Incharge ofJorhat Police Station who recorded an entry in the GeneralDiary being G.D. Entry No. 47 dated 2.11.1978 at 7.15 p.m.The Town Sub-Inspector Sri P. Khatoniar was immediatelydeputed to make local investigation on the spot.Sri P.Khatoniar made enquiry and investigation locally at thespot, arrested accused Muhim Barkataki at the spot andreturned to police station.He then informed the facts ofoccurrence to the Officer-incharge of the Police Station whorecorded the same under G.D. Entry No. 50 at 8.10 p.m. On3rd November, 1978 at about 7 a.m. one Sri1042Montu Ch.Dey, nephew of deceased Nagen Dey lodged Ejahar(Ext.5) with Jorhat Police Station.Thereafter murder andarson cases have been registered against Muhim Barkataki andDulu Dutta.Investigation was carried on by Shri PrafullaKumar Khatoniar.The Investigation Officer forwardedwitnesses Arun Barua, and Kiran Saikia to the court forrecording their statements under Sec. 164 of the CriminalProcedure Code.On the basis of thisinformation the investigation of the case was entrusted tothe Town Sub-Inspector Shri Prafulla Kumar Khatoniar withthe recording of General Diary Entry No. 47 and theInvestigating Officer fairly progressed with theinvestigation in that very night.Subsequent information ofMontu Chandra Dey on 3rd November, 1978 are nothing butstatements during the course of investigation and as suchthose are hit by Sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The Sessions Judge duly considered the evidences ofP.W. 4 Arun Barua and C.W. 1 Pradip Joyti Sarma as well asthe statements under Sec. 164 recorded by the JudicialMagistrate, P.W. 8 on 7.11.1978 and accepted the dyingdeclaration made by the deceased Nagen Dey implicating theaccused Muhim Barkataki and Dulu Dutta as pouring kerosineoil on his body and setting fire to his person.The Sessions Judge, therefore,convicted both the accused under sec.302 read with Sec. 34of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them to rigorousimprisonment for life.The accused persons were furtherconvicted and sentenced under Sec. 436 read with Sec. 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for 5 years each.Both the sentencesshall run concurrently.Against this judgment and order of conviction andsentence the accused person preferred an appeal beingCriminal Appeal No. 66 of 1983 in the High Court of Gauhati.The High Court proceeded on the footing that entire evidencein the case was circumstantial as there was no eye witnessto the occurrence and the clinching circumstances in whichthe case according to the prosecution is proved are thecircumstances relating to the dying declaration.The learnedJudges held that the evidence of P.W. 4 Arun Barua whodeposed to the dying declaration was wholly unreliable asthere was serious infirmity in his evidence as he disputedhis statement made to the Police that the three persons usedto drink liquor and play cards which fact as we haveobserved, is very material to cast a serious doubt onprosecution version itself.The learned Judges therefore,held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt theoffences for which the appellants were charged.Theconviction and sentence passed against the accused personswas set aside and the appeal was allowed.There is no dispute that the shop of deceased Nagen Deysituated by the side of Na-Ali Road was set on fire and firewas also set on the person of Nagen Dey by pouring kerosine.Eye witnesses P.W. 4-Arun Barua, P.W. 6-Kiran Saikia andP.W. 5-Prabin Barua came to the place of occurrenceimmediately on seeing the fire.It is also evident from theevidence of P.W. 4 that he and Kiran Saikia who was in theshop of P.W. 4 both came together at the place of occurrenceand they tried to put out the fire by throwing dust on thebody of Nagen Dey who was on fire by tearing off his dressand Kiran Saikia put the clothing on the person of deceasedNagen Dey.Nagen Dey was the owner of the shop who alsowas set on fire.It was also recorded in the G.D. Entry thatMuhim Barkataki who was caught hold of at the place by thelocal people has been sent to the police station.This G.D.Entry No. 50 was proved by P.W. 7 and it was marked as Ext.7(2).It also appears that the witnesses P.W. 4-Arun Barua,P.W. 5-Prabin Barua, P.W. 6-Kiran Saikia and C.W.1-PradipJoyti Sarma who was on duty on that Na-Ali locality at thattime arrived at the place of occurrence almostsimultaneously and all of them found Nagen Dey out of hisshop in a complete ablazing state all over his body.It alsoappears from evidences of these three witnesses Arun Barua,Kiran Saikia and Pradip Joyti Sarma that the injured NagenDey was conscious and was crying out due to burning pain.Itwas also their evidence that the deceased Nagen Dey made adying declaration at the place of occurrence implicatingaccused Muhim Barkataki and Dulu Dutta as his assailants.Itis also evident from Exts.3 and 4 that the JudicialMagistrate Shri Dharyya Saikia (P.W. 8) recorded thestatements of Arun Barua (P.W. 4) and Kiran Saikia (P.W. 6)on 7.11.1978 under Sec. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Codestating about the dying declaration made by the deceasedNagen Dey implicating that Muhim Barkataki and Dulu Duttahad set fire on him.P.W. 4 Arun Barua also in his evidenceclearly testifies to this dying declaration made by thedeceased Nagen Dey.Of course P.W. 6 Kiran Saikia tried tocontradict his statement made before the Police as well asbefore the Judicial Magistrate as to the dying declarationmade by the deceased Nagen Dey.He admitted in hisexamination-in-chief that he made a statement about thisincident before the Magistrate of Jorhat Court.Exhibit 4 ishis statement and Ext. 4 (2) is his signature.He furtherstated that the Magistrate has recorded his statement.Butin cross-examination he contradicted himself by saying thathe was tutored by the police to say so before theMagistrate.Even if his statement is not taken intoconsideration there is a clear statement of P.W. 4 ArunBarua before the Magistrate (Ext. 3) as well as hisdeposition which clearly corroborates his statement beforethe Magistrate about the dying declaration made by thedeceased implicating the two accused persons as hisassailants.The court of appeal below has acted1045illegally in discarding the evidence of P.W. 4 as well ashis statement recorded under Sec. 164 of the CriminalProcedure Code by the Judicial Magistrate on the flimsyground that it was not reliable because he contradicted hisstatement made before the Police that these three persons(the two accused and the deceased Nagen Dey) used to takeliquor and play cards.Moreover C.W. 1 Pradip Jyoti Sarmawho came to the place of occurrence a few minutes after thearrival of P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 at the place of occurrence hasstated in his evidence that he saw the body of the deceasedunder fire and the deceased is crying out of burnt pain.Heimplicated in his dying declaration that Muhim Barkataki andDulu Dutta had set fire on his person after pouring kerosineoil on him.He also stated that at the place of occurrencehe found that the accused Muhim Barkataki was caught by thepublic and he was being assaulted.He further stated that tosave Muhim Barkataki from assultant he handed him over tothe Police Constable who was with him.He also deposed thatNagen Dey has sense and he was speaking.There was no cross-examination of this witness as to the dying declaration madeby the deceased.This witness further stated that he came tothe Thana in the night and told the inspector about theincident.He also stated that he did not know whether O.C.recorded this in the General Diary or not.P.W. 2 Dr.Jibakanta Borah who hold post-mortum on the body of thedeceased has stated in his evidence that a person sustainingburnt injuries of such nature may have consciousness forsome time before death.It has been tried to be urgedbefore us by the learned counsel on behalf of therespondents that there is no evidence to show that thedeceased Nagen Dey made a dying declaration as has beenalleged as the General Diary Entry was not produced to showsuch statement of C.W. 1 about the dying declarationrecorded therein.It has been further submitted that thecourt of appeal below rightly discarded the alleged dyingdeclaration as being not corroborated by any other evidenceand duly acquitted the accused persons.We have considered and appraised thoroughly theevidence on record and on an overall assessment of the same,we hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonabledoubt, the charges framed1046against them.The order of acquittal passed by the HighCourt is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated hereafter.All these witnesses haveseen that the shop is ablaze and there is fire on the personof Nagen Dey.It is also the specific evidence of P.W. 4Arun Barua and C.W. 1 Pradip Jyoti Sarma, A.S.I. at JorhatPolice Reserve deputed by the Jorhat Thana at Jorhat Town inlaw and order duty on that day.All these eye witnesses P.W.4 and C.W. 1 also stated that Nagen Dey was crying a lot inpain out of burnt injuries and he stated clearly that theaccused persons Muhim Barkataki and Dulu Dutta pouredkerosine oil on him and set fire on his body.So far asdepositions of P.W. 4 and C.W. 1 are considered there is nocross-examination on this point.Further more, P.W. 4 andP.W. 6 made statements Exts. 3 and 4 under Sec. 164 ofCriminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrateof Jorhat (P.W. 8) to the effect that the deceased Nagen Deymade a dying declaration implicating the accused persons ashis assailants.This recording of the statements of P.W. 4and P.W. 6 was proved by the deposition of the Addl.ChiefJudicial Magistrate at Jorhat, Shri Dharyya Saikia (P.W. 8).Of course, P.W. 6 Kiran Saikia tried to contradict hisstatement made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.It has been clearly found that ShriSarma was an independent and disinterested witness and hewas found to be reliable and trustworthy.It has been alsofound that Shri Pradip Jyoti Sarma is an important witnessof the case and his examination was for the just decision ofthe case and his evidence has full corroboration withanother independent and disinterested witness namely ArunBarua who is also found to be trustworthy and reliablewitness.The evidence of Shri Pradip Jyoti Sarma cannot beunder-estimated merely because he is a police officer.Moreover it isevident from Exts. 3 and 4, the statements of P.Ws. 4 and 6recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bythe Addl.Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat on 7.11.1978 thatthese two witnesses P.Ws. 4 and 6 clearly stated about thedying declaration made by Nagen Dey implicating both theaccused as his assailants.Along with this testimony of P.W.4 and C.W. 1 that Muhim Barkataki was caught hold red handedon the spot and was detained by the public while Dullu Duttafled away from the place of occurrence.All these clearly goto prove the prosecution case beyond any reasonable doubtand it leads to the only conclusion that these two accusedpersons poured kerosine oil in the shop as well as sprinkledkerosine oil on him and set fire on the deceased as well asto the shop.In the instant case we have carefully considered theevidences of P.W. 4 as well as of C.W. 1 and we are clearlyof the opinion that the deceased Nagen Dey made the dyingdeclaration in question clearly implicating the two accusedpersons as his assailants.The dying declaration made by thedeceased while he was suffering severe pain from grievousinjuries is truthful and reliable.Therefore, on an overallas sessment of evidences recorded particularly the evidenceof P.W. 4 and C.W. 1 and also the statements recorded underSec.164 of Criminal Procedure Code Exts.6 and 4, we findthat the charges under Sec. 382/34 and Sec. 436/34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 has been proved by the prosecutionbeyond reasonable doubt against the two accused persons.They were rightly convicted by the Sessions Judge andsentence to rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302/34I.P.C. and also to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years underSec.436/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Accordingly, the petitioner 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 CJM, Hooghly on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever or commit similar offences in future.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 5002 of 2019 is disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

P.W.1 isnonetheless the son of the deceased.P.Ws.1 and 3 are brothers, and they are the sons of thedeceased.They are living with their parents and sisters at PoppyreddyKattuvalaivu Village.The relationship betweenthe accused and the prosecution witnesses is thus not disputed.The story of the prosecution is that about 5 years ago, thedeceased objected the accused grazing the cows belonging to P.W.1 andtherefore, A1 whipped the deceased, as a result, the deceased lodged a reportagainst A1 and the police enquired into the matter and warned A1 and fromthen, there was a strained and inimical relationship between the families ofthe accused and that of the deceased. A1, a week before the date ofoccurrence viz., 27.12.1994, was threatening the deceased that he would notspare him and ultimately A1 picked up a quarrel with the deceased and attackedhim on his chest.Following the same, when the deceased and P.W.1 were returninghome, after grazing the cows at about 6.00 p.m. on 27.12.1994, A1 to A6waylaid them and attacked the deceased.rushed to the house of P.W.2, which is about 300 meters away from theplace of occurrence and returned with P.W.2 and her son viz., Murugesan to thescene of occurrence and by that time the accused fled away from the place ofoccurrence.P.Ws.1 and 3 went to the police station and lodged a report (Ex.P.1) to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.8), who registered the FirstInformation Report (Ex.P.10), based on Ex.Pursuant to the F.I.R. (Ex.P10), the investigating officer(P.W.10) undertook the investigation, visited the place of occurrence,prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and also a Rough Sketch (Ex.P1 2),took photographs of the scene of occurrence (Ex.P.11 series), recoveredmaterial objects from the scene of occurrence viz., M.Os.1 to 6 - stones,M.O.7 - white towel, M.O.8 - pair of chappal, M.O.9 - 3 sticks, M.O.10 -knife, M.O.11 - blood stained mud, M.O.12 - sample earth under mahazar Ex.P3,in the presence of P.W.4 - Village Administrative Officer and also conductedinquest on the body of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.Afterseizing the clothes worn by the deceased, viz., M.O.13 - banian, M.O.14 -dhothi, M.O.15 - loin, M.O.16 - waist cord, the body of the decea sed was sentfor post mortem with the requisition marked as Ex.P.4, through P.W.6 - PoliceConstable, who handed over the body of the deceased to P.W.5, Doctor attachedto the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri.2.8. P.W.5, who conducted post mortem at 2.30 p.m. on 28.12.1994 andfound 10 internal injuries as certified in the Post Mortem Certificate(Ex.P.5), opined that the deceased would have died due to the head injuries.On the next day viz., on 29.12.1994, the accused were arrestedand the material objects were forwarded for chemical analysis through theCourt and accordingly, chemical analyst's report (Ex.P.8) and Serologist'sreport (Ex.P.9) were obtained.P.D.DINAKARAN,J.The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.9.2000 made inSessions Case No.147 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court,Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, whereunder the appellant herein, A1 was tried alongwith other five accused namely A-2 to A-6 therein.All the accused, however, denied the charges and hence they weretried in Sessions Case No.147 of 1999 before the learned I Additional SessionsJudge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.On behalf of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined, ofwhom, P.W.1 was cited as an eye witness to the occurrence, P.Ws.2 and 3 spokeabout the prior enmity between the families of the accused and that of thedeceased, P.W.4 is the Village Administrative Officer, who was present at thetime of preparation of seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P.3, P.W.5 is the Doctor,who conducted post mortem, P.W.6 is the Head Constable, who handed over thebody of the deceased to P.W.5 for post mortem, P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector ofPolice, who registered FIR, and P.Ws.9 and 10 are the Investigating Officers,through whom documents referred to above were marked as Exs.When all the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,after the trial, they pleaded not guilty.However, the learned I AdditionalSessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, after appreciating the evidence onrecord, acquitted A2 to A6 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and convictedA1-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. andsentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.Hence, the above appeal.Mr.M.G.L.Sankaran, learned counsel for the appellant challengesthe conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. as well as thesentence imposed on him on the following grounds:-(i)The case of the prosecution attributing the motive on A1appellant andfixing the crime on A1 is quite unnatural and highly unbelievable, as itmainly relates to the incident said to have taken place five years prior tothe date of occurrence and therefore there is no acceptable evidence for thestrained and inimical relationship between the families of the accused and thedeceased;(ii) Concededly, P.Ws.2 and 3 were not eye witnesses and P.W.4 was only amahazar witness and therefore the story of the prosecution is purely based onthe evidence of P.W.1, and his testimony is totally unnatural, inasmuch asP.W.1, being the son of the deceased, is not expected to run away from thescene of occurrence when the accused were attacking his father namely thedeceased.Moreover, even though the house of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 3 arewithin 350 to 500 meters from the scene of occurrence, there is no reason forP.W.1 to go to the house of P.W.2, which is at about 300 to 350 meters fromthe scene of occurrence to inform about the occurrence, even though P.W.2 wasonly a neighbour, but not a relative;(iii)the conduct of P.W.1 leaving the body of the deceased namely his fatherin the scene of occurrence and going to the house of P.W.2, and staying therefor some time and then proceeding to his house to inform P.W.3, is thereforeself explanatory to disbelieve his testimony; and(iv) when his brother P.W.3 is very much available at house, which is about100 to 150 meters away from the house of P.W.2, the reason for P.W.1 takingnearly 7 hours from the time of occurrence to go to his house to inform P.W.3about the death of their father, which, in normal course, should have beendone within 10 minutes, is again unexplained and hence, eschewing the evidenceof P.W.1, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the charges.Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on theother hand, justifies the conviction of A1 and also the punishment imposed onhim, as the same is based on the ocular evidence of P.W.1 that M.O.1 wasthrown by A-1 on the head of the deceased causing head injury and resulting ininstantaneous death, which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.5, the doctorwho conducted postmortem and opined that the death was due to the head injuryfound on the deceased.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contendsthat the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 corroborates with the evidence of P.Ws.2and 3, who spoke about the prior enmity between the accused and the deceased.We have given a careful consideration to the submissions of bothsides.Concededly, P.W.1, aged about 12 years, is the son of the deceasedand the occurrence had taken place when P.W.1 and the deceased were returninghome after grazing their cattle at about 6.00 p.m. on 27.1 2.1994, when theaccused waylaid them and started pushing the deceased down, throwing stones.It is not known, as to how P.W.1 was not injured during the occurrence.If itis suggested that P.W.1 ran away when the accused attacked the deceased, thetestimony of P.W.1 that he saw the appellant throwing the big stone (M.O.1) onthe head of the deceased cannot be believed and he cannot be cited as anocular witness.On the other hand, if the story of the prosecution that asper the testimony of P.W.1, he saw the appellant throwing the big stone(M.O.1) on the head of the deceased is accepted, by natural instinct, heshould have only protested or proceeded to inform his brother, who was intheir house, which is 500 meters away from the place of occurrence and thereis no reason why he proceeded to the house of P.W.2, who is not a relative tothe deceased and this aspect raises doubt in our minds to question the verycredibility of the testimony of P.W.1 .Above all, when the distance between thehouses of P.W.2 and that of the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 3 is only about 100 to150 meters, the prosecution has not explained the reason why P.W.1 took sevenhours to inform P.W.3 about the occurrence, as highlighted by the learnedcounsel for the appellant.The conduct of P.W.1 in not protesting against the accused whenthey were attacking the deceased, as well as running away from the place ofoccurrence to the house of P.W.2 instead of calling his brother (P.W.3) isquite unnatural, and furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that M.O.1contained the fingerprints of the first accused.Of course, the prosecution relies upon the followingcircumstances as spoken to by P.W.1 viz.(i) there was a prior enmity between the deceased family and the accusedfamily, as spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3;(ii) there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused a week beforethe date of occurrence;(iii) the blood stained clothes worn by A1 and the stone (M.O.1.) thrown onthe deceased by A1 also contained human blood stain; and(iv) the evidence of P.W.5 that the death was caused due to the head injury.But, we find that the necessary link is missing in the chain ofcircumstances, as dealt with hereunder.Firstly, there is no satisfactory evidence produced by theCourt to establish the motive for the commission of the alleged murder, exceptthe only reason that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceasedwhile grazing cattle five years ago, which, in our considered opinion isremote to believe.Secondly, once the evidence of P.W.1, the foundation to theprosecution case itself is collapsed for want of reliability and credibility,his testimony that M.O.1, which contained human blood, was used for commissionof offence also held to be untrustworthy.Thirdly, the opinion of the medical evidence P.W.5 that thedeath would have been caused due to the head injury, even assuming to beaccepted, unless the prosecution proves that M.O.1 contains the finger printsof the accused, the opinion of the medical evidence P.W.5 cannot be taken intoconsideration to bring home the guilt of the accused.Hence, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case,either through the ocular evidence or through circumstantial evidence, beyondall reasonable doubt, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the orderof conviction and sentence dated 29.9.2000 in S.C.No.147 of 1999 of thelearned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri,with a direction to the respondent to release the accused forthwith, unlessand otherwise he is required in connection with any other case.No costs.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On 8th February 1980 one Shri Ranjit Singh who was at the relevant time working as Head Master Primari School, Barola, Panchwati, Delhi lodged a report at police station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi staling therein that after the morning prayers were held in the school which finished at 9 A.M. and the-children were returning to their classes, one Kumari Sudha, daughter of Mohan Lal, a student of class Iii of school also was returning to the class room and while she was returning a 'balli' 6 ft. long and 8 inches in width fell down from the nearby building under construction by Tarseen Chand contractor (petitioner).The 'balli' hit Sudha on her head which resulted in the fracture of skull and she became unconscious.She was removed to the hospital in the petitioner's car but she died on the same day.The police failed to ascertain or identify the name of the labourers and the case against the petitioner was sent to the court.(4) Contention of Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for,the petitioner is that the death of Kumari Sudha was caused by the rash or negligent act of the labourers and it was wrong to hold him responsible for the same and to issue notice against him.

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard Mr. Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicants-Ramesh, Pramod and Lokendra with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2018, under Sections 336, 504, 506 and 354-B I.P.C., Police Station-Pisawa, District-Aligarh, during the pendency of the trial.It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged against four named accused persons including the present applicants alleging therein that all the accused persons used to pelt stones on the house of the informant, the informant have made complaint against them from the villagers about the said incident.On 5th March, 2018 the co-accused persons Rahul and Pramod tried to commit indecent act with the daughter-in-law of the informant on the way and in that regard he has again made complaint from their parents on which all the accused persons abused and threatened to kill him.At 10:00 p.m. they again pelted stones on his house.It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is wholly concocted, as is evident from the charge-sheet, wherein the co-accused, Rahul who has been assigned the role of committing indecent act with the daughter-in-law of the informant along with the co-accused Pramod has already been exonerated by the Investigating Officer.In case the applicants are released on bail they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.

['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.R.M. 4916 of 2018 sg Ct. No.28 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.07.2018 in connection with Debra P.S. Case No. 352/2017 dated 12.07.2017 under Sections 498A/332/324/326/313/354A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (Allowed) and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.Nabakumar Dolai Versus State of West Bengal Mr. Bhaskar Hutait, Adv....for the petitioner.Mr. Navanil De, Adv....for the State.Liberty to correct the cause title.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations of alleged molestation are bereft of material particulars as to date, we are of the opinion that though custodial interrogation may not be necessary, his movements require to be restricted in order to instill confidence in the mind of the de-facto complainant.Accordingly, we direct that 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, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Pingla Police Station except for the purpose of attending court proceedings and shall intimate the address where he will presently reside to the investigating agency as well as the court below and shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.

I, Sivagangai orderedinvestigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, the respondentpolice registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2013 on 01.04.2013 for offencesunder Sections 498(A), 494 r/w 109 IPC against 13 persons.ii) The crux of the allegations in the FIR is that Vidhya / defactocomplainant married one Muthuvel (A1) on 31.08.2007 and at the time ofmarriage, the parents of Vidhya had given her sufficient jewellery and otherarticles as dowry.On account of strain in the matrimonial relationship, bothMuthuvel and Vidhya got estranged.It is alleged by Vidhya that she wasinformed by her relatives that Muthuvel married Saralarani (A8) on 22.08.2012in a Temple during the subsistence of her marriage with Muthuvel and therebyMuthuvel has committed an offence under Section 494 IPC.iii) The petitioners herein, who are A4 to A13 are the parents andclose relatives of Saralarani (A8) and it is alleged that they have abettedthe offence of bigamy.The parents of Muthuvel, namely, Panchavarnam (father)and Chellammal (mother) were arrayed as A2 and A3 in the FIR.This petition has been filed to call for records in C.C.No.224 of 2015on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai and quash thecharge sheet and consequential further proceedings so far as the petitionersare concerned.The petitioners herein are A4 to A13, who are facing prosecution inC.C.No.224 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangaifor offences under Sections 498(A), 494 r/w 109 IPC altered into Sections498(A) r/w 109 IPC.It may be relevant to state the factual matrix of the case, which isas follows:i) On a private complaint lodged by one Vidhya / defacto complainant inC.M.P.10521 of 2012, learned Judicial Magistrate No.iv) The Police conducted investigation in Crime No.8 of 2013 and fileda final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai on06.06.2013 only against Muthuvel (A1), Panchavarnam (A2) and Chellammal (A3) for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and the names of these petitionerswere not included in the final report.The Police also filed a separatereport giving reasons for not including the petitioners herein as accused inthe final report.In the said report, the Investigating Officer has clearlystated that he was not able to gather any evidence to show that Saralarani(A8) had married Muthuvel (A1) on 22.08.2012 as alleged by Vidhya andtherefore, the allegation of bigamy is false..v) Since the names of the petitioners were deleted by the Police in thefinal report, learned Magistrate thought it fit to issue notice to Vidhya tofind out, if she has any objection to it.For the reason best known to the Police, a supplementary final report was filedby the Investigating Officer before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,Sivagangai on 25.09.2015, including Saralarani and other petitioners asadditional accused in the original case.Only when the petitioners receivedsummons from the Trial Court, they knew of this.vii) All the accused (A1 to A13) filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22587 of 2015 before this Court for quashing the entire prosecution andthe same was dismissed by this Court on 30.11.2015, on the ground that it isopen to the petitioners to file a discharge application.viii) Now, Saralarani has received a show cause notice dated 17.03.2016from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, asking her to show cause as to why her appointment should not be cancelled for not disclosing the pendency ofthe criminal case against her in the application for employment.Under suchcircumstances, the petitioners herein, who are A4 to A13 have approached thisCourt for quashing the prosecution, on the ground that it is manifestly anabuse of process of law.On notice to Vidhya, Mr.V.Sasikumar, Advocateentered appearance and argued the case.This Courtplodded through the 161(3) statements and the two final reports filed by thePolice.Except saying that the witnesses heard that Muthuvel marriedSaralarani on 22.08.2012, there is no material worth its salt even for thepurpose of framing a charge for the offence of bigamy against Saralarani.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and theprosecution in C.C.No.224 of 2015 on the file of the learned JudicialMagistrate No.I, Sivagangai, pending against these petitioners, is herebyquashed.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai District..

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

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

The scooter was driven at the relevant point of time by Mukesh Khanna with his mother Satya Khanna sitting on the pillion.On 24.05.1996, a motor vehicular accident occurred, it involving two vehicles, one being two wheeler scooter no. DNI 8655 (the scooter) and the other truck bearing registration no. DHG 92 (the truck).Three accident claim cases were instituted, they including 270/2004, 272/2004 and 271/2004, the first by the wife and daughter of Mukesh Khanna, impleading the mother Satya Khanna as a proforma respondent; the second by the mother Satya Khanna impleading the wife and daughter of the deceased Mukesh Khanna as proforma respondents; and, the third, by Satya Khanna seeking compensation for her injuries.In each case Ashok Singh (a respondent) was impleaded as a party, he being described as the driver of the truck who was negligent.In addition, Subhash Chander and New India Assurance Company Ltd. were impleaded as party respondents on the averments that they were the registered owner and insurer of the truck respectively.The respondent Ashok Singh in the claim cases, contested by filing a written statement denying any fault on his part.Subhash Chander, the respondent described in the proceedings as the registered owner of the truck would not appear and, thus, was set ex-parte.The MAC Appeal No. 1031/2011 & conn.Page 2 of 5 insurer, by its written statement, admitted the issuance of an insurance policy covering third party risk for the period in question in the name of Subhash Chander but took up the plea of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid or effective driving licence at the time of the accident.MAC Appeal No. 1031/2011 & conn.Page 2 of 5The tribunal held inquiry by clubbing all the three cases and granted compensation on account of death of Mukesh Khanna, as also for injuries suffered by Satya Khanna, fastening the liability to pay the said amounts to the claimants on the insurer.During the course of inquiry, the insurer had led evidence in an effort to prove that it was not liable.Such evidence included the deposition of Raghubar Dayal (the appellant herein), he having been summoned and examined as a witness (R3W1) to prove that it was he who had taken the truck on superdari after it had been seized during investigation of the corresponding criminal case.The insurance company also examined SI Rameshwar (R3W4) who was the investigating police officer in FIR No. 293/1996 under Sections 279/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of police station Karol Bagh to prove, amongst others, the fact of release of the truck to the appellant (R3W1) on superdari.Reliance was also placed on the testimony of Mohd Ghaush (R3W5), an official from the office of Regional Transport Office, Govt. of NCT of Delhi such testimony indicating (vide Ex.R3W5/A) that the truck is registered in the name of the appellant.MAC Appeal No. 1031/2011 & conn.Page 3 of 5These appeals were filed primarily contending that the procedure adopted by the tribunal was incorrect and in violation of the rules of natural justice for the reason the appellant was not even impleaded as a party respondent to the claim cases, he also raising the plea of denial of any liability or connection with the vehicle in question.Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and for the insurance company, this Court is of the opinion that the appeals must be allowed.But, the issue being of import cannot be sidelined and would need further and proper inquiry, this for the simple reason that liability could not have been fastened in the manner done by the tribunal without the appellant being impleaded as a party to the claim cases and without he being called upon to respond by way of appropriate pleadings or being given the opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.It will, however, be unfair and unjust towards the claimants to reopen the inquiry into their claims, the liability in which regard has been correctly placed initially at the door of the insurance company.Therefore, the appeals are allowed with the direction that the issue as to whether the appellant was the owner of the vehicle in question and as to whether the compensation paid by the insurance company can be recovered from him in the aforesaid claim cases, is remitted to the MAC Appeal No. 1031/2011 & conn.Page 4 of 5 tribunal for appropriate adjudication against the backdrop noted above.It will be proper that the insurance company first files its pleadings qua the appellant in the form of statement of claim for recovery to which the appellant will be liable to respond by his own pleadings in answer, followed by framing of issues, if any, and opportunity to lead evidence to both sides.MAC Appeal No. 1031/2011 & conn.Page 4 of 5Conversely, such amounts with accrued interest would be liable to be refunded to him in case he is not found to be liable.These appeals are disposed of in above terms.R.K.GAUBA, J.NOVEMBER 06, 2017 nk MAC Appeal No. 1031/2011 & conn.Page 5 of 5MAC Appeal No. 1031/2011 & conn.

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

course of the trial, is narrated as below :-Namdeo Wamnrao Rathod (PW 10) on 11.2.2012 was discharging his duties as Police Station Officer of Police Station, Washim (Rural).On 11.2.2012 Atmaram Ukanda Kalbande, Police Patil of village Zakalwadi came to Police Station, Washim (Rural).He gave report (Exh.32) that at 4 o' clock in the noon on 11.2.2012, he received information that there is one dead body in the well situated in the agricultural field of Pralhad Chintaman Kalbande.He further reported that on getting such information, he along with Pralhad went to the field to notice that dead body of a unknown person was inside the well and it was stinking.Upon receiving such information through report (Exh.After registering A.D. No. 9/2012, Namdeo Rathod came to Police Station, Washim (City) for obtaining information about missing persons.The said report was given by son of Vishwanath, by name, Shankar.Namdeo Rathod (PW 10) obtained the said missing report (Exh.36).On 12.2.2012, PW 10-Rathod along with his Police Staff and Panch, Police Patil went to the spot.Shankar Lahane and his relatives were also present.Namdeo Rathod (PW 10) directed two persons to go inside the well to fetch the dead body.The dead body was fetched outside the well.PW 10- Namdeo Rathod noticed that the body was beheaded and the stomach of the said body was cut in a straight direction.Shankar Lahane noticed corn on the leg of the dead body and he identified that the dead body was of his father Vishwanath Lahane.The well in which dead body was found was constructed one and was 60 feet deep having width of 4 feet.Namdeo Rathod (PW 10) noticed blood on the edge of the well on the southern side.The said was seized by him.He prepared the Panchnama of the said spot.PW 10 Rathod immediately called Dog Squad.He also requisitioned a photographer-Vishal Wankhede who took eight photographs, according to his directions.The necessary professional charges were given to the Photographer to the tune of Rs.1,100/- and two receipts Exhs. 87 and 88 were obtained from him.PW 10-Rathod in presence of Panchas also drawn the inquest panchnama (Exh.55).At about 2 o' clock in the noon the Dog Squad reached the spot.Rathod (PW 10) directed the Dog Handler Police Constable (Buckle No. 1523) to give direction to the dog.After the trained dog completed its sniffing, a detailed panchnama was prepared.During this process, articles which were found, were seized by PW 10-Rathod under seizure panchnama (Exh.56).The Dog Handler also prepared a panchnama in respect of the work done by dog (Exh. 60).The dead body was sent to Rural Hospital, Washim by PW 10- Rathod through Police Constable (Buckle No.802) under requisition to the hospital (Exh. 89).PW 10-Namdeo Rathod also gave a separate requisition letter to the Medical Officer requesting to hand over the sample of flesh/skin, nails and hair of dead body under the sealed condition.In the meantime, Shankar Vishwanath Lahane came to Police Station and lodged his oral report (Exh. 37).In the said report, the first informant named the condemned prisoner ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 ::: conf.1.14.odt 7 Ramesh, Rameshwar Maruti Kalbande and Vitthal Jayawanta Tanpure and Sau.Since the First Information report (FIR) (Exh. 37) was disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, PW 10-Rathod, registered a crime vide Crime No. 18/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC against the persons who were named in the FIR.Upon registration of the crime on the very same day i.e. 12.2.2012, Ramesh Lahane was arrested at 22:31 hours.At the time of arrest of Ramesh, two mobiles were found on his person.Those were seized in the presence of Panchas.The articles which were seized from the spot and the mobiles were deposited in the Maalkhana.On 13.2.2012 Police Constable Buckle No.802 brought skin, nail, clipping, hair of dead body, viscera bottle and the blood sample in the Police Station.Those were seized by PW 10 Namdeo in presence of Panchas under Seizure panchnama (Exh.63).::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::The dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased for last rites.A piece of bone of hand of the deceased was sent in a sealed condition by the Doctor.It was seized by drawing Seizure Panchnama.On 13.2.2012, PW 10 Rathod arrested Rameshwar Maruti Kalbande and Vitthal Jaiwant Tanpure.Both were sent for their medical examination.Ramesh was also sent for medical examination and under Seizure memo Exh.65, blood samples of those three persons were seized.They were produced before the learned Magistrate for the purposes of obtaining police custody remand.The same was granted.On 16.2.2012 when Ramesh was in the custody, in presence of Panchas, he gave his memorandum statement u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act. The said memorandum statement is at Exh.By the said memorandum statement, Ramesh agreed to point out the place wherein he has concealed bottle containing half-conf.1.14.odt 9 filled liquor and also clothes.He also agreed to show the place wherein Vishwanath was beheaded.In pursuance to the memorandum statement (Exh.66), the Investigating Officer PW 10-Rathod along with Police Staff, panchas and the condemned prisoner-Ramesh boarded the police vehicle.Ramesh led them to Duttanagar area in city of Washim.As per his direction, the vehicle was stopped.Ramesh showed his house.Ramesh entered into the house and took one of half filled country liquor bottle of 750 ml.kept in the rack of utensils.It was noticed that the said bottle was containing about 200 ml. of country liquor.Thereafter, he took one grey colour full pant from tinshed adjacent to the house having bloodstains.Near the boundary of the said agricultural field where the cracks were developed, that spot was ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 ::: conf.1.14.odt 10 shown by him.He disclosed that this is a place wherein the deceased was beheaded.The prosecution which heavily relied upon such of documents, are referred herein-below:-signature of deceased-Vishwanath to President, Dispute Resolving Committee of Karanji.Exh. 37 Oral report dated 12.12.2012 lodged by PW 1 Shankar Lahane on the basis of which crime bearing No.18/2012 for the offence punishable under section 302, 234 IPC was registered.(a) From the field of Uttamrao Sonuji Gore, articles like white and black hair, half-burnt cloth, burnt fodder, burnt ash mixed earth were seized.(b) From the agricultural field of Shamrao Gore, black and white hair, a human jaw of which flesh was eaten by wild animals, three teeth were seized.7. Exh.57 Spot Panchnama in respect of the well situated in 12.02.2012 agricultural field of Gut No.138 owned by Pralhad Chintaman Kalbande in Zakalwadi village wherein the dead body was found.Exh.60 Joint report of Investigating Officer and Dog Handler.Exh. 62 Seizure memo under which two cellphone of Nokia 12.02.2012 make were seized from prisoner-Ramesh at the time of his arrest.10. Exh.66 Memorandum Statement of prisoner-Ramesh while he 16.02.2012 was in custody u/s. 27 of the EvidenceHe agreed to point out:(c) He showed the place in the agricultural field of Uttam Gore where deceased was beheaded.The evidence of PW 1-Shankar Lahane would reveal that he is the son of deceased- Vishwanath.According to him, they hold 4 acre and 30 guntha agricultural field.He states that his father got measured the agricultural filed through the Government agency i.e. Taluqa Inspector of Land Records (TILR), in which it was transpired that Ramesh has encroached upon 10 guntha land and he was not ready to return the same.He further states that on that count, there was a dispute between his father and Ramesh.conf.1.14.odt 24 He further states from the witness box that Ramesh used to extend threats of murder to his father and, as a result, he was so disgusted that he decided to sell the field.However, Ramesh was obstructing the said sale.According to Shankar (PW 1) on 5.2.2012,the marriage of daughter of one Bharat Keshao Lahane was to be solemnsized at Swagat Lawn, Washim.His father had gone to attend the said marriage, but he did not return.He waited for him the whole night and then tried to contact him on his mobile through his cellphone, but in vain, as the phone was switched off.He further states that on the next day morning, he met Police Patil -Jayawanta Lahane and enquired as to whether he met his father in the marriage.The Police Patil told him that his father met him near Pusad Naka, Washim and his father was about to go to the house of Ramesh to meet him, in respect of sale transaction of the agricultural field.Shankar (PW 1) further states that Jayawanta further told him that his father had asked him to come to take his father if any misdeed happened.On that Jayawanta replied to his father not to go there, if he apprehends danger to his life.He further states that Jayawanta told his father that he would not come to take him.Shankar further states that ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 25 Jayawanta had told him that he met his father at about 7.40 p.m. Jayawanta further told him that he received a phone call of his father at around 9.10 p.m. His father called Jayawanta in front of the house of Ramesh near Chintamani Hotel.However Jayawanta showed his unreadiness to go there due to fear.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::Jayawanta further disclosed to him that though after half-an-hour, he phoned his father, but his phone was switched off.Shankar further states that in the same night, he enquired about his father with his relatives on phone; but they replied in the negative.On the next day, Shankar, Jayawanta Lahane, Punjab Lahane, Baburao Padgham and Giri came to Washim and went to the house of Ramesh, but the house was locked.At that time, Shankar was possessing a photo of his father.Shankar further states that in response, those persons told him that around 9.30 pm.On 5.2.2012, the said person was seen running but Ramesh and Laxmibai were dragging him into their house.Shankar further states that due to the said answer, he felt that the Ramesh might ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 26 have killed his father.Therefore, they all went to Police Station, Washim to lodge the report.He states that he has seen Pankaj while taking away that person towards the house of Ramesh.However he did not see him entering into the house of accused.He states that Dattanagar is a densely populated area and the distance between his house and house of Pankaj is more than 350 to 400 feet.PW 4 Shobh Lahane is the widow of the deceased.conf.1.14.odt 31 Thereafter he performed second marriage with Chatura and was residing with her in the house situated in his field.She states that Ramesh was working as agricultural labour and he also used to sell the flesh of goats in the village, so he was called as 'butcher'.She states that her husband had expressed his willingness to sell the field property.Her husband had gone to attend the marriage of daughter of Bharat Lahane.She states that before leaving the house, her husband had told her that he would attend the marriage and would go to the house of Ramesh in order to end the dispute.On that day, her husband did not return in the night.On the next day morning, Jayawanta had come to her house and asked whether her husband returned home.Thereon, she replied in the negative.She states that Jayawanta told her that her husband had met him and asked him to reach to the house of Ramesh on his motorcycle as he wanted to enter into the transaction of field property.She identified the dead body as that of her husband.She further states that after recording her statement, she was called by police and her son Shankar and were referred to hospital in order to obtain their blood samples.Another witness is PW 5- Jayawanta Ramchandra Lahane.He states that he owns and possesses 2 acres of agricultural land and his wife is a police patil of the village.He is having two children and they are studying in VI and VIII standard in Washim.He states that on 5.2.2012 he had been to Washim to attend the marriage of daughter of one Bharat Lahane ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 33 and he attended the same at Swagat Lawn along with his wife.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::He states that he, Sitaram Lahane, Atmaram Lahane, came at Pusad Naka to take the beatle leaf at the pan kisok.. On seeing them Vishwanath (deceased) came there.He also took beatle leaf with them.He states that thereafter they went to attend the marriage ceremony.He states that after the marriage, he along with his wife, started to go to his home.When they reached near Pusad Naka, he received mobile call of Vishwanath who asked him to take him on motorcycle to the house of Ramesh for transaction of his field.He states that he stopped his bike.Vishwanath came there and sat on his bike.First, they came to his room at Civil Lines and left his wife there.He states that, that time Vishwanath asked him to reach him near Chintamani Hotel.Accordingly, he left Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel.It was at about 7.30 to 7.45 p.m. Then he returned his home.He further states in his evidence that at about 9.10 p.m., he received a phone call of Vishwanath asking him to come to take him in front of the house of Ramesh near Chintamani Hotel.However, he refused to go there and switched off his mobile.He further states that on next day on 6 th, he went ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 34 to his village Karanji.There, son of deceased, Shankar met him and asked him as to whether his father met him and where he had gone.Shankar further told that his father did not return to his house.He told Shankar that his father was intending to go to house of Ramesh for the field transaction and he reached his father near Chintamani Hotel.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::On next day, on 7th, he received a call of Shankar that his father did not return to his home and to take search, he should accompany him and should reach near Dattanagar.to 10.30 hours, he reached Dattanagar.There Panjab Lahane, Baburao Padghan, giri, Shankar Lahane were present and he stated that they made enquiry with neighbours of Ramesh whether the person appearing in the photo, which was brought by Shankar, had come there.He states the neighbor told that the said person had been there.At that time, the house of Ramesh was locked.1) The fields of both deceased-Vishwanath and Ramesh were at village Karanji.Both fields were adjacent to each other.There exists a dispute between them over the boundary (dhura) and small water channel (paat).2) Deceased Vishwanath was residing at Karanji, a village nearby Washim city.Accused Ramesh was residing along with his second wife.3) The measurement of area which was done by the deceased Vishwanath through the T.I.L.R. transpired that the accused Ramesh had grabbed 10 gunthas of field of deceased Vishwanath which contain a small water stream.4) Inspite of grabbing the land portion of Vishwanath, he was not ready to relinquish the said portion.5) Accused Ramesh always used to extend threats of murder to Vishwanath.Vishwanath was disgusted with the threats, Hence he decided to sell out the field, however, Ramesh was obstructing the said sale.7) On 5.2.2012 Vishwanath expressed his intention to his wife PW 4 to go to the house of Ramesh, in respect of transaction of the field when deceased was to go to attend the marriage ceremony at Washim city.8) At Washim city also deceased Vishwanath expressed his intention to PW 5-Jayawanta to go to the house of Ramesh at Dattanagar in respect of transaction of the field.9) On 5.2.2012 Vishwanath actually attended the marriage ceremony of daughter of Bharat Lahane at Swagat Lawn at Washim city at 5.00 p.m. Vishwanath had disclosed to PW 5 his intention to visit the house of Ramesh for transaction of his field.conf.1.14.odt 50 On examination, he found that the dead body was well nourished and cold rigor mortis were well marked.He also noticed sign of decomposition.PW 5- is Jayawanta Lahane.He is husband of Police Patil of village Karanji.His two sons are studying at Washim in VI and VIII standard.According to this witness, he had been to Washim on 5.2.2012 to attend the marriage of daughter of Bharat Lahane.On 11.2.2012 Police Station, Washim (Rural) got the information from Atmaram Ukanda Kalbande, Police Patil of Zakalwadi (Exh. 32) about floating of dead body of one unknown person in a well situated in the agricultural field of one Pralhad Kalbande.On 12.2.2012, the police reached in the agricultural field bearing Gut No. 138 of Pralhad Chintaman situated in Zakalwadi.As per the prosecution case, on the very same day, the I.O. summoned the Dog Squad and a trained dog by name 'Heea' reached on the spot along with its Handler.Exh. 56 is the Seizure Panchnama under which various things were seized.It reveals that a trained dog along with his Handler came near the well wherein dead body was kept.It further shows that thereafter the smell of the said dead body was given to the said Dog.The said dog proceeded towards the southern direction.Thereafter the I.O. and others came to another agricultural field which was about 500 feet.The document (Exh.56) shows that said spot was inspected by the I.O. in presence of Panchas.There, they found burnt ash.They dug the said place, that time bad bad odour was emitted.There they found black and while human hair.Also, they found half burnt cloth and burnt fodder and also a plastic to which human black and white hair were sticked.DATE OF RESERVING: 15.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.12.2014 JUDGMENT: (Per V.M.Deshpande, J)On reference being made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, the present Confirmation Case bearing Criminal Confirmation Case No.1/2014 arises for confirming the capital punishment awarded by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 51/2012 to condemned prisoner -Ramesh Jijeba Lahane.According to him, not only the capital punishment is excessive but the very finding of the learned Judge of the Court below holding him guilty of committing murder of Vishwanath Lahane, is unsustainable.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::32), Namdeo Rathod (PW 10) registered an accidental death vide A.D. No. 9/2012 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 ::: conf.1.14.odt 4 Procedure (Cr.P.C.) {Exh. 31}.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::The said body ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 ::: conf.1.14.odt 5 was of a male person.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::Laxmibai Ramesh Lahane (acquitted accused).::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::The Investigating Officer thereafter sealed the said full pant and liquor bottle.Thereafter as per the direction of Ramesh, the Police party along with him boarded the jeep again.He asked to take the vehicle at Malegaon Road.After proceeding some distance near PKV Office, he asked the Police party to take the vehicle on left direction.There were one or two houses in the agricultural field.There the prisoner asked to stop the vehicle.Thereafter he took the police party to a field having standing toor crop.From the said spot blood-stain soil and simple earth were seized.A composite seizure memo of these articles, namely, liquor bottle, full pant and blood mixed soil and simple soil was was prepared.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::The Investigating Officer also requested the Tahsildar by letter Exh. 95 and requested for drawing the map.Since during the disclosure statement Exh.66 dated 16.2.2012 prisoner-Ramesh disclosed about the complicity of one Jayawant Lahane, the Investigating Officer arrested Jayawant Lahane.After Jayawant Lahane was arrested, the Investigating Officer obtained his police custody remand.During his enquiry, nothing fruitful was disclosed to the Investigating Officer Therefore the I.O. again, on 23.2.2012 when prisoner- Ramesh was in his custody, interrogated him.In the said statement, it was revealed to the I.O. by prisoner-Ramesh that he had ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 ::: conf.1.14.odt 11 committed crime and not Jaiwant.He agreed to show the place wherein the shirt he was wearing on the date of commission of the offence, his cycle, the knife, the mobile of deceased Vishwanath, were concealed by him.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::In pursuance to the disclosure statement (Exh. 69), the Police party along with prisoner-Ramesh again brought the Police Jeep and they were taken to his Duttanagar residence wherein he showed a shirt which was hanging on a peg on the wall.The said shirt was having faint blood stains.He also pointed out the cycle which was parked in a tinshed.Thereafter Ramesh took the Police party to a fallow land in front of Chintamani Hotel.He pointed out the place i.e. the cracks at one Babhli shrub.From there one long knife and one mobile phone was seized.Exh.71 is the spot panchnama which is the house of prisoner-Ramesh, which was pointed out by prisoner in his memorandum statement, as a place wherein deceased was done to death by strangulation.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:32 :::On 10.3.2012, the I.O. gave a letter to the Medical Officer making a query as to whether the neck can be severed with the help of the seized knife.The knife was sent along with the said letter.The Medical Officer on the back side of the said letter itself, has given his opinion.By the said opinion, the Doctor opined that the decapitation injury may be caused by such a weapon.The I.O. then drew the query Panchnama dated 10.3.2012 (Exh.73).In the meanwhile, the post-mortem report was also received.The I.O. has also obtained the blood samples of first informant Shankar and his mother Shobhabai.The said was obtained after giving the requisition letter Exh.102 to the Medical Officer for DNA purpose.The I.O. recorded the statement of neighbours of prisoner-Ramesh; photograph of deceased was available along with the missing report (Exh.36) that was shown by I.O. to the neighbours at the time of recording their statements.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::On 24.2.2012, the I.O arrested the wife of the prisoner Ramesh by name Laxmibai.Exh.105 is a request letter to the Director of Forensic Laboratory at Nagpur for the opinion of viscera.Exh.108 is a request letter made to the Director, Forensic Laboratory at Kalina, Vidyanagar.Santa Cruz, Mumbai, by which a request was made to give information in respect of the DNA about the articles which were already sent.In all seven C.A. reports Exhs. 117 to 123 were received by the I.O. whereas Exhs.52 and 53 are the DNA test reports which were received by the I.O.During the investigation, it was revealed to the I.O.that there was no role of Rameshwar Kalbande ; Vitthal Tanpure and Jayawanta Lahane in the crime.Therefore with the requisite permission discharge report u/s. 169 of Cr.P.C. was filed in the court of law.Upon that, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 14 first informant.The first informant appeared in the said discharge proceedings and objected for the discharge of Rameshwar Kalbande and Vithal Tanpure.On 23.5.2012 the discharge report in respect of Jayawanta Lahane was accepted by the learned Magistrate.However, the I.O. was again directed for re-investigation in respect of Rameshwar Kalbande and Vitthal Tanpure.In the light of said directions, the I.O. again, re-::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::investigated the matter in respect of Rameshwar and Vitthal.However nothing was found against them and, therefore, a fresh discharge report was filed in the Court of learned Magistrate.Therefore, he passed committal order.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::Vide Exh.22 on 12th June 2013, the learned 2nd Ad-hoc ADJ, Washim framed charge against the condemned prisoner Ramesh and his wife Laxmibai @ Chatura Ramesh Lahane.Both were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of Vishwanath Lahane and in order to screen themselves from legal punishment, they had destroyed the evidence.Accordingly, a charge u/s 302 and 201 r/ws.34 IPC was framed against them.Both of them denied the charge and claimed for their trial.In order to bring home the guilt of the persons against whom charge was framed, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses.The prosecution has also relied on voluminous documents which were proved during the course of trial.Both Ramesh and his wife were examined u/s 313 Cr.PC.They did not examine any defence witness.According to them, they were falsely implicated in the crime.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::The learned ADJ, Washim, after a full-fledged trial, acquitted the accused no.2 Laxmibai.However, he found the prisoner-Ramesh guilty, as a person responsible for death of Vishwanath Lahane.The prisoner -Ramesh was heard on the point of sentence.In the meanwhile, Ramesh has also questioned the correctness of the finding holding him guilty for commission of the murder of Vishwanath, by filing an Appeal.We have heard Shri N.S. Khubalkar, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri S.D. Chande, learned counsel for the condemned prisoner Ramesh Lahane, in extenso.We have also gone through in detail, the entire record and ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 17 proceedings.We have also seen the muddemal properties, namely, clothes of Ramesh and the weapon.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::What order? As per the order (III): EVALUATION OF PROSECUTION CASE :In order to bring home the guilt of the condemned ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 18 prisoner -Ramesh, the prosecution has examined following ten witnesses:::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::In addition to the oral evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon various documents which were duly proved during the course of trial.Exh. 35 A report lodged with Police Station, Shirpur by Jijeba ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 21 Lahane, the father of the deceased.It is dated 13.10.1988::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::Exh. 36 Oral report/missing report lodged dated 7.2.2012 by PW 1 Shankar Lahane with Police Station, Washim {City}.(i) The place from his house wherein he concealed the liquor bottle.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::(a) A liquor bottle was seized from the rack inside the house of prisoner-Ramesh which was kept behind steel box.(b) A full-pant which was kept beneath gunnybag from the tinshed adjacent to the house of prisoner Ramesh.(a) A shirt having blood stains which was having on the peg inside the house of prisoner Ramesh.(b) A cycle which was parked in a tinshed adjacent to the house of Ramesh.(c) The wepon i.e. Knife and cellphone of deceased Vishwanath from the crack of the ground near Babhul tree on the eastern dhura of fallow land /field situated in front of Chintamani Hotel.14. Exh.72 The query Panchnama in respect of weapon.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::His father had lodged a report against Ramesh at the Police Station and Chairman, Dispute Resolving Committee.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::He also handed over the photo of his father to police while lodging the report.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::Shankar (PW 1) further states that on the same day, the police had brought the accused (Ramesh and his wife Laxmibai) in Police Station for enquiry; but they did not disclose the fact.Thereafter, he took search of his father in the adjacent Shiwar upto three days.Shankar further states that at about 830 p.m, he received a call from Police Station, Washim (Rural) that body of a person, aged about 50 years, is floating in a well situated in Zakalwadi Shiwar which was stinking.The Police called him to identify the said body.Therefore he, in the morning, along with Jaideo Lahane, Datta Lahane, Anil Giri, Punjab Lahane and other 4/5 persons, rushed to Zakalwadi Shiwar.He states that the body was already fished out by the police.He further states that the body was not having any head and its stomach was cut and bowels were protruding out; the body was naked.Shankar states ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 27 that his father was having corn on his sole.Both the toes were short which he noticed.Considering all these features, he identified the dead body as that of his father.He states that at that time, his uncle Jaideo Baliram Lahane, Datta Lahane, maternal uncle Shriram Kisan Badar were also present.They also identified the body.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::Shankar further states in his evidence that thereafter all of them approached Police Station, Washim (Rural) and lodged the report (Exh.37), which was scribed as per his say.In the cross-examination, to a question put to him, he replied that son of Baliram Lahane, namely, Jagan had not been to the marriage ceremony; but then changed his version by saying that he does not know.He stated in his cross-examination that he had shown photograph of his father to 3/4 persons of Dattanagar area, around 10.30 am to 11.00 am.on 7.2.2012 who were not acquainted with his father.It is stated by him that the distance between Chintamani Hotel and the house of Ramesh is about 40 to 45 feet and his house is situated in a densely populated area.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::Another witness who is examined by the prosecution is Pankaj Mahadeorao Ingle (PW 2).His evidence shows that he knows the accused as they are his neighbours.He claims that he is having an auto-rickshaw and he used to ply the same himself.Pankaj states that on 5.2.2012 between 9.30 and 10.00 p.m. he had come to his house with his auto.While parking his auto, one person came near him and he asked him as to where he is going? Thereupon, he replied that he was going to urinate.Pankaj states that thereupon he asked the said person as to where he resides? The said person replied that he was the guest of Ramesh Lahane.Ramesh Lahane is the person who is present in the dock.He further states that Ramesh took the said person to his home.At that time, wife of Ramesh was standing on the road.Thereafter he parked his auto, had a meal and went to sleep.Pankaj further states that after 2/3 days, the police came to him and he narrated the aforesaid fact to them.He further states that at that time the police had shown him one photo, which was of the said guest.In the cross-examination, Pankaj has stated that he cannot tell the exact date when his statement was recorded.He ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 29 further states that the distance between his house and the house of accused is more than 350 feet.In the cross-examination, he further admitted that since last 15 years he was working as a Manager of Dhaba ( roadside eatery) of Jasminder Johar; in the next breath, he volunteers that he was not working as a Manager but as a servant.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::PW 3 is Sagar Khillare.He resides at Dattanagar area.He knows the accused as they reside in front of his house.Ramesh used to abuse them under the influence of liquor and, therefore, they used to ignore him.He states that he knows Pankaj Ingle.From the witness box Sagar states that on 5.2.2012 between 8.30 and 9.30 pm, after having his meals, that time, he saw one person murmuring under the influence of liquor, who went towards the house of Pankaj Ingle.He states that verbal exchange of words between Pankaj and said person were going on.He saw this in the light of street light.He states that Pankaj reached that person up to the house of Ramesh Lahane, thereafter, he went to his house and Pankaj went to his house.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::conf.1.14.odt 30 Sagar (PW 3) further states that on 17.2.2012 the police came to his house to prepare Panchnama.That time the police showed a photo and asked him as to whether he can identify the said person.Thereafter he came to know that the said person was murdered.In the cross-examination Sagar has admitted that around 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. the person who was taken by Pankaj was under heavy drunken state.She has stated in her evidence that her husband had lodged a report against Ramesh at Police Station Shirpur.Previously Ramesh was residing at Karanji along with is first wife.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::Therefore, the accused asked her husband to come to Washim in Dattanagar at his home.Shobha (PW 4) states that the incident occurred before 14 months.Therefore, Jayawanta reached her husband near a square.She further states that the Jayawata told ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 32 her that her husband had asked him to accompany him to the house of Ramesh; however, Jayawanta expressed his inability to go there.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::She further states that on the next day her son Shankar, Jayawanta, Punjab and others had gone to Dattanagar to see her husband.She states that after four days, she came to know that the dead body of her husband was lying in the well near Zakalwadi Shiwar.Therefore, she, her son and relatives went there.On the same day, the dead body was brought to her home at about 9.00 p.m, which was beheaded.He states that they went to Police Station, Washim (Urban), where Shankar lodged the report.He states that in the Police Station the accused were called for enquiry and after enquiry they were set free.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::conf.1.14.odt 35 Jayawanta further states that on 11th he had been to the house of his sister.That time, he received message from Shankar that one body was lying in the well in Zakalwadi Shiwar and I should reach there.a.m. he went near the said well.There Shankar, Gulabrao, Jaideo lahane and other villagers had assembled.The villagers identified the dead body as that of Vishwanath.He further states that after lodging the report, accused-Ramesh and his wife Chatura @ Laxmi were arrested by police.He further states that the accused told his name falsely before the police in the crime.He was also arrested in this crime.As nothing was found against him during investigation, he was discharged by the court.His statement was recorded by the police.In the cross-examination, he states that on 11th, he was arrested in the crime and he was in jail for three months.In the present case, there is no direct evidence, in the sense of an eye witness account, to connect prisoner-Ramesh with the crime.Thus, the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstances and circumstantial evidence.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::The learned Addl.6) To settle the dispute over the field, accused Ramesh had ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 37 called deceased Vishwanath to his house at Dattanagar.On 5.2.2012 there was marriage ceremony of daughter of one Bharat Lahane which gave an occasion for deceased Vishwanath to go to Washim City and go to the house of the accused Ramesh on the issue of field dispute.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::10) While at Washim deceased Vishwanath had requested PW 5 Jaiwanta to drop him near the house of accused Ramesh at Dattanagar area of Washim city.11) PW 5 dropped deceased Vishwanath near Hotel Chintamani ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 38 at 7.30 to 7.45 p.m. at Washim city.The accused Ramesh was residing near Hotel Chintamani.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::12) Deceased Vishwanath was last seen in the company of accused Ramesh in the night of 5.2.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. at the house of accused Ramesh by witness PW 2-Pankaj and PW 3 Sagar Khillare.13) After last seen with accused Ramesh in the night of 5.2.2012, Vishwanath did not return back to his village Karanji where his family members were waiting for him.15) In the missing report at Exh.36, PW 1 Shankar has specifically named accused Ramesh as accused who has played foul with his father.17) After last seen in the company of accused-Ramesh, beheaded body of Vishwanath was found on 11.2.2012 in the well in the field of Pralhad Kalbande.18) The spot where the body was found was near about one ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 39 1.5 k.m.to the house of accused-Ramesh.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::19) DNA tests proved identity of the dead body as that of Vishwanath.20) Under these circumstances, the accused owes an explanation, but no explanation from the accused-Ramesh as to where Vishwanath went from his house and, therefore, presumption u/s. 106 of the Evidence Act has to be pressed into service.21) The death of Vishwanath was homicidal one.22) Section 27 of the memorandum and consequent recoveries from accused Ramesh.23) The conduct of the accused at the spot where the accused and Panch (PW 8) was the same spot where the dead body was found on 11.2.2012 i.e. well of Pralhad Kamble and nearby fields.24) CA reports are incriminating inasmuch as human blood were detected thought the blood group was inconclusive on the clothes of accused Ramesh and knife.According to the learned Addl.P.P. the aforesaid circumstances clearly established the charge of murder levelled against Ramesh.In order to buttress his point, he has relied upon ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 40 following authoritative pronouncements :-::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::1) AIR 1985 SC 1692: Ram Avtar vs. State (Delhi Admn).5) (2010) 2 SCC 353: Vijay Kumr Arora vs. State (NCT New Delhi)6) (1992) 2 SCC 86: State of U P vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava7) (2000) 1 SCC 225: C.K.Raveendran vs. State of KeralaPer contra, the learned counsel for Ramesh would submit that, Ramesh is falsely implicated.He submits that at vital point, the chain is broken.According to him, there is no reliable evidence by which it could be held that deceased was seen lastly in the company of Ramesh.He further submitted that recoveries made at the instance of Ramesh are clearly inadmissible in evidence.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::conf.1.14.odt 46 IV) CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PROSECUTION CASE:In the light of afore-mentioned, let us analyze the prosecution case.PW 1-Shankar along with others reached at the agricultural field at Zakalwadi wherein the well was situated in view of the phone call which he received on 11.2.2012 at 8.30 p.m. from Police Station, Wshim (Rural), by which it was intimated to him that the dead body is floating in the well.On reaching the spot, Shankar (PW 1) identified the said dead body as of his father Vishwanath though the said body was not having ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 ::: conf.1.14.odt 47 head.Shankar (PW 1) identified the dead body as of his father on the basis of two corns on the left leg and also the short toes of the foot.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:33 :::Gulabrao Bakal (PW 6) has also identified the dead body on the said basis.PW 1- Shankar is the son of deceased-Vishwanath.Thus, for last twenty years, he was observing his father with such peculiarity.Further, on 12.2.2012 when the dead body was fished out from the well, the I.O. has done inquest on the same in presence of two Panchas, of course, one of the Panchas was Gulabrao Bakal.What is important is, while doing inquest the I.O. and Panchas noticed the following :::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::conf.1.14.odt 48 "तसेच डावया पायाचे तळ पायावर, पोचावर दोन एक एक इच ं ं रावर कुरप िदसत आहेत.A piece of bone of hand of the deceased was sent in a sealed condition by the Doctor.It was seized by drawing a seizure Panchnama (Exh. 64).The I.O. sent these articles to Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, Vidyanagari, Santa Cruz, Mumbai, under requisition Exhs.107 and 108 for the DNA test.The scientific opinion ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 49 after DNA was done, is as under :-::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::OPINION : "(1) Exh.1-long bone and Shobhabai V .Lahane in FSLML Case No. DNA 263/12 are concluded to be the biological parents of Shankar V. Lahane in FSLML Case No. DNA 263/12."The dead body was sent to Rural Hospital, Washim by PW 10 Rathod, the I.O. through Police Constable under requisition to the hospital (Exh. 89).Dr. Parmeshwar Kharat (PW 9) was working as Medical Officer since August, 2011 at Civil Hospital, Washim.On 12.2.2012 a dead body was brought to him by Police Constable.Shankar Lahane, Gulabrao Bakal and one Mahadeo Khandare identified the said body.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Greenish discolouration over abdomen was present.He noticed post-mortem peeling off skin over back buttock and both the upper and lower limbs.He noticed that the head was missing.At the time of conducting post-mortem, he noticed the following external injuries:-"1) Decapitation injury over neck at the level of C3 C4 cervical vertebra corresponding tissues, blood vessels, muscles, trachea, oesophagus spinal cord amputed.Above the level of this injury head neck face is missing.Dark red blood firmly adhered to the cut end.Margins of injury clean cut.2) Incised wound over front of abdomen in the midline, 5 cm.Below nipple level size of wound is 25 cm.long, 5 cm.broad and cavity deep from which internal visceral organs like stomach, small and large intestine protruding out.Margins of wound one cleant cut without any blood adhered to the cut end.Injury is vertically placed."The Doctor opined that the cause of death is ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 51 decapitation injury.According to the post-mortem report injury No.1 is ante-mortem; whereas Injury No.2 is post-mortem.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::According to the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was said decapitation injury.Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.The Court will have to evaluate the available evidence- both oral as well as documentary, in the light of guiding ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 52 principles of the decisions of Hemant Nargundkar and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (cited supra).::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::The prosecution case has to be examined and its analysis has to be done on the touchstone of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, since there is no eye witness account available in the present prosecution case and the entire prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has brought such incriminating circumstances on record and the chain of circumstances is complete and there is no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of Ramesh (prisoner).Though the learned Addl.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::conf.1.14.odt 53 (A) Last seen theory;Even the learned trial Court while concluding that Ramesh is guilty of commission of death of Vishwanath, has referred to above three circumstances only.Now let us scrutinize the evidence to find out as to whether the prosecution ha s established the aforesaid circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.(A) Last seen theory: Insofar as the proof that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of Ramesh (prisoner), we have the evidence of (i) Pankaj Madhav Ingle (PW 2); (ii) Sagar Damodar Khillare (PW 2); and, (iii) Jayawant Ramchandra Lahane (PW 5).::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::conf.1.14.odt 54 According to the prosecution, on 5.2.2012 deceased Vishwanath left his residence at Karanji to attend the marriage of daughter of one Bharat Keshav Lahane which was to be solemnized at Swagat Lawn, Washim.There is no evidence available on record as to who were his companions, when he left his village.Since the said report discloses that when all other persons returned to the village but for his father, PW 1 Shankar made enquiry with said Jagan about his father.After attending the said marriage, when he had been to one paan kiosk at Pusad Naka, along with others, deceased Vishwanath came there.He also took paan i.e. beatle ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 55 leaf and thereafter they went to attend the marriage.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::In view of the aforesaid evidence, one can conveniently reach to the conclusion that on 5.2.2012 deceased Vishwanath left his village Karanji along with some persons to attend the marriage to be performed at Swagat Lawn at Washim.PW 5- Jayawanta claims that after the marriage, he along with his wife, started to go to his room on his motorcycle.When the couple reached at Pusad Naka, PW 5 received a mobile call of Vishwanath who asked him to take him on his motorcycle to the house of Ramesh (prisoner).He stopped the bike.Vishwanath came there and sat on the bike.Thereafter, firstly, he dropped his wife at their room at Civil Lines and thereafter he left deceased-Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel at about 7.30 to 7.45 p.m. and then he returned his home.PW 2 is Pankaj Ingle.He claims that he ply an auto-He is the resident of the same vicinity wherein the house of Ramesh (prisoner) is situated.According to him, on 5.2.2012 at about 9.30 to ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 56::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::10.p.m., he reached to his house and when he was parking his auto-rickshaw, one person came near him.He asked him as to where he was going.Thereupon, the said person replied that he was going to urinate.Upon that, witness-Pankaj asked the said person as to where he resides.Upon that, the said person replied that he is the guest of Ramesh(prisoner).PW 2-Pankaj Ingle claimed that at that time Ramesh Lahane came and took the said person to his home, at that time, the wife of Ramesh was standing on road.Thereafter he parked his auto, had his meals and went to sleep.PW 3 is Sagar Khillare.He is the resident of Dattanagar area, wherein the house of Ramesh ( prisoner) is situated.According to Sagar, on 5.2.2.2012 around 8.30 to 9.30 p.m. he had come out of his house after having his meals.That time, he noticed one person murmuring under the influence of liquor, who went towards the house of Pankaj (PW 2).Verbal exchange of words were going on in between Pankaj and said person.That time, Sagar was standing near his house.He claims that Pankaj (PW 2) reached the said person to the house of ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 57 Ramesh ( prisoner).Thereafter he went to his house and Pankaj went to his house.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::When Vishwanath failed to return to the house at Karanji in the night of 5.2.2012, on the next day i.e. 6.2.2012 Shankar (PW 1) met Jayawanta Lahane (PW 5) and enquired as to whether he met his father in the marriage, whereupon Jayawanta disclosed to him, that his father met him near Pusad Naka.The conversation between PW 1- Shankar and PWJayawanta which Shankar has vividly described from the witness box during trial, has no evidentiary value, being hear-say evidence.(a) ".... Jayawanta Lahane further told me that my father asked him to take him (my father) to the house of Ramesh for transaction of his field if any misdeed happened.On that Jayawanta replied to my father not to go there if he apprehends to his life and further stated that Jayawanta would not go to take him"(b) "Jayawanta showed his unreadiness to go there due to fear.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::conf.1.14.odt 58 Moreover Jayawanta told him that his father had phoned my father but it was switched off".Jayawanta (PW 5) would have been the best person to depose aforesaid facts.He is completely silent on afore-mentioned aspects in his evidence.Therefore, to that extent, the evidence of PW 1-Shankar will have to be discarded though the learned Addl.P.P. vehemently pressed the same.Now let us examine the worth of the evidence of PW 2 - Pankaj and PW 3-Sagar.The entire case of the prosecution hinges on the evidence of these two witnesses because, if the prosecution case is to be believed, these are only two persons who have seen Vishwanath lastly alive and in the company of Ramesh ( prisoner).The distance between the house of Ramesh(prisoner) and PW 2-Pankaj is more than 350 feet as it has come on record through his cross-examination.Though in the opening paragraph of his evidence, Pankaj has claimed that he ply the auto rickshaw, he has admitted in his cross-examination that since last ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 59 15-years, he is working as servant at Dhaba (roadside eatery) of one Jasvinder Johar.Even in the cross-examination, firstly, he replied that since last 15-years he was working as Manager at the said Dhaba and then changed his version.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Insofar as the evidence of Sagar is concerned, from his evidence, it is clear that Dattanagar is a densely populated area and the distance between his house and house of Pankaj (PW 2) is more than 350 to 400 feet.The vernacular version of Sagar (PW 3) shows that the house of Ramesh ( prisoner) is situated just in front of his house.The evidence of PW- 2 Pankaj and PW- 3 Sagar on material aspect, is entirely different which can be seen from the following :PW 2 -Pankaj claims that PW 3 -Sagar claims that Pankaj he has seen Ramesh Lahane (PW 2) reached that person to came and took said person the house of Ramesh Lahane.According to PW 2 Pankaj, the According to PW 3 Sagar, the time was between 9.30 and time was between 8.,30 to 9.30 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 60 10.00 p.m. p.m. The learned Addl.P.P. has submitted that insofar as the first fact is concerned, it is just a variation and, therefore, is not fatal to the prosecution case.He further submitted that the variation in time is also not fatal because, according to him, the variation is only by about one hour.According to him, their evidence does not shake the core of the prosecution case that both of them saw deceased- Vishwanath with Ramesh only.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::The aforesaid two mentioned versions in the evidence of PW 2- Pankaj and PW 3- Sagar cannot be termed as minor variation.If the evidence of these two witnesses is examined in its correct perspective, it is clear that these two prosecution witnesses are giving an altogether different versions.The house of Sagar is situated just in front of the house of Ramesh (prisoner).According to this witness, it is Pankaj who has reached deceased Vishwanath upto the house of Ramesh.However, Pankaj is completely silent on that aspect.Not only that, he claims that it is Ramesh, the prisoner, who took Vishwanath, the deceased, to his house.PW 3-Sagar is ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 61 completely silent about the presence of wife of prisoner-Ramesh standing on the road.Further, none of these witnesses has claimed that they have seen Ramesh (prisoner) either taking deceased Vishwanath inside his house or Vishwanath, on his own, entered the house of Ramesh.On the contrary, Sagar has stated as under :::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::ं जने तया इसमाला रमेशचया घराकडे नेताना मी पिहले. परत "पक ig ं ु तो इसम रमेशचया घरात जाताना मी पािहले नाही."When Pankaj is completely silent or he is not supporting the PW 3 that it is Pankaj who has reached Vishwanath to the house of Ramesh, it will be hazardous to accept the version of Sagar that he has seen Pankaj reaching Vishwanath near the house of Ramesh.From the entire evidence of Sagar, it is absolutely clear that he is not making even a reference to the presence of Ramesh (prisoner) or his wife either on the road or in front of his house.Looking to the fact that Sagar's house is situated just opposite the house of Ramesh he is the best person to notice the presence of Ramesh as claimed by Pankaj (PW 2 ).::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::PW 1- Shankar has claimed that on 7.2.2012 he along with Jayawanta Lahane (PW 5), Panjabrao, Jaideo Lahane, Baburao Padgham and Anil Gori, Datta Lahane reached Washim and went to the house of Ramesh (prisoner), his house was found to be locked.That time he was possessing the photo of his father.He showed the said photo to the neighbours of Ramesh.According to the I.O., PW 10-Rathod, he has recorded statement of witnesses on 13th.For recording the statement of witnesses the police must have visited the vicinity.According to PW 3-Sagar Khillare on 17.2.2012, the police had came near to his house to prepare Panchnama and, at that time, police had shown a photo to him.The evidence of PW 10 Rathod does not disclose that he visited the vicinity on 17.2.2012 Further, the learned Addl.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::On thing to be noted is that at the time of recording of evidence of PW 3 Sagar, he was working as Police Co`nstable.Therefore, the possibility that he is a partisan witness cannot be ruled out in the light of his belated police statement.In view of the vital difference on the material aspect as appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness Pankaj and Sagar, coupled with the fact that their police statements were recorded belatedly i.e about five days of the recovery of the dead body and particularly when none of them has stated in their evidence that they saw deceased-Vishwanath entering inside the house of Ramesh or Ramesh taking him inside his house, we are of the opinion that it will be too risky to reach to the conclusion that these two prosecution witnesses has seen deceased-Vishwanath in the company of Ramesh the prisoner in the night on 5.2.2012That leaves us to scrutinize the evidence of PW 5 Jayawanta on the aspect of last seen theory.In his evidence Jayawanta never claims that he reached deceased Vishwanath to ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 64 the house of Ramesh (prisoner).His evidence would reveal that on 5.2.2012 at about 7.30 to 7.45 p.m. he left Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel.In that view of the matter, it is absolutely clear that it is not his claim that he has seen deceased going towards the house of Ramesh after he was dropped near Chintamani Hotel.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::His evidence would reveal that at about 9.10 p.m. he received a call of Vishwanath (deceased) requesting him to come near Chintamani Hotel to take him; however, he refused and switched off his mobile.The Court has to examine as to whether Jayawanta is the witness giving the truthful version.According to PW 1-Shankar on 7.2.2012 when he visited the locality Dattanagar in order to trace out his father Vishwanath, he was accompanied not only with other persons but also PW 5 Jayawanta Lahane.Since there was no trace of his father, he reached the Police Station and lodged the missing report.Though the learned Addl.P.P. Submitted that the missing report was lodged on 7.2.2012 since the said date is appearing on the said missing report (Exh.36) we have reason to ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 65 reject such claim.No doubt true, missing report though it is styled as 'oral report' (Exh.36) is dated 7.2.2012, on perusal of the original, it is revealed to us that on left hand margin portion of the said document, there is a Station Diary Entry having No.20/2012 and it is dated 8.2.2012 at 13.30 hours.In view of the said entry, the Court will have to put reliance on entry No. 20/2012 dated 8.2.2012 rather than oral version of PW 1 in that behalf.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Be that as it may, Shankar (PW 1) is very clear that at the time of lodging of report Exh.36, PW 5 Jayawanta accompanied him.Even Jayawanta (PW 5) has corroborated the said fact.Thus, either on 7.2.2012 or on 8.2.2012, Jayawanta (PW 5) was present in Police Station, Washim (city) and in his presence, PW 1-Shankar has lodged his missing report.Had really Jayawanta told or disclosed the fact to Shankar (PW 1) that he has left Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel on 5.2.2012 in between 7.30 and 7.45 p.m. and/or he received a phone call from Vishwanath at ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 66 9.10 p.m., the said aspect would not have missed by Shankar while narrating his missing report or at the time of lodging of report (Exh36).The said fact would have been revealed by Jayawanta (PW 5) to the police authorities at Washim (city) as it was the first opportunity that was available to Jayawanta to report such an important fact that he has dropped deceased Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel and at 9.10 p.m. he received call from Vishwanath.The silence on the part of PW 5 -Jayawanta in the Police Station on such vital aspect at the time of recording of missing report (Exh.36) creates a serious doubt about the claim of Jayawanta, that he had reached Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel and/or he received a phone call from Vishwanath at 9.10 p.m.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::The claim of Jayawanta that he received a phone call from Vishwanath on 5.2.2012 at 9.10 p.m. could have been easily established by proving the CDR reports.For the reasons best known to the I.O. and the prosecution, nothing sort of that was done.On the minute and closer scrutiny of the entire prosecution case, it shows that following telephonic calls were ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 67 materialised or not, if the prosecution case is to be believed in that behalf.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::(i) A telephone call from deceased-Vishwanath to PW 5-(This call was not materialised).(ii) A telephone call from deceased-Vishwanath to PW(This call was materialised).(iii) A call on the cellphone of deceased-Vishwanath by his son PW 1- Shankar on 5.2.2012 from 9.00 p.m. (This phone call was not materialised).Though PW 5- Jayawanta Lahane, has claimed that he received phone call from deceased-Vishwanath while he was on his motorcycle, his evidence does not reflect the number of his ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 68 cellphone.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::By first phone call that was materialised, if the evidence of PW 5- Jayawanta is to be believed, was made by deceased-Vishwanath to him after the marriage ceremony at Swagat Lawn was over.The claim of PW 5- Jayawanta is that he received phone call from deceased-Vishwanath when he was proceeding on his motorcycle along with his wife for his room.Since the phone call he received while he was on motorcycle, obviously, the said phone call must have received by him on his cellphone.By the said phone call, according to the prosecution case, a request was made by the deceased to drop him to the house of Ramesh (prisoner) and accordingly, Jayawanta (PW 5) has dropped deceased-Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel between 7.30 and 7.45 pm.If the evidence of the prosecution witness Jayawanta is to be believed, he received phone call from Vishwanath (deceased) at 9.10 p.m. requesting him to come near ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 69 Chintamani Hotel for taking him from the said place.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::The reference to the third phone call is in the missing report (Exh.36) lodged by PW 1-Shankar.It is stated in the said report that that on 5.2.2012 in the night when all other villagers returned from the marriage except his father, he tried to make a phone call to his father Vishwanath from 9.00 p.m. however it was switched off.In order to have corroboration in respect of the afore-mentioned phone calls, the I.O. could have investigated in that direction.No CDRs are produced on record.Though CDRs would have been only corroborative in nature but, according to us, it was a vital coupling to complete the chain to the extent of proving the fact conclusively that phone calls were made by deceased- Vishwanath to PW 5-Jayawanta and in pursuance to the aid phone call, Jayawanta has dropped deceased-Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel.Except for this phone call, there was no other occasion for Jayawanta to know about the intention of deceased Vishwanath to go to the house of ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 70 Ramesh (prisoner).In that view of the matter, the corroboration to the claim of PW 5-Jayawanta about the phone call was must.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Further, it is to be noted that it is the claim of PW 5-Jayawanta that he received phone call from deceased-Vishwanath at 9.10 p.m. on 5.2.2012 requesting him to take from the place -Chintamani Hotel.However, according to the version of PW 1-Shankar and the recitals in document Exh. 36 (missing report), the phone of Vishwanath was giving signal of being switched off from 9.00 p.m. Therefore, the production of CDRs of the calls allegedly made by Vishwanath to PW 5-Jayawanta would have had a great corroborative valuePW 5-Jayawanta has not stated in his evidence that after the phone call to him by deceased-Vishwanath at 9.10 pm, he made a phone call to deceased Vishwanath after half- an-hour.If the evidence of PW 1- Shanakr is seen, he claims that on 6.2.2012 PW 5-Jayawanta informed him that after receipt of the phone call from his father at 9.10 p.m, requesting him to take him from the place near Chintamani Hotel and he showed his unreadiness to go there and, thereafter, Jayawanta made a phone call to deceased Vishwanath after half-an-hour but it was ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 71 found to be switched off.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Leave aside as to whether this part which is appearing in the evidence of PW 1-Shankar is admissible or not, on its own evaluation, the claim made by Jayawanta that he made phone call to deceased Vishwanath after half- an- hour at 9.10 p.m, as suggested by PW 1 Shankar in his evidence, appears to be unnatural one; because, once Jayawanta refused to oblige the request of deceased-Vishwanath to take him from Chintamani Hotel in pursuance to the phone call at 9.10 p.m. and when Jayawanta disconnected the said phone call, there was no reason for Jayawanta to make a phone call to Vishwanath after half-an-The evidence of PW 1-Shankar is completely silent as to what prompted Jayawanta to make a phone call after half- an-He was in jail for three months in respect of the present crime.Ultimately, he was discharged by police on the basis of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the discharge application moved by the I.O. The ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 72 police statement of PW 5-Jayawanta is recorded only after his discharge from the present crime.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::In view of the non-disclosure of the fact that he has left deceased Vishwanath near Chintamani Hotel on 5.2.2012 or he received the phone call of 9.10 p.m. on 5.2.2012 at the first opportunity which was available to him right in Washim Police Station (city ) and that his police statement was recorded belatedly after a period of three months, there is absolutely no doubt in our mind to reject his claim.Exh.36-the missing report is completely silent about the fact that on 7.2.2012 PW 1-Shankar had been in the vicinity of Dattanagar and he has shown the photograph to the neighbours as claimed by him in his evidence.The first information report is lodged by PW1- Shankar on 12.2.2012 after the identification of the dead body.It is at Exh.The relevant portion from the first information report in that behalf is reproduced hereinunder:::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::conf.1.14.odt 73 " िदनांक ७.२.२०१२ रोजी मी माझे विडलाचचा शोध घेणयास ं ाबराव लहाने, जयवत सोबत पज ं लहाने, जयदेव लहाने, बाबुराव पडघम, अिनल गोरी, दता लहाने असे वाशीम येथे आले व िचंतामणी हॉटेल चे मागे रमेश लहाने याचे घरी गेलो असता, तयाचे घर बद ं होते.आजूबाजूचया लोकांना मी माझया विडलाचा फोटो दाखवून हे इथे आले होते काय अशी िवचारपूस केली असता, तया लोकांनी सांिगतले की या फोटो मधील इसम िदनांक ५.२.२०१२ चया राती रमेश लहानेचया घरी आले होते व ते तयाचे घरन घरन पळू न जात असता रमेश लहाने हाने तयांना धरन घरात आणत होता, असे शेजारचया लोकांनी सांिगतले."Insofar as the claim made in the FIR that it was disclosed to Shankar by neighbours that deceased- Vishwanath was trying to run away and that time Ramesh (prisoner) hold him and brought to his house, is not at all supported by PW 2- Pankaj and PW 3- Sagar Khillare.Further, the I.O. has stated that he has recorded the statement of neighbours.However, none of such neighbors was examined by the prosecution to prove the fact of running Vishwanath and he being dragged inside the house.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::However, neither Jagan was examined as prosecution witness nor his police statement was recorded.P.P. for the State as well as the learned trial Judge, is the discoveries made by the prisoner-Ramesh while he was in police custody.According to Namdeo Rathod (PW 10), the Investigating Officer, Ramesh (prisoner), was arrested on 12.2.2012 at 22:31 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 75 hours under arrest Panchnama (Exh.91).The I.O. produced him before the learned Magistrate and obtained his police custody remand.According to the prosecution, on two occasions, prisoner -::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Ramesh made disclosure statement , namely, on (a) 16.2.2012;and (b) 23.2.2012According to the prosecution when prisoner was in police custody, on 16.2.2012 he made a disclosure statement u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in presence of Panchas (1) Vishal Wankhede, and (2) Prakash Ananda Kamble (PW 8).From the admissible portion, it is clear that he agreed to show (1) the place of his house wherein he has concealed the half-filled liquor bottle; (2) the blood-stained clothes concealed in his house ; and (3) the place where deceased- Vishwanath was beheaded.It is the case of the prosecution that in pursuance to the said memorandum statement dated 16.2.2012, Ramesh led the police party upto his house and showed the rack in the kitchen meant for keeping household utensils and from there half-filled country liquor bottle was found.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::conf.1.14.odt 76 It is further case of the prosecution that thereafter he came out of his house, went in the tinshed adjacent to his house and from there he took full-pant beneath a sack.Further, according to the prosecution, thereafter, prisoner- Ramesh led the police party and took them to the agricultural field of Uttam Gore and showed the place where deceased Vishwanath was beheaded.Let us examine and evaluate this aspect.That time PW 1 Shankar and others were also present and in their presence the dead body was fished out from the well.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::The I.O. seized those articles.Exh.56 shows that those articles /things were ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 78 seized from the agricultural field of one Uttam Gore.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Exh.56 shows the further recovery of the human black and white hair and human jaw disfigured by wild animals and also three teeth.These articles were also seized under the said document Exh. 56 and the place of these articles was in the agricultural field of one Shyamrao Gore.The recitals of Exh.56 are duly corroborated through the evidence of prosecution witness no.7- Raju Choudhari, Handler of the Dog, Panch witness Gulab Bakal (PW6) and also by the I.O. Namdeo Rathod (PW 10).Now as per the memorandum statement of Ramesh dated 16.2.2012 (Exh. 66) he agreed to show the place wherein Vishwanath was beheaded.According to the prosecution, in pursuance to the same, he took police party in the agricultural field of Uttam Gore and showed the place.The Panchnama of the same is at Exha.67. Exh.67 which shows that Ramesh took the police party to a place wherein it was noticed that at the said place some digging was there and ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 79 presence of burnt ash and burnt fodder.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::The learned Addl.P.P. has heavily relied upon the conduct of prisoner-Ramesh to show the said place in order to connect him with the crime.On the said date from the very same place which was shown by Ramesh, they had seized the articles as mentioned in the preceding paragraph as per the Seizure Panchnama (Exh.56).The place which was also in know of the I.O., therefore, even the subsequent conduct of prisoner-Ramesh showing the very same place, in our considered view, has no value in the eye of law.Insofar as liquor bottle is concerned, it appears from the prosecution case through PW 3 -Sagar that Ramesh is habituated to drinking.If a person is habituated to drinking then noticing the liquor bottle in his house cannot be termed as an ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 80 incriminating circumstance.Further, on 16.2.2012 wife of the prisoner-Ramesh was not arrested.From the evidence of PW 8-::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Prakash Kamable, the Panch, it does not appear that when they reached to the house of Ramesh, the house was closed.It will be useful to reproduce the relevant portion appearing in the evidence of PW 8-Prakash Kamble, the Panch, as under :ं र पोिलस जीपमधये बसलो.आरोपी रमेशने आमहाला तयाचे "तयानत घर दाखिवले, हाताचया इशायााने .आमही सवा तयाचा घरात गेलो."Insofar as the recovery of clothes is concerned, Exh.67 the Recovery Panchanma recites as under :ं र आरोपी घराबाहेर येऊन घराला पििचम बाजूस लागून "तयानत असलेलया पूवा मुखी वर टीन पतयाचे शेड असलेलया कोठामधून पोतयाची खाली लपिवलेले फुल पयांट काढू न िदला."From the above, it is absolutely clear that full-pant ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 81 was recovered from the tinshed which was not a closed place and was accessible to anybody.Therefore, we are not ready to place any reliance on such recovery at the instance of Ramesh, especially when such recovery is shown to be made from a place which was not in exclusive control and domain of Ramesh.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::In that view of the matter, according to our considered view, for the aforesaid evaluation, the recoveries and showing of the place by prisoner Ramesh must go and are of no use to the prosecution.The admissible portion of said memorandum statement shows that on 23.2.2010 Ramesh agreed to show the place wherein Vishwanath was killed and to show the place wherein he has concealed the shirt, his cycle and weapon- knife and mobile of deceased Vishwanath.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::According to the prosecution, in pursuance to the memorandum statement dated 23.2.2012, Ramesh led the police party again to his house and then shown the place which was a peg on the wall on which the shirt was hanging.Further, Ramesh took the police party to the adjacent tinshed and shown the cycle.Further, he took the police party to a fallow land in front of Chintamani Hotel and from there, from a crack, near one Babhli shrub, he took out the weapon knife and mobile phone.Further, he took police party to the agricultural field of Shyamrao Gore and the well where he threw the dead body.All these are recorded in Recovery Panchnama Exh.The recovery at the instance of Ramesh in respect of shirt and cycle must go and it cannot stand to the scrutiny of ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 83 law for a minute.On 16.2.2012 the police along with Ramesh had been to his house.They entered the house of Ramesh.The I.O. must have searched the house that time and still the prosecution wants to impress upon us that we must believe the fact that on 23.2.2012 the shirt was still hanging on a peg which was having bloodstains.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Further, on 16.2.2012 Ramesh along with the police party had been to the tinshed in order to recover the full-pant.Therefore, these two places were already in know of the police.In that view of the matter, we have no other reason but to observe that these two recoveries appear to have been shown just to suit the prosecution case and accordingly they are rejected.Insofar as the recovery of knife and mobile phone is concerned, Exh.70 clearly shows that it was made from the open place.Further, without there being any identification from any of the prosecution witnesses, including the son and widow of deceased Vishwanath, as to whether the cellphone seized belongs to Vishwanath (deceased), the prosecution wants us to ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 84 believe that the said was belonging to deceased Vishwanath.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Insofar as the place where the deceased was killed, as per memorandum statement, is the house of Ramesh himself and also the agricultural field of Uttam Gore and Shyamrao Gore which was already visited by the I.O. along with his police party prior to the date of the drawing of Panchnama (Exh. 70).On that count also, the same has no evidentiary value though the learned Addl.P.P. insists that the same be relied, in support of prosecution case .There is another reason for disbelieving the recoveries from the house of prisoner-Ramesh.According to the evidence of PW 1-Shankar and PW 5-Jayawanta, on 7.2.2012 when the missing report (Exh.36) was lodged, Ramesh along his wife were called in the Police Station for enquiry.The evidence of PW 5-Jayawanta corroborates the version of PW 1 Shankar that Ramesh and his wife were in police station and only after enquiry they were set free.Thus, it is clear that it must be in the mind of prisoner-Ramesh that there is a suspicion on him in respect of death of Vishwanath.If that be so, the natural ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 85 conduct of any person will be to dispose of any incriminating material and/or article from his house rather than preserving them till 16.2.2012 and 23.2.2012 to show to the police party.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::PW 8-Prakash Kamble, the panch witness, is examined by the prosecution to show that in his presence, prisoner-Ramesh has made his two disclosure statements.The possibility of Prakash Kamble under the thumb and influence of the I.O. cannot be ruled out in view of the following portion appearing in the evidence of I.O :-"Prakash Kamble resides near the Police Station.Therefore, we used to call as him as Panch.".Aforementioned discussion leads us to record a specific finding that the so called recoveries and the subsequent conduct of Ramesh in pursuance to the disclosure statement has no value in the eye of law and, accordingly, the contention in that regard is also rejected.(C) MOTIVE:The last part in the prosecution case is in respect of ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 86 the motive.According to the evidence appearing, the agricultural fields of Vishwanath (deceased) and Ramesh (prisoner) are adjacent to each other.According to the prosecution, the motive to kill deceased Vishwanath is the encroachment made by Ramesh on the agricultural field of deceased -Vishwanath.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::According to the prosecution, Ramesh has made encroachment over the agricultural field of deceased to the extent of 10 gunthas.PW 1-Shankar states that there was a dispute on that count between his father and Ramesh.Shankar's evidence would reveal that his father lodged a complaint with Chairman, Dispute Redressal Committee of Karanji.It shows that it was lodged by Jijeba Lahane i.e father of deceased.Both the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned Judge of the trial Court have relied heavily on the recitals of these two documents to show that there was motive on the part of Ramesh to finish him.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::conf.1.14.odt 87 It will be pertinent to note that at the time of recording of the evidence of Shankar in whose evidence these two documents were exhibited as Exhs. 34 and 35, the learned Judge has specifically recorded that these documents are exhibited to the extent of signatures.Therefore, it is clear that the contents of these documents remained to be proved.Further, according to the PW 1-Shankar, Ramesh always used to extend threats of murder to his father.There is not a single complaint or report lodged by deceased-Vishwanath during his lifetime with police authorities in respect of the threats extended to him by Ramesh (prisoner).Further, the police report (Exh.35) made to Police Station Officer, Shrirpur is dated 13.10.1988, that is, much prior to the date of the incident.Further, the said report was also not lodged by deceased-Vishwanath, but by his father.According to PW 5-Jayawanta at Washim deceased Vishwanath told him that he wants to dispose of his agricultural field and, therefore, he wants to go to the house of Rmesh (prisoner).There is a faint corroboration in respect of ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 ::: conf.1.14.odt 88 willingness of Vishwanath to sell the property which appears in the evidence of PW 4-Shobhabai, the widow.According to her evidence, deceased was asked by Ramesh to visit the house at Washim PW 1-Shankar is the only son of Vishwanath.He is fully grown person.Therefore, if deceased-Vishwanath was intending to go to the house of Ramesh in respect of sale transaction, normally, it would have been disclosed by Vishwanath to Shankar.The evidence of PW 1 Shankar is completely silent about the said fact that his father intended to go to the house of Ramesh in respect of the sale transaction.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:34 :::Further, according to PW 1-Shankar and PW 4-Shobhabai there was a dispute in respect of the agricultural field amongst deceased Vishwanath and Ramesh.The first information report lodged by Shankar (Exh. 37) speaks otherwise, as can be seen from the relevant portion appearing in the said report, as under :"मागील दोन तीन वषाात तयाचे िवरद िशरपूर पोिलस सटेशनला माझे विडलांनी दोन तीन वेळा तकार केली होती व एक अजा तट ं ा ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:35 ::: conf.1.14.odt 89 मुकी केद याचया कडे देऊन आपसात िमठिवले होते."::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:35 :::The aforesaid contents from the first information report, thus, clearly shows that the dispute was already settled.As observed in the preceding paragraph, though it is mentioned in the first information report that on 2/3 occasions Vishwanath lodged the police complaint, no such complaint is filed on record by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:35 :::conf.1.14.odt 91 CONCLUSIONS:The prosecution case was fully based on the circumstances only.There was no eye witness account.Therefore, the prosecution was obliged to prove the circumstances on which the prosecution was relying to establish fully so that conclusion of guilt can be drawn.The facts so established in the present prosecution case is not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of Ramesh, according to us, the chain of the evidence is not complete.The chain of circumstances is broken at various places.Vital couplings in the chain are missing.However, suspicion cannot take place of proof.In the result, we are of the view that the conviction of the prisoner-Ramesh cannot be sustained only on the basis of suspicion and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:35 :::conf.1.14.odt 92 The appellant-Ramesh Jijeba Lahane be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case.The fine amount if any paid, be refunded to him.::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2014 23:47:35 :::

['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.

According to him, on 11.03.2020, the third respondent Police seized the bullock cart and registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 379 2/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.15204 of 2020 I.P.C., read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957, alleging that the petitioner has transported river sand in his bullock cart.According to him, ever since the seizure, the said bullock cart is still in the custody of the third respondent Police.It is also the contention of the petitioner that the bullock cart has also not been produced by the third respondent Police before the concerned Jurisdictional Court.According to him, the seized bullock cart is kept idle in the Police Station premises in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature, resulting in the bullock cart depreciating in value.3/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.15204 of 2020Admittedly, the bullock cart was seized by the third respondent on 11.03.2020 and a case has been registered in Crime No.25 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C., read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957, alleging that the petitioner has transported river sand in his bullock cart.Admittedly, the bullock cart is now in the Police Station premises and kept in the open place and exposed to the vagaries of nature and has also not been produced before the Jurisdictional Court.03.11.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No tsg Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.1.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mines Department, Thanjavur District.tsg W.P.(MD)No.15204 of 2020 03.11.2020 7/7http://www.judis.nic.inA.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents.By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.3. Heard Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.According to the petitioner, he gave a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 on 16.10.2020 for releasing of the seized bullock cart back to him.According to him, the respondents 2 and 3 have failed to respond to the said representation.In such circumstances, he has filed this Writ Petition seeking for release of the seized bullock cart.(i)the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) in favour of the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(ii)the petitioner shall not use the bullock cart for any illegal activities.(iii)before releasing the bullock cart, the police authority shall take photographs of the bullock cart at the cost of the petitioner.(iv)As and when the respondents call for the bullock cart for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the bullock cart in question and he shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.5/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.15204 of 2020Upon completion of the above mentioned formalities, the respondents shall release the bullock cart to the petitioner forthwith and without any delay.If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled for interim release of the bullock cart in the future.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.There shall be no order as to costs.2.The Sub-Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kallaperampur Police Station, Thanjavur District.6/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.15204 of 2020 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Parties are permitted to enter into compromise.This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') for quashing Criminal Case No.195/2014 pending before learned Special Judge, Vidisha for the offence under Section 354-A(1) and 509 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Special Act') on the basis of compromise.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have submitted the applications (I.A.No.3261/2015 and I.A.No.3262/2015) seeking permission to enter into compromise and also to compound the offence.The applications are supported with the affidavit.On 06-05-2015 parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of factum of compromise and as per the report submitted by Principal Registrar dated 06-05-2015 parties have compromised the matter voluntarily without any fear and force.The report of 2 MCRC.No.3594/2015 Principal Registrar is containing the statements of parties.Dispute in hand is emanated because of personal grievances which does not affect the society at large adversely.Since the complainant and petitioner have settled the dispute, therefore, dragging the petitioner to face the trial will be meaningless and it will consume the precious time of the Court and it will also amount to abuse of process of law.In the present case, challan has already been filed by the prosecution and matter is under trial before the trial Court.In view of the aforesaid, the applications (I.A.No.3261/2015 and I.A.No.3262/2015) stand allowed, consequently, the petition is also allowed.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The important witnesses in this case are P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 8,11 to 18, 20, 24 to 26, others being formal.According to the evidence of P.W 13 Anjali Das, wife of the victim Sushil Kumar Das @ Nanu, her husband came to their Station Road house in the morning of 10.04.1995 and after taking breakfast and marketing he left for his farmhouse at about 10.30 a.m. At about 3.00 a.m. Basu Oraon and Santosh, her labourers of Ata Mill in the house, called her and reported that she was being called by Chanchal.She opened the gate when Chanchal and his wife Gita (P.W. 14) who were crying informed that her husband on being assaulted by Sushil with an axe at about 9.30/10.00 p.m. was lying unconscious near the ring-well and that they were not allowed by Sushil to come out but they anyhow managed to come out.She called Sunil (P.W. 1) and Bappa (P.W. 12) who then proceeded to Tesimla in a scooter.On 11.04.1995 at about 10.00 a.m. she came to learn about death of her husband.About a month back her husband informed her that Krishna @ Kanchha would not be retained as he was in the evil company of Sushil and theft was being committed in tank fisheries.The above evidence is supported by P.W.1 Sunil Kumar Das (de facto complainant) and P.W. 12 Subrata Das @ Bappa, brother and son respectively of the victim.P.W.1 stated that on 10.4.1995 his elder brother Nanu Babu before leaving their residence at Station Road, Mal, for farmhouse asked him to go to the farmhouse at about 11.00 a.m. on 11.04.1995 as fish would be caught from his tank.At about 3.00 a.m. on the night between 10.4.1995 and 11.4.1995 Chanchal Sabar and his wife Gita (P.W. 14) came to the house, called him and reported in presence of P.Ws. 12 & 13 that Sushil Oraon had assaulted Nanu Babu with a tangi near ring-well inside the farm at about 8.30/9.00 p.m. on 10.4.1995, and on his query as to the reason for such delay in their arrival, Chanchal reported that Sushil had threatened him with dire consequences if he discloses the event and forbade him not to go out.He along with Subrata (P.W. 12) reached the farmhouse in a scooter, jumped the farm gate which was locked, found his elder brother's door shut and called his elder brother but there was no response.He then rushed to the ring-well but did not find anything.He asked the whereabouts of his elder brother from Kanchha but he expressed his ignorance.Night-meal was found covered in the room of the victim.He again went to the ring-well and found the spectacle of his elder brother.Subrata (P.W. 12) then went to Sushil's room, but on seeing him Sushil fled away.He unsuccessfully searched for his elder brother and then started for hospital and P.S., and on the way near Pampa Cinema Hall he found A.S.I. Ashis Chakraborty (P.W. 24) inside a patrol jeep.He narrated the incident to him and leaving the scooter he boarded the jeep and came to the farmhouse when Subrata (P.W. 12) informed that his father's deadbody was found out on the bank of a tank at a distance of about 160 metre from his residence.He found injuries on his head and his elder brother's wristwatch lying by the side of pillow on the cot in the room of accused Sushil.Deputing two constables at the P.O. he accompanied A.S.I. Ashis Babu to Mal P.S. and lodged an FIR (Ext-1).Being accompanied by O.C., Mal P.S. (P.W. 26) they reached the P.O. at about 4.30/5.00 a.m. when O.C. held inquest (Ext. 2/2) over the deadbody of the victim in presence of P.Ws. 1 & 12, seized his elder brother's spectacles (Mat Ext. I), a torchlight (Mat Ext. IV) and blood-stained earth under a seizure list (Ext. 3/1) and his wrist watch (Mat Ext. VII) from the room of accused Sushil under another seizure list (Ext. 4/2).With the help of photographer (P.W. 21) Ramesh Kumar Singh he took photographs (Ext. 9 series) of the ring-well along with blood-stained earth, spectacles, deadbody of the victim with wearing apparels and torch in hand.I.O. sent the deadbody through P.W. 22 constable Dal Bahadur Rai for PM examination.The villagers apprehended accused Sushil and brought him to the farmhouse at about 11.00 a.m. when Daroga Babu arrested him.Accused Chanchal and Krishna were also arrested on that date.More or less similar is the evidence of P.W. 12 who further deposed that his uncle (P.W. 1) was also in search of his father.He went to the ring-well side and thereafter to the room of the Sushil, who was lying, and on seeing him he became frightened, started trembling and passing urine.On his query regarding the whereabouts of his father, he did not tell anything.On being asked to go to the house of Chanchal, he proceeded and then fled away.He did not find his father in his room where the night-meal was kept.He advised his uncle to proceed to hospital and he (P.W. 1) then left the farm in a scooter.He rebuked Krishna @ Kanchha as to why he did not look after his father.On hearing shout that his father had been found out, he went there, found the deadbody of his father lying on the bank of the tank with severe bleeding injuries on his head.He also found his father's Allwyn black-dialed wristwatch (Mat Ext. VII) on the bed of Sushil.His uncle (P.W. 1) returned in a police jeep with a police officer Mr. Chakraborty (P.W. 24).Policemen then went to the bank of the tank and he narrated the event to police and his uncle.Deputing one policeman at the bank of the tank, his uncle left with other policemen in a jeep.Barababu Rabi Chakraborty (P.W. 26) came to the P.O., held inquest over the deadbody of his father, seized the blood-stained spectacles (Mat Ext. I) of his father from the ring-well side.Then police officer came to the room of Sushil and seized the wrist watch (Mat Ext. VII).The villagers brought Sushil who was fleeing way to the farm.Sushil confessed in presence of all of them that he killed his father with an axe.Sometimes theft of fish from tank fishery used to take place and they suspected Sushil, Kanchha and others as thieves.P. W. 24 A.S.I. Ashis Chakraborty during his patrol duty with two armed policemen in a jeep on the night between 10.04.1995 and 11.04.1995 while proceeding towards Neora at about 3.30/4.00 a.m. found Sunil (P.W. 1) coming in a scooter by the side of Pampa Cinema Hall and on his reporting that his brother was assaulted and he was in search of his brother at the hospital, he asked him to come to his jeep for proceeding to the P.O. P.W. 1 then kept his vehicle in front of a shop near Pampa Cinema Hall and they went to the P.O. at about 4.00 a.m., found an assembly of a number of persons.During search for Nanu Babu he came to find spectacles near a ring-well on being pointed out by Bappa (P.W. 12).In course of search, Krishna informed that Nanu Babu's deadbody could be found out near the bank of a tank, and accordingly he went there along with his force and found the deadbody of Nanu Babu in injured condition, injury being on the upper portion of his body and head.He asked P.W. 1 to proceed to P.S. to lodge an FIR.At about 4.30 a.m. P.W. 1 left for Mal P.S. and at about 5.15 a.m. O.C. R. N. Chakraborty (P.W. 26) along with P.W. 1 came to the farm compound when he narrated him the event that he witnessed.O.C. then started investigation and he left for the P.S. PW. 3 on coming to learn on 11.04.95 in the morning about murder of Nanu Babu by Sushil who was apprehended by village people, went to the farmhouse where Sushil confessed before him and others that he had murdered Nanu Babu with an axe.Similarly, P.W. 4 on coming to learn about murder of Nanu Babu caused by Sushil from Gula, Baskey (P.W. 15), Somra Oraon (P.W. 16) and others had been to the farmhouse, found the members of the public had apprehended Sushil, the deadbody of the victim with sharp-cut injury on head on the bank of a tank situated on plot Nos. 9 and 10 and the police to take away Sushil.P.W. 8 Anchala Mia who used to guard the tank of Nanu Babu, on hearing a hue and cry woke up and heard that Sushil had killed Nanu Babu, he saw Nanu Babu's deadbody in injured condition on the bank of the tank and police officer arrested him.P.W. 11 Bahamaya Baskey, cook of the victim, on being called by Bappa (P.W. 12) in the morning of 11.04.95, searched for Nanu Babu and found his deadbody on the bank of tank fisheries.Police came, arrested Sushil and took him to the P.S. Sushil disclosed that he would find out the axe.Similar is the evidence of P.W. 16 Somra Oraon (son of Chhantra Oraon), P.W. 17 Somra Oraon, son of late Kuar Oraon and P.W. 20 Abdul Latif (son of late Gamisuddin).It is the further evidence of P.W. 17 that the members of the public brought Sushil who confessed before them that he killed Nanu Babu.Police came and then arrested Sushil and took him to the P.S. P.W. 14 Gita Sabar who had been to the ring-well at about 9.30 p.m. to cleanse her hand after preparation of food, found Sushil and Krishna at the said well.to the farmhouse along with A.S.I. B.K. Singha (P.W. 25) and other police force, reached there at about 5.20 a.m., found the deadbody of the victim with a deep sharp-cut injury on the back side of his head near left ear, and brain matter came out, lying on the north-west bank of a tank, held inquest over the said deadbody in presence of P.Ws. 1, 12 and other witnesses.He was taken by Bappa @ Subrata to the ring-well side where he found a black framed blood-stained spectacles (Mat Ext. 1).From the bedroom of Sushil he seized a black dialed Allwyn wristwatch (Mat Ext. VII) on being identified by P.Ws. 1 & 12 under another seizure list (Ext. 4/2) and made over a copy of the same to the accused.He interrogated the accused and recorded his statement (Ext. 14), and pursuant to the said statement Sushil led him along with Gula Baskey (P.W. 15) and Somra Oraon (P.W. 16) to a bamboo bush by the side of a dried pond in the west of his house in search of axe.It was about 7.00 p.m. on 11.4.1995 and as the axe was not found, he returned to the P.S., again interrogated the accused and told that he would find it out in the daylight.In the next morning he led him to the same place in presence of those witnesses and at about 7.30 a.m. on 12.4.1995 Sushil brought out from a bamboo bush an axe with handle (Mat Ext. III) stained with blood which was seized by him in presence of those two witnesses under a seizure list (Ext. 15) and the same was duly labelled (Ext. 16).P.W. 18 Dr. Asit Kumar Ghosh, M.O. of Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital, on holding P.M. examination over the deadbody of the victim, being identified by P.W. 22 Dal Bahadur Rai on 11.4.1995 at about 12.30 p.m. found rigor mortis present and four injuries viz. (1) 5" x 21/2 x 5" deep with sharp-cut margin transverse in position over the right eye with laceration and collapse of right eyeball and fracture of the underlying bone and sharp-cut over the roof of the nasal bone and right lateral end of frontal bone just lateral to the right eye, (2)2" x W with fracture of underlying bone and with lacerated margin over the left side of the head 2" above the hair line vertically placed with exposure and loss of brain matter, (3)3" x 2" x bone deep with loss of brain matter and lacerated margin just left lateral area of injury No. 2 vertically placed, dissection shows fracture of bones of skull and (4) 2" x 2"x W with lacerated margin bone deep wound over the left side of head 2" above the left ear transverse in position, clotted blood present all over the head, stomach contains blood, and opined that the death was due to effect of shock and haemorrhage following abovenoted injuries, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.It is his further opinion that injury No. 1 may be caused by sharp-cutting weapon like axe (Mat Ext. III and other injuries may be caused by blunt and heavy weapon like the back portion of the axe.P.W. 19 Sri Haridas Maitra, Senior Scientific Officer-in-Charge, R.F.S.L., Jalpaiguri examined the contents of all the seven exhibits and sent a portion of each of such exhibits to the Serologist, Government of India, Calcutta, got the report of Serologist and thereafter prepared his report (Ext. 7).According to his report (Ext. 7), blood was detected on all the seven exhibits.Hair collected from sweater and axe were morphologically found to be similar and being of human head origin.Blood soaked in a piece of gauze (item 28), earth (item 29), earth (item 30), sweater (cuttings) (item 32) & lungi (cuttings) (item 33) are stained with human blood and item No. 28 is stained with '0' group blood.JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the de fecto complainant's elder brother Sushil Kumar Das @ Nanu, aged about 72 years, used to reside in his farmhouse at Tesimla.On receipt of an information on 11.04.1995 at about 3.00 a.m. from Chanchal Sabar, an employee of the said farmhouse, that another employee Sushil Oraon assaulted his elder brother with an axe on his head on the last night at about 9.00 p.m., the de facto complainant (P.W.1) with his youngest nephew Subrata Das (P.W. 12) immediately rushed to the farmhouse.On their call Sushil Oraon fled away but they found the wrist watch of his elder brother on the bed of his room and after thorough search they could find the deadbody of his elder brother with bleeding injuries on head on the southern end of a tank.Hence, while accused Sushil Oraon was charged under Section 302/201, IPC, other two accused persons were charged under Section 201, IPC.The defence case, as suggested to PWs.and as contended by the accused persons during their examination under Section 313, Cr. PC, is that no such incident took place.Accused Sushil did not bring out any axe from the bush near the tank called Majapukur nor any wrist watch was found from the side of his bed.Accused Sushil has been falsely implicated in this case.5. 26 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record, the learned Court below acquitted accused Chanchal Sabar and Krishna Chettri @ Kanchha of the charge under Section 201, IPC (wrongly added Section 302 also) but found accused Sushil Oraon guilty under Section 302/201, IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and RI for two years respectively.On being declared hostile she admitted her statement to the I.O. that on 10.04.1995 at about 9.30 p.m. while she went out to answer nature's call Nanu Babu was inspecting the well (place for storing fish) with a torchlight, her husband Chanchal was then drawing water from the ring-well, then all on a sudden Sushil came out with a tangi and struck the same on the head of Nanu Babu, for which he fell down and thereafter Sushil struck 2/3 blows, that she shouted out of fear but Sushil asked her husband not to tell anybody, that later she being accompanied by her husband came to Mal by walking along the side of a stream and finding nobody in the P. S., they went to the residence of Nanu Babu at the Station Road and reported the matter to his wife (P.W. 13).She was forwarded before the Magistrate for recording her statement and she stated to the Magistrate what she knew.P.W. 26 S.I. R.N. Chakraborty on the basis of an FIR (Ext.1) lodged by P.W. 1 at about 4.50 hrs.on 11.4.1995, registered Mat P.S. case No. 51/95 dated 11.4.95 under Section 302/201, IPC against accused Sushii Oraon, proceeded at about 5.05 hrs.On 11.4.1995 the wearing apparels of the victim and post-mortem blood being produced by P.W. 22 Dal Bahadur Rai, he seized the same under a seizure list (Ext. 11/1).On 13.4.95 in the morning P.W.14 Gita Sabar came to the P.S. and stated to him that at about 9.30 p.m. on Monday while she came out to attend nature's call and Babu (Nanu Babu) was seeing something in the ring-well with the help of his torch light and her husband was fetching water from the said well, all on a sudden Sushii Oraon came with a tangi and struck on the head of Nanu Babu from behind and after Babu fell down 2/3 more blows were inflicted, and out of fear when she raised a hue and cry, Sushil asked her husband not to tell anything to anybody, that later she and her husband came to Mal along the side of the river, and seeing nobody in front of the P. S., she and her husband came to the house of Nanu Babu at Station Road and narrated the matter to the wife of the deceased.He recorded the said statement and made a prayer before the S.D.J.M., Jalpaiguri for recording her statement under Section 164, Cr.PC, and her statement was accordingly recorded.Blood stains on spectacles (item 31) and axe (item 34) are disintegrated and their origin could not be determined.Blood group in respect of items 29, 30, 32 and 33 were not sufficient for test.P.W. 7 Niranjan Saha was simply tendered for cross-examination.As per evidence of P.W. 9 Ashis Biswas, Assistant Engineer at Chalsa, from 8.40 a.m. to 9.25 p.m. on 10.04.1995 there was loadsheding at Mal, Metelli, Balabari.P.W. 5, Financial Advisor of West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation at Netaji Indoor Stadium, Calcutta had been to Malbazar Tourist Lodge with family for inspection of the lodge on 9.4.95, went to the farm of Nanu Babu on 10.4.1995 to have a discussion for promotion of tourism in the jheel of Nanu Babu, invited Nanu Babu to Garumara forest but he did not stay at night as there was a possibility of theft of fish from his tank and so he left Garumara on the night of 10.4.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. P.W. 6 Samir Ghosh Barman at Malbazar Tourist Lodge, brought back the victim from Garumara forest to his farm gate at about 9.30 p.m., but according to the evidence of P.W. 10 Manik Das, driver, they dropped Nanu Babu at his farm at about 9.00 p.m.A glance to the above would reveal that the present case rests on direct as also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence being that of P.W. 14, sole eyewitness and circumstances being three-fold, viz. (i) abscondence of the accused immediately after the occurrence, (ii) recovery of wristwatch from the bed of the accused and (iii) recovery of weapon of offence in pursuance of the statement of the accused and being led by him.As regards the direct evidence, though P.W. 14 was declared hostile, ultimately she admitted her earlier statement to the I.O. in her cross-examination by prosecution and the fact of recording her statement by a Magistrate.Mr. Kazi Safiullah, learned Public Prosecutor relying on the case of Dagdu v. State of M.P. reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1511 contended that since the said witness cannot be permitted to get out of her admission, it must cast reflection on the evidence relating to the occurrence in full measure which appears to be appreciable.That on 10.4.1995 at about 9.30 p.m. when she went out to attend nature's call, Nanu Babu was inspecting the well with a torch light and her husband Chanchal was lifting water from the ring-well, all on a sudden Sushil came out with a tangi and struck the same on the head of Nanu Babu, for which he fell down when Sushil gave 2/3 further blows, that she shouted out of fear and Sushil asked her husband not to divulge it to anybody, that she along with her husband reported the matter to the wife (P.M. 13) of the victim, as deposed by P.W. 14, there is no denial of it in her cross-examination.The above evidence relating to reporting the matter to the wife of ten victim is supported by P.Ws.1,12,13 and it is the specific evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 12 that on getting the information from Chanchal and his wife Gita (P.W.14) at about 3.00 a.m. about assault by accused Sushil on the victim with an axe near the ring-well on the night of 10.4.1995 at about 9/9.30 p.m., they left for the farm and could trace out the deadbody of the victim with severe bleeding injury on his head, lying on the bank of a tank.The number of blows inflicted on the victim with the weapon of offence is also quite in harmony with the medical evidence of P.W. 18 who found four injuries on head, one being sharp-cut and the balance caused by blunt and heavy weapon i.e. back side of axe, as opined by the said P.W. 18, FIR was lodged immediately at about 4.50 hrs.on 11.4.1995 itself.Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the appellant, on referring the case of Sunil Kumar v.. State of NCT of Delhi reported in A.I.C.L.R. 2003(4) 872 and earlier statement of P.W. 14 recorded under Section 164, Cr. PC (Ext. 12/1) contended that the above evidence of P.W. 14 that the victim was inspecting the well is contradictory to her statement under Section 164, Cr. PC, where she stated that the victim was drawing water from the well.Mr. Bhattacharya further contended that since no name of Chanchal's wife has been borne out in the FIR and as P.W. 14 is the solitary alleged eye-witness, much importance should not be attached to her testimony.In this case, in addition to the discussion made above, no animus of P.W. 14 against the accused having been made out, it improbabilises the hypothesis of her false implication of the accused.We are persuaded that P.W. 14 is a witness for truth and her evidence is buttressed not only by medical testimony but also other circumstances on record.In regard to the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that as there was loadsheding at the relevant time, as is evident from the evidence of P.W. 9, the possibility of identification of the assailant on the part of P.W. 14 was remote, considering the overall evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 26 and the statement of P.W. 14 under Section 164, Cr.PC (Ext. 12/1), it appears that the incident took place sometime after 9.30 p.m. The loadsheding, as disclosed in the evidence of P.W. 9, continued upto 9.25 p.m., and so the existence of light at the time of commission of the crime cannot be ruled out.The accused not only assaulted the victim but also threatened Chanchal not to divulge the incident to anybody when P.W. 14 shouted.So, in the above circumstances, even if there would have been no electric light, it would cause no difficulty on the part of P.W. 14 to identify the offender as he was well known to her and the incident took place at a close proximity.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed off.It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of granting bail and theNajeeb 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2020 01:01:18 ::: ABA-313-2019.doc same shall not in any way influence the trial in other proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2020 01:01:18 :::All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.(SANDEEP.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2020 01:01:18 :::

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 9/9/2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in SCART No.29/19; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Virendra @ Veeru Baghel under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.98/2019 registered at P.S. Kindrai, District Seoni (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(n) of IPC & Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(2), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities)A s per the prosecution case, on 17/6/2019, applicant abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor, on the pretext of marriage and took her somewhere in Gujrat, where he kept her and sexually exploited her.On that report, police registered Crime No.98/19 for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the IPC.During investigation on 26/6/2019 police arrested the appellant.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence.It is further submitted that the statement of prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial Court.She did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile.Charge-sheet has been filed.The appellant is in custody since 26/6/2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.It is Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 26/11/2019 11:33:48 2 CRA-8409-2019 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 surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.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 trial;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 shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6 .The appellant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 26/11/2019 11:33:48

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

No.1/State.None for the respondent No.2 though served.This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR registered by Police Station Chinor, District Gwalior in Crime No.27/2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of IPC.Before considering the facts of the case, it would be essential to take note of certain developments which had taken place during the pendency of this petition.In view of this reply filed by the State, this Court by order dated 16.12.2016 directed the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer on 21.12.2016 and on all dates fixed thereafter, before the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate with him in the investigation.The applicant has filed certain documents thereafter, to M.Cr.Accordingly, the petition is heard on merits.The facts necessary for the disposal of the present application in short are that the complainant Chhotelal lodged a report in Police Station Chinor, District Gwalior, alleging that he is the owner of certain land situated in Village Bhori and co-accused Ramvilas Goswami prepared a forged power of attorney in his name allegedly executed by Chhotelal in his favor and, thereafter, on the basis of the said forged power of attorney the co-accused executed the sale-deed in favor of son of Ramvilas Goswami by affixing the photographs of the complainant.On the basis of written report of the complainant Chhotelal, the police registered the FIR in Crime No.27/2012 for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of IPC.It was the contention of the complainant that on 08.07.2011, the co-accused Ramvilas Goswami got a forged power of attorney in his favor allegedly executed by the complainant.It was alleged that the co-accused Vijay Singh had impersonated as complainant.Hari Om Sharma and Rampuri had signed the forged power of M.Cr.C. No.5819/2012 3 attorney as witnesses.On the basis of this power of attorney, on 23.11.2011 by affixing the photographs of the complainant, the co-accused Ramvilas Goswami executed the sale-deed in favor of Vijay Singh and his son Rampuri.Hari Om Sharma and Rajendra Sharma had signed the sale-deed as witnesses.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT S.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard and also perused the materials on record.This petition has been brought for quashing the written report registered at case crime No. 39 of 2005 under Section 302/201 Police Station Utraon, Allahabad.It :.said that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and merely on confessional statement of the co-accused his involvement in the aforesaid offence cannot be construed, more so when the complainant Chhotey LaL, his wife Shivkali, Mahendra Kumar alias Naate, the nephew of the deceased have"already filed their affidavits denying involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid offence.In order to facilitate the disposal of this petition, a brief resume of, the facts may be made.Complainant Chhotey Lal lodged a written report at police station Utraon district Allahabad at crime No. 39 of 2005 under Section 302/201 I.P.C, contending that his son Kallu (how deceased) and Sri Suresh Pasi were doing mazdoori and there were some differences in between them on payment of wages.Suresh Pasi threatened him that either he should settle the accounts otherwise he would be killed.On 13.5.2005 at about 8.00 p.m. Suresh Pasi came at the house of the complainant and told his son that one person is waiting for him there at MORI.Suresh Pasi himself fetched the son of the complainant on cycle.Thereafter he did not return.Rigorous search was made by the complainant and came to know , that one dead body was lying near the brick kiln of Laala.Nobody is named in the F.I.R. However, in the course of investigation, as would appear from the Counter Affidavit filed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, on behalf of the State, Sanjai Chamar was arrested by the police and he made disclosure of the incident.In his statement recorded at parcha No. 7 on 25.5.2005, he narrated that "Santlal @ Pattar (petitioner) was having illicit relation with the sister of Kallu later on married with other person despite resistance made by the petitioner.He was also harbouring ill will with him.Both - Sanjai Chamar and Sant LaL @ Pattar, petitioner decided to finish Kallu.They have brutally chopped off his head, legs and hands.On the pointing out of Sanjai Chamar, recovery of head of the .deceased was made.Suffice is to mention that Sanjai Chamar has categorically stated about the active participation of the petitioner in the aforesaid killing and on the pointing out of the accomplice, head of the deceased was recovered.

['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the objector.This is first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.164/15, Police station Kareli, District Narsinghpur, offences registered under sections 376 and 506-B of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per contents of the FIR, the prosecutrix, aged 19 years, was a consenting party of the alleged incident because as per her statement, the applicant accused committed sex with her on 22.12.2014 but no report was lodged.Thereafter, he had sex with her frequently time to time and lastly, the report was lodged on 5.4.2015 i.e. after 4 months.Counsel further pleads that in the said circumstances, offence under section 376 of the IPC is not made out against the applicant-accused.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for grant of bail.Learned PL and the counsel for the objector opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant have prayed for rejection of the bail application stating that the consent of the prosecutrix is immaterial because the applicant accused played fraud with the prosecutrix and promised to marry her but he did not do so.Hence, the application filed by the applicant accused be dismissed.Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the case diary.Indisputably the age of the prosecutrix was 19 years when the alleged incident took place with her.Thereafter, he repeatedly committed sex with the prosecutrix time to time but no report was lodged.The FIR was lodged after four months.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and it is ordered that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.C. stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andpassed in M.Cr.C.No.9529/2020 with a liberty to repeat the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.30256/2020 (Jitendra alias Bagula Vs.The State of M.P.) same after recording of statements of the material witnesses and third bail application as an interim bail was allowed to the applicant for 45 days by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.In pursuance to the aforesaid, he has surrendered on the completion of 45 days.It is argued that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court.The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.There is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant.The present applicant has been roped in the case on the basis of last seen evidence and on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence of the co-accused wherein the name of the present applicant has not taken.There is no material on record to implicate the applicant under Section 302 of IPC.He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court while considering the application for grant of bail.He has shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for benefit of the lawyers during this COVID-19 scenario.There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.Counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.30256/2020 (Jitendra alias Bagula Vs.The State of M.P.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the bail application stating that the first and the second bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty on earlier occasions.It is submitted that the statement of father of the deceased recorded wherein he has stated about unknown person alongwith other accused persons.It is submitted that the applicant was found purchasing the petrol alongwith the co-accused person and as per the statement recorded, they have caused the death of one Rinku by throttling his neck and thereafter pouring petrol and burnt the body.It is submitted that there is sufficient material on record to implicate the present applicant in this case.He has prayed for dismissal of the application.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.From the perusal of record, it is seen that the it is a case of circumstantial evidence against the present applicant and there is a last seen evidence and the applicant's name is being implicated on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused.The father of the deceased has taken name of unknown person who was also there with the co-accused person.There is no other incriminating material on record to show that the present 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.30256/2020 (Jitendra alias Bagula Vs.The State of M.P.) applicant was involved in commission of offence.Even the incident is said to have taken place on 11.12.2018 and F.I.R. was lodged on 17.09.2019 with a considerable delay.The applicant is a first offender.There is no criminal history of the present applicant.The Hon'ble Supreme by order dated 23.03.2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No.1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.The Supreme Court has observed as under :-"The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID - 19).Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled.We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.30256/2020 (Jitendra alias Bagula Vs.The State of M.P.) period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application.The application is allowed.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.30256/2020 (Jitendra alias Bagula Vs.The State of M.P.) of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for the purpose of assistance and rehabilitation of those members of the Bar, who are facing financial distress due to Lockdown and restrictive functioning of the courts owing to ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, within seven days from today.The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the learned Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as the concerned Superintendent of Police who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.Application stands allowed.In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, medical examination of applicant shall be undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that he is having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise the applicant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of 8 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.30256/2020 (Jitendra alias Bagula Vs.The State of M.P.) residence.E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on the bail application.Case has been perused.This is the first bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.437/2014 registered at Police Station Kampoo District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A and 365/511 of IPC.At the outset learned counsel for the applicant prayed for withdrawal of this application with liberty to move a regular bail application before the trial Court.In view of the aforesaid, present anticipatory application is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the applicant that if he surrenders before the trial Court on or before 21-08-2014 and moves an application for regular bail then the same be considered after perusal of case-diary and challan papers as the case may be, as soon as possible, preferably on the same day in accordance with law.With the aforesaid this application is disposed of.

['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Also, with their ableassistance, I have perused record and proceedings of the case.It is submission of learned counsel for the appellantthat learned Judge of the Court below did not place any weightageto defence version that at the time of incident there was scufflebetween two groups and in that scuffle the appellant also receivedinjuries on his person.He also submitted that in view of evidenceof Dr.The accused persons were charged that in pursuance totheir common object, they assaulted on Zakir Hussain s/o MustakHussain (PW1), Shabbir Sharif Chaudhari (PW2), Ahmad HussainMustak Hussain (PW3), and Shaukat Hussain (PW6) by deadlyweapons in their hands which they were possessing with them.By the impugned judgment and order of conviction,the appellant, arrayed as accused No.1, was convicted for offence .....::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 ::: Judgment Cr Apeal457.05 14 2under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine ofRs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffersimple imprisonment for 15 days.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::Heard learned counsel Shri Vinay Dahat for theappellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor ShriN.B.Jawade for the respondent/State.Pralhad Motiramji Dhakulwar (PW7), injuries suffered byinjured are possible due to fall on ground and, therefore, he prayedthat the appeal be allowed.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor ShriN.B.Jawade for the respondent/State supported the impugned .....::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 ::: Judgment Cr Apeal457.05 14 3judgment and order of conviction.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::After chargesheet was filed in the Court of learnedjurisdictional Magistrate, learned jurisdictional Magistratecommitted the case to the Court of Sessions since chargesheet wasfiled for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Codeamongst other offences.Learned 1st Ad hocAdditional Sessions Judge, Achalpur framed charge for offencesunder Sections 147; 148; 149, and 307 read with Section 149 ofthe Indian Penal Code against 8 accused persons including theappellant.Allthe accused persons denied the charge and claimed for their Trial.In order to bring home the charge against the accusedpersons, the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses and also .....4/-::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 ::: Judgment Cr Apeal457.05 14 4relied upon various documents duly proved during course of theTrial.After appreciation of the case, by the impugned judgmentand order, learned Judge of the Court below acquitted all theaccused persons except the present appellant.The appellant wasalso acquitted of offence under Section 307 of the Indian PenalCode.Instead, the appellant was convicted for offence underSection 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to sufferrigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::The State chose not to prefer appeal challenging theacquittal of accused Nos.2 to 8 and did not file any appealquestioning wisdom of learned Judge of the Court belowconvicting the appellant only for offence under Section 324 of theIndian Penal Code.The said is filed by ZakirHussain (PW1).On the basis of the said, a crime was registeredvide No.72/1992 with Shirajgaon, District Amravati.As per theFirst Information Report, on 29.10.1992 at 5:00 O'clock firstinformant Zakir Hussain came to Karajgaon from Paratwada by .....5/-::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 ::: Judgment Cr Apeal457.05 14 5S.T.Bus.After alighting from bus, when he was proceedingtowards his house, as per the First Information Report, theappellant, Babbu, Nazim, and Hassu accosted him and theappellant caught hold him and gave a knife blow on his left sideback thigh portion.When he was rushing towards his house, fromthe said spot the accused persons chased him.Thereafter, the firstinformant went to market.There also, the accused persons caughthold him and when his other family members rushed there, theyseparate him from the accused persons.Other family memberswere also assaulted by different weapons.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::In the present judgment, the Court need not discussabout injuries suffered by Shabbir Chaudhari (PW2), AhmadHussain (PW3), and Shaukat Hussain (PW6) since it is not case ofthe prosecution that they were assaulted by the appellant.According to the prosecution, they were assaulted by the acquittedaccused persons.Pralhad Dhakulwar (PW7), examined Zakir Hussain(PW1) who found following injuries:::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 ::: Judgment Cr Apeal457.05 14 6 "stab injury on left buttock, slightly below side 1/2" 1/4" x 1/2", circular, might have caused by hard and sharp object".::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::Evidence of Ahmad Hussain (PW3) and ShaukatHussain (PW6) that they received injury is not relevant fordiscussion in the present judgment since their evidence is silentabout assault made by the appellant.Panch witnesses Ayubkhan (PW4) and Azadkhan(PW5) have turned hostile and did not support the prosecutioncase at all.Evidence of injured Zakir Hussain (PW1) is on the lineof oral report (Exhibit 74) which he lodged with the police station.From the witness box, on oath, he specifically pointed out that it isthe appellant who gave knife blow on his person.His version isnot at all shaken in that behalf.Even, his evidence is corroboratedby other injured Shabbir Chaudhari (PW2) who also speaks aboutthe appellant that by means of knife he gave blow on the person of .....7/-::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 ::: Judgment Cr Apeal457.05 14 7Zakir Hussain.Shabbir Chaudhari is very specific in his evidencethat Taslim, i.e. the present appellant, is the person who gave knifeblow on Zakir.The version of these two prosecution witnesses isduly corroborated by medical evidence also.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::Ismail Gani Chavan (PW8) examinedthe appellant and noticed various injuries on his person.In the present case, Investigating Officer was notexamined by the prosecution due to his death.Further, I need notmake any comment in respect of CA Reports since the said showsthat the weapons were reached to Chemical Analyzer's Office in anunsealed condition.However, fact remains that on the day of theincident it is the appellant who gave knife blow on the person ofinjured Zakir (PW1) is duly proved beyond any shade of doubt.In that view of the matter, learned Judge of the Courtbelow was right in convicting the appellant for offence underSection 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The record and proceedings show that the appellant .....8/-Thus, the appellant was in jail for about 8½ months.Punishment awarded to the appellant was of 1 year only.Out ofthe awarded punishment, the appellant undergone 8½ months.After release of the appellant on bail,till today, no untoward incident has occurred.In that view of thematter, leniency can be shown in favour of the appellant thoughhis conviction is to be maintained.Consequently, I pass followingorder:::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::(i) The criminal appeal is partly allowed.(ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 21.7.2005 passedby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions TrialNo.25/1993 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 324of the Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 ::: Judgment Cr Apeal457.05 14 9Indian Penal Code shall be the period which the appellant hasalready undergone in jail instead of imprisonment of one year.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::JUDGE!! BRW !! ...../-::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 23:08:58 :::

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Both the sentences are to run concurrently.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Shivratan was living with his wife Sunita (deceased), son Kamlesh, daughter Lalita and the mother-father Tulsabai and Pooranlal in the house situated in the field of Bodi Lalmati at village Kumhartek Lalmati.On 1.12.2003 there was Legislative assembly polling, due to which, Shivratan had gone to exercise his franchise and Pooranlal had gone to graze the cattle.Bharat (PW-3), son of Shriram, elder brother of Shivratan, was also working in the field.At round 9 AM accused Kailash came to their house and asked Tulsabai about Shivratan and told that he would kill him.Then on query made by Tulsabai as to why he wanted to kill Shivratan, then Kailash started beating her by wooden stick, due to which, she sustained injuries on fingers.At that time, Sunitabai came and questioned as to why he was beating her then he went away.When Shivratan was returning at 10 AM after voting, on the way he met with accused Kailash, who blamed Shivratan that he torn his pipe but Shivratan refused, due to which, Kailash started scuffling with him.Nitin (PW-6) intercepted between them then Kailash went away.When Shivratan returned home along with Nitin then his mother Tulsabai told her that Kailash beaten her.Then at around 12 in the noon, Shivratan took his mother for dressing and for casting her vote.In the meanwhile, accused Kailash armed with ballam came and dealt blow on the head of Sunitabai and beaten her and also beaten Kamlesh and Lalita with the same weapon.Bharat was watching the incident from the field.When Kailash saw Bharat watching the incident, he ran to beat him, then Bharat (nephew of Shivratan) ran away towards Kumhartek and narrated the entire incident to his Bua (fathers sister).Then all the persons came to the spot.On the spot, Bharat narrated the entire story to them.Sunita was lying dead on the spot along with two children, son Kamlesh and daughter Lalita were also lying like dead.As the police was present at the polling booth, the police were informed about the incident.On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, Marg No.108/2003, Ex.P/12 was registered.{ 07th July, 2017 } Per J.P. Gupta, J :This criminal appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment dated 31.08.2004 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Betul, in Sessions Trial No.54/2004 whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.500/- and further sentenced to R.I. for seven years (two counts) and fine of Rs.500/- (two counts), in default two months R.I. separately.FIR Ex.P-11 was recorded at Crime No.971/2003 under section 302/323 of the IPC at police station Betul.Thereafter, in the investigation in the presence of panch witnesses, Lash Panchayatnama, Ex.P/14 was prepared.Spot map, Ex.P/15 was prepared.Dead body was sent for postmortem at District Hospital, Betul and injured Lalita and Kamlesh were got medically examined.On examination, Dr.A.K.Khare, found following injuries on the body of deceased Sunita on 02/12/2003 at 9.35 A.M:-i. Black left eye with lacerated wound on lateral side 2.8 cm x 1/2 cm with fracture on temporal bone; ii.Lacerated wound on perital region 5 cm x 1 cm vertical oblique left side.Lacerated wound on occipital parietal region left side 5 cm from pinna, 5 cm x 5 cm sub dural haemotoma and vertical filled with blood; iv.Bleeding from nostril present with trickle on right side of angle of mouth.v. Lacerated wound on left index finger lateral side 1 cm x cm.According to doctors opinion, cause of death is shock due to brain injury and excessive bleeding.Death was caused within 24 hours and injuries on the body of the person of deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Nature of death was homicidal.He prepared postmortem report Ex.According to doctor cause of death was shock due excessive bleeding and the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.I.P.S.Popli, (PW-7) examined injured Lalita and found fracture on the skull and she was unconscious and he prepared medical examination report Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 respectively.Dr. A Dildeep Pillai (PW-15) has stated that he also examined Lalita on 01/12/2003 near about 4.15 PM and he found fracture near about left eyes and ears.After examining her X-ray report, he opined that the nature of the injury was grievous.He also prepared report Ex.Dr. A. Dildeep Pillai (PW-15) also examined injured Kamlesh and found fracture on his temporal region.According to him, nature of injury was grievous and also prepared report Ex.According to him, the injuries was caused by hard and blunt object.As per prosecution during the investigation, it was also found that the appellant took away Mangalsutra and silver ornament of leg (kadha) from the person of the body of the deceased and on his arrest, one silver ornament was recovered from the instance of the appellant/accused.After completion of the usual formalities of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.The First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after getting the case on transfer framed charges under sections 302, 307 of the IPC against the appellant/accused, who abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.In defence, he stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the case.No witness has been produced in the defence.Learned Trial court after trial recorded the finding of conviction with regard to commission of the offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 (on two counts) of the IPC mainly relying on the statement of injured Lalita (PW-12) and eye witness Bharat (PW-3).Both are child witnesses finding corroboration by the medical evidence and statements of Shivratan (PW-2), Nitin Rathore (PW-6) and Tulsa Bai (PW-1).On behalf of the appellant, the aforesaid finding of the trial court has been assailed on the ground that in this case there is no independent eye witness.Learned Trial court has wrongly believed on relatives and interested witnesses.They can be tutored very easily.In the aforesaid circumstances without corroboration from any independent witness, their statement cannot be relied.In this case so called stolen property has not been identified before the court and during the investigation no step was taken for test identification of the property and the ballam was not seized from the appellant/accused.As per prosecution story, appellant had a ballam at the time of incident, if he had been an intention to kill the deceased or injured persons, then he would have used it as a means of assault, but the dangerous weapon ballam has not been used.Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant assaulted deceased or injured persons with an intention to kill them.Hence the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the aforesaid contention and supported the finding of the learned Trial court and prayed to dismiss the appeal.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is very well established from the evidence adduced by the prosecution particularly by the statement of Dr. A.K. Khare (PW-9) that death of the deceased Sunit Bai was taken place on 01/12/2003 and his death was homicidal on account of injuries sustained to her on her head caused by hard and blunt object.Further from the statements of Dr.I.P.S Popli (PW-7) and Dr. A Dildeep Pillai (PW-15), it is proved that at the same time Lalita (PW-12) and Kamlesh sustained grievous injuries on their head caused by hard and blunt object.Their injuries were grievous in nature.Statement of the aforesaid medical expert has remained unimpeachable and on behalf of the appellant their veracity have not been challenged.Hence the aforesaid finding is affirmed.Now the question is as to who caused the aforesaid injury to deceased Sunita and injured Lalita (PW-12) and Kamlesh.Lalita (PW-12) and Bharat (PW-3) have categorically stated that it was the appellant/accused who caused aforesaid injuries to the deceased and Lalita (PW-12) and Kamlesh.Lalita (PW-12) stated that after getting assault on his head she became unconscious however before it she saw the appellant/accused assaulting her mother by means of ballam/patta.Bharat (PW-3) also stated that appellant/accused came in the house and assaulted Sunita (deceased) with the ballam.Thereafter he ran away from the spot and informed to his Bua Bhadholi (fathers sister) and came with her Bua and saw Sunita, Kamlesh and Lalita lying in the courtyard.He also stated that on the same day before this incident appellant/accused assaulted his grand mother Tulsa Bai (PW-1).Tulsa Bai (PW-1) mother-in-law of the deceased has also stated that on the same day before assaulting Sunita (deceased), appellant/accused came to her house and asked about Shivratan and at that time he also assaulted her and caused injury on his hand and she went to cast vote in the election and to doctor with his son Shivratan.Shivratan (PW-2) also stated the same thing and further stated that on the same day before this incident, appellant/accused met him on the way and tried to make quarrel with him and at that time he was with Nitin Rathore (PW-6), who has also corroborated the statement of Shivratan (PW-2).Sub Inspector C.L Chouhan (PW-11) stated that he recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 and investigated the matter.On 03/12/2003 he arrested the appellant/accused as per Arrest Memo Ex.P-18 and as per information memo Ex.P-7 on the information given by the appellant/accused seized silver Kadhi and blood stained wooden stick and prepared seizure memos Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-9 respectively.On perusal of the record, statement of Bharat (PW-2) and Lalita (PW-12) are reliable.Their statement have remained unimpeachable.There are some discrepancies with regard to nature of the weapon but the witnesses are near about 8 years old and therefore any discrepancy with regard to the nomenclature of the weapon is immaterial.They have not been cross examined with regard to nature of weapon.No contradiction with police statement has been proved.They have categorically stated that at the time of incident appellant/accused assaulted the deceased and injured Lalita and Kamlesh.In other words, there is no doubt to disbelieve that aforesaid injuries to the deceased and Kamlesh and Lalita were caused by the appellant/accused person.It is correct that in this case so called stolen property has not been identified during the investigation or before the trial court.FSL report was also not produced with regard to prove the blood stains on the seized weapon.Therefore the evidence with regard to seizure of the silver ornament and blood stained weapon has no use to consider as an evidence against the accused with regard to the charges but it has no negative effect on the prosecution case as the testimony of Lalita (PW-12) and Bharat (PW-3) is full of confidence.There is no iota of material to consider their testimony with any suspicion.It is our considered view that appellant is the author of the aforesaid crime.As per the statement of Dr. A.K Khare (PW-9) the injuries sustained to the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature and appellant had caused the injuries to the deceased Sunita intentionally.Therefore it will be deemed that he murdered the deceased Sunita.I.P.S Popli (PW-7) and Dr. A Dildeep Pillai (PW-15), it has been established that the injury sustained to Lalita and Kamlesh were grievous in nature but the aforesaid medical experts have not stated that they were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Only one assault was made to each.In these circumstance, it cannot be said that the assault was an attempt to commit murder of Lalita or Kamlesh.In the aforesaid circumstance, his conviction under section 307 of the IPC in two counts is not sustainable, in place of it, appellant should be convicted for causing grievous injury to Lalita and Kamlesh under section 325 of the IPC in two counts.Accordingly appellants conviction under section 307 of the IPC in two counts is set aside and he is convicted under section 325 of the IPC in two counts.In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.R.M. 10667 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 14, 2010 And In re.: Sk.Bapi & 3 Ors.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Khejury Police Station Case No. 101 of 2010 dated 07.7.2010 under Sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and the State.Perused the petition as well as the petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on their surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Appellant Sunderlal has been found guilty of causing solitary incised wound on the head region of his younger brother Hari Singh by means of an axe during the course of an altercation between them in the night of 28-12-88, leading to his death the same night.Appellant's conviction is founded on the solitary eye-witness account of Mishri Bai (P.W. 12), widow of deceased Hari Singh, who has categorically deposed that on the fateful night when her husband Hari Singh was abusing his elder brother appellant Sunderlal, the appellant suddenly came out and dealt one blow by means of an axe on the head region of her husband Hari Singh and, thereafter, fled away.The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in recording the appellant's conviction on the solitary eye-witness account of Mishri Bai (P.W. 12), who being the widow of deceased Hari Singh, is an interested witness.Mishri Bai (P.W. 12) has categorically deposed that on the fateful night, appellant Sunderlal dealt axe blow on the head of her husband Hari Singh resulting in his death the same night.On a close scrutiny of the evidence of Mishri Bai (P.W. 12), we are satisfied that the Trial Court has rightly believed her evidence in holding appellant Sunderlal guilty of causing the solitary incised wound on the head region of deceased Hari Singh, neither in the cross-examination of this witness nor during the course of hearing of this appeal any such material could be pointed out which may render her evidence unworthy of credence.Her presence at the time of the incident is quite natural as she was inside the house where the incident of assault on deceased Hari Singh took place.She being the widow of the deceased would be the last person to spare the real assailant of her husband Hari singh and to falsely implicate appellant Sunderlal, who is the elder brother of her husband, as his assailant.We, therefore, do not find any substance in the above submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant.v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2410, next submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellant's act of causing solitary injury on the head region of deceased Hari Singh, during the course of an altercation between them, would not amount to the offence of 'murder' punishable under Section 302, IPC.In the case of Mahesh v. State of M.P. (supra) the Apex Court, while considering the nature of the offence proved against the appellant in that case, observed in para 4 :--"4..... Thus, placed as the appellant and the deceased were at the time of the occurrence, it appears to us that the appellant assaulted the deceased in that sudden fight and after giving him one blow took to his heels.He did not cause any other injury to the deceased and therefore it cannot be said that he acted in any cruel or unusual manner.This fortifies our belief that the assault on the deceased was made during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation.In this fact situation, we are of the opinion that Exception-4 to Section 300, IPC is clearly attracted to the case of the appellant and the offence of which the appellant can be said to be guilty would squarely fall under Section 304, (Part-I) IPC."Then again in the case of Krishna Tiwary and Anr.v. State of Bihar (supra) the Apex Court while holding that the act of the accused, in that case of dealing two knife blows on the deceased, did not amount to the offence of 'murder' punishable under Section 302, IPC, observed in para 4 :--In our view, there is much substance in the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.From the evidence on record it is apparent that incident took place all of a sudden.It has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that prior to the incident relations between the brothers were cordial.It has been specifically stated by informant Anil Tiwary (P.W. 7), in his cross-examination that they were having best of relations with the accused prior to the incident.He has also denied the suggestion that there was property dispute between them.The witness has also admitted that the appellant Krishna Tiwary came empty handed and that incident took place because they scolded Manoj Kumar and deceased removed him from the middle of the door.He has also stated that after coming down Krishna Tiwary caught hold the collar of Paramhans and asked him why his cleaner was beaten.So, it is apparent that some quarrel took place between the deceased and Krishna Tiwary.At that moment, it is alleged that Krishna Tiwary uttered the word "assault' and thereafter Dadan Tiwary inflicted two knife blows.It is true that first knife blow proved fatal; with regard to the second knife blow, admittedly, it is a simple injury which is skin deep.From the record, it is apparent that the prosecution has suppressed the evidence of other witnesses, particularly that of Manoj Kumar who was the cause of quarrel.However, taking the prosecution case as it is, it is apparent that the role played by A-1 is absolutely limited.Therefore, the Trial Court has convicted him by resorting to Sections 109 and 111 of IPC.Further, it is admitted that relationship between brothers and the family members was cordial prior to the incident.The incident look place all of a sudden and without any premeditation.Appellants came down and the quarrel took place between deceased and Krishna Tiwary (A-1).In such a sudden quarrel and in heat of passion, appellant No. 2 son of Krishna Tiwary, A-1, inflicted a fatal blow to the deceased.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant Sunderlal, against his conviction and sentences, is allowed in part.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Theprosecution in support of its case examined the father of thedeceased as P.W.1 Urikonda Jammanna in which he hadstated that his son Ramulu was a farm servant and used towork at the house of the appellant.He also stated that theappellant gave Rs.7,000/- in advance to his son.PW1 alsostated that about two years ago, the appellant had asked hisson (Ramulu) that his wrist watch was missing from his houseand harassed him on which his son had returned the watch tothe appellant.PW1 in his statement stated that the appellantalso levelled the allegation that the gold ear-rings were alsomissing from his house and the same were stolen by Ramulu.PW1 also stated that the appellant also demanded the advanceof Rs.7,000/- paid to Ramulu at the time of his employment.Dalveer Bhandari, J.Theappellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge,Nagarkurnool under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (forshort `the Code') and sentenced to suffer rigorous 2imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of thelearned Assistant Sessions Judge filed an appeal before theHigh Court.The High Court upheld the judgment of thelearned Assistant Sessions Judge, but while affirming theconviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Code, thesentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years was reduced to5 years.The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment,approached this Court.This Court granted leave and releasedthe appellant on bail.The brief facts which are relevant to dispose of thisappeal are recapitulated as under:According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant,who is an agriculturist had harassed his agriculture labour(servant) deceased Ramulu by levelling the allegation that hehad committed theft of some gold ornaments two days prior tohis death.It was also alleged that the appellant haddemanded Rs.7,000/- from the deceased which was given inadvance to him at the time when he was kept in employment.The prosecution further alleged that the deceasedRamulu could not bear the harassment meted out to him andhe committed suicide by consuming pesticides.During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant wasreleased on bail.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The challenge to conviction is primarily predicated on factual grounds and, therefore, it would be appropriate to refer and examine the contentions in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.The prosecution case in brief is that one K.T. Sameer (also referred to as K.T.M. Sameer in trial court proceedings) an Indian national and permanent resident of Mahe was at the relevant time employed and working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Thereafter, he went missing and could not be traced.The prosecution case is that K.T. Sameer was killed by the three appellants, who had robbed him of his belongings and withdrawn money using his ATM card.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 2 of 35(A) K.T. Sameer had travelled to Delhi on 10th October, 2008 and thereafter went missing.N.K. Afzal (PW1), brother of the deceased K.T. Sameer has deposed that the latter was residing and working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.K.T. Sameer had come to India and had flown to Delhi from Ahmedabad via Spice-Jet Airlines.Attempts were made to contact K.T. Sameer, he could not be reached.The phone was switched off.His office people had informed that money had been withdrawn four times from his account from ATMs located around Palam, Delhi by using the debit card allotted/issued to K.T. Sameer.K.T. Sameer was to meet one Sushil Kumar (PW54) of Camel Knitting and Textile Mills at Ludhiana, but he did not meet him.In the said circumstances, PW1 came to Delhi and filed a missing report dated 14th October, 2008 at 6.30 PM with Police Station Palam Airport vide DD entry marked Ex.PW1/A. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that although he had received copy of statement of account of K.T. Sameer on 15th-16th October, 2008, but he had been earlier telephonically informed that money had been withdrawn via ATMs from the account of K.T. Sameer.DD No.43 (Ex.Subsequently, on 15th October, 2008, FIR No.50/2008 (Ex.PW3/A) was registered by the duty officer HC Balwan Singh (PW3) at about 9.10 P.M. The said complaint by PW1 is detailed and records that as per PW1, K.T. Sameer had travelled from Ahmedabad to Delhi by Spice-Jet Airways Flight No.The latter phone number belonged to Ajmal Abdullah, resident of Cochin, Kerala and nephew of K.T. Sameer.An amount of Saudi Riyal (SAR) 1599.29 was withdrawn from Axis Bank, in addition, to three other withdrawals of Saudi Riyal (SAR) 399.29, 417.82 and 102.77 from the State Bank of India, Palam Colony, Dwarka through a debit card of Al Rajhi Bank, Riyadh.The said debit card was in the name of the sponsor of K.T. Sameer in Riyadh and had been given to the latter for business purposes.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 3 of 35K.T. Sameer had kept the SIM card with him to be used on his visits to India.Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7), younger brother of the deceased affirmed that the deceased had come to Delhi on 10th October, 2008 and had made a call to Saudi Arabia, following which contact with him was lost.He had regularly been in touch with the police thereafter.Sajid K.V. (PW12) has also deposed that the deceased K.T. Sameer was living in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and on 6th or 7th October, 2008 had CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 4 of 35 come to India.PW12 had spoken to K.T. Sameer on 10th October, 2008 on his mobile phone.As testified, PW12 had gone to the airport on 11th October, 2008, to receive K.T. Sameer but he could not be found.PW12 tried to contact him on the telephone, but his number was unreachable.PW12, thereupon, had spoken to the wife of K.T. Sameer at Riyadh who had asked him to go to Delhi and ascertain his whereabouts.On 13th October, 2008, he came to Delhi and with N.K. Afzal (PW1) had gone to Police Station Palam Airport to file the missing complaint.From 13th October, 2008 till 20th October, 2008, they had continuously visited the Palam Airport as they were anxious to know about K.T. Sameer.We would be subsequently again referring to the testimony of PW12, on other aspects.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 4 of 35Sushil Kumar (PW54) has deposed that he was engaged in business of export of readymade hosiery garments at Ludhiana and had come to Delhi on 11th October, 2008 to meet K.T. Sameer.He had tried to contact K.T. Sameer on telephone, but did not succeed.The phone was switched off.He did not meet K.T. Sameer and returned to Ludhiana in the evening.In the cross-examination, PW30 deposed that the said flight manifesto was prepared after the passengers had checked-in, boarding passes had been issued and the flight was closed.Sumant Rautela (PW30) has stated that at the request of the IO, he had handed over a copy of the passenger manifesto of flight No.218 under a covering letter, Ex.PW20/A) was recorded.Gyan Mohammad (PW21) has deposed that on 14th October, 2008 at the request CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 6 of 35 of the officers of Haryana Police, he had buried the dead body of a Muslim male as per Muslim rites at the graveyard (Kabristaan) near Patodi Chowk.SI Prakash Chand (PW22) deposed that on 11th October, 2008, he was posted at Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurgaon and at about 8.30 A.M. he had received a rukka from Constable Mewa Singh sent by SHO Sunil Kumar, and on this basis FIR No.160/2008 (Ex.PW22/A), Police Station Bilaspur was registered.With regard to recovery of dead body of an unknown male Muslim, we also have testimonies of HC Manoj Kumar (PW23) Draftsman, Office of Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, and ASI Braham Prakash (PW32), who had visited the fields of PW20 where the dead body was found.The Investigating Officer, in his presence, had seized blood-stained soil and one ring from right hand of the deceased with the word wahida engraved on it.He had proved the seizure memo and the pulanda prepared at that time.The ring was marked Ex.P10 and the blood-stained soil was marked Ex.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 6 of 35Dr. Sunil Kumar (PW39) was the SHO of Police Station Bilaspur, Gurgaon.He had proved the recovery of dead body, registration of FIR No.160/2008 (Ex.It is also apparent that when the dead body was recovered, the name and the identity of the deceased could not be ascertained.When and how the said dead body was identified will be examined in detail infra.(C) Homicidal Death and other EvidenceThe factum that the deceased had died a homicidal death was proved by Dr. Sunil (PW39), who has stated that he along with ASI Braham Prakash and others had gone to village Banola and he recorded statement of Hukam Singh (PW20) and had also called the crime team.He had got the post-mortem of the deceased conducted vide application (Ex.PW9/A) and the body was cremated vide application (Ex.PW11/A).After the post-mortem, the doctor had handed over two sealed parcels, which were seized vide memo, Ex.A red rope was found tied around the right wrist.Teeth mark was visible on the lower lip with S/C haemorrhage over the right eye at 9 oclock position.The X-ray revealed a bullet on the left side of the chest posterior.The vest and the shirt were blood-soaked and mud-stained.The vest also showed firearm-injury marks in front and upper part.PW9 proved the X-ray plates as Exs.PW9/C and PW9/D. In the cross-examination, PW9 has stated that he had been performing post-mortems for the last 25 years and had conducted about 1000 post-mortems.He denied that he had signed the report in a mechanical manner.On the question of clothes worn by the deceased, Dr. B.B. Aggarwal (PW9) has deposed that the deceased was wearing a striped shirt, one vest, blue-coloured jeans and an underwear.From the said testimonies, it is apparent that the deceased had died an unnatural homicidal death as a result of firearm injuries.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 8 of 35Sunil Kumar (PW53), who had taken over the investigation of the case on 15 th October, 2008 in some detail.This would help us in appreciating the entire prosecution case and how this blind murder case was solved.PW53 has stated that on 15th October, 2008, he had sent a request to ACP for collecting call records of mobile No.9846202449, which was stated to be a number used by K.T. Sameer.The next day, he had sent a request to the Missing Person Squad of Delhi Police and CBI.They had tried to trace the victim.Hue-and-cry notices were issued and published in the newspapers.On 17th October, 2008, teams were sent to Gurgaon, Faridabad and other police stations to search for K.T. Sameer, but returned without any success or clues.PW53 learnt that mobile No.9213534186 had been subscribed by one Jagbir Singh (PW5) of village Mohammadpur.SI Prashant was sent to house No.441-442, Rajouri Garden as mobile No.9268397468 was found to have been allotted to one Suresh Kumar (PW26), resident of the said address.Jagbir (PW5) has stated that he was employed at Army Headquarter Camp, Delhi Cantt.and was father of Rozy (PW4).He had purchased one mobile phone and the same was being used by his family members.On being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, PW5 deposed that the said phone was purchased on 2nd or 3rd October, 2008 and a function had been organised last year prior to Diwali.The mobile phone connection was issued by the Tata Cellular Company.On a specific question, PW5 did not deny or admit the suggestion that the mobile number was 9213534186 was allotted to him by the said Company.However, he accepted that Rozy (PW4) was using the same.Rozy (PW4) aged about 17 years has testified that there was a function in their house on account of birth of her cousins son and many guests were present.Family members of the appellant-Anil were also present.However, she failed to recollect whether Anil had come to attend the function.She denied the suggestion of having told the police that Anil Kumar was a taxi driver at Palam Airport from Mehram Nagar and had come to attend the said function.A portion of her further cross- examination is reproduced for clarity:-CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 11 of 35"Q. I put it to you that you had told the police that Anil had taken your mobile phone number 9213534186 during function? Ans.No, I do not know.Q. I put it to you that you had told the police that on 10.10.2008 at about 10.45 P.M. you received a phone call from Anil from mobile number 9846202449?I had not attended any such call.It is wrong to suggest that I had told the police that I had told Anil that his mobile number was 9868415221 and that whose phone number was 9846202449 from which he was making that call.It is wrong to suggest that I had told to the police that Anil had informed me that this mobile phone belonged to his friend."Vandana (PW13) had stated that 9th August, 2008 being her birthday, her father (PW26) had gifted her a mobile phone, but she did not remember the number.In the month of August, 2008, they had a function in the house and her brother-in-law, Ravinder along with his father had come to their house.The said appellant is brother- in-law of PW26s elder daughter Priti, who is married to Ravinder.We should record our anguish and strong displeasure as it is apparent that Rozy (PW4), Jagbir (PW5) and Vandana (PW13) have intentionally tried to conceal facts.When we read their deposition, hesitation and trepidation is apparent and on reading in between the lines, the true and correct version emerges.The witnesses did not candidly accept the apparent and luminescent facts that mobile No.9213534186 was being used by Rozy (PW4) and telephone No.9268397468 was being used by Vandana (PW13).Both of them knew the appellant-Anil.Now having noticed the said facts, we would return to the testimony of Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW53).He has deposed that on 20th October, 2008 they had received secret information that Manish Kumar CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 13 of 35 and Monu were involved in the present case and would be coming to bus stop near Sanjay T-point, Mehram Nagar.A raiding team was constituted and they apprehended Manish and Monu, who upon interrogation made disclosure statements marked Exs.PW7/A and PW7/B, respectively.At that time, the secret informer and Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7) were with the police team.Thereafter, Constable Raja Ram (PW8) and Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7) went to Police Station Bilaspur, Gurgaon as it had been revealed by the two appellants that they had thrown the dead body of K.T. Sameer in the jurisdiction of the said police station.Manish Kumar and Monu were arrested vide memo Exs.PW8/DA and PW8/DB, respectively.Mobile phone No.9818152052 was recovered from possession of Manish Kumar and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW45/T. Mobile phone No.9968562955 was seized from Monu and seized vide memo Ex.PW45/S. PW53 has testified that at about 6 P.M. Ct.Raja Ram (PW8) along with Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7) came to the police station and handed over a copy of FIR No.160/2008 (Ex.PW22/A), Police Station Bilaspur, Haryana regarding murder of K.T. Sameer, following which they added Section 302/201 IPC to the present FIR (Ex.PW3/A).PW53 along with HC Kamlesh (PW45) and other officers and Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7) went to the house of Manish Kumar 20/60, Mehram Nagar and recovered Rs.35,000/- kept in a handkerchief.The recovery consisted of 70 currency notes of Rs.500/- each.The currency notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. They also went to the house of Monu at T-11/60, East Mehram Nagar, Delhi and recovered Rs.45,000/- in 90 currency notes of Rs.500/- each, and one mobile phone i-mate JASJAR (Ex.P4), which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Manish Kumar disclosed that one taxi DL1T-6001, which was used for the CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 14 of 35 offence was parked in front of Balmiki temple, Mehram Nagar.This taxi was recovered from the said spot by PW53 and seized vide seizure memo Ex.The first circumstance is that Afzal knew who the deceased terrorists were.DNA analysis and involvement of the appellant ManishPW53 had deposed that on 22nd October, 2008, a CFSL Team headed by Dr. Rajinder Prasad (PW6) and others had inspected the taxi DL1T-6001 (Ex.PX2) and had taken a piece of rear seat cover (Ex.P1) CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 17 of 35 and two pieces of floor carpets (Ex.P2) as they had noticed blood stains on them.These were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A and deposited in the malkhana.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 17 of 35The vehicle was thoroughly photographed and two pieces of blood stained floor carpet (Ex.P2) and a piece of rear seat cover (Ex.P1) were handed over to the Investigating Officer for analysis in the laboratory.PW6 identified the piece of the car seat cover as Ex.P1 and floor carpet as Ex.P2 in the court.As per the CFSL report (Ex.PW48/A), human blood of group "A" was found on the seat cover (Ex.P1) and the carpet (Ex.P2).The said CFSL report was proved by Suresh Kumar Singla (PW48).Similar statement was made by Gautam Roy (PW27), Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, who had taken the photographs marked Ex.Ajay Prakash (PW18), Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, had taken blood sample of one Zameel Mohd., son of the deceased K.T. Sameer for DNA profiling.Both dry blood stain and wet whole blood samples were prepared and sealed with the seal of Forensic Medicine AIIMS.The consent form (Mark A) of Zameel Mohd. was signed by PW18 at point X.Dr. B.K. Mohapatra (PW43), Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), CFSL, CBI, New Delhi Officer, has proved the DNA Profiling Report marked Ex.PW43/A. He has stated that he had undertaken the said examination as per working procedure manual and had carried DNA isolation from several exhibits via organic extraction method using DNA CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 18 of 35 analyser.For the said purpose, he had examined the seat cover, shirt, vest, pants, underwear, piece of cloth, metallic piece and found that the DNA profile was consistent with the finding that they belonged to the biological father of Mohd. Zameel, who was the source of Ex.X-1 (liquid blood sample) and Ex.PW34/A, which is in his own handwriting and signed.Similarly, the contention on behalf of the appellant Anil that the records of hiring of taxi from airport, toll receipts, CCTV footage of cameras have not been produced and, therefore, the prosecution story is rejected as untenable and devoid of merit.(D)(v) Withdrawal of money, ATM Transactions and call recordsReference can now be made to the testimonies of the bank officials, who had provided information and details with regard to withdrawal of money from ATMs through the Debit Card No.4909801160227752, which was in possession of the deceased K.T. Sameer.Sharon Sethi (PW14), Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Vasant Vihar Branch, has deposed that pursuant to a request letter received on 23rd October, 2008 for providing transaction details of ATM Card No.4909801160227752, the requisite information was provided on 30th October, 2008, vide letter Ex.PW14/A along with two video CDs collectively marked Ex.PW14/C containing video recording of the ATM for the relevant period, and the ATM Roll depicting transactions (Ex.PW14/B).Anjula Narula (PW16), Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Dundahera Branch, Gurgaon, Haryana proved the computerized withdrawal statement of ATM dated 11th October, 2008 as Ex.PW16/B. Binita R.C. Basu (PW17), Assistant Vice President, Axis Bank proved the letter marked Ex.PW17/A giving details of the transaction of the aforesaid card.Shweta Wadhwa, Customer Service Manager, Clearing Department, HSBC Bank, Connaught Place has appeared as PW29 and has stated in response to the application dated 23rd October, 2008, that CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 22 of 35 they had provided withdrawal details of the aforesaid ATM Card for the period 11th October, 2008 to 13th October, 2008 vide letter Ex.Kalpna Lal (PW15) had deposed that she, vide Ex.PW15/A, informed the police that the ATM card was destroyed by their bank on 14th October, 2008, after it was retained in the machine at Patparganj on 13th October, 2008 as a hot-listed card.Deepak, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., who had appeared as PW56, proved the call record details of mobile number 9846202449 for the period 1st April, 2008 to 15th October, 2008 which was marked Ex.PW56/A. He had also proved the cell ID address list marked as Ex.PW56/B. Certificate (Ex.PW56/C) under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is proved and is on record.Anuj Bhatia, (PW10) Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. has stated that at the request of the police, call details of phone No.9846202449 for the period 1st April, 2008 to 15th October, 2008 were supplied by Gulshan Arora, the then Nodal Officer through e-mail.Printouts of covering e-mail letter and call details were proved as Ex.PW10/A and B, respectively.PW10/A, the e-mail covering letter and the call records Ex.PW10/B can be relied upon by the prosecution only to corroborate the statement of the Investigating Officer Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW53).The said e-mail covering letter was addressed to ACP Rajiv.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 23 of 35The trial court in the impugned judgment in paragraphs 108 to 122 has referred to different telephone numbers, the call records and has established the link between the calls made and received.Mobile phone number 9968562955 was allotted to subscriber "Monu/Sher Singh" as per customer application form (Ex.PW49/C).Several calls, both incoming as well as outgoing, were made from this number to mobile phone number of Manish, i.e. 9818152052 on 10th October, 2008 between 2133 hours to 2325 hours.Similarly, calls were made from mobile number 9968562955 of the appellant Monu to mobile phone number 9268397468 on 10 th October, 2008 at 2336 hours and 2341 hours.The mobile phone number 9268397468 was being used by Vandana (PW13).The exchange of these phone calls corroborates the prosecution version.As already noticed, money as well as mobile-phone-cum-pocket PC i-mate JASJAR (Ex.P4) of the deceased was recovered at the behest of the appellant Monu.Disclosure statements made to police are admissible only under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and to a limited extent when they give leads, Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be applicable.Satya Prakash (PW34) in his cross-examination by the Addl.The said Satya Prakash (PW34) is a brother of the appellant Manish and owner of the taxi bearing registration No.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 24 of 35Sunil Kumar (PW49), Nodal Officer, MTNL could not produce the call records of mobile telephone number 9968562955 as they were not available, but he had produced the customer application form (Ex.PW49/C) along with the driving license of the subscriber, i.e. the appellant Monu, son of Sher Singh.PW49/C mentions the name of the subscriber as "Monu/Sher Singh".This is correct but would only show that the said number was being used by the deceased K.T. Sameer.The said call to a number in Riyadh would not help or assist the appellants or their argument.(D)(vi) Recovery of money and mobile phonesOn the question of recovery of money from the three appellants- Manish, Monu and Anil Kumar, we would refer to the depositions of Sunil Kumar (PW53).Kamlesh (PW45) and SI Zabbar Singh (PW28) which affirm and corroborate recovery of Rs.35,000/- at the behest of Manish, Rs.45,000/- at the behest of Monu, and Rs.60,000/- at the behest of Anil Kumar.As noticed, the said recoveries were made after recording disclosure statements of Manish (Ex.PW7/A), Monu (Ex.PW7/B) and Anil Kumar (Ex.PW45/F).The aforesaid disclosure statements have been proved by Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7) who has signed the Exs.PW7/A and PW7/B both at point "A"; Kamlesh Kumar (PW45) who had signed Exs.PW7/A, 7/B and 45/F at points "B", "B" and "A" respectively.Sunil Kumar (PW53) had also signed Exs.PW7/A, PW7/B and PW45/F at points "C", "C", and "B", respectively.The appellant Monu had led Insp.Sunil Kumar (PW53) along with ASI Kailash Kumar (PW45) and Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7) to his CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 25 of 35 house, i.e. House No.T-11/60, Mehram Nagar, on 20th October, 2008, from where he had got recovered a polythene bag under a bed, which contained a sum of Rs.45,000/- in cash (Ex.P3 colly.) and a mobile phone (Ex.P4) of make and model, "i-mate JASJAR".The phone (Ex.P4) was identified by Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7) as belonging to his deceased brother, K.T. Sameer.The phone (Ex.P4) was seized by Insp.Sunil Kumar (PW53) vide memo Ex.PW7/D, which was signed by PW7, PW45 and PW53 at points "A", "B" and "C", respectively.The recovery has been proved by PW53, PW45 and PW7 without any aberrations in their testimonies regarding the same.PW53 in his cross-examination accepted that no documentary proof was available with PW7 to prove ownership of Ex.P4 but added that PW7 had identified it as the said phone which was bought and used by the deceased in Saudi Arabia.No suggestion regarding the ownership of the mobile-cum-pocket PC was put to PW7 in his cross-examination.PW7 had also deposed that there was a video of K.T. Sameer and his family members in the said mobile-cum-pocket PC (Ex.P4).It is noteworthy that the said phone was a mobile phone-cum- pocket PC, which was not commonly available and used by general public in the year in question.The recovery of the said mobile and money at the instance of the appellant Monu creates a link between him and the offence in question.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 25 of 35Sajid K.V. (PW12) has testified that on 20th October, 2008, they, i.e. he and others, had seen the appellants Anil and Monu in police custody and were asked by the police to accompany them for recovery and identification of articles belonging to K.T. Sameer.Appellant Anil had, thereafter, taken the police team and PW12 to the house where they recovered one mobile phone Nokia Xpress Music (Ex.P5), which was CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 26 of 35 identified by PW12 as belonging to K.T. Sameer.The phone was seized and sealed vide seizure memo, Ex.PW12/A.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 26 of 35(D)(vii)Recovery of the Pistol (Ex.P7) at the behest of Anil and the Ballistic ReportPW28 was subjected to extensive cross- examination on the question of recoveries, but we do not think there is any justification or reason to disbelieve the recovery.ASI Kamlesh Kumar (PW45) has deposed that on 21st October, 2008, he along with the IO (PW53), PW28, and the appellant-Anil Kumar had gone to his house at S-395/15, Mehram Nagar and at the behest of the appellant one country made pistol (Ex.P7) was recovered covered in a cloth from the roof of the bathroom.He gave dimensions of the said pistol and proved the seizure memo Ex.PW28/C, signed by him at point C. The sketch Ex.In his cross-examination, PW45 denied that the bathroom was for common use of the accused and neighbours, and stated that it was an independent bathroom.PW45 had visited the house of the appellant Anil Kumar in the morning and for the second time CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 27 of 35 in the evening.During the first visit only one room was searched.This room was again searched in the evening.In fact, PW53 was quite steadfast in his cross- examination.PW53 further clarified that he had recorded four disclosure statements of the appellant-Anil Kumar, the first after the arrest (Ex.There is sufficient evidence to accept the defence version that the three appellants were apprehended at Shimla and then brought to Delhi.The said fact was asserted by the three appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They had led defence evidence in support.Constable Sunil CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 30 of 35 Kumar (DW1) has accepted that one car bearing No.DL3CK-2997 was detained by the traffic police at Tutti Kundi bypass and DD entries were made regarding the information and also on return to the police station at 5.15 P.M. by Head Constable Praveen Dutt.DW1 did not identify the appellants as the persons who were brought to the police station, but had accepted that their names were Manish, Monu and Anil.DW1, we agree, was not candid when he did not accept the suggestion that the three were wanted by Delhi Police in this case, but claimed that this fact might be in the knowledge of the SHO.Our finding gets support from the testimony of Head Constable Amit Rajta (DW5) of Himachal Pradesh Police, who proved the Daily Diary entries and the reply given under the RTI; and testimony of Inspector K.D. Sharma (DW6), who was posted as the SHO Police Station West Boileauganj, District Shimla.The vehicle bearing No.DL3CK-2997 and three detained persons, namely, Manish, CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 31 of 35 Monu and Anil were handed over to them.He also proved Daily Diary entry Nos. 34A, 37 and 6 as DW6/A, 6/B and 6/C. He identified the appellants in the Court.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 31 of 35Inspector Vinod Narang (DW3) has testified that he was posted at Police Station IGI Airport and SI J.S. Mishra was posted as Sub-Inspector at the Domestic Airport.On 18th October, 2008, they had left for Shimla from Delhi.They had gone to Shimla on directions of ACP M.I. Haider to interrogate three persons who had been apprehended in a missing case of an NRI.After reaching Shimla at about 5 A.M., they had made inquiries from the three persons apprehended by the Shimla Police.We accept the contention of the appellants that DW3 had tried to cover up and conceal true facts, when he had claimed that the three boys had referred to a Gujarati passenger.DW3 was also wrong and had falsely claimed that the persons were directed to appear before the IO.The appellants, it is apparent, were detained and brought to Delhi.This common judgment would dispose of the aforesaid appeals filed by Manish, Monu and Anil Kumar challenging their conviction under Sections 302, 364, 392, 394 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) vide impugned judgment dated 30th May, 2013 in the charge sheet arising out of FIR No.50/2008, Police Station Palam Airport.Appellant-Anil Kumar has also been convicted under Section 397 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. By order CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 1 of 35 on sentence dated 24th June, 2013, the appellants have been sentenced to the following punishments:-CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 1 of 35The appellant Anil Kumar has been additionally sentenced as follows:All the sentences are directed to run concurrently and Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) shall apply.On examining and reading the aforesaid testimonies, we do not find any reason to disbelieve or disregard the said statements, on the aspect that the deceased K.T. Sameer had travelled to Delhi from Ahmedabad via Spice-Jet Airlines vide flight No.The said fact has been proved beyond doubt or debate.Sunil Kumar (PW53).PW30/A. The said passenger manifesto running into three pages was computer generated and was marked Ex.PW30/B. It is conspicuously noticeable that the said flight manifesto (Ex.No objection was taken for admission of the said documents on record.In his cross-examination, PW30 has stated that airline was using NAVITAIRE system, which he knew was tampered proof.He denied the suggestion that the passenger manifesto was tampered with.Hukam Singh (PW20) had noticed a dead body of a young male lying in the fields near the wall of Kuber farm on 11th October, 2008 at about 7 A.M. His statement (Ex.PW22/A) Police Station Bilaspur, seizure of ring and blood-stained soil, inquest papers and the site plan (Ex.PW39/D).We have also referred to his court deposition in some detail in paragraph 15 and other paragraphs below.Statement of Pawan Kumar (PW36), photographer of Pawan Studio, Bilaspur is important.He had taken photographs of the dead body which were marked Ex.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 7 of 35It is on the basis of the photographs that Kaithal Shahir Ahmed (PW7) had identified and stated that the dead body was that of K.T. Sameer.PW7 also identified the clothes of his deceased brother.As per PW7, the said identification was done on 20th October, 2008, after the appellants were detained and interrogated.The said assertion is disputed by the appellants, who claimed that the police already knew that the dead body found in FIR No.160/2008, Police Station Bilaspur, Gurgaon was of K.T. Sameer.This aspect will be dealt with subsequently.At this stage, we only record and observe that it has been proved that a dead body of an unknown male Muslim was found by Hukam Singh (PW20) on 11th October, 2008 at about 7 A.M. This body was identified on the basis of photographs (Ex.PW36/1 to PW36/13) as that of K.T. Sameer.PW33/A. PW39 has deposed that the CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 8 of 35 photographs of the deceased were published in the newspaper for the purpose of identification.However, the body was not identified and on 14th October, 2008, the deceased was cremated as per Mohammaden rites.The deceased was about five feet and eight inches, and had a red-coloured handkerchief tied around his neck.Though no ligature was seen on the neck, but the same appeared to be congested.The firearm entry wound had surrounding blackening and blue discolouration.On dissection of the wounds, fracture in sternum, and various injuries in the heart were found.A bullet was recovered from the body and sealed in a container, which is proved and marked Ex.It was opined that the death was due to extensive injury to a vital part, i.e. the heart.The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 9 of 35Jagbir Singh (PW5) and Suresh CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 10 of 35 Kumar (PW26) came to the police station on 18th October, 2008 along with their daughters Rozy (PW4) and Vandana (PW13) respectively.PW53 recorded their statements.It was also learnt that mobile No.9818152052 was allotted to one Naveen Kumar (PW44), resident of 20/60 Mehram Nagar.PW53 went to the house of Naveen Kumar (PW44) along with HC Kamlesh (PW45).Naveen Kumar (PW44) informed PW53 that the said mobile SIM was being used by his brother Manish Kumar who had gone to Shimla.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 10 of 35She accepted that police had made inquiries.On being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, she denied having made CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 11 of 35 any statement to the police that on 18th October, 2008 she had gone to Palam Airport along with her brother Vijay Kumar.She denied the suggestion that her father had bought a mobile phone instrument with SIM No.9213534186 for her but voluntarily added that the connection was for home use and the number might be the same as suggested.She claimed that she could not remember whether she had told the police that there was a function on 8th October, 2008 and volunteered that she did not remember the date.She also accepted that Anil, who was present in the CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 12 of 35 Court, had come to their house in the said function and they had exchanged mobile numbers.She denied the suggestion that appellant-Anil had called her on her mobile number at about 12.30 A.M. from mobile phone No.9846202449, i.e., the mobile number being used by K.T. Sameer.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 12 of 35Suresh Kumar (PW26), father of Vandana (PW13) has stated that he had gifted a Tata mobile phone to her daughter on her birthday.Subsequently, Vandana (PW13) had told him that she had received a call on the said phone from the appellant Anil.PW45/C, signed by PW53 at point B.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 13 of 35CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 14 of 35On the same day, at about 9 P.M., the third appellant Anil Kumar was arrested from Mahipalpur bus stand at the instance of secret informer.He was interrogated and he made disclosure statement (Ex.PW45/F).On 21st October, 2008 at 6 A.M. PW53 along with SI Zabbar Singh (PW28), HC Kamlesh (PW45) went to the house of Anil Kumar at S-313/95, Mehram Nagar and recovered a country made pistol (Ex.P7) and a khanjar (Ex.P8) from the roof of bathroom situated outside the house.The country made pistol (Ex.P7) was wrapped in a maroon colour cloth.PW28/A) was prepared and signed by PW53 at point C. Ex.P7 was seized and sealed with the seal of ZS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW28/C. The khanjar (Ex.P8) was seized vide memo Ex.PW28/D. Sketch of the khanjar was made and proved as Ex.PW28/B. Earlier, Rs.60,000/- in denomination of 116 notes of Rs.500/- each and 20 notes of Rs.100/- each were recovered at the behest of appellant Anil Kumar from a taand (attic) of the house and were seized by seizure memo Ex.PW28/E. Appellant Anil Kumar had got recovered one mobile phone Nokia Xpress Music (Ex.P5), which was seized vide memo Ex.He identified the dead bodies of the deceased terrorists.PW 76 (Inspector H.S. Gill) deposed that Afzal was taken to the mortuary of Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital and he identified the five terrorists and gave their names.Accordingly, PW 76 prepared an identification memo CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 16 of 35 Ext. PW-76/1 which was signed by Afzal.In the post-mortem reports pertaining to each of the deceased terrorists, Afzal signed against the column "identified by".On this aspect, the evidence of PW 76 remained unshattered.The evidence of the investigating officer and PWs 1, 2, 7 and PW 4 the spot mahazar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was buried, is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 8 as the conduct of the accused.Presence of A-1 and A-2 at a place where ransom demand was to be fulfilled and their action of fleeing on spotting the police party is a relevant circumstance and are admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act."(D)(iii) Taxi No.X-2 (blood stained gauze).The report also records that blood was found on the piece of car seat cover (Ex.P1) and the pieces of carpet (Ex.P2) found on the car.This proves that the blood stains found on the piece of car seat cover and pieces of floor carpet was that of the deceased K.T. Sameer and not of any third person.This predicates a strong link between the car and the offence in question.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 18 of 35PW34/A in his handwriting and signature.However, in the Court deposition, PW34 resiled and did not accept what was stated in his reply dated 10th October, 2008, claiming that the reply was dictated by the police.PW34 in Ex.PW34/A had stated that the taxi was with his brother Manish Kumar from about 7 P.M. on 10th October, 2008 and the said taxi came back on 11th October, 2010 at 8 A.M. PW34, however, accepted that the telephone No.9810041951 belonged to him.On being confronted with his statement (Ex.PW34/A) under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein it was recorded that he had handed over taxi to the appellant Manish, he replied that he could not tell whether he had made any such statement.In view of the factual background and evidences in the present case, we would accept the written version given by Satya Prakash (PW34) in Ex.The CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 19 of 35 said reply was given on 10th October, 2008, and in case the said witness was coerced and forced to make the statement, he would have protested or informed the higher authorities, after all, his brother, i.e. the appellant Manish was being implicated on the basis of his reply dated 10th October, 2008 (Ex.PW34/A).CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 19 of 35(D)(iv) Specific contentions of the appellantsWe would now like to refer to other argument of the appellants.They rely upon the testimony of the first Investigating Officer SI Krishan Kumar (PW40).The said Sub Inspector on 14th October, 2008, was posted at police station IGI Airport and was marked DD No.43 regarding missing of K.T. Sameer.The missing complaint was made by N.K. Afzal (PW1).PW40 had checked the pre-paid taxi booth to find out whether any passenger by the name of K.T. Sameer had booked a taxi from the airport.He came to know that taxi bearing registration No. DL1T-3940 was booked by one Samir for Paharganj/Karol Bagh side.PW40 then contacted the driver of the said taxi who pointed out the place where he had dropped the said Samir in Karol Bagh.PW40 had checked and verified from the hotels but could not ascertain and confirm whether Samir had checked in any of the hotels.He had flashed wireless messages and checked hospitals etc. as per the routine followed in cases of missing persons.On 15th October, 2008, he had given a letter to the ACPs office for call record details of the mobile phone of K.T. Sameer, i.e. the number provided by N.K. Afzal (PW1).He also gave letters to SBI, Palam and SBOP, Palam for ATM withdrawal details.Thereafter, the FIR (Ex.PW3/A) was registered and investigation was marked to Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW53).Learned counsel for the appellants had vociferously relied upon the letter (Ex.PW19/A) written by Ajmal Abdullah (PW19).The said letter CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 20 of 35 gives details of the residence of PW19 and the fact that he had purchased the SIM card with mobile No.9846202449 and the said SIM card was given to his uncle K.T. Sameer Kaithal, who had been murdered after being kidnapped from IGI Airport, Delhi.Noticeably, Ajmal Abdullah (PW19) was not specifically cross-examined on the date as mentioned in Ex.PW19/A. To us, the mentioned date is an apparent mistake.The deposition of the first Investigating Officer SI Krishan Kumar (PW40) is lucid and clear.Noticeably, initially the FIR was registered under Section 364 IPC.The heart of the argument based upon the discrepancy in the date mentioned in Ex.Statement of PW12 indicates that they were not aware what had happened, except that CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 21 of 35 K.T. Sameer was missing and a substantial amount of money had been withdrawn using his ATM card.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 21 of 35PW29/A. The said details running into three pages were marked Ex.PW29/B. No objection was taken to admission of the said details on record.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 22 of 35On the basis of the disclosure statement marked Ex.PW45/F made by the appellant Anil Kumar, a country made pistol (Ex.P7) was recovered from roof of the toilet of his house.In addition to the deposition of Sunil Kumar (PW53) elucidated above, this fact is deposed and proved by SI Zabbar Singh (PW28).Sketch of the pistol (Ex.PW28/A) was prepared and the pistol was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/C, signed by PW28 at point A. The aforesaid pistol was identified by PW28 after opening seal of CFSL, CBI and the same was marked Ex.In the morning, recoveries were affected from the room and in the evening recoveries were affected at a small distance.He denied the suggestion that the recoveries were planted.Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW53) has deposed about the recovery of the country made pistol (Ex.P7) from the roof of the bathroom situated outside the house of the appellant Anil Kumar on 21st October, 2008 at 6 A.M. and the sketch thereof (Ex.PW28/A), signed by him at point C and the seizure memo (Ex.PW28/C), signed by him at point C. In his cross- examination, PW53 has deposed that there were two rooms in the house of the appellant-Anil Kumar on the ground floor.There was a kitchen outside the house and a temporary shed outside kitchen but he could not recollect the dimension of the room, the articles kept therein or the number of windows in the house.PW45/F) on 20th October, 2008, and three more on 21st October, 2008; one in the morning at 10.30 A.M. and two at about 5 P.M. (Ex.PW53/A and Ex.PW53/B).PW45/F had led to the recovery of the pistol (Ex.P7), the khanjar (Ex.P8) and Rs.60,000/- (Ex.P9), while Ex.PW53/B led to the recovery of the mobile phone (Ex.P5).The CFSL report (Ex.PW50/A) with regard to pistol was proved by A.R. Arora (PW50), Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I. The aforesaid report records and A.R. Arora (PW50) in his court deposition has stated CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 28 of 35 that he had examined parcel No.6, which contained a fired bullet (Ex.P6) and the country made pistol (Ex.P7) and opined that the bullet had been fired from the said pistol.The bullet (Ex.P6) was recovered from the dead body of the deceased K.T. Sameer (See deposition of Dr. B.B. Aggarwal (PW9) in paragraph 15 supra).CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 28 of 35Learned counsel for the appellant-Anil Kumar had emphasised and relied on the deposition of PW50 highlighting that the length of the country made pistol as stated by him was 26 cm with barrel length of 14.8 cm.He also referred to the sketch (Ex.PW50/DY).Reference was then made to the sketch of the country made pistol marked Ex.PW28/A, wherein the dimensions of the pistol have been recorded as 28.8 cm, length of the barrel has been mentioned as 19 cm and the length of the butt has been mentioned as 9.8 cm.Our attention was drawn to the discrepancy in design of the trigger in the two sketches.In these circumstances, we had asked for the original pistol (Ex.P7) and the same was produced before us on 9th March, 2015 and after examining the pistol (Ex.P7), the following order was passed:-"xxx The duly sealed exhibit has been produced and was opened in the presence of the counsel.A fired cartridge (Ex.PW50/P3) has also been examined.The fired cartridge (Ex.PW50/P3) was shown to the counsel for the appellants.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 29 of 35It is, therefore, clear that there was no discrepancy whatsoever in the calibre or the size of the seized country made pistol (Ex.P7) and the bullet (Ex.P6) recovered from the deceased and as examined by the experts at the CFSL.The trigger of the pistol (Ex.P7) is peculiar, with a moving lock.The figure of 8 engraved on the fired cartridge (Ex.PW50/P-3) was mis- read as 5, an illusion possible when we look at the fired cartridge (Ex.PW50/P-3) from the side.This was shown and accepted by the counsel for the appellants.Serological Examination Report (Ex.PW48/A) describes Exhibit 6 as "few threads of metallic piece".It is submitted that the aforesaid description of the bullet recovered from the body of K.T. Sameer negates the prosecution story, for a bullet would not have described in the said words.The said bullet in parcel No.6 was examined by the ballistic expert, A.R. Arora (PW50), who had opined that the bullet was of 8 mm size.It is obvious that the ballistic expert was able to identify the metallic piece and, therefore, had described it as a fired bullet.(E) ConcernHowever, there is one aspect of concern.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 30 of 35Head Constable Nikka (DW2) has stated that on 18th October, 2008 he was posted as Investigating Officer, Police Station West Shimla.He had gone to Tutti Kundi bypass and three persons were brought to the police station, but claimed that he could not identify the said persons due to time gap of four years.He was cross-examined by the counsel for the appellants but again asserted that he cannot identify the three persons and did not know their names or whether they were called Anil, Monu and Manish.He denied that the three persons were wanted by Delhi Police and the three had stayed the entire night in the police station.We do not think that DW1 and DW2 have deposed truthfully in as much as they have tried to hide and conceal true facts, known to them.DW3 has accepted that he had interacted and made inquiries from the three persons, i.e. the three appellants, whom he had identified as the accused present in the Court.He accepted that vide GD No.6A, Police Station West Shimla, the CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 32 of 35 three persons were handed over to him, but added that he had relieved them after making necessary inquiries.CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 32 of 35Inspector J.S. Mishra (DW4) has accepted that three persons had been detained in Police Station Boileauganj, Shimla and were interrogated.However, he claimed that they did not disclose anything about the present case, therefore, they were relieved.The said statement has to be rejected as false and wrong.DW4 has accepted that the appellants, i.e., Anil, Monu and Manish were the same persons from whom inquiries were made.In his cross-examination by the counsel for the appellants, DW4 affirmed that DD No.46 dated 18th October, 2008 was made with regard to departure and DD No.47 dated 20th October, 2008 was made with regard to arrival.The same were marked as Mark D-4/1 and Mark D-4/2 as well as Ex.DW4/A and Ex.The time mentioned in DD No.47, marked Ex.DW4/B, loses its relevance once we accept the factual position.It is apparent from the testimonies that the three appellants were interrogated and thoroughly examined in Shimla on 19th October, 2008 and were brought back to Delhi.It is apparent from the statement of DW3 and DW4 that during the return journey, the car in which the CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 33 of 35 appellants were being brought to Delhi broke down.The police team had not taken transit remand from the court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Shimla.Possibly, they believed that they would reach Delhi the same evening.However, this would not affect the prosecution case so as to grant and entitle the appellants an order of acquittal.At best, the aforesaid conduct and lapse on the part of the investigation mandates a close and meticulous scrutiny.It warrants a cautious and judicious examination of the testimony of witnesses.Strict compliance of statutory provisions should be there but that by itself does not render the acts done by the police officer void ab initio and at the most it may affect the probative value of the evidence regarding arrest or search and in some cases it may invalidate such arrest or search.But such violation by itself does not invalidate the trial or the conviction if otherwise there is sufficient material.[See H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.The State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196, Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr.Ram Singh & Ors.And Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs State, (Death Sentence Ref.No.6/2013 and Crl.No.1398/2013 Decided On: 13.03.2014)]."CRL.A Nos. 35/2014 & 27/2014 Page 34 of 35In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeals.We uphold the conviction and maintain the sentences awarded to the appellants.The appeals are dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.17975/2019 (Amrat s/o Badrilal Kumawat Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 08.05.2019 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.17975/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.05.08 18:01:30 +05'30'

['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

i/d 2 months S.I.(i) PWs.1 to 3 viz., Dr.Suresh Kumar, Dr.Anand and Dr.Indumathi Santhanam were on duty on 20.04.2006 at the Government Children's Hospital at Egmore, Chennai.An infant died.A1 is related to the dead child.At about 11.15 p.m, unidentified persons entered the emergency ward.Beaten PW1; fisted him.He swooned.P.Ws.2 and 3 witnessed the occurrence.PW1 has been taken to Government General Hospital, Chennai.(ii) On hospital intimation, PW.11 Mohan -Sub Inspector of Police, F-2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai visited the said hospital, received Ex.He registered this case [Ex.P9, F.I.R.].He examined PW1 and other witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the meanwhile, PW9 Dr.He complained of pain in his right cheek.[ Ex.P7 Accident Register copy].PW11 visited the scene place.Prepared Ex.P10 Observation Mahazar in the presence of PW6 and another person.He also drew Ex.P11-rough sketch of the scene place.He has recorded Ex.P12 confessional statement of A1 in the presence of PW5 and another person.In pursuance of the information in Ex.P12, at the instance of A1, PW11 seized MO1 weapon under Ex.P13 seizure mahazar in the presence of said witnesses.He sent the arrested persons to jurisdictional Magistrate for judicial custody.Under Ex.A1 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.147 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.III], Chennai is the appellant.2. A1 and six others were prosecuted before the said Court for offences under Sections 147, 148, 458, 333, 307 and 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC.It had also acquitted A1 from offences under Sections 147, 148, 458, 333, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC; but found him guilty for the following offences and sentenced him as under:(i)451 IPC(ii)332 IPCBoth the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Fine amounts were paid.P14 Form 95 PW11 produced the case property to court.(iv) Thereafter, P.W.12 Rajagopal, Assistant Commissioner, Egmore Range continued the investigation.He altered the Section of law by adding Sections 147, 148, 452, 332, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC [Ex.P15 alteration memo].PW12 recorded further statement of certain witnesses.Based on the confessional statement of A6[Ex.P16], he seized MO2 motor cycle under Ex.P17 mahazar in the presence of witnesses.He has arrested the other accused.Sent them to court for judicial custody.He has produced MO2 to the court under Ex.(v) Thereafter, P.W.13-Mohan, Assistant Commissioner, Egmore Range continued the investigation.He obtained Ex.P8 Wound Certificate for PW1 from P.W.10 Dr.Concluding his investigation, he filed the final report in this case before the concerned court.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating aspects appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied the offences.He did not examine any witness.However, he marked Exs.D1 and D2 to establish his defence of alibi ["elsewhere"].According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in Ex.PW3 did not disclose the same in her statement to police.Further, copies of the same has not been furnished to A1 under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Further, none of the investigation officers spoken about conducting of any such scientific investigation to fix the identity of the accused.De hors such evidence of PW3, nothing remains except suspicion and surmises.Prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.Till the occurrence, A1 was a stranger to him.PW1 has not mentioned A1 in his Ex.P1 complaint.In the trial court PW3 had identified A1 as the person who has assaulted PW1 at the time of occurrence.The identification of A1 by PW3 before the trial court is the substantive evidence.Identification of the accused before that will come under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, it will not be substantive evidence.It will be only a corroborative piece of evidence.There cannot be a conviction solely based on corroborative evidence.Corroborative evidence also must be admitted in evidence as per the technical rules of Indian Evidence Act.PW11 had recorded the statement of PW3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In it, PW1 did not say that she had identified A1 through the video clippings in the Director's office.The said identification material was not furnished to A1 under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Naturally, the defence will be taken by surprise.A1 will be prejudiced.So, the said corroborative piece of evidence of PW3 necessarily have to be eschewed from our zone of consideration.In this case, the identification of A1 by PW3 before the trial court is the first identification.Necessarily such a piece of evidence should be eschewed.P.Ws.11 to 13, the Police Officers have not properly investigated the case and taken steps to establish the identity of A1 in this case.What remains is suspicion and surmises; however, they may be strong, they may not be a substitute for legal proof.Prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts.In view of the foregoings, this criminal appeal is allowed.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(2) The complainant Lakhubhai Pathak is a resident of United Kingdom and is of Indian origin.He is stated to be a businessman running a firm in the business of food processing.In 1983, he is alleged to have come into contact with Chandraswami and Kailash Nath Aggarwal, both of whom made him believe that Chandraswami had a great influence in the official and political circles in India and was capable of getting any job through.Both of them suggested that the contract for supply of paper pulp and newsprint to India was a highly profitable job and the complainant is alleged to have been persuaded to secure the same and was assured all help for procuring the contract in his favour by use of the good offices .of Chandraswami and Kailash Nath Aggarwal.In December, 1983 the complainant is alleged to have been induced to pay an amount of Us $ 1,00,000 for procuring the contract in his favour by using their good offices and he was so overwhelmed by their assurance that he believed whatever they said and an amount of Us $ 1,00,000 was paid to Chandraswami by two cheques on 4th January, 1984 outside a New York Hotel.Another sum of around Us $ 30,000 is also alleged to have been spent on the hospitality of Chandraswami and others.Thereafter, in spite of repeated approaches made by the complainant, Chandraswami failed to secure the contract for him and it is alleged that the complainant was cheated by the said Chandraswami and Kailash Nath Aggarwal.The complainant first tried to get his money back from Chandraswami, however, when he failed to get that money back, he decided to expose the fraud committed by Chandraswami.JUDGMENT S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short referred to as "the Code"), adding the petitioner as an accused for being a party to the criminal conspiracy of cheating the complainant Lakhubhai Pathak, under Section 120B/420 Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the same.He wrote letters to many persons levelling allegations against Chandraswami which led to the filing of a defamation suit against the complainant by Chandraswami.This suit was ultimately dismissed.The complainant filed a complaint with the Indian High Commission against Chandraswami and Kailash Nath Aggarwal for initiating action against them for their having dishonestly induced the complainant to pay Us $ 1,00,000 when they had neither the resources nor the contact for procuring the contract for him.Case Fir No.RC.I(5)/88/SIU Ix under Section 120-B/420 Indian Penal Code was registered on 5th February, 1988 against Chandraswami and Kailash Nath Aggarwal.Initially they were released on bail, however, presently they are in custody.(3) The Court took cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy to cheat as well as of actually cheating the complainant and issued process against Chandraswami and Kailash Nath Aggarwal and they are facing trial.The complainant appeared in the witness box and stated on oath that Chandraswami .had told him that he had a talk with the Minister and the Minister had assured him that he would help Pathak.It was further stated during the course of the statement by the complainant that on 22/23rd December, 1983 when he had gone to meet Chandraswami in his room in Holorum House Hotel, Manhattan, New York, a Minister came in the room of Swamiji and the complainant came to know that his name was P.V.Narasimha Rao.He remained with Chandraswami in his room for about one/one and a half hour when he along with some other persons remained sitting outside and when Chandraswami and Mr.Narasimha Rao came out of the room, the complainant was introduced by Chandraswami to Mr.Narasimha Rao that Mr.Pathak was a big businessman.Narasimha Rao is alleged to have told the complainant "Swamiji had told me everything and that my work will be done".On this assurance, the complainant felt very happy, as he was the only person in the gathering who had been introduced to Mr.Narasimha Rao by Chandraswami.Thereafter, Chandraswami asked the complainant to arrange for food.Vegetarian food is alleged to have been arranged by the complainant for Chandraswami, P.V.Narasimha Rao, Martindale Congressman Damley and Kailash Nath Aggarwal.This amount of,US $ 1,00,000 was not deposited in any account of the complainant as was suggested by Chandraswami to prove the financial soundness of the complainant but was handed over by means of two cheques to Chandraswami to be deposited in an account exclusively known to Chandraswami and the complainant was not aware of its details.The complainant is alleged to have written various letters to Mr.P.V.Narasimha Rao and, accordingly, added him as an accused in a case for being a party in the criminal conspiracy and cheating and he was summoned under Section 120-B/420 Indian Penal Code It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Having heard that there was recruitment for the the post of Khalasi in the General Mechanical Department of the Southern Railway, he is said to have gone to that office for the purpose of getting the necessary information and applying for the post.P.W. 2 is a stranger to the accused.But when he went to the office he is said to have been seen by the accused in the office.The accused came out immediately on seeing P.W. 2 and asked him what he wanted.P.W. 2 told him that he was in need of a job and immediately the accused told him to come to his house that evening and gave him his address.But P.W. 2 did not meet the accused that evening in his house as he says that he sustained an injury while playing football.Three days later, on the 27th he went to the house of the accused.Then the accused is said to have given him a draft application asking him to make out such an application in his own handwriting.The accused also asked P.W. 2 to bring his Section S.L.C. Book.More than all these he demanded from P.W. 2 Rs. 50 to try for the job.P.W. 2 is said to have taken Rs. 30 from his father the next day.But suddenly he realised that it was wrong and virtuous sentiments overtook him all of a sudden and he decided that he should not pay a bribe and get a job.He immediately went to the Special Police Establishment after hearing that there was a such a department constituted by the Government, to detect offences of this type, and gave information to them.The Officer who was naturally on the look out for such culprits, took a witten complaint and asked him whether he brought the money and when P.W. 2 showed him the thirty rupees, the officer noted down the number of the currency notes in a paper and got P.Ws. 3 and 4 to attest the same.Then he is said to have given the modus operandi, as to how P.W. 2 should pay the money and where they would wait.The Police Officers asked P.W. 2 to wait till the accused returned home.P.W. 2 gave the application form and Rs. 30 to the accused.All this happened while they were walking together leaving the house.After getting the money the accused is said to have promised to get P.W. 2 the job.JUDGMENT Somasundaram, J.The appellant was tried by the Special Judge, Madras for offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(i)(d) read with Section 5(a) of Act II of 1947 and convicted.He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 300/-The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows:The appellant was a Clerk employed in the Records Section of the Chief Engineer's Office, Southern Railway.P.W. 2, Kulasekharan, a young man of about 22 years is said to have been trying for a job.In the meantime P.W. 2 informed the Police Officer of the payment of the money to the accused.The Police officers went past the accused and stopped him.On being questioned, the accused at first denied but subsequently took out the application form and Rs. 30, from inside his banian.The witnesses whom the officer took, attested the mahazar.After further investigation the accused was charge-sheeted for the offences mentioned above.There can be no doubt that this Rs. 30 was recovered from the accused under the circumstances mentioned by prosecution witnesses, that is, P.W. 2 paid Rs. 30 at the place mentioned and they were found inside the accused's banian along with the application.But the rest of the story is all a put up one, that is to say, it is not as if on seeing P.W. 2 the accused came out immediately and that P.W. 2 suddenly became virtuous in his sentiments and wanted to prove to be the right type of citizen.It must all have been arranged by the Special Police Establishment.That the trap was laid and the police succeeded in the trap cannot be disputed.The result is that the accused undoubtedly was in possession of Rs. 30 given by P.W. 2, which was certainly given for the purpose of getting a job for P.W. 2 as a Khalasi.The first charge as framed is as follows:That you being a public servant, employed as a Clerk in the Record section of the Chief Engineer's Office, Southern Railway, Madras, on or about the 28th day of February, 1957, at Madras (near Mambalam) Railway Station did demand and accept a sum of Rs. 30 (thirty only) from Shri N. Kulasekharan as gratification, other than legal remuneration, as a motive for getting him a Khalasi's post in the Railway in pursuance of earlier demands made by you, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and within my cognizance.The relevant portion of Section 161 Indian Penal Code runs as follows:

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Passed on 28th May, 2018 ) The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 02/11/2017 passed by learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in session trial No. 498/2017 whereby the trial Court has framed charges against theapplicant for commission of the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code ( in short " IPC" ).2 Briefly stating the facts are that on 18/04/2016, Police got an information from Sub-Inspector Balram Raghuvanshi deceased Rahul Jain committed suicide by hanging himself at his house.On the basis of said information police lodged Merg intimation No. 24/2016 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and investigate the matter.During investigation of Merg police 2 Cr.3865/2017 Manish Vs.State of M.P.seized one suicide note from the possesion of his father Ramchandra from the house of deceased in which it is mention that the present applicant/accused alongwith other co-accused Mukesh had extorted lacs of rupees from him and they threatened to kill him due to which the deceased committed suicide.The police arrested the applicant and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.3 Learned trial Court, after perusal of entire material on record , by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that prima-facie, charge under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present revision before this Court.4 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned public prosecutor for the State and perused the records.5 It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the sole document, on which the prosecution case rests is the suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased Rahul Jain before committing suicide, wherein he has only stated that applicant Manish and co-accused Mukesh should have been responsible for his death.instigated or provoked the deceased Omprakash for commission of suicide and if the applicant / accused had extorted lacs of rupees from the deceased asking him to execute the sale deed, then by his act itself, ingredients of instigation for commission of suicide is lacking and the offence under section 306 of IPC cannot be made out against the applicant.Therefore, the trial Court has wrongly framed the charge against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC.Expression " Abetment " has been defined in section 107 of IPC, which reads as under :Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--L.R ( SC) 261 / (2010) 1 SCC 750, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :"Abetment involves a mentalprocess of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained -In order to convict a persons under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he committs suicide - Also, reiterated, if it appears to Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to 5 Cr.R.No.3865/2017 Manish Vs.State of M.P.ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victi belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience of Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty - Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under Section 306 made out - Hence, appellant's conviction, held unsustainable."The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh Vs.State of Punjab reported in (2017( 1 SCC (Cri) 134 is held as under:-Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that a person in doing of a thing.In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing.More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC."3865/2017 Manish Vs.In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998, the accused was charged under section 306 of IPC for abeting his brother-in-law to commit suicide.The accused allegedly said to him to " go and die".The deceased left behind a suicide note stating that the accused is responsible for his death.It was held that the word " go and die" do not constitute instigation for mens ria of offence under section 306 of IPC.On perusal of the suicide note alleged to have been 7 Cr.3865/2017 Manish Vs.State of M.P.written by the deceased Rahul Jain, it is apparent that the appllicant and co-accused Mukesh had extorted lacs of rupees from him and he had nothing remained and they threatened to kill him.From the suicide note, it does not appear that the applicant had harassed the deceased to extort money.The allegation made against the applicant in the suicide note or in the statements of the witnesses, even if taken true at their face value does not prima-facie indicate that the applicant by positive act on his part incited or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, in the aforesaid premises continuation of the proceedings against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of IPC will be nothing, but exercise in futility .In the the aforesaid premises, prima-facie, no charge under Section 306 of the IPC is hereby made out against the applicant.Consequently, present revision petition is allowed.The impugned order dated 02/11/2017 framing charge under section 306 of IPC against the applicant is set aside and the applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charge.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Court below be called for.Also heard on I.A.No.5041/2018 an application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellant- Tularam Kushwah.Appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs.3000/- and under Section 354(A) (1)(i) of IPC and sentenced to under go three years R.I. with fine of Rs.3,000/-.He has also been convicted under Section 3(1)(w-1) of S.C.S.T. Act and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs.3000/- and under Section 3(2)(v-a) of S.C.S.T. Act and sentenced to under go three years R.I with fine of Rs.3,000/- and default of payment of fine three months additional R.I for each of the offence.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that appellant could not deposit the fine amount and moved an application for suspension earlier.He prays for fifteen days' time to deposit the fine amount.There are good chances of success of the appeal.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the application.It is directed that execution of the remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he is directed to be released on bail subject to depositing the fine amount within fifteen days and on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, for his appearance before the C.J.M, Vidhisha on 20th December, 2018 and on all such other dates as may be fixed by the concerned C.J.M. in this regard.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE 2 CRA-4670-2018 mani SUBASRI MANI 2018.07.03 15:46:59 +05'30'

['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.

Deepa Arya against the petitioners, who are the security guards in the property occupied by her.Petitioners in W.P.(CRL) 2427/2019 seek quashing of the FIR No.19/2015 under Sections 354A/354B/506/509/34 IPC, P.S. Paharganj (subsequently transferred to P.S. Special Cell).The subject FIRs emanate out of larger family dispute.There were several other FIRs and cross-FIRs registered against each other.W.P.(Crl.) 2423/2019 & 2427/2019 Page 2 of 4Chander Shekhar Arya, is granted.Parties confirm the Settlement Agreement dated 15.5.2019 and undertake to abide by the terms and conditions as contained therein.W.P.(Crl.) 2423/2019 & 2427/2019 Page 4 of 4SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)Petitioners in W.P.(CRL) 2423/2019 seek quashing of the FIR No.35/2018 under Sections 341/354/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Special Cell.Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of Ms.Parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre.Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 15.5.2019 before the Mediation Centre, whereby all inter se disputes between them have been resolved.On the oral prayer of the petitioners, Mr.Chander Shekhar Arya, is impleaded as co-petitioner to the petition [W.P.(CRL) 2427/2019].The amended memo of parties along with affidavit of the General Power of Attorney holder, Mr.Gaurav Goyal, has been handed over in court today and the same is taken on record.Exemption from personal appearance is prayed for Mr.Chander Shekhar Arya, since he is based in Australia and is being represented through Power of Attorney.Exemption from personal appearance sought for Mr.Ms. Deepa Arya, who is present in court submits that since she has settled with the petitioners she does not wish to prosecute and charges or the allegations against the petitioners.As per the settlement agreement a sum of 5,00,000/- has been paid to Ms.Deepa Arya by way of handing over a pay order bearing No.334538 in the dated 27.08.2019 drawn Oriental Bank of W.P.(Crl.) 2423/2019 & 2427/2019 Page 3 of 4 Commerce.W.P.(Crl.) 2423/2019 & 2427/2019 Page 3 of 4In view of the fact that the parties are family members and their security guards and have resolved their disputes and the complainant does not wish to press her complaints, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.It would be expedient to quash the subject FIRs and the consequent proceedings emanating there from.Accordingly, the petitions are allowed.FIR No.35/2018 under Sections 341/354/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Special Cell; and the FIR No.19/2015 under Sections 354A/354B/506/509/34 IPC, Police Station Paharganj (subsequently transferred to P.S. Special Cell), and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed.The petitions are accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE ns Digitally signed by Neeraj Sarvate Date: 2018.12.21 06:07:41 +05'30'This is the First application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.522/2018, registered at Police Station - Garhakota, District - Sagar for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 307 and 506-B/34 of IPC.Conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail.

['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.

One Sirajuddin PW No. 1 received information that illegal activities of cutting forest produce was going on in the saw mill and therefore, according to him, he kept a close watch on the said saw mill.On 13th April 1980, he received information that some forest produce which was illegally cut and transported from the reserve forest was being taken to the said Vishwakarma Saw Mill.He therefore raided the place at about 3.00 a.m. alongwith the panchas and several members.In the search which was taken at site, 15 logs of teak wood and one log of injaili variety was found in the saw mill.The total worth of the forest produce was Rs.3,700/-.It was further found that 9 wooden logs were cut and the evidence of such illicit cutting was destroyed and the pieces of illicit cutting of wood was found in the compound of saw mill itself.JUDGMENT V.M. Kanade, J.This appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shahapur.By the said judgement and order, the JMFC in RCC no. 689 of 1980 dated 5th December 1990 acquitted the accused of the offences punishable u/s.379, 411, 201 r/w sec.34 of the IPC and u/s.26, 41 of the Indian Forest Act punishable u/s.88 r/w sec.129 of the Bombay Forest Rules.The statements of the owners of the saw mill was recorded.One Ambadas visited the Cherpoli reserve forest on 7th May 1980 and he noticed 13 stumps of teak tree and 4 stumps of injaili trees.Accordingly, the measurement of the stumps was taken and the panchnama (Exhibit-34) was prepared.A complaint was filed against the accused.The accused admitted that the seized property was found in the compound.However, they denied having knowledge about the said property and it was claimed that the said property might have been planted in the saw mill without their consent.He submitted that the property was found in the compound of Vishwakarma Saw Mill and therefore, a presumption was raised about the knowledge of the said property, being stolen property against the accused.He submitted that the burden was on the accused to rebutt the presumption which was raised under the Forest Act. He submitted that this presumption had not been rebutted by the respondents.She further submitted that since it was not proved that the said property was either illegally removed from the forest or stolen from the forest, it could not be said that it was either a stolen property or a property which was illegally cut and taken away from the reserved forest.It was further submitted that once of the main ingredient of section 411 of the IPC was that the property in question should first be proved to be a stolen property and secondly u/s.114 of the Evidence Act. The presumption would arise about the existence of the stolen property if it is found soon after the theft had taken place.they have not seen the accused or their agents or Officers felling the trees from the reserve forest.The prosecution case infact is PW no. 1 Sirajuddin had received information that illegally cut wooden logs were being brought at the saw mill and accordingly, a raid was arranged at 3.00 a.m. in the morning.The trial Court in my view has rightly come to the conclusion that it was not possible to cut the wooden logs within 20 to 25 minutes after the alleged goods arrived at the saw mill.Further, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the wooden log found at the saw mill was the same wood which was cut from the reserve forest merely on the basis of the age the wood which was cut.

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.T h e applicant is in jail since 05.06.2020 in connection with Crime No.162/220 registered at Police Station Nagod, District Satna for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506/34, 325 and 307 of IPC.The case of the prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that on the petty quarrel there was a free fight and Pushpendra Singh along with the other person assaulted the victim by means of a wooden stick due to which victim received head injury as well as other injuries and the left frontal bone and matacarpal bones of the victim were got fracture.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the parties lodged the report against each other.Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE kundan Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 29/08/2020 14:38:20

['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge sjk Digitally signed by SHARANJEET KAUR JASSAL Date: 2018.05.17 10:49:29 +05'30'Heard on I.A. No.3565/2018, an application under Sec- tion 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

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

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

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.35/2014 registered at P.S. Chorhata, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 341 and 307 of the IPC.He is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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.

(i)"Padmashri" "Dr.A.Malik Mohammed" was the former Vice-Chancellor ofCochin University in Kerala State.P.W.14 is the daughterD-1 and she was then residing, with her husband, in Chennai.Yet anotherdaughter of D-1 was residing in Madurai, with her husband.Thus, at the house ofD-1, D-1 and D-3 alone were residing and D-2 was working as a Watchman, therebyhelping them.14. D-1 and D-3 were rich people.They had vast extent of properties,including jewellery, electronic goods and other household articles.They wereall kept in the house.P.W.8 is aresident of Maravan Kudiyirupu Village.He is a friend of the 1st accused.After sometime, D-1was not satisfied with the 1st accused, as he, at times, misbehaved with him.Therefore, D-1 discharged him from service.Thereafter, the 1st accused did notcome to the house of D-1 at all.P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of D-1 and he was then residing atK.P.Road, Nagercoil.He used to frequently visit the house of D-1 and to helpthem.The 2nd accused is a friend of the first accused.Thus, P.W.1 had introduction to the second accused as well.He met D-1 and his sister D-3.Till 07.00 PM.he was with them and then he left for his house.Hefound the outer gate of the compound wall locked.The house was also locked.The VillageAdministrative Officer (P.W.17) arrived at the house of D-1 at 04.00 p.m. Inthe presence of P.W.17 and P.W.1, P.W.32 removed the outer gate and entered intothe premises.They found the main door of the house locked from outside.Thenthey went to the backside of the house and using a ladder, they went atop theterrace of the house.By force, they opened the door ofthe entrance in the upstairs.On such opening, all of them entered into the I-Floor of the house.To their shock, they found D-1 lying dead in the bed-room, situated onthe left side of the I-Floor.The body was nude.The body was found bloatedand there was scorching foul smell.Obviously the body was highly decomposed.With the use of a towel, the nose and mouth were found tied, indicating that hewas done to death violently.Then they went to the downstairs of the house and entered into thebed-room.When they opened the toilet, attached to the said bedroom, they foundthe Watchman (D-2) lying dead.His body was also nude.The body was bloatedand it was highly decomposed.Both the legs were found tied with a cloth pieceand hands were also tied with a towel.His neck had been strangulated and aligature was found around his neck.P.W.1 identified D-1 and D-2. D-3 was notfound.From the appearance in the house, it could be gathered that theproperties belonging to D-1 and D-3 had been looted.But, P.W.1 was not aware ofthe details of the properties looted.P-52 is the FIR.Immediately, P.W.32 forwarded EXs.P-1 and P-52 to thejurisdictional Magistrate.Then, he handed over the Case Diary to the Inspectorof Police - (P.W.40), for investigation.Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.40 proceeded to the place ofoccurrence at 05.45 p.m. After inspecting the place of occurrence, P.W.40prepared an Observation Mahazar - Ex.P-60, in the presence of P.W.9 - ThiruMohammed Sahul and another.During that time, he examined P.W.1 andfew more witnesses and recorded their statements.then he prepared inquestreports under Exs.P-61 (relating to D-1) and Ex.P-62 (relating to D-2).Then herecovered the spectacles and the artificial teeth set found on the upstairs,under Ex.P-12 Mahazar, in the presence of the same witnesses.In theDownstairs, he recovered three Gold Flake Cigarette buds (half burnt) (M.O.40)under a Mahazar, in the presence of the same witnesses.A Team of Doctors, namely P.W.24 - Dr.Velmurgan and P.W.25 -Dr.Rajesh, conducted autopsy on the body of D-1 at 11.30 a.m., on 13.11.2007.During inquest, they found the following injuries:"Complete ligature mark, measuring 49 x 12 cm seen over the backside of neck and over the lower jaw across the mouth.It is 1cm below the lowerend of right ear and 2 cm below the lower end of left ear and 2cm below thelower end of left ear.On dissection of neck:- Base of the ligature mark is hard andparchment like.No extra-vasation of blood seen in the superficial or deepplaines of neck.""1.Complete ligature mark seen around the neck and lower jawmeasuring 45 x 10cm.It is 2cm below the lower end of right ear and 3-1/2cmbelow the lower end of left ear.In the front, it was extending from the lowerborder of the lower lip lip up to the supra sternal notch.2.Ligature mark seen around both wrist and around the waist.On dissection of neck:- Base of the ligature mark is hard andparchment like."They forwarded viscera for Pathological Examination, which later on revealedthat there was no poison.Thereafter, they issued Ex.P-32 - PostmortemCertificate and Ex.P-33 - Final Opinion.According to Ex.P-33, the deceased(D-2) would appear to have died of ligature strangulation, as the postmortemfindings were consistent with that of ligature strangulation.(M.Os.61 to 63).He made a request to the service provider, namely Airtel, toprovide the details.Till 15.11.2007, no break-through could be made in thecase.In the meanwhile, P.W.1 had informed the son of D-1 - P.W.2 and thedaughter - P.W.14 and another daughter, over phone.P.W.14 rushed to the placeof occurrence on 13.11.2007 itself.30.A piece of burnt Blue Colour Cloth31.A piece of burnt Greenish White colour clothThen he proceeded to the Police Station in the afternoon and gave a list ofstolen articles to P.W.40 (marked as Ex.P-2 - though not admissible in evidence,in view of the bar contained in Section 162 of the Evidence Act.) P.W.2 and theother family members found as many as 31 articles missing from their house.According to PW-2, the value of the properties stolen away was aroundRs.7,00,000/-.PW-40 made all out efforts to know the whereabouts of D-3, but hecould not succeed.PW-5, visited the place and found a burnt body of a woman at 05.30PM, on 10.11.2007, near the Village Rehabilitation Centre.When he visited thescene of occurrence, PW-5 found that the entire right leg of the body was burntand the left leg was found amputated.In the left leg, the belt of the chappalalone was found in a burnt condition.A blue colour jacket was found on thebody, besides a rolled gold chain on the neck.EX-P-44 is the FirstInformation Report.He recovered theBloodstained Earth, Sample Earth, Plastic Can and a Chappal from the place ofoccurrence under Mahazar.MO-36 is the Chappal strap.Then, he conducted inqueston the body of the deceased and prepared EX-P-46 - Inquest Report.He had madearrangements for photographing the dead body from various angles through PW-22.Then, he examined PW-5 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements.Then, he made a request to the doctor to conduct autopsy on the body of thedeceased on the spot itself.Since the body could not be removed, PW-27, Doctor,B.T.Valavan, attached to the Government Hospital at Dindivanam, conductedautopsy on the body of the deceased at 11.30 AM on 11.11.2007 at the place ofoccurrence.EX-P-41 is the Post-mortem Certificate.He had preserved the skull forthe purpose of superimposition test, since the same was intact.He had alsopreserved the hyoid bone for examination.He sent a piece of liver for chemicalexamination.The report disclosed that there was no poison detected in the body.The report regarding the hyoid bone revealed that there was no fracture.UnderEX-P-42, he offered his final opinion, opining that the deceased would appear tohave died of burn injuries and the death would have occurred 24 to 48 hoursprior to the commencement of the post-mortem.The body was buried in thepresence of the Village Administrative Officer.PW-31 examined PW-5 and few morewitnesses and recorded their statements.On 14.11.2007, PW-31 got a message, in connection with the case inCrime No.784 of 2007, on the file of the Nesamani Police Station, KanyakumariDistrict, that a woman was found missing.He contacted PW-25 and informed himabout the case in Crime No.355 of 2007, on the file of the Olakkur PoliceStation and also informed him that the clothe and the other remains were kept inthe Police Station.PW-31, thereafter, proceeded to the Nesamani Police Stationand with the assistance of PW-40, he examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-14 and anotherdaughter of the deceased.The articles, which were recovered from the deceased,were identified by PW-2, PW-14 and another daughter of the deceased.Then, herecovered a photograph of the deceased from them under Form 95 for the purposeof examination by superimposition.Then, he made a request to the Court toforward PW-14 for DNA Test to identify the body of the deceased.He also made arequest to forward the skull for the purpose of examination by superimposition.Now, let us go back to the investigation in Crime No.784 of 2007, onthe file of the Nesamani Police Station.He was also in possession of a Nokia Cellphone Model No.1100 along withAirtel Sim Card and a battery - MO-11, MO-14 and MO-12 respectively.PW-40recovered MO-11, MO-14 and MO-12 under EX-P-19 Mahazar.Then, the first accusedtook PW-40 and the other witnesses to a place near Aaralvaimozhi RailwayJunction and identified the Blue Colour Tata Indigo Car, which was hidden in abush.At that time, the said car bore the Registration No.MO-15 is the car, [later on, itcame to light that the said car is the one, which was stolen away from the houseof D-1, bearing Registration No.KL-02-W-189].From the dickey of the car, thefirst accused produced a number plate bearing Registration No.KL-02-W-189, [twonumbers of plates], MO-1 series are the number plates, a silver plate - MO-2,Yashica Camera - MO-3, Flash Yashica - MO-4, Sanya DVD Player - MO-5, NaiwaTape Recorder - MO-7, a Cellphone - MO-8 with Simcard, leather suitcase - MO-9,Tissot Steel Watch with chain - MO-10 and the Driving License of the firstaccused [not marked].PW-40 recovered the above Material Objects under a MahazarThereafter, the first accused took PW-40 and the other witnesses toKanyakumari Railway Station, where the second accused was arrested at 03.15 PM.Then, PW-40returned to the Police Station with the arrestees and the Material Objectsrecovered.PW-1 and PW-2 identified the said Material Objects in the PoliceStation as the stolen properties.PW-40 examined PW-16 and recovered a receipt[EX-P18].Thereafter, they proceeded to Madurai, where PW-40 examined PW-10 andPW-11 and recorded their statements.The second accused took out two watches[MO-10] from a place, where they had been concealed.The same were recovered inthe presence of the same witnesses under a Mahazar.Then, he recovered themixture of diesel and petrol kept in two Cans under a Mahazar.PW-11, then,identified PW-12 to whom some jewels had been pledged.Then, takingthe accused, PW-40, along with PW-17 and another witness, proceeded toThindivanam and made a stay.Then, taking the help of PW-13, PW-40 went to theplace, where the dead body of D-3 was earlier found.On inspecting the saidplace, PW-40 prepared an Observation Mahazar.Then, he recovered two burnt woodpieces, [not marked].Immediately, thereafter, the first accused took up a bunchof keys - MO-50 from the place near a bridge from concealment.PW-40 recoveredthe same [EX-P28] in the presence of the witnesses.Then, he examined few morewitnesses on the spot.Then, PW-40 took the accused and the witnesses toChennai.At 01.30 PM, on 26.11.2007, the first accused identified oneTmt.N.Zuhaida Beevi - PW-18, at her clinic in Chennai.On interrogation, PW-18 produced two gold rings.MO-51 is the Motorala Cellphone recovered and MO-52 series are the two gold rings recovered from her.At 04.30 PM, PW-18 took thepolice and the accused to her house and produced a Clock with a Pen Stand - MO-53, A.C.Adopter model charger-1 - MO-54, Gas Light - MO-55, Gold colour Tie pinwith cover - MO-56 and few more objects.Then, he examined PW-18 and her husbandand recorded their statements.Then, he examined PW-20 and recorded hisstatement.He examined PW-21 - Anantharam and recorded his statement.Thereafter, he examined the Aaditya Hotel Manager - PW-3 and recorded hisstatement.He examined the Manager of Airtel Company [PW-39] and recorded hisstatement.On 12.11.2007, at 01.45 PM, with the help of the police and thelocal Village Administrative Officer, when the house was forcibly opened, it wasfound that D-1 and D-2 were dead and the bodies were in a highly decomposedcondition.According to the medical evidence, D-1 and D-2 died of homicidalviolence.D-3 was found missing.(v).Valuable jewels and other articles, including a car bearingRegistration No.Thus,robbery and murders of D-1 and D-2 had taken place in one and the very sameoccurrence.(vi).These two accused were found in possession of the car on 09.11.2007at 03.29 AM, at the Petrol bunk where PW-16 was then working, which is situatedon the Nagercoil and Madurai National Highway at Vellamadam Village.Circumstance No.IV.On 12.11.2007 at 01.45 PM, according PW-1, he had gone to see D-1.Since the house as well as the outer gate were found locked and since there wasa bad odour emanating from the house, he developed suspicion and so, heinformed the police.The police arrived at the scene of occurrence and in thepresence of the local Village Administrative Officer, the house was forciblyopened and then it was found that D-1 and D-2 were dead.The dead bodies were ina highly decomposed condition.The first accused was a driver underher from December 2006 onwards.On 03.04.2007, her car driven by the firstaccused met with an accident.The father of the first accused monetarily helpedher to repair the car.But, she could not repay the same.Out of fear, according toher, she agreed to sell the jewels.Immediately, thereafter, the first accusedgave a Gold Chain [identified as MO - 26], a Gold Ring [identified as MO-25] andtwo bracelets [identified as MO-32 series].PW-18 would further state thatinstead of selling the same, she herself retained the same and gave a sum ofRs.51,650/- from her and paid the same to the first accused.Thus, the aboveMaterial Objects were kept in her house.The saidevidences of PW-17 and PW-41 would go to ensure the credibility of the evidenceof PW-18 in this regard.It needs to be mentioned, at this juncture, that MO-25,MO-26 and MO-32 are the stolen properties from the house of D-1. PW-2 hasidentified the same.At that time, he gave to her twoGold Rings with white stones - MO-52 series, a Cellphone - MO-51 and Rs.20,000/-.She has further stated that when she enquired the first accused about thedetails of the Kerala registration car, he told her that the said car belongedto a keralite and to leave the owner of the car in the Airport, he had comethere in the car.He had further told her that the said keralite would returnafter one week and until then, he will stay at Chennai to take him back him toKerala.Thus, we are of theconsidered view that the prosecution has proved that on 11.11.2007, the firstaccused was found in possession of the car [MO-15] as well as the above two GoldRings and the Cellphone, which he had given to PW-18 for safe custody.It is the further evidence of PW-18 that on 12.11.2007, both theaccused again came to her house and handed over a gray colour suitcase and ablue colour suitcase.The blue colour suitcase contained a Tape Recorder, DVDPlayer, a Silver Plate, a Camera and other articles.She kept all the aboveitems at her home.The summaryof the proved circumstances are as follows:-(a).(b).The deceased Nos.1 and 2 were murdered at the house of D-1, on08.11.2007 and the properties belonging to D-1, which were kept in the house ofD-1 were stolen away.(c).The car belonging to D-1, bearing Registration No.KL-02-W-189, wasalso stolen away, in which D-3 was abducted by these accused.(d).On their way to Madurai, they filled petrol at the petrol bunk atVellamadam, on 09.11.2007 at 03.29 AM.(e).On 09.11.2007, at about 09.00 AM, the car along with D-3 reachedMadurai driven by the first accused and accompanied by the second accused.Thecar could not run further, because of the mixture of the petrol and diesel, andtherefore, it was drained.(f).(g).From Madurai to Chennai at Onkkur Village, D-3 was burnt alive bythe accused Nos.1 and 2 and the body was left in bush by the side of the mainroad.(h).On reaching Chennai, on 10.11.2007, both the accused sold away twogold ornaments stolen from the house of D-1, i.e., two Bracelets, a Chain and aRing to PW-18, for a sum of Rs.51,650/-.(i).(j).On 12.11.2007, at 10.00 AM, the first accused alone met PW-18 andboth of them stayed till 02.30 PM at Aaditya Hotel in Chennai.(a).(b).(c).(d).We further direct that Anbarasu [accused in S.C.No.94 of 2009] shallnot be released from prison for the rest of his life."The law, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"... This is amessage from the father of our nation, who preached and practiced non violence,the great soul "Mahatma Gandhi".Saint Thiruvalluvar, the great Tamil Poet, in one of his couplets, 2000years ago, wrote thus:-"bfhiyapw; bfhoahiu Bte;(J) xWj;jy;, igA;TH;;fis fl; ljbdhL Beu;."which means, "For a King to punish criminals with death, is like pulling up the weedsin the green corn."The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also upheld the constitutionality of deathsentence.But, the debate goes on.The matters before us pertain to the saidissue where, the prime question is "To hang" or "Not to hang", the accusedbefore us for the heinous crimes allegedly committed by them.The Government ofIndia awarded "Padmashri" to the first deceased "Dr.A.Malik Mohammed" inrecognition of his service to the nation, but these accused awarded him death ina cruel manner along with his wife and a servant for which, they stand convictedas follows:-The appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.349/2010 (accused in the Referred Trial(MD) No.1/2010 - Mr.Anbarasu) is the 1st accused and the appellant inCrl.A.(MD)No.411/2009 (Mr.Gopi @ Sahaya Puruno) is the 2nd accused inS.C.No.97/2008, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Divisionat Nagercoil.The Trial Court framed as many as 12 charges against them, underSections 120(B), 449, 302 (3 counts), 201(2 counts), 379, 364, 392 [two counts]and 472 IPC.They denied the charges and they were jointly tried.As many as41 witnesses were examined and 74 documents were exhibited as well as 68material objects were marked on the side of the prosecution.On the side ofdefence, 3 documents were exhibited.On 26.06.2009, both the accused were questioned under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against them.Both of them denied the same as false.At the end,they submitted that they had proposed to examine witnesses on their side.Therefore, the case was adjourned for examination of defence witnesses.At thatstage, the accused (Anbarasu) [hereinafter referred to as the "first accused"]did not appear before the court and he absconded.The Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded with the trial inS.C.No.97/2008, as against the accused - Mr.Gopi @ Sahaya Puruno [hereinafterreferred to as the second accused] alone.The second accused did not examineany defence witness.By the said Judgment, the Trial Court acquittedhim of the charges under Sections 379[7th charge] 472 [12th charge], 201 [6thcharge] and 392 [9th charge] IPC, but, found him guilty and convicted him foroffences under Sections 120-B, 449, 302 (3 counts), 392, 201 and 364 IPC.Forthe said offences , the Trial Court imposed sentences upon the second Accused- Gopi @ Sahaya Puruno, as detailed below:-These sentences have been directed to run consecutively.Challenging the saidconviction and sentence, the second accused - Gopi @ Sahaya Puruno has come upwith Crl.By the said judgment, the trial court acquitted the 1st accused(Anbarasu) from the charges under Sections 379[7th charge] 472 [12th charge],201 [6th charge] and 392 [9th charge] IPC.However, the Trial Court found himguilty and convicted him under Sections 120-B, 449, 302 (3 counts), 392, 364,201 and 485 IPC.For the said offences, the Trial Court imposed sentences uponthe first Accused - Anbarasu, as detailed below:-The sentences have been ordered to run consecutively.The learned SessionsJudge has submitted the proceedings to this court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. forconfirmation of death sentence imposed for the 10th charge.That is how theReferred trial (MD) No.1 of 1010 is before us for disposal.As against theconviction and sentence imposed on him, the 1st accused has come up withCrl.When these Criminal Appeals and the Referred Trial came up for hearingbefore this Court on 17.02.2011, this Court took-up suo-motu revisions asagainst the correctness and legality of the sentences imposed on the accused inboth the cases and directed issuance of notice to the accused for enhancement ofsentence.Accordingly, CRL.RC.No.201/2011 in respect of S.C.No.94 of 2009 andCRL.R.C.No.963/11 in respect of S.C.No.97 of 2008 are also before us fordisposal.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Before proceeding to deal with the facts of the cases, let us highlightthe following.Upon considering theevidence recorded in common in S.C.No.97/2008, the learned trial Judge found thesecond accused, namely Gopi @ Sahaya Puruno, guilty under various charges,including the charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.In the saidjudgment, dated 01.10.2009, the learned Sessions Judge has given a clear findingthat under all the charges, under which the second accused was convicted, theoffences were committed by him along with the first accused.Thus, everyoffence for which the second accused was convicted was perpetrated jointly byboth the accused.Since the learned Sessions Judge had acted upon the evidences recordedin common to hold that the 2nd accused committed the offences along with the 1staccused, he ought not to have proceeded with the trial in S.C.No.94 of 2009, asagainst the 1st accused.Since he has already come to the conclusion that the2nd accused committed the crime only along with the 1st accused, he ought tohave made over the case to some other court for continuation of trial againstthe 1st accused.A cursory comparison of both the judgments would go to showthat many paragraphs in both the judgments are verbatim the same.On this ground alone, we could have set aside the entire judgment inS.C.No.94/2009, as vitiated and to have remanded the case in S.C.No.94/2009against the 1st accused to some other Sessions Judge for disposal, according tolaw.But, we do not propose to do so for the following reasons.Therefore, according tohim, this Court can proceed to hear the appeal in Crl.Nextly, we requested the learned Senior Counsel appearing for both theaccused to express their stand as to whether this Court could deliver a commonjudgment in both the cases, because the evidence on the side of the prosecution,both oral and documentary, were recorded in common in a joint trial.For these reasons, the learned Senior CounselMr.They have also filed separate memos tothat effect.He was also Advisor to the Central Government, having thestatus of the Secretary to Government.He had written a number of books, whichare of World fame.Malik Mohammed, after retirement, came down to his nativeplace at Nagercoil and he was staying in his house, known as "Vasantha Vikar" ofEthamozhi Road, Pattakasaliyamvilai, Village, Kanyakumari District.(hereinafterhe shall be referred to as "D-1").Along with him, his wife Katheeja Beevi(hereinafter referred to as "D-3") was residing in the said house.OneGnanaprakasam (hereinafter referred to as "D-2") was working as a Watchman underD-1. D-1 had two daughters and a son.P.W.15 had presented a Tata Indigo Diesel Car, bearingRegn.While leaving forAustralia, P.W.2 had left the said car with his father, D-1, for his use.Thus,D-1 and D-3 were using the car bearing Regn.The first accused - Anbarasu is a driver by profession.Hewas also known to D-1 and D-3. D-1 had requested P.W.8 to find a driver fortheir car.Accordingly, P.W.8 introduced the 1st accused to D-1. D-1 thusemployed the 1st accused as a driver to drive the said car.The Watchman (D-2) was also missing.When he was standing just by the side ofthe entrance gate, he smelt a foul smell from the house.Suspecting someuntoward incident, he immediately rushed to "Nesamony Police Station"(Respondent Police Station) and informed the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.32)about the same.Then he proceeded to the Police Station and at about 05.00p.m.he registered a case in Crime No.784 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC.Then, he examinedP.W.32 and other witnesses and recorded their statements.Thereafter, he sentthe dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 for postmortem.At the request of PW-40, the Finger Print Expert [PW-25], lifted threechance finger prints from the door of the room, where the dead body of D-1 wasfound.PW-26 photographed the same in a scientific manner and preserved all ofthem for the purpose of investigation.They forwarded viscera for Pathological Examination, which later on revealedthat there was no poison.Finally, they issued postmortem certificate with theopinion that the deceased would have died between 4 to 7 days prior to the timeof postmortem.According to the final opinion, the deceased wold appear to have diedof ligature compression around the neck.(xii).The said Team of Doctors conducted autopsy on the body of D-2 also,on 13.11.2007 at 10.30 a.m. During postmortem, they found the followinginjuries.Onarriving at Nagercoil, along with P.W.1, P.W.14 and another daughter of D-1,P.W.2 entered into the house and verified the articles found missing from hishouse.He took out a list of the missing articles as under:1.KL-02 W 189 Number Plate - 2 Nos..2.Designed Silver Plate, weighing about 265 gm.- 1 No.3.Yashika Camera - 1 No.4.Yashika Flash - 1 No.5.Sanyo D.V.D.Player - 1 No.6.Zernego CD 1005 S.Dish T.V. - 1 No.7.Naswa Tape Recorder - 1 No.8.Nokia Cell Model 1100 with Hutch SIM Card - 1 No.9.Bluish Black Leather Suitcase - 1 No.10.Wrist watch with Steel Chain - 1 No.11.Nokia Cell Model 1100 - 1 No.12.Nokia Battery - 1 No.13.Canon Camera - 1 No.14.Nokia Cell Model 6600 - 1 No.15.TATA Indigo Car - Navy Blue Colour bearing Regn.TN-01 R 3520, with key.16.Arba Wardat Scent Bottle - 1 No.17.Room Fresher Natural Spray -1 No.18.Concord Air Fresh Spray - 1 No. 19.200 Year World Time Calculator - 1 No.20.Sony Cassettes - 3 Nos.21.SANYO DVD Remote - 1 No.22.Dish T.V. Remote - 1 No.23.After Soft Lavender Spray - 1 No.24.Concentrated Perfume Bottle - 1 No.25.Fancy Ring - weighing 3.100 mg.- 1 No.26.Disco Chain - weighing 24.060 grams - 1 No.27.Crystal Clock, made in Taiwan - 1 No.28.Clock, made in China - 1 No.29.Rose Colour Rubber Chappal - 1 No.By the side of the body, an emptyPlastic Can of two litres capacity was found with the odour of petrol.Theidentity of the body was not known.Immediately, thereafter, he proceeded to the"Olakkoor Police Station" and preferred a complaint at 06.30 PM on the same day[EX-P4].On receiving the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police PW-30,who was in-charge of Olakkoor Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.355of 2007, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He forwarded the complaint and the First Information Reportto the jurisdictional Magistrate.Then, he handed over the Case Diary to theInspector of Police, Olakkoor Police Station, for investigation.From the appearance of the body, he estimated the age of thedeceased as somewhere between 60 and 65 years.During autopsy, he found thefollowing injuries."Body was seen in a completely burnt condition.Skin and softtissues completely burnt except in the skull and upper limbs where the skin isonly lost.So no other external injuries could be made out.Both the upperlimbsof flexed at the elbow.Tongue bitten between the teeth.Dental wiring seen onthe left side of the upper jaw.Skull bone was intact with menninges.Braincongested hyoid bone preserved.No soot particles seen in the trachea whiledissecting the hyoid bone.The thoracic regions is completely burnt having theribs and vertebra.The heart and lungs could not be identified distinctly andseen as a single chassed mass.In the abdomen the liver is seen in the righthypochondrium and in a chassed state.All the other organs of the abdomen couldnot be made out and a soft, fraible chassed mass is seen without any anatomicalstructure.The pelvic region shows a chassed mass in the pelvic cavity.Theright lower limbs completely burnt.The left lower limbs is burnt in the thighand the left leg is seen separately from the rest of the body."PW-40 continued the investigation.On16.11.2007, PW-40 got the details of the Cellphone instrument used by thedeceased.He came to know that the said Cellphone instrument was then used witha Sim Card No.98406 75633 and the name of the Simcard Holder was Anbarasu, [A-1], residing at No.5, Thilakavathy Street, Saligramam, Chennai.Therefore,suspecting the involvement of Anbarasu, the first accused herein, PW-40 went insearch of him.On 19.11.2007, he had requested PW-17 and one Revenue Inspector,by name Raja, to accompany him.At 12.15 PM, near the shop of one Charles atVellamadam, PW-40 arrested the first accused.On such arrest, he gave avoluntary confession statement and the same was reduced into writing by PW-40 inthe presence of the said witnesses.EX-P63 is the disclosure statement made byhim.Then, he forwarded both the accused to theCourt for judicial remand.On 21.11.2007, he made a request to the Court for police custody ofboth the accused.On 23.11.2007, both the accused were handed over to policecustody by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, for five days.Again, PW-40, got the assistance of PW-17 and Mr.Raja for the purpose ofinvestigation.On 27.11.2007, PW-4- returned to Nagercoil and produced both theaccused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, for judicial remand.On his request, the learned Judicial Magistrate - PW-28 recorded thestatements of PW-18 and PW-10 under Section 164 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.He examined few more witnesses, collected medical records, examinedthe doctors and made necessary entries in the Case Diary.Thereafter, on theorders of the Superintendent of Police, he handed over the investigation to PW-Again, let us now revert back to the further investigation done by PW-31 in connection with the case in Crime No.355 of 2007, on the file of theOlakkoor Police Station.On 07.12.2007, PW-31 made a formal arrest of these twoaccused at Nagercoil, in connection with the said case.Accordingly, theywere produced.At that time, PW-31 made a request for judicial custody of boththe accused.Accordingly, on 14.12.2007, they were handed over to him.Similarly, thesecond accused gave a voluntary confession statement and the same was alsoreduced into writing.In his confession, the first accused had stated that hewould identify the place, where the body of D-3 was burnt by the accused.In theconfession, the accused No.2 also made such a disclosure statement.Accordingly,both the accused took PW-31 and the witnesses and identified the place.Thesetwo disclosure statements have been admitted in evidence as EX-P-48 and EX-P-49[since there was no discovery of any relevant fact, EX-P48 and EX-P-49 are notadmissible, but the Trial Court has erroneously admitted the same].Then, on16.12.2007, he produced both the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Thindivanam, for remand.On 25.02.2008, he produced PW-14 for DNA Test.On such comparison, shefound that PW-14 is the biological daughter of the deceased.Thus, PW-37confirmed that the deceased was D-3 Katheeja Beevi.EX-P-57 and EX-P-58 are thereports submitted by her.Similarly, PW-38 conducted superimposition examinationwith the photograph [MO-68] of D-3 [but the photograph has not been identifiedby anybody knowing D-3] and the skull of the body found near Olakkoor Village.On such examination, he found that the skull was that of the person found in thephotograph.This opinion alsoconfirmed that the deceased was D-3 - Katheeja Beevi.Continuing theinvestigation, PW-31 examined few more witnesses and finally, as per the ordersof the Higher Police, he handed over the investigation to the Inspector ofPolice, Nesamani Nagar Police Station.On 05.03.2008, PW-41 took up the case in Crime No.784 of 2007 ofNesamani Nagar Police Station and Crime No.155 of 2007 of Olakkoor PoliceStation, clubbed the same and proceeded with the investigation.He examined the PoliceOfficials, Doctors and few more witnesses and recorded their statements.Finally, on 30.05.2008, he laid charge sheet against the accused for theoffences under Sections 120(B), 450, 302, 379, 201, 392 and 472 of the IndianPenal Code.The recordsrelating to the case in Crime No.155 of 2007 lying with the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Thindivanam were all transferred to the file of the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil.On the said Police Report, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Nagercoil, took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions,Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, for trial.The learned Sessions Judge, onconsidering the materials placed before him, framed as many as twelve charges,as narrated in Paragraph No.1 of this Judgment.Since the accused pleadedinnocence, they were put on trial.As we have already pointed out, on the sideof the prosecution, as many as 41 witnesses were examined, 74 documents wereexhibited and 65 materials objects were marked.Apart from the above, threedocuments were exhibited on the side of the accused, i.e., postal receipts dated26.03.2008 and postal acknowledgment.These documents have been marked throughPW-18 to show that these letters sent to PW-18 to her address were all returnedas "no such addressee".When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, in respect of the incriminating materials available againstthem, they denied the same as false.They pleaded that they would examinewitnesses on their side.When the case stood adjourned for examination of thedefence witnesses, as we have already noted, the first accused absconded, andtherefore, the case as against the first accused was spilt up.The case asagainst the second accused was proceeded with and he was convicted.He was the then Senior Manager inTata Motors Company, Chennai.(vii).On 09.11.2007, at 09.00 AM, the car developed a snag at Madurai,and therefore, it was brought to the workshop of PW-10. PW-10 and PW-11 had seenthe car bearing Registration No.The mixture of petrol and diesel was discharged from the car andfilled in two Plastic Cans of 5 litres capacity and a small Can of 2 litrescapacity.Two litres capacity Can was taken in the car and the five litrescapacity Cans with the mixture of petrol and diesel were left in the workshop.(viii).The accused removed a pair of ear studs from D-3 and handed overto PW-11, who in turn pledged the same to PW-12 on 09.11.2007 between 10.00 to10.30 AM.(ix).D-3 was carried in the samd car towards Chennai.PW-27, who conducted autopsy on thebody of the deceased, has opined that the death was due to burn injuries, andthus, the death of D-3 is by means of homicidal violence.(x).The dead body has been identified to be that of D-3 by the DNA Testas well as Superimposition Test.(xi).The stolen car was found at Athoor tollgate on its way to Chennai,driven by the first accused on 09.11.2007 at 06.15 PM, and thus, the deceasedwould have been murdered on 09.11.2007 before 06.15 PM.(xii).The accused were moving together from the date of occurrence tillthey were arrested, disposing of the stolen properties at various places.(xiii).The accused were arrested and on such arrest, they gave voluntarydisclosure statements separately.Out of the disclosure statements made by theaccused, the stolen properties, including the car, were recovered.(xiv).The chance finger print lifted from the door of the room where thedead body of D-1 was found tallied with the finger print of the first accused.(xv).They, in nutshell, have made the followingsubmissions:-The evidences of PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-16 should be rejected,because, there was no Test Identification Parade held.(v).The case of the prosecution that in the diesel car, petrol wasfilled by PW-16 and the same was driven, up to Madurai, thereby covering adistance of about 150 Kilometres cannot be believed.(vii).Similarly, the DNA Test also does not go toprove the identity of the dead body.(viii).Even assuming that the body found in connection with the CrimeNo.355 of 2007 on the file of the Olakkur Police Station was that of D-3, eventhen, it has not been proved that the death was homicidal.The doctor, whoconducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, has not found out the cause ofdeath.(ix).The arrest, confession and the consequential recoveries of thearticles cannot be believed.The properties, allegedly recovered from theaccused, have not been identified as stolen properties, and thus, thepresumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is notavailable for the prosecution.(x).The accused have not taken any false plea, as it is projected by thelearned Public Prosecutor.Had it been the conspiracy to commit murder of allthe three deceased, there would have been no need or occasion for taking D-3alone to such a long distance and then to kill her at Onkoor Village.In otherwords, had it been the intention, they would have killed her when they killedD1- and D-2 at Nagercoil itself.Thus, the story put forwarded by theprosecution creates a lot of doubt.In any event, the prosecution has not provedthe case beyond reasonable doubts, and therefore, the Lower Court was not rightin holding them guilty.In respect of their respective points, the learned Public Prosecutoras well as the learned Senior Counsel for the accused have advanced elaboratearguments, which we will now analyze one by one.Charge No.1 has been framed under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Codeas against both the accused.According to the said charge, on 02.11.2007, atVellamadam, Karaiyankuli, at the house of one Charles, these two accusedconspired to commit robbery at the house of the deceased on the day of Diwali.Of course, as required under Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, theLower Court has framed the said charge bringing to the notice of the accused,the place, time and the other details regarding the charge.But, absolutely,there is no evidence to prove the said charge.We are conscious of the realitythat the conspiracy is mostly hatched in secrecy, and therefore, at times, itneeds to be proved only by circumstantial evidence.The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that these two accused hadpre-determination to commit robbery, and thus, there was a pre-meeting of mind,which itself would go to prove conspiracy.In our considered view, conspiracy issomething more than a mere pre-meditation to commit a crime.For example, if twoaccused had pre-meditation to commit a crime and there had been a pre-meeting ofmind and later on, if the pre-mediated offence is committed by them, at themost, it would make out a constructive liability under Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code.There is no iota of evidence let in to even prima facieshow that these accused were at least found together, prior to 07.07.2007, so asto infer an agreement to commit robbery.After the murders of D-1 and D-2 androbbery from the house of D-1, these accused were found moving together and D-3was murdered subsequently.From this, it is possible to conclude that they hadreached an agreement to abduct D-3 and to kill her.But, we areunable to convict the accused for the said offence, as there is no appropriatecharge for the same.As we have pointed out, the charge under Section 120(B) ofthe Indian Penal Code framed against the accused relates only to the allegedconspiracy hatched on 02.11.2007 at the house of one Charles at VellamadamVillage, for which there is no evidence at all.PW-23 and PW-24, doctors, who conducted autopsyon the bodies of D-1 and D-2, have clearly opined that the deaths of thedeceased were due to homicidal violence.Thus, the prosecution has establishedthat sometime between 07.00 PM on 07.11.2007 and 01.45 PM on 12.11.2007, D-1 andD-2 were done to death by the assailants.It has been also established that thedeath of D-1 and D-2 is homicidal, and thus, the persons responsible for theirdeath are the murderers.Circumstance No.V.On 12.11.2007 itself, PW-1 found that the car bearing RegistrationNo.KL-02-W-189 was missing and D-3 was also missing.The said car stood in his name.It was presentedby him to PW-2 and PW-2 in turn had left it for the use of D-1 and D-3, because,he had left for Australia.We do not find any reason to reject the evidences ofPW-1, PW-2, PW-14 and PW-15 in this regard.We hold that the car bearingRegistration No.KL-02-W-189 was used by D-1 and D-3 and the same was foundmissing from the house of D-1 from 12.11.2007, besides that, D-3 was also foundmissing.From the evidences of PW-2 and PW-14, it has been established that theother valuable properties had been stolen away.Thus, the prosecution hasclearly proved that the murders of D-1 and D-2 and robbery had taken place inone and the same occurrence.Circumstance No.VI.According to the case of the prosecution, the car bearing RegistrationNo.KL-02-W-189 was found by PW-16 on 09.11.2007 early morning at 03.29 AM.PW-16was working in the Petrol Bunk at Vellamadam Village.There is no dispute thatVellamadam is situated on the National Highway between Nagercoil and Madurai.The car was taken to the said petrol bunk by the accused 1 and 2 for fillingpetrol.The first accused was found in the driver's seat and the second accusedwas found in the back seat.19.19 litres of petrol was filled in the car.A billwas prepared for the same and the same was later recovered by the police.He would further contend that the prosecution hasestablished that these two accused were moving along with the car soon after thecommission of the theft, and therefore, Section 114(a) of the Act, will come tothe help of the prosecution.But, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the accused isthat in the absence of Test Identification Parade, the evidence of PW-16 cannotbe believed.In exceptional circumstances only, asdiscussed above, evidence of identification for the first time in Court, withoutthe same being corroborated by previous identification in the testidentification parade or any other evidence can form the basis of conviction."In the instant case, though it is true that there was no TestIdentification Parade held, in our considered opinion, on that score, theidentification made by PW-16 of these two accused for the first time in Courtcannot be rejected, as it fully inspires the confidence of the Court.The reasonfor such conclusion is that it is not the case where the witness had a fractionof a second to have a glimpse of the face of the accused.It is the case, whereboth the accused were in the petrol bunk for quite sometime and they talked toPW-16 and thus, the physical features of these accused [image] would have gotimprinted in the mind of the witness.Therefore, there would have been nodifficulty for him to correctly identify the accused in Court.We hold that the evidence of PW-16has clearly established that the car bearing Registration No.KL-02-W-189 wasfound in the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2 as soon as the commission ofthe theft.Apart from the oral evidence of PW-16, EX-P18, the bill for fillingpetrol, will also go to prove the same.But, the learned Senior Counsel for theaccused would submit that in EX-P18, the number of the car in question ismentioned as "KL-02-W-19", whereas the actual number of the car is "KL-02-W-189".But, a cursory perusal of the evidence of PW-16would go to show that he has clearly stated that while preparing the bill, bymistake, the number of the car was mentioned as "KL-02-W-19", instead of "KL-02-W-189".We do not find any reason to reject the said explanation offered by PW-Had it been true that a false receipt was created for the purpose of thecase, they would have created the said document mentioning the correct number ofthe car.But, it has not happened.Thus, EX-P18 also corroborates the evidence of PW-Thus, the prosecution has proved the circumstance No.VI beyond anyreasonable doubt.Circumstance Nos.VII and VIII.Thereafter, according to PW-10 and PW-11, the car was brought to theirworkshop, on 09.11.2007 at 09.00 AM, at Maduari, as the same could not be drivenfurther.At that time, they diagnosed that since petrol had been filled in thediesel car, it had developed a snag.According to them, they drained the petroland diesel mixture from the tank of the car in three Cans, out of which, twoCans were of five litres capacity and one was of two litres capacity.These twowitnesses have identified the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Court for the firsttime, as there had been no Test Identification Parade.They have categoricallystated that the car in question, viz., "KL-02-W-189" was found in the possessionof these two accused on 09.11.2007 at 09.00 AM, at Madurai.It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the accusedthat the evidence of these two witnesses cannot be acted upon for want of priorTest Identification Parade.In other words, according to the learned SeniorCounsel, the identification of these two accused made for the first time in theCourt by PW-10 and PW-11 cannot be given weightage of.In our consideredopinion, the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel deserves only to berejected.Here also, thesetwo accused were in the company of PW-10 and PW-11 for a quite long time.Thereafter, until the ear studs of D-3 were mortgaged and dieselwas filled in the car, these two accused were in the company of PW-1- and PW-11,as spoken to by them.Thus, it is crystal clear that there was more thansufficient time for these two witnesses to have noticed the physical features ofthese two accused and to have an imprint of their figures in their minds.Thelearned Senior Counsel would submit that according to the said witness, it ishighly impossible that the car would have run 100 Kilometres on petrol and ifonce the said theory is unbelieved, as a corollary, according to the learnedSenior Counsel, the presence of these two accused at Madurai at the crucial timeas spoken to by PW-10 and PW-11 cannot be true.Going by the fact that after themixture was drained and diesel was filled, the car had run and having analyzedthe evidence of DW-1, we do not find any reason to reject the evidences of PW-10and PW-11 in this regard.In order to corroborate the evidences of PW-10 and PW-11, theprosecution would further rely on the seizure of two Cans of mixture of petroland diesel from the petrol bunk at the instance of the first accused.Accordingto PW-10 and PW-11, the said two Cans of five litres capacity, with mixture ofpetrol and diesel, were kept in the workshop and they were seized by PW-40 inthe presence of PW-17 on 25.11.2007 at 01.00 PM.Nextly, the evidence of PW-12 requires consideration.According to PW-10 and PW-11, these two accused removed a pair of ear studs - MO-33 from D-3 andthe same were pledged with PW-12 by PW-11. PW-10 and PW-11 have spoken to aboutthe said fact.PW-12, in turn, has stated that between 10.00 and 10.30 AM, on09.11.2007, PW-11 and another person came to his pawn broker shop and pledgedthe ear studs.But, the learned SeniorCounsel for the accused would contend that the ear studs recovered from PW-12have not been proved, at all by the prosecution, as the stolen articles from D-As we have already narrated, a pair ear studs were removed by thesetwo accused from D-3, handed over to PW-11 and PW-11 in turn pledged the samewith PW-12 from whom, they were recovered under EX-P14 - Mahazar.But,unfortunately, these witnesses had not been called upon by the prosecution toidentify the said ear studs.None of the witnesses has identified the ear studs.The ear studs [MO-33] have been identified by PW-2, as the ear studs belongingto his mother.Thus,the prosecution has clearly established that these two accused had removed theear studs - MO-33 from D-3 and pledged the same.This circumstance again clearlygoes to corroborate the evidences of PW-10 and PW-11 that they saw the accusedat Madurai in the company of D-3 and having the possession of the stolen car.Circumstance Nos.IX and X.Thereafter, according to PW-10 and PW-11, after diesel was filled inthe car, both the accused, together with the woman, proceeded towards Chennai.There can be no controversy that the place known as "Onkoor Village" is locatedon the National Highway between Madurai and Chennai.The dead body of D-3 wasfound by PW-6 on 10.11.2007 at 07.00AM.On his information, the local VillageAdministrative Officer [PW-5] also saw the dead body.The dead body has beenproved to be that of D-3, [regarding the proof of identity of the dead body, wewill discuss elaborately later].The death is due to burn injuries.Thus, theprosecution has proved that D-3, who was in the custody of these accused, wasburnt alive by them at Onkoor Village.Absolutely, there is no reason todisbelieve the evidences of PW-5 and PW-6 in this regard.Even the learnedSenior Counsel for the accused has not advanced any argument disputing the factspoken to by the said witnesses.On the complaint of PW-5, as we have alreadynarrated, PW-30 registered a case in Crime No.355 of 2007 at 06.30 PM.PW-31,took up the case for investigation, visited the place of occurrence and foundthe dead body.These facts have not been disputed seriously by the defencecounsel.Thelearned Senior Counsel for the accused would submit that according to theevidence of PW-5, the age of the woman was estimated at 25 years, whereas, D-3was an old woman, aged 60 to 65 years.Wefind no force at all in the said argument.Admittedly, the body was in a charredcondition.He has opined that the age of the deceased would havebeen between 60 and 65 years.While conducting autopsy on the body of D-3, PW-27 found the skull ofthe deceased intact.He preserved the same.Thereafter, it was sent to PW-38 forsuperimposition to find out the identity.The photograph [MO-68] was sent by PW-31 to her for the purpose of comparison.Based on the said report, shehas opined that the person found in the photograph [MO-68] and the skull of thedead body found near Onkoor Village tallied, and thus, according to her opinion,the skull belongs to the person found in the photograph [MO-68].With pains, wewould state that the prosecution has to lose this very valuable piece ofevidence because of the cavalier attitude of the prosecution during trial.It istrue that the photograph of a woman [MO-68] was sent for comparison.This, again, isdeplorable that he has not stated as to whose photograph he recovered and fromwhom did recover the same.He has also not identified the photograph.66. PW-38 along with her report has produced the superimposed image of theskull and superimposed (mixed) image etc. This photo image forming part of thereport has also not been identified by any one who knew the identity of D-3.Here also, with pains, we would state that though the Investigating Officer hasmade an attempt to prove the identity of D-3, by means of SuperimpositionExamination, because he has not given proper evidence before the Trial Court toidentify the photograph and because the close relatives of D-3 were not calledupon to identify the person in photograph, we find every force in the contentionof the learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has tonecessarily lose the benefit of the evidence on Superimposition Examination.Though the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the deadbody through Superimposition Test, fortunately, the DNA Test conducted by PW-37will come to their rescue.A small piece of skull removed from the body of thedeceased found at Onkoor Village was taken by PW-27, the doctor who conductedautopsy.It was sent to PW-37, who is an expert in DNA Forensic Science.According to her evidence, on 28.02.2008, PW-14, the daughter of D-3 was sent toher by Olakkoor Police for the purpose of DNA Examination.PW-14 has also spokento about the said fact.According to PW-37, the blood drawn from PW-14 and thepiece of skull were examined scientifically.On such DNA Examination, she foundthat the skull belongs to the biological mother of PW-14. EX-P-57 and EX-P-58are the reports submitted by her.Since it was found by PW-5 on10.11.2007, it can be concluded that these two accused, who left Madurai on09.11.2007 telling to PW-10 and PW-11 that they proceeded to Chennai, had gonetowards Chennai, committed murder of the deceased by burning her alive by usingthe mixture of petrol and diesel.As we have already pointed out, the body of D-3 was found in a charredcondition.The right leg of the body was burnt and the left leg was foundamputated.In this charred condition, PW-27 conducted postmortem.According tohis opinion, the deceased would have died of burn injuries.The learned SeniorCounsel for the accused would point out that during cross-examination, PW-27 hasstated that he could not offer a definite opinion as to whether the death wasdue to burn injuries or not.Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, thecause of death has not been established by the prosecution.Though this argumentappears to be attractive, we do not find any force in the same.A close reading of the evidence of PW-27 would go to show that she hasnot ruled out that the death was due to burn injuries.It is not uncommon thateven in cases where corpus delicti could not be found, the Courts have held thatthe death was homicidal based on the other circumstances.In this case, thereare enormous circumstances to prove that the deceased was in the custody ofthese two accused from 09.11.2007 onwards, that she was found dead on 10.11.2007and that the body was almost burnt.The accused had exclusive knowledge aboutthe fate of the deceased.When they have got no explanation to offer as to howthe deceased died, as it is required under Section 106 of the Act, in the lightof the opinion of PW-27, we do not have even a slightest hesitation to hold thatthe death was homicidal.Of course, the prosecution would have done better byconducting a Histo-pathological Examination to avoid any criticism against theopinion regarding the cause of death.This, of course, is a lapse on the part ofthe prosecution.But, on that score, we cannot simply reject the opinion offeredby PW-27 regarding the cause of death.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that had it been truethat the deceased was burnt alive, certainly, there would have been sootparticles found in the wind pipe.Since they were not found, according to thelearned Senior Counsel, the death would not have been due to burning.But, acursory perusal of EX-P41 and the evidence of PW-27 would go a long way to showthat except the skull and the upper limbs, all the other parts were completelyburnt.The trachea was not found, as it had been burnt to ashes.The lungs werealso not seen, as they were also fully burnt to ashes.Therefore, question offinding soot particles in the internal organs does not arise at all in thiscase.Therefore, this argument of the learned Senior Counsel deserves only to besummarily rejected.By the side of D-3, a two litre Plastic Can was found and the same wasseized on 10.11.2007 by PW-41 in the presence of the witnesses.Had it been identified by PW-10 and PW-11 that it was theone, which was carried in the car by these accused, when they left Maduraitowards Chennai, on 09.11.2007, it would have been a very valuable piece ofevidence for the prosecution.But, unfortunately, PW-19 and PW-11 were not atall called upon to identify the said Plastic Can by the learned PublicProsecutor, who conducted the trial before the Trial Court.The learned TrialJudge, in our considered opinion, has also miserably failed to exercise hispower under Section 165 of the Act to call upon the said witnesses to identifyMO-35, if they were capable of identifying the same.Even PW-31, who recoveredthe same, has not identified the said Can.Circumstance No.Inour considered opinion, when hundreds of vehicles cross the toll gate on a day,it would be too difficult, for a man on duty, collecting toll, to identify adriver of a particular vehicle alone.Further, this witness would have had onlya fraction of a minute to have a glimpse of the face of the driver.There wereno special reasons for this witness to have imprint of the image of the driverof the car in question alone in his mind.Under the guise ofdemanding the money, according to her further evidence, the first accusedattempted to misbehave with her by making sexual advances towards her.Shecomplained about the same to her husband, which resulted in a quarrel betweenher husband and the first accused.It is further alleged that the first accused attacked her husband withknife.Regarding the said occurrence, there is a case registered on the file ofthe K.K.Nagar Police Station, Chennai.It is her further evidence that on10.08.2007, the first accused poured sugar into the petrol tank of the Ford IconCar belonging to her.As a result, the car suffered a repair and PW-18 had tospend more than a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to repair the same.Because of theseevents, according to PW-18, the first accused was sent out of service and therewas also enmity between her and the first accused.As amatter of fact, during cross-examination, the first accused himself has assertedthat there was a case registered in respect of the accident of the car of PW-18driven by the first accused.He has further asserted, during cross-examination,that on 20.10.2008, as against the first accused, PW-18 preferred a complaint inrespect of the alleged attack made on the husband of PW-18 by the first accused,upon which a case has been registered on the file of the K.K.Nagar PoliceStation, Chennai.From the above undisputed facts spoken to by PW-18, the prosecutionhas established that PW-18 was closely known to the first accused and after hisdismissal from service, they were not in good terms.It is the further evidenceof PW-18 that on 10.11.2007, when she was returning to her house, in herMotorcycle, near Vadapalani Vijaya Hospital, the first accused intercepted her.The second accused was found in the company of thefirst accused in the car.When PW-18 questioned the first accused as to why hehad intercepted her, he introduced the second accused as Gopi as his friend andher further told her that the second accused had brought the jewels of his wife,which he wanted to sell, as he was in need of money.So far as the first accused is concerned, the above facts spoken to byPW-18 have been totally denied by the accused.Inpursuance of the disclosure statement made by the first accused to PW-40, in thepresence of PW-17, these jewels have been subsequently recovered.This fact, as spoken to by PW-18, is again denied by the first accused.These items have been proved through PW-2 to be stolenarticles.The first accused has denied the above fact also.But, the recovery ofthese Material Objects from the custody of PW-18 on 26.11.2007 at the instanceof the first accused by PW-41 in the presence of PW-17 clearly corroborates herevidence.He wanted to book a room for him in Aaditya Hotel,Vadapalani, Chennai.According to her, she initially declined for the same.Shewould further state that the first accused threatened her that he would do awaywith her husband and the child.Out of fear for him and out of compulsion,according to her, she took him to Aaditya Hotel, Vadapalani, Chennai.Since thefirst accused did not know to read and write English, she herself filled up theform given by the Hotel Manager.The Nagercoil address of the first accused wasfilled up in the same.Thus, according to her, they went to the room, from wherethe first accused was found contacting somebody over Cellphone.He tried tomisbehave with her.But, she with stood.At 02.30 PM, on the same day, theyvacated the room, and thereafter, the first accused left elsewhere.This fact,spoken to by PW-18, is denied by the first accused.Though she has beensubjected to lengthy cross-examination, in an attempt to render her unbelievableon this aspect, we find nothing on record to create even a slightest doubtregarding this fact spoken to by her.PW-3was working as a Front Office Assistant in Aaditya Hotel at Chennai.Accordingto him, on 12.11.2007, at 09.45 AM, PW-18 and a person, by name Anbarasu, cameto the Hotel and wanted a room to be booked for them for a short stay.PW-3 hasidentified in Court the first accused as the one who accompanied PW-18. PW-18told him that the first accused was her driver.He would further state that a sum ofRs.5,000/- was paid by PW-18 towards rental advance.He has also spoken to aboutthe fact that the Room No.302 was booked in the name of the first accused, wherethey stayed between 09.45 AM and 02.35 PM.During cross-examination, it hasbeen suggested that PW-3 was not at all working in the said hotel during therelevant point of time.The answers elicited, during cross-examination, wouldonly further go to strengthen the facts spoken to by the said witness duringchief-examination.EX-P3 has also not been shown to be doubtful.It is the further evidence of PW-18 that on 18.11.2007, the firstaccused again met her.But, he left the other suitcase [Gray Colour] [not marked] and the other articles in her possession.Hetold her that he would come after sometime and get back the same.It has also been established that the accused were found inpossession of the stolen car as well as stolen articles about which referencehas been made above.He is a resident of WestMambalam in Chennai and he is working as a Manager in Vadapalani Car CareCentre.According to him, on 10.11.2007, the first accused produced a TataIndigo Car to him and wanted him to wash the same.Duringinterrogation, according to him, he verified the register maintained by him andinformed PW-41 that the car bearing Registration No.From the said evidence, the prosecution would try tostrengthen its case that the car in question was in the possession of the firstaccused on 10.11.2007 and the same was washed.But, we are not impressed by theevidence of the said witness.For more than one reason, the evidence of thiswitness needs to be rejected.As we have already stated, there was no TestIdentification Parade held.Had it been seized, the said register, being aregister maintained during the regular course of business, would have beenrelevant and the same would have corroborated the evidence of PW-22, therebyensuring the credibility of the said witness.Since the same has not been doneby the prosecution, we cannot give any credibility to the said witness, andtherefore, we are inclined only to reject the evidence of the said witness.Nextly, the evidence of PW-20 needs to be considered.PW-20 was aresident of Vadapalani in Chennai.He was running a Sticker Shop.According tohim, on 13.11.2007, the first accused came to him and wanted a number plate tobe fixed in a Tata Indigo Car.He gave the number of the car as TN-01-R-3520.The first accused gave him a sum of Rs.300/-.Accordingly, he made the numberplate and handed over the same on the same day.Subsequently, on 26.11.2007, hewas identified by the first accused and at that time, PW-20 was examined by PW-For two reasons, we have to simply reject the evidence of this witness.First of all, there has been no Test Identification Parade held and theyardstick, which we have applied in respect of PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-18cannot be made applicable to this witness.Above all, his evidence is notcorroborated by any other materials such as, any document etc. Further, thenumber plate said to have been made by him was not even shown to him duringchief-examination in Court for the purpose of identification.In a very vaguemanner, he has stated that he made a number plate and gave the same to the firstaccused.Unless the witness has identified the number plate said to have beenmade by him and unless there is any other document, like receipt or any otherregister for the same, in the light of the absence of Test IdentificationParade, the evidence of PW-20 cannot be believed at all.We would like to statethat this is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution, who has failed tocall upon this witness to identify the number plate, though according to theprosecution, the said number plate was found fixed in the stolen car.From the evidence of PW-18, thechange of number plate by the accused has been established by the prosecution.Circumstance No.XIII.Now, it is the time to examine the Star Witness for the prosecution,i.e., PW-17 as well as the evidence of PW-41 in respect of the arrest of boththe accused, their disclosure statements and the consequential recoveries of thestolen articles.PW-17 is the Village Administrative Officer, Nagercoil.According to him, on 19.11.2007, asper the direction of the Tahsildar, Nagercoil, and as per the request made byPW-40, he went to the Kottar Police Station for the purpose of assisting thepolice to nab the culprits involved in the crime.One Raja, the then RevenueInspector was also summoned.According to his further evidence, on 19.11.2007,at 11.00 AM, the first accused was arrested near the shop of one Charles atVellamadam.Similarly, the second accused was also arrested on the same day, ashe was identified by the first accused.But, thelearned Public Prosecutor would submit that PW-17 is an independent witness anda responsible Government Servant and so, his credibility cannot be doubted.Hewould further submit that though the said witness was used by the police on twooccasions, it cannot be said that the said witness is an obliging witness.Thelearned Public Prosecutor would take us through the cross-examination of thiswitness in order to establish his contention that nothing has been brought onrecord to disbelieve his evidence.The evidence of the said witness, which isduly corroborated by the evidences of PW-40, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-16, PW-18and PW-3 and the contemporaneous records, like recovery mahazars would all go toprove that PW-17 is a witness upon whom implicit reliance can be made.We have anxiously considered the above rival submissions.Thereafter, as we have already stated, on the request made by thepolice, after getting permission from the Tahsildar, Nagercoil, along with thesaid Raja, the then Revenue Inspector, he went to the Police Station to assistthe police.The first accused, as has been spoken to by PW-18, gave a voluntarystatement, in which he made certain disclosures about the concealment of certainrelevant facts.The InvestigatingOfficer had failed to interrogate him further about the number of the vehicle.Whatever be the case, in pursuance of the said statement, the car with numberplate, bearing Registration No.TN-01-R-3520, was identified and produced by thefirst accused near Aaralvaimozhi Railway Station.This portion of EX-P63, which has led to the discovery of the car from the place of concealment issurely admissible.The recovery of the said car has also been spoken to by PW-17and PW-40, which have been corroborated by the recovery mahazar.Nextly, in EX-P63, the first accused has stated that I will get backthe suitcase and the other articles, [which he had stolen from the house ofMalik Mohammed from the possession of one Tmt.It is the further case of the prosecution that in pursuance of thesaid statement, the first accused identified PW-18 - N.Zubaida Beevi at Chennai,from whom number of articles were recovered.In our considered opinion, the actof the first accused in identifying N.Zubaida Beevi is surely relevant underSection 8 of the Evidence Act. Similarly, the recovery of these Material Objectsfrom the possession of N.Zubaida Beevi - PW-18 is also relevant.Further, in EX-P63, the first accused has stated that he handed overa Cellphone, two Rings and Rs.20,000/- to N.Zubaida Beevi.Apart from making the statements, the accusedthemselves had led the police to various places and produced the stolen articlesand also identified the witnesses, like PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-18 etc. Theconduct of the accused, which led to the discovery of the relevant facts, wouldfall within the ambit of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, and thus, their conductin identifying and producing the stolen articles from their custody and from thecustody of the others and the identification of the witnesses from whose custodysome more stolen articles were recovered are very strong incriminatingcircumstances against the accused, which would, surely, go to strengthen thecase of the prosecution.Circumstance No.Subsequently, according to him, he received a sample finger printallegedly obtained from one Anbarasu.On comparison of the same, he found thatthe chance finger print lifted from the place of occurrence tallied with thesample finger print of Anbarasu.(k).(l).The first accused was arrested on 19.11.2007 at 11.00 AM, atVellamadam.On such arrest, he made a disclosure statement and the stolenproperties were recovered including the car belonging to the deceased at hisinstance.(m).The second accused was arrested on the same day at 03.15 PM.On sucharrest, he also made a disclosure statement and the stolen articles wererecovered at his instance and some stolen articles were recovered from hispossession.(n).False plea of the first accused.There is no controversy that the murders of D-1 and D-2and the robbery at the house of D-1 had taken place in one and the sameoccurrence.Therefore, the person, who committed the robbery, had committed themurders of D-1 and D-2 as well.From the recovery of the stolen articles, moreparticularly, the car from the custody of the accused and the fact that both theaccused were found in possession of stolen articles soon after the commission ofrobbery as well as the other stolen articles, as discussed above, thepresumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act clearly goes in favour ofthe prosecution.The said legal presumption also duly corroborates the otherevidences so as to hold that these two accused alone committed robbery andmurder of these three deceased.Thus, we firmly hold, without any shadow ofhesitation, that it is only these two accused and none else, who committed thegruesome murder of the three deceased and other crimes.Accordingly, they areliable to be punished.In view of the above discussions, we find that both the accused areguilty as detailed below:-(vi).(vii).(viii).We hold that the accused are not guilty under Section 120(B) ofthe Indian Penal Code under Charge No.1, and so, they are entitled for acquittalfrom the said charge.We hold that the Anbarasu - first accused is entitled for acquittalfor the offence under Section 485 of the Indian Penal Code, because there was nocharge framed against him under Section 485 of the Indian Penal Code.In the result,(1).(e).we further direct that the accused - Gopi @ Sahaya Puruno [Accused inS.C.No.97 of 2008] shall not be released from prison for the rest of his life.(ii).Crl.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant - Anbarasu[accused in S.C.No.94 of 2009] for the offences under Sections 449, 302 [twocounts- charges 3 and 4], 392, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code areconfirmed.(iii).Referred Trial (MD).No.1 of 2010 is answered accordingly.(iv).The Suo motu Criminal Revision Case (MD).Nos.201 and 963 of 2011 areclosed.1.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Nesamoni Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

No proper investigation has been conducted by the police to find out the constitution of Build Rich Investment Group Limited, Honk Kong.Whereas, sufficient materials are there on record to show that the name of the company is Build Rich Global India Pvt. Ltd. and that company is incorporated in India and is registered with the Registrar of Companies.The Director of that company is Toh Kiat Seng.Thus, for a non existent Build Rich Investment Group Limited, Honk Kong, Gnanaprakasam (A2) cannot be forced to represent it.gya CRL.R.C.No.875 of 2019 30.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7This Criminal Revision has been preferred to set aside the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act cases, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1301 of 2018 in C.C.No.4 of 2017.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/7 Crl.RC.No.875 of 2019On the complaint lodged by one Kumaravel, the E.O.W, Kanchipuram registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2015 on 15.07.2015 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 294(b) and 506(I) IPC r/w Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (for brevity “TNPID Act”) against Gnanaprakasam (A1) and Build Rich Investment Group Limited, Hong Kong.After completing the investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.4 of 2017 before the Special Court for TNPID Act cases, Chennai against Build Rich Investment Group Limited, Honk Kong (A1) and Gnanaprakasam (A2) for the offences under Section 420, 406 and 506(I) IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act. On receipt of summons, Gnanaprakasam appeared before the trial Court.However, the trial Court refused to furnish him the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and insisted that he should represent Build Rich Investment Group Limited, Honk Kong (A1).According to Gnanaprakasam, he was only a Public Relations Officer in A1 company and that, the real name of the A1 company is Build Rich Global India Pvt. Ltd. and the Director of the company is a Korean national by name Toh Kiat Seng.Therefore, Gnanaprakasam (A2) applied for a certified copy of the final report and other documents and thereafter, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1301 of 2018 under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation, which has been dismissed by the trial Court on 08.04.2019, challenging which, Gnanaprakasam (A2) is before this Court under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 Crl.RC.No.875 of 2019Heard Mr.Therefore, on this short point itself, this revision petition would have been dismissed by this Court.This Court perused the complaint, which formed the basis of the registration of the F.I.R. in this case.The complainant, in his complaint dated 15.07.2015, has stated that, he got acquainted with Gnanaprakasam (A2) through a common friend; Gnanaprakasam (A2) told him that he is working as a Public Relations Officer in Build Rich Investment Group Limited of Malaysia, which has branches in Honk Kong, Singapore, Thailand and other places andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/7 Crl.RC.No.875 of 2019 that, they are into mining business; if he (complainant) makes investment in that company, he will get twice the amount as rich dividends every month and the dividends would be given as company share and gold; he (complainant) went into the website of the said company and invested Rs.3 Lakhs on 06.05.2013; his aunt Sumathi invested Rs.3 Lakhs on 11.05.2013, his uncle Mohan invested Rs.3 Lakhs on 07.07.2013, his friend Karthik invested Rs.60,000/- on 12.05.2013; since he did not receive the promised dividends, he contacted Gnanaprakasam (A2), who was evasive; after few days, when he went to Gnanaprakasam's house, he found that the latter had vacated the house; like him, one Rameshbabu, Velayudham, Murugan and Panneerselvam have also invested in the company.The final report shows that there are only 8 victims in the case and the total amount is only Rs.36 Lakhs.The names of all the 8 victims are mentioned in the complaint given by Kumaravel.Thus, one family and their friends have invested in the said company for getting shares.This Court does not find any prima facie material to show that an offence under Section TNPID Act has been committed as alleged by the prosecution.On the allegations made by the victims, Gnanaprakasam (A2) can at the most be prosecuted for cheating and not for the offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 Crl.RC.No.875 of 2019That apart, even according to the prosecution, Gnanaprakasam (A2) was working as a Public Relations Officer in Build Rich Investment Group Limited, Honk Kong (A1).Therefore, this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directs the Superintendent of Police, EOW, Chennai to conduct a further investigation in this case and if it is found that no offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act has been committed, the final report can be withdrawn from the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Chennai and the same can be filed before the appropriate jurisdictional Court, that too, only if there is material to show the commission of other IPC offences.Until then, there shall be an order of stay of further proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2017 before the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Chennai.The Superintendent of Police shall complete the further investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file the supplementary report before the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.RC.No.875 of 2019 thereafter, if necessary, seek for transmission of the records to the jurisdictional Court.With the above direction, this petition is closed.Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Special Judge, Special Court for TNPID Act cases, Chennai.2.The Superintendent of Police, E.O.W, Chennai.3.The Inspector of Police, E.O.W-II, Kanchipuram.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 Crl.RC.No.875 of 2019 P.N.PRAKASH, J.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is the case of the prosecution that Suresh (A1) raped the victim girl 'X' aged around 18 years on 14.01.2010, on account of which she conceived.When 'X' complained to Sellapappu (A3), the mother of Suresh (A1), the former is said to have given a country medicine on 14.03.2010 to 'X' for aborting the 2/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 foetus. 'X' consumed the medicine and the foetus got aborted.As per the Dentist opinion (Ex.P3), the age was determined as between 15 andThe sexual examination report of 'X'(Ex.P3) states that 'there is no visible recent signs of rape on her, that the victim girl is not pregnant, no signs of surgical intervention for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP), but she would have gone for medical intervention for abortion'.A1 was examined by Dr.Anbarasan (PW8), who in his evidence as 3/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 well in the examination report (Ex.P6) has stated that Suresh (A1) is capable of having coitus.That you A1 on 14.01.2010 around 01.00pm told the minor victim girl 'X' that your mother is calling and when she went inside your house, you locked the door and raped her and thereby punishable under Section 376 IPC.Charge No.2 Against A3 That you A3 on 14.03.2010 gave a country medicine to 'X', asked her to consume it and when she consumed it, the foetus got aborted and thereby you are punishable under Section 315 IPC.That you A3 abused Selvi (PW1)/ mother of 'X' in abusive language and thereby punishable under Section 294(b) IPC.Charge No.5 Against A2 and A3 That on 01.04.2010 at 06.00am when 'X' came to fetch water, you both assaulted her and thereby punishable under Section 323 IPC.'I am residing in Kolathur Village and I have studied upto 8th Standard; My school Transfer Certificate is Ex. P2; I am a daily wage earning farm hand; I know A1 to A4 as they are from my village; 10 days prior to Pongal festival in the year 2010 when I was returning home after work while I neared the house of accused, A1 called me to his house saying that he has to give an article to be handed over to my mother; so I went into his house; he closed the door and attempted to rape me; I resisted; he forcibly raped me and told me that I should not tell this to my parents; 3 months later I became pregnant; I approached A1 and told him about my pregnancy for which he did not say anything; I met his mother A3 and told her that I am pregnant; one day while I was coming in the road, A3 gave three black tablets and asked me to consume it 8/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 saying that it will cause miscarriage; I consumed the three tablets; I developed stomach ache and told my mother whatever had happed; my mother went and questioned A3 for which A3 said that your daughter would have gone with somebody; A3 came to beat my mother and both of them fought; A complaint was given against us and there were attempt to put us in jail; thereafter we went to the All Women Police Station and lodged the complaint.'In the cross-examination she admitted that she does not know the date on which she was ravished.She has alo admitted that there is a public tap near the house of the accused and people will be available from 08.00am to 09.00am for collecting water.She stated that she raised alarm when the accused attempted to rape her, but nobody heard her voice.She denied the suggestion that A1 had not raped her and A3 had not given her any medicine.However, Selvi (PW1), the mother of 'X' has stated that in the year 2010, A1 gave a cup of Rasna beverage mixed with sedatives and raped 'X' in his house.Superadded in the chief-examination that her daughter was missing and when she went in search of her, she saw her daughter and A1 coming from Trichy by bus.On the typewritten complaint (Ex.P1) given by Selvi (PW1), Kamala (PW10), Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2010 under Sections 294(b), 323, 376 and 506(ii) IPC on 11.05.2010 at 08.00 hours and prepared the printed First Information Report (Ex.P7).Investigation of the case was taken over by Sivasubramanian (PW11), Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P10) and Observation Mahazar (Ex.P9).Vishnu Pradap (PW7) examined 'X' on 12.05.2010 for determining her age.After examining witnesses and collecting various reports, Sivasubramaniam (PW11) completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No.4 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur under Section 294(b), 315, 323, 376 and 506(ii) IPC against Suresh (A1), Veerasamy (A2/father of A1), Sellapappu (A3/mother of A1) and Raja (A4/brother of A1).On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Perambalur in S.C.No.37 of 2011 and was made over to Mahila Court, Perambalur for trial.The trial Court framed the following charges against A1 to A4 (Free English translation):Charge No.6 Against A4 That you A4 in the course of quarrel mentioned in Charge No.5 on 01.04.2010 brandished a knife and criminally intimidated Selvi (PW1) and thereby punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC.When questioned, A1 to A4 pleaded 'not guilty'.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exs.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they not only denied the same, but also gave a written explanation along with enclosures stating that a false case has been foisted against them by the family members of 'X' due to previous enmity.5/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court by judgment and order dated 21.05.2012 in S.C.No.37 of 2011 acquitted A2 and A4 of all the charges, but convicted and sentenced A1 and A3 as follows:Sections 376 IPC 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in Accused No.1 default to undergo one year simple imprisonment Section 315 4 years rigorous r/w.34 IPC imprisonment Accused No.3 Section 315 IPC 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonmentChallenging the conviction and sentence, Accused Nos.1 and 3 have prepared the present appeal.On 23.10.2019, this Court passed the following order:“On 06.08.2019, there was no representation for the appellant and therefore, the matter was adjourned.The Court Officer 6/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 called Mr.H.Rajasekar, Advocate on record for the appellant at Mobile No.9444027395 around 11.20 am on the directions of this Court.After speaking to Mr.Rajasekar, he reported that Mr.Rajasekar told him that change of vakalat was taken by the parties.Thereafter, Ms.R.Angalaparameswari (Enrollment No.3606/2015), Advocate, junior of Mr.H.Rajasekar, came to the Court at 12.30 am and reported that they had given change of vakalat long back.The fact remains that the accused have not engaged any counsel so far.Hence, the suspension of sentence that was granted to the accused Sellapappu (A3) in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 dated 06.06.2012 and the suspension of sentence and bail that was granted to Suresh (A1)) in M.P.No.3 of 2012 in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 dated 02.04.2013 is hereby cancelled.The police is directed to take them into custody.Till the police takes the appellants into custody, this appeal cannot be kept on Board without any progress.Hence, this Court appoints Ms.S.Sridevi (Enrollment No.924/98), an Advocate who has 21 years of standing in the Bar as counsel for the appellants.The State has also preferred Crl.A.No.90 of 2015 for enhancement of sentence on the ground that after convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC, the trial Court should have awarded the minimum sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, but had sentenced the accused only to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment.A.No.320 of 2012 appointed for the accused in Crl.A.No.90 of 2015 also.Call on 01.11.2019.”Heard Ms.Sridevi, learned counsel who was appointed as amicus curiae, for the appellants.9. 'X' in her evidence has stated as follows (Free English Translation):She further admitted that she pushed the accused and resisted the rape.She has further stated that she did not suffer any injuries and A1 also did not suffer any injury.To a specific question by defence, she has stated that her periods stopped three months after the incident.She admitted that the accused had issued a legal notice to her family on account of which there were disputes and a police complaint was also given.She also admitted that a fight ensued between her family members and the accused for which a criminal case was also registered 9/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 against them.In the cross-examination, she admitted that the accused had issued legal notice to her and there were quarrels between both families.She has further stated in the chief- examination that she approached A3 and told her that her daughter has been pregnated by A1 and asked her for a solution for which A3 told her that she will make arrangement for her son to marry 'X'.PW1 has also stated in the chief examination that she received a legal notice from the accused and the accused refused to marry 'X' and hence, she went and lodged the complaint (Ex.P1).In the cross-examination, she admitted that Ex.P1 was prepared by an advocate and given to the police and that she does not know of its content.She also admitted that a quarrel ensued in which a police case was registered against her and she went to the Court and pleaded guilty.She denied the suggestion that a false case has been put up against the family members of the accused.She further contended that 'X' was aged above 17 years and from the evidence of PW1 that she saw 'X' and A1 coming together from Trichy by bus would show that they were having an affair and nothing beyond that.Though in the complaint 'X' has been shown as a minor girl, the Transfer Certificate (Ex.P2) and medical evidence clearly show that 'X' was more than 17 years old.Pongal festival normally fall on 14th January or 15th January.10 days prior to Pongal would mean either 4th or 5th of January, whereas the charge is that the rape had taken place on 14.01.2010. 'X' has stated that she was asked by the accused to come inside his house and when she innocently went inside, he forcibly ravished her.Whereas, Selvi (PW1), mother of 'X' has stated that A1 mixed sedatives in Rasna, gave it to 'X' and thereafter he raped her.It is not the case of 'X' that the accused was continuously having sex with her even thereafter.It is her specific case that she was raped 10 days prior to Pongal festival, whereas in the cross-examination she has clearly stated that her mensus stopped 3 months after the incident.If she had conceived as a fall out of the rape, either 10 days prior to Pongal festival or on 14.01.2010, as set out in the 11/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 charge, she would not have got her periods thereafter, whereas she has categorically stated that her periods stopped three months after she was raped.The complaint in this case has been given with the help of an advocate only on 11.05.2010 and there is an inordinate delay.Normally delay in lodging the complaint in rape cases should not be strictly viewed because the victim may not come out of the trauma that easily.In this case, the witnesses have accepted that the accused had sent a legal notice to the family of 'X' stating that they are spreading rumors that 'X' was ravished by A1 and had called upon the family members of 'X' to desist from spreading such rumors.PW1 and PW2 have accepted the receipt of this notice.Strangely, even thereafter no step was taken to lodge any complaint to the police.As per Charge No.5, a quarrel ensued between the family members of the accused and 'X' on 01.04.2010 in which PW1 was assaulted and threatened.Even after that, no complaint was lodged.If 'X' had taken a stand that she was seduced on the promise of marriage and she did not want to precipitate things by hurriedly going to the police and instead she waited for A1 to marry her and when A1 conclusively reneged, she went and lodged the complaint, this Court 12/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 would have held that the delay has been explained.In the instant case, there was no love lost between the family of the accused and 'X' and in that circumstances, the delay in lodging the complaint is indeed fatal especially when the accused had issued a legal notice calling upon the family members of 'X' not to spread lies.Under such circumstances, this Court is unable to sustain the conviction of the appellants in the light of the serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.In the result, Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 preferred by the accsued is allowed and judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur dated 21.05.2012 in S.C.No.37 of 2011 is set aside.As a sequitur, the appeal in Crl.A.No.90 of 2015 filed by the State seeking enhancement of sentence is dismissed.The accused are acquitted of all charges.Fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to the accused as remuneration.13/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 This Court places on record its appreciation to Ms.Sridevi (Enrollment No.924/98), learned counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae for this case and directs Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to Ms.S.Sridevi as remuneration.01.11.2019 Speaking Order: Yes/No Index: Yes/No gpa ToThe Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, PerambalurThe Inspector of Police All Women Police Station PerambalurThe Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority High Court Campus, Chennai14/15http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 P.N.PRAKASH J., gpa Crl.A.No.320 of 2012 & Crl.A.No.90 of 2015 01.11.2019

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Vikash Chouksey, counsel for objector.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.52/2018 registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Betul, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506-II of IPC.The allegations of the prosecution are that applicant Bablu Khan was the tenant and neighbour of prosecutrix, who is said to be aged about 32 years.It is alleged that Bablu Khan, who is the regular visitor at the house of prosecutrix finding her alone on 2.12.2017 at about 1 pm forcefully made physical relationship with her, in absence of her husband, after threatening her regarding life of her children and husband.It is also alleged that after the incident the applicant used to visit the house of prosecutrix in her husband's absence and committed sexual intercourse with her.In the meanwhile, on refusal of prosecutrix applicant had threatened her by saying that he is having a video film with her in compromising position and if she will refuse, then he will show it to other persons.The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and on 3.5.2018 she had lodged the report in Police Station Ranipur, District Betul.On that basis, offence had been registered against the applicant.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.37869/2018 (Bablu Khan Vs.State of M.P.) 2 Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence.The prosecutrix is a consenting party.The applicant is in judicial custody since 7.8.2018 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.The applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions that may be imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.The learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State and objector opposed the bail application.From the perusal of case diary, it appears that the prosecutrix is a major lady aged about 32 years.She had narrated the first incident of forcible intercourse on 2.12.2017, but is it no clear that when she had narrated the incident to her husband, however, the FIR is lodged after a delay of 5 months of the said incident.Her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C., has also been recorded, in which she has stated that the first incident of intercourse was committed by intoxicating her and also that she has given Rs.1 lac to the applicant, but there is no mention of these incidents in the FIR.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material contradictions in the statement of prosecutrix and the period of detention of the applicant, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.37869/2018 (Bablu Khan Vs.State of M.P.) 3 Accordingly, the application is allowed.It is directed that applicant - Bablu Khan shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.It is directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3)This M.Cr.C., stands allowed and disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge M Digitally signed by SANTOSH P MATHEWS Date: 2018.11.01 10:51:43 +05'30'

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

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

of Police, (2013) 1 Cal Cri.L.R.(SC) 213 his client was entitled to rely on such document to probabilise his defence.of Police referred to in the impugned order was at the stage of recording of evidence, but direction for such inspection to enable the accused to effectively participate at the time of consideration of charge, cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified.However, I am in agreement with the observation of the learned trial Judge that there is no right of the accused to call upon the prosecution to supply copies of such documents, which they do not choose to rely during trial.Accordingly, I do not wish to interfere with the impugned order.I, however, clarify that the accused would not be entitled to get copies of the aforesaid documents, but can inspect the same for the purpose of effective participation at time of consideration of charge.The entire exercise culminating in the consideration of charge is directed to be concluded within a month from the date of communication of this order.The accused shall also be permitted to utilize such documents for confronting prosecution witnesses during their examination and/or exhibiting the same after having entered into his defence in accordance with law..With the aforesaid clarifications, the application is disposed of.(Joymalya Bagchi,J.) 3

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The jail authorities shall have the applicant checked by the jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the coronavirus and if he is, he shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the State for treatment.If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.Signature Not Verified SAN Certified copy as per rules.(SHIV KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 Jabalpur, Dated : 29-07-2020 Heard through Video Conferencing.Raman Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Piyush Bhatnagar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under section 439 of the Cr.P.C, for offences under sections 306,34 of the IPC, registered vide Crime No.392/2019, at P.S. Dheemarkheda, District Katni.He is a senior citizen aged 62 years.The allegation of having abetted suicide of the deceased aged 29 years and the husband of the deceased is still in jail.The offence is one under section306 read with 34 IPC.The dying declaration shows that the applicant along with other co-accused persons used to harass her fight with her and throw her and the children out of the house on account of which she poured kerosene oil upon her and committed suicide.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Arun B. Saharya, J.(2) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under six heads.First, for conspiracy to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh, under Section 120-B, IPC.Secondly, for the murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh in pursuance of the conspiracy under Section 302 read with Section 120B, IPC.In that case Baba Gurbachan Singh and 60 other Nirankar is were prosecuted.This further enraged the Akal is.Jathedar Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala, a leader of the Akal is, made provocative speeches against the Nirankar is and gave a call for killing the Nirankari head Baba Gurbachan Singh.His offensive speeches were published in various newspapers in Punjab and elsewhere from time to time.On 19th March, 1980 there was an attack on Baba Gurbachan Singh at Durg in Madhya Pradesh, but he survived.Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara trained Sikhs in martial arts in Delhi.Its members were staunch Akal is and anti Nirankar is.They used to obstruct and disrupt Nirankari congregations (Samagams) held in Delhi.Appellant Ranjit Singh was an active member of the Akhara.He was a carpenter by profession, knew shooting by gun and was a good marksman.Incensed by anti Nirankari feelings and to avenge the killing of Sikhs at Amritsar, appellant Ranjit Singh alongwith some other known and unknown persons hatched a conspiracy to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh.In pursuance of the conspiracy and to achieve the object thereof, in February, 1980, he infiltrated into the rank and file of the Nirankar is through the good offices of Onkar Singh (Public Witness -24) and Dr. Des Raj and joined the Nirankari Mission.Baba Gurbachan Singh had his residence in the Nirankari Bhawan, which was a castle of the Nirankar is.Ranjit Singh started working in the carpentry workshop inside the Nirankari Bhawan Complex.Ostensibly, he also started doing service (Sewa).Gradually, he won over the confidence of those who mattered and gained free access into the Nirankari Bhawan.In March and April, 1980, he also worked at the places of some of the Nirankar is.Off and on, when he was working at places outside, he borrowed tools and brought in beams and logs of wood for sawing and grooving in the carpentry workshop.Sometimes, he also stayed in the guest house that was located just opposite the residence of Baba Gurbachan Singh inside the Nirankari Bhawan complex.Thus, he managed to bring in and take out timber, borrow tools from the carpentry workshop and stay back in the guest house, without arousing any suspicion.While feigning as a Nirankari, he was actually working on the plan to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh.He disclosed to Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91), who was also an Akali and active member of the Akhara, his plan to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh and had asked him to arrange for chloroform from die hospital where he was working and on another occasion his father's revolver for that purpose.Ranjit Singh also told Harjinder Singh that he had gone to Amritsar to meet Sant Bhinderwala, that arrangements had been made, and that he would soon be getting a "happy news" in respect of the Nirankar is.Coinciding with this, just two or three days before the incident actually took place, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderawala had given a rabid speech and declared before his followers at Gurdwara Santpura (Yamuna Nagar) in Haryana, that within two or three days "we would achieve our aim and Nirankari Baba would be murdered".In furtherance of the conspiracy, an improvised box was prepared out of a log of wood at the workshop of Bada Gyan Singh.The box was so made as to conceal among other things, .30 Carbine, an unsheathed sword and its top when screwed together, looked like a beam of wood.The arms and ammunitions concealed in the improvised log like box, alongwith other weapons wrapped in a bundle of cloth, were carried in a new Ambassador car and delivered to Ranjit Singh and his companion by their co-conspirators on the day of occurrence at about 6.45 p.m. at the culvert on the outskirts of Nirankari Colony near Sant Nirankari School, Delhi.(4) On 24th April, 1980, Ranjit Singh reached the Nirankari Bhawan in the afternoon.He alongwith his companion Kabul Singh (P.O.) came to the carpentry workshop at about 4.30 p.m. At that time, he was having in his hand a noose prier (Ex.P-4).He took from Ajit Singh (Public Witness -12) a 10 inches long screw driver (Ex.P-3).He took his companion reconnoitering from place to place in and around the Bhawan, including the portion on the first floor of the guest house right opposite the residence of Baba Gurbachan Singh.On the way, he introduced his companion to everybody as his maternal uncle's son (Mama KaLadka).At about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., Ranjit Singh was seen sitting outside the Nirankari Bhawan, on the culvert opposite the house of Vidyawanti, with a beam of wood, which was actually the log-like box of wood (Ext. P-1).There, he was accompanied by his young companion and two other Sardars.At about 10.00 to 10.15 p.m., Ranjit Singh and his companion were again seen together outside room No. 14, which was not allotted to anyone that day.(5) At about 10.30 p.m., Baba Gurbachan Singh returned from his usual Thursday discourse (Satsang) held at Paharganj, in a convoy comprising a motor cycle and three motor-cars.The motor cycle rider was the pilot.Then, the Volkswagen car was occupied by Pratap Singh, who was the bodyguard of Baba Gurbachan Singh and two other Nirankar is.Thereafter was the Mercedes car, which was driven by Kishan Pal (Public Witness -2).Baba Gurbachan Singh was sitting in the front seat.Gobind Singh (Public Witness -1) alongwith two others and a child were sitting in the rear seat of that car.Kuldip Singh Walia (Public Witness -141), his wife Shiv Darshan Kaur, and Jai Ram Dass (Public Witness -55) were also injured.The assailants threw two hand grenades also.One fell in the courtyard and the other in the staircase leading from the courtyard to the balcony in front of room No. 14 on the first floor of the guest house.The hand-grenades, however, did not explode.Gobind Singh (Public Witness -I) and Kishan Pal (Public Witness -2) noticed two persons on the balcony running away towards the bathroom attached to room No. 14 on the first floor.The assailants passed through the bathroom window into the back lane and escaped.(6) Baba Gurbachan Singh, Pratap Singh and PW-141 Kuldip Singh Walia and his wife Shiv Darshan Kaur were immediately removed to different hospitals.Baba Gurbachan Singh was taken to Tirath Ram hospital.There he was declared dead.His body was brought back to the Nirankari Bhawan.Pratap Singh was taken to L. N.J.P. hospital, where he also succumbed to the injuries.Kuldip Singh Walia (Public Witness - 141) and his wife Shiv Darshan Kaur were taken to the Hindu Rao hospital.(7) A telephonic message was received at 10.49 p.m. at Kingsway Camp Police Station from a Police Control Room van that some 'Sadhu' was firing inside the Nirankari Mandir.It was recorded in the daily diary of the Police Station (Ex. PW-143/DA).S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh (Public Witness -143) alongwith Constable Jai Kishan (Public Witness -37) left for the Nirankari Bhawan.On enquiries made at the Bhawan, S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh (Public Witness -143) found that information about a 'Sadhu' firing was incorrect, and he learnt about the incident that had taken place there.Gobind Singh (Public Witness -I) gave to S.I.Ramesh Pal Singh (Public Witness -143) information relating the commission of the offence, which was reduced to writing (Ex. PW-l/A).The Sub-Inspector made a note thereon Ex. PW-143/A and sent the same (Rukka) to the Police Station through Constable Jai Kishan (Public Witness -37).There, it was registered at 1.05 a.m. as Fir No. 395/ 80 (Ex. PW-149/A).S.H.O. Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149) rushed to the spot and took over investigation of the case.S.I. Mahesh Chand was sent to Hindu Rao hospital.From there, he obtained clothes of Kuldip Singh Walia in a sealed parcel, his Mlc and the statements of Kuldip Singh Walia (Public Witness -141 ) and his wife Shiv Darshan Kaur.Senior officers of the Delhi Police, Crime team, Cfsl team and Dog squad also reached the place of occurrence.The post-mortem report in respect of Baba Gurbachan Singh is Ex. PW-38 /A and that of Pratap Singh Ex. PW-38/B and Ex. PW-7/B. S.H.O. Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149) inspected the scene of occurrence alongwith S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh, Niranjan Singh (Public Witness -3) and Mangal Sen (Public Witness -4), and got prepared site plans Ex. PW-143/E and Ex. PW-143/F. Various articles found in room No. 14, including the log-like wooden box Ex. P-l, Sword Ex. P-2, Screw Driver Ex. P-3 and Noose prier Ex. P-4, those found in the bathroom attached to room No. 14, and those in the courtyard and in the back lane were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ext. PW3/A, Ext. PW3/B, Ext. PW3/C, Ext. PW3/D, Ext. PW3/J, Ext. PW-3/K, Ext. PW-3/L and Ext. PW3/M, which were scribed by S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh.When the Screw Driver Ex. P-3 was found near the box Ex. P-l inside room No. 14, A)it Singh (Public Witness -12) was sent for.He recalled that it was the same Screw Driver that had been taken from him by Ranjit Singh.A Matador van No. HRF-8517, in which some persons were travelling alongwith arms and ammunition, was intercepted by officials of Police Station, Tilak Marg in the early hours of the morning.Those persons, after interrogation, appeared to be innocent and were released; but the arms and ammunition found in the vehicle were seized and deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Kingsway Camp.S.H.O. Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149) recorded statements of eight persons, including Anoop Kumar (Public Witness -15), under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Inspector Munshi Ram (Public Witness -57) summoned the bomb disposal squad of the army.One hand-grenade lying in the staircase was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-57/A, and it was defused by Captain Ajay Kumar.Inspector Munshi Ram also seized die guest register Ex. PW-9 / A containing entry in the name of Ranjit Singh indicating his trans Yamuna river (Yamuna Paar) address.Statements of the Receptionist Amarjit Singh (Public Witness -9) and that of the Caretaker Kulwant Singh (Public Witness -35) were also recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Jai Ram Dass Aiya (PW-55) was sent for medical examination.His blood stained Kurta was taken into possession.His statement also was recorded.On 25th April, 1980, all items of case property that were taken into possession were deposited by S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh (PW-143) in the Kingsway Camp Police Station Malkhana.A Police party was sent in search of Ranjit Singh.He was not found at his house.His brother was brought to the police station and interrogated.Police parties were also sent in search of Ranjit Singh to Durg, Amritsar, Ludhiana and various places in Delhi, but in vain.(8) On 26th April, 1980, further investigation of the case was transferred by the Government of India to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).Consequently, the C.B.I. registered Regular Case No. 2/80 Ex. PW-163/A. Further investigation was entrusted, among others, to D.C. Sorari (Public Witness -119), S.B. Sinha, (Public Witness -120), R.S. Chauhan (Public Witness -125), O.P. Chhatwal (Public Witness -137), R.P. Kapoor (Public Witness -138), N.P. Singh (PW-142), R.S. Dhankar (Public Witness -150), R.P. Singh (Public Witness -154), Morari Lal (Public Witness -155), A.K. Suri (Public Witness -160) and PW-163B.R. Puri, from time to time.Especially, after the 13th April, 1978 episode, Bhinderwala made several inflammatory speeches exhorting his followers to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh.In June, 1978, he declared that the day was not far off when Baba Gurbachan Singh would be beheaded and his head hung at the 'Darshani Deohri'of the Golden Temple at Amritsar.Declarations made by him that the Nirankar is should not be allowed to hold their congregations, and speeches creating ill-will and inciting violence in the minds of Akal is against the Nirankar is were published in various newspapers like Daily Ajit, Hind Samachar, Kamboj, Pratap, Veer Pratap and Punjab Kesri Exs.PW-61 /B-1 to B-11, Exs. PW-63/ B-1 and B-2, Ex. PW-64/B-1, Ex. PW-50/A. A commandment (Hukamnama) was also issued at Amritsar in June, 1978 directing all Sikhs to socially boycott Nirankar is.Attempt at the life of the Nirankari Baba was also made at some places, including Durg in Madhya Pradesh.Three days prior to the incident Bhinderwala made another violent speech at Gurdwara Santpura, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana), where he referred to the Nirankari Baba as "Nirankari Baba" and declared that within 2/3 days they would achieve their aim and the Baba would be murdered.Appellant Ranjit Singh was an active member of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara situated in trans-Yamuna area in Delhi.He was regularly attending the meetings of the Akhara.In the Akhara, training was imparted for fighting with stick (Lathi), spear (Barchha),Club (Gatka) and Sword.(13) According to the Trial Court, appellant Ranjit Singh, in order to achieve the object to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh, secured his initiation and joined the Nirankari Mission.He did 'Seva' and attended 'Satsang'.He started working as a carpenter in the carpentry workshop inside the Bhawan.In the adjoining auto workshop, he also had a word with PW-39, Darshan Uppal.Thereafter he visited the house of PW-11 Pritpal Kaur and went away from there as the rollers that were to be fixed in the almirah were not available.On the basis of this information, PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh alongwith PW-37 Constable Jai Kishan left for the spot which is at a distance of about 3 kms.from the police station.Si Ramesh Pal Singh, on enquiry after arrival at the Bhawan found that the information about a 'sadhu' firing was not correct and PW-I Gobind Singh, who was present, gave him information about the incident that had occurred at 10.30 p.m. The information given by Gobind Singh was reduced in writing Ex. PW-I/A. Si Ramesh Pal Singh then sent it to the police station through PW-37 Constable Jai Kishan at 12.50 a.m. vide Ex. PW-143/A for the purpose of registration of the case, with a request that a special report may be sent to the higher officers.Consequently, formal Fir Ex. PW-149/A was registered at 1.15 a.m. on 25thApril,1980.Endorsement made by Asi Dharam Singh at the bottom of Ex.PW-143/ A shows that the original writing alongwith police file was sent through the bearer constable Jai Kishan back to the spot.A copy was also handed over to him for delivering the same to the complainant.Further, it was recorded: "THE special report is being sent to the higher authorities through Narinder Singh Constable No. 823 by means of motor-cycle.The crime team and the Dog Squad have been informed."Reverting to the scene of occurrence, it appears that PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh reached the spot at 1.00 a.m. and took over the investigation from Si Ramesh Pal Singh.He received the police file and other papers sent by the police station.Senior officers of the Delhi Police and also crime team, Cfsl team and Dog Squad reached the spot.Sho Dalbir Singh sent PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh alongwith the Dog Squad to track down the assailants.On his return, on instructions of Sho Dalbir Singh, Si Ramesh Pal Singh prepared the inquest report Ex. PW-54/C on the body of Baba Gurbachan Singh, which was lying in the courtyard of the Bhawan and the inquest report Ex. PW-54/A on the body of Pratap Singh at Lnjp hospital.Thereafter, Sho Dalbir Singh got prepared by Si Ramesh Pal Singh site plans Ex. PW-143/E and Ex. PW-143/F. Various articles were also seized from room No. 14, attached bathroom, Verandah, stair case, courtyard and the back lane of Bhawan vide seizure memos Ext. PW-3/A, Ext. PW-3/B, Ext. PW-3/C, Ext. PW-3/D, Ext. PW-3/J, Ext. PW-3/K, Ext. PW-3/L and Ext. PW-3/M.(26) During the trial, PW-1 Gobind Singh reiterated the details of the occurrence mentioned in the Fir Ext. PW-149 /A. In his lengthy cross-examination also, he gave minor details which he could not have done if he was not present at the time of the incident on the spot.In his cross-examination, a suggestion was given to him that he came to know about the incident when he was in Ghaziabad and he reached the spot only at 3.30 a.m. and his statement was recorded early in the morning on the next day.As against the suggestion given to PW-1 Gobind Singh, a different suggestion was made to PW-2 Kishan Pal that Gobind Singh had gone away from Ghaziabad to Jullunder, that he was contacted there, and that nobody was prepared to lodge a report till arrival of Gobind Singh at Delhi.PW-3 Niranjan Singh confirmed the presence of Gobind Singh on the day of incident even earlier at 4.00 p.m. in his cross-examination.The second one is Ex. PW-54/A in respect of Pratap Singh.Admittedly, no copy of the Fir or Rukka was attached with either of these two reports.It emerges from the statement of PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh and PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh that on return from the Police Station PW-37 Constable Jai Kishan had given the Rukka and copy of the Fir alongwith the police file to Sho Dalbir Singh, who had already arrived and taken over investigation of the case on the spot, and not to Si Ramesh Pal Singh.Sho Dalbir Singh had directed Si Ramesh Pal Singh to conduct the inquest proceedings.Later, when the incident took place, he saw Babaji coming out of the car, and just then, he heard some sound like a cracker or bang followed by 5 to 7 such sounds.Some particles of cement fell on his face.This plea is sought to be raised on the basis of the Pcr message recorded in Daily Diary Ex. PW-143/ Da that a Sadhu was firing; two books namely "Avtar bani and "YugPurush published by the Nirankari Mandal; and recovery of the .12 bore empty bullet cartridge Ex. D-l, wads and pellets Ex. D-3/1 to 11& Ex. D-2/1 to 21, fired from the double barrel gun that was ultimately recovered from Kundan Singh.He urged: (i) that Asi Lal Singh, who had transmitted the message Ex. PW-143/DA from the Pcr to Police Station, Kingsway Camp about firing by a Sadhu was not examined; (ii) that no effort was made for explaining the movement of one motor cycle that may have been used by the assailant for his escape; (iii) that the guard posted at the front gate, who could depose about the in and out movement of the unaccounted motor cycle, was not produced as a witness; and (iv) that no effort was made to find out from Kundan Singh the circumstances in which his double barrel gun was used for firing a shot in the courtyard inside the Bhawan on the fateful day.(52) PW-141 Kuldip Singh Walia, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that he was residing at Ludhiana for the last about 20 years.He had applied for Congress Party's ticket for contesting the Assembly election for the State of Punjab from Ludhiana Constituency.He came to Delhi on 24th April, 1980 to meet Gobind Singh and Babaji to muster their support in the election because there were quite a large number of Nirankari voters in the constituency.D-2/1 to 21 and Exts.D-3/1 to II.The direction in which the shot was fired and the line of fire is established by the spot from where the .12 bore empty cartridges was found, that being the point where it would have been ejected, and the distribution and location of the relatable wads and pellets.This would make a line that goes to show that the .12 bore double barrel gun shot was fired from the Courtyard towards the garage underneath room No. 14, which was in a different direction far away from the victims of the assault, who fell to 30 bore carbine bullets fired downwards into the Courtyard from room No. 14 on the first floor of the guest house opposite the residence of Baba Gurbachan Singh.(67) On the other hahd, it is proved by the evidence on record that room No. 14 was the place from where the lethal assault was launched; that the victims were hit by bullets fired from a .30 Carbine; and two hand grenades also were thrown from the balcony in front of the bath room attached to room No. 14 into the Courtyard.(68) The basic fact that room No. 14 was the place from where the deadly attack was launched and the fact that two men were seen running from the balcony towards the bath room attached to room No. 14 are established by the ocular evidence of PW-1Gobind Singh, PW-2 Kishan Pal, PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-26 Naresh Kumar and PW-55 Jairam Dass Arya who were all present in the Courtyard at the time of occurrence.Their testimony is fully supported by the recovery of various articles including several pieces of ammunitions, from room No. 14 and other places on the first floor shown in site plan Ext. PW-I 43/E and those recovered from the Courtyard in front of the residence of Baba Gurbachan Singh shown in site plan Ext. PW143/F.The three fired bullets, jackets/bullet heads Exts.P-16,P-17and P-19 recovered from the Courtyard were of .30 Carbine cartridges fired from a single weapon and various other pieces, including those marked as Exts.P-12, P-13 and P-18/1 to 6, also recovered from the Courtyard, were in mutilated/torn and incomplete condition and the same could be projectiles of the fired bullets.The Ballistic Expert PW-164 Roop Singh confirmed these conclusions in Court.He also explained, on the basis of the shape and size of the holes found in the clothes (Ext. P-39) of deceased Pratap Singh and in the clothes (Ext. P-48 and Ext. P-49) of deceased Baba Gurbachan Singh, that the holes could have been caused by a .30 Carbine bullets, and that the location and the line drawn by joining the holes on each piece of clothing was slopping down indicating a downward slope of the line of fire in the straight standing position of each of the two deceased.In respect of the clothes of injured Kuldip Singh Walia, he testified that the holes could have been caused by a single bullet that entered through the back, got fragmented in the body, and portions of its fragments exited through the holes on the front side; but, no opinion regarding the type and the caliber of the bullet and other details could be given.In cross-examination, he categorically ruled out the plea that any of the holes on clothings of the victims or the wounds found upon the bodies of the two deceased could be caused by pallets of .12 bore cartridge.Specifically, with reference to the location, shape, size and other features of the wounds given in the post-mortem report of deceased Baba Gurbachan Singh,and deceased Pratap Singh, he firmly ruled out any possibility of such wounds, being caused by pellets of .12 bore cartridge fired from any double barrel gun.(72) The place of assault is further established by recovery of two hand grenades.One thrown into the Courtyard and the other flung into the staircase.Safety pin (Ext. P-57) was recovered from the Verandah outside bath room attached to room No. 14, whereas the striker liver (Ext. P-58) of the grenade was found lying near the unexploded grenade in the Courtyard.This also would show that the hand grenade, after plucking the safety pin, was thrown from the first floor and the liver with the grenade flew to some distance and fell down in the Courtyard.(73) Thus, it is conclusively established that the shots that hit the victims were fired from only a single weapon, which was .30 Carbine, from room No. 14; that the two hand grenades also were thrown from the balcony and that two men were seen running from the balcony towards the bath room attached to room No. 14, which was the place from where the crime was committed.(74) Next, it was contended by Mr. Randhawa that another hypothesis suppressed by the prosecution was the involvement of five persons including one Harcharan Singh, who were carrying arms and ammunition and were going to Punjab by the Matador Van bearing registration No. HRF-8517, which was intercepted soon after the incident.But, those persons were let off by the police.Soon thereafter, the said Matador Van was intercepted by the officials of Tilak Marg Police Station.On suspicion, arising from questioning the occupants of the van, all five of them were detained for further investigation.Search of the van yielded arms and ammunition, which were taken into possession.A .30 bore carbine was also recovered at the instance of one of those five persons.The arms and ammunition, included .12 bore gun, .315 rifle and .30 carbine, recovered from them were deposited in the Malkhana as case property vide entry Ext. PW-143/DD, as deposed by PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh.This information, according to Mr. Randhawa, was suppressed by the prosecution and it came out only when the Malkhana register was produced in Court.For determination of this point, it is necessary to advert to the testimony of PW-35 Kulwant Singh.The inability of these witnesses to say so is quite understandable.On inspection of room No. 14 and the attached bath room, the Investigating Officer had noticed things that created suspicion of commission of the offence by use of that place by the assailants.Naturally, no one was allowed to come inside till completion of the job entrusted to the Cfsl Experts.Just to make it more lucid, it may be recalled that according to the prosecution, on 24.4.1980 at about 4.00 p.m. /4.30 p.m. when the appellant alongwith his companion came to the carpentry workshop, he was having the noose prier and he took from PW-12 Ajit Singh the 10" long screw driver engraved with letter 'N' in the presence of PW-36 Suresh Kumar.On reaching the rear gate of the Nirankari Bhawan, at about 8.30 p.m., PW-19 Damodari Devi saw appellant and his companion carrying through the rear gate into the Nirankari Bhawan the box Ex. P-l, which looked like a log of wood.The further movements of accused Ranjit Singh and his companion near about room No. 14 covered by circumstances No. 20,21& 22, are testified by other witnesses.PW-36 Suresh Kumar saw Ranjit Singh and his companion at the staircase leading to room No. 14 at about 9.30 p.m. PW-15 Anoop Kumar deposed to the presence of Ranjit Singh inside the adjoining bathroom and his companion lurking nearby on the balcony.The witness even had a conversation with accused Ranjit Singh at that place.It is the continuous chain of these circumstances, and recovery of the incriminating articles, i.e. the box looking like a log of wood (Ext. P-l), the screw driver (Ext. P-3) and the noose prier (Ext. P-4) found lying inside room No. 14, that clearly implicate the appellant in the commission of the crime.PW3/A, Ext. PW3/B, Ext. PW143/G, Ext. PW158/E, Ext. PW164/A, Ext. PW108/ H, Ext. PW108/F, Ext. PW108/G, Ext. PW108/J and Ext. PW163/B, which convincingly explain the change of the seal of 'RPS' to that of 'CFSL'.(145) The Note appended to the seizure memo dated 25.4.1980 Ext. PW-3/A shows that the articles described at serial Nos. 1,2 and 3 i.e., the wooden box, the screw driver and the noose prier were wrapped up in a piece of cloth and PW-143 Ramesh Pal Singh had sealed the parcel with his seal of 'RPS'On the same day i.e. 25.4.1980, PW-143 Ramesh Pal Singh deposited all the articles that were recovered from the place of occurrence in the Malkhana of Police Station, Kingsway Camp.In the Malkhana Register the wooden box, the screw driver and the noose prier are mentioned in Entry Nos. 15(1), 15(2) and 15(3) respectively, among other entries, collectively marked Ext. PW143/G. On 30.4.1980, as deposed by PW-158 Kailash Chander and PW-163 Shri B.R. Puri, Inspector S.P-Sinha of CBI collected the case property from Malkhana, Police Station, Kingsway Camp and deposited the same in the Cbi Malkhana.The seals on all the parcels were checked and the same were intact.V5 of about 1" length out of these 4 are complete and one is half broken.VS It is a wooden log box having numerous circular striations within it." Under the next heading of Result of Examination, the report records opinion on Question Nos. (iii) and (iv) raised in CBI's letter dated 5.5.1980 Ext. PW108/F in the following terms: "1.Regarding Query No. III: The screw driver marked Exhibit No. V2 is strong enough to unscrew the screws marked Exhibit No. V4."It may be emphasised, even at the cost of repetition, that this Cfsl report dated 25.8.1980 Ext. PW108/G establishes beyond doubt two facts.They are, firstly, that parcel 'V", containing the wooden box into which were packed the screw driver and the noose prier, was received with seal of 'RPS' intact; and secondly, that Ext. V2 and Ext. V3 were marked by the Cfsl for purposes of identification of the screw driver and the noose prier respectively for Expert opinion.(148) EXT.This report is submitted on a separate reference made on the contents of the very same parcel 'V' received by him from the Ballistic Division, bearing the seal impression of Cfsl Cbi, Ball, DIV., New DELHI.Under the heading Description of articles contained in the parcel(s)' in this report, it is recorded as follows:"PARCELNo.V: It is a sealed wooden log box that contains the following exhibits: (i) A sword marked Exbt-V1 having one edge sharp and other blunt with pointed end.(ii) A screw driver marked Exbt.V2 of about 10" length with green plastic handle.(iii) A noose-prier marked Exbt.V3 of about 7" length.(149) Last in the series of these documents is the Cfsl Report dated 10.4.1981 Ext. PW163/B. Here, under the heading description of parcels and condition of seals it is recorded as follows: "TWENTY two sealed parcels marked 'A' to 'V. The seals of the parcel were intact and tallied with the specimen seals."UNDER the next heading, description is given of articles contained in various parcels 'A' to 'U'.In the present case, apart from Chota Gian Singh and Charanjit Singh, there were other persons, named and unnamed, known and unknown, who were alleged to be involved in the conspiracy.He and his young companion Kabul Singh (P.O.) were together.My son Gurnam Singh got prepared photo copies of that letter and sent the copies somewhere but I do not know where he sent them.The letter Ext. Dwi /C is in the writing of my husband Harjinder Singh and it was sent by my son Gurnam Singh.l545,where a delay of nearly 2" months in recording the statement of PW-6 was explained on the ground that the investigation did not proceed in the desired lines initially and only after PW-16 took over the investigation, he recorded the statement of PW-6; and that the evidence of PW-6 was found to be truthful and reliable, It was held that PW-6 being a natural witness, his evidence could not be doubted due to delay.S.I. Ramesh Pal (Public Witness -143) reached there at about 11.20 p.m. Immediately, he made enquiries from the inmates of the Bhawan about the incident and those injured.At about mid-night i.e., 12.00 to 12.50 a.m. on 25.4.1980, he recorded statement of PW-1 Gobind Singh and sent the Rukka to the local Police Station, Kingsway Camp for registration of the FIR.PW-I 49 Sho Dalbir Singh also reached the spot at about 1.00 a.m. The Investigating Officers collected information and reports about the victims, who had been taken to different hospitals.They conducted inquest proceedings and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem, while the C.F.S.L. team was taking finger prints and photographs.They also took the Dog Squad, which led the Police party upto the embankment of river Yamuna through the back lane; inspected the scene of occurrence; prepared site plans; and recovered, seized and put into sealed parcels various articles found inside room No. 14, the attached bathroom, stair-case.Court-yard and the back lane.Simultaneously, the Bomb Disposal Squad was called for disposal of the hand grenades, and Jairam Dass Arya, who was also injured, was sent for medical examination.Thereafter, they recorded statements of witnesses who revealed movements of the appellant in the afternoon and the evening immediately preceding the incident.Among the witnesses,whose statements were recorded on 25.4.1980, PW-15 Anoop Kumar was the one who had seen the appellant inside the bath room attached to room No. 14 at about 10 p.m., and PW-8 Savitri Devi had seen two men, one of them having a gun, running away in the back lane immediately after the occurrence.Consequently, on 25.4.1980 itself, police parties were sent in search of Ranjit Singh to his house and various other places in and outside Delhi.(255) On 26.4.1980, Investigating Team of the local police station seized the register Ext. PW9/A of allotment of Guest House rooms and statements of the Receptionist and Caretaker of the Guest House were recorded.The statement of other injured persons, namely, PW-141 Kuldip Singh Walia and his wife Shiv Darshan Kaur were also recorded.At that stage, information was received about transfer of investigation of the case to the C.B.I.PW-163 B.R. Puri visited the Nirankari Bhawan and inspected the scene of crime.He examined and recorded the statement of PW-2 Kishan Pal.The C.B.I, team also went around the colony and collected information about the crime.(257) On 27.4.1980, PW-163 B.R. Puri examined PW-12 Ajit Singh and recorded his statement.Thirdly, for the murder of Pratap Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.Fourthly, for attempt to murder Kuldip Singh Walia under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC.On each of the first three heads, sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 4,000 .00 , and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for one year, has been passed against him.And, in respect of each of the other heads, sentence has been passed for rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 4,000.00 , and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for one year.The life sentence under the first three heads was directed to be concurrent.However, the benefit of set-off under Section 428, Cr.P.C. was not extended in respect of the sentence of imprisonment for life.(3) According to the prosecution, there was long- standing enmity between the Akali faction of Sikhs and the Nirankar is due to ideological differences between the two sects.On Baisakhi day i.e. 13th April, 1978, a fight amongst them took place in which 13 Sikhs were killed at Amritsar.The last in the convoy was a Fiat car, driven by Amar Singh (Public Witness -25).Niranjan Singh (Public Witness -3) was sitting in it.The convoy stopped in the courtyard in front of the Baba's residence where a Dari was spread out and a number of persons were waiting for meeting Babaji.Just as Baba Gurbachan Singh stepped out of the left front door of the Mercedes car and had reached the front left headlight of the car and Pratap Singh had come by his side, after getting down from the Volkswagen car, a number of bullets from 0.30 carbine were showered upon them from a concealed position through the window of room No. 14 on the first floor of the guest house.First, Baba Gurbachan Singh was hit and then Pratap Singh.Both of them fell down there on the ground.The dog then led the police party through the back lane upto the Yamuna river embankment (bandh).S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh (Public Witness -143) was sent with the police .On his return, on direction of S.H.O. Dalbir Singh, S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh prepared, in the presence of Khem Raj Chadha (Public Witness -54) inquest report Ex. PW-54/ C, on the body of Baba Gurbachan Singh and made applications Ex. PW-143/B and Ex. PW-143/C for post-mortem.He also proceeded to the L.N.J.P. hospital and prepared inquest report Ex. PW-54/A on the body of Pratap Singh and submitted an application Ex. PW-I 43/D for his post-mortem also.C.B.I, officers inspected the scene of crime and collected intelligence and information about it.They took into possession various documents and other articles related to the case, collected articles of case property from Malkhana of Police Station, Kingsway Camp and deposited the same in the Malkhana of the C.B.I. They got recovered quite a lot of arms, ammunition and hand-grenades from the bed of Yarnuna river and also recovered a double barrel gun from one Nirankari Kundan Singh.Various articles collected during investigation were sent for examination and reports obtained from the concerned experts.(9) The C.B.I, forwarded the case of the appellant alongwith five other persons, namely, Gian Singh, s/o Mela Singh (referred to as Chhota Gian Singh), Charanjit Singh, Avtar Singh, Kundan Singh and Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha, for trial under Sectional 70, Cr.P.C. The challan nam three more accused persons, namely Gian Singh, s/o Wadhwa Singh ( referred to as Bada Gian Singh), Kabul Singh and Dalbir Singh,,as absconders.They alongwith the co-accused Lakhbir Singh @ Lakha, who jumped bail and absconded, were proceeded by the Trial Court under Section 299, Cr.P.C. TO.The prosecution fielded 164 witnesses and produced over 700 documents during the trial.The accused was asked 292 questions to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him under Section 313, Cr.P.C. He refused to answer those questions and submitted a written statement.In defense, he examined 8 witnesses primarily for running down credibility of Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91),who had deposed against the accused.(11) The Sessions Court acquitted Avtar Singh and Kundan Singh for want of evidence against them on the charge under Section 201, IPC.Chhota Gian Singh and Charanjit Singh were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC.As regards, the injury to Shiv Darshan Kaur and Jai Ram Dass Arya, the medical report in respect of the former had not been proved, and the nature of injury on her arm was not known; and the injury to the latter was not caused by any bullet or any piece thereof.Therefore, it could not be held that there was an attempt to kill either of them.That part of the charge against Ranjit Singh also failed.Thus, Ranjit Singh is the sole accused person convicted and sentenced under the above mentioned six heads, which he has challenged in the present appeal.(12) The Trial Court, on the basis of the overall facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, found the earlier mentioned charges fully established against the appellant.It has found that the appellant, who v/as present alongwith his companion, had fired shots from a .30 carbine through the front window of room No. 14 on the first floor of the guest house opposite the residence of Baba Gurbachan Singh, which resulted in the death of Baba Gurbachan Singh and Pratap Singh and serious bodily injury to PW-141 Kuldip Singh Walia.He and his companion also threw two hand grenades from the balcony in front of room No. 14 towards the courtyard, which did not explode.He did so in pursuance of the conspiracy to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh.Chhota Gian Singh knew about Ranjit Singh's intention to kill Babaji.But, the evidence on record is not sufficient to specifically show that Chhota Gian Singh was a party to the conspiracy.Since the year 1978 there was general atmosphere of hatred and hostility whipped up by Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala and his Akali followers against the Nirankar is and particularly against the head of their sect Baba Gurbachan Singh.Members of the Akhara used to disturb assemblies, congregations and processions of Nirankar is.Chhota Gian Singh was its President and Charanjit Singh, Avtar Singh (all acquitted) were also active members of the Akhara.They, alongwith Ranjit Singh, used to arrange processions on behalf of the Akhara, and whenever Nirankari congregation was arranged in the area, they used to create trouble.Members of the Akhara used to obstruct the activities of Nirankar is.Appellant Ranjit Singh knew how to shoot with a fire arm.Incensed by strong anti Nirankari feelings, he developed the intention to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh.Chhota Gian Singh (acquitted) knew of Ranjit Singh's intention to kill Babaji.He declared in the course of a routine Friday assembly (Path) of the Akhara that all the members would be happy to know that Ranjit Singh was going to do something to bring good name for the Akhara, he would bring the head of Baba of Nirankar is, and all of them should help him.He also worked outside as a carpenter for some of the Nirankar is.He borrowed tools and brought logs of wood for sawing and grooving etc. in the carpentry workshop while working outside.On some occasions he stayed at the guest house inside the Nirankari Bhawan.He did all this for winning over the confidence of the Nirankar is and for avoiding suspicion against his movement with tools and logs of wood in and around the Bhawan.For the execution of his plan, he tried in vain to obtain from PW-91 Harjinder Singh chloroform and also a gun to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh.Ultimately, he got prepared at the workshop of Bada Gian Singh a log like wooden box (Ex. P-1) that was used for committing the crime.He also managed to get fire arms, ammunition and hand-grenades that were actually used in the commission of the crime.He did all this while posing as a Nirankari.(14) Further, the Trial Court found that on the fateful day, i.e. 24th April, 1980, Ranjit Singh was present and was seen moving alongwith his companion whom he introduced as his maternal uncle's son (Mama Ka Ladka) in and around the Bhawan.At about 4.30 p.m., he came to the carpentry workshop.He was having with him a noose prier (Ex. P-4).He had a talk with PW-12 Ajit Singh and took from him the 10 inch long screwdriver (Ex. P-3), representing that he needed it for fixing rollers in the Almirah, which he had earlier prepared, at the house of PW-11 Pritpal Kaur.At each of these places he was seen alongwith his companion, with the screw driver (Ex. P-3) and noose prier (Ex. P-4) in his hand.At about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., near the Bhawan the appellant was noticed sitting with a beam of wood at the culvert and his three other Sikh companions had taken water from PW-22 Vidyawanti outside her house.At about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. Ranjit Singh and his young companion came to the canteen in the Nirankari School compound.He had in his hand a screw driver.Here, PW-21 Janki Devi served them water.About 8.30 p.m., just at the rear gate of the Bhawan, outside her house, PW-19 Damodari saw Ranjit Singh and his companion carrying a log of wood.She had a talk with him.After Anoop Kumar used the bathroom, he noticed Ranjit Singh and his companion standing outside.Ranjit Singh asked him if he could stay back in the Bhawan if he did not get the bus that night.Kulwant Singh told him that he had no objection to it.Soon after the incident, PW-8 Savitri Devi and PW-6 Harbhajan Singh saw Ranjit Singh with a gun on his shoulder and his companion bare-footed running in the back lane.(15) The Trial Court also held that the wooden box (Ex. P-l), screw driver (Ex. P-3), the noose prier (Ex. P-4), a naked sword (Ex. P-2), one pair of brown colour shoes,abed sheet,a shirt and other pieces of cloth were seized by PW-143SI Ramesh Pal Singh from Room No. 14 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A. 6 empty cartridges also found lying on the floor near the window inside room No. 14 and various articles recovered from other places were taken into possession by separate seizure memos.The Trial Court further found that all the bullets used in the commission of the crime were fired from one .30 carbine through the front window of room No. 14 and that the 2 hand-grenades also were thrown from the balcony on the first floor into the courtyard.After he was seen running in the back lane, appellant Ranjit Singh absconded.Besides, the appellant's failure to offer any explanation in his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with regard to the circumstances appearing in the evidence, has been taken as additional circumstance against him.(16) Further, the learned Trial Court has found that F.I.R. No. 395/80 Ex. PW-149/ A was duly recorded, It was not ante dat (17) Since the occurrence that caused the death of Baba Gurbachan Singh and Pratap Singh and hurt to PW-141 Kuldip Singh Walia is not in dispute, and no one present on the spot actually saw or recognised the assailant(s) the main question for decision would be whether the appellant Ranjit Singh was involved in the commission of the crime.They are, (i) There was enmity between Akal is and Nirankar is.In that case Baba Gurbachan Singh and other Nirankar is were acquitted on 4th January, 1980 (ii) Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala used to make inflammatory speeches against Nirankar is and he had given a call for be-heading the Nirankari Baba, (iii) Appellant Ranjit Singh was a staunch Akali and active member of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara, (iv) Appellant Ranjit Singh had joined and started working as a carpenter in and outside the Nirankari Bhawan during the relevant period.The F.I.R. Ext. PW-149/A was concocted, it was recorded after deliberation, ante-dated and ante-timed.The investigation was biased and tainted for falsely implicating Ranjit Singh in the commission of the offence.Seizure memo Ext. PW3/A was fabricated for showing recovery of certain incriminatory articles from room No. 14 .Screw driver Ext. P-3 was tampered with.Prosecution witnesses, especially those who have deposed about the presence of Ranjit Singh in and outside the bath room adjoining Room No. 14 just before the occurrence, recovery of screw driver.Daily Diary of the Investigating Officer was suppressed and was not forthcoming at the time of trial.The crime was committed in a different manner by some other men who were let off.Evidence was suppressed, which was inconsistent with the prosecution version and consistent with innocence of the appellant, i.e., about finger prints and photographs taken from room No. 14, the iron grill allegedly removed from the window of the bath room attached to room No. 14, and a run-away motor-cycle.First, PW-1 Gobind Singh, whose information Ex. PW-1/A was treated as the Fir Ex. PW-I 49/A was not present at the time of the occurrence on the spot.Secondly, the Rukka Ex. PW-1/A was not in the handwriting of PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh whereas the scribe was not examined as a witness and the daily diary (Roznamcha) of the Police Station was not produced.Thirdly, the special report was not sent forthwith to the Magistrate as required under Punjab Police Rule 24.5(1) and Section 157, Cr.P.C. Fourthly, copy of the Fir Ex. PW-149/A was not attached to either of the two inquest reports in respect of Baba Gurbachan Singh and Pratap Singh Ex. PW-54/C and Ex. PW-54/A respectively, as it should have been so done if the Fir was then in existence.Fifthly, particulars of material facts that must have been known i.e. (i) the name and description of appellant Ranjit Singh, (ii) the articles that were found in room No. 14, and (iii) escape of the assailants through the back lane; and (iv) other details were not mentioned in the FIR.PW-15 Anoop Kumar had stated in his cross-examination that immediately after the firing he had seen Babaji's car parked by the side of Chabutara, Babaji's body was lying at a distance of about two and half feet from the left headlight of the car and Pratap Singh by the side of left front door of car at a distance of about six feet from Babaji.Some other persons were also standing there.He added: "Gobind Singh Bhaiyaj was one of them." PW-141 Kuldip Singh Walia is not a Nirankari.He and his wife Shiv Darshan Kaur had come to the Bhawan at about 10.20p.m.for meetIng Baba Gurbachan Singh.He has given a correct description of the sequence of events, including arrival of the motor code and the incident of firing.He was himself critically injured.His presence on the spot cannot be doubted.He too affirmed the presence of Gobind Singh on the spot and that he was sitting in the car in which Baba Gurbachan Singh had arrived.He gave minute details about the vehicles in the convoy and the position of different persons sitting in those cars.PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh explained that in April, 1980 he was working as Sho Police Station, Kingsway Camp.On the night between 24th April, 1980 and 25th April, 1980 Si Ramesh Pal Singh had sent the Rukka to the Police Station and on receiving information he rushed to the Nirankari Bhawan, which was in his jurisdiction, and took over investigation of the case.Si Ramesh Pal Singh remained associated with him throughout the investigation.Many people had assembled in the courtyard outside the residence of Baba Gurbachan Singh.Gobind Singh, complainant was also present.This was at 1.00 a.m. Thereafter, he went on to explain that the Dog Squad reached the spot by 1.30 a.m. He instructed Si Ramesh Pal Singh to follow handler of the dog and thereafter directed him to perform various other functions.In the witness-box, PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh also remained steadfast and maintained that PW-1 Gobind Singh was present when he first arrived and that the oral information given by him was reduced to writing Ex. PW-1/A, which was attested by him, and the same was forwarded to the police station for recording the FIR.On a combined reading of all this evidence, it is manifest that PW-1 Gobind Singh got recorded what he had seen.His presence at the time of occurrence and giving the information Ext. PW-1 /A on the spot are firmly established.(27) It is no doubt true that the Rukka Ex. PW-I/A is not in the handwriting of PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh.He had stated in his examination-in-chief that it was scribed by some constable of his staff on his dictation and that PW-I Gobind Singh signed it in his presence and he himself attested it.The veracity of this statement cannot be doubted merely because the witness was unable to give the name of the particular constable who had scribed the Rukka.More important than the name of the scribe is the fact that the information about commission of the offence was given by PW-I Gobind Singh and the same was reduced to writing at the stated time and place.This is corroborated by the statement of PW-37 Constable Jai Kishan.He stated that he reached the spot alongwith Si Ramesh Pal Singh at about 11.15 or 11.30 p.m. Si Ramesh Pal Singh gave him Rukka Ex. PW-I /A and he took it to the Police Station where it was recorded as the formal FIR.Moreover, in Ex. PW-143/A despatched at 12.50 a.m. by PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh to the Duty Officer, Police Station, Kingsway Camp, it was specifically stated: "Special report may be sent to the higher officers." Steps taken at the police station endorsed below Ex. PW-143/ A mentioned that on the basis of the Rukka prepared and sent by Si Ramesh Pal Singh Fir No. 395/80 had been recorded and it was stated at the end: "The special report is being sent to the higher authorities through Narinder Singh Constable No. 823 by means of motor-cycle.The crime team and Dog Squad have been informed.He prepared each of the two inquest reports in the presence of PW-54 Khem Raj Chadha and Gopal Singh Premi who signed the same as witnesses.(30) Punjab Police Rule 25.31 read with Rule 35 requires that upon receipt of information of unnatural death of any person the Investigating Officer shall draw up an inquest report.Such report shall state the apparent cause of death, give a description of any mark or marks which may be found on the body and describe the manner in which and the weapon with which such marks appear to have been inflicted.(32) In the present case, inquest report of Babaji Ex. PW-54/C was prepared at about 3.30 a.m. It was supported by statements of the witnesses PW-54 Khem Raj Chadha and Gopal Singh Premi Ex. PW-54/D and Ex. PW-54/DI respectively.The report in respect of Pratap Singh Ex. PW-54/A was prepared at Lnjp Hospital at about 5.00 a.m. on 25th April, 1980 and that too was supported by statements Ext. PW-54/B & Ext. PW-54/BI.The cause of death by firing and the Nirankari Bhawan as the place of occurrence was given in each of the inquest reports.Moreover, application and brief facts Ex. PW-143/BEx.PW-143/C & Ex. PW-143/D were sent by PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh to PW-38 Dr. Bharat Singh for autopsy alongwith the body of Baba Gurbachan Singh.They were created witnesses.They were not believed for various reasons.The Court held that even the incident did not take place at 11.00 a.m. or 11.30 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution, but much earlier.In paragraphs 13 and 15 of the judgment a number of reasons have been given for holding that the Fir was ante-timed.In the present case, however, we find no such element for drawing an inference that the Fir was not in existence upto the time when the inquest reports were prepared or that it was ante-timed.Moreover, information about the articles found in room No. 14 and that two sikhs had escaped through the back lane was not given in the FIR.At that time nobody also told me about the description of those assailants." Among the others who were present on the spot, Public Witness 2 Kishan Pal had stated that he also saw two persons in the balcony of room No. 14 and they were running.He was the driver of the Mercedez car from which Babaji had got down.He heard the sound of shots being fired from the side of room No. 14 and saw Babaji falling down.Then, he noticed that 'something solid' (handgrenade) had fallen in the courtyard.It was only there after that he looked up towards room No. 14 and saw two persons from their "back side" running away.In the given sequence of events, it would be wrong to infer that he must have noticed that those two persons were Sikhs and also to presume that he would have conveyed this information to PW-1 Gobind Singh.The next witness PW-3 Niranjan Singh was in the Fiat car, which was behind the car of Babaji.When he was getting down from the car, he heard the bang which he thought was the sound of some cracker He glanced in that direction and noticed "a flash coming out from the side of room No. 14".He did not even claim to have seen anyone there.So far as Public Witness 26 Naresh Kumar is concerned, at 9.30 p.m., he did meet Ranjit Singh and his companion near the stair-case.He saw Babaji while falling down.Then, he felt that the sound was of shots being fired.According to him, he got perplexed and ran away towards the workshop and did not even look that side.Although PW-3 Niranjan Singh and PW-26 Naresh Kumar knew appellant Ranjit Singh, yet on the basis of their evidence, we are unable to accept the argument that either of them must have seen the two Sikhs and recognised appellant Ranjit Singh and further more that they must have told PW-I Gobind Singh about it before his statement Ext. PW1 /A was recorded.(37) So far as the articles that were lying in Room No. 14are concemed, the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/A at the time of inspection of the said room and other places in the morning on the next day after 8.30 a.m. Nobody had paid attention to the articles which were found lying in Room No. 14 and there was no occasion for information about the same being recorded in the Fir Ex. PW.143/DA at night on 24.4.1980 at 10.49 p.m. (38) Similarly, with regard to the escape of the assailants through the back lane, the Fir was recorded.It appears from the statement of PW-39 Darshan Uppal that he was told by Surender Sethi and some others that there was an attack on Babaji and that two Sikhs had escaped through the back lane.He, then alongwith some others, rushed to the back lane, where they met Channi and Jog Raj, and thereafter they went out in a black Fiat Car No. MHM-7343 in search of the assailants in the area at the back of the Bhawan, but in vain.Thus, it appears that the rumour that two Sikhs had escaped through the back lane was floating around.(39) It has come in the evidence of PW-8 Savitri Devi that on 24.4.1980 she was on the roof top of her house, which is the fifth house located at the back of the Bhawan, at about 10.45 p.m., when she heard the sound of firing of bullets from the side of the Bhawan.She peeped down towards the small lane at the back of her house and saw two men, who were coming from the side of the Bhawan and running through the back lane.The taller man was having a gun on his shoulder and both were running towards the Bandh.She too went to the Bhawan.There she told the police officials that she had seen two men running away through the back lane.But, at that time, the police officials merely asked her to give her name and address so that they could contact her afterwards.Thereafter, her statement was recorded by the police on the following day at about 12.00 or 12.30 p.m. This finds corroboration from the statement of PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh, who had reached the Bhawan and took over investigation of the case at about 1.00 a.m. He deposed that when he reached the spot many people had already gathered there.He made enquiries from them but did not record their statements at that time.He named PW-8 Savitri Devi also as one of them.It has also come in his evidence that he recorded statements of eight persons, including PW-8 Savitri Devi immediately after deployment of the dog squad, crime team and the Cfsl team, preparation of the inquest reports, inspection of the scene of occurrence and the surrounding areas as well as preparation of the site plan and recovery of the articles found in the courtyard, Room No. 14, bathroom attached to it and the back lane.(40) It is thus, clear that the information about the articles that were found lying in room No. 14 and the escape of the assailants from the back lane was not known to PW-1 Gobind Singh upto the time when his information Ext. PW-1/A was reduced into writing and the Fir was recorded.Hence, there was no question of incorporating the same in the FIR.(41) Moreover, there is ample positive evidence available on record to rule out the plea there was prior consultation, deliberation or delay in recording the F.I.R. It may be recalled, at the risk of repetition, that on receiving information Ext. PW143/DA from the P.C.R., the police party had immediately reached the Bhawan and after enquiring about the 'Sadhu' PW-143 S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh got the information given by PW-I Gobind Singh reduced into writing and sent the Rukka to the police station for recording the F.I.R. The time spent between the occurrence at 10.30 p.m. and commencement of recording of the Rukka has, thus, been accounted for.Further, it has come in the deposition of PW-143 S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh that it took him about 45 minutes in recording the information Ext. PW1 /A, which is in Hindi running into 3-4 pages, and then recording the note Ext. PW143/ A and despatched it through Public Witness 37 Constable Jai Kishan to the Police Station at 12.50 a.m. This information given by PW-I Gobind Singh Ext. PW1/A started at 12.05 a.m., and it took about 45 minutes, which is quite reasonable time, for completing the exercise and sending the Rukka to the Police Station at 12.40 a.m. Then, it appears from the statement of PW-I 49 Sho Dalbir Singh that immediately on receipt of the Rukka, he left the police station and reached the spot at about I a.m. At the police station, F.I.R.No.395/80 was recorded at 1.15 a.m. Thereafter, PW-37 Constable Jai Kishan brought the Rukka and the formal Fir Ext. PW143/A back to the Nirankari Bhawan and gave the same to Sho Dalbir Singh.Public Witness 37 Constable Jai Kishan has testified that on 24th April, 1980 he had accompanied Public Witness 143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh to Nirankari Bhawan, reaching there at about 11.15 or 11.30 p.m.; Rarnesh Pal Singh gave him Rukka Ext. PW1/A; he took it to Police Station, Kingsway Camp and handed over the Rukka to the Duty Officer Asi Dharam Singh who recorded the formal FIR; he then brought back the original Rukka and copy of the Fir to the Nirankari Bhawan.This evidence, therefore, has to be accepted.Also as discussed earlier, in pursuance of the steps taken at the police station on the basis of the F.I.R., the Crime Team and the Dog Squad did arrive and start promptly their part of the investigation work on the spot.Further, particulars of the F.I.R. were properly noted in each of the numerous documents that were prepared in the course of investigation.All this would firmly establish the fact that the F.I.R. was duly recorded at the stated time.(42) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that PW-1 Gobind Singh had given full information, as much as he knew, about the incident, the same was reduced to writing Ext. PWI/A and was re-produced and recorded in the F.I.R. Ext. PW149/A. Also that the F.I.R. was duly recorded at the stated time and that the same was neither delayed nor ante-dated or ante-timed.We find no substance in the plea that the F.I.R. was fabricated for falsely implicating the appellant On the contrary, no ulterior motive can be attributed to the prosecution, especially when the accused was not named in the F.I.R.(43) Additionally, regarding the F.I.R., it was contended that the Nirankar is themselves did not report the crime for some ulterior motive, and that the F.I.R. was not duly proved on record.(44) In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, no adverse inference can be drawn merely because the Nirankar is themselves did not give information of the crime.Baba Gurbachan Singh, Pratap Singh, Kulwant Singh Ahiuwalia and his wife were injured.The first two collapsed there and then.At once, the body of Baba Gurbachan Singh was shifted to the Verandah in front of his residence.Immediately, after giving him water he was taken to Tirath Ram Hospital.Pratap Singh was taken to Lnjp Hospital and Kuldip Singh Walia and his wife to Hindu Rao Hospital.Thus, it is evident that the first anxiety of everyone present on the spot was to save the life of Babaji and Pratap Singh who were badly wounded, and to provide medical aid to the other victims, who too were injured; rather than rush the police station.This was quite natural.(45) It is proved by the evidence of PW-1 Gobind Singh and PW-2 Kishan Pal that it took them 20 minutes to carry Babaji from Nirankari Bhawan to the Tirath Ram Hospital.30/40 minutes were spent there, arranging for a stretcher and calling the doctor, who examined and declared him dead and in obtaining the death certificate.Then, his body was brought back to the Nirankari Bhawan.In the meanwhile, the Pcr had informed the local police station and the police party had arrived.It has come in the evidence of PW-I Gobind Singh that on his reaching back at Nirankari Bhawan from hospital he gave the information Ext. PW-I /A, which was recorded after about 10-15 minutes.What could be the ulterior motive for the Nirankar is themselves not reporting the crime? Nothing.None has been pointed out.(46) Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that at the time when the police party arrived at the Bhawan the version was that the incident was due to inter-se enmity of the Nirankar is, but the complainant was given sufficient time to think over and his statement was recorded the next day giving a different story for embarrassing the Akal is.The name of Asi Dharam Singh had not been suppressed.It has come in the evidence that he was the one who had recorded the F.I.R. PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh deposed that he had seen Asi Dharam Singh signing and writing when he was working under him.In any event, this is too frail a plea for throwing out the prosecution case.So, in order to please the Nirankar is, the Investigating Officers were bound to toe the given line.Alternative hypotheses inconsistent with the guilt of the accused Ranjit Singh were not properly investigated.The Investigating Agency also suppressed extenuating evidence of, among others : (i) the guard posted at the front gate of the Bhawan, who could depose about the entry and exit of the persons and vehicles actually involved in the commission of the crime; (ii) finger prints picked up from various articles and places in room No. 14; (iii) the iron grill of the window inside the bathroom attached to room No. 14; (iv) photographs of the scene, including the state of things, inside room No. 14 and in the adjacent bathroom; and (v) Daily Diary Roznamcha of the local police station.He and his wife reached Nirankari Bhawan for meeting Babaji at about 10.20 p.m. Since Babaji was expected to return soon, he and his wife sat down on the Dari spread near the Thad a waiting for him outside his residence in the Nirankari Bhawan.When the motorcade of Babaji arrived every one stood up.Further, the witness proceeded to give an account of arrival of the motorcade as well as the occurrence.In his cross-examination, he emphatically denied the defense suggestion of his having seen a "Sadhu" riding a motor cycle behind the car of Babaji.(53) PW-143 S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh, on receipt of the message Ext. PW-143/DA, reached the Nirankari Bhawan.He found a crowd of people gathered outside the residence of Baba Gurbachan Singh in the courtyard inside the Bhawan.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he recorded the information Ext. PW-1 /A given by PW-1 Gobind Singh and forwarded the rukka Ext. PW-143/ A to Kingsway Camp, Police Station for recording the formal FIR.In his cross-examination, he has stated that after reaching the spot, he made enquiry about the story of firing by a sadhu and it was found to be incorrect.(54) PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh, in his cross-examination, was given a suggestion that evidence of involve pent of a Sadhu in the firing was suppressed, which was denied.(55) Mr. Kaira, learned Counsel for the State (CBI) contended on the other hand that there was no Sadhu involved in the firing; that the possibility of a wrong or misleading message being given by someone, for misguiding the police, cannot be ruled out in a case of conspiracy; that the origin of the information and particulars of the person who may have given the information to Asi Lal Singh at the police control room were not known and no question about it was put to the Investigating Officers in their cross-examination; and that the information about the Sadhu firing in the Nirankari Bhawan was verified by PW-143 Si Rarnesh Pal Singh and the same was ruled out.He had come from Ludhiana on the fateful day and reached the Bhawan just a few minutes before the occurrence took place.He has given a vivid account of the occurrence.He himself and his wife were both critically injured in the firing.He, was an independent witness.He was not interested in falsely supporting the prosecution case or in implicating anyone in the case.Irrespective of the confusion appearing in his deposition about the number of motor cycles or the placement thereof in the motorcade, which would be discussed in greater detail a little later, his testimony totally wipes out the defense version of a sadhu riding any motorcycle and the involvement of a Sadhu in the firing.The suggestions made to PW-143 S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh and PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh are really of no avail.He was posted at the Police Control Room (P.C.R.).He had transmitted the information to Kingsway Camp Police Station, which was registered as Ext. PW-143/DA.This part of the case was sought to be spun around the evidence of PW-l Gobind Singh.In his examination- in-chief he had deposed that two books, namely, "Avtar Bani and "Yugpurush were published by Nirankari Mandal and that the followers of Sant Bhinderwala felt offended by these two books.He explained that the Nirankar is worship the living Guru but the followers of Bhinderwala were against it.This was one of the various factors mentioned by the witness in support of the charge of conspiracy.In his cross-examination, the authentic version of the book 'Avtar Bani' was required to be produced and the same was taken on record as Ext. PW-1/DD.An attempt was made to demonstrate that the said book 'Avtar Bani' caused annoyance to Hindus and members of other communities also as different religions were sought to be ridiculed.For this reason, it was contended that anyone, belonging to the Hindu or any other community, dressed as a Sadhu may have committed the crime.(59) It has come in the evidence of PW-1 Gobind Singh that Nirankari Baba Gurbachan Singh was not the author of cither of the two controversial books and that he had written only one book, namely, 'Meri Aawaz'.The book 'Avtar Bani' was written by Baba Avtar Singh and 'Yugpurush' by someone else.Irrespective of the interpretation and effect of different portions of the said book, no one except the fanatics among the Akal is and in particular Sant Bhinderwala and his followers objected to it.D/l to Ii, Exts.D 2/1 to 21 recovered from the Courtyard underneath room No. 14 were relatable to the shot fired from that very gun.(69) The direction and the line of fire, from room No. 14 on the first floor slanting down towards the target in the Courtyard, has been established by co-relating the location and inter-se position of various articles recovered from the said area of operation; and by the collective examination of various holes found in the clothes of the victims and the location and the nature of injuries inflicted on the victims explained in detail by the Ballistic Expert PW-164 Roop Singh.The said expert witness had also developed and depicted the trajectory of possible line of fire in clear and simple terms on the scale graph Ext. PW-164/B. All this is further corroborated by the recovery of two hand grenades and certain parts thereof also found on the spot.(70) Only empty cartridge shells of .30 caliber Exts. P-26 to P-31 were recovered from room No. 14; but, all the bullet-heads fired from the same weapon and a number of other pieces and fragments of bullets were found embedded in the body of Babaji's car or recovered from different places in the Courtyard on the ground floor.Similarly, bullet marks found on the wall outside the residence of Babaji would lead to the same inference of firing from room No. 14 on the first floor slanting down into the Courtyard on the ground floor.According to this witness, on 22.4.1980, Harchand Singh Ex-M.L.A., Raj Kishan and 4 others visited Nirankari Bhawan and stayed in room No. 14 till 8 a.m. or the following day.Thereafter, Jagat Ram, Mla and 4 others stayed in the same room on the next day.(77) Examination of the guest register Ext. PW-9/A shows that the last entry dated 22nd April, 1980 made in it was regarding occupation of room No. 14 in the name of Harchand Singh.Obviously, that being the last entry in the register, there was no entry made on 23rd April, 1980 that would show that room No."14 was vacated by the previous occupant at 8.00 a.m. and the same was later on occupied by Jagat Ram Mla and four others on 23rd April, 1980, nor that they had vacated the room at 8.00 a.m. on 24th April, 1980, as orally deposed by PW-35 Kulwant Singh.(78) Mr. Kaira, on the other hand, explained that the said matador van HRF-8517, the occupants thereof and the arms and ammunition recovered from them, were released as the initial suspicion of their involvement in the commission of the crime was dispelled on interrogation of those five persons and they were found to beinnocent.The finger prints of these five persons did not tally with those taken from the window pane on the spot.It was also found that the arms recovered from them were licenced.Moreover, Cfsl report dated 17th May, 1980 Ext. PW-163/0 established that these weapons did not match the material found from the place of occurrence and that there was no nexus between these arms with the commission of the offence in this case.In this view of the matter,S.I.Mahesh Chand from the Crime Branch, who deposited the said arms and ammunition in the malkhana, and S.I.Arjun Singh, who had initially detained these five persons, were not material witnesses and no adverse inference can be drawn from their non-production as prosecution witnesses.(79) With particular reference to Harcharan Singh, it is significant to note that PW-35 Kulwant Singh had clearly named and described the person who stayed in room No. 14 on 22nd April, 1980 as Harchand Singh, Ex-MLA.In cross-examination, he even asserted that he personally knew Harchand Singh, Ex-MLA and that in his statement made before the Cbi under Section 161, Cr.P.C. he had also given the name Harchand Singh, Ex-MLA.For mixing up the name Harcharan Singh and Harchand Singh, the witness was confronted with his earlier statement Ext. PW-35/ Da portion A to A wherein the name is written as Harcharan Singh, Ex-MLA.It is well established in law that the confronted portion of an earlier statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence.The substantive piece of evidence is the one that is deposed in Court.The confronted portion may, however, be used to show that the witness is a lier or that he was making embellishment in his evidence.The name given by the witness in Court in his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross- examination was Harchand Singh, Ex-MLA.A mistake made by the Police Officer, that too by recording the phonetically similar name Harcharan Singh instead of Harchand Singh, cannot be said to be embellishment or a lie told by the witness in Court.It was not the case of the defense and not even a suggestion was made to this or any other witness that Harcharan Singh,the person who was travelling with four others in the matador van, was an Ex-MLA; nor that he was the very same person who had actually stayed two days earlier in the Nirankari Bhawan; nor even that Harchand Singh, who had stayed in room No. 14, was not an Ex-MLA.In any event, the particulars of both the persons, Harchd Singh, Ex-MLA, who stayed in the Nirankari Bhawan on 22nd April, 1980 and Harcharan Singh, who was one of the five persons travelling in the matador van on 25th April, 1980, were available but no effort was made to call either of them as a witness in defense.(82) Further, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that extenuating evidence of finger prints was suppressed, which would be easily available on various things in room NO. 14, and no Cfsl Expert was produced as a witness with regard to finger prints.Even otherwise, the absence of evidence of finger prints, he contended, would go to show that accused Ranjit Singh had not handled any of the incriminating articles said to have been found in room No. 14, and that he was not present there.(83) As against this, Mr. Kaira, learned Counsel for the Cbi contended that finger prints can be lifted only from a surface which is dusty, polished or glazed.The finger print should be of the whole of the finger and not part of finger and it should also be discernible for testing similarities.For example, a screw driver is generally used by the pressure of the palm and by rotation, and noose prier by grip, and thus full finger prints would normally not come.On the other objects also there was only a remote chance of finger prints being discernible, he explained.Only one of the finger prints lifted from a window pane was discernible, which did not tally with the thumb marks of Ranjit Singh.So, no Finger Print Expert was produced as a witness.This, he urged, would not rule out the involvement of Ranjit Singh in the commission of the crime.(84) It would be appropriate to advert to the cross-examination of PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh, PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh and PW-163 B.R.Puri, on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for both the sides.All that he said was that he did not remember if the Cfsl team had lifted any finger prints.(85) PW-149, Sho Dalbir Singh, after arrival at Nirankari Bhawan, it may be recalled, had gone around the place for inspection.He had noticed a finger print on the window pane.While preparing site plan of the said room Ext. PW-143/E, he recorded note F' in respect of that finger print and in the same note reference was also made to "empty" lying on the ground inside the room.In other words, the finger print noticed by him was on the glass pane which was intact and the same was near another glass pane in broken condition.He proceeded further to explain that there were no broken glass pieces lying inside the room or outside the room.He clearly explained the position regarding the glass pane on which the finger print had been noticed and ruled out the suggested availability of any broken glass pieces with other finger prints lying inside or outside the room.At that time Sho Dalbir Singh, who was earlier incharge of the investigation, was not with him.So, the question of his discussing anything with Dalbir Singh about the activities of the Cfsl team did notarise.He had, however, studied the investigation file.He was cross-examined in bits and pieces regarding finger prints.More than one print taken for purposes of thorough analysis and study also would be stated in plural form although the same may relate to the one and only one finger print that was found on the window pane.This becomes more clear from further examination of this witness, where he explained that on 27th April, 1980 he had noticed "one finger print at the window pane" and that he had learnt that the same had already been lifted by the Cfsl expert.He stoutly refuted the suggestion that a number of finger prints from various things in room No. 14 were lifted.He remained steadfast and maintained that only one decipherable finger print was lifted from the window pane.(87) The above discussion clearly shows that learned Counsel for the accused erroneously presumed that a number of finger prints were available on the articles found lying inside room No. 14 and that the same had been lifted.There is no evidence on record to justify such a presumption.Besides one fingerprint found on the glass pane of window of room No. 14, there was no finger print on any other article that was discernible and lifted.It is pertinent to note that no specific question was put to the witnesses in their cross-examination as to whether finger prints were discernible on any of the other objects, as was argued at the Bar.(88) In our considered view, Mr. Kaira was justified in contending that the Investigating Officers are expected to secure Expert technical assistance and advice, whenever such appears desirable in the course of an investigation, as they did in this case, in accordance with Rule 25.14 of the Punjab Police Rules.Evidence on the subject would be required only where the opinion of the Expert has any bearing upon the case.The finger prints lifted from the place of occurrence did not tally with the thumb impression of the appellant.This would not rule out the possibility of it being the finger print of his companion, who was also there with him and is absconding.The same was neutral evidence in relation to the appellant.It was, therefore,unnecessary for the prosecution to cite any Expert as a witness.In these circumstances, want of discernible finger prints from various articles or places in room No. 14 and non-examination of Cfsl Expert as witnesses would neither amount to suppression of material evidence nor lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution so as to exonerate the appellant.But, it was suppressed and not produced as it would definitely bear finger prints of the real culprit(s) and not of the appellant.In order to sustain this plea, he contended that the evidence of PW-163 B.R.Puri tha the saw the grill on 26th and 27th April, 1980 was false and that he got sent letter dated 5th May, 1980 Ext. PW-108/F to the Cfsl to create false evidence.But, for the reasons given hereinafter, we find no substance in it.(90) The fact that the iron grill was there in the morning on 25th April, 1980 is well established.PW-3 Niranjan Singh deposed that the police was examining it.Both PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh and PW-149 Sho DalbirSingh deposed that they had noticed the grill.Site plan Ext. PW-143/E shows its place at 'C' and the corresponding note describes the same as "window at back with grill loosened & opened".(91) The questions that arise for determination, however, are: (a) What was the state in which the iron grill was found in the morning on 25th April, 1980? (b) Whether it was at all removed thereafter? and (e) Whether its non production in Court would exonerate the appellant? The answer to these questions clearly emerges from the evidence of PW-1 Gobind Singh PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-4 Mangal Sain, PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh, PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh and PW-163 B.R. Puri.This oral evidence is supported by the recovery of six twisted nails Exts.P-20/1 to 6, found lying underneath the bathroom window in the back lane, vide seizure memo Ext. PW-3/M, read with site plan Ext. PW-143/E, letter dated 5th May, 1980 Ext. PW-108/F, seizure memo dated 14th May, 1980 Ext. PW-163/DA, Malkhana Register entry No. 204 Ext. PW-158/A, and Cfsl report dated 25th August, 1980 Ext. PW-108/G.(92) The state in which the window grill was found on inspection of the bathroom was indicated at the earliest opportunity on 25th April, 1980 at the place marked "C" and described in the corresponding foot note "C" in site plan Ext. PW-143/ E as "loosened & opened".This cryptic note contemporaneously made on the spot, has been explained in detail by prosecution witness PW-149 and PW-163 in their respective depositions in Court.Composite reading of the evidence ofPW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh, PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh & PW-163 B.R. Puri clearly brings out the fact that the nails by which the iron grill was fixed in the window frame had been ripped off by use of force from three sides, it was hanging loose with only one or two remaining nails holding it on one side, just like the leaf of a door ajar.(93) The ripped-off state of the iron grill is further explained by the recovery of six nails Exts.P-20/1 to 6 underneath the bathroom window in the back lane.Indeed, PW-143 described the very same things as nails at one place and as screws at another.Moreover, PW-149 did clarify that the iron grill was held on one side by nails and not screws.In any event, the identity of the articles is clearly described in seizure memo Ext. PW-3/M as nails.The attesting witnesses, namely, PW-3 and PW-4 made no mistake about it, and the nails were also produced and proved on record as Exts.(94) On the next question whether the iron grill had at all been removed on 25th April, 1980 or thereafter, the deposition of PW-163 is very clear He has stated that he visited the spot on 26th and 27th April, 1980 and on both of these days the grill was found hanging on one or two nails on one side of the bathroom window frame.He asserted that on inspection of the state in which he found the window grill he did not take it into possession and that the local police and the Cfsl Experts had also not removed it at any time.However, when he took the stand that he did not consider it necessary to take it into possession, he was confronted with the request that was made for removal of three things, namely, the bathroom window's wooden frame, the iron grill, and the window glass pane from room No. 14, vide letter dated 5th May, 1980 Ext. PW-108/F. The effort to show tha the was giving false evidence was made on the basis of only one of the three items, namely the window iron shutter panel with the glass pane from room No. 14, having been removed and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-163/DA, which was deposited in Malkhana Register Ext. PW-158/A vide entry No. 204 and was also the subject matter of Cfsl report Ext. PW-108/G; whereas the other two items, namely, window wooden frame of the bathroom and the iron grill, did not find mention in any of the subsequent three documents despite the fact that the request for taking over all the three items had been made in the letter Ext. PW-108/F. This argument of Mr. Randhawa, on proper appreciation of the steps taken by the Investigating Agency and the documentary evidence, would fall to the ground.(95) A good investigator is expected, inter-alia, to explore with care all possibilities for detecting accurately the means, manner and method employed for committing the crime, for objectively using all the available material for finding out the real person(s) suspected to be involved in commission of the crime and finally for establishing the guilt of the accused on trial in Court.Naturally, in the process, he would pursue only such clues as would take him in the light direction and give up those that would lead him nowhere.This is what PW-163 B.R. Puri did in this case.He had noticed some scratches on the said window frame and marks on the iron grill, which was found ripped off from three sides.In these circumstances, he explored the likely use of the screw driver for loosening the iron grill.This is apparent from request No. (ii) made to the Cfsl by the letter Ext. PW-108/F.(96) The Cfsl is an independent expert agency and knows its job best.He has satisfactorily explained that in pursuance of the letter Ext. PW-108/F only the iron window leaf with the glass pane bearing one finger print was taken into possession from room No. 14, vide seizure memo Ext. PW-163/DA, and deposited in Malkhana vide entry No. 204 in register Ext. PW-158/A; and that the wooden window frame and the iron grill from the bathroom were not removed as he did not consider it necessary to take the same into possession for preservation and production in Court.(98) Moreover, Mr. Kaira explained that the iron grill was a fixture and no Investigator would ordinarily remove it from the scene of crime, unless it is required to be preserved, as in a case where incriminating finger prints may be available on it, for comparison and demonstration in Court.(99) The suggestions given to PW-163 B.R. Puri in his cross-examination, that there was no grill on the bathroom window on 26th or 27th April, 1980, on the basis of which the defense plea has been raised, were comprehensively refuted by the witness. .He not only denied the suggestions but asserted that he tried to see if he could pass through the window after drawing the grill to one side and he was able to do so.The suggestions that Police Station, Kingsway Camp officials had seized the grill or that Cfsl Experts had taken it away on 25th April, 1980 and that he was informed about it, were also denied.The further suggestion that he got falsely recorded request for removal of the iron grill in letter dated 5th May, 1980 Ext. PW-108/ F to make a show as if the grill had not been removed by that time was also repelled.Rather, he asserted that the letter was genuine, the grill had not been removed by that time, and it was wrong to suggest that the letter had not been pursued.(100) So far as pursuing the request made in letter Ext. PW-108/F is concerned, it is obvious that initially the Chief Investigating Officer PW-163 B.R. Pun did think of exploring the possbility of proving that the scratches and marks noticed on the bathroom window frame and the grill were made by the screw driver Ex. P-3 and noose prier Ex. P-4; but later he gave it up as unnecessary.This is consistent with the Cfsl report Ext. PW-108/G. It is in this context that PW-163 B.R. Puri denied the suggestion that he did not pursue the request made in Ext. PW-108/F and maintained that the did not consider it necessary to take the grill into possession.We find no contradiction in the documents on record and the stand taken by the witnesses in Court.(101) Further, with regard to the possibility of finger prints appearing on the grill, the availability of discernible finger prints has been earlier discussed in great detail and nothing more about it need be said here.The suggestion that the size of the bath room window was l" x 1 ft only was refuted Accused Ranjit Singh present in Court was shown to him and he stated that the accused "is well- built up." The cross-examination was left at that point.But, on the basis of this statement, the plea was raised at the time of the hearing of the appeal that the appellant could not pass through the bath room window.Keeping in view the dimensions stated by PW-I Gobind Singh, probability of the appellant passing through the bath room window in crouched position sideways cannot be ruled out.Moreover, PW-143 Ramesh Pal Singh had stated that the grill had been forced open on one side "to make a passage to pass through" the window.PW-163 B.R. Puri stated that he himself tried to see if he could pass through the window after drawing the grill to one side and he was able to pass.At the time of examination of both these witnesses PW-143 Ramesh Pal Singh and PW-163 B.R. Puri, the accused was present in Court but no question was put to either of them about the possibility of his passing through it.(102) The evidence on record, particularly, the state of the iron grill in which it was found, does not suggest improbability of the appellant escaping through the bath room window and going down the water pipe and running away through the back lane.Moreover, there is no cogent reason given as to why the Investigating Officer would falsely show the state of the grill or remove it.There appears to be no justification for presuming that the Investigating Officer would go about fabricating evidence in order to rope in the appellant.Each of the witnesses, who deposed, particularly, PW-163 B.R. Puri was thoroughly cross-examined and the credibility of none of them could be shaken.(103) Next, Mr. Randhawa contended that a large number of photographs were taken on the spot whereas only 11 of them were produced, which do not depict any of the articles said to have been recovered from room No. 14, or the condition of the bath room window grill.Moreover, the photographer who took the photographs was also not produced.Otherwise, the defense would have asked him questions about the various incriminating articles.In these circumstances, he urged, that an inference should be drawn that recovery of the incriminating articles was false.He raised this argument on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 Gobind Singh, PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-2 Kishan Pal, the request made by Baba Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, who was appearing for some of the other accused persons in the Trial Court for supply of the photographs other than those eleven given earlier, the statement in that regard made by the Public Prosecutor, subsequent supply of four additional photographs during the trial and the evidence of PW-143 Ramesh Pal Singh and PW-149 Dalbir Singh.(104) PW-I Gobind Singh, PW-3 Niranjan Singh and PW-2 Kishan Pal have affirmed that photographs were taken on the spot, but they did not know about the objects of which photographs were taken.PW-3 Niranjan Singh and PW-2 Kishan Pal knew that photographs were being taken but they were unable to give particulars of the photographed articles.After the Cfsl team had completed its task, PW-3 Niranjan Singh and PW-2 Kishan Pal joined in the exercise of recovery of the various articles.That is the time when they were present inside room No. 14 and the articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW3/A, which is attested by each of these two witnesses.Among the Police Officers, PW-143 Ramesh Pal Singh was busy with the preparation of inquest reports elsewhere.He did point out to the photographer the window pane on which the finger print was noticed and he also suggested that a photograph be taken to show location of the window of room No. 14 from outside.(106) The presence of PW-3 Niranjan Singh and PW-2 Kishan Pal inside the room at the time of recovery of the seized articles is established by the evidence on record.Both of them had attested the seizure memo Ext. PW3/A. "The presence of PW-149 Inspector Dalbir Singh is not even disputed.(107) Since the prosecution was relying upon Ii photographs only, the copies thereof were duly produced in Court and supplied to the accused at the commencement of the trial.However, on request made by Counsel for some of the accused persons, the Public Prosecutor took up a reasonable and fair stand.He did in fact supply four additional photographs to the accused and made a statement that those were the only remaining photographs in power and possession of the C.B.I. He clarified that the prosecution was not relying upon those four photographs, but at the request of Counsel for the accused the prosecution had produced them.(108) On inspection of the attached bath room and room No. 14, site plans Exts.PW143/E & F were prepared.The articles found inside room No. 14 were seized by the Investigating Officer as required under section 102,Cr.P.C. Of course,certain photographs were taken.But, it would be wrong to assume that the police would not have seized those things without their photographs being taken.Merely because the recovered articles were not photographed, the other evidence on record regarding seizure of the articles cannot be discarded.We find no convincing reason why the Investigating Agency would falsely plant any thing inside room No. 14 or misrepresent the state in which the bath room window grill was found.Non-availability of photographs of the articles found lying in room No. 14 or of the window grill hanging loose in the adjacent bath room, merely on the conjecture that such photographs must have been taken, as against sufficient oral and documentary evidence of recovery of the articles from room No. 14 and the state of the bath room grill, would not render the prosecution version unreliable.For the very same reasons, non-production of the photographer as a witness was not fatal to the prosecution case.In these circumstances, the plea of suppression of material evidence arid adverse of inference to be drawn against the prosecution, is without foundation and the same is rejected.(110) Further, Mr. Randhawa urged that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for its failure to produce Daily Diary of the case for 24.4.1980 and 25.4.1980 of Police Station, Kingsway Camp.Mr. Kalra, on the other hand, explained that the said Daily Diary was destroyed on 31.7.1985 alongwith various other records of the Police Station in normal routine.This happened because the investigation of the case was transferred from the local police to the C.B.I. The former did not realise that the said record would be required for production in Court and the latter did not ask for it.Thus, the Daily Diary was not preserved, and this lapse had occurred.It is significant to note that there was no accused named in the F.I.R. and the presence of the witnesses named therein is not in dispute.No prejudice has been caused to the defense by destruction of the said Daily Diary in the present case.In these circumstances,nodelinquency would be atributed to the prosecution agency and the prosecution case would not fail on this ground.This argument is spun out of a discrepancy in the testimony of Sho Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149) and that of B.R. Puri (Public Witness -163).On the other hand, Mr. Kaira explained that on transfer of investigation to the C.B.I., Regular Case No. 2/ 1980 CIU(A) Ext. PW163/A was registered by the C.B.I, on 26.4.1980 at 2.25 p.m., and thereafter investigation was entrusted to B.R. Puri (Public Witness -163).Same day, he visited the local police station as well as the place of occurrence.But, Sho Dalbir Singh was not there at that time.On 27.4.1980, he again visited the Nirankari Bhawan.That day, as he had earlier sent a message and Sho Dalbir Singh brought the case file and handed it over to him.This discrepancy in the statement made by Sho Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149), according to Mr. Kaira, is on account of lapse of memory, as he was deposing in Court Ii years after the event.(112) On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW-143 and PW-149, two material facts emerge out.They are: that Ramesh Pal Singh (Public Witness -143) scribed the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C; and that he also scribed the case diary at the dictation of Sho Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149).It is also significant to note from the statement of Sho Dalbir Singh that the recoveries were effected till 1.30 p.m. on 25.4.1980 and there after statements of some of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. He has named seven persons whose statements were so recorded.Out of these seven persons, Bhagi Bai was not examined as a witness in Court.Others were Niranjan Singh (Public Witness -3), Mangal Sen (Public Witness -4), Savitri Devi (Public Witness - 8), Ajit Singh (Public Witness -12), Anoop Kumar (Public Witness -15) and Kulwant Singh (Public Witness -35).This is borne out of the statement of Ramesh Pal Singh (Public Witness -143).Every one of them was thoroughly cross-examined but no question was put nor any suggestion was made to any of them that their respective statements were recorded later or were ante-dated.No such question or suggestion was put even to Ramesh Pal Singh (Public Witness -143), who had actually scribed those statements.A composite suggestion, however, was made to Sho Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149), which consisted of three parts: firstly, that he recorded the statements of the witnesses much later; secondly, that he did so on the suggestion of C.B.I, officers; and, lastly, that he ante-dated them.The whole of the suggestion was refuted.If at all the statements of these witnesses were to be recorded later and not on 25.4.1980 and to be ante-dated, there would have been no need for recording their statements over again on the aforesaid subsequent dates.Then, it appears from the evidence of Munshi Ram (Public Witness -57), who was posted as Inspector in the Crime Branch at the relevant time that he had taken into possession from Amarjit Singh one guest register of the Nirankari Bhawan vide memo Ext. PW9/B, which bears the signatures of Kulwant Singh (Public Witness -35) at Point D. From all this intrinsic evidence available on record, it is established that the statements of the said witnesses were recorded on 25.4.1980 as deposed by Ramesh Pal Sigh (Public Witness -143) and Sho Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149).(115) We may note, however, that during the cross-examination of Apt Singh (PW-12) it has come that he met the local police at about 9 or 9.30 a.m., he remained with the police for about 20 minutes and during that period the police showed him the screw driver (Ex. P-3) and recorded his statement.Mr. Kaira explained that Ajit Singh (Public Witness -12) was called and orally asked about the screw driver during the course of inspection, before seizure of the articles found in room No. 14 in the forenoon, and that his formal statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded only thereafter.In any event, what is material for purposes of the present discussion is not the time or the sequence but the date on which recovery was effected and statement of the said witness recorded.Diary of proceedings of investigation is required to be maintained under Section 172, Cr.P.C. It postulates that the officer making investigation shall day by day enter his proceedings of the investigation in the diary, setting forth, inter alia, the time at which he begun and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.The rules require the Investigating Officer to enter a list of the statements, indicating the number of pages in each statement, in the diary.Even in the morning on 26.4.1980, certain steps were taken in connection with investigation of the case by him and under his direction.For example, Munshi Ram (Public Witness -57) seized the guest register of Nirankari Bhawan vide memo Ext. PW9/A. He also recorded the statement of Receptionist Amarjit Singh (Public Witness -9) and Caretaker Kulwant Singh(PW-35).Likewise, Si Mahesh Chand recorded the statement of Kuldip Singh Walia (Public Witness -141) and his wife Smt. Shiv Darshan Kaur.The C.B.I, came into the picture only after registration of R.C.No. 2/80 CIU(A) Ext. PW163/A on 26.4.1980 at 2.25 p.m. (118) Investigation is the act of examining, search or enquiring into the facts and circumstances of a case.It is not a tangible thing capable of being physically handed over or taken over as such.On the basis of order made by the Government, the case was transferred to the C.B.I, and it was entrusted to B.R. Puri (Public Witness -163) to make investigation.On reaching the police station, he contacted Acp Narender Singh.The file of the case was not there.He did not see any document at the police station as the Investigating Officer namely Sho Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149), who was having the case file, was not there.Then, he went to the Nirankari Bhawan, where he recorded the statement of Kishan Pal (Public Witness -2).Obviously, on 26.4.1980 B.R. Puri (Public Witness -163) went to the police station and to the Nirankari Bhawan without giving prior intimation of his visit to Sho Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149) or any other person at Police Station, Kingsway Camp.Next day, on 27.4.1980, however, he again visited Nirankari Bhawan, when Sho Dalbir Singh (Public Witness -149) brought the file and handed it over to him as he had earlier sent the message.In his cross-examination, however, no question was put to him as to whether he gave prior intimation to anyone of his visit to the police station or the Nirankari Bhawan on 26.4.1980, nor as to the whereabouts of Sho Dalbir Singh or any other member of his investigation team.Otherwise, he could have explained the same.Regarding his visit on 26.4.1980, his cross- examination stopped at getting the answer that he did not see any document or register at the police station.No question was put as to whether he had even asked for the same.Further, the testimony of Kishan Pal (PW-2), Niranjan Singh (Public Witness -3), Mangal Sen (Public Witness -4), Savitri Devi (Public Witness -8), Ajit Singh (PW-12), Anoop Kumar (Public Witness -15) and Kulwant Singh (Public Witness -35) that their respective statementswererecordedon25.4.1980remained unchallenged.Immediately thereafter, the duo met PW-39 Darshan Uppal in the adjoining motor workshop and at that time the appellant was carrying green handle screw driver and a noose prier.Then, the appellant and his companion went to the house of PW-11 Pritpal Kaur at about 5 p.m., ostensibly for fixing rollers in the Almirah that he had earlier prepared, and there too he was having a screw driver and a noose prier.Between 6.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m., the appellant, his companion, and two other Sikh gentlemen, were seen in the vicinity, near the culvert opposite the house of PW-22 Vidyawati, just outside the Bhawan, where the three others took water and he kept sitting on the culvert with a log of wood.Public Witness 87 Tarsern Singh added that a log of wood was lying near him.From there, on the way back to the Bhawan, at about 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., PW-21 Janki Devi noticed in the hand of the appellant a screw driver with a handle of green colour, when she served water to him and his companion at the canteen situated at the corner of the Nirankari School.(123) This aspect of the case, can be conveniently put into three different stages of investigation.First, on 25.4.1980 inspection of room No. 14, verification of the articles found lying therein, seizure of those articles vide memo Ext.It would be appropriate, therefore, to take up the points of arguments of Mr. Randhawa, and marshall the relevant evidence for discussion in this very sequence stage by stage.(124) In respect of the first stage, the relevant witnesses are PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-4 Mangal Sain, PW-12 Ajit Singh, PW-39 Darshan Uppal, PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh and PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh.They testified, inter alia, that on 25.4.1980 wooden box (Ext. P-l), six screws (Ext. P-11/1 to 6), screw driver (Ext. P-3), noosc-prier (Ext. P-4), shoes (Ext. P-5/1 & 2), Parna (Ext. P-6), handkerchief (Ext. P-7), piece of cloth (Ext. P-8), bed sheets (Ext. P-9), shirt (Ext. P-10) and sword (Ext. P-12)wererecovered from room No. 14videseizurememoExt.PW-3/A.It has also come in the evidence of the said witness that at the time of seizure, the screwdriver (Ext. P-3) had a marking of "N" and number 727 engraved on it.They also testified that six empty cartridges, which were found lying on the floor near the window inside room No. 14, were also seized vide memo Ext. PW3/B. These two seizure memos recorded not only particulars of the articles taken into possession but also described the position and the places where they were found lying, besides recording that on the various parcels seal of 'RPS' was affixed.(125) The relative position of the various articles that were found inside room No. 14 has been described in detail by these witnesses also.For purposes of the present discussion, it is sufficient to note that the wooden box (Ext. P-l) was lying on a cot, the naked sword (Ext. P-2) was inside the box, the screw driver (Ext. P-3) was lying near the box and the noose prier (Ext. P-4) also nearby under the cot.The recovered articles were checked before taking them into possession.(126) PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh has deposed that on discovering letter 'N' engraved on the screw driver, he called Ajit Singh from the carpentry workshop and enquired from him about it.Besides, PW-12 Ajit Singh as well as PW-3 Niranjan Singh and PW-39 Darshan Uppal have deposed to the significance of letter 'N' and explained that the tools of the carpentry workshop were marked as such for the sake of identification.The suggestion given in cross-examination only to PW-4 Mangal Sain that the seizure memos were signed by him at the police station was categorically denied.(128) Moreover, PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh has stated, in his cross-examination, that he had taken the articles in sealed parcels to Police Station, Kingsway Camp and deposited them there in the Malkhana at about 5 p.m. Further, he has explained that the seizure memo was shown to H.C. lara Chand, who made entries in the Malkhana register according to the description of the articles recorded in the seizure memo, as per entries made in his presence, which were collectively marked Ext. PW-143/G.(129) Thus, it is proved by the evidence on record that the various articles, including wooden box (Ext. P-l), screw driver (Ext. P-3) and the noose prier (Ext P-4) were recovered and taken into possession from room No. 14, put into parcels and sealed vide memo Ext. PW-3/A and Ext. PW-3/B around 9.30 a.m., and the.Further, he argued that if letter 'N' was actually engraved and noticed by the witnesses at that time, when the screw driver is stated to have been taken into possession, mention thereof would certainly have been made in the seizure memo Ext. PW-3/A.(131) "THEREFORE, the evidence regarding existence of distinctive letter 'N' on screw driver Ext. P-3 at the time of recovery, needs a little more elaborate discussion.PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh has deposed that the screw driver had engraved on it letter 'N' and also there was engraved on it number '727'.On being asked if he had made a note of whatever he saw engraved on the screw driver, he explained that he had made a note in the case diary, but only the number '727' was mentioned at serial No. 2 in the seizure memo Ext. PW-3/A. The only other question put to him was whether he had asked H.C.Tara Chand to record in the Malkhana register that the screw driver Ext. P-3 had engraved on it letter 'N'.He answered it in the negative and clarified that H.C.Tara Chand merely copied description of the articles from the seizure memo.Likewise, PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh also stated that the screw driver Ext. P-3 had engraved on it letter 'N' and also number '727'.The direct evidence of these two members of the investigation team, in respect of existence of letter 'N' engraved on the screw driver Ext. P-3 at the time of its recovery, is unassailable.On the statement of this fact, instead of putting to him his earlier statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., he was sought to be confronted with Seizure Memo Ext. PW-3/A, in a bid to show that his statement about letter "N" was an after-thought.It cannot be taken as proper contradiction for discounting his evidence of this fact.Indeed, he stoutly refuted the suggestions that letter 'N' was got engraved later, and that letter 'N' was not there on the screw driver Ext. P-3 at the time of its recovery and on that account it was not mentioned in the Seizure Memo Ext. PW-3/A.He too stated that the letter 'N' was in bigger size and was quite prominent as compared to the number '727' inscribed on it, whereas in the recovery memo Ext. PW-3/A there is no mention of letter 'N' while the number '727' was mentioned.He was confronted with his statement Ext.PW-4/DA recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.,whereletter 'N' is not mentioned.To this limited extent, in the evidence of this particular witness only, it may be said that there was an embellishment.(134) PW-12 Ajit Singh, deposed that at about 4 p.m. on 24.4.80 accused Ranjit Singh had taken from him the 10" long screw driver and even at that time letter 'N' was engraved on it.He testified that the screw driver Ext. P-3 with letter "N", that was shown to him in Court, was the same one that was taken by the appellant.In his cross-examination, he explained that on 25.4.80, when he was called at about 9 or 9.30 a.m" the Police Officers who were standing outside room No. 14, showed him the screw driver.He told them that it had been taken by the appellant from him in the evening on the previous day.At that point of time, no writing work was done in his presence and no document was got signed from him.He remained standing with the Police Officers for about 20 minutes outside room No. 14 and when he came away PW-3 Niranjan Singh and PW-4 Mangal Sain were still there.It is not to be mistaken as a previous statement of PW-3 Niranjan Singh or PW-12 Ajit Singh.Confronting these witnesses with the said memo Ext. PW-3/A, where letter 'N' was not mentioned, would not lead to the conclusion that there was any embellishment made in their statements in Court so as to discount the probative value of their direct evidence on this aspect.(136) No doubt letter 'N' engraved on the screw driver (Ex. P-3) was a distinctive mark of identification and the Investigating Officer (Public Witness 143) omitted to mention it in the seizure memo Ex Public Witness 3/A. It must also be borne in mind that on the screw driver Ex. P-3, there was also inscribed the number '727', which was noted in the Seizure Memo Ex. PW3/A.Atthatpointof time, real significance of the letter 'N" or that of the number '727' could not be properly comprehended.It was only later investigation that revealed the distinctive identity and special significance of the letter 'N' as against that of the number '727'.In such a situation it cannot be said that omission of the letter 'N' and mention of the number "727' as the distinctive mark in the Seizure Menno Ex. Public Witness 3/A was wholly unreasonable as to be fatal.At best, this omission may be termed as an irregularity in preparing the seizure memo Ex. Public Witness 3/A; but this circumstance would neither vitiate the seizure of the screw driver Ex. P-3 nor would it lead to the conclusion that the investigation was unfair.As a result of an irregularity in preparing the seizure memo, the Court would examine carefully the evidence regarding the seizure and no other consequence would follow.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid omission in the seizure memo Ex. Public Witness 3/A did not affect the veracity of the witnesses examined in support of the prosecution case.(137) The statements of PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-4 Mangal Sain and PW-12 Ajit Singh, among other witnesses, were recorded by PW-143 Si Ramesh Pal Singh on the dictation of PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh, after completing inspection and recovery of articles found at the place of occurrence, after 1.30 p.m. and the recording of the statements was completed by 5 p.m. on 25.4.80 itself.Soon thereafter, all the recovered articles of case property were deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station, Kingsway Camp vide memo Ext. PW-143/G. In this time frame, taking the weight of the cogent evidence of witnesses, consistent with the documentary evidence on record, we find no substance in the plea taken on behalf of the accused that the witnesses PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-4 Mangal Sain and PW-12 Ajit Singh were got up or that their statements were recorded after premeditation.On the other hand, PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh was there with the Cfsl team and no such suggestion or question was put to him.PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-4 Mangal Sain, PW-12 Ajit Singh,PW-1370.P.Chhatwal have deposed that the said three tools were taken from PW-12 Ajit Singh vide memo Ext PW-3 / N, which bears signatures of PW-3 Niranjan Singh at point 'A', PW-4 Mangal Sain at point 'B', PW-12 Ajit Singh at point 'C' and PW-137 O.P. Chhatwal at point 'D'.Each of them stated that the said three tools had letter 'N' engraved on them when the same were taken into possession.PW-137 O.P. Chhatwal, in his cross-examination, agreed that the letter 'N' engraved on these three tools was in different sizes.27.4.80 Ajit Sh.O.P. RC2/80 (1 ) One steel hammer Singh Chhatwal Ciua of 1 Lb with wooden s/o Sarwan Dy.S.P. handle of red colour Singh, r/o1 CBU/SIC/ (words Steel Hero) Nirankari New Delhi letter engraved 'N') Colony, Delhi 27.4.80 2 (1) One steel hammer 3/4 Lb with wooden handle of brown colour Word 3/4Lb letter engraved 'N' 3 (3) One screw driver of about 14 inches length with red plastic handle Gedore India are written & figure 749 also written on it.We have carefully examined with the aid of a magnifying glass the handwritten entries Ext. PW-158/B made in the original Malkhana Register Ext. PW-158/A. The handwriting is immature.Likewise, in entry No. 2, it appears that the word "letter" was inserted above small alphabet "n', which was scored out, and after the word "engraved" capital alphabet N was added within single inverted commas at the end.At both places, small alphabet 'n' is elongated with its leading and trailing flourish stretched outwards, more so in the former as compared to the later entry.(141) The argument under discussion is sought to be developed by learned Counsel for the accused on the basis of the statement made by PW-158 Kailash Chander in his cross-examination, which is reproduced below :Q.Is it correct that in these entries No. 2 there are corrections made regarding the letters and word found engraved on the hammer?A.Yes, there are such corrections as while making the entries I was not able to read properly the engraved wordings either from the hammers or from the recoveries memos so I kept the space blank in the entry and I took the register to Shri O.P. Chhatwal who has deposited this property.This explanation has to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the letter 'N' engraved on each of the three sample tools was in different sizes, as stated by PW-137 O.P. Chhatwal.Moreover, letter 'N' manually engraved upon these articles with the aid of a chisel or other similar instrument, looks different from that when written on paper.The two parallel vertical strokes and the diagonal one in between are not perfectly connected.The said three articles were entered in the Cbi Malkhana Register Ext. PW158/A at S.No.25(1), 25(2) and 25(3), among the other recovered articles at S.Nos. 8 to 34 collectively marked Ext. PW158/E.(146) Cbi sent various articles in parcels marked 'A'to 'V' mentioned in the list Ext. PW164/A to the Cfsl for examination and report on Point Nos. 1 to 24 vide letter dated 3.5.1980 Ext. PW-108/H. List Ext. PW164/A item No. 22 records that the parcel containing the wooden box bearing the seal of 'RPS' was marked 'V. By the forwarding letter Ext. PW108/H Point No. 24, Cbi sought opinion of the Cfsl if there were any identifiable tool marks, finger and thumb impressions on the contents of the parcel marked 'V. At the end of this letter, it was recorded that the specimen of the seals used on parcels which were sealed by the Delhi Police were not available with the CBI.By another letter dated 5.5.1980 Ext. PW108/F, Cbi sought opinion of the Cfsl Expert on the questions specified therein.Question No. (iii) was framed to ascertain if the screw driver contained in parcel 'V' had been used in fixing or unfixing the screws on the box or if there were any marks of this screw driver anywhere on the box.In Question No. (iv) request was made to examine and give opinion if the noose prier also contained in parcel 'V had been used in unscrewing a nut which was recovered from the bath room adjoining room No. 14 and the same was contained in a separate parcel 'W'.(147) The vital fact recorded in the List Ext. PW164/A, enclosed with letter Ext. PW108/H, that the parcel containing the wooden box marked 'V was bearing the seal of 'RPS' is further confirmed by the next document Ext. Public Witness 108/G which is the report dated 25.8.1980 of PW108 Dr. S.R. Singh, Senior Scientific-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner of the CFSL.This report, under the heading: "Description of parcel(s) and condition of seals" clearly records the finding: "Received one sealed parcel bearing the seal impression of 'RPS' which was intact".The next heading is of the description of articles contained in the various parcels.Parcel 'V is then further described in the following terms: Parcel V: It is a sealed wooden log box (received from Ad Ball/CFSL with reference to case CFSL-80/F-1632) containing exhibits marked V2, V3, V4 and V5 in Physical Division.V2 It is a screw driver of about 10" length with green plastic handle.V3 It is a metallic, old nose prier of about 7" length.V4 These are 5 metallic screws (taken out of Exbt." Then, in a Note, it is recorded that the contents of the parcel marked 'V' were packed properly and kept in wooden log marked 'V' and the same was sealed separately with the seal of Sso Phy Cfsl Cbi, New Delhi and was returned to the forwarding authority.Thereafter, under the heading "Result of Examination", opinion is recorded regarding Query No. 24 (Point No. 24 stated in letter dated 3.5.1980 Ext. PW108/H) in these words: "A manual punch of letter N was found on the screw driver Mark V.2"Thereafter a Note is made in three parts, which is reproduced below: "NOTE(1) Five parcels marked I, J, L, M and R and three parcels marked O.P & V were sent to and examined in the Biology and Finger-Print Divisions respectively of this Laboratory.(2) Six parcels marked H, K, N, Q, S and T and two parcels marked V and D have also been examined in the Biology and Physics Divisions respectively of this laboratory.(3) Two .30 carbine-bullets were test-fired in the laboratory on the Pant of parcel H of deceased Pratap Singh and the two holes created on its back were marked No. 1 & 2 by me." In this report, references made to the seals on the parcel, and the specimen seals in Clauses (1) and (2) of the Note, obviously, elude to the seal mentioned in the report of PW-108 Dr. S.R. Singh dated 25.8.1980 Ext. PW108/G and another dated 9.9.1980 Ext. PW108/J already discussed hereinabove.(151) It is thus established, on combined analysis and reading of contents of the documentary evidence on record, that the said incriminating articles were recovered, packed into parcels, and sealed by PW-143 Ramesh Pal Singh with his seal 'RPS'.The said seal remained intact when the articles were deposited in Malkhana of Police Station, Kingsway Camp and then transferred to Cbi Malkhana; and the very same seal was intact when the concerned parcel was marked 'V' and forwarded by the Cbi to the CFSL.There, the seal 'RPS' was removed for examination of the articles for Expert opinion; and then the screw driver, the noose prier and the wooden box were marked for purposes of identification as V2, V3 and V5 respectively by the CFSL.After examination of the same,theywereputbackinto a parcel marked 'V, which was returned by PW-108 Dr. S.R. Singh with his seal Sso Bhy Cfsl to the Ballistic Division of Cfsl as per his report dated 9.9.1980 Ext. PW108/J. Thereafter, the Cfsl Report dated 10.4.1981 Ext. PW163/B comprehensively dealt with the various articles of the case property contained in parcels 'A." to 'V' and explained the position of parcel 'V in Note Nos. 1 and 2 set out above.It was at this stage that the seal of Cfsl was affixed on various parcels and the same were returned to the CBI.(152) Consequently, on production in Court of such of the articles as were sent by the Cbi to the Cfsl for Expert opinion, the parcels and articles contained therein were found to be bearing the seal of CFSL.The said parcel, when produced in Court, was found to be bearing the seal of Cfsl and the screw driver and the noose prier were found placed inside the wooden box in envelopes marked V2 and V3 respectively.Change of the seal, thus, stands fully explained.The plea sought to be advanced by Mr. Randhawa that the seal was tampered with is rejected.(153) We would now take up for discussion the substantive charge of conspiracy to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh punishable under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code .and the first head of the additional charge of his murder punishable under Section 302,I.P.C. read with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code .In the course of hearing before us, certain findings recorded by the Trial Court, indicated in paragraph 23 (supra), and the supporting evidence on record, have not been assailed.(d) Appellant Ranjit Singh was a staunch Akali and active member of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara.He and other members of the Akhara were constantly indulging in anti Nirankari activities in "Delhi.(e) Appellant Ranjit Singh joined the Nirankari Mission and started working as a carpenter in the Nirankari Bhawan.(g) On 24.4.1980 at about 10.30 p.m. at the Nirankari Bhawan, arms, ammunition and hand-grenades were used, and by shots fired from .30 Carbine Baba Gurbachan Singh was murdered.(154) Now, the relevant findings that have been challenged by the parties in appeal, are succinctly put below: (1) Appellant Ranjit Singh killed Baba Gurbachan Singh, in pursuance of the conspiracy: (2) Chota Gian Singh (since acquitted) knew of the intention of Ranjit Singh to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh and that he had declared in the course of a routine Friday Path of the Akhara, in the presence of Ranjit Singh, that Ranjit Singh would bring the head of the Baba etc. But, the evidence on record was not sufficient to establish that Chota Gian Singh was a 252 party to the conspiracy and the declaration made by him would not lead to the inference that murder of the Baba had any proximate and direct nexus with it: (3) The evidence on record did not establish that Ranjit Singh had obtained "material or help" from Jarnail Singh Bhinderwala nor that he had any "definite connection" with Sant Bhinderwala.(155) Mr. Randhawa, learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the above noted first finding and also the first part of second finding.On the other hand, Mr. Kaira, learned Counsel for the respondent-State has challenged correctness of the above-noted second half of the second finding and the whole of the third finding of the Trial Court.(156) The challenge raised by Mr. Randhawa is based upon the following five points: (1)The charge of conspiracy framed against appellant Ranjit Singh alongwith "others known or unknown" was improper and consequently the trial and his conviction based upon it is bad.(2) The prosecution case of conspiracy against the appellant qua both the charges must fail, especially if someone other than appellant Ranjit Singh and Kabul Singh (P.O.) was involved in committing murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh.(3) With the acquittal of Chota Gian Singh and Charanjit Singh, the basic charge of conspiracy had totally failed and it would not survive in respect of the appellant alone.(4) There are inherent improbabilities in the case of conspiracy sought to be set up by the prosecution, such as: (i) open declaration made by Chota Gian Singh during the routine Akhara Path on Friday that Ranjit Singh was going to kill the Baba; (ii) disclosure by the appellant to PW-91 Harjinder Singh on 18.4.1980 that he had met the SaInts on the Baisakhi day (13th April, 1980) at Amritsar and that the arrangements had been made; (iii) disclosure made by the appellant to PW-91 Harjinder Singh on 21.4.1980 that he would be getting a happy news about the Nirankar is by the following Friday; and (iv) announcement made by Sant Bhinderwala, just three days preceding the actual occurrence of the crime on 24.4.1980, in his speech at Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, that within 2/3 days they will achieve their aim and Nirankari Baba would be murdered.According to Mr. Randhawa, it is highly improbable for any member of a conspiracy to declare or disclose in advance the plan or particulars of the acts proposed to be done in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy (5) There is no material available on record to justify the finding that Chota Gian Singh had made the declaration in the presence of the appellant that he (Ranjit Singh) was going to kill the Nirankari Baba.(157) Mr. Kaira demolished the first four points of challenge raised by Mr. Randhawa and justified the correlative find ings of the Trial Court.But, he conceded the fifth point.Moreover, he proceeded to challenge the finding that the declaration made by Chota Gian Singh that the appellant was going to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh had no proximate and direct nexus with the crime.He also challenged the finding regarding the material or help said to have been obtained by the appellant from the Sant and his connection with Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwala, for committing the crime in pursuance of the conspiracy for killing Baba Gurbachan Singh.Thus, the motive was reprisal for the killing of Sikhs in Amritsar.Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of Baba Gurbachan Singh and others by the Court of Sessions, rather than accepting the verdict of the Court, which had become final, the appellant took law into his own hands and joined in the conspiracy to do or cause to be done illegal acts for achieving the object of liquidating Baba Gurbachan Singh.(159) The specific illegal act attributed to the appellant was that he alongwith Kabul Singh (PO) secured entry in the Nirankari Bhawan and that on 24.4.1980 at about 10.30 p.m. he alongwith the said Kabul Singh (PO), in pursuance of the said conspiracy, committed murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh by intentionally causing death by firing shots from a .30 Carbine.(160) Straightaway, in view of the earlier noted undisputed facts, certain questions arise for consideration.They are, among others: why did appellant Ranjit Singh join the Nirankari Mission; and what was he upto on 24.4.1980, when he alongwith a young companion, who is alleged to be Kabul Singh (PO), was going about from place to place in the Nirankari Bhawan Complex from 4 p.m. to 10.30 p.m? The answer is obvious.In the first case, there were in all four persons alleged to be parties to the conspiracy, out of them, three were acquitted.On the fateful day i.e. 24.4.1980, he and his companion were seen moving around from place to place, including the area near room No. 14, within the Nirankari Bhawan Complex.The duo were there once again in the close vicinity of room No. 14 from about 9.30 p.m. till about 10.30 p.m., when the deadly shots were fired from room No. 14 by a .30 Carbine and two hand grenades were also thrown.Immediately thereafter, the appellant and his companion made good their escape.In the light of these, among other facts and circumstances, we find ourselves unable to reach any conclusion except one that two or more persons were involved in the criminal conspiracy and that in pursuance thereof the appellant was involved in committing the murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh.(172) The principle of criminal liability for the offence of conspiracy does not depend upon the necessity to convict a requisite number of persons.It depends upon consideration of facts beyond reasonable doubt which make such a principle applicable.In other words, it is not essential that more than one person should be convicted of the offence and Section 120B, Indian Penal Code would be invoked where the Court is in a position to find that two or more persons were actually concerned in the commission of the substantive offence of criminal conspiracy or that of the crime contemplated by the conspiracy (target crime).(173) Therefore, the plea that the separate charge of conspiracy would fail on the acquittal of Chota Gian Singh and Charanjit Singh, or that the charge relating conspiracy and murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh would fail, and would not survive against the appellant alone, must be rejected.(174) Next, we take up for discussion Point No. 4, raised by Mr. Randhawa for discounting the facts mentioned therein, on the gOod that the same are inherently improbable and should not be believed.(175) The first three facts arise out of the deposition of PW-91 Harjinder Singh.He was the ace witness of the prosecution on the charge of conspiracy.(176) The evidence of PW-91, Harjinder Singh shows, inter alia, that he was an Akali.Like the appellant, he was an active member of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara, of which his maternal uncle Gurcharan Singh Saberwal was the Secretary.He deposed that he and the accused Chhota Cyan Singh (since acquitted) alongwith other members of the Akhara had participated in demonstrations against Nirankari Samagams in the year 1979 in Delhi.(177) According to PW-91, there used to be a Path of the members of the Akhara on every Friday and during one such Path Chhota Cyan Singh and Bada Cyan Singh (P.O.) were also present.At that time, Chhota Cyan Singh declared that all members would be happy to know that the appellant was going to do something to bring good name for the Akhara, he would bring the head of Nirankari Baba and all of them should render help.He further testified that in February, 1980 while he was working in Kalawati Saran Hospital for carrying out electric pipe fittings, the appellant informed him about his infiltration into the rank and file of the Nirankar is after obtaining "Gian" from Dr. Desh Raj.He also added that on two occasions the appellant had asked him to procure chloroform from the said hospital so that he may administer it to the guards of the Nirankari Baba and then to kill him.But he did not get it.Once, the appellant had asked him for his father's revolver for the same purpose as he knew shooting by gun.On being questioned by him about his absence, he told him that he had gone to Amritsar to meet the SaInts and the arrangements had been made.He further deposed that on 21.4.1980 the appellant met him at his workshop and complained to him that he had not helped him in any manner but he would be getting a happy news by the next Friday in respect of Nirankar is.That was the last meeting between him and the appellant (178) The material facts that emerge out of the evidence of Harjinder Singh PW-91 are: (A)Incensed by strong anti Nirankari feelings, the appellant had developed the intention to kill Nirankari Baba Gurbachan Singh; (b) In order to achieve the said object, the appellant had secured his initiation and sneaked into the Nirankari Mission; (e) Posing as a Nirankari, the appellant had entrenched himself in the Nirankari Bhawan; (d) For execution of his plan to kill Babaji, the appellant tried in vain to obtain from him (Public Witness -91) chloroform and also a revolver; (e) In a routine Akhara Path meeting on a Friday, Chhota Cyan Singh (acquitted) had declared that all members of the Akhara would be happy to know that Ranjit Singh would bring honour to the Akhara and would kill Nirankari Baba and all should render help; (f) Appellant Ranjit Singh had told him on 18.4.1980 that he had gone to Amritsar and met the SaInts on the Baisakhi day (13.4.1980) and that the arrangements had been made; (g) On 21.4.1980 the appellant met him (Public Witness -91) in his workshop and told him that he would be getting a happy news by Friday in respect of Nirankar is and that was the last meeting with the appellant.The mere fact that this witness did nothing to expose or frustrate the criminal purpose of the appellant, does not bring him in the category of an accomplice.However, bearing in mind his passive role in the whole affair, we would deal with his testimony as akin to that of an accomplice, making the Court circumspect and look for corroboration of his testimony for acceptance.However, the Trial Court has doubted the evidence of this witness about the information given to him by the appellant about his meeting with Sant Bhinderwala at Amritsar and the arrangements made by him.(185) The evidence of Dsp C.B.I. N.P. Singh (Public Witness 142) shows that on 20.5.1980 he had seized three registers vide seizure memo Ex Public Witness 140/A from the accused Gyan Singh.The seizure memo Ext. Public Witness 140/A was attested by Swaran Singh PW-140 as President of the said Akhara.Signatures of the appellant appear in the Akhara Register Ext. PW140/B. This fact has been established from the evidence of Hand Writing Expert S.C. Mittal PW-126 vide report Ext. Public Witness 126/Y. Specific questions were put to the appellant in his examination u /Section 313, Cr.P.C. with regard to these circumstances, but he refused to offer any explanation, whatsoever, about his membership of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara as well as his signatures in the said registers.These signatures in the said registers of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara provide sufficient corroboration to the testimony of Harjinder Singh PW-91 that the appellant was a member of the said Akhara.(186) It will be useful at this stage to refer to the evidence of PW-l, PW-2, PW-4, PW-43 and PW-44, who have deposed that since the year 1978 there was general atmosphere of hatred and hostility against the Nirankar is and particularly against the Nirankari Baba Gurbachan Singh that was whipped by Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala and his Akali followers.According to these witnesses after the 30th April, 1978 episode Sant Bhinderwala made several inflammatory speeches and exhorted killing of Baba Gurbachan Singh.In June, 1978, he declared that the day was not far off when Baba Gurcharan Singh would be beheaded and his head hung at the Darshni Deory of the Golden Temple at Amritsar.Declarations made by him that Nirankar is should not be allowed to hold their samagams, creating ill-will and inciting violence in the minds of Akal is against Nirankar is were also published in various newspapers like Daily Ajit, Hind Samachar, Kamboz, Pratap, Vir Pratap and Punjab Kesari Ext. PW-63/B-1 to B-11, Ext. PW-63/B-1 and B-2, Ext. Public Witness 64/ B-1 and Ext. Public Witness 50/A. These newspapers were seized by D.S.P. Ved Prakash Choudhary Public Witness 122 vide seizure memos Ext. Public Witness 61/A, Public Witness 63/A, Ext. Public Witness 122/A, Ext. Public Witness 63/C, Ext. Public Witness 63/A, Ext. Public Witness 115/A. It has come in the evidence of Prem Verma Public Witness 124 that on 21-4-1980 Sant Jamail Singh had made a speech at Gurdwara Santpura, Yamuna Nagar declaring that wi thin 2/3 days they will achieve their aim and Nirankari Baba would be murdered.Kuldip Raj PW-90 and Ram Krishan PW-97 deposed that on that day they had seen Jatha of Sant Bhinderwala moving in Yamuna Nagar.It is undisputed that on the night between 24th and 25th April, 1980 Nirankari Baba was shot dead in the Nirankari Bhawan at Delhi.(187) It is significant that a suggestion had been made during the cross examination ofP.W.2 that there was "tussle and rift" between Nirankari Baba and Sant Bhinderwala.(188) It has also come in the evidence of Kishori Lal Public Witness .40 that the accused Chhota Cyan Singh (since acquitted) was the President of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara.After acquittal of Nirankari Baba on 4.1.1980 in the Amritsar case, Chhota Cyan Singh had told him that although the Nirankari Baba had been acquitted in that case, but a brave man "has been born" to kill him.This statement of Chhota Cyan Singh is relevant to show inter alia, his state of mind.It has not been disputed before us that after acquittal of Nirankari Baba in the Amritsar case, an attempt was made at his life at Durg (M.P.) also.This circumstance read alongwith the contemporaneous declarations made by Sant Bhinderwala and the aforesaid statement of the accused Chhota Gyan Singh clearly show that the Akali faction led by Sant Bhinderwala was after the life of Nirankari Baba.(189) Harbhajan Singh (Public Witness -13) claims to be known to the appellant, Chhota Gyan Singh, Charanjit Singh and Avtar Singh.According to him, they were active members of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara and they had been arranging processions on behalf of the Akhara.He had acquaintance with these persons as they were living in vicinity of his residence.He further testified that whenever he arranged Nirankari Satsang in the colony, these persons used to create trouble.According to him, when he noticed the appellant working with Ajit Singh, (Public Witness -12) in the carpentry workshop of the Bhawan in February, 1980, he warned Ajit Singh about the appellant, but Ajit Singh assured him that Ranjit Singh had embraced Nirankari faith through Dr. Desh Raj Nirankari and put him at ease.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has believed his evidence with regard to the membership of the appellant, Bada Gyan Singh (P.O) Chhota Gyan Singh and Charanjit Singh of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara.The learned Sessions Judge has assigned valid reasons for accepting this evidence and we are not inclined to take a different view.(190) In addition to this, there is the evidence of Ajit Singh PW-12, who deposed that in February, 1980, the appellant started working with him in the carpentry workshop inside the Nirankari Bhawan and he had told him that he had embraced Nirankari faith under the influence of Dr. Desh Raj.He further testified that the appellant had also informed him that he was expert in Gatka, sword playing and rifle shooting and he would never miss a target even if it was a small coin and that he learnt that skill from Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara.Thus the evidence of Harbhajan Singh (Public Witness -13) and (Public Witness -12) corroborates the evidence of Harjinder Singh Public Witness .91 that the appellant was an active member of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara and was also a sharp shooter.(191) It has also come in the evidence of Ajit Singh PW-12 that appellant used to attend the Nirankari Sangat early morning and that after joining the carpentry workshop he had donated Rs. 100.00 saying that he had come to Bhawan to render free Seva.Further, his evidence shows that the appellant had also started working in the houses of some of the Nirankar is.It is apparent that the appellant did all this for winning over the confidence of the Nirankar is and for avoiding suspicion against his movements inside as well as outside the Nirankari Bhawan.Thus, the evidence of Harbhajan Singh Public Witness .13 read alongwith other circumstantial evidence amply corroborates the evidence of Harjinder Singh Public Witness .91 that the appellant had developed the definite intention to kill Nirankari Baba and in order to achieve the said object he joined the Nirankari Mission; started working as a carpenter in the carpentry workshop and in the houses of the Nirankar is and thus entrenched himself in the Nirankari Bhawan.(192) Public Witness 91 Harjinder Singh has also testified that the appellant was friendly with Bada Gyan Singh (PO).On this point also, his testimony gets sufficient confirmation from Kishori Lal (Public Witness -40) who deposed that even on the day of the occurrence, the appellant was at the house of Bada Gyan Singh.(193) On the question of accessibility of Bhinderwala to the appellant, the evidence discussed above clearly shows that after acquittal of Nirankari Baba in the Amritsar case, Sant Bhinderwala had exhorted Akal is to kill the Nirankari Baba.It is the evidence of Prem Verma (P.W.124) that on 21.4.1980 Sant Bhinderwala had made a speech at Gurdwara Sant Pura, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, debarring that within 2 /3 days they will achieve their aim and Nirankari Baba would be murdered.It has also come in the evidence of Public Witness .163 B.R. Puri that after the murder of Nirankari Baba, Sant Bhinderwala had paid a visit to the house of the appellant, who was at that point of time absconding.It is in this context that we have to consider the testimony of Harjinder Singh PW-91 that the appellant had informed him about his meeting with the Sant at Amritsar and also about the arrangements made with the help of Sant Bhinderwala.(194) Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that for certain parts of the story told by Harjinder Singh Public Witness .91, no corroborative evidence a tall has been produced.These parts chiefly relate the requests made by the appellant to Harjinder Singh for procuring chloroform and a revolver to kill the Nirankari Baba.It is natural that no corroborative evidence for such details would beavailable.What has to be seen is whether there is sufficient corroborative evidence of essential points relating to the conspiracy and confident corroborative evidence with regard to the accused's determination to kill the Nirankari Baba.It is not necessary that the story of such a witness should be corroborated in every detail.When it is established that testimony of Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91) finds corroboration on material points implicating the appellant, the Court can safely come to the conclusion as to the truth of the whole story, even on some of the uncorroborated points.(195) Another criticism of the learned Counsel for the appellant about this witness is that he was involved in some criminal cases and he was also in police custody at the time of his examination before the Court and, therefore, the Cbi may have coerced him to give the much needed support to the prosecution story.This criticism has been rejected by the Trial Court on valid grounds.Harjinder Singh (Public Witness 91) has admitted tha the was arrested by the police in connection with some criminal cases.He also admitted that he was detained by the police from 26.4.80 to 28.4.90 and then he was taken by Cbi and detained for 7/8 days.But, it has to be borne in mind that when his statement was recorded before the Trial Court he was not under detention.It has come in his cross-examination that the day before he appeared as witness in the Trial Court, he had gone away from his house and stayed during the night at Tri Nagar and that he had informed his wife accordingly.It is apparent that in order to avoid harassment at the hands of the accused persons, he left his house a day earlier to his examination in the Trial Court.Indeed, this witness had emphatically denied the defense suggestion that he had been coerced by the Cbi to make a false statement against the accused.(196) We may point out that no hard and fast rule could be laid down about appreciation of evidence and each case has to be decided on the facts as they stand in a particular case.As noted earlier, this witness has admitted pendency of two criminal cases against him.But, merely on this ground his testimony would not be rejected, specially when he was examined during investigation without undue delay, and then in the Trial Court who had the advantage of watching his demeanour.Moreover, this witness was cross examined at great length by the learned defense Counsel.But, nothing significant could be brought out in order to demolish his basic and substantial evidence given in the examination-in-chief.Similarly, nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination on the basis of which it could be inferred that he is not a truthful witness.The evidence of Gurmeet Kaur (DW1) was of negative character.She was examined primarily to substantiate the defense plea that Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91 ) was coerced by the Cbi to depose against the accused persons.She attempted to insinuate that the Cbi had picked up her husband three days before his evidence in the Trial Court and she gave a telegram to Patiala House Court about it.Curiously enough, she claimed to have sent the telegrams to the Patiala House Court, which was not even the place of sitting of the Trial Court, despite the fact admitted by her that she "knew in which Court the case was going on".Even if so, no such telegram has been proved.She has nowhere stated in her evidence that after the alleged abduction of her husband (Public Witness -91), she had lodged any report at the concerned police station or made any complaint to any Court, which in the normal course of human conduct and action, she was supposed to do.She does not say that it was for any hesitation or reluctance that she did not approach the police or the Court.Moreover,we have already noted the evidence of Harjinder Singh (Public Witness 91), who had explained that a day before his examination in the Trial Court, he had gone away from his house and stayed during the night at Tri Nagar.Indeed, in his cross-examination he asserted that he was not taken by the Cbi on the previous day or during the past one or two months.Thus, the version of Gurmeet Kaur (DW-I) runs counter to that of Harjinder Singh (Public Witness 91) on this aspect.(198) Further, Gurmeet Kaur (DW 1) stated that her husband, while he was in jail in May, 1992, had given the letter Ext. Dw I/B to her father, and an unknown person also delivered to her a letter of Harjinder Singh, which is Ex. Dwi /C. She introduced these documents in her examination-in-chief, recorded on 22.5.1992, in the following words: ".....MYfather had also gone to meet Harjinder Singh in jail.Harjinder Singh had given a letter to my father.That was on the last Monday.That letter is Ext. DWI/B. I identify the writing of Harjinder Singh and also his signature on it.About a week back one person came to me at my house.I do not know who he was.He told me that he had been sent by Harjinder Singh from jail.He gave a letter to me.I asked my son to get prepared photostat copy of that letter as I have to give photostat copy to a person whose name I had forgotten.This letter is also signed by my husband Harjinder Singh in English language but I do not know English...."(199) It is alleged in Ext. DW-I /B that Cbi had forced Harjinder Singh to make a statement against the accused persons.In Ex. Dw I/C it is stated that he (Public Witness -91) was also asked to prevent his wife DW-I from appearing as witness in defense.Copies of these letters purport to be sent through the Superintendent of the Jail and addressed to various authorities and Courts.These were moved by Harpnder Singh PW-91 and Gurmeet Kaur, DW-I for police protection as threats were given to them by the accused persons and their associates.It was stated by Harjinder Singh in the application DW-I /PX-3 dated 22/10/91 addressed to the Superintendent (CBI) that some of the associates of the accused persons were trying to coerce his wife to stand as a defense witness for demolishing his testimony in the case.A similar application also dated 22.10.1991 Ext. DW-I /PX-4 was addressed to the Sho, Tilak Marg.Ext. DW1/PX-1 signed by Gurmeet Kaur was addressed to the Superintendent of Police stating that the appellant's brother Gurcharan Singh had threatened her.Ext. Dwi /PX-2 is the application dated 27.3.92 again written by Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91) to the S.P.. Cbi for protection as the accused were threatening to kill him.Gurmeet Kaur (DW 1 ) has denied her signatures as well as her husband's signatures on these applications.She has denied her husband's signatures against these entries also.These entries clearly reveal that her husband (Public Witness -91) had visited the office of the Cbi on the aforesaid dates.The entry at serial No. 17 shows that on 23.10.91 Gurmeet Kaur (DW-I) had herself visited the office of the CBI.On being confronted with the said entry, she disowned her own signatures also against that entry.It appears to us that the visitors' book was maintained and the entries had been made in the regular course of official business.We find no reason to reject this evidence.Instead of explaining the purpose.of her visit to the office of the Cbi on 23.10.91, she has totally denied her visit.This circumstance also affects her credibility.The whole pattern of evidence of Gurmeet Kaur (DWI) smacks of artificiality and this compels us to discard her evidence as wholly unreliable.These applications, read in conjunction with the entries in the visitors' book of Cbi, clearly show that Harjinder Singh PW-91 and Gurmeet Kaur DW-I had visited the office of the Cbi to complain against the accused persons and their associates about threats held out to them.This circumstance, to a great extent, probablises the case of the prosecution that even before his examination in the Trial Court, Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91) was under tremendous pressure from the accused persons to resile from the statement given by him during investigation and to depose in the Trial Court in their favour.It is significant that the suggestion made to Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91) in his cross-examination that he had been coerced by the Cbi to depose against the accused, was denied.His statement u/Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer without delay.Nothing could be elicited in his cross examination which would cast any reasonable doubt upon genuineness and voluntary character of his statement on oath and credit worthiness of this witness.(203) It needs to be highlighted that it has come in the evidence of Si Varinder Kadian (DW-3) that the accused Gyan Singh used to accompany Gurmeet Kaur, (DW-I) to meet Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91) when he was in police custody in Police Station, Kirti Nagar in connection with the criminal case registered against him under Sections 170/420/511, IPC.Further, Mahabir Singh (DW-4) Asst.Superintendent Jail has admitted in his evidence that Harjinder Singh (PVV -91) was lodged in Jail No. 3 and so was the appellant.This clearly shows that the accused persons, including the appellant, had opportunities of influencing him (Public Witness -91) after his statement was recorded before the Trial Court.(204) Taking an overall view of the circumstances outlined in the discussion herein before, we are of the opinion that it is quite likely that it was at the behest of the accused persons that Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91) and Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (DWI) felt compelled to bring up the plea of involuntary character of the evidence of Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91) after 14 months of his examination in the Trial Court.(205) We find nothing on record to impeach the probity of Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91) as a truthful witness.His evidence recorded in Court was such as to accord with the ordinary course of events and human nature.(206) Now, we proceed to discuss the challenge raised by Mr. Randhawa on the ground of improbability of each of the earlier noted three facts deposed by Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91).(207) First, we take up the declaration made by Chota Gyan Singh that the appellant was going to kill the Baba.PW-91 has testified that this declaration was made during a routine Friday meeting, described as 'Path', at the Akhara.It has also come in evidence that the Akhara was being run by staunch Akal is for imparting training and practicing martial arts.It was the hot-bed of anti Nirankari activities.Its members were regularly organising demonstrations and disrupting Nirankari functions.Its members used to hold meetings (Path) on every Friday.Obviously, those meetings were meant, inter alia, for exchanging views, drawing up plans and giving instructions to members for transaction of business.This particular meeting was attended by those alleged to be involved in the conspiracy and few other members.This was the occasion when Chota Gyan Singh had declared that all members would be happy to know that the appellant was going to do something to bring good name for the Akhara, he would bring the head of the Nirankari Baba, and all of them should render help.PW-91 was present at this meeting.Later, he has testified, the appellant did call upon him to help and get chloroform and his father's revolver to kill Babaji.In these circumstances, keeping in view the brazenly nefarious anti Nirankari activities of members of the Akhara, we find nothing inherently improbable in the fact that Chota Gyan Singh made the said declaration at the in-door meeting of the Akhara, so as to disbelieve this part of the deposition of Harjinder Singh (Public Witness -91).(208) Simultaneously, let us also consider the challenge raised by Mr. Kaira to the finding of the Trial Court regarding nexus between the dedication made by Chota Gian Singh and the crime.In this context, two questions arise, which have to be answered.(209) Accused Chota Gian Singh was given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the Trial Court on the charge of conspiracy.His acquittal has not been challenged by the State in appeal and has become final.(218) A clear indication of hatching the conspiracy for liquidating Baba Gurbachan Singh and the time thereof is found in the evidence of PW-40 Kishori Lal, who stated that after Babaji's acquittal Chota Gian Singh had told him that Babaji was acquitted but a brave man was born to be-head him..(219) Even otherwise, the terms in which the declaration was made by Chota Gian Singh leaves no manner of doubt that there was in existence by that time the conspiracy to commit the murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh.The declaration also shows that preparations were being made to act in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy.Further, it establishes the identity of appellant as the person who was going to do something to bring laurels to the Akhara and kill the Baba.Moreover, the declaration connects certain members of the Akhara to the object of the criminal conspiracy.(222) Next, PW-91 Harjinder Singh has deposed that on the day of Baisakhi i.e. 13.4.1980 the appellant did not attend Lungarat Majnu Ka Tila.On 15.4.1980, when they met, he inquired from the appellant the reason for not attending Lungar on the eve of Baisakhi.He replied that he had gone to Amritsar and as such did not come there.Then, on 18.4.1980 the appellant again came and met him in his workshop. .That day, he disclosed that he had met the SaInts at Amritsar and the arrangements had been made.(224) On the other hand, Mr. Kaira, learned Counsel for the respondent-State contended that the statement of PW-91 Harjinder Singh finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-l 7 Mohan Singh and PW-18 Mahinder Singh, who deposed that the appellant was not coming to work and so they went to his house on 10.4.1980 and there they were told by his brother that he had gone to Punjab.Besides, Mr. Randhawa had no comment to offer on the statement of PW-17 and PW-18 about the information given to them by the appellant's brother on 10.4.1980, three days preceding Baisakhi, that Ranjit Singh had gone away to Punjab.(226) As explained by Mr. Kaira, for avoiding any suspicion and misleading PW-12 Ajit Singh, who was a Nirankari, the appellant may well have mentioned Agra instead of Amritsar as the place where he had actually gone on the Baisakhi day.Moreover, we find merit in his plea that the testimony of PW-91 about the appellant having gone to Amritsar finds sufficient corroboration from the depositions of PW-17 and PW-18 suggesting that he had actually gone to Punjab.It is also significant to note that these statements of PW-17 and PW-18 were not even challenged in cross-examination.(227) Therefore, the plea of Mr. Randhawa that we should disbelieve the statement of PW-91 Harjinder Singh that the appellant told him that he had gone to Amritsar, met the SaInts there and the required arrangements had been made on 13.4.1980, which was the Baisakhi day, cannot be accepted.(228) Likewise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find nothing strange and no improbability in the deposition of PW-91 Harjinder Singh that the appellant met him and told him on 21.4.1980 that he would get the "happy news" about the Nirankar is by the following Friday.It is also clear from his evidence that the appellant used to freely discuss with him plans for achieving the object of killing Baba Gurbachan Singh and that the two of them were meeting each other quite frequently.Keeping in view the dose association between PW-91 Harjinder Singh and the appellant, the probability of the latter confiding in the former and frankly disclosing to him the developments that were brewing for fulfillment of the object of the said conspiracy cannot be ruled out.Moreover, the content and tenor of the deposition of PW-91 Harjinder Singh appear to be quite natural.He was the editor, printer, publisher as well as the proprietor of 'Kamboj Hindi Weekly' newspaper having its registered office in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.According to Mr. Kalra, Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala was the principal conspirator.The appellant was a staunch Akali, a member of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara and involved in anti Nirankari activities.He had himself disclosed to PW-91 Harjinder Singh that he would behead Baba Gurbachan Singh and that he had met the SaInts at Amritsar and the arrangements for execution of the conspiracy had been made.Moreover, after the occurrence and before the arrest of Ranjit Singh, during the time when he was absconding, on 4.4.1982 Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala had come alongwith his Jatha to Delhi and visited the house of the appellant.(238) It is no doubt true that the period specified in the charge of conspiracy is sometime between January, 1980 and April, 1980, but that does not mean that the background evidence showing longtime enmity between Akal is and Nirankar is, the repeated fights between the two sects, venomous speeches and declarations made by Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala and the anti Nirankari activities of members of Baba Deep Singh Ranjit Akhara, and in particular those involving the persons named in the charge, in respect of the period prior to that specified in the charge would be excluded from consideration as irrelevant.The evidence on record showing the state of things, especially the hostile disposition of the Akali followers of Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala, in relation to the Nirankar is in general and the Nirankari Chief Baba Gurbachan Singh in particular, during the period preceding the acquittal of Baba Gurbachan Singh and others in the Amritsar case are directly connected with the facts in issue specified in the charge of conspiracy.The same are relevant facts and have been duly proved by the evidence on record under Section 3 of the Evidence Act.(239) The acquittal of Baba Gurbachan Singh and others in the Amritsar case on 4.1.1980 was the occasion or the immediate cause of the facts in issue, which constitute the charge of conspiracy.(243) Lastly, evidence of PW-163 B.R-Puri regarding visit of Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala to the house of appellant Ranjit Singh also has been rejected by the learned Trial Court on flimsy grounds.The witness had categorically stated that he had seen Sant Jamail Singh Bhinderwala when he was alive.He said so because Bhinderwala was reported to have died at the time when the witness was deposing in Court.Further, he specified the date, namely,4.4.1982, when Bhinderwala had come to Delhi with his Jatha and visited the house of appellant Ranjit Singh at Jagatpuri, Delhi.The evidence of PW-19 Damodari, PW-15 Anoop Kumar,PW-6 Harbhajan Singh and PW-8 Savitri Devi, produced for proving the said three circumstances should not be accepted as each of them was a Nirankari and interested witness.Besides, their statements were recorded after premeditation arid undue delay.They were conveniently got-up witnesses for propping the prosecution case.But, merely on this ground, they cannot be dubbed as interested witnesses and their evidence discarded.(250) A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some.(251) There is nothing on record to show that any of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-19 Damodari, PW-15 Anoop Kumar and PW-6 Harbhajan Singh, had any interest in protecting the real culprit and falsely implicating the appellant.Moreover, the chronology of events narrated and the factual conspectus recounted by each of them is unshakeable; and the intrinsic quality of their respective evidence compels us to implicitly rely on their testimony and accept the same.Inspite of the fact that these Public Witness shave been subjected to intensive and incisive cross-examination, nothing tangible has been brought out for discarding their testimony.He also recorded statements of certain other witnesses about the movements of the appellant alongwith his companion on the day of occurrence.PW-137 O.P. Chhatwal took into possession sample tools i.e. two hammers Exts. P-23, P-24 and one screw driver Ext. P-25 bearing letter "N" from the carpentry workshop vide memo Ext. PW3/N.(259) Next day, on 29.4.1980, PW-163 B.R. Puri and PW-137 O.P. Chhatwal continued recording statements of certain other witnesses regarding movements of the appellant alongwith his companion, and PW-138 R.P. Kapur recorded statements of PW-15 Anoop Kumar and PW-19 Damodari.(260) On 30.4.1980, while some of the other members of the C.B.I. Investigating Team were busy attending to certain other aspects, PW-137 O.P. Chhatwal got on with another important series of witnesses who furnished information about presence of the appellant alongwith his companion and two other Sardars, opposite the house of PW-22 Vidyawanti, where he was seen at about 6.30 to 7 p.m. sitting on the nearby culvert with a log of wood (box).(261) On 1.5.1980 and 2.5.1980, PW-119 D.C. Sorari and PW-138 R.P. Kapur recorded statements of those witnesses who gave particulars of work recently done by the appellant as a carpenter in the houses and business establishments of some of the prominent Nirankar is inside and outside the Nirankari Bhawan.Along-side, on 2.5.1980, PW-125 R.S. Chauhan recorded the statement of PW-6 Harbhajan Singh,whohad seen the appellant running through the back lane, immediately after the incident.But, that part is not relevant for purposes of the present discussion.It has come in his cross-examination that he had gone to Pithoragarh (U.P.) on 25.4.1980 at about 5 or 6 a.m. and came back on 1.5.1980 at night.(264) In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the order of priority and sequence adopted by the Investigating Officers for examining witnesses for the purpose of gathering valuable clues and evidence, was natural and proper; and it cannot be said that there was undue delay on the part of the Investigating Officers in recording the statement of any of these witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C.(265) PW-149 Sho Dalbir Singh of local Police Station, Kingsway Camp had examined PW-15 Anoop Kumar, and PW-8 Savitri Devi, among other witnesses.On the same day, he also recorded the statement Ext. PW-19/DA of PW-19 Damodari.(267) Both of these Investigating Officers, one from the local police station and the other belonging to C.B.I., were cross-examined at some length.But, neither of them was asked about any delay in examining PW-15 Anoop Kumar, PW-8 Savitri Devi, or PW-19 Damodari.Thus, the plea of delayed examination of these three witnesses has been raised in appeal without asking the concerned Investigating Officers about it and without laying the foundation for it.(268) PW-125 R.S. Chauhan, who was working as Inspector, C.B.I, at that time, examined PW-6 Harbhajan Singh and recorded his statement on 2.5.1980, wherein he provided the clue regarding presence of Yog Raj in the back lane at the time when the appellant was seen running away.In his extremely brief cross-examination, he explained that he had contacted the named witnesses at -their respective houses and then called them over to the Nirankari Bhawan, where he recorded their statements.He was not even asked whether he had tried to contact Harbhajan Singh before 2.5.1980 or whether Harbhajan Singh was at all available in Delhi during the period 26.4.1980 to 1.5.1980, when he had gone around collecting intelligence/information about the case.The reasons why further questions on these lines were not put to the witness are quite obvious.On request of counsel for the accused, his cross-examination was deferred on the ground that his name was not included in the list of the witnesses given to them by the Public Prosecutor for that day and that they had not prepared his cross-examination.It is pertinent to note here that PW-6 Harbhajan Singh had appeared as a witness and his statement was recorded in Court much earlier on 12.4.1989 and 25.4.1989, when he was thoroughly grilled in cross-examination in depth and at length on the question of his seeing the appellant running away with a gun on his shoulder alongwith his companion through the back lane towards the "Bandh" immediately after commission of the crime.Explanation of the absence of PW-6 Hiarbhajan Singh from Delhi and his non-availability for making the statement upto 2.5.1980 was already there on record and fully known to the learned defense Counsel at the time of cross-examination of PW-125 R.S.Chauhan and that was the reason why he was not asked any questions about it.In these circumstances, the reason for examination of PW-6 Harbhajan Singh only on 2.5.1980 goes fully explained.In that case alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence were produced, whereas it was found that a number of concomitant circumstances existed to suggest that the Investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be introduced.Firstly, there was delay in recording the FIR.Secondly, the natural order of priorities and sequences in which the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses was found to be reversed.The witnesses who claimed to have seen the commission of the crime and were easily available were examined later and precedence was given to the examination of even some of the formal witnesses.Thirdly, the Investigating Officer was specifically asked about the delay and the reasons therefor; but he was unable to explain the conduct in not promptly recording statements of the alleged eye witnesses first.Fourthly, names of the alleged eye witnesses were not mentioned anywhere in the investigation records at the relevant time, which enhanced the suspicion that they had been introduced as eye witnesses at a late stage of the case.(270) On the contrary, in the present case, as discussed above, the evidence on record shows no such circumstances as would go to suggest that the Investigating Agency was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case.The dues and the evidence to prove the fact in issue as well as the relevant facts had to be collected.As noticed earlier, the Investigating Officers adopted the requisite order of priority and sequence for taking suitable steps immediately after the incident was reported.There was nothing shown from the investigation record that could justifiably arouse suspicion about any witness having been introduced after premeditation for filling up any lacuna in the case.The sequence in which the witnesses were examined and the dates on which their statements were recorded are found to be consistent with the investigation records maintained in the normal course.The plea that the investigation records were ante-dated was not substantiated.In the earlier part of this judgment, after a thorough discussion,we have come to the conclusion that the investigation was not tainted.Moreover, the Investigating Officers, who recorded the statements of PW-15 Anoop Kumar, PW-8 Savitri Devi, and PW-19 Damodari were not even asked to explain the alleged delay.Whereas, the questions in this behalf put to PW-125 R.S.Chauhan,who recorded the statement of PW-6 Harbhajan Singh, did not at all support the suggestion of delay.Consequently, the plea of delay sought to be advanced by Mr. Randhawa fails.Her house is situated adjacent to the carpentry workshop at a distance of about 50 to 60 feet from the rear gate inside the Nirankari Bhawan.She knew the appellant and identified him in Court.She testified that he used to work in the carpentry workshop.On 24.4.1980 he came to her house to talk to Ajit Singh (Public Witness -12), who was fitting up a cooler there at about I p.m. Further, she deposed that at about 8.15 or 8.30 p.m., when she was sitting in the Courtyard outside her house, the appellant alongwith one more person came there.She had a talk with him.In cross-examination, she testified that her statement was recorded by the Cbi after 4 or 5 days of the occurrence and that she had not made any statement to the police earlier, nor she had herself tried to contact the police for making the statement.She also revealed that deceased Baba Gurbachan Singh was the grandson of her husband's Taya' i.e. grandson of her husband's father's elder brother.She categorically denied as incorrect suggestions that the version given by her was cooked up later to support the prosecution case and that she neither saw the appellant in the Bhawan on the day of occurrence nor she ever knew him.(272) The first two grounds of challenge, namely, that she was an interested witness and that there was undue delay in recording her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., have already been discussed in detail above.Suffice it to say that there is no material on record to show that she would derive any benefit in seeing the appellant punished.Being a person related to the victim, she would be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellant in the case.Further, in the light of the earlier discussion, from the order of priority and sequence of the clues ta ken up for investigation for tracing movements of the appellant on the day of occurrence, it is clear that her statement was recorded by PW-138 R.P.Kapur on 29.4.1980 in normal course, without undue delay.(273) PW-19 Damodari was living in the house adjacent to the carpentry workshop, where the appellant used to work as a carpenter.He had earlier done some repair work in her house.She knew him very well.On 24.4.1980, at about I p.m., he had come to her house to meet Ajit Singh (Public Witness 12).Later, at the end of the day, at about 8.15 or 8.30 p.m., when she was sitting in the Courtyard outside her house, she saw him coming inside the Bhawan through the rear gate, which was at a distance of just about 50 to 60 feet from her house.It was indeed an odd hour for the carpenter to be there at that time.So, on seeing the appellant, she had a talk with him, during the course of which she observed his companion carrying a log of wood on his shoulders.From there, the appellant and his companion went walking towards the workshop.All this is quite natural.(274) We have carefully scrutinised her testimony, which was tested by a thorough cross-examination.There is r.o material on record to show that PW19 Damodari knew about the recovery of the dismantled box Ex. P-l from room No. 14, or that the said box was so shaped as to look like a log of wood, or that the log wood, which she had observed the appellant's companion carrying on his shoulders, was used in commission of the crime.Obviously, without knowledge of the significance of all this, there was no occasion for PW- 19 herself to go or try to contact the police for making any statement.The investigating officer, on gathering and linking, up various clues, stage by stage, reached her and recorded her statement in normal course, under Section 161, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, we find no substance in the plea raised on the ground that the version testified by the witness was cooked-up to support the prosecution case or that it was false.(275) The other suggestions also that the witness did not see the appellant in the Bhawan or that she never knew him, were rightly repelled by the witness.Since it is not even in dispute before us that the appellant was working as a carpenter in the Bhawan and that he was present and moving around in the area at the relevant time, it is not necessary for us to refer to the evidence produced to prove these facts, which is available in abundance on record.It may also be noted that deposition of this witness about the repair job done by the appellant in her house, and his visit to meet Ajit Singh at her place on the day of occurrence at about I p.m., has been left unchallenged.(276) The contents and the tenor of the testimony of Public Witness 19 Damodari find corroboration with the other evidence on record in the context of the general substratum of the prosecution version regarding the presence and movements of the appellant alongwith his companion from place to place in the afternoon as well as the evening upto the time of commission of the crime in and around the Bhawan.For instance, let us take the reply given by the appellant to the question put to him by Damodari.For explaining his presence there at about 8.15 or 8.30 p.m., he told her that he had gone to the house of Kanwaijit for repair of an almirah.His wife Prit Pal Kaur (Public Witness -11) was also produced.It has come in the evidence of PW-II that the appellant, alongwith his companion did go to her place earlier at 5 p.m. The true purpose of his visit to the house of Kanwaijit and Prit Pal Kaur and what all the appellant did from 5 p.m. to about 8.30 p.m., need not be mentioned here.Yet, there is sufficient evidence available on record to prove his presence and movement during the interregnum between 5 p.m. and 8.15 p.m. in the close vicinity, at the culvert outside the Nirankari School, at a short distance of about 100 yards from the rear gate of the Nirankari Bhawan.PW-87 Tarsem Singh has .testified having seen the appellant along with his companion and two other Sikhs outside the Nirankari School, where the appellant was sitting on the nearby culvert (Pulia) and one log of wood (Gelly) was lying near him at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. It has also come in evidence that the wooden box Ex. P/l, looking like a log of wood, recovered from room No. 14, was made at the workshop of Bara Gian Singh (PO).PW-64 Kasturi Lal, PW-84 Ghansham Dass, PW-85 Bhakt Bahadur, PW-108 S.R. Singh, PW-138 R.P. Kapur, PW-142 N.P. Singh and Public Witness 163 B.R. Puri have deposed about it.(277) The appellant and his companion were seen moving about at different places around room No. 14 inside the Bhawan in the afternoon and in the earlier part of the evening.At about 5 p.m. the two of them went out to the house of PW-II Prit Pal Kaur.Then they were seen near the Nirankari School.At about 6.30 to 7 p.m. Pw 87 Tarsern Singh saw the log of wood lying near the appellant.Then, he with his companion came back, through the rear gate, where Public Witness 19 Damodari saw them and talked to him at about 8.30 p.m. This is where she also noticed the appellant's companion carrying the log of wood.That is the place where the wooden box Ex. P-l was recovered after commission of the crime.In this context, the evidence of Public Witness 19 Damodari appears to be perfectly in consonance with the general substratum of the prosecution case.(278) Capital was sought to be made on the ground that PW19 Damodari had stated in her examination-in-chief that the appellant's companion was carrying the log of wood on his shoulders, which was not so definitely mentioned in her Statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. In her cross examination she had said: "I did not state before the Cbi that I had got some vague idea that the companion of Ranjit Singh was carrying some log of wood on his shoulders." When confronted with the portion marked D to Din her statement Ex. PW19/DA, it was found to be so mentioned.The witness knew the appellant.She had a brief talk with him.She did not pay much attention towards the companion.In this situation, what she had stated during her examination under section 161, Cr.P.C. on29.4.1980appearstobequitenatural.She did not recollect to have seen the appellant carrying anything but she did observe and candidly stated that she had some vague idea that the appellant's companion was carrying a log of wood on his shoulders.Her statement was made on the basis of recollection of what she had only recently seen.Obviously, the vague idea that she had then was about what the other man looked like.So, she had truthfully stated on 29.4.1980 that she did not look at the other man carefully and as such could not give his description.In Court also she was truthful about it when she said: "I cannot give description of that person".But, there was no ambiguity in her earlier statement Ex. PW/DA and she was equally certain when she deposed in Court that the appellant's companion was carrying a log of wood on his shoulders.The vague idea was only about the identity of the other man; and not about the material facts deposed by the witness, namely, that the other man was carrying something and that thing was a log of wood; nor about the manner of carrying it, which was described by saying that the other man was carrying the log of wood on his shoulders.The variance between the previous statement EX.PW19/DA and the statement of the witness recorded in Court to this little extent, cannot be stamped as a contradiction of a material fact so as to brand her as a lier.

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

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

On 12.05.2019, the vehicle was seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the second respondent on the ground that it was transporting sand without a valid license.The petitioner is directed to co-operate in the enquiry to the fullest.The same are extracted hereunder:-“(i)The District Level Task Forces and Taluk Level Task Forces, constituted pursuant to the order passed in WP(MD)No.9806 of 2018 should follow the G.O.(Ms)No.135 Industries (MMA.1) Department, dated 13.11.2009 in letter and spirit.(ii)As stated in the above said Government Order, periodical meetings will have to be held which is inclusive of action taken/to be taken for the illicit mining.(iii)Steps will have to be taken for dereliction of the duty by the concerned officials.(iv)Taluk Level Task Forces shall also comply with the directions issued in the Government Order by making frequent surprise checks and submit their report to the District Level Task Forces.(v)The Taluk Level Task Forces shall meet every fortnight as mandated in the Government Order.(vi)The responsibility fixed in the Government Order will have 4 to be strictly construed and action will have to be taken against the erring Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar, Officer in-charge of Department of Geology and Mining at District Level.The petitioner is the owner of a BAJAJ Discover Two Wheeler (in short 'vehicle') bearing Registration No.TN-65-V-4032 and claims to use the same for own purposes.The first respondent/Assistant Director and Revenue Divisional Officer are directed to pass final orders in the adjudication proceedings, if any, within a period of two weeks days from today.A Division Bench of this Court has, on 29.10.2018 issued a series of detailed directions to the concerned authorities targeted at containing illegal sand mining as well as measures to address and prevent such acts.(xiii)Whenever, a final report is filed for the offence under Section 379 IPC by the jurisdictional police before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the same shall also be committed to the Special Court.This is for the reason that it would be appropriate to deal with both the police case and the private complaint by the same Court and inhttp://www.judis.nic.in order to avoid any possible conflict.(xiv)The revenue officials at the time of seizure can issue a memo to the person in-charge of the vehicle, mineral among other things, indicating the seizure made, along with the date and time.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, which had arisen against the judgement in STC.No.667 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.The trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo 6 months SI, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision.After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Judicial Magistrate has issued summons to the accused and on his appearance copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty.Before the trial Court, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked.3.P.W.1 is the grand-father of the victim boy aged 3 years.According to him, at the time of the occurrence, the victim boy was on the left side of the road in order to attend to his call of nature and that the accused had driven the town bus bearing registration No.TN-23-N-0554 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the boy, which resulted in his instantaneous death.P.W.1 preferred Ex.P.1-complaint with the police.He is not an eye witness to the occurrence.He had rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing the accident.He has seen the boy under the front wheel of the bus lying dead.5.P.W.3 is the mother of the victim boy, who was also present at the time of the occurrence at the left side of the road.According to her, the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the accused.6.P.W.4 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused the accident occurred.7.P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer, who would depose that the Sup-Inspector of Police registered the case under Cr.NO.377 of 2001 against the accused on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Section 304(A) IPC and that he had visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.5-Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses.P.4 is the FIR.He had conducted inquest on the corpse of the deceased and Ex.He had drawn rough sketch Ex.P.W.7 is the motor vehicle inspector, who had inspected the ill-fated bus.He has opined that the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defect.P.3 is his report.9.P.W.8 is the doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of the deceased.The doctor has opined that the death would have been caused due to shock and hemorrhage.P.6 is the postmortem certificate.10.After completing the investigation P.W.9 has lodged the charge sheet against the accused.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused would deny his complicity with the crime.On the basis of the above evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and consequently convicted the accused under Section 304(a) IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months SI.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.The learned first appellate Judge, after scanning the evidence, has concurred with the findings of the learned trial Judge, thereby dismissing the appeal, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision.Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the accident had occurred due to the sudden crossing of the road by the victim child aged 3 years?A perusal of the inquest report-Ex.P.6 will go to show that the corpse of the boy was lying beneath the right front side tyre of the bus bearing Registration No.According to P.W.1 & P.W.3, eye witnesses in this case, prior to the accident the boy was attending to his call of nature on the left side of the road.If the accused was rash and negligent in driving the bus then the boy would have been run over on the left side of the front wheel or left side of the back wheel because the bus was proceeding from South to North ie., Ambur to Gudiyatham.Further it is seen from the rough sketch-Ex.P.7 that the house of the appellant of the child his situated on the opposite side ie., on the Eastern side.P.W.2 is the father of the victim.He has not seen the occurrence.P.W.3 is the mother of the victim child, who actually was present near the place of occurrence, according to the prosecution both the victim and P.W.3 were standing on the left side of the road facilitating the child to attend to the call of the nature.P.W.3 would go to the extreme to depose that the cause for the occurrence is that the driver was talking to the passengers while driving the bus at the time of occurrence.But admittedly, she was not a passenger in the bus and there is no possibility for her to witness what the accused was doing at the time of the accident while driving the bus.But she would depose in the cross-examination that her son was lying on the left side on mud portion of the road.But the inquest report-Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7-rough sketch will show that the accident had occurred only on the tar road and not in the mud road portion.Under such circumstance, it is clear that only due to the sudden crossing of the road by the victim boy aged 3 years, the accident had occurred.D.W.1, the conductor also has deposed only to this effect.Both the Courts below have over looked the fact that only the right front portion of the wheel was run over on the unfortunate victim boy as seen from Ex.Under such circumstance, this Court have necessarily to interfere with the findings of the learned first appellate judge in C.A.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.Point is answered accordingly.In the result, the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, in C.A.No.151 of 2004 is set aside and the accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.Bail bond stands cancelled.The Principal Sessions Judge Vellore.The Judicial Magistrate Gudiyatham Vellore.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Vellore.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.The Sub Inspector of Police Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station Vellore.[PRV/10655]

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 9.2.2011 passed by Session Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No.326/2010, whereby respondent no.2, Udayraj Singh has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on basis of report of prosecutrix, she was medically examined and impregnation was found.Statements of witnesses were recorded and X-ray of prosecutrix was done.After arresting the accused/respondent no.2, he was also medically examined.Because of commission of rape with the prosecutrix by respondent no.2, she had become pregnant and a child was born who died after 22 days.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.The trial Court after considering the documents in regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix and medical evidence held that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age.As per medical evidence, no external or internal injury was noticed on her body and she was pregnant.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.From the evidence on record, it was also established, that prosecutrix was maintaining illicit relationship with respondent no.2 since long.Accordingly, 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.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Their statements were recorded after more than 24 hours.These witnesses have stated that after witnessing the incident they were so terrorized, therefore they had gone to the jungle and remained there even in night.They have stated that on 12-5-2003 along with Guddu alias Balwant after fishing and cooking when they were eating food at about 01:30 PM in the afternoon, the accused Dashrath Singh along with Shriram came over there and they asked for food which was provided to them.( Jabalpur, dt.31.01.2018) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-In the present appeal a challenge has been made to the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur in S.T. No.532/2003 [State vs. Dashrath Singh] on 26-04-2004 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; and also under Sections 25 and 27 of 2 the Arms Act, 1959 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months with the stipulation that both the sentence would run concurrently.The prosecution case, succinctly stated, is that on 12-5- 2003 at about 5 o'clock in the evening Ravi Singh informed Raghunath Singh (PW-5), brother of the deceased - Shriram that the deceased was lying injured near the `Jamun' tree.Raghunath Singh, Ravi Singh and other villagers went to the spot and saw that Shriram was lying seriously injured with gunshot injuries over his shoulder.There was profuse bleeding.He was immediately taken for treatment but while on way to Gosalpur he succumbed to injuries.Report was lodged by Raghunath Singh (PW-5) at the Police Chowki, Gosalpur, vide Ex.On 13-5-2003 Raghunath Singh gave his statement stating that Raju Singh (PW-6), Mukesh Singh (PW-7), Panji (PW-8) and Guddu had taken food on the spot and they may have certain informations.They are the eye witnesses of the incident, according to the prosecution.Next day they disclosed the incident to the brother of the deceased and police.3 After recording their statement, the accused-appellant was taken into custody and on his discovery statement, a gun was seized.After obtaining sanction from the competent court of jurisdiction the accused-appellant was also prosecuted under the Arms Act.Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. D.N. Pathak (PW-3).To prove the autopsy report he was also examined wherein he had found that the cause of death was on account of gunshot injury.The seized gun was sent for ballistic examination and the gun was found to be in working condition.Since there was no recovery of any bullet or pellet either from the body of the deceased or from the spot, therefore, it is contended that the prosecution could not prove that the injury was caused to the deceased by the seized weapon itself.After investigation charge-sheet was filed.The accused- appellant abjured the guilty and pleaded for trial.The learned Trial Court appreciating the material evidence in proper perspective, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as have been indicated hereinbefore.Conviction of the accused is based on the testimony of Raju (PW-6), Mukesh Singh (PW-7) and Panjilal (PW-8).Their conducts make their testimony unreliable, as it was not trustworthy that the three witnesses were so terrorized, they rushed to the forest from the spot and remained over there for two days.Thereafter, they returned and straightforward informed the brother of the deceased, Raghunath Singh (PW-5).The incident was not disclosed to any other villager.It is also submitted by him that there is no seizure of bullet or pellet either from the dead body or from the spot.The prosecution could not prove that the gun seized from the appellant was utilised to cause injury to the deceased.It is asseverated that as no recovery of pellet or bullet has been proved either from the dead- body or crime spot, therefore, it is not established that the seized gun was used.Controverting the aforesaid submission, counsel for the State submitted that the conviction and sentence pronounced by the learned Trial Court is legal and valid.The prosecution has 5 successfully proved its case on the anvil of the testimony of Raju (PW-6), Mukesh Singh (PW-7) and Panji Singh (PW-8).We proceed to examine the testimony of the eye witnesses, Raju, Mukesh Singh and Panji Singh.Both of them had also consumed liquor.While eating Shriram said that he would beat Panji, thereon the accused told him that he would not assault him, then Shriram started hurling abuses.Raju Singh and another asked Dashrath not to quarrel, at which Dashrath got enraged and started abusing them and told them not to come in between.After this incident when these witnesses were to go away and hardly walked 8-10 steps, they saw that the accused Dashrath Singh fired the gun on the shoulder of Shriram, who fell down.Thereafter, and Dashrath Singh threatened Raju Singh and others.Therefore, having been terrorized they had gone to the jungle and even remained there over night.They returned on the next day in the evening , i.e., 13-5-2003 and intimated brother of the deceased about the incident.Counsel for the appellant submitted that testimony of these witnesses is not reliable, as their statements were recorded after more than 24 hrs.and that too in the Police Station by the Police.The gun was seized on 17-5-2003 on the discovery statement of the accused in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ramnaresh (PW-4) and Rajendra Prasad Bilha (PW-9).They were declared hostile, however they admitted his signatures on the memorandum, Ex.Prosecution witness Rajendra Prasad Bilha (PW-9) also turned hostile, but admitted his signatures on the memorandum.Apart from this, seizure of the weapon has been proved by the Investigating Officer - N.P. Singh Chouhan (PW-12).The seized gun was sent for forensic examination to the FSL and the FSL report is Ex.Senior Scientific Officer in his report has stated that the seized gun is a country-made one barrel gun and was in working condition, however, he could not give any opinion about the period of last fire made from it.In the present case no bullet or pellet was recovered either from the dead-body or the scene of occurrence.PW-3, Dr. D.N. Pathak, who had conducted autopsy of the deceased and found gunshot injury on the left shoulder of the size : 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm.There was blackening and also an exit wound on the left shoulder of the deceased.The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock, as a result of injuries received by the deceased.As per postmortem report, the injuries may have been 7 caused from a close distance.Medical evidence reveals that the injuries on the deceased were compatible with the weapon used.Counsel for the appellant raised two fold contentions.First, that the testimony of eye witnesses: PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 is not trustworthy as their statements have been recorded after more than 24 hours.There conduct is highly suspicious as they had gone to the forest and did not disclose the incident to any villager even after returning from the forest.The incident had taken place all of a sudden because of wordy altercations between the deceased and the appellant.He further submitted that the firing was made on the left side of the shoulder of the deceased.Their testimony cannot be discarded on account of delay and conduct.The eye witnesses : PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 have deposed that when they had left the place of incident and hardly walked 8 to 10 steps they heard cry of the deceased for help and saw 8 that the accused-appellant had fired on the shoulder of the deceased.The accused-appellant along with co-accused had come to the spot and the appellant was armed with a gun, as per testimony of these witnesses, after consuming liquor, there was wordy altercation and thereafter firing was made by the accused.Admittedly, injury has been found on the shoulder of the deceased.On assimilation of entire factual scenario and appreciation of evidence brought on record, though there is delay in recording the statements of the so called eye witnesses, but their testimony cannot be disbelieved and discarded only for the said reason.They have stated that they were threatened by the accused therefore, they had gone to the forest since they were terrorized, they did not come back to the village.On the next day when they returned to the village, the incident was narrated to the brother of the deceased and thereafter to the Police.On appreciation of the testimony of the eye witnesses it is established that the accused and the deceased came together at the spot.There was hot wordy altercation amongst them.On the spur moment, the accused fired on shoulder of the deceased.The doctor, PW-3 had found gunshot injury on the shoulder of the deceased.The genesis of the case is that there was no enmity among the accused and the deceased.Both came together at the spot.They asked for food from the witnesses.They also consumed liquor.9 Thereafter on wordy altercations the appellant fired on the deceased on his shoulder.

['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.

After investigation challan was filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.Taking into consideration the evidence of complainant Pradeep Baijal (PW1), the then driver of the vehicle Waheed (PW2), Dy.Commissioner Co-operatives Abhay Kumar Khare (PW3), City Superintendent of Police Rajesh Singh Bhadoriya (PW4) and Investigating Officer Ku.Sunita (PW5), the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.It also found that the all the alleged fraudulently prepared bills were not produced before the Court and, further that T.A. Bills, Cash Book, Vouchers etc. on the basis of which the recovery order (Ex.P/11) was passed in Complaint Case No. 58-B/1/10 against the respondent, were neither seized by the Investigating Officer nor were available on record.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The allegation against the applicants is that on the date of incident i.e. on 18.05.2020 they molested the victim.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that both the applicants are cousin brothers and left hand of applicant No.1 Hanumat Patel is also amputated.Thus, it is prayed that the applicants be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the victim has clearly mentioned the names of the applicants.Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary, I find force with the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the applicants and finds it to be a fit case to grant bail under Section 439 of Signature Not Cr.P.C. Thus, without reflecting anything on the merits of the case, the SAN Verified Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2020.08.11 10:27:36 IST 2 MCRC-17963-2020 application is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that applicants Hanumat Patel and Nitesh Patel be released from custody subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum o f Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.If the applicants show symptoms of COVID-19, the doctor shall forthwith direct them to be produced before the appropriate hospital designated for the detection and treatment of COVID-19 patients.If the doctor is of the opinion that the applicants are not affected with the virus, the jail authorities shall ensure their transportation from the jail till their place of residence.With the above the application is finally disposed of.A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General and to Ms. Ankita Khare, Ld. Panel Lawyer, on their respective email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned.The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Ld. Court below.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 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 appellant is a mechanic by profession.Deceased Kavita was his wife.The date of incidence is 10th May, 2010 at 2.00 p.m. Their marriage took place prior to two years of the incident.The couple was residing as a tenant in the house of one Devidas Lahubande, which is situated at Balaji Nagar, Latur.The deceased Kavita suffered 91 % burn injuries.Kavita died on 16th May, 2010 at 2.30 p.m. The cause of death is found in the post mortem report Exh.No. 29 as "septicemia due to 91% superficial to deep burns partly infected".The prosecution case further proceeds that, on suffering burn injuries, Kavita was admitted into Civil Hospital, Latur.On her admission, Civil Hospital, Latur reported about her admission to the Police.On receipt of the information about the admission of Kavita in burnt condition, P.W.No.12 Shahaji Ghadge, Asstt.Sub Inspector went to the burn ward of Civil Hospital, Latur to record the statement of Kavita.He gave requisition to the Doctor and requested to certify, whether Kavita is in a position to give her statement.Upon that, attending Doctor namely Dr. Meghraj Chawada (P.W.No.10) opined that, Kavita was not in a position to give her statement, therefore, permission was not given to P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge to record her statement.That time, Kavita replied that she will not leave the house.Upon that, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.Due to which, Kavita, came out of house and one ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 4/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw Shivkanya (P.W.No.4) daughter-in-law of landlord Lahubande poured water on her.The admission paper of Kavita are placed on record Exh.The prosecution case further proceeds that, on 11th May, 2010, PW No.11 Naib Tahasildar - Vilas Jogdand received a letter of A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge requesting him to record the statement of Kavita.Accordingly, he went to record the statement of Kavita after intimating the Tahasildar.He reached to Civil Hospital, Latur and went to burn ward.PW 10 Dr. Chawada was present in the burn ward.The investigation was entrusted to PW 13 P.S.I. Dnyaneshwar Dongare.During the course of investigation, he visited the spot of incidence, he prepared spot-panchnama Exh.;s.ksizek.ks ojhy o.kZukph diMs iksyhlkauh vkEgka iapkle{k vkjksihP;k vaxkojhy xqUg;kr rikldkeh tIr d:u rkC;kr ?ksrys o R;koj vkEgk iapkale{k vkeps o iksyhlkaP;k lghP;k fpBB~;k yko.;kr vkY;k o vkjksihal R;kaps ?k:u vkuysys nqljs diMs usl.;klkBh fnys-In Exh.No. 48, there is no mention that the bundle of clothes were 'sealed'.Even the investigating officer, P.W.No.13 Dnyaneshwar Dongare is silent in his evidence about sealing of the clothes.in presence of panchas.O R A L J U D G M E NT :- [ Per V.M. Deshpande, J.] Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 25th July, 2011 in Sessions Case No.92 Of 2010, by which the Court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( In short, the I.P.Code ) and directed that the appellant should suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has approached before this Court.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::3/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw On the next day i.e on 11th May, 2010, P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge again visited the Civil Hospital, Latur and met to Dr.Chawada and enquired about the condition of Kavita, upon which, Dr. Chawada gave permission to P.W.No.12 A.S.I.Shahaji Ghadge to record the statement of Kavita, as she was in a position to give her statement.Accordingly, P.W.No.12 A.S.I.Shahaji Ghadge recorded the statement of Kavita.Said statement is at Exh.No.42, on the record.As per the said statement, Kavita disclosed that, prior to two years back her marriage took place with the appellant.Both resides as a tenant in the house of Lahubande at Balaji-Nagar.Kavita in the morning at 10.00 a.m. demanded money from him to purchase rice however, the appellant did not give stating that he is not having money with him; resulting into quarrel between them.Her statement further discloses that, thereafter, the appellant went for his work and then at 2.00 O'clock when she was cooking, the appellant returned to the house.Thereafter, he made a telephonic call to P.W.5, the maternal uncle of Kavita.That time, maternal uncle of Kavita asked the appellant that when he will come to his house for meal on account of "Dhonde Jevan" /kksaMs tso.k (fest for the son-in-law) Upon that, the appellant replied that, his niece Kavita is serving better dhonde (stone) to him and then insulted the maternal uncle by saying that, they are not fit to be a relatives.The statement further discloses that, on account of said fact, quarrel took place between them and the appellant asked the Kavita to leave the house.No. 36 and in the paper book at page Nos. 106 to 137 show that, she was admitted in the hospital by the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::He disclosed his intention to Dr. Chawada to record the statement of Kavita.Dr. Chawada, according to the prosecution, examined Kavita and found that, Kavita is in position to give her statement and accordingly, PW 11 Vilas Jogdand recorded her statement.Said statement of Kavita is recorded by PW 11 Vilas Jogdand in "Question - Answer" form.In the said dying declaration again she has disclosed that, she was set ablaze by her husband i.e. present appellant.Said dying declaration of Kavita recorded by PW 11 Vilas Jogdand, is at Exh.No. 38 on the record.(3) Crime No. 101 Of 2010 came to be registered with Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur against the appellant for the offence punishable U/Section/s 307, 498(A) of the I.P.Code.According to P.W.13 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 5/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw Dnyaneshwar Dhongare, at the time of his arrest, one T-shirt and one full pant was seized under the seizure panchnama Exh.During her medical treatment, Kavita died and, therefore, offence was converted into offence punishable U/Section/s 302, 498(A) of the I.P.Code.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::(5) The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur on 10th January, 2011 framed Charge (Exh.No.10) against the accused for the offences punishable U/Section/s/ 302, 498(A) of the I.P.Code.(6) In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and also relied upon two dying declarations Exh.(7) The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur as indicated in the opening paragraph, convicted the appellant - original accused for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code however, the appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable U/Section 498(A) of the I.P.Code.From perusal of record, it appears that State has not preferred Criminal Appeal challenging the acquittal of original accused (present appellant) for the offence punishable U/Section 498(A) of the I.P.Code.(8) That, while recording the conviction against the appellant, the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur found that, both the dying declarations Exh.42 and 38 recorded by PW 12 A.S.I. Ghadge and P.W. No.11 Vilas Jogdand respectively are truthful version of deceased Kavita and these two dying declarations can be safely relied upon for recording the ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 6/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw conviction.According to the reasoning recorded by the learned trial court, considering the evidence of Doctor, A.S.I. Ghadge and Vilas Jogdand necessarily lead to inference that the appellant was the author of injuries sustained by deceased Kavita.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::(9) We have heard Shri.Joydeep Chatterji and Mr. S.D. Kaldate, learned A.P.P. and also perused the entire record with the assistance of learned counsels.It was strenuously argued before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.According to the learned counsel, dying declarations cannot be relied upon by the prosecution, since those dying declarations completely failed to inspire confidence.According to the learned counsel, there is serious doubt about the fact that, really P.W. 10 Dr. Chawada examined deceased Kavita and gave certificate prior to recording of her dying declaration by P.W. 12 A.S.I. Ghadge.According to the learned counsel, evidence of P.W. 12 A.S.I. Ghadge and P.W. 10 Dr. Chawada is contradictory one, which cast serious doubt about the certification of mental fitness to record the statement hence, according to the learned defence counsel, Exh.42 dying declaration recorded by P.W. 12 A.S.I. Ghadge cannot be basis for recording the conviction.(10) In so far as Exh.No.38, another dying declaration of Kavita recorded by PW 11 Vilas Jogdand is concerned, the same is very seriously criticized by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the ground that, there is no certification found in Exh.No.38 that after completion of recording of dying declaration, the same was read over to the declarant (deceased Kavita) and she admits the contents thereof to be correct and as per her say.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::post mortem report Exh.No. 29, both the upper limb suffer 9% burn injuries and as per the testimony of PW 9 Ramrao (panch witness to inquest panchnama Exh.No.33) skin over the fingers of deceased Kavita were peeled, therefore, according to the learned defence counsel, both the dying declarations are required to be rejected; because the thumb impression on both the dying declarations clearly show ridges and curves.He placed reliance on following authoritative pronouncements to buttress his point in respect of his submissions in respect of dying declaration is concerned, namely :-(i) 2012 All M.R. (Criminal), 2453, Paikuji Shankar Ataram V/s.State of Maharashtra.(ii) 2012 All M.R. (Criminal), 2753, Tukaram Dasharath V/s.The State of Maharashtra.(12) Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that, both the dying declarations inspire confidence.Both the dying declarations are recorded by PW 12 A.S.I. Ghadge and Naib Tahasildar Vilas Jogdand after permission was granted to them by PW 10 Dr. Chawada.There is no discrepancy in both the dying declarations in respect of incidence, which clearly suggested that both the dying declarations are truthful version of the deceased Kavita.He also submitted that, dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction and required no further corroboration.He also submitted that, even the dying declaration recorded before the Police Officer is admissible and can be relied for conviction.The learned A.P.P. for the State placed his reliance on following authoritative pronouncements :-::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::Bajju @ Kiran Singh V/s.State of M.P.Ramawati Devi V/s.State of Bihar.(13) In the present case, P.W.No.1 Navnath Bhanudas Sabale was examined as a panch.This witness has turned hostile.P.W.No.2 Hiraman Dhondiba Kamble was examined by the prosecution and through his evidence, the prosecution has proved spot panchnama Exh.Spot panchnama reveals that the Investigating Agency has seized one stove and one match-box from the spot of incidence and those articles were sealed by the Investigating Agency.(14) P.W.No.3 Dnyaneshwar Devidas Lahubande was the another panch on Exh.No.23 however, said panch witness turned hostile.P.W.No.4 Shivkanya Dnyaneshwar Lahubande is daughter-in-law of the landlord of the appellant.From her evidence, it appears that, since she resiled from her police statement, in respect of the quarrel between the appellant and deceased Kavita on 10th May, 2010 at 10 O'clock in the morning, she was declared hostile.However, her evidence is in conformity with the dying declaration Exh.No.42 and dying declaration Exh.No.38 that she poured water on deceased - Kavita.(15) P.W.No.5 is Murlidhar Pandharinath Muje, the maternal uncle of deceased Kavita.Though this witness has claimed that when he went to the hospital and enqired with Kavita as to how she sustained burn injuries, according to this witness, Kavita told him that she poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.This witness was declared hostile.Looking the quality of evidence of this witness, we are of the firm view that, so called ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 9/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw oral dying declaration made to him by Kavita, is to be rejected in its entirety.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::He has proved post mortem report Exh.According to the column No.17 of the post mortem report, except burn injuries, he found no other injuries on the body of Kavita.The injuries on the upper limb of both the right hand and left hand were 9% indicating there-in that, upper limbs were completely burnt.Even the inquest panchnama Exh.No.33 clearly shows that, both the hands were completely burnt, which is proved by P.W.9 Ramrao Yadavrao Wakle.(17) As indicted in the preceding paragraphs, then we have Doctor Meghraj Jayantilal Chawada (P.W.No.10), who has examined Kavita and gave certificate that, Kavita was in a condition to make her statement while recording her both the dying declarations, by P.W.No.11 Vilas Jogdand and P.W.No.12 Shahaji Ghadge.Thus from the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that, there is no eye witness.The entire case of the prosecution rests on two dying declarations namely (i) Exh.No.42 recorded on 11th May, 2010 by P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge and (ii) Exh.No.38 recorded on 11th May, 2010 by P.W.No.11 Naib Tahasildar - Vilas Jogdand.Now, let us examine as to whether the appellant can be convicted and can be sent to serve life imprisonment on the basis of these two dying declarations.(18) When the Court is called upon to appreciate the evidence of written dying declaration, the Court has to be extremely cautious and examine with meticulous care of the evidence regarding recording of the dying declaration.Merely because witnesses came forward and deposed about the recording of the dying declaration, it should not impel the Court to ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 10/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw immediately accept the dying declaration.It has to be remembered that the declarant is not available for cross-examination and, therefore, the prosecution must prove, apart from the truthfulness of the contents, the factum of recording of the dying declaration as well as the fact that the declarant was in a fit mental condition to give the statement to show that after recording of dying declaration the same was read over to the declarant and the declarant has admitted its contents.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::(19) Further from Exh.33 inquest panchnama, it is clear that, her both hands were completed burnt.Even the post mortem report Exh.No. 29 shows that both the upper limb were burnt to the extent of 9% which indicates the said fact.Not only that, P.W. 9 Ramrao Wakale, panch on the inquest panchnama (Exh.No.33) admitted that, skins over the fingers of deceased were peeled.However, on careful examination of thumb impressions which are found on Exh.Nos. 38 and 42, it show ridges and curves on the thumb impressions which creates very serious doubt about the said thumb impressions.(20) Firstly, we would like to take dying declaration Exh.No.42 recorded by P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge.Evidence of P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge reveals that, on 10th May, 2010 when he was on duty at Civil Hospital, Latur, he received intimation from the Medical Officer that a lady by name Kavita Malwad was admitted in burn ward.Accordingly, he went to the burn ward to record her statement.It appears from the record that, he went there on 10th May, 2010 at 5.00 p.m. However, that time, P.W.No.10 Dr. Chawada told him that, Kavita is not in a position to give her statement.Said fact is confirmed by P.W.No.10 Dr. Meghraj Chawada.It appears that, on the next day i.e. on 11th May, 2010, P.W.No.12 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 11/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge again went to burn ward and meet to Dr. Chawada.He accordingly, gave permission to P.W.No12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge to record the statement of Kavita and accordingly, statement of Kavita was recorded.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::(21) On close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.No.10 Dr.Meghraj Chawada and P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge, a serious doubt is created about the entire recording of dying declaration.As per the evidence of P.W. No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge, when he met to Dr. Chawada, on 11 th May, 2010, Dr. Chawada told him that, Kavita is in a position to give her statement.As per P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge, this fact was told to him orally.P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge has not deposed before the Court that, in his presence, Dr. Chawada examined Kavita and certified and / or made endorsement about the fitness.Contrary to this, P.W.No.10 Dr. Chawada deposed before the Court that on 11th May, 2010 at 9.00 a.m. A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge came to him and disclosed him that he wants to record the statement of patient - Kavita.Then, Dr. Chawada claims that on examination, he found that, patient - Kavita was fully conscious, therefore, he permitted A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge to record her statement.Not only that, according to this witness, he made pre-statement endorsement on the paper and he confirmed said pre- statement endorsement.(22) The learned Judge of the Court below has marked said endorsement as 'A'.It will be useful to reproduce the endorsement 'A' that appears on Exh.No. 42, which reads thus :-Statement recorded by ASI Mr. S.R. Ghadge in my presence.Statement record started at 9:30 AM.During record of whole ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 12/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw statement she was fully conscious, well oriented to time, place & person.She is in a state of compos mentis.Hence, certified.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::sd/xxx Dr. M.J. Chawada, Astt.Professor, Department of Surgery, GMCH, Latur.From the aforesaid endorsement, it is very clear that, Dr. Chawada has not examined Kavita, prior to recording her statement.What is stated in the said endorsement is that the statement was recorded by A.S.I. Mr. S.R. Ghadge in his presence and during recording of oral statement, Kavita was fully conscious and well oriented and she was in a state of compos mentis.(23) No doubt true that, it is not at all necessary that there should be Doctor's certificate prior to recording of dying declaration that the patient is fully conscious and well oriented.State of Maharashtra, merely because there is no certificate of Doctor to that effect as to the fitness of the declarant's state of mind, that does not rendered the dying declaration a worthless paper.However, even if scribe, who recorded said dying declaration satisfy himself about the mental state of the declarant prior to recording of statement that the declarant is in fit state of mind and then he proceeded to record the declaration, is enough for the Court to reach to the conclusion that the patient was in a fit mental state for giving the statement to the scribe.(24) In this backdrop, if the evidence of P.W. No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge is scrutinized then it is very clear that, no where he has deposed ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 13/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw before the Court that prior to recording the dying declaration of Kavita (Exh.No.42) he satisfied himself that Kavita was in a fit condition and / or she was in position to give her statement before him and thereafter, he proceeded to record her dying declaration.In that view of the matter, Exh.No.42 clearly fails to pass the test in respect of factum as to whether Kavita, the deceased, was in a position to give her statement to P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::(25) P.W.No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge deposed before the Court that, when the statement of Kavita was recorded, police Constable Garje was present with him.He did not speak about the presence of Dr.Meghraj Chowada.It will be useful to extract the relevant portion from his examination-in-chief itself which reads thus, "when I recorded the statement of Kawita, myself and police constable Garje were present".In that view of the matter, authenticity in respect of endorsement 'A' on Exh.No.42 receives a great jolt.Not only that, in the cross-examination, P.W. No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge states before the Court as under :-"... The doctor made endorsement A & B when he was in his chamber in the civil hospital.The medical officer has not examined Kawita in my presence.(26) The aforesaid statements of fact made by P.W. No.12 A.S.I. Shahaji Ghadge, as brought through his examination before the Court, leads us to disbelieve evidence of P.W. No.10 Dr. Meghraj Chawda, in as much as, now before the Court there are two versions, therefore, doubt creates, as to really Dr. Chawda examined Kavita prior to recording her statement and after completion of recording her statement.Therefore, when there is serious doubt about the said fact, which could be deduced from the available ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 14/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw evidence on record; it will be very unsafe to accept the dying declaration Exh.No.42 and according to us, said dying declaration cannot be made basis for convicting the appellant / accused.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::(27) Now, there remains another dying declaration Exh.No.38 recorded by P.W. No.11 - Vilas Jogdand.At the relevant time, Vilas Jogdand was working as Naib Tahasildar at Latur.He received a letter from ASI Ghadge requesting him to record the statement of Kavita.Accordingly, on 11th May, 2010 in the morning at 10.00 a.m. he reached to the Civil Hospital, Latur and went in the burn ward.There he met to Dr. Chawada.He showed letter to him and expressed his desire to record the statement of Kavita.He requested Dr. Chawada to examine the patient and asked permission to record her statement, if she is in position to give her statement.As per his evidence, he asked the parents of Kavita to leave the place.Thereafter, Dr. Chawada examined Kavita in his presence and found that, she is conscious and well oriented and fit to give her statement.Accordingly, he made endorsement 'A' on the piece of paper, which was used for recording the dying declaration.Thereafter, this witness has recorded her statement.From the dying declaration Exh.No.38 recorded by this witness, it is clear that, said statement is in Question - Answer form.The same appears to be a printed proforma.The first question appears to be "full name, age, resident of and like that other formal questions are appearing.Question No.10 is " gh ?kVuk d'kh ?kMyh-\ " To answer this question the Kavita has stated like her statement in Exh.Then we find the thumb impression of Kavita on Exh.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::used against the appellant in as much as, it has passed the test in respect of her mental fitness and orientation to give her statement.Not only that, Dr. M.J. Chawada has opined on the same paper that, Kavita is in fit position to give her statement.From the questions put to declarant - Kavita, at the time of recording her statement and certificate by Doctor, it is clear that even the scribe to this dying declaration has satisfied himself about the metal condition and fitness of the declarant's state of mind.From the evidence of P.W.No.10 Vilas Jogdand, it is clear that he deposed in the Court that he read over the contents of statement to Kavita and she admitted the contents, to be true and correct.(29) This dying declaration is very seriously challenged by the learned defence counsel by pressing into service two reported decisions of this Court namely [i] 2012 All M.R. (Criminal), 2453, Paikuji Shankar Ataram V/s.State of Maharashtra and [ii] 2012 All M.R. (Criminal), 2753, Tukaram Dasharath V/s.The State of Maharashtra.He submitted that, in absence of an endorsement in Exh.No.38 that after completion of recording of the statement, the contents of said statement were read over to Kavita and she admits it to be true, necessarily this dying declaration is to be rejected.If dying declaration (Exh.No.38) is scrutinized, there appears no endorsement on the said document that the scribe i.e. P.W. No.11 Vilas Jogdand has read over the statement to Kavita and thereupon Kavita has admitted the contents of the same.In Paikuji's case, cited supra, P.W. 5 Shri Shrihari Kanhuji Thamke was the Executive Magistrate.He recorded the dying declaration of patient by name Tulsabai w/o Paikuji Atram.Before the Court, during trial, P.W.No.5 Shrihari Thamke deposed that, he read over statement to her and she admitted the contents to be correct as per her say.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::The contemporaneous document Exh.No. 38, on which the endorsement to the effect that it was read over to Kavita and after that she admitted the contents thereof as true, is absent.(34) The another circumstance which was pressed into service against the appellant by both the trial Court and learned A.P.P. before this Court is the Chemical Analysis report.Said report is at Exh.Exhibit 4 and 6 are sky-blue coloured 'T' Shirt and blackish full pant.At the first blush, it appears so.However, on the close scrutiny that argument will have to be rejected.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::(35) In Exh.No. 23 the spot panchnama after seizure of stove and match box, the investigating officer has recorded the following, in presence of panchas :-ojhy o.kZukps LVksOg dkMhisVh rikldkeh rkC;kr ?ksrys R;koj vkeps] iapkP;k lghps fpBB~hps yk[k lhy dsys----His arrest panchnama is at Exh.From arrest panchnama, it is clear that, he was arrested at Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur at 20.15 hrs.No. 48 is the seizure memo of seizure of 'T' shirt and full pant on the person of the accused at the time of his arrest.The relevant portion of seizure panchnama reads as under :-However, Exh.No.50 C.A. Report shows that, " one partly sealed stove, one partly sealed parcel, one sealed packet and two sealed parcels, seals intact.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::Then how the sealed bundle of clothes reached to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Aurangabad.Further the prosecution has not examined any witness to lead the link evidence.First of all we would like to observe that the learned trial judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the evidence of recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at the pointing out of the appellant, primarily on the ground that there was no evidence that after seizure these articles were sealed.A Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Vishnu Sahai, J.) was a party in the case of Deoraj Deju Suvema etc. V/s.State of Maharashtra, after considering a large number of authorities has held that not only should the prosecution adduce evidence that after seizure the articles were sealed but should also lead link evidence to the effect that till being sent to the Chemical Analyst they were kept through out in a sealed condition.This is done to eliminate the suspicion that human blood might not have been put on the articles subsequent to the recovery and prior to being sent to the Chemical Analyst.(37) In that view of the matter in absence of assertion on behalf of the investigating officer that after clothes were seized, they were 'sealed' and the said fact is also not mentioned in the contemporaneous document namely Exh.No.48 the seizure panchnama, this Court has no option but to ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 ::: 20/20 cri.appeal 428.11.sxw reach to the conclusion that the clothes were not sealed.In that view of the matter, the so called kerosene residues on Exhibit 4 & 5 though found to be positive, as per the report of C.A., are of no help and assistance to the prosecution.Apart from that, it is very difficult to digest that a person will allow himself to put the clothes to be on his person from 10th May, 2010 till 11th May, 2010 at 20.15 hrs., which are stained with kerosene, the time when the accused was arrested.That is also one of the circumstances which creates doubt.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::Fine, if any, paid by the appellant be returned to him.Since the appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Criminal Appeal allowed.::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2014 23:13:44 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

If the applicant is not found affected with the virus, the jail authority shall ensure his transportation from the jail to his place of residence.The transportation shall b e done i n full compliance o f the rules and norms of social distancing.Case diary is available with the learned Panel Lawyer.Heard on this repeat-second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.51/2019, registered a t Police Station Garh, District Rewa for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Earlier application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.07.2019 passed in M.Cr.The case of the prosecution in short is that, on 18.02.2019 a missing person's report was lodged b y Janardan Prasad Dubey stating that his son Jitendra Kumar Dubey is missing.A Missing Person's Report No.6/2019 was registered.During enquiry, on 04.03.2019 an information was received from one Ram Lakhan Yadav that a dead body was lying in a pit behind the pond of Village Sarai, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Garh, District Rewa, on that basis Marg No.04/2019 was registered.For identification, the person, who lodged the missing person's report was called from different Police Station.Janardan Prasad Dubey, who lodged Missing Person's Report No.6/2019 identified the dead body to be of his son.The body was sent for postmortem.The doctor has opined that the cause of death was due to strangulation.On that basis, Crime No.51/2019 f o r t h e o ffenc e under Sections 3 0 2 a n d 2 0 1 o f I P C was registered against unknown persons.During investigation, the statements of the witnesses have been recorded, on the basis of their statements, the applicant and other co-accused persons have Signature Not SAN Verified been arrested.On interrogation, the applicant and other co-accused persons Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2020.07.16 16:34:34 IST 2 MCRC-18015-2020 have admitted the commission of crime.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application and prays for rejection of the bail application.It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of SAN Verified Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2020.07.16 16:34:34 IST 3 MCRC-18015-2020 Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in s uo moto W.P. No.1/2020, it would b e appropriate t o issue the following directions to the jail authority :-The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.C. C as per rules.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

There are inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix.The appellant is an illiterate person and did not know English.The affidavit was in English and his signatures were obtained under the influence of some CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 1 of 7 stupefying substance.The prosecutrix admitted in her testimony that she was neighbour of the appellant and the deceased husband of the prosecutrix was friend of the appellant, thus, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix did not know about the previous marriage of the appellant.In the complaints, there were allegations only with respect to outraging her modesty and the allegation of rape was afterthought and a material improvement.The prosecution case is that a complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the prosecutrix on the basis of which FIR No. 151/2010 under Sections 193/376/420/468/471/506 IPC was registered at PS Uttam Nagar.After the charge-sheet was filed, the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-1, deposed in Court that earlier she was married to Madan Lal who died in the year 2000 and from that wedlock three children were born who were living separately after their marriages and she was living alone.In the year 2006, she met Raj Kumar, the appellant herein, in a religious procession after which he started visiting her at her house.Raj Kumar told her that he was CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 2 of 7 unmarried and expressed his desire to marry her and to support her.Raj Kumar kept on visiting her for about one year whereafter, the prosecutrix agreed to marry him.The prosecutrix was living at Uttam Nagar in a rented house.Thereafter, she shifted to Mangolpuri and after around one month of her shifting, Raj Kumar married her on July 22, 2008 in Arya Samaj Mandir.The marriage was solemnized in the presence of two witnesses namely Sunil Kumar PW-6 and Kusum Lata who had also signed the certificate of marriage Ex. PW-1/A. Raj Kumar lived with the prosecutrix as her husband in the rented house at Mangolpuri for about a month and they had sexual relationship also during that period.After one month, they shifted to Uttam Nagar where also they lived for about three months and had sexual relationship as husband and wife.After three months, Raj Kumar left from there saying that he was going to submit some papers for his job as he was working in Delhi Jal Board at Ashok Vihar.However, Raj Kumar did not return home for about two months.One day in the evening, he came to the house followed by his wife, Madhu and her brother.Madhu, claiming herself to be appellant's legally wedded wife, started quarreling with the prosecutrix, snatched the money and gold ring given to the prosecutrix by the appellant and went away.The appellant left the next day and did not return thereafter.The prosecutrix stated that she had no knowledge that the appellant was married and had two children.6. PW-6, Sunil Kumar who was the son-in-law of the elder sister of the prosecutrix was a witness to the marriage of Raj Kumar with the prosecutrix.He corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix and PW-5, Deepak Shastri.However, since he was not cross-examined, his testimony cannot be looked into.7. PW-7, Madhu, wife of Raj Kumar, stated that she was married to Raj Kumar about 24 years ago and two children were born from the wedlock.The prosecutrix had attended their marriage.After the marriage, they used to reside at Ranjit Nagar near Shadipur Depot and the prosecutrix used to reside in their neighbourhood.PW-13, Ms. Deepa Verma, Asst.CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 7 of 7Represented by: Mr. Hiren Sharma, APP for the State with ASI Devender Kumar, PS Uttam Nagar.HON'BLE MS.Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/376 IPC Raj Kumar challenges the impugned judgment dated July 17, 2013 and the order on sentence of even date directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `50,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- each for offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and 468 IPC.Lastly, DW- 1 sister-in-law of the prosecutrix, stated that the prosecutrix was fully aware that the appellant was a married man and she even attended his wedding.CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 1 of 7Per contra learned APP for the State contends that the factum of marriage stands proved from the testimony of the prosecutrix and PW-5 Pandit Deepak Shastri, who is an independent witness to the marriage and deposed that he performed the marriage of the appellant and the prosecutrix as per Hindu rites and customs and also brought the record to fortify the same.Since the appellant married the prosecutrix during subsistence of his first marriage and established relationship with the prosecutrix, he is guilty of offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 376 IPC.The appellant played fraud upon her and developed sexual relationship on the basis of fraud.She had filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. She denied the suggestion that Raj Kumar was married to Madhu in the year 1988 when she and her family CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 3 of 7 members attended the marriage or that she had given 'muh dikhai' to Madhu, PW-7 on the next day of marriage.CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 2 of 7CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 3 of 75. PW-5, Pandit Deepak Shastri, Arya Samaj Mandir stated that he had issued the certificate of marriage Ex. PW-1/A after performing the marriage of Raj Kumar with the prosecutrix as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.He also stated that as per their record, one advocate Kusum Lata had brought them.Raj Kumar had given an affidavit that he was unmarried at that time.The prosecutrix had also given an affidavit to the effect that she was a widow and had handed over the death certificate of her husband.Director (Documents) FSL prepared the FSL report Ex. PW-13/A and opined that:"the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S61 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3"Thus from the evidence on record adduced by the prosecutrix it is proved that Raj Kumar performed marriage with the prosecutrix during the CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 4 of 7 subsistence of his earlier marriage and executed a false affidavit that he was a bachelor when he performed the marriage with the prosecutrix.Though from the aforesaid discussion the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 494 IPC are established, as Raj Kumar married the prosecutrix during the subsistence of his marriage with Madhu, thus committed offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, however, since he has not been charged with Section 494 IPC, thus this Court need not delve into it.CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 4 of 7However, the issue remains whether the prosecutrix had knowledge of the marriage of Raj Kumar with Madhu or not.As regards, offences punishable under Sections 420/376 IPC the claim of the prosecutrix is that she was unaware of the marriage of Raj Kumar with Madhu and thus by deception Raj Kumar solemnized marriage with her and established sexual relationship with her.The prosecution itself has examined Madhu wife of Raj Kumar as PW-7 who deposed that after her marriage with Raj Kumar she used to reside at Ranjit Nagar near Shadipur Depot and the prosecutrix used to reside in their neighbourhood.She further deposed that prosecutrix and her husband were on visiting terms with them and the prosecutrix attended her marriage with Raj Kumar.She deposed that Raj Kumar and the deceased husband of the prosecutrix were friends and on visiting terms.She further deposed that even she was on visiting terms with Raj Kumar and his family and the prosecutrix was fully aware that Raj Kumar was a married man and had even attended his wedding with her family and gave gifts to Madhu, wife of Raj Kumar.In cross- examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing could be CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 5 of 7 elicited.He deposed that initially he was on friendly terms with the husband of the prosecutrix and her family, however thereafter he shifted from New Ranjit Nagar to Jahangir Puri.After the death of Madan Lal, he helped the prosecutrix financially.He further deposed that one day the prosecutrix, her son Mukesh and son-in-law Sunil made him consume a lot of liquor and sign some documents and also took some photographs.Thereafter the above- noted false case of rape was foisted on him.CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 5 of 7In her cross-examination though the prosecutrix denied that she was living at New Ranjit Nagar till 1999 but admitted that her residential address at New Ranjit Nagar was B-261 and that Raj Kumar was also living in New Ranjit Nagar though she did not know the correct address.She also admitted that the distance between her house and house of Raj Kumar was 100 meters.Thus, from this admission of the prosecutrix that she knew the appellant and his family who was residing in his neighbourhood which fact is duly supported by the testimony of DW-1 the sister of the deceased husband of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the prosecutrix did not know about the factum of marriage of Raj Kumar with Madhu when she performed marriage with Raj Kumar and he committed sexual intercourse with her on the false pretext of a legal wedding.Thus Raj Kumar is entitled to be acquitted in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420/376 IPC.Section 468 IPC provides for a punishment when forgery is committed with intention that the documents so forged would be used for the purpose of CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 6 of 7 cheating.In the present case, though from the deposition of the expert PW- 13 Deepa Verma it has been proved that the affidavit was duly signed by the appellant wherein he disclosed himself to be a bachelor thereby proving forgery, however, since the element of cheating was missing for the reason the prosecutrix was aware of the marital status of Raj Kumar, ingredients of Section 468 IPC are not fulfilled.Thus Raj Kumar is entitled to be acquitted for offence punishable under Section 468 IPC but liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 465 IPC which is a minor offence of Section 468 IPC and punishable with imprisonment upto two years.CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 6 of 7Consequently, acquitting Raj Kumar for offence punishable under Sections 420/468/376 IPC he is convicted for offence punishable under Section 465 IPC.Raj Kumar has already undergone more than four years of imprisonment, which is more than the sentence prescribed for an offence punishable under Section 465 IPC.The Superintendent, Tihar Jail is thus directed to release Raj Kumar forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal is disposed of.Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for updation of the Jail record.TCR be returned.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 09, 2017 'ga'/ 'vn' CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 7 of 7

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The factual score, as depicted, is that on 29.9.1995, deceased Dhruv @ Daulat along with Ashok Kumar, PW-5, Dheeraj, PW-6, Naresh, PW-7, and Leeladhar, PW-12, was returning home about 11.00 p.m. after attending a wrestling event which was organised at “Kher Mata” (temple) in Makronia, a village in the district of Sagar.As Ashok Kumar, PW-5, complained of pain in the stomach, all of them went to the shop of Gorelal for purchasing medicine and when they reached the shop, all the accused persons coming from the house of Chhotelal surrounded deceased Daulat and started assaulting him and despite the beseeching and imploring by the companions the accused persons continued the assault, as a result of which the deceased fell unconscious.He has admitted that some persons were unarmed.Dipak Misra, J.As the prosecution story proceeds, he was taken to the hospital and, eventually, succumbed to his injuries.On an FIR being lodged, the criminal law was set in motion and after investigation the appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), but, eventually, charges were framed under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.The accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 13 witnesses and exhibited number of documents.The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.The learned trial Judge, appreciating the evidence on record, came to hold that the prosecution had brought home the charges against accused, Mohan, under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and against the remaining accused persons under Sections 147 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and apart from imposing separate sentences under Section 147 IPC sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life as stated hereinbefore.Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction, the appellants along with others preferred a singular criminal appeal.The High Court proceeded to deal with the appeals on merits and came to hold that except accused Gorelal all other accused persons were present on the scene of occurrence and had participated in the assault and, accordingly, maintained the conviction and sentence in respect of other accused persons and acquitted appellant No. 2 before the High Court.The accused Babulal, Rattiram, Satyanarayan and Ramesh gave blows with fists and kicks.As far as Chhotelal, Babulal, Satyanarayan, Rattiram and Gorelal are concerned, he has stated that they hit the deceased with their feet and clenched fists.In the cross-examination he has deposed that Babulal was not present at the place of occurrence.He has also stated that Daulat did not sustain any lathi blow on his legs.Dheeraj, PW-6, and Naresh, PW-7, who were cited as eye-witnesses, have turned hostile.From the apparent contradictions from the depositions of PW-5 and PW-12 it seems that they have implicated Babulal, Satyanarayan, Rattiram, Ramesh and Ramcharan in the crime.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner is aPost-Doctoral fellow at Centre for Cellular and MolecularBiology, Hyderabad.He invited marriage proposals forhimself through advertisement in Deccan Chronicle dated 27thof January, 1994, in pursuance of which respondent No.1approached the petitioner and furnished the particulars ofrespondent No.4 who is his sister.It was represented byrespondent No.1 that respondent No.4 was born on 29th ofJune, 1966 and they belonged to Thurupukapu Community.Thepetitioner himself gave out that he belonged to GujalaBalija Community which was a forward community and,therefore, he wanted a wife from a forward community.Theparents of respondent No.4, who are respondents 2 to 3 inthis petition, met the parents of the petitioner and theytalked and the marriage proposal was finalised.On 4th of March, 1997, thepetitioner, allegedly, came to know that respondents 1 to 4belonged to Kondakapu Community, which was a ScheduledTribe, and it was then that he realised that bymisrepresenting themselves as members of ThurupukapuCommunity, they had lured the petitioner into wedlock, forwhich the petitioner would not have agreed at all, had heknown that the respondents did not belong to ThurupukapuCommunity but belonged to Kondakapu Community.S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.We, hereinbelow, give our reasons fordismissing the Special Leave Petition.It was inthese circumstances that he filed a complaint in the Courton 10.7.1996 under Section 415, 419, 420 read with Section34 IPC which was referred to Station House Officer, PoliceStation Alwal, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh forinvestigation and report.Since the investigation wasconsiderably delayed, the petitioner filed Writ PetitionNo.11477 of 1997 in the High Court for a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the Station House Officer to expedite theinvestigation.While the Writ Petition was pending, anaffidavit was filed by the Station House Officer that aftercompleting the investigation, he had submitted thechargesheet in the Court on 28.5.1997 against therespondents.The respondents, however, approached the HighCourt through a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seekingthe quashing of the FIR which was allowed by the impugnedjudgment and it is in these circumstances that this petitionhas been filed in this Court.

['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 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.

No.1286/2020 (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.No.1286/2020 directed that before releasing the petitioner, his Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the petitioner to his house, and if he is found positive then the said petitioner shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for her/his treatment as per medical norms.If the petitioner is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.I.A. No. 3511/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.The revision being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Call for the record of the Courts below, if not already called.Also, heard on I.A.No.2327/2020, this is an application under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence.This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 27/2/2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Criminal Appeal No. 146/2019 The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 354-B and 457 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months (2 counts) with fine of Rs.1,000/- (two counts) with default stipulation.02 CRR.Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed to reject the application.E- copy of this order be sent to the Courts below concerned for compliance.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is a case of theft of an electric motor worth Rs. 43,000/- from the shop of the complainant.The police arrested Dinesh, who revealed that he along with Santosh (petitioner) had stolen the motor and had concealed it at a specific place in the forest.The police arrested Santosh.He also made similar statement.The police took them both to the place pointed out by them and recovered two jet pumps G.E.C. Alsthom company, 1.5 hp, One LHP jet pump 1.5 hp, One Usha company pumpset 2 hp, One Delta company 5 HP, One D.C. Motor 1 HP, One DC Motor 1 HP, One iron rod 11 inch from their joint possession.Crime No. Under Section Police Station 620/2019 457 & 380 of IPC Station Road, Ratlam As declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier, 4 criminal cases bearing Crime No.347/06 u/s 457, 380, 411 IPC, Crime No.49/08 u/s 380, Crime No.43/09 u/s 457, 380, 411 and Crime No.63/09 under Section 457 & 380 of IPC have been registered against the petitioner.An affidavit of mother of the petitioner has been filed deposing that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the earlier criminal cases.Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed.2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.33128 of 2020 Santosh Vs.

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

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

(07/02/2018) As per :- Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of CrPC against the judgment dated 28/05/2005 passed by Session Judge, Damoh in ST.No.34/2004, whereby learned Session Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.Brief facts of the case are that one month before the incident appellant's cattle had entered into the deceased Benibai's farm and when Benibai approached the appellant, he assaulted her.Benibai lodged the report of that incident, due to which, the appellant had hostility with Benibai and to 2 take revenge on 14/12/2003 at about 10:30 PM when deceased Benibai had gone to Dunay Ghat, Matoriya Nala to take bath and to wash her clothes, accused/appellant came there armed with axe and assaulted Benibai by axe.She sustained injuries on her back, chest, jaw and neck and consequently died.Gyanbai (PW/1), Dhanbai (PW/2) and Punabai (PW/10) saw the incident.Thereafter, Punabai (PW/10) went to Benibai's house, but no one was present there, so she went to Preetam Sahu's house, where her brother Mahesh (PW/11), husband of the deceased was present.She informed Mahesh (PW/11) that the appellant had assaulted Benibai.On that Mahesh (PW/11) along with Kamlesh (PW/3), Vinod (PW/5), Narayan Singh and Nanhe Bhai went to the spot, where Mahesh (PW/11) saw Benibai lying there in a wounded condition.Her clothes were stained with blood.On that Mahesh (PW/11) went to Police Station, Jabera and lodged the report (Ex.P/8), which was written by Inspector H.P. Singhai (PW/12) and registered Crime No.191/03 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and investigated the matter.During the investigation he went to spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P/10) and seized blood stained and simple soil and one blood stained towel, blouse and shirt from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/13) and also prepared inquest memo of dead body of the deceased Benibai.Athiya (PW/7) conducted the autopsy of the dead body of deceased Benibai and gave postmortem report (Ex.On the point that on 14/12/2003 at about 10:30 AM deceased Benibai died at Dunay Ghat, Matoriya Nala and her 5 death was homicidal, HP.Singhai (PW/12) deposed that on 14/12/2003 after receiving the report (Ex.P/8) of the incident he went to spot and found the dead body of deceased Benibai lying there.In this regard, his statement is also supported from the inquest report (Ex.P/11) prepared by him on the spot, in which, it is mentioned that Benibai died due to injuries.This fact is also proved by the statement of Gyanbai (PW/1), Dhanbai (PW/2), Kamlesh (PW/3), Vinod (PW/5) and Mahesh (PW/11).They also deposed that on receiving the information when they reached the spot, they found Benibai lying there in an injured state and Dr. K.K. Athiya (PW/7), who conducted the autopsy of dead body stated that on 15/12/2003 he was posted as Medical Officer at PHC, Jabera.On that date, Constable Mahendra Kumar (PW/8) brought the dead body of Benibai for the autopsy.On that, he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Benibai.When she reached near Nala at around 10-11 AM, she saw that appellant was assaulting Benibai by an axe and Benibai was crying.On that, she went to Benibai's house, but no one was present there, so she went to Preetam Sahu's house, where Mahesh (PW/11) was sitting.He informed Mahesh (PW/11) that appellant was assaulting Benibai at Nala.On that Mahesh (PW/11) and other persons went to the spot.He also sent the dead body of Benibai to P.H.C, Jabera through Constable Mahendra Kumar (PW/8) along with an application (Ex.P/4) for autopsy, where Dr. KK.P/3).H.P. Singhai (PW/12) during investigation also recorded the case diary statement of Mahesh (PW/11), Punabai (PW/10), 3 Dhan Bai (PW/2), Gyanbai (PW/1), Kamlesh (PW/3), Preetam, Ranveer Singh, Narayan Singh and Nanhebhai @ Dilip Singh.Further investigation was carried out by S.N. Awasthy (PW/9).He arrested the appellant on 20/12/03 and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/7) and interrogated the appellant and on his information seized one Axe (Article-A), and also seized blood stained shirt (Article-B) and pant (Article-C), which were worn by the appellant at the time of incident and prepared information memo (Ex.P/1) and seizure memo (Ex.P/2) and after the investigation he filed charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Damoh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.On that S.T.No.34/2004 was registered.Learned Session Judge, Damoh framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and tried the case.The appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case.However, after trial learned Session Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant filed this appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two eyewitnesses of the incident i.e. Gyanbai (PW/1) and Danbai (PW/2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story.Other witnesses Kamlesh (PW/3), Vinod (PW/5) and Mahesh (PW/11) were not the eyewitnesses of the incident.Only on the basis of the statement of so-called eyewitness Punabai (PW/10) the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, while there are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of Punabai (PW/10).She is relative of deceased Benibai.From 4 the cross-examination of this witness, it is clear that she did not see the incident.Her statement is also not supported by other prosecution witnesses.Apart from the evidence of Punabai (PW/10) there is no other evidence on record, which connects the appellant with the crime.Although police allegedly seized one blood stained Axe and clothes from the possession of the appellant on his information but the investigating officer did not send those seized articles to FSL and in absence of FSL report, it cannot be said that the stains allegedly found on the seized articles were of human blood.So on the basis of that seizure, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant as axe is commonly found in the house of villagers.Learned trial Court without appreciating all these facts wrongly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence.He further submitted that even otherwise the act of appellant at the most comes under Section 304 part II of IPC.In support of his arguments, learned counsel of the appellant also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court passed in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs.State of M.P., 2013 Legal Eagle (MP) 929 and in the case of Manoj @ Manja Vs.State of M.P. passed in Cr.This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.In the postmortem, he found incised wound on her chest, back, neck and jaw.All these injuries were antemortem in nature and were caused by sharp chopping cutting object.He further deposed that in his opinion Benibai died due to shock, which was caused due to heavy excessive hemorrhage and damage to vessels and duration of death was within 24 hours from the postmortem.There is no important contradiction in the statements of above-mentioned witnesses on this point, so there is no reason to disbelieve their statements.From their statements it is clearly proved that Benibai died on 14/12/2003 at 10:30 AM due to injuries sustained by her, which were caused by a sharp cutting object like an axe and her death was homicidal.On the point that appellant murdered Benibai, Puna Bai (PW/10) eyewitness of the incident clearly deposed that on 6 the date of the incident she was going to Matoriya Nala to take bath.Her statement is also corroborated by the statement of Mahesh (PW/11) who clearly deposed that at the time of the incident he was sitting at Pritam Sahu's house, situated at village Parna, when Punabai (PW/10) came there and informed him that appellant was assaulting Benibai by Axe.At that time Kamlesh (PW/3), Ranveer and Narayan were also present there.On that, they went to the spot, where he saw that Benibai was lying at the bank of Nala in a dead state.He also saw injuries on her neck.Blood was oozing out from them.He further stated that one month before the incident, some quarrel had taken place between Benibai and appellant regarding cattle, and at that time appellant assaulted her wife Benibai and Benibai had lodged the report regarding the incident, due to which appellant murdered Benibai.The statement is also corroborated by the statement of Kamlesh (PW/3), who also deposed that on the date of incident at around 10-11:00 AM he was sitting at Preetam Sahu's house and Kamlesh (PW/3), Ranveer and Narayan were also present, Punabai (PW/10) came there and told that appellant has cut Benibai by Axe.On that they went to Nala, where he found that Benibai was lying there in dead state.He also found injuries on her body.In this regard, prosecution story is also corroborated from the statement of S.M. Awasthy (PW/9) who also deposed that on 20/12/2003 he arrested the appellant and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/7).At the time of interrogation appellant informed him that he had concealed one Axe behind his house.On that, he prepared memorandum (Ex.P/1).On the basis of his information, he seized one Axe and also seized blood-stained clothes of the appellant.Although, other eyewitnesses of the incident Gyanbai (PW/1) and Dhanbai (PW/2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story and they clearly denied from having seen the appellant assaulting deceased Benibai and also denied from the fact that they gave statement in this regard to the police, but only on the ground that other eyewitnesses Gyanbai (PW/1) and Dhanbai (PW/2) did not support the prosecution story and Punabai (PW/10) sole eyewitness of the incident was relative of the deceased Benibai, her statement cannot be discarded.Their relationship to one of the parties is not a factor that affects the credibility of a 8 witness, more so, a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person.A party has to lay down a factual foundation and prove by leading impeccable evidence in respect of its false implication.Appellant cross- examined this witness at length, but from her cross- examination, it cannot be said that she did not see the incident and gave a false statement against the appellant.No such evidence is on record that Punabai (PW/10) was having any animosity with the accused so there's no reason for her to give false statement against the appellant.The statement of Punabai (PW/10) is also corroborated by the statements of Kamlesh (PW/3), Mahesh (PW/11) and Vinod (PW/5), who also have clearly deposed that on the date of incident at around 10-11:00 AM when they were sitting at Pritam Sahu's house, Punabai (PW/10) came there and told them that appellant had cut Benibai by Axe at Nala, so there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Punabai (PW/10) in this regard.Although, the prosecution did not produce any FSL report proving that human blood was found on seized articles, but that evidence is only a corroborative piece of evidence, where from the direct evidence (the statement of Punabai (PW/10) offence is proved.So far as the judgment on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same do not help the appellant much as in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra), State has filed the appeal against acquittal of accused and there was no eyewitness of the incident and in the case of Manoj @ Manja (supra) the appellant assaulted the deceased by stone which was picked by him from the spot, while in this case appellant assaulted the deceased by Axe on her chest, back, neck and jaw and the injuries sustained by Benibai in the incident were dangerous to life.It is clear from the prosecution evidence as discussed above that at the time of incident, the appellant came on the spot armed with axe and assaulted Benibai on her chest, back, 10 neck and jaw with a deadly weapon i.e. Axe and inflicted injury with such a force on Benibai's neck with axe, which is vital part of the body, that her vessels and vertebra and trachea were cut.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is repeat bail application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant as he has been arrested on 30.12.2015 in connection with Crime No. 2/2016 registered at Police Station- Bamitha, District Chhatarpur for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326 and 506-B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant want to withdraw this application with liberty to repeat the same after three months.The application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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.

Few days prior to the occurrence, it is alleged that one Mr.Kumar @ Sivakumar (Juvenile accused) stalked the deceased.This resulted in a quarrel.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.On 15.10.2005, around 8.10 pm, it is alleged that the deceased was passing through the road opposite to the Vijaya theater at Senbagavalli Nagar, Mannargudi.A.3 & A.4 were armed with wooden logs.The other accused were also armed with either Aruval or wooden logs (the details are not found in the charges).It is further alleged that they all conspired together to do away with the deceased.When the deceased had just come in front of the Vijaya Theater, all the eight persons who were all armed with weapons either with Aruval or Wooden logs surrounded the deceased Mr.Kumar @ Sivakumar (Juvenile accused) cut the deceased with Aruval on his head; Mr.Sowrirajan (A.1) cut the deceased on the left forearm; Mr.Kattappu @ Sivakumar (Juvenile accused) cut the deceased on his left shoulder and right wrist with Aruval; Mr.Jawahar (Juvenile accused) attacked the deceased on his left flank.The other accused, Mr.Jegan (Juvenile accused) attacked the deceased with wooden logs on various parts of the body.The deceased fell down in a pool of blood, having sustained multiple injuries.Immediately after the occurrence, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.He was examined by Dr.(iv)a cut injury measuring 1cm = x = cm on the left ring finger;(v)a contusion measuring 3cm x 3cm on the left upper arm.5.P.W.11 referred the deceased to the Government Medical College and Hospital at Tiruvarur.Accordingly, he was admitted there.On 16.10.2005 at 11.10 pm, the deceased died in the hospital.6.Two abrasions  one over the back of left elbow measuring 1x1cm and another over the back of lower third of left upper arm measuring 2x1cm.7.Diffuse contusion noted over the whole of back of left upper arm.Left elbow and left forearm.(Bluish black in colour).8.Three abrasions over the back of left forearm each measuring 2x1cm9.Cut wounds over the back of base of left middle and ring fingers each measuring 2cm x = x bone deep with cut fracture of the underlining bones.10.A cut wound over the left side lower part of occipital region of scalp measuring 2cm x 1cm x bone deep.She gave opinion that the said injuries could have been caused by weapons like Aruval, knife and wooden logs.She further opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries.7.P.W.19 recovered the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to Court.On 19.10.2005, at 8.00 am, P.W.19 arrested Mr.Similarly, A.1 disclosed in his statement as to where he had hidden the Aruval.In pursuance of the same, he produced the Aruval from the place of hide out.Similarly, the other accused, Mr.Manivannan (A.2) also produced the wooden log.8.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused and the material objects to Court.In Crl.A.No.695 of 2016:-The appellant in Crl.A.No.695 of 2012 is the first accused; the appellant in Crl.A.No.740 of 2012 is the third accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.754 of 2012 is the fourth accused in S.C.No.33 of 2008 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.The second accused was one Mr.Manivannan.He was absconding.Hence, the case against him was split up and the appellants herein alone faced the trial.As against the first accused, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 148, 120(B), 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. As against the accused 3 & 4, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 120(B), 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. By judgment dated 25.09.2012, the trial Court convicted all the three accused and sentenced them as detailed below:-NoSection of lawAccusedSentence1148, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,A.1Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,No sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C., 2147, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,A.3Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,No sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C., 3147, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,A.4Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,No sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C., The appellants/A.1, A.3 & A.4 stand acquitted from the charge under Section 120(B) I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A.1, A.3 & A.4, are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.In this case, originally, there were eight accused.Manivannan who was arrayed as A.2 was absconding and therefore, the case against him was split up.3.The deceased in this case was one Mr.He was residing at Melagopuravasal, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District.He was a Painter by profession.At that time, it is alleged that all these accused (eight persons) were sitting in a nearby vacant site and they were all in an unlawful assembly with the object of killing the deceased.A.1 was armed with Aruval.Murugan (P.W.11).At that time, the deceased was conscious and he told the Doctor that he was attacked by three known persons with Aruval and four other persons who were in their company.P.W.11 found the following injuries on the deceased:-(i)a cut injury measuring 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the right parietal region of the head;(ii)a contusion measuring 3x3 cm on the left forearm;(iii)a cut injury measuring 1cm x < x < cm on the left middle finger;On receiving intimation from the hospital, one Mr.R.Kalyanasundaram, a Head Constable went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 9.00 am and 12.30 pm on 17.10.2005 and forwarded the body for post mortem.6.P.W.18  Dr.Vijayalakshmi, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 17.10.2005 at 3.20 pm.She found the following injuries:-1.Bleeding from both nostrils and mouth noted.2.A liner sutured cut wound with intact silk sutures noted over the right fronto parietal region of scalp measuring 6cmx1cm bone deep with surrounding contusion.3.A linear scratch abrasion over the back of right upper arm measuring 12 cm x 0.25 cm4.Abrasion over the middle of back of right upper arm measuring 5x4cm5.Two superficial incised wounds over the right side posterior axillary fold and below the other each measuring 1cmx3x1/4cm and 2cmx = x = cm respectively.Sowrirajan (A.1); the juvenile accused Mr.On 17.10.2005, at 2.00 pm, he arrested A.3 & A.4 and forwarded them to Court for judicial remand.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.9.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the appellants herein, as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.The appellants denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined and 35 documents were exhibited, besides 12 Material Objects.10.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 & 2 have been examined as eye witness.They have stated that at the time of occurrence, when they were passing through the Vijaya Theatre, they heard about some commotion from the place of occurrence.When they rushed to the place of occurrence, according to them, they witnessed the entire occurrence.P.W.3 has stated that he heard about the occurrence and went to the place of occurrence and he assisted the others to take the deceased to the hospital.P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch and the recovery of blood stained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence.P.W.5, an official from the Tamil Nadu Electricity has Board stated that at the place of occurrence, there was street light and there was no electricity failure at the crucial time of occurrence.P.W.6 has spoken about the photographs taken on the dead body as well as the place of occurrence as directed by the Investigating Officer.P.W.7 has witnessed the arrest of the accused.P.W.8 has stated that around 8.00 pm on 15.10.2005, he heard some commotion from the place of occurrence and thereafter, he saw the deceased being taken to the hospital in an Auto.P.W.9 has stated that he took the deceased to the hospital.He has further stated that when Ex.P.10 was recorded by the Head Constable, he was present and he witnessed the same.P.W.10 has spoken about the death intimation.P.W.11  Dr.R.Murugan has stated that at the time of admission, the deceased was conscious and he told that he was attacked by three known persons.He has further stated that the deceased told him that four other persons were in their company.P.W.12 has spoken about the treatment given by him to the deceased at the Government Medical College and hospital at Thanjavur and the death of the deceased.P.W.13 has stated that he took the dead body and handed over the same to the Doctor for post mortem and the recovery of clothes from the dead body of the deceased.P.W.14 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.15 has spoken about the death intimation received from the hospital.P.W.16, the then Judicial Magistrate has spoken about the test identification parade conducted by him in respect of Kumar @ Sivakumar; Sowrirajan; Kattari @ Sivakumar; Jawahar; Manivannan; Surendran; Natarajan and Jegan.According to him, P.Ws.1 & 2 identified all these accused.P.W.17 has spoken about the registration of the case and the investigation done by him.P.W.18 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.19 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.11.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On the side of the accused one Mr.He has stated that during the relevant time, he was working as the Special Sub Inspector of Police at Mannargudi.He has stated that such records were not available in the Police Station since, the same were destroyed in the usual course.Thus, the accused did not chose to mark any document on their side.The defence of the accused was a total denial.12.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellants/accused 1, 3 & 4 as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.13.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.14.In this case, the prosecution relies on the eye witness account of P.Ws.1 & 2 and the dying declaration made by the deceased.The earliest dying declaration made by the deceased was to P.W.11 - Dr.To Dr.Murugan, the deceased told that he was attacked by three known persons with aruval and there were four other persons in their company.P.W.11 has recorded the same in Ex.P.11, the Accident Register.Thus, according to the earliest statement made by the deceased, the assailants were 7 out of whom three persons were known to him.15.The next dying declaration is the statement made by the deceased to one Mr.R.Kalyanasundaram, the Head Constable at 10.00 pm on 15.10.2005 vide Ex.R.Kalyanasundaram, who recorded the statement has not been examined as witness.No reason whatsoever has been stated for the non examination of the said witness.Thus, the contents of Ex.P.10 have not been proved in accordance with law.Further, the deceased told that the juvenile accused Kumar @ Sivakumar, cut him with Aruval and one unknown person also cut him with Aruval.It is not explained to the Court as to why in an earlier statement, the deceased had told that the appellants/A.1, A.3 cut him with Aruval were known persons whereas, in the subsequent statement, he has told that two known persons and one unknown person attacked him with Aruval.In these two statements, he has not stated anything about the wooden logs being used by any of the assailants.The statement recorded by P.W.17 from the deceased is the third dying declaration.In the said dying declaration, the deceased has stated that a total number of six persons attacked him.According to this statement, the juvenile accused Kumar @ Sivakumar, Sowrirajan (A.1) Kattappu @ Sivakumar (Juvenile accused) Jawahar (Juvenile accused) and Natarajan (A.4) Surendran (A.3) came with Aruval and wooden logs and attacked him.He has further stated that the juvenile accused, Kumar @ Sivakumar cut him on his head with Aruval.Mr.Sowrirajan (A.1) cut him on the left forearm twice with Aruval.The juvenile accused Kattappu @ Sivakumar cut him with Aruval on his fingers and again he attacked him on the left shoulder with aruval.Jawahar (Juvenile accused) cut him with Aruval on his right forearm and also on his head and right shoulder.The other accused namely A.3 and A.4 surrounded him.Thus, according to this statement, the assailants were 6 in numbers, out of them, four persons attacked him with aruval and two persons had just surrounded him.This dying declaration is quite contrary to the earlier two dying declarations.16.Now, turning to the evidences of P.Ws.1 & 2, they have mentioned about the participation and specific overt acts of eight persons.According to them, the juvenile accused, Kumar @ Sivakumar; Kattappu @ Sivakumar; Jawahar and Mr.Sowrirajan (A.1) were all armed with aruval and they attacked the deceased with Aruval.They have further stated that Manivannan ( A.2); Surendran (A.3) and Natarajan (A.4) and the juvenile accused Mr.Jegan were armed with wooden logs and they attacked the deceased with the wooden logs.17.As we have already pointed out, the deceased never told in any of the dying declarations that any of the accused used wooden logs and caused injuries.P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that the assailants were 8 in numbers whereas, according to the dying declarations, there is no consistency because, at the earliest point of time, the deceased told that three known persons attacked him.Later on he has stated that two known persons and one unknown person attacked him.In the third dying declaration, he has stated that six known persons attacked him.Thus, there is no consistency at all between the eye witness account of P.Ws.1 & 2 and the dying declarations of the deceased.We have got every doubt about the very presence of P.Ws.1 & 2 at the scene of occurrence.When there is such inconsistencies, it is difficult to give any weightage to the dying declarations also.We find it difficult to act upon any one of the dying declarations.Therefore, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction.From the facts narrated above, it is inferable that the deceased was alone in the place of occurrence that too during night hours and somebody would have attacked him and the assailants were not known.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

To implement the schemes prepared under the EastPunjab Land Utilisation Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) 135acres of land in village Karah Sahab and 35 acres of land invillage Mohanpur were leased out by the State Government tovarious Ex-servicemen hailing from the district of Ropar forperiods ranging from 7 years to 20 years, with each of theirfamilies getting 10 acres of land.Various groups of thoseEx-servicemen then joined together to form Co-operativeSocieties for effective management and cultivation of thelands so allotted.The Cooperative Society which was formedby the allottees of village Mohanpur was known as MohanpurEx-servicemen Cooperative Society and Sunder Singh, who wasallotted 10 acres of land in Killa No. 125/5, became one ofthe members of that Society.After entering into possessionof their respective allotted lands in 1952, the allottees,including Sunder Singh, made those lands cultivable by dintof hard labour and at huge expenses.After expiry of theperiod of lease in and around the year 1972, the StateGovernment, through its Collector, initiated proceedings forresumption of the lands from the allottees to restore thesame to their respective owners.This attempt on the part ofthe State Government created tension between the owners andthe allottees but the latter successfully warded off allefforts of the State to resume the lands and continued topossess the same.Apprehending fresh trouble in 1979, several CooperativeSocieties of the Ex-servicemen including the Mohanpur Ex-Servicemen Cooperative Society filed some writ petitions inthis Court and obtained stay orders on January 9, 1979restraining the Collector from initiating/continuingproceedings against the lessees under Section 7 of the Act.In view of the above interim orders the authorities couldnot and did not take any action against the lessees but theowners, including Lal Singh, who happens to be the owner inrespect of the land allotted to Sunder Singh, could notreconcile to the position that the lands should remain inpossession with the lessees in spite of expiry of the periodof the lease and started putting pressure upon Sunder Singhto vacate the land as they wanted to cultivate it.SunderSingh and others, however, told Lal Singh and his sons thatthey would not vacate the lands till the disposal of theirwrit petitions pending in the Supreme Court.On July 11, 1982 at or about 7 A.M. when some of thoseEx-servicemen and their family members including RajinderSingh (deceased), Jiwan Singh (deceased) Hakam Singh (PW4),Gurmukh Singh (PW 5), Surmukh Singh (PW 6), Ranjit Singh (PW15) and Surjit Singh (PW 16) were cultivating theirrespective allotted lands, they saw four tractors comingalong nearby Guhla-Pehowa road with some people in thetrolleys attached to them.They next found another tractortrolley coming along the same road driven by Mehar Singh,son of Lal Singh, with the seven appellants and othersseated therein.While each of the appellants was armed withfirearms the others were carrying gandasas.The tractordriven by Mehar Singh stopped on the road at a distance ofabout 20-30 ft.from the land of Sunder Singh but the otherfour tractors entered the land of Sunder Singh and stoppedthere.The people who were in the trolleys attached theretothen started forcibly cultivating the land of Sunder Singh.Gurmukh Singh and Surmukh Singh (PW 5 and PW 6), the twosons of Sunder Singh then raised alarms that their land wasbeing forcibly ploughed by the miscreants and then RajinderSingh (PW 3), his brother Raghbir Singh (deceased), HakamSingh (PW 4), Jiwan Singh (deceased), Ranjit Singh (PW 15)and Surjit Singh (P.W. 16) rushed towards that directionfrom their respective fields.Then the other appellants also started firingfrom their respective firearms causing injuries to some ofthe persons present there.The commotion created by suchattack attracted the attention of the people living nearbyand seeing them coming the miscreants fled away leaving thefour tractors behind.Seeing Raghbir Singh and Jiwan Singhlying dead, the people who had assembled at the spot,removed oil from the oil tanks of the tractors and set themon fire.In the meantime Ripudaman Singh, brother of KarnailSingh (P.W. 19) and sister's husband of Hakam Singh (P.W.4), having seen the miscreants proceeding towards the placeof occurrence had rushed to the Pehowa police station andlodged a Diary as he apprehended a breach of the peace.Onreceipt of the information, Inspector Ram Singh (P.W. 24),alongwith ASI Kulwant Rai (P.W.22), ASI Rajinder Kumar (P.W.23) and other police officials left for the place ofoccurrence.On the way they came across Rajinder Singh(P.W.3) who gave a detailed version of the incident.RamSingh (P.W. 24) recorded his statement and after forwardingit to the police station proceeded to the spot to take upinvestigation of the case.Reaching there he held inquestupon the dead bodies of Jiwan Singh and Raghubir Singh whichwere lying there and sent them for post-mortem examination.He then seized four tractors, some blood stained earth andsome empty cartridges found there.Dr. N.K. Dhawan (P.W.1) held post-mortem upon the deadbodies of Raghbir Singh and Jiwan Singh and found a numberof injuries on their persons, which according to the doctor,were due to gun shots.Among the witnesses Gurmukh Singh(P.W. 5), Surmukh Singh (P.W. 6), Surjit Singh (P.W.16) andRajinder Singh (P.W.3) were also examined by the doctors andthey were found to have sustained injuries which could becaused by fire-arms.In course of the investigation the InvestigatingOfficer sent the seized blood stained earth, and the emptycartridges alongwith the fire-arms, recovered from the sevenappellants for examination by the Forensic ScienceLaboratory.He had picked up thegun of his brother Ram Singh which was lying on theirtubewell.So did his father Lal Singh.They fired at theassailants.Raghubir Singh and Jiwan Singh who were armedwith gandasas had come near them.J U D G M E N TM.K. MUKHERJEE, J.Seventeen persons were placed on trial before theAdditional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra to answer commoncharges under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 447 IPC.Against seven of them (hereinafter referred to as 'theappellants') a separate charge under Section 27 of the ArmsAct, 1959 and against one of the appellants, namely, KaramSingh a further charge under Section 302 IPC (simpliciter)were also framed.On conclusion of the trial the learnedJudge convicted sixteen of them including the appellants inrespect of all the charges framed and sentenced them todifferent terms of imprisonment, including life.Aggrievedthereby all the convicts preferred a common appeal which wasinitially heard by a Division Bench comprising two learnedJudges of the High Court.Since the learned Judges weredivided in opinion the appeal was laid before anotherlearned Judge of the Court in accordance with Section 392Cr.P.C. The learned Judges affirmed the convictions andsentences recorded against the appellants but acquitted theothers.Against such dismissal of their appeal, theappellants have filed one of these two appeals (Crl. AppealNo. 29 of 1987) while the other (Cr. Appeal No. 230/94) hasbeen filed by the State against acquittal of the nineothers.Both the appeals have been heard together and thisjudgment will dispose of them.The case for the prosecution briefly stated is asfollows.When Rajinder Singh went aheadappellant Karam Singh fired from his rifle hitting him onhis head and thereby causing his instantaneous death.KaramSingh fired another shot at Jiwan Singh who also fell down.Then the appellant Gurmukh Singh fired the fatal shot atJiwan Singh.On receipt of the reports of such examinationand completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet and in due course the case was committed to the courtof Session.The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges andexcept appellant Gurmukh Singh, they denied their presenceat the place of occurrence.Gurmukh Singh, however, put up acounter version in his statement recorded under Section 313Cr.P.C. He stated that on 11th July, 1972 at dawn he waspresent near his tubewell alongwith his father Lal Singh.Ishar Singh and Lachman Singh, residents of village Tangoli,who were their relations came there on two tractors.Theystarted talking with Gurmukh Singh.Teja Singh who happenedto pass that side also came there to greet the guests.Gurmukh Singh and Surmukh Singh (P.Ws.) thought that theyhad collected those tractors with an intention to forciblyoccupying their land.They brought Jiwan Singh, RaghubirSingh, Ranjit Singh, Surjit Singh and Hakam Singh along withthem when they were armed with fire-arm and gandasas.Thesepersons raised lalkaras and started firing towards themwhile they were advancing.He and his other companions tookshelter behind the parked tractors and the kotha oftubewell, but before that he, Ishar Singh, Teja Singh andLachman had been hit by the gunshot.All of them receivedinjuries as they were in open.Their tractors were also hitby gun shots.Raghubir Singh and Jiwan Singh, when hit, hadretreated and had fallen in the field of Sunder Singh.Theassailants stopped firing on finding their two companionshave fallen and they were not able to cause much harm tothem.They made good their escape and Lal Singh informed thepolice.On coming to the spot, the police found thatRaghubir Singh and Jiwan Singh were dead.Their tractorswere removed from their tubewell to the fields of SunderSingh.Tractor of Hardial Singh which was standing on theroad-side was also removed to the fields of Sunder Singh.The complainant party set their tractors on fire by takingdiesel from them in connivance with the police and this wasdone to show that they were the aggressors.Their tractorwas brought from their house alongwith trolley later on andinvolved in this case.In support of its case the prosecution examined twentyfour witnesses of whom Rajinder Singh (P.W.3) Hakam Singh(P.W.4), Gurmukh Singh (P.W.5), Ranjit Singh (PW 15) andSurjit Singh (P.W.16) figured as eye-witnesses.Theappellants in their turn, examined seven witnesses.Theappellants in their turn, examined seven witness in supportof their defence.The trial Court held that the evidence onrecord clearly proved that the incident took place on theland which was allotted to and was in exclusive possessionof Sunder Singh.The trial Court further held that, theaccused persons had forcibly trespassed into the land totake possession of the same and to commit murders of thepeople who were cultivating the land, was evident from thefact that they came in tractors with fire-arms and that thestory given out by the accused persons was whollyunreliable.The High Court concurred with the findings ofthe trial Court that the rioting had taken place on the landof Sunder Singh and that the common object of that unlawfulassembly was to commit the murders of Raghubir Singh andJiwan Singh.The High Court, however, held that it could notbe conclusively said that nine of the accused persons (therespondents in Crl.Appeal No. 230 of 1994) shared thecommon object of the other seven (the appellants) as none ofthem was armed with fire-arms nor did they commit any overtact and, therefore, they were entitled to the benefit ofreasonable doubt.We have gone through the impugned judgments and theevidence on record.On perusal of the judgments we find thatboth the trial Court and the High Court have discussed theentire evidence from a proper perspective and given cogentand convincing reasons for excepting the case of theprosecution in preference to that of the defence.Evidenceon record unmistakably proves that Killa No. 125/5 was inpossession of Sunder Singh and there was an order ofrestraint from this Court from interfering with hispossession.Uncontroverted evidence adduced during the trialfurther proves that the two dead bodies of Raghubir Singhand Jiwan Singh and four tractors belonging to the accusedpersons were found on the above land of Sunder Singh.Whenthe above facts and circumstances, are considered along withthe evidence of the eye witnesses, some of whom wereinjured, the only conclusion that can be drawn are that theaccused persons were not only trespassers but also were theaggressors and that the defence version was a concocted one.Judged in that context, even if some of the appellants hadsustained some injuries, which, they asserted were receivedin course of that attack, cannot claim any right of privatedefence.The evidence of the doctor and the reports ofForensic Science Laboratories also go a long way to supportthe prosecution version.Once it is established that theseven accused appellants had entered the field with deadlyweapons, namely, fire-arms and fired at random resulting inthe death of two of them and injuries to others it must besaid that the prosecution has been able to prove its case.It was, however, strenuously argued on behalf of theappellants that even if the entire prosecution case wasbelieved only those who had actually fired at the deceasedcould be convicted under Section 302 IPC, and not theothers.In elaborating this argument it was submitted thataccording to the prosecution case, the common object of theunlawful assembly was to forcibly drive out Sunder Singh whowas in occupation of the land in question and in prosecutionof that common object the members of the assembly intendedto assault or knew that grievous hurt was likely to becaused, but it could not be said that all of them shared thecommon object of committing the two murders.In other words,according to the learned counsel for the appellants, onlyKaram Singh who had fired at the two deceased was liableunder Section 302 IPC (simpliciter) and the others could beconvicted, at best, under Section 326 read with 149 IPC.As already stated, the evidence laid by the prosecution- clearly establishes - that the appellants had come to theland of Sunder Singh in a tractor driven by Mehar Singh, theson of the owner of the land and at that time each of themwas armed with a fire-arm.On coming near the field ofSunder Singh, Karam Singh had taken his position near thetubewell of Lal Singh obviously with the intention of seeingthat no outside help was made available to the complainantparty.When Jiwan Singh and Raghubir the two deceased cameto the rescue of the complainant party Karam Singh fired atthem from his rifle hitting them on their head.GurmukhSingh also fired at Jiwan Singh and both died on the spot.The other five accused appellants who were holding gundsstood near the tractors and fired at the complainant partyat random injuring Rajinder Singh (P.W. 3), Gurmukh Singh(P.W. 5), Hakam Singh (P.W. 4) and Surmukh Singh (P.W. 6),and of them, except Surjit Singh all the others were injuredon the upper parts of their bodies by the fire-arms.In suchcircumstances it is difficult to hold that the common objectof the unlawful assembly extended only upto causing grievousinjuries and not beyond that - and, in any case, that theother appellants did not know that in achieving the objectof unlawful assembly murder was likely to be caused.So far as the other appeal filed by the State isconcerned the reasons which weighed with the High Court inrecording the order of acquittal in favour of the nineaccused respondents cannot be said to be perverse.It is ofcourse true that a different view of the evidence could havebeen taken as against them but that cannot be made a groundfor setting aside an order of acquittal.The appeal(Criminal Appeal No. 230/94) filed by the State, therefore,merits dismissal.In the result both the appeals fail and are herebydismissed.

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

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

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and application dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )

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

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

However, accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna was acquitted of the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.According to prosecution version, there was land related enmity between complainant Rakesh Kumar and accused persons.It is alleged that on intervening night of 9/10.11.2012 at around 1:00 AM, while complainant and his family members were sleeping at their Verandah, accused-appellants Rajesh alias Pillu, Satish and Ajay came on a motorcycle and fired a bullet at temple of complainant's Chamanath, who was also sleeping in Verandah.Hearing sound of firing, complainant and his brothers Ashok, Rajesh and nephew Rajanikant awoke and raised an alarm, but accused persons went away from the spot by threatening them.Inquest proceedings were conducted by PW-5 Sikandar Singh Yadav and dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for postmortem.Post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 10.11.2012 by PW-3 Dr. Satish Singh and following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased:(i) Entry wound of firearm 1 cm x 1 cm skull deep was present 4 cm ahead of left ear on the left temple between ear and eyes.Thereafter, accused persons have threatened PW-2 and his other family members and ran away.In his cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that he and his family members awoke by feeling inkling, is not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.17. PW-3 Dr. Satish Singh has medically examined the deceased.PW-4 constable Pancha Ram has recorded FIR and G.D. Entry.Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.Per: Raj Beer Singh, JThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 16 of 2013 (State vs. Rajesh alias Pillu and Two Others), under Sections 302, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and in S.T. No. 17 of 2013 (State vs. Ajay Kumar Yadav), under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, police station Baksha, district Jaunpur, whereby accused-appellants, namely, Rajesh alias Pillu, Satish and Ajay alias Munna have been convicted under Section 302/34, 504 and 506 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo to six months additional imprisonment.Edge of the wounds were rolling inversely and were contude.(ii) Mark of contusion was present on the left part of head 1 cm above the right ear, on temple.Bone of the rt.temple was fractured.(iii) Contusion and swelling 3 cm x 4 cm was present 6 cm above the rt.ear on the lt. part of head.As per Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death was due to coma as a result of firearm injury on head brain.During investigation on 27.11.2012, accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna has got recovered 32 bore country made pistol allegedly used in the incident.After completion of investigation, all the three accused persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 504, 506 of IPC and accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna was further charge-sheeted under Section 3/25 Arms Act.Learned trial court framed charge under Sections 302/34, 504 and 506 of IPC against all the three accused-appellants.Accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna was also charged under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of accused-appellants, prosecution has examined six witnesses.Accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied prosecution evidence and claimed false implication.However, no evidence was adduced in defence.After hearing and analysing the evidence on record, all the three accused-appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34, 504, 506 of IPC vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2017 and they were sentenced as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of this judgment, however, accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna was acquitted of the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act.Being aggrieved, accused-appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal.We have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Sri Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for accused-appellants Rajesh alias Pillu and Satish, Sri Ashok Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna, Sri Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Ankit Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits as under:(i) that PW-1 Rakesh Yadav and PW-2 Rajnikant Yadav alias Pankaj are not eye witnesses of alleged incident.Even in FIR, it was mentioned that they awoke after hearing sound of firing and thus, it was not probable that they might have seen and identified the actual assailants.Facts and circumstances of case show that it was a blind murder and accused-appellants were named on the basis of enmity.As per prosecution version, wife of deceased, namely, Lilawati was sleeping near the cot of deceased and thus, she was most important witness of prosecution, but she has not been examined by the prosecution.(ii) that there was no source of light.Though witnesses have alleged that there was light of electric bulb, but said bulb has also not been seized.It was stated that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that there was enough light to identify the assailants.(iii) that as per prosecution evidence country made pistol used in the incident was recovered from accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna, but as per FSL report, the cartridge found at the spot was not fired by the pistol, allegedly recovered from accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna and thus, the same affects the prosecution case adversely.(iv) that so far as accused-appellants Rajesh alias Pillu and Satish are concerned, no role, whatsoever, has been attributed to them.Prosecution has not produced any material to indicate that these accused were aware that accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna was having any pistol.These two accused have not been attributed even any exhortation.There is no satisfactory evidence that motorcycle seized from possession of accused Rajesh Kumar was the same, which was used in the alleged incident.(v) that there are serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution case and medical evidence is not consistent with the oral evidence.Per contra, it was submitted by learned State counsel that PW-1 Rakesh Yadav and PW-2 Rajnikant Yadav alias Pankaj are natural witnesses of the alleged incident and PW-2 has clearly stated that he has awoken after feeling the inkling of accused persons and witnessed the incident.Prosecution has also proved motive on the part of the accused-appellants to commit this crime as a case was already pending regarding an earlier incident of assault.Regarding accused-appellants Rajesh alias Pillu and Satish, it was submitted that there is evidence that they have come on motorcycle along with accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna.Four-five months prior of the alleged incident, accused-appellants have given beatings to Chamanath.On the intervening night of 9/10.11.2012 at around 1:00 am, his brother Chamanath was sleeping on a cot in Verandah and his wife Lilawati was also sleeping on a nearby cot.He (PW-1) was sleeping in western side of Verandah on a cot, whereas other family members were also sleeping in and around.Accused persons came at 1:00 am on a motorcycle and after parking motorcycle, accused-appellant Ajay alias Munna has fired a bullet at temple of Chamanath (deceased).Hearing the voice of firing, PW-1 and his brothers Ashok, Rajesh and Rajanikant awoke, but accused persons threatened to kill them and thereafter, all the three accused-persons ran away.Chamanath has died at the spot.In his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he does not know whether in the year 2019, accused-appellant Ajay has lodged a case against him as well as against Chamanath and Pankaj under Sections 323, 504 of IPC.He has reiterated that he as well as his brothers Ashok, Rajesh and Rajnikant have awoken after hearing the voice of firing.He has further stated that police have not seized any electric bulb from spot and that there was no electric meter at his house.PW-2 Rajnikant Yadav alias Pankaj stated that he was having old enmity with accused persons.On intervening night of 9/10.11.2012 at around 1:00 am, accused persons came on motorcycle and after stopping motorcycle, they came running into Verandah.By feeling their inkling, he and his other family members awoke, but by that time, accused-appellant Ajay has fired a bullet at his uncle Chamanath.18. PW-5 Sikandar Singh Yadav, Incharge of Police Station Baksha has conducted investigation of the case.During investigation, he has prepared site-plan Ex. Ka-13 and recorded statements of the witnesses.On 27.11.2012, after obtaining police custody remand of accused Ajay, a country made pistol was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Ajay, vide memo Ex. Ka-17 and a case was registered against him vide crime no. 915 of 2018, under Section 3/25 of Arms Act.Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.A survey of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related witness is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case.Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased.In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.(See Anil Rai Vs.State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52).In the instant case, no doubt, PW-1 Rakesh Yadav is brother of deceased, whereas PW-2 Rajnikant Yadav alias Pankaj is nephew of deceased, but in view of above discussed well-settled position of law, their testimony cannot be doubted merely on the ground of relationship.However, it is also borne out from record that there was litigation between the parties and accused persons have also lodged some case against the deceased and others.Even deceased Chamanath was having criminal history of some cases.Thus, the Court is required to examine the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 with care and caution as besides relationship factor, they appears inimical towards accused persons.The main question which falls for consideration is whether PW-1 Rakesh Yadav and PW-2 Rajnikant Yadav alias Pankaj have witnessed the alleged incident.As per prosecution version, at the time of alleged incident, deceased was sleeping in an open Verandah.PW-1 has clearly stated that he awoken after hearing sound of firing.As per PW-1, wife of deceased Lilawati was sleeping on a cot near the cot of deceased Chamanath, whereas PW-1 was sleeping in western side of said Verandah.Though PW-2 stated that he and his family members have awoken after feeling inkling of accused persons, but this fact was not stated by him during investigation in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and this witness has made improvement on this point.As stated earlier, PW-1 has clearly stated that he as well as his brother Rajnikant and other family members have awoken after hearing sound of firing.Thus, version of PW-2 that he and his family members were awoken after feeling inkling of accused persons, can not be accepted.Here, it would be pertinent to mention that as per prosecution version, only one fire was shot at deceased.It is not the case of prosecution that after they awoke, accused Ajay or any other accused has fired any second shot.Though PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that after hearing sound of firing, when they awoke, accused persons have threatened to kill them and thereafter, they ran away but considering all attending facts and circumstances, this version does not appears to be convincing and reliable.As per prosecution version, these witnesses and accused persons are resident of same village.In such an incident after making fire, accused persons would wait to threat his family members instead of fleeing from spot, does not appear to be natural and reliable.Here, it may be stated that no witness or any family members of deceased has made any effort to nab or apprehend the accused persons.It would also be pertinent to mention that as per prosecution version, Lilawat, wife of deceased was sleeping near the cot of deceased and thus she was best witness of prosecution but she has not been examined as witness.No reasons have been assigned as to why she was not examined as witness.Though prosecution is not required to examine all the eye witnesses of incident, but it is equally settled that prosecution is required to lead its best evidence and thus, non examination of Lilawati can also not be ignored.Considering entire facts this possibility can not be ruled out that after hearing sound of firing, when PW-1 Rakesh Yadav and PW-2 Rajnikant Yadav alias Pankaj have awoken, the assailants might have fled from there and thus, they could not see the assailants.As stated earlier, it is the case of prosecution that these witnesses have awoke after hearing sound of firing.The version of these witnesses that after firing, accused have threatened them, does not appear reliable.Another point is that in FIR, it was stated that all the three accused persons came on motorcycle and fired at Chamanath, but during evidence both the witnesses have stated that it was accused Ajay, who has fired a single shot at the deceased.No specific role, whatsoever, has been attributed to accused Rajesh alias Pillu and Satish.There is no allegation that accused Rajesh and Satish have made exhortation to kill the deceased.Once a doubt is created regarding presence of these accused-appellants at spot, it would affect entire prosecution case.Further, it also appears doubtful that there was any source of light to identify the assailants.Though, both PW-1 Rakesh Yadav and PW-2 Rajnikant Yadav alias Pankaj have stated that there was light of electric bulb, but the Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence to substantiate this fact that there was electricity light at the spot.Here, it would be relevant to mention that PW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that there was no electric meter in his house.Though, it is not uncommon in villages that electricity is used by some persons even without electric meter and connection, but fact remains that except the bald allegations of PW-1 and PW-2 that there was light of electric bulb, no other evidence has been collected to substantiate this fact.During investigation, country made pistol used in the incident was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Ajay.Besides PW-1 and PW-2, no other eye-witness to the incident was examined by the prosecution.The best witness Lilawati, who was sleeping near deceased, has not been examined as witness.As per prosecution version, country made pistol, used in the incident, was recovered from the accused-appellant Ajay, but as per FSL report exhibit ka-24, the cartridge found at spot was not fired from that pistol.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.

The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-On 18.10.1991, a procession of immersion of Goddess 'Durga' was to be taken out at village Koproli, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Uran.Constables Pramod Langi and Dada Panchgane, had been deputed for Bandobast.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 :::2 APEAL 168 OF 1997 The villagers were to take out procession in which 2 to 3 idols of Goddess Durga, were to be carried for immersion.Participants in the procession were dancing.Appellant and co-accused Raju were also present.One Rajaram Gajanan Mhatre at whose house, idol of Durga was installed came with sword in his hand.Nandkumar and Santosh @ Girish were dancing in the procession.DATED: 25rd February, 2011 Oral JudgmentThis appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant, by the learned II nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months.Rajaram started inflicting blows on Nandkumar by means of sword.When constable Pramod Langi tried to restrain Rajaram, he was injured, but he managed to snatch the sword from the hands of Rajaram.The appellant Dhruv was holding beer bottle in his hand and he had allegedly hit on the head of Santosh @ Girish with bottle.The appellant and co accused Raja @ Raju Waman Mhatre were alleged to have injured constable Langi and Nandkumar Patil.The injured were taken to Hospital by constable on duty.On a report by constable Pramod Langi, offence was registered, and investigation commenced.In the course of investigation, police performed panchnama of spot, seized the incriminating articles, recorded statement of witnesses, got victim to be medically examined, sent incriminating articles to Forensic Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation, chargesheeted the appellant and co accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Uran, who committed the case, the Court of Sessions at Alibag.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, charged the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 ::: 3 APEAL 168 OF 1997 appellant and co accused Raju for the offences punishable under section 307, 353, 332, 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Santosh Yashwant Mhatre and Nandkumar Anant Patil, and for voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant with the intent to prevent or to deter him from discharging his duties and voluntarily causing hurt to Nandkumar Patil, Santosh Yeshwant Mhatre.Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and hence they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses in its attempt to prove them guilty.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 :::After considering the evidence tendered in the light of defence of denial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted both the accused for the offences punishable under section 307, 353, 332 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted the appellant Dhruv for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Girish @ Santosh and sentenced him as mentioned herein above.Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.With the help of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the record of the trial.Except the evidence of P,.W.1 Pramod Langi, there is absolutely no material against the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 :::4 APEAL 168 OF 1997 Even the injured person Girish @ Santosh who was examined as P.W.4 was declared hostile and since he did not state that the appellant caused injury to him to by means of beer bottle.Neither P.W.2 Panchgane-police constable who was on duty nor P.W.3 Nandkumar who was another injured person state about the appellant's complicity in the incident.does not state about assault by appellant.P.W. 5 Vishvanath Patil, P.W.7, Chandrakant Mhatre and P.W.8, Sunil Bhoir, have been examined to prove steps taken in investigation.P.W.9 -PSI Rane and P.W.11 - PSI Govind Pardeshi, conducted investigation.P.W.10- Dr. Narayankar, examined the injured person.6. P.W.1 Police Constable Langi stated that the appellant was also standing at the place where scuffle took place.Rajaram had first hit Nandkumar with sword.Witness state that appellant Dhruv was holding bottle in his hand and he hit the same on the head of Santosh.In cross examination he repeated that appellant had hit Santosh with bottle.No other witnesses state about any such assault by the appellant on the victim.P.W. 10 Dr. Narayankar, who had examined victim Girish @ Santosh stated that he had observed 7 injuries on the person of Girish.There is one injury on the head which is Contused Lacerated Wound on the left parietal region 2" x 1 mm deep.Dr. Narayankar, stated in his cross examination ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 ::: 5 APEAL 168 OF 1997 that the base of beer bottle is hard and blunt.Injury described by him is, however, stated to have been caused by hard and sharp object and thus could not have been caused by the beer bottle which was allegedly in the hand of appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 :::Learned counsel for the appellant, is therefore right in submitting that on the face of impossibility of the such injury being caused by bottle which the appellant was holding and particularly in the face of the fact that the victim himself had refused to state appellant had caused any such injury to the victim, learned Judge should not have relied the sole testimony of P.W.1 Pramod Langi, who had also stated that Chilly Powder had entered his eyes.Therefore, his hazy impression could not have been allowed to form basis of conviction of the appellant.In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.Fine if paid be refunded to the appellant.(R. C. CHAVAN, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:01:12 :::

['Section 324 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 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The accused also claims that the facts, as brought out do not indicate that he had abetted the commission of suicide by his deceased wife.On 25.03.2015, at around 01:20 A.M., information was received via a telephonic call that one Moni Gupta, wife of one Rohit Gupta was declared brought dead on having consumed thinner.The aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No. 17A (Ex.PW 14/A) and assigned to ASI Balraj Singh, who along with Ct. Arun, reached Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital and MLC No.93848/15 (Ex.PW7/A) was prepared.Vide the seizure memo, four pairs of silver toe rings, one CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 2 of 15 gold nose pin and one copper ring were seized from the body of deceased.Later, the dead body was sent to the mortuary of the abovementioned hospital where Ct.Arun was deputed to take care of the body.On coming to know that the deceased was married in 2010, he informed the SHO of the concerned police station.The SDM was also informed.Executive Magistrate/SDM, Amrinder Kumar Singh, came to B-57, Gali No.2, Satya Vihar, Burari, Delhi and he had inspected the spot.Crime Team was also called to the scene and photographs were taken of the crime scene.The Executive Magistrate had taken the bottle of thinner in his possession with the help of cotton and also seized one notebook written by deceased from her possession vide memo Ex.PW11/B, C& D On 26.03.2015, Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased, Sh.Prakash Gupta (Ex.PW 1/A) and Smt. Dev Wati (Ex.PW2/A) respectively and the same was given to the SHO of the police station.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 2 of 15The statement of Sh Prakash Gupta (Ex. PW 1/A) recorded by the Executive Magistrate/SDM led to the registration of FIR No.373/15 under Sections 304-B/498-A of the IPC at P.S. Burari.Inquest proceedings were conducted in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and he seized the exhibits from the doctor who conducted the investigation vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/B and the accused was, thereafter, arrested.On 08.06.2015, the Investigating Officer collected the account opening form of the deceased from Bank of Baroda vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A, bearing her signature at point 'B'.He sent the disputed note (Ex.PW11/D) to the handwriting division of FSL CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 3 of 15 and got it examined.Sh Prakash Gupta (PW-1), father of the deceased, deposed that a neighbor of the deceased informed him that his daughter was brutally beaten by the appellant on 25.03.2015 and had consumed some chemical and she was being taken to hospital.He, along with his wife reached Delhi and thereafter, got to know that his daughter had expired.6. PW-1 has deposed that he got his daughter married to the accused in 2010 and gave the customary stridhan (bed, utensils, etc) at the time of marriage and everything appeared to be normal during the first six months of his daughter's marriage.He further deposed that a demand of 50,000 was made by the accused (PW-1's son-in law) after marriage at the time of birth of the deceased's elder daughter, though no such demand was made at the time of marriage.PW-1 did not accede to this demand.PW-2 corroborates the testimony of her husband, PW- 1 while recounting the incident that happened at their house and had further stated that when her husband (PW-1) and their neighbor tried to intervene, the accused fought with them also and left for Delhi, leaving their deceased daughter behind.The deceased Moni Gupta left for her matrimonial home on the insistence of her parents and the accused demanded a sum of 50,000 from her parents to purchase a rickshaw.She further states that the accused broke three mobile phones given by PW-1 and her to the deceased, on becoming aware of the fact that the deceased would talk to her parents through those mobile phones.After another year, the second daughter was born to the deceased, however accused continued with his ways.For a period of two months, the deceased remained in her parent's home and the accused came thereafter to her house feeling remorseful.He only met his sister once or twice owing to the nature of his work after marriage but was in touch with her via telephone.Dr. Jatin Bodwal (PW-10), Specialist, Department of Forensic Medicine was posted as senior resident doctor at BJRM Hospital on 26.03.2015 and he conducted postmortem (Ex.PW10/A) on the dead body of the deceased Moni Gupta and observed one external injury, contused lacerated wound 0.8cm0.25cm0.25cm present on the inner side of lower lip and on internal examination, found that the deceased's stomach contained 20ml of fluid.Further he has observed that walls of the deceased's stomach were congested and the organs were appearing leathered and thickened.The external injury was fresh and could be possible by striking any stationary or moving object.The CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 6 of 15 remaining organs were congested.In his cross examination, the doctor has explained that though medical science does not have a method to find out whether the liquid was consumed voluntarily or forced upon, however the autopsy surgeon depending upon his years of experience can tell the manner of consumption of substance.Also, he stated that if a person is forced to take a substance, external injuries can happen as is present in the current case but it is not always necessary.He deposed that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was peaceful for the first three years.He further deposed that on one occasion, he had found that both the deceased and the appellant were smeared with kerosene oil.VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe appellant (hereafter also referred to as the accused) has challenged the judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed by the ASJ-03 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby he has been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).He also impugns an order dated 11.05.2016, whereby he has been sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and to serve a period of six years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of 20,000/- of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.In the event of CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 1 of 15 default in payment of fine imposed, the accused is required to serve a further sentence of simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.In terms of the order dated 11.05.2016, benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been accorded to the appellant and both the sentences are to run concurrently.After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed.Vide order dated 23.07.2015, charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/304-B of the IPC.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 3 of 15It was also deposed that the deceased and her husband demanded 10,000 from his wife, Dev Wati (PW-2).He also stated that he witnessed the accused beating up his daughter at his own residence and he and his neighbor intervened to resolve the dispute.The main reason behind the dispute, as stated by PW-1, was the consumption of ganja by the accused which the wife objected to.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 4 of 15Smt. Dev Wati (PW-2), mother of the deceased, stated that after six months of the marriage of her deceased daughter with the accused, the deceased would tell her that the accused would beat her on petty issues (though the real cause is unknown) and after the birth of deceased's elder daughter, the accused would beat her more.The accused was habituated to ganja and after consuming the same, he would beat the deceased and the deceased was troubled by the fact that no food was left at home as the accused spent money on ganja.However, PW-2 deposed that there was absolutely no change in the behavior of the accused and further one of the deceased's neighbor informed her that the accused had mercilessly beaten up her daughter on 25.03.2015 at about 12 noon.PW-2 further deposed that the brother in law of the deceased CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 5 of 15 informed her that the deceased had consumed a chemical and was being taken to the hospital.She, along with her husband reached Delhi thereafter and got to know that her daughter had expired.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 5 of 15Sunil Gupta (PW-4/A), brother of deceased, has corroborated the version of his parents in toto.He has further shed light on the aspect that his deceased sister did not tell anything but said she was perturbed over small/petty issues that cropped between her and her husband and in so far as in his knowledge and his parents, the main reason for their fights was the accused's consumption of ganja.The final opinion with respect to the cause of death were kept pending till the receipt of the FSL report of viscera analysis (Ex.PW22/D).On perusal of both the reports, PW- 10 observed that in his opinion, cause of the death was phenol poisoning and the possibility of homicide could not be ruled out (due to the external injury).CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 6 of 1510. PW-9, Karamavir, landlord of PW-1 has certified the factum of marriage and the time of marriage.Marriage of the accused was conducted with the deceased in his house on 18.07.2010, proving that death occurred within seven years of marriage.PW-8 (Shishpal) & PW-13 (Anil Gupta) also attended the marriage ceremony of the accused and deceased.He further states that their relationship turned sour after six months to such an extent that on one occasion, when he visited their house, he found their bodies smeared with oil however it is not clear who poured CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 7 of 15 kerosene oil on whom.On inquiry about the oil, the deceased stated that she would burn herself.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 7 of 15The accused in his defence under Section 313 of the CrPC has stated that he did not demand any money from the family of the deceased and in fact helped them financially at the time of marriage.He did not prefer to examine any witness in his defence.Mr H.S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on several fronts.First, he submits that the conviction is based solely on the testimony of police and interested witnesses and no independent witness testified in Court.He submits that the evidence of such witnesses is not sufficient for establishing commission of any offence on the part of the appellant.Second, he contended that the appellant could not be held guilty of the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC, as there is no material to establish that the appellant had demanded dowry at any time.He further submitted that the trial court had erred in ignoring the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein he had unequivocally stated that he had never made any dowry demand but had financially supported the family of the deceased after their marriage.Third, he submitted that no injury had been found on the body of the deceased which would establish that the accused had not beaten the deceased.Lastly, it is stated that the trial court had ignored the testimony of PW-21 (Suresh Gupta), wherein he CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 8 of 15 had deposed that the deceased was not in a right state of mind.On one of the occasions, he had found that the accused and the deceased were smeared with kerosene oil and the deceased had threatened that she would burn herself.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 8 of 15Discussions and ReasonsIt is clear from the facts as obtaining in the present case that no demand of dowry made by either accused or his family members.PW- 21, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased clearly stated in his evidence that both the parties had divided the expenditure of marriage.This testimony remained unrebutted.This fact clearly militates against any allegation that dowry was demanded by the accused or his family members.None of the witnesses have stated that any dowry had been demanded by the accused or his family members at the time of the marriage.PW-1 (father of the deceased) had, in his testimony, mentioned that a sum of 50,000/- was demanded by the accused for purchasing a Rickshaw.PW-2 (mother of the deceased) also had stated that a demand of 10,000/- had been made after marriage.However, both the witnesses accepted that the said demand had not been made at the time of the marriage.It also appears from the testimony that the said demand of 50,000/- was stated to have been made after accused and deceased were married for almost five years.The accused, on the other hand, had claimed that he had financially assisted the family of the deceased after solemnization of the marriage.Admittedly, no dowry had been paid and a sum of 50,000/-CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 9 of 15or 10,000/-, stated to have been demanded by the accused much after marriage, was also not paid.The principal piece of evidence on the basis of which the petitioner has been convicted is a note stated to have been written by the deceased in a notebook.The same has been treated as a suicide note.The said note also does not mention regarding any demand of dowry.In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused or his family members had made any demand for dowry.There is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the accused used to beat the deceased.PW-1 had deposed that his daughter (the deceased) had informed him that the appellant had used to beat her on petty issues.He had further deposed that on an occasion, the appellant had come to his house and had beaten his daughter with a broom.He stated that after the birth of the second child of the deceased and the appellant, the deceased had come to his house (the deceased's maternal home) and remained there for about two months.The mother of the deceased (PW2) had also testified that the appellant used to beat her daughter.She further stated that one of the CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 10 of 15 neighbors of the deceased daughter had told her that the accused had beaten her brutally on 25.03.2015 at about 12:00 noon.She also testified - consistent with the testimony of PW-1 - that on one occasion, the appellant had beaten her daughter with the broom in her presence.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 10 of 15The brother of the deceased (PW4/A) had also deposed that the appellant used to beat the deceased.In his cross-examination, he stated that his deceased sister had visited his house about two or three times within a period of six months after her marriage but she did not inform him about anything.However, she did say that appellant used to beat her over small/petty issues.PW1, PW2 and PW4/A also stated that the disputes between the deceased and the appellant were regarding his consumption of ganja.The maternal uncle of the deceased (Mausa) had testified that he had arranged for the solemnization of the marriage of the deceased and the appellant and he had played as the mediator (the go between the two families) for arranging the same.In his cross-examination, he stated that on his inquiry, both the appellant and the deceased had blamed each-other for pouring the oil.He had also stated that the deceased had told him that both the appellant and she would get burnt on that date.He had also stated that CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 11 of 15 the deceased had told him that she would burn herself.In his cross- examination, he has stated that the deceased was hot tempered by nature.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 11 of 15The specialist from DDU Hospital (PW-10) had testified that there was no external injury apart from an injury mark on the inner side of her lower lip.He specifically stated that there was no fracture in bones, abrasion, bruises on the body of the deceased.He had testified that the deceased was hot-tempered by nature.He had also testified that on one occasion, he found both the appellant and the deceased doused with kerosene oil.Although it is not clear as to who was responsible for pouring of kerosene, but it is clear that the deceased had threatened to burn herself.The appellant had admitted that he had used to consume ganja sometimes.The testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW4/A also indicates that this habit of the appellant had led to quarrels between the deceased and the appellant.Clearly, the deceased was disturbed and the matrimonial relationship between the deceased and the appellant was not good to say the least.However, the principal question to be addressed is whether the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A(a) of the IPC, that is, a conduct of such nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman.Both, PW1 and PW2, had deposed that on one occasion, the appellant had beaten the deceased with the broomstick at their house.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 12 of 15The principal piece of evidence which has been relied upon by the Trial Court to convict the appellant is a note (referred to as a suicide note - Ex.PW 11/B).A plain reading of the said note indicates that the deceased was not happy in her marriage with the appellant.However, it is important to note that she had also expressed that she feared for her and her daughters' life.It is clear from the same that the appellant was not happy on the deceased giving birth to a daughter and had given grief to the deceased after the birth of his first daughter.The deceased had also written that her condition again became bad after the birth of the second girl child and she had to go to her parent's house because she had feared for her life and that of her children.The statement of PW2 recorded on 26.03.2015 (Ex.PW2/A) also indicates that the incidence of physical assault (maar-pitaai) increased after the birth of the female child.The contention that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 498A(a) of the IPC as the Trial Court had not accepted the CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 13 of 15 allegation of demand of dowry, is unsustainable.Clause (a) of Section 498A of the IPC refers to offensive conduct of a nature so as to drive a woman to commit suicide.The note written by the deceased clearly indicates that the conduct of the appellant had led her to fear for her life and that of her girl child.She had eventually taken her own life.CRL.A. 616/2016 Page 13 of 15It is relevant to note that the appellant did not lead any evidence to the contrary.He did not examine any witnesses in defense which could disprove the allegations or raise any doubt on the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW4/A.The contention that the appellant could not be held guilty under Section 306 of the IPC, is also unmerited.It is necessary to refer to Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under:-"113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.This presumption is a rebuttable presumption and it was open for the appellant to lead evidence to rebut the same.However, the appellant has failed to do so.The appellant led no evidence to dispel the said presumption.In view of the above, the appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed.

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

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

However on the basis of other material submitted by the respondent no.2 and 3, the District Magistrate passed order against him but the act of the respondent no.2 and 3 is against the law punishable under aforesaid sections of the IPC but the learned Magistrate and Revisional court rejected the prayer of the applicant.Hence this petition has been filed.P.C Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarun

['Section 193 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.

The case against the accused came to be investigated upon a complaint filed by Shri Manohar Parrikar, MLA, Panaji, and it appears that it took different turns depending upon which Government was in power in the State of Goa.The case of the prosecution is that A-1/Godinho and A-2/Nagarajan were the Minister for Power and Chief Electrical Engineer, respectively at the relevant time.The allegation is that A-2/Nagarajan was promoted to act as a Chief Electrical Engineer from 5-2-1996 as he was close to A-1/Godinho, the Minister for Power and in preference to Shri Ghali who was senior to him.At the relevant time they were public servants.A-3/Bhandari and A-4/Radhakrishnan were the Managing Director and the Executive Director of A-6/M/s Marmugao Steel Ltd. and A-5/Shri Krishna Kumar was the General Manager of A-7/M/s Binani Zinc Ltd.(Glass Fibre Division) and that they all entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful gain to the said two companies, namely, A-6/M/s Marmugao Steel Ltd. and A-7/Binani Zinc Ltd.(Glass Fibre Division) and corresponding loss to the Government of Goa by illegal means and in pursuance of the said conspiracy A-1/Godinho and A-2/Nagarajan abused their official position as public servants and showed undue favours to the said two companies/industrial units and by illegal means enabled them to avail 25% rebate on power supply and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs.4,52,77,856/ to the Government of Goa and corresponding wrongful gain to the said companies.There was a Notification dated 30-9-1991 issued by the Government of Goa, with the Cabinet approval.With a view to secure rapid and orderly establishment of industries in Goa, the said Notification dated 30-9-1991 provided that all industrial units who applied for availing High Tension or Low Tension power supply on or after 1-10-1991 for bona fide industrial activities and certified by the Industries Department, Government of Goa, would be eligible for concessional tariffs and would be entitled to a rebate of 25% in the tariffs chargeable under Government Notification dated 27-6-1998 for a period of 5 years from the date on which the supply of electricity was made available to such units.The Respondent No.6/M/s.That the Special Public Prosecutor changed the aforesaid opinion later by his letter dated 19-1-1999 is another matter.The Secretary for Power was always there to aid and advise the Minister whose advice the said Minister apparently did not take at any time, and again for reasons which are obvious.The Notifications dated 15-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 which did not have concurrence of the Cabinet and for issuance of which A-1/Godinho was alone responsible have now been held to be illegal and void.JUDGMENT N.A. Britto, J.Respondent No.7/M/s.He also stated that Government was considering giving of rebate only on energy charges and the procedure would be laid down and notified.A-2/Shri Nagarajan was was appointed as Chief Electrical Engineer by Order dated 5-2-1996 and took charge on 7-2-1996 by prematurely terminating the extension granted to Mr. Madihalli, in preference to Shri Ghali who was his senior.Thereafter Notification dated 15-5-1996 came to be issued presumably in the name of procedure.This Notification admittedly did not have the approval of the Cabinet and was approved upto the level of A-1/Godinho, as Minister for Power.Reference was made in this Notification dated 15-5-1996 to the earlier Notification dated 30-9-1991 and by virtue of this Notification dated 15-5-1996 the earlier Notification was amended and the words High Tension or Low Tension power supply were substituted by High Tension/Extra High Tension or Low Tension power supply.The allegation is that this Notification was issued particularly to help A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. and A-7/M/s Binani Zinc Ltd.(Glass Fibre Division) who admittedly were the only two companies/industrial units who had applied for Extra High Tension power and their case was earlier rejected by the Chief Electrical Engineer in October, 1995 itself and no legal action was taken by either of the said A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. and A-7/M/s Binani Zinc Ltd.(Glass Fibre Division) against the said decision.Even if it is contended that extra high power supply consumers would have come within High Tension consumers as per earlier Notification dated 30-9-1991 lot of explanation will be required to be given as to why this Notification was at all issued if not to help the said two companies/industrial units and which did help A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. to get the rebate.Their claim was rejected in October, 1995 because of Notification dated 6-12-1993 did not provide for Extra High Tension consumers.It is in connection with the issuance of these two Notifications that the controversy leading to the filing of the complaint by Shri Parrikar started.On or about 21-3-1998 the Complainant Shri Parrikar wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, raising the issue of irregularities, illegalities and corruption in the matter of rebate of power Page 2693 subsidy in respect of power guzzlers through manipulation of notifications.The immediate reaction to this letter dated 21-3-1998 appears to be the Order/Circular dated 31-3-1998 issued by A-2/Nagarajan stating that the Government has suspended the release of 25% rebate to the industrial consumers.It stipulated that the rebate on this account would not be given in the bills issued henceforth, and, this suspension included those rebates being given on current monthly consumption charges and also the arrears of rebate being given on 60 monthly instalments in the current bills.One would certainly wonder, if everything was well with the Notifications dated 15-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 where was the tearing hurry to suspend the 25% rebate by virtue of the said circular?It appears that the Cabinet had called for the opinions of the then Advocate General as well as the Finance Secretary and that was after a question was tabled by the said Complainant, and, in his note dated 25-3-1998 it appears that the Development Commissioner, inter alia, noted that the Gazette Notification granting subsidy was issued on 30-9-1991 and rescinded on 31-3-1995 and subsequently by another Gazette Notification dated 1-8-1996, a new category of consumers was included.He opined that amending of a rescinded Notification was illegal and was made with a malafide intention of including a new specific consumer(that could be only Respondent No.6).He also noted that the Notification had led to manipulation of records in so far as people had tried to become beneficiaries of the scheme within the notified periods of 1-10-1991 and 31-3-1995.(See Judgment dated 19th onwards of April, 2001 reported in (2001) 2 GLT 358).The Joint Law Secretary in his opinion dated 3-4-1998 opined that before the Notification dated 1-8-1996 was issued, concurrence of the Finance Department ought to have been obtained and further opined that the Notification dated 1-8-1996 was not in conformity with legal sanctity.The Development Commissioner on 4-4-1998 had noted that the Notification dated 1-8-1996 was non est as there was no cabinet clearance and therefore it was necessary to review the entire matter and take it to the cabinet for decision either for ratification or otherwise.The Chief Secretary appears to have been on tour at the relevant time.Here again, it may be observed that if everything was well with the said two Notifications dated 15-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 and if they did not enlarge the scope of the earlier Notification dated 30-9-1991 which was rescinded by Notification dated 31-3-1995 where was the need for the Government again to withdraw the benefit of rebate by Notification dated 24-7-1998?So did other industrial units.On 29-7-1998 A-1/Godinho ceased to be Minister for Power with the fall of the Government of Shri Pratap Singh Rane.In between it appears that at one stage the Complainant Shri Parrikar wanted his Writ Petition No.316/1998 to be heard along with the Writ Petition of A-6/M/s Marmugao Steel Ltd. bearing No.244/1998 but withdrew his request.It may be noted here that that was the time when Shri Francisco Sardinha was the Chief Minister of the State between 24-11-1999 to 23-10-2000 and it is stated by the learned Counsel for the accused that the Complainant was supporting at that time the said Government headed by Shri Sardinha.The learned Division Bench dismissing the application dated 8-12-1999 observed that the controversy in Writ Petition Nos.316/1998 and 244/1998 and others was not the same.Here, it may be noted that the Writ Petition filed by A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. bearing No.244/1998 and other Writ Petitions filed by 11 other industrial units came to be decided on 21-1-1999(Judgment reported in(1999) 1 GLT 218)(during the tenure of Shri Luizinho Faleiro as Chief Minister).The Complainant Shri Manohar Parrikar became the Chief Minister of the State on 24-10-2000 and continued to be so until 2-2-2005(dates from legislator's diary).The Writ Petition filed by him came to be decided on 19-4-2001 onwards by another Division Bench of this Court(reported in (2001) 2 GLT 358).On or about 2-2-1999(during the Chief Ministership of Shri Luizinho Faleiro who was the Chief Minister from 26-11-1998 to 8-2-1999) the Complainant's complaint dated 11-5-1998 was closed as 'C' summary and apparently without any notice to him.The Cabinet headed by Shri Parrikar on or about 10-3-2000 decided to re-investigate the case.On 3-4-2001 in view of Government communication dated 16-2-2001 permission was sought to re-investigate the same.The Judgment in Writ Petition No. 316/1998 filed by the Complainant((2001) 2 GLT 358) was delivered on 19-4-2001 onwards.The charge-sheet was filed against the accused, and, as already stated that learned Sessions Judge by lengthy and elaborate order has directed framing of charges against the accused for the offences mentioned herein above.Although, the learned Sessions Judge has observed in para 44 of the impugned Order dated 8-12-2006 that A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. Page 2695 was given rebate only pursuant to Notification dated 1-8-1996 and in para 46 that the question which will have to be finally determined is whether A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. was entitled for rebate after the rescission of the Principal Notification w.e.f. 1-4-1995, in my view, apart from the said incorrect observations, the impugned Order, as a whole on facts of the case, cannot be faulted.The question which will have to be finally decided by the learned Special Judge is not whether A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. was entitled for rebate under the first Notification dated 30-9-1991 or under Notification dated 1-8-1996 but whether the Notifications dated 15-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 were issued/got issued by A-1/Godinho with dishonest or oblique motives to help other industrial units, namely, those which were not entitled to rebate under the first Notification and particularly A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. and A-7/Binani Zinc Ltd.(Glass Fibre Division) who were the only two Extra High Tension consumers and in connivance with them and which caused loss to the Government.The answer, prima facie, has got to be in the affirmative.The said two Notifications, namely, 15-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 were not a subject matter of challenge in the first Writ Petition bearing No.244/1998((1999) 1 GLT 218).The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material on record has ordered the framing of charge against the accused.In this context, I may refer to Smt. Om Wati and Anr.Consequent to the issue of 1-8-1996 Notification, about 14 crores were paid in approximately 1 1/2 year period between September, 1996 to March, 1998 when the payment of power subsidy was suspended.Needless to say, the files which were placed before the learned Division Bench who decided the Complainant's Writ Petition((2001) 2 GLT 358) were not placed before the Division Bench who decided the Writ Petition of A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd. and others on 21-1-1999((1991) 1 GLT 218).Again, it is needless to observe that it is the change of Governments which brought about different results in the said two sets of Writ Petitions.He has opined that A-1/Godinho was inclined somehow to expand the scope of Notification dated 30-9-1991 with intention to cause pecuniary advantage to various industries who were outside the purview of the said Notification and were not entitled to rebate.As per him the following acts disclose the said intention.As per the learned Public Prosecutor, A-1/Godinho was not a novice regarding the transaction of business of the affairs of the State.(a) For deciding the modalities/guidelines for implementing the Notification dated 30-9-1991 a note dated 2-11-1995 was made by the Minister (notesheet 27/N) mentioning that connections which could not be provided by 31-3-1995 also be considered.Then again on 14-11-1995 the file was called by the Minister and in the office copy of letter/draft dated 6-11-1995, the Minister has made changes and instead of SSI units introduced all industrial units for grant of rebate of 25% and instead of for availing, introduced applied or availed of.(b) The Minister for Power knowing very well that by letter dated 7-2-1996, Mr. Madihalli, the then Chief Electrical Engineer had refused 25% rebate to A-6/Marmugao Steel Ltd., again on or about 11th/12th February directed A-2/Shri Nagarajan, Chief Electrical Engineer to reconsider the entire issue and prepare a draft Notification and accordingly the draft Notification was prepared and was approved by legal(sic.) Law Department and thereafter changes were made by the Minister in the said draft and Notification dated 1-8-1996 was issued.The notings in respect thereof clearly show that the Minister separated ('excluded') the Industries Department from the entire scheme of rebate of 25% by introducing word Electricity instead of Industries Department and was keen to bring in purview all industrial units who applied or availed of Extra High Tension, High Tension or Low Tension.

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

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

(18.05.2017) This criminal revision takes exception to the order dated 26.11.2011 by which the application filed by the present applicants under Section 227 of Cr.P.C 1973 seeking discharge from the offences alleged against them has been dismissed.2- The prosecution story leading to filing of the present revision petition is that a complaint was received from the prosecutrix alleging that her father along with brothers wrongly confined her and coerced her for miscarriage.They carried the prosecutrix to the applicant No.4 who is a registered medical practitioner, it is alleged that she carried out miscarriage against her will.The Police registered an FIR and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and other relevant witnesses.Subsequent to the same, a charge-sheet has been filed and the trial-( 2 )- Cr.R. No. 1070/2011 court has framed the charges against the applicants for commission of offences punishable under Section 313, 323, 344, and 506 Part 2 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').Consequently, the applicants seek exoneration from all the charges and quashing of entire criminal proceedings.5- I have carefully examined the documents filed along with present revision application and have also perused the case diary.In the event of allegation against the Doctor under Section 313 of IPC and while doing so, the court has discussed the ingredients of Section 313 of IPC.12- I have considered the facts of this case in which there exists enough material to frame charges against the applicants as the role of each applicant finds mention in the charge-sheet in the manner that the father of the complainant along with her brother wrongly confined her and coerced her for miscarriage.They carried the prosecutrix to applicant

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Taluqa Prasad and Gama were two real brothers.Gama had not married.He had, therefore, adopted his nephew Lakhan, son of Taluqa Prasad.Lakhan was living with Gama and was looking after his property, including agricultural land.Lallan, appellant, who was the other son of Taluqa Prasad, was jealous on account of the same.3. Gama and Mohd. Usman were friends and were on visiting terms with each other.Lallan, appellant, did not like the said friendship and intimate relations between them.The appellant Lallan was carrying an impression that it was only on account of Mohd. Usman, deceased, that Ganga had not given any share in his property to him but had given his entire property to Lakhan.According to the case of the prosecution, on 19-12-1976 at about 12 in the noon when Mohd. Usman was sitting in the courtyard of his house in Village Dubawal.Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Allahabad, the appellant came there and asked Mohd. Usman to give him his Ghoor (compost manure) to which Mohd. Usman did not oblige.The appellant started hurling abuses and then went away after advancing threats to Mohd. Usman.It is further the case of the prosecution that on the same day, i.e. 19-12-76, at about 4 p.m. Lallan, appellant armed with lathi came to the courtyard of the house of Mohd. Usman, deceased, where he was sitting on a cot.The appellant abused Mohd. Usman deceased and then gave him lathi blows.Mohd. Usman, deceased, stood up and tried to run towards east but the appellant went on striking lathi blows on him.Mohd. Usman, deceased fell down.A hue and cry was raised which had attracted witnesses to the place of occurrence.After the incident the appellant ran away.Mohd. Usman succumbed to his injuries after a few minutes.Thereafter, Smt. Rabia Bano, P.W. 2 daughter-in-law of Mohd. Usman deceased, went to the police station, along with the village chaukidar, to lodge a written report of the incident, on the same day at 6.50 p.m.In support of its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses.P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano was the daughter-in-law of Mohd. Usman, She had lodged report of the incident.She, along with P.W. 5 Kitabun Nisa, daughter of Mohd. Usman, deceased and P.W. 1 Amanat AH, has given the eye-witness account of the incident.Blood clots were present.Fracture of both bones of left forearm at middle.Blood clots were present.Fracture of both bones of left leg at middle with 3 small lacerated wounds of 1/4" x 1/4 bone deep, oblique.Blood clots and 5 small lacerated wounds of 1/4" x 1/4" on middle of right leg with traumatic swelling all over leg, muscle deep, oblique and blood clots were present.On internal examination, the doctor found fracture of frontal right parietal left spinal and laceration of left parietal lobe.He also found the stomach and small intestine empty; and in the big intestine gas and faecal matter was found.According to the doctor the cause of death of Mohd. Usman deceased was head injury due to multiple injuries sustained by him on his head.P.W. 4 Hira Lal was one of the 'panches' in whose presence the 'Panchnama' of the dead body of Mohd. Usman was prepared.The Investigating Officer had also taken samples of bloodstained, and unstained earth from the place of occurrence in his presence.Constable Muzaffar Husain, P. W. 8 and Constable Nanku Singh.P.W. 9 were formal witnesses.The investigation of this case was conducted by P.W. 7 Malkhan Singh, Sub-Inspector, in whose presence this case was registered.At the police station he recorded the statement of Smt. Rabia Bano the informant, and also interrogated the village Chaukidhar Ram Dass, who had come with her to the police station.On the same night the Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence.He found dead body of Mohd. Usman lying at the place of occurrence.He took in possession the bloodstained clothes of the deceased.He also found blood at the place of occurrence.He took samples of bloodstained and unstained earth.He prepared the inquest report and other relevant documents.He handed over the sealed dead body to constables for taking the same for post-mortem examination.JUDGMENT Madan Mohan Lal, J.P.W. 3 Sheo Kumar Singh, was Head Moharrir at Police Station Sarai Inayat.He deposed that on 19-12-1976 at 6.50 p.m. Smt. Rabia Bano had come to him at the police station to hand him over the written report of the incident.Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. R. C. Gupta, the then Medical Officer, T. B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad.As the said doctor had gone abroad and was not available, hence P.W. 6 Vipra Nath Pandey.Pharmacist was examined to prove the post-mortem examination report prepared by the said doctor.According to the said report the postmortem examination of the dead body of Mohd. Usman revealed the following ante-mortem injuries:--Lacerated wound 21/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" muscle deep on left side of Head.3" above left ear.Ecchymosis and oblique.Lacerated wound 1" x 5° x scalp deep on right side of Head.4" above and 2" front of right ear.Ecchymosis and oblique.Lacerated wound 1" x 5° x scalp deep on right side of Head.3" above and 2" to right ear.Blood clots were present.Fracture of right arm at middle.The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan thereof.On 20-12-1976 the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of P.W. 5 Kitabun Nisa P.W. 1 Amanat Ali and others.The appellant in his statement denied the case of the prosecution.He further stated that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity.The appellant, however, did not produce any witness in defence.Believing the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution the learned trial Court has found the appellant guilty and has accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.Aggrieved by the same the appellant has filed this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have perused the record carefully.The Investigating Officer had started the investigation immediately.After recording the statement of the informant at the police station the Investigating Officer left for the place of occurrence, where he had prepared the inquest report at 10 P.M. in the night.In our view, when the first information report was lodged on 19-12-1976 at 6.50 P.M. and when the Investigating Officer had reached the place of occurrence and had even prepared the "panchnama" on the same night at 10 O'clock it cannot be said that the murder of Mohd. Usman took place subsequently in the night.It may not be out of place to state here that the post-mortem examination report of the dead body of Mohd. Usman reveals that his stomach and small intestines were empty.In our view, had the murder of Mohd. Usman occurred late in the night after dinner his stomach etc. would not have been empty.We are thus satisfied that the murder of Mohd. Usman had taken place on 19-12-1976 at 4 P.M. as alleged by the prosecution, and not late in the night, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the contents of the first information report and from the same has tried to urge that the said report could not have been written in the village itself as asserted by P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano, informant, but was in fact written and dictated at the police station itself.The learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis in the recitation in the first information report that after searching for the chaukidar the informant had come to the police station along with the chaukidar to make report of the incident.The submission of the learned counsel is that when after getting the report written in the village P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano had gone to the house of Sri Ram Dass, village chaukidar and had then come to the police station along with him she would not have earlier written in the report that after searching for the village chaukidar she had come to the police station along with him.In our view, when the informant in fact came along with the village chaukidar it was just a matter of description as to how it was stated in the first information report that the village chaukidar had been contacted to accompany the informant to the police station.It may be observed that in the General Diary, by which this case was registered, it was stated that Sri Ram Dass, village chaukidar, had come along with the informant to the police station.P.W. 7 Malkhan Singh, Investigating Officer had also stated that after the case had been registered he had at the police station itself interrogated Sri.Ram Dass, village chaukidar.In our view, when the village chaukidar had in fact come along with the informant to the police station, the aforesaid wording in the first information report that after searching the said chaukidar the informant had come to the police station to lodge the report of the incident cannot go so far as to warrant an inference that the report was not written in the village but had been prepared at the police station.The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that when the special report in this case was not despatched on the same night it shows that in fact the first information report was not lodged on 19-12-1976 itself.When P.W. 3 Sheo Kumar Singh, Head Moharrir was confronted with the same, he deposed that he had not sent the special report on the same night simply because there was no other constable available except guard sentries, and that he had conveyed this incident to the control room on wireless, when he requisitioned vehicle for transporting dead body.The learned counsel for the appellant has further urged before us that the incident had not been committed at the place alleged by the prosecution.In this respect he has taken us through the evidence of P.W. 1 Amanat Ali, who stated in his evidence that when on the second day he was called by the Investigating Officer he did not find any blood at the place of occurrence.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that had the incident occurred at the place of occurrence then blood would have certainly been found there.It may be observed that both P.W. 7 Malkhan Singh, Investigating Officer and P.W. 4 Hira Lal have deposed that at the time of the local inspection on that night blood was found at the place of occurrence and that samples of bloodstained and unstained earth were taken from there.As regards the version of P.W. 1 Amanat Ali that no blood was found at the place of occurrence it may be noted that he has stated the same with regard to the position prevailing on the next day i.e. on 20-12-1976, when he was called by the Investigating Officer.In our view when blood had already been detected in the night of 19-12-19.76 when the Investigating Officer made the local inspection and samples of bloodstained earth had been collected, there was no significance if subsequently on the morning of 20-12-1976 no blood was observed by P.W, 1 Amanat Ali at the place of occurrence.It may not be out of place to state here that the sample of bloodstained earth collected from the place of occurrence was sent for chemical examination to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist who found that there was human blood.We are thus satisfied that the murder was committed at the place of occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution.The learned counsel for appellant has also argued before us that the motive alleged by the prosecution had not been established.Where eye-witnesses have been examined to prove the incident and in such a case motive does not play an important role.In our view, there was no reason for P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano to speak lie with respect to the same.With regard to immediate motive, P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano and P.W. 5 Kitabun Nisa have stated in their evidence that on the date of the incident at about 12.30 P.M. the appellant had come to the house and asked Mohd. Usman deceased to give his Ghur (Compost manure) to him to which Mohd. Usman deceased declined and that at the said time the appellant went away advancing threats.The said fact was also written in the first information report which was lodged promptly after the incident.We find no valid reasons to disbelieve P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano and P.W. 5 Kitabun Nisa with respect to the same.The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of the eyewitnesses and has tried to point out certain discrepancies in the same.He urged that there are contradictions on the point as to whether P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano and P.W. 5 Kitabun Nisa were giving fodder to the cattle or were just sitting and making 'biris' when this incident occurred.In our view, the said discrepancy was not material because if this incident took place at the time when the said two ladies had just given fodder to the cattle and thereafter were sitting, the said discrepancy was natural.It is a matter of common knowledge that a neem tree has a huge growth and covers much of the adjoining land by its branches.Therefore, if the branches of the neem tree were extending to the court-yard of the house of Mohd. Husain (Usman) deceased, the version given by the eye-witness as was not belied when they stated that the deceased was sitting in his court-yard under the neem tree.The learned counsel also referred to us the evidence of P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano, where she was inquired as to whether there was any other neem tree in her court-yard.It appears that Smt. Rabia Bano P.W. 2 was just confused at that stage and therefore made a confused statement with regard to the presence of the neem tree in her court-yard.It seems that this witness was overawed by the Court atmosphere and the cross-examination and that it was due to the same that this witness made some confused statement regarding the location of the neem tree.P.C. and before the trial Court.In our view, the said contradictions are too minor to be attached any weight, specially when the said discrepancies do not go to the root of the matter and do not shake the basic version of the witnesses.It may be relevant to point out that the Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies.The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance.P.W. 2 Smt. Rabia Bano and P.W. 5 Kitabun Nisa have given consistent evidence.They have given material details of the incident.They were inmates of the house.The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that P.W. 1 Amanat Ali was a resident of a different village and that there was no occasion for him to have been present at the place of occurrence to witness this incident.We find no merit in the said argument because P.W. 1 Amanat Ali has deposed that his village Kakra and village Dubawal, where this incident took place are adjacent to each other, and that as already agreed he had come to the house of Mohd. Usman to accompany him to a feast in a neighbouring village.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 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 learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.1477 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Phase-3, District-Gautam Budh Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.The allegations made in the FIR is that her minor daughter was enticed away by the applicant and was confined in a room and later on, after recovery of the girl, she revealed that she was ravished by the applicant.As per the FIR, the girl was recovered from the bathroom of the applicant.She, on her own volition, joined the company of the applicant while coming back to her home.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Himanshu, involved in case crime no.1477 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Phase-3, District-Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a Writ ofMandamus directing the respondent to consider the Petitioner'srepresentation, dated 17.1.2017 and to re-issue the Petitioner's passportwithin the time stipulated by this Court.In orderto seek employment abroad, the applicant had applied for the passport andthe same was issued to the Petitioner on 6.9.2004 by the Regional PassportOffice, Tiruchirappalli.Thereafter, the Petitioner had applied forthe renewal of the passport and the same was also renewed.In view of thepending criminal proceedings, the Petitioner was directed to surrender hispassport and the same was also surrendered on 29.04.2014 and the Surrender Certificate was also issued to the Petitioner.The Mahila Fast Track Court,Nagercoil ultimately by its judgement, dated 21.9.2016 acquitted thePetitioner and all others under Sections 120, 450,302, 201 IPC and imposed afine of Rs.400/-.As per the judgement of the Trial Court, fine amount hasalso been paid by the Petitioner on 21.9.2006 itself.Thereafter, the Petitioner appearedbefore the Respondent on 17.1.2017, submitted his explanation and enclosinga copy of the judgement passed by the trial Court acquitting him from theoffences.5.According to the petitioner, there is no impediment for reissue ofpassport, since he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court and no furthercriminal proceeding is pending.In-spite of the same, no decision has beenforthcoming from the respondent nor passport has been reissued to thepetitioner.In the said circumstances, the Petitioner is before this Courtseeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for the relief stated supra.6.Upon notice, Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and submit that the respondent would consider therepresentation made by the Petitioner on 17.1.2017 in view of the subsequentdevelopments.7.Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for therespondent, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representationof the petitioner said to have been made by the Petitioner on 17.1.2017 forreissue of passport by taking note of the subsequent developments,particularly, in view of the judgement of the trial Court acquitting thePetitioner from the offences of IPC as stated by him and pass necessaryorders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.ToThe Regional Passport Officer,Bharathi Ula Veethi,Race Course Road, Madurai..

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts are as follows:- The complainant in his complaint has stated that he was entered into service as Public Relation Officer on 13.05.1970 and he was holding the office and he further stated about the development regarding the political party between 1987 and 1989 and after the death of the former Chief Minister there was split in the party which resulted in introduction of promulgation of Presidential Rule under 356 of Constitution of India.There was division of group regarding the division of symbol and thereafter he was working as Deputy director in the department of Information and Tourism in 1988 due to political situation, he has resigned his post.Written complaint was obtained from that person under coercion at about 3 a.m. and F.I.R. in Crime No.5/2012 was registered against the petitioner in his presence.Later on, he came to know that person name is Mr.Ramalingam.16.10.2012Index:YesInternet:Yesgr.A.ARUMUGHASWAMY, Jgr.The petitioner filed a private complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8, in Crl.M.P.No.2671/2012 against the police officials for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 347, 364, 448, 449, 451 r/w 34 IPC.Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.The further case of the complainant is that on 18.02.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. 15 persons forcibly trespassed into the petitioner's house at Besant Nagar, Chennai, abducted him and confined in a vehicle, taken him to a lonely place in between Senkippatti and Vallam where the petitioner had been confined by the accused in the midnight from 12.00 am to 2.00 am.Amalraj IPS planned with their subordinates in the presence of the petitioner to finish the life of the petitioner.He requested them not to do any such illegal act.He said that they have to obey the instruction of Mr.Alexander Mohan, Inspector General of Police and higher police officers.When they about to finish the life of the petitioner, his advocates and press reporters were gathered around him and his life was saved.If they have not come in time no doubt he would have been murdered by police officials as planned by Mr.Amalraj IPS.He immediately informed this untoward incident to his advocates and the people gathered around him.Then at about 2.30 a.m. he was taken to Anti-Land Grabbing Spl.Cell, Thanjavur District where one person was coerced by Mr.Xavier Dhanraj IPS.Manikavasakam D.S.P and Mr.Narayanasamy Inspector of ALGC of Thanjavur to give complaint against the petitioner.The Circular referred to above earlier was followed and so complaints against policemen were entertained by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.OP.No.18240 of 201216.10.2012

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The distance of the police station was 10 km from the alleged place of occurrence.According to prosecution version the first informant and his other family members including prosecutrix Km.Rajni aged about 17 years were sleeping at her house.In the night of 9/10-4.2005 the prosecutrix Km.Rajni fled away from her house.JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.Heard Manish Tiwari learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.This application is filed by the applicant with a prayer that the applicant may be released on bail in case Crime No. 34 of 2005, under Sections 363, 366 and 120B, I.P.C. P.S. Khanpur, District Bulandshahar.'From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by one Ajay Pal Singh at P.S. Khanpur on 12.4.2005 at 10.00 a.m. against the applicant, co-accused Sudhir and Ram Pal.The first informant came to know about 4.00 a.m. on 10.4.2005 when he saw that the prosecutrix was not present on her cot.The information of missing of Km.The first informant and his family members made a search to trace out Km.Rajni, but she could not be traced out.On 12.4.2005 the first informant was informed by the villagers Som Pal and Rakesh that they have seen Km.Co-accused Ram Pal was also seen at that time who was instrumental in their boarding in the bus.Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons with the allegation that the accused persons have enticed and taken away to the prosecutrix.On 12.4.2005 the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of first information given by Sompal and Rakesh.According to their information the prosecutrix was seen in the company of the applicant and co-accused Sudhir and Ram pal when she was boarding in a bus.At the time of the alleged occurrence she was aged about 19 years.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on I.A. No. 15439/2015, third application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Earlier applications were dismissed as withdrawn.Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under sections 304-II, 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years & fine of Rs. 1000/-, RI for 1 month & fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective.Appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of 3 years and 7 months which is more than 50% of the awarded jail sentence.The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally hence, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI)

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Since all these applications are arising out of same crime number, hence, all the applications are decided by a common order.This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The applicants were in custody since 11.11.2014 in connection with Crime No.333/14 registered at Police Station Kailaras District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506-B, 324, 326, 307 of IPC.It is alleged that on 29.08.2014 at about 7.15 AM Raghunath Singh, Nihal Singh, Dharmveer Tole @ Rakesh (applicant), Dharam Singh, Sukveer Singh (applicant) and Kaju @ Sandeep (applicant) ploughed the path of the complainant by tractor.On this there was an altercation between the parties.Accused persons after sometime came armed with lathi, luhangi and with the common object abused the complainant and started beating him.On his shout his brother Vishambar and Raghuraj ( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014 (Tole @ Rakesh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014 (Sukhveer Singh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014 came to his rescue.They were also beaten by luhangi, fists and kicks.Vishamber and Raghunath fell on the ground.Raghunath became unconscious.Accused Tole caused injury by luhangi on the back of his head.Accused Dharam Singh used lathi.Accused Raghunath used lathi and injured the complainant Rakesh on his wrist.Due to injuries sustained by the complainant party, later offence has been enhanced to Section 324, 326 and 307 IPC.It is also argued that cross case has been registered against the complainant party on the same day.Crime No.332/14 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 34 of IPC has been registered on the report of applicant Tole @ Dharmveer.In that case, the accused persons of this case who have received injuries have been examined.Dharm Singh, Sandeep, Raghunath and Tole @ Dharmveer has been examined and MLC report has been attached.Charge-sheet has been filed.Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of bail.The application for bail has been opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.Considered all the aspects.The accused persons have also received injuries.At this juncture it is difficult to hold ( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs.State of M.P. ) 3 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014 (Tole @ Rakesh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014 (Sukhveer Singh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014 who is the aggressor.Keeping in view that the trial would take time and there has been cross allegations, we deem it proper to extent the benefit of bail to the applicants.Accordingly, the application is allowed.and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on thier furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

4.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:"4.I am aware that Thiru Boopathy is in remand in H6 R.K. Nagar Police Station Cr.No.403/2019, H1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.272/2019, H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.Nos.203/2019 and 207/2019 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.He has moved bail applications for H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.Nos.203/2019 and 207/2019 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.The detenu, Boopathy S/o Kuttiyappan aged about 29 years, is directed to Page 5 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1053 of 2019 be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.Page 5 of 7(M.M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 16.08.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm1.The Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 0092.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai – 07Page 6 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1053 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 6 of 7(ssm) H.C.P. No. 1053 of 2019 16.08.2019 Page 7 of 7http://www.judis.nic.inPage 7 of 7[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Boopathy S/o Kuttiyappan aged about 29 years.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.Page 2 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1053 of 2019Page 2 of 7M.P.Nos.8983/2019 and 8984/2019 respectively and both the bail applications are pending.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Boopathy are taking action to take him on bail in H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.403/2019 and H1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.272/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court.In a case registered u/s 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC in M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr.No.17/2019, bail was granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur in Crl.Hence I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.Nos.203/2019 and 207/2019 and also there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in H6 R.K. Nagar Police Station Cr.No.403/2019 and H1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.M.P.No.817/2019 and therefore, there Page 4 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1053 of 2019 is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the adverse cases and ground case and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC whereas the offences involved in the adverse cases and ground case are under Sections 341, 294(b), 394, 397 and 506(ii) IPC; 341, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC; 147, 323, 294(b), 392 and 506(ii) IPC and 147, 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Further, the detaining authority has observed that the detenu has not filed bail applications in respect of the first and third adverse cases but the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail in those cases.There is no material to substantiate the same.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Page 4 of 76.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No. BCDFGISSSV No.251/2019 dated 14.05.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.3.The Inspector of Police, H4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai – 214.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.) The petitioner is the sister of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 12.09.2013 made in BDFGISSV No.978/2013, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a Goonda and detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).2.As per the grounds of detention dated 12.09.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :-Sl.Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law1S-1 St. Thomas Mount Police StationCr.S-1 St. Thomas Mount Police StationCr.No.440/2011457, 511 I.P.C. @ 457, 380 I.P.C.S-1 St. Thomas Mount Police StationCr.No.953/2013341, 294(b), 384, 506(ii)S-1 St. Thomas Mount Police StationCr.No.991/2013294(b), 324, 506(ii)3.In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 02.09.2013 at 10.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, S-1 St. Thomas Mount Police Station, in Crime No.993 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 427, 392, 506(ii) I.P.C., subsequently altered into one under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai and remanded to judicial custody.The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention.Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition.4.Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is variation in the translated version of the detention order.Therefore, this would create confusion in the mind of the detenu, which prevented him from making effective representation for redressal of his grievance.5.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records."3............Further, the arrest intimation of the accused Thiru.Anbu @ Anbazhagan was given to his sister Tmt.Anitha on the same day.Later the Inspector of Police produced accused Thiru.Anbu @ Anbazhagan before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai, on 02.09.2013 who ordered the accused to be remanded till 16.09.2013 and lodged him at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, as remand prisoner....."whereas, para 3 of the vernacular version of the grounds of detention reads as under: @3/////////// nkYk; vjphp jpU/md;g[ (v) md;gHfd; vd;gth; ifJ bra;ag;gl;l tptuk; Fwpj;J vjphpapd; rnfhjhp jpUkjp/mdpjh vd;gtUf;F md;iwajpdnk bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ fhty; Ma;thsh;.gpd;dh;.jhk;guk;.8.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in BDFGISSV No.978/2013 dated 12.09.2013, is set aside.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased.P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased.At the time of marriage, P.W.3 gave seedhana of 7 sovereigns gold.When, P.W.1 visited the deceased house on 07.09.2002, the deceased informed P.W.1 that the appellant/accused is demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a van and everyday consuming alcohol and harassing the deceased.Thereafter, P.W.1 pacified the deceased and warned the accused and left her house.3.P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.1634/2002 under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is the printed FIR.The investigation officer took up 3 the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar under Ex.At the time of marriage, seven sovereigns of gold were given as seedana to the accused.http://www.judis.nic.in 612.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, after the marriage they lived happily for one month.Thereafter, during the month of aadi, P.W.1 brought her deceased sister and after a month the deceased sister sent back to the matrimonial home in the month of avani.Thereafter, one Saturday, the deceased called P.W.1 over phone and cried, on verification of P.W.1 the deceased sister switched off the phone.Immediately, thereafter, P.W.1 went to the deceased house, at the time the accused also present in the house and after entering the house, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- for purchase of vehicle.P.W.1 the sister of the deceased refused to borrow money from her father.On 08.09.2002, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, in respect of which P.W.1 lodged the complaint Ex.P7 and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P8 and recovered material object MO.1 (Rope) and he has also conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and issued inquest report as Ex.After examining the medical officer and other witnesses, the offence was altered into one under Section 304B IPC.The alteration report is marked as Ex.Thereafter, he laid a final report as against the accused for the offence under Section 304B IPC.5.Based on the materials, the trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC against the accused and the accused denied the same.In order to prove the charges, on the side of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P10 were marked and MO1 (Rope) were marked.6.When the trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating evidence available against him, he denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.However, the accused either chose to examine any witnesses nor marked any documents.7.The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC.Accordingly, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months of the offence under Section 498A IPC and for the offences under Sections 306 and 304B IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Challenging the said conviction and sentence the appellant/sole accused has preferred this appeal.8.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) for the respondent.9.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no material whatsoever available on record to prove the charges under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC against the accused.Except P1, no other witnesses has spoken about the alleged cruelty or harassment by the accused and the ingredients required, implicated thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 offence under Sections 306, 304B IPC has not established before the Court.However, the trial Court without considering the material, convicted the accused, which is unsustainable.Hence, the learned counsel prays for acquittal the appeal.Thereafter, P.W.1 pacified the couple, warned the accused and left the deceased house.However, on 08.09.2002 she received information that her sister committed suicide.The said statement was corroborated by P.W.3 with regard to the demand of Rs.50,000/-.However, on close perusal of P.W.1 and P.W.3, there is no ingredients with regard to the cruelty or instigation to force the deceased to commit suicide soon before the death.13.The other witnesses P.W.3, mother of the deceased and P.W.2, who is the husband of P.W.1, did not disclose any of the ingredients of the offence and other prosecution witnesses namely P.W.4 and P.W.5 turned hostile and P.W.6 a medical officer issued post-mortemhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 certificate Ex.P2, certified that the death was due to hanging and P.W.7 is RDO who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.3, confirmed that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- and the accused harassed the deceased by demanding Rs.50,000/-.14.Considering the above materials would disclose that though P.W.1 and P.W.3 corroborated in respect of demand of Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of vehicle, there is no evidence or material available in respect of abetment to commit suicide.15.In the present case, except P.W.1 and P.W.3, no evidence is available.Even on perusal of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it is seen that they deposed only the demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of vehicle.16.Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of implicating the accused for the offence under Sections 306 and 304B IPC.The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and the criminal appeal stands partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside.17.However, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, the materials available are that the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- and harassed the deceased for demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchase of vehicle.Hence, this Court convict the accused under Section 498A IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.03.01.2019 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No AThttp://www.judis.nic.in 9The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.The Assistant Commissioner of Police-Tiruvottiyur Range, E-8 Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Crime No.1634 of 2002, Tiruvallur District.3.The Government Advocate (Crl.side) High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 M.DHANDAPANI,J.

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

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

Shri A.D. Mishra, counsel for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 21.5.2015 relating to Crime No.104/15 registered at Police Station Ahmadpur, District Sehore for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 327, 506-II and 307 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.It is alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the victim Babulal by sticks.However, the victim sustained a fracture on his rib and an injury was caused on his lung.There is no specific allegation against any of the applicant that they assaulted the victim on his chest or back causing a fracture on rib.Actually, the applicants were not aware that other co- accused persons would assault the victim in such a manner.No common intentions of the applicants can be presumed with other co-accused persons for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.The applicants are unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, they pray for bail.Learned P.L. opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application.He submits that the applicants and other accused persons assaulted the victim brutally and he is still admitted in the hospital.It is directed that the applicants namely Babulal, Sajan Singh and Kashiram be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sehore 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.(N.K. GUPTA)

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A written report was lodged on 6.9.2000 by the 2nd respondent herein alleging that on 31.8.2000 at about 5.00 p.m. some unknown persons had come to his room No.207 at Jagat Trade Centre at Fraser Road, Patna and informed him that as a sum of Rs.1500/- was due to him, he should make the payment thereof.Allegedly, on his reply that he would make the payment only of the amount due from him as per settled accounts; abusive language was used and he was slapped by one Gautam Dubey.A sum of Rs.1580/- was said to have been taken away from his upper pocket.The parties, however, arrived at an amicable settlement of their dispute.In that view of the matter, there was absolutely no reason as to why the settlement arrived at by and between the parties could not have been accepted, as the same would not come within the purview of Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.

A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 2 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 2 of 52The appellant Smt.The appellant Arvinder Singh is the husband of sister of the appellant Baljit Singh.The relevant facts of the case are that on 8th November, 1997, the PCR received a call about setting on fire a woman at B-1-127, Paschiv Vihar.Accordingly, the said information was recorded vide DD No.9A (Ex.PW6/A).The said DD was entrusted to SI Rattan Singh (PW11) who along with Constable Raj Singh (PW5) reached at the spot of incident.There he came to know that the injured already shifted to Safdarjung Hospital by PCR van.Accordingly, PW11 ASI Rattan Singh reached at the hospital.In the hospital, doctor declared Smt. Davender Kaur fit for statement.PW2 Davender Singh, SDM, Vasant Vihar arrived at the hospital at 5.25 pm, who recorded the statement (Ex.PW2/B) of Smt. Davender Kaur in question-answer form.In an answer to the questions, she stated that, "her name is Davender Kaur and she was marred to Baljit Singh about eight years back.Dowry was being demanded.Her parents had given everything in marriage according to their capacity.Her mother- in-law Hardeep Kaur used to give filthy abuses and also beatings.At about 1 pm, she was sitting when her mother-in-law Hardeep Kaur was abusing her and in the meanwhile she brought one can of petrol and Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 3 of 52 poured on her and then lit the fire with a match stick and ran away from the automatic door.While screaming, she came out and neighbours extinguished her fire.Her mother-in-law Hardeep Kaur poured petrol and burnt her.At that time only they two were alone there.Her husband had gone to his shop.Her mother-in-law Hardeep Kaur pourned petrol and burnt her on account of dowry".A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 3 of 52After the usual endorsement by the Area SDM, PW10 B.S. Jaglan, the case was registered against the accused persons including the appellants under Sections 498A/307 of IPC.In the meanwhile, DD No.50B (Ex.PW4/D1) was also recorded at the Police Station Sarojini Nagar on the message of Arvinder Singh (PW18), brother of deceased, that his sister was burnt by her in-laws and was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital and was about to die but the police did not record her statement.The aforesaid DD was entrusted to PW4 SI Dharampal Singh who along with one Constable reached Safdarjung Hospital.At about 4.30 pm PW28 Dr. Sujata Pandey declared her fit for statement vide Ex.PW28/A. Thereafter, PW4 SI Dharampal Singh in the presence of Dr. Rajiv Rajput (PW1) and PW11 SI Rattan Singh recorded the statement (Ex.PW1/A) of Davender Kaur at 5 pm.This statement was to the effect that, "She was married about 8 years back; that she Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 4 of 52 was being harassed by her in-laws on account of dowry; that harassment continued; that today at about 1 pm, her mother-in-law, her husband Baljit Singh and Arvinder Singh poured petrol on her from a can and her mother -in-law lit the fire with a match stick; that she tried to save herself and raised noise; that neighbours came and brought her to the lobby; that her in-laws have burnt her".A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 4 of 52On the same date, at about 8.15 pm, an information was received about death of Davender Kaur which was recorded vide DD NO.43B (Ex.PW26/A).On receiving the said DD, PW26 Inspector Jai Singh along with Constable Vijay Bahadur reached at the place of incident.Accordingly, the offence was altered from Section 307 to 302 IPC.Investigation of the case was taken over by Inspector Jai Singh (PW26).The spot was got inspected from the Crime Team.The site plan was got prepared and photographs were also got taken.Ash of burnt clothes, burnt hairs, and burnt plastic can of petrol with writing "GTX", one matchbox and two burnt match sticks were taken into possession and were kept in a pulanda which were sealed with the seal of "JS".The statements of witnesses were recorded and the case property was deposited at the Police Station Malkhana Moharar.Her personal search was taken by PW 23 W/HC Pushpa Kaur.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 5 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 5 of 52The appellant Hardeep Kaur made a confessional statement to the effect that, "her son Baljit Singh was married with Davender Kaur in September, 1989 according to Sikh rites; that Davender Kaur had not brought the dowry articles as per their desire; that she along with her son Baljit Singh, daughter Simmi and son-in-law used to beat Davender Kaur on account of dowry; that they all hatched a conspiracy to kill Davender Kaur; that she poured petrol on Davender Kaur and lit the fire with matchstick; that she could arrest her son Baljit Singh, daughter Simmi and son-in-law Arvinder Singh and could point out the place".Thereafter, she took the police party to the place of incident i.e. First Floor of Room No.B-1-127, Paschim Vihar and pointed towards the place where they had poured petrol on Davender Kaur and burnt her with matchstick.Inquest proceedings were prepared under Section 174 CR.PC and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased.As per the postmortem report, cause of death was due to shock as a result of 100% superficial and burns of deep first, second, third and fourth degree and ante mortem burn caused by flames.On the internal examination, there was noticed extra vacation of blood in the scalp Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 6 of 52 which was opined by PW9 Dr.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 7 of 52PW3 HC Om Prakash deposed that he reached at the place of incident at about 13:27 pm on getting information regarding a lady having been burnt.He removed her to the Safdarjung Hospital in the PCR Van.Her mother-in-law (appellant Hardeep Kaur) also accompanied the deceased in the van.According to him, deceased did not utter anything on the way and was crying.However, when they reached the hospital, she started crying that she was burnt and killed.PW4 SI Dharampal Singh of Police Station Sarojini Nagar deposed that he had reached the spot on receiving DD No. 50B (Ex.PW4/D1).He informed the SDM, Paschim Vihar, who advised him to contact SDM Punjabi Bagh as the later was not available.He contacted the SDM Sarojini Nagar who advised him to contact SDM Punjabi Bagh, who was still not available.As the SDM had not arrived, he recorded statement Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 8 of 52 (Ex.PW1/A) of the deceased at 5 pm in the presence of PW1 Dr. Rajiv Rajput and PW11 SI Ratan Singh.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 8 of 52PW5 Constable Raj Singh was posted at the Police Station Paschim Vihar and he had accompanied PW11 SI Rattan Singh to the place of incident.As the deceased had already been taken to the hospital, SI Ratan Singh left for the hospital while he remained at the spot.PW8 Dr.Sushma deposed that she was on duty at Safdarjung Hospital on 08.11.1997 when at about 02:30PM, she examined Davender Kaur vide MLC Ex.PW8/A. She deposed that Davender Kaur was brought by her mother-in-law (appellant) and the deceased had herself informed to have sustained burn injuries and that she had the fight with her husband and mother-in-law and she had poured petrol on herself in her room and lit on fire and got herself burnt.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 9 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 9 of 52PW11 SI Rattan Singh, as stated above, had reached the place of incident along with Constable Raj Singh.In the hospital, he sought the declaration of the doctor as regards to the fitness of the deceased for making statement.He was a witness to the statement Ex.PW1/A recorded by PW4 SI Dharampal Singh in the presence of Dr. Rajiv Rajput.Later on after getting endorsement (Ex.PW2/B) of SDM Punjabi Bagh, PW10 B.S. Jalan as Ex.PW2/B, he prepared rukka (Ex.PW5/A) and sent the same through PW5 Constable Raj Singh for registration of the case.After receipt of information regarding death of deceased, PW10 handed over the investigation of the present case to PW26 SHO Jai Singh.PW12 Inspector Davinder Singh had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW12/A.PW13 Constable Durgalal had taken the five photographs Ex.P6 to P10 of the place of incident.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 10 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 10 of 52PW14 Constable Umed Singh had collected the postmortem report along with the seal parcel containing the hair and the sample seal from the hospital and had handed the same to the Duty Officer PW15 HC Brij Lal.PW16 Lady SI Lata Singh had recorded DD NO.9A (Ex.PW16/A) at Police Station Paschim Vihar, on receipt of information from the PCR regarding having been set on fire.Thereafter, she recorded the DD No.14A Ex.PW16/A regarding admission of Davender Kaur (deceased) in the hospital in burnt condition.PW17 SI Dhan Singh deposed that he along with the photographer Hans Raj and R.K. Ken had reached at the spot.PW20 constable Davinder proved the previous incidents between the deceased and her in-laws vide entries Ex.They deposed about the admission of Davender Kaur in burnt condition in the hospital by PCR official namely HC Om Prakash (PW3).They had given the information to Police Station Paschim Vihar regarding the incident which was recorded vide DD No.14 Ex.PW16/B. Constable Satbir also gave the Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 11 of 52 information about the death of Davender Kaur which was recorded at Police Station Paschiv Vihar vide DD No.43 as ex.PW26/A.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 11 of 52PW23 examined W/HC Pushpa Kaur who accompanied Inspector Jai Singh and was a witness to the arrest of appellant Hardeep Kaur vide Ex.PW19/B.He recorded statements of the same witnesses and then formally arrested appellant Arvinder Singh and he had also got sent exhibits to FSL, Malviya Nagar.PW26 Insp.Jai Singh had taken over the investigation after death of Davender Kaur.He prepared the site plan Ex.PW26/B. He recorded the statement of the father and brother of the deceased and other witnesses and took into possession hairs, ash of the clothes, match box with two burnt sticks, one can in melted condition from the spot.He had arrested the appellant Hardeep Kaur.He also recorded the statement of PW4 SI Dhanpal and PW3 HC Om Prakash.Thereafter, he arrested appellant Baljit on the next day after he surrendered in the Court.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 22 of 52The prosecution has suppressed this information.The log book of the PCR recorded that she herself set on fire.He further submitted that PW18 reached at the spot and may have concocted the version.Sushma at 02:30PM learned counsel argued that she blamed two persons viz mother-in-law and the husband of deceased and medium of fire was narrated as petrol.In the third dying declaration being Ex.PW1/A recorded by PW4 SI Dharampal, she blamed mother-in-law; Arvinder Kumar(Nandoi); and Baljeet Singh (husband).PW1 Dr.Rajiv Rajput was declared hostile and stated that no such statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police.As far as the fourth dying declaration is concerned, the same was recorded by the SDM, PW2 Shri Davender Singh - wherein deceased stated that the mother-in-law poured kerosene oil.PW2 Shri Davender Singh, Vansat Vihar, New Delhi in his cross- examination stated that there were about 10 persons including the police officials where the patient was admitted.Out of them 3-4 were police officials and remaining were the relatives of the deceased.When he entered the room, the patient was crying and they were pacifying her.The brother of the deceased was standing nearby the bed and he was also pacifying her.Since, we have come to the conclusion that a quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellant Baljeet Singh and Hardeep Kaur, consequent thereto, deceased set herself ablaze and committed suicide because of the quarrel.After the quarrel, none had pacified the Crl.Even after his father-in-law had given him a colour T.V., a scooter and money for purchasing the flat, he did not feel satisfied and continued to harass his wife.He used to frequently taunt her that some of the items given by way of gift at the time of marriage were of poor quality and were not of his standard.He had also assaulted his wife and even his seven year old daughter on several occasions.The appellants have also challenged the impugned order on sentence by which the appellants have been directed to undergo life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302/120B of IPC with fine of ` 10,000/- each and in default to undergo further RI of three months each, further sentenced them to RI of three years under Section 498A/34 of IPC and fine of ` 5,000/- each and in default to undergo additional RI of two months each.All the appellants have been convicted by the common judgment and sentenced by a common order as mentioned above, therefore, all the appeals are decided by a common judgment.Statements of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer Jai Singh.Chanderkant as caused by application of blunt force from a blunt object/ material to head against rough and hard surface.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 6 of 52After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet in the Court and thereafter vide order dated 2nd May, 1998 charge for committing offences under Sections 302/120B IPC was framed against the appellants including Satender Kaur.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 29 prosecution witnesses and the statements of appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC.Before proceeding further, we briefly discuss about the witnesses examined by prosecution.PW1 Dr. Rajiv Rajput, who was on duty in Burn Department (ICU) of Safdarjung Hospital, when deceased with 100% burns was admitted there at about 2.30 pm.As the SDM did not reach despite long waiting and the condition of the deceased was critical and she could succumb any time, therefore, her statement (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded by PW4 SI Dharampal Singh.The said statement (Ex.PW1/A) of the deceased has been considered by the learned trial court as one of her dying declaration.PW2 Davender Singh, SDM, Vasant Vihar, had recorded the statement of deceased (Ex.PW2/A) later.The learned trial court Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 7 of 52 considered this statement also as dying declaration, while, convicting the appellants.On his asking, she told that her mother-in-law, husband Baljeet Singh and Nandoi Harnam Singh set her on fire after pouring petrol on her.This part of the statement made by the deceased to PW3 HC Om Prakash has also been considered as one of the dying declaration by the Trial Court.Thereafter, he had taken rukka (Ex.PW5/A) to the Police Station Paschim Vihar and got the case registered vide FIR (Ex.PW5/B).PW6 Constable Kailash Chand deposed that he had taken the special report to the senior police officers and to the Area Magistrate on the same day.He denied that he had not taken the copy of the FIR as deposed and that the same was delivered on the next day.The learned trial court has considered the aforesaid statement also as one of the dying declaration, while convicting the appellants.PW9 Dr.PW10 B.S. Jalan was the SDM Paschim Vihar and he had made endorsement regarding registration of the case on the statement recorded by PW2 as Ex.The above discussed witnesses also took into possession the photographs of compromise deeds dated 23.10.1994 as arrived between the deceased and her in-law in a previous incident on which PW11 SI Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 12 of 52 Ratan Singhs signatures were there.He prepared the inquest report Ex.PW26/D and then formally arrested another accused.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 12 of 52PW27 HC Raj Singh was posted as Malkhana Moharar at the Police Station on 8.11.1997 and also on 2.12.1997 when exhibits of the case property were deposited with him.On 28.01.1998, he got sent these exhibits to FSL, Malviya Nagar but these were not accepted there.PW28 Dr.Sujata Pandey who examined the deceased at 4.20 pm & declared her fit for statement on the application Ex.PW28/A as made by the relations of the deceased.PW29 Dr. Savita Arora had identified the signatures of Dr. Samir Verma on Ex.PW2/A whereby the deceased was declared fit to make statement by Dr. Samir who had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.Dr. Savita had seen Dr. Samir signing and writing during the course of his working with her.She also identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Samir Verma as appearing on the case sheet Ex.PW29/A. On both these exhibits Dr. Samir Verma had declared the deceased to be conscious, oriented and fit for statement.PW22 is the cousin of deceased Davender Kaur and PW7 was a family friend of Harnam Singh.They all deposed about the previous Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 13 of 52 incident of cruelty on account of dowry and also of the compromise and subsequent allegations of harassment of deceased Davender Kaur by her in-laws on account of dowry.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 13 of 52The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty and was burnt by the appellant Baljit Singh, appellant Hardeep Kaur and appellant Arvinder Singh as on the fateful day.She was subjected to beatings, and was ultimately burnt to death.The learned trial Judge has observed in its impugned judgment that from the evidence on record, it is established that there was complicity of these three appellants in commission of the offence.They assaulted the deceased and burnt her with undoubted common intention amongst them to cause her death.The learned trial Judge has further observed that though there were certain allegations of presence of Satinder Kaur also on the fateful day when a sum of `5 lac was demanded and deceased was subjected to abusive language and harassment, but as she was not named by the deceased in any of her dying declarations and as there was not much Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 14 of 52 evidence against her, therefore, she was acquitted by giving her benefit on account of lack of sufficient evidence against her.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 14 of 52Jitender Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Baljeet Singh - husband of the deceased argued that the first dying declaration Ex.Learned counsel submitted that this is the first dying declaration and if the same is to be believed to be true, then it is the case of self- immolation and not homicidal death.He further submitted that the next dying declaration is alleged to have been given to PW4 SI Dharam Pal at about 05:00PM, wherein the deceased had stated in the narration form that at about 01:00PM on 08.11.1997, her mother-in-law, husband - Baljeet Singh and brother- in-law Arvind Singh poured petrol from a can over her and her mother- in-law lit match stick.On account of burning she started crying, then neighbours came there and took her to the lobby.This alleged dying declaration has been attested by PW1 Dr.Rajiv Rajput.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 15 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 15 of 52Learned counsel has argued that both the PW1 and PW4 have admitted that at the time of recording of dying declaration her brother and other relatives were present and even they were instructing the police to record the statement in a particular form.PW4 had also admitted that the brother of the deceased was even suggesting replies to the question put to her.Both the PW1 and PW4 had admitted that the deceased was nodding sometimes on the questions asked to her.However, a bare perusal of the Ex.PW1/A does not show that as to what were the questions which were answered by the deceased while nodding her head and as such it is clear that as to how PW4 had understood the meaning of those questions and recorded himself in his own language in a narrative form.In this regard, he has relied upon the case of Jagdish Lal Malhotra v. State of Delhi, 1983 Chandigarh Criminal Cases, 558 wherein it has been held in para No.34 as under:-"(34) We have examined the dying declaration Ext.PW24/A in the light of its essential characteristics and in the light of prosecution evidence itself.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 16 of 52 was written by DW 26 Surinder Dev S.I. on his questioning from the patient.We, however, are not taken into confidence as to what those questions were, in what form they were put, what were the suggestions, if any, given and how were the answers given and recorded.It is due to this difficulty that Dr. V. Thukral PW 26 has not been able to depose in respect of the broad feature of the dying declaration and he is content by telling us that "in nut shell what he remembers is that she stated that in the early hours of the morning she had gone to bath room to make water and from her back her husband set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil on her body".In any case, if a statement is made on questioning, the proper course to record it would be to record the questions and the replies so as to enable the court to appreciate its evidentiary value.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 16 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 17 of 52On the another dying declaration which was alleged to have been given orally to PW4 HC Om Parkash, incharge of PCR Van, who had taken the injured to Safdarjung Hospital, Mr.He had also sent an information in that DD that the husband of the deceased was not available as he had already gone to his shop at Connaught Place, New Delhi.This witness had also sent the information at about 02:40PM that the injured was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital with 100% burnt injures and she is being examined by the doctor and had also mentioned, "now she is speaking".A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 18 of 52 statement had been made by the injured to him in the PCR van before reaching to the Safdarjung Hospital.Surprisingly, this witness remained silent about it till 08:00PM on the next day i.e. 09.11.2007 when he admitted that the IO came to him with two Sikh gentlemen and then recorded his statement wherein he had stated that a statement was made to him by the deceased.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 18 of 52It is asserted that conduct of this witness by not disclosing the dying declaration made to him about 30 hours to any of his officials or to the concerned IO or the police station or even to the Duty Constable clearly shows that he had not given reliable evidence.Moreover, he also did not contradict the injured when she made a statement to the doctor in his presence that she herself burnt by pouring petrol over herself.Thus, it is established that this witness was later on influenced by the prosecution to prove false case against the present appellants.He further argued that other oral dying declaration which were alleged to have been given to PW18 and PW19, brother and father respectively of the deceased, who stated that the deceased disclosed to them that she had burnt by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law and the husband after pouring petrol over her and match stick was lit by her mother-in-law after giving her beatings cannot be relied on in the facts and circumstances.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 19 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 19 of 52Learned counsel has argued that though as per these witnesses, who had reached the hospital at about 03:00PM as stated by PW19 and also corroborated by DD No.50B the information received at police station Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi at about 03:30PM sent by PW18 that some officers be sent to record her statement, as she was about to die.PW19 (father of the deceased) has admitted that when he alongwith his sons reached the hospital at about 03:00PM, they had asked her daughter about the cause of burn and then she informed them as mentioned above and thereafter they called the police and the SDM.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 20 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 20 of 52He humbly submitted that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for about 05 years and the son from his marriage with deceased is living with him and he is also having a daughter aged 10 years from his second marriage.There are no cogent evidence with regard to the offence under Section 498A IPC as whatever has been stated by the witnesses i.e. PW7, PW18, PW19, and PW22 are contradictory to each other as well as have material improvements in their depositions before the Court than what was made before the police and thus, their statement cannot be relied upon.Therefore, appellant deserves to be acquitted form all the charges in the instant case.Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Arvinder Singh (brother-in-law Nandoi of deceased) has argued that case against the appellant mainly depends upon six Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 23 of 52 multiple dying declarations, viz three written and three oral made by the deceased.Thus, this oral dying declaration in all probability was not made at all and was just concocted later on to buttress the prosecution case.The second dying declaration was made by the deceased at 02:30PM to PW8 Dr.Sushma which was reduced into writing on the Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 24 of 52 MLC Ex.PW8/A for the alleged offence of murder implicating husband and mother-in-law.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 24 of 52Learned Senior Advocate contended that without prejudice to rights of the accused, this dying declaration appears truthful reliable because it is the very first version of the occurrence coming from the mouth of the deceased and it is further corroborated by the independent witnesses on record i.e. Ex.PW3/DA and evidence of PW26, IO Inspector Jai Singh who in his cross-examination dated 22.05.2000 deposed that the door had to be broken open to save the deceased, which gives rise to the inference that the door was bolted from the inside and which further shows that deceased had committed suicide by pouring petrol and setting herself on fire.The third dying declaration is made to PW4 SI D. P. Singh in writing in the presences of PW1 and PW11 at 05:00PM for the allegation of murder implicating mother-in-law, husband and Nandoi.Learned counsel further submitted that this dying declaration is completely unreliable because the scribe PW4 himself felt that this is not a voluntary statement of the deceased since the brother of the deceased was putting leading questions to the deceased and even when PW4 asked questions from the deceased, her brother intervened and gave suggestive answers.The evidence of PW4 is also corroborated by Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 25 of 52 the deposition of PW1 Dr. Rajiv Rajput, who also felt that this is not the statement of the deceased.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 25 of 52Again deceased made another dying declaration fourth time, in writing to PW2 SDM Shri Davinder Singh for murder at 05:20PM implicating only mother-in-law.Learned counsel submitted that this dying declaration is again not reliable because though it is recorded by a neutral officer like SDM, but before making it, the deceased had already been tutored and brain washed so as to give a version implicating the accused as per the desire of the relatives of the deceased and specially her brother.Thus, though it may be genuinely recorded by the SDM without any alteration etc. But it does not mean that the deceased had made a truthful statement.Thus even this dying declaration could not be treated as credible and reliable.As far as the last two dying declaration are concerned both the oral dying declaration made at 03:00PM for the offence of murder by the deceased to PW18 Arvinder, her brother and to PW19 Harnam Singh, her father implicating mother-in-law, husband and nandoi.Learned counsel further submitted that these two oral dying declarations are not unreliable because firstly, the father and brother of the deceased were vengeful on account of her death and were bent upon Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 26 of 52 implicating as many persons from the accused side as possible, secondly they made significant improvements during their deposition in the Court.Thirdly, they stated that they reached the hospital and talked with the deceased at 03:00PM; wherein the deceased told them that she has not stated true facts to the SDM.This is inherently impossible because the dying declaration recorded by the SDM was recorded at 05:20PM.Thus, the deceased could never have referred to it, while talking with her brother and father at 03:00PM.Even otherwise, when there are written dying declarations recorded by neutral persons like, doctor, then the oral dying declarations made to the interested witnesses could not be given preference over them.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 26 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 27 of 52 deceased told to PW6 Dr.Sushma that she set herself on fire after a fight with her husband and mother-in-law; in the dying declaration to PW4 SI Dharam Pal Singh, she stated that petrol was poured on her by her mother-in-law, husband and nandoi; in the last dying declaration made to SDM, PW2, she stated that only her mother-in-law had set her on fire.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 27 of 52Learned counsel submitted that the irresistible conclusion is, that only the dying declaration should be relied upon which is corroborated by some independent evidence on record.In the present case, only the dying declaration made to doctor is corroborated by the independent evidence i.e. Ex.PW3/DA and the evidence of PW26 IO Inspector Jai Singh who deposed that the door had to be broken open to get the deceased out, which gives rise to the inference that the door was bolted from inside and which further shows that deceased had bolted the door from inside and committed suicide by pouring petrol and burning herself.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 28 of 52 been cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased to such an extent which has led her to take the extreme step of committing suicide.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 28 of 52Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Hardeep Kaur submitted that the PW1 and PW4 both stated that while recording her statement in the hospital, the brother of the deceased was putting leading questions.It is on record that to some questions she nodded and to some questions she whispered, but one does not know are all those questions for which she noded.It has come on the record that violence had erupted outside the hospital and the brother of deceased had instructed her.Therefore, the said alleged dying declaration cannot be believed at all.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 29 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 29 of 52On second dying declaration recorded by Dr.He could not hear as to what type of conversion was taking place between the patient and her brother.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 30 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 30 of 52Learned counsel has also referred the statement of PW6 Inspector Jai Singh, who stated in the cross-examination that the door of the drawing room was broken and entry was made in the house after breaking the door to save the deceased.He also came to know that one Mr.Mittal and one another person residing in the neighbourhood also entered the house after breaking open the door.PW13, photographer also deposed that both the doors of the room were bolted from inside and there was no possibility of the access to the room.Mr.Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate has argued that the material seized from the place of incident shows that the deceased herself committed suicide as one plastic can in melted condition found on which the word Castrol GTX Extra and one match box along with two burnt match sticks were recovered from near the door of the room in the covered lobby at first floor of the rear portion of the house.In the statement of the appellant Hardeep Kaur, she stated that the deceased was in depression and her name was mentioned in the complaint made before CAW Cell by her sister-in-law Bhabhi.Learned counsel has also doubted that the deceased was in a fit condition to make any statement; whereas it is mentioned that she was 100% with deep burn and was not able to speak and the answers were Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 31 of 52 repeated and dictated by her brother present over there on the basis of her alleged whispering and nodding.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 31 of 52The statement was recorded by SDM at 05:25 PM, however, thereafter, she changed her version within 25 minutes as per the statement recorded by PW28 Dr.Sujata Pandey at 04:20PM.Finally, the deceased died at 07:30PM, which proves that she was not in a fit condition and position to make her statement.Learned Senior counsel has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the law on dying declarations.In case of multiple dying declarations, the Court cannot pick and choose one or more dying declaration and discard the other for convicting the accused persons.The dying declarations have to be consistent and in the absence of consistencies in them, none of the dying declarations can be relied upon.He submitted that learned Trial Court has further failed to appreciate that the deceased had stated before Dr.Sushma as recorded in the MLC Ex.PW8/A that after she fought with her husband and mother-in-law, she poured petrol on her and set herself on fire.Learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that dying declarations recorded thereafter were all tutored one as the father and brother of the deceased were present in the hospital all along.PW1 Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 32 of 52 Dr.Rajiv Rajput has clearly stated in his cross-examination that the brother of patient was trying to help the patient in replying to the questions put by the police officials to the patient.He further admitted that several persons were standing outside and violence had also erupted.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 32 of 52It has also been established that there was a big crowd.There was tension at the time of recording the statement of patient.It has also been established that brother of the patient was instructing the police to record the statement of police in accordance with the statement made in Ex.PW1/A. This establishes that statement was neither recorded in a correct manner nor it was a voluntary statement, therefore, such type of statement cannot be considered as a dying declaration for convicting the appellants.Moreso, the appellant (mother-in-law of the deceased) shifted the deceased in injured condition to the hospital and same has been corroborated in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, appellant was arrested from the hospital itself.Further, he humbly submitted that the appellant has crossed the age of 70 years and has already been incarcerated for around 08 years.The instant case is for suicide; hence, appellant may be acquitted from the charges framed against her.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 33 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 33 of 52P.C. stated that their neighbor Mr.R.S.Mittal informed her about the smoke coming from the first floor and she alongwith him broke open the door and in the meanwhile, police arrived.The deceased burnt herself in the room which was having an automatic lock.PW26 at one place stated that he came to know that one Mr.Mittal and another person entered the house after breaking open the door and they extinguished the fire.Her statement was recorded, but the fact remains that there was no statement of Mr.Mittal recorded nor he was sighted as a witness by the prosecution.It appears that Mr.Mittal has been falsely introduced.If there was Mr.It find corroborations from the medical evidence of PW9 Dr.Chander Kant, who conducted the postmortem and deposed that there were 100% superficial and deep anti-mortem burnt covering whole body, charring of skin in the scalp region anteriorly, in the middle of parietals region, both frontal region, front of forehead, nose and both Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 34 of 52 upper and lower lips, part of neck right side and both thighs.Skin was peeled off at places revealing varia of vital reactions.On internal examination of deceased, witness noticed that there was extra vasation of blood in middle of forehead region i.e. frontal region of 3.3 cm X 2.8 cm size; right side of frontal region size 4.2 cm X 3.8 cm.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 34 of 52He also noticed that extra vasation of blood with separation in fifth rib at the junction of right costo-condral junction.He opined the death was caused due to shock as result of 100 superficial and deep ante mortem burnt caused by flames.Internal extravasation of blood in skull was caused by application of blunt force from blunt object like due to hitting head against the rough and hard surface.During cross-examination, this witness denied that there was other reason other than use of fire and which resulted in extravagation of blood in head.He has also argued on the conduct of appellant Baljeet Singh that as per the statement, he was at his shop at Connaught Place, New Delhi, where he received information about the incident.He also stated Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 35 of 52 that he later on reached at the hospital.On receipt of the information he also did not visit the hospital, but went underground.As, his mother Hardeep Kaur had been arrested, this would have made him to surrender before the Court on the next day.To sum up, learned APP has submitted that there is no merit in these appeals and same may be dismissed.We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the three appellants have mainly stressed that when more than one dying declarations are there, and if there is no consistency in them, in that case, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 38 of 52As the second dying declaration is concerned, which is recorded on MLC Ex.PW8/A by PW8 Dr.Sushma wherein the deceased alleged that she herself sustained burn injuries after having a fight with her husband and mother-in-law in a room by pouring petrol on herself and put herself on fire with a match-stick.The said information conspire confidence as it was without any influence from any corner and the learned counsel for the parties could not bring any material or record on the record that PW8 had recorded false statement of the deceased.We are conscious that the settled proposition of law is that, as discussed above, if there are more than one dying declarations, and there is no inconsistency in them, then none of the dying declaration can be relied upon.However, we are also conscious that if in the multiple dying declarations, some names are consistent, then there is no point not to believe the names consistently figuring in the dying declarations.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 39 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 39 of 52As the case of appellant Arvinder Singh is concerned, the deceased did not mention his name before PW8 Dr.Therefore, she has not recorded his name in the MLC Ex.PW8/A. However, his name emerged in the dying declaration orally made to PW3 HC Om Parkash and same has been discarded by us because of the fact that the brother of the deceased and the SHO concerned, themselves contacted to PW3 and thereafter, recorded her statement.PW1/A; wherein the PW4 himself felt that this was not a voluntary statement of the deceased since the brother of the deceased was putting leading questions to the deceased.Even when PW4 asked questions from the deceased, he intervened and gave suggestive answers.The deposition of PW4 is also corroborated by the deposition of PW1 Dr.Rajiv Rajput, who also felt that it was not the true statement of the deceased.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 40 of 52 that the dying declaration should be free from any duress, pressure or influence, which is missing in the present case, as discussed above.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 40 of 52The fourth dying declaration recorded at 05:20PM by PW2 Sh.Davender Singh, SDM which is Ex.PW2/B. The said statement recorded much later and by that time, the deceased had been tutored and brain washed so as to give the version implicating the appellants as per the desire of her relatives and especially of her brother.Though, the statement recorded by PW2/SDM may be genuinely recorded, but after going through the evidence on record, we of the opinion that the statement recorded by the SDM was not free from pressure, therefore, we discard this statement also, as it cannot be treated as credible or reliable.The fifth and sixth oral dying declarations made by the deceased at 03:00PM to PW18 Arvinder Singh and PW19 Harnam Singh, brother and father respectively of deceased in the hospital.After going through the deposition of the above two witnesses on record, we are of the opinion that firstly; they were bent upon to implicate persons of their choice and secondly; they made significant improvements during their evidence in the Court.They deposed that they had reached in the hospital at 03:00PM where the deceased told them that she did not tell the true facts to the SDM.This was inherently Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 41 of 52 impossible because the dying declaration recorded by the SDM was at 05:20PM, thus, the deceased never could refer it while talking with her brother and father at 03:00PM.Even otherwise, when there were written dying declarations recorded by neutral person like Doctor, then the oral dying declaration made to interested witnesses cannot be given preference over them.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 41 of 52The only fact remains with us is to consider that, whether the statement made before PW8 Dr.Susham, which is recorded on MLC Ex.PW8/A was true and free from any duress, pressure and influence?The deceased was admitted by her mother-in-law i.e. appellant Hardeep Kaur and she was arrested from the hospital itself.At that point of time, the deceased narrated as to what actually happened with her wherein she clearly stated that a quarrel took place with her husband and mother-in-law and thereafter, she set herself ablaze.Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the statement recorded in the MLC seems to be true because of the fact that the deceased first set the mattress on fire and thereafter, poured petrol upon her body and set herself also on fire.This fact of quarrel corroborates with the deposition of PW22 and PW7, as before this incident, there was some matrimonial dispute arose on account of dowry between the deceased and her husband, appellant Baljeet Singh, Crl.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 42 of 52 wherein a compromise deed was recorded on 23.10.1994 in the police station.It proves that the appellant Baljeet Singh and Hardeep Kaur, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively used to torture and harass the deceased, therefore, on the date of the incident also they both fought with the deceased; thereafter, husband left the house for his shop at Connaught Place, New Delhi and appellant Hardeep Kaur started performing pooja on the ground floor.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 42 of 52Nowhere it is mentioned that deceased has given oral statement to PW4 HC Om Parkash, Incharge of PCR Van before reaching to Safderjung Hospital.This witness also remained silent till 08:00PM on the next day i.e. 09.11.2007 when he admitted that the IO came to him along with two Sikh gentlemen and then recorded his statement wherein he had stated that a statement was made to him by the deceased.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 43 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 43 of 52This witness did not disclose about such dying declaration made to him for about 30 hours to any of the officials or to the concerned IO or the police station or even to the Duty Constable, which clearly create suspicion, therefore, his statement does not conspire confidence.We note, it was categorically stated by the deceased that her husband was not present in the house and it was her mother-in-law who had poured kerosene on her and then lit the fire.This statement of the deceased also does not conspire confidence because she made statement before PW8, the doctor of MLC wherein she stated that there was a quarrel with her husband and mother-in-law, thereafter, she poured petrol on her body and set herself on ablaze.The law has been settled in Smt.Kamla (supra) wherein their Lordship of the Apex Court have observed that the statement should be consistent throughout if the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declarations they should be consistent.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 44 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 44 of 52On the similar fact, PW13 photographer also deposed that both the doors of the room were bolted from inside and there was no possibility of the access to the room.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 45 of 52The oral dying declaration made before the brother and father of the deceased is absolutely unreliable because firstly, the father and brother of the deceased were vengeful on account of her death and were bent upon implicating as many persons from the accused side as possible; secondly, they made significant improvements during their deposition in the Court; and thirdly, stated that they reached the hospital and talked with the deceased at 03:00PM; wherein the deceased told them that she has not stated true facts to the SDM.This is inherently impossible because the dying declaration by the SDM was recorded at 05:20PM.Thus, the deceased could never have referred to it, while talking with her brother and father at 03:00PM.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 46 of 52A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 46 of 52However, their conviction under Section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is duly proved and accordingly maintained for the reasons that cruelty committed on the deceased earlier also and same has been corroborated by the deposition of PW22 and PW7 and the compromise deed dated 23.10.1994 recorded in the police station.Even on the fateful day, appellants - Hardeep Kaur and Baljeet Singh, mother-in-law and husband respectively had quarreled with the deceased and subjected her to harassment and cruelty on account of dowry by both the appellants mentioned above.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 47 of 52 deceased.Husband left for shop and mother-in-law started pooja on the ground floor.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 48 of 52 each one of them.It was in such circumstances that Vimla took the extreme step of not only setting herself on fire, but also her two daughters, one of whom was only one year old.The record shows that the accused was taken into custody on 29.3.1991 and was released from jail after the decision of the High Court on 20.3.1997 and thus he has undergone nearly six years of imprisonment.In our opinion, the period already undergone (as under-trial and after conviction) would meet the ends of justice.A Nos.907/2001, 822/2001 & 796/2001 Page 49 of 52For the reasons mentioned above, Crl.Appeal No.479 of 1999 filed by Dalbir Singh is dismissed.Criminal Appeal No.480 of 1999 filed by State of U.P. is partly allowed and he is Crl.As per the Nominal Roll, appellant Baljeet Singh has already spent around 04 years 11 months and 19 days as per Nominal Roll dated 28.05.2012 in incarceration and earned 03 months and 22 days remission; appellant Hardeep Kaur has spent around 07 years, 07 months and 12 days incarceration, as per Nominal Roll dated 26.05.2012 and earned remission of 11 months and 25 days.Consequently, we modify the impugned judgment and order on sentence both dated 12.09.2001 and convict both the appellants mentioned above for the offences punishable under Section 306/ 498A/ Crl.All the convicts are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in custody for the abovesaid offences.No order as to costs.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

All the sides areheard.3) The facts leading to the institution of the appeals can bestated as follows :-The crime was registered on the basis of report given byShankar Pende, who is residing in front of Hanuman Mandir,Pangaon, Tahsil Renapur, District Latur.He belongs to Yellamcommunity and at the relevant time, he was living with his twobrothers, parents and sisters in the same building, though indifferent portions.Atabout 8.30 p.m. when Shankar's brother Bhaguram was present infront of his house, he noticed that accused Nasir Pathan (accusedNo.1) was sitting right in front of their house for defecating, in open.When Bhaguram questioned this act of Nasir and asked him to goaway from that place, Bhaguram had a quarrel with Nazir.Whileleaving the spot, Nasir gave threat to Bhaguram.at the distance of around 10 feet.from Balaji and Bhaguram.Alongwith the informant, Dhondiram Sherkhane, Indrajeet Sampate andDharmaraj Sampate also started proceeding towards police chowkyfor giving report.That was at about 10.30 p.m.6) When informant and aforesaid persons reached KhatikGalli, they noticed that from Masjid situated in Khatik Galli, thepersons like Nasir Pathan, Shaikh Aslam Rahiman Shaikh, NasroddinKazi, Munir Shaikh, Firoz Pathan, Siddiqui Aasifoddin, Hafiz AbdulAziz Shaikh, Jamir Shaikh, Ajmoddin Maniyar, Mehraj Pathan,Yunuskhan Pathan, Munna Kazi, Shaikh Yunus, Shaikh Shafik andothers came out and they were holding weapons like long knife,sticks etc. They intercepted Bhanuram and they started asking himas to why he had given abuses to Nasir Pathan.Then the quarrelstarted.During quarrel those persons said that the persons of Yellamcommunity had become arrogant and lesson needs to be taught tothem.By saying so, they started assaulting Bhanuram and Balaji.JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]1) The appeals are filed against judgment and order ofSessions Case No. 87/2009, which was pending in the Court oflearned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur.The chargesheet was filedas against 50 persons.One accused, accused No. 34 RahimNoormohammad Shaikh died during pendency of the case and thecase against him was disposed of as abated.Accused No. 48Yunuskha Salimkha Pathan was shown as absconding accused in thechargesheet and so, the case of remaining accused was separatedand it was tried separately.After the decision of the Sessions Case, ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::the matter as against accused No. 4 Firoz Rahimkha Pathan was sentto Juvenile Court after holding him guilty for the offence punishableunder sections 302, 324, 149 etc. of Indian Penal Code (hereinafterreferred to as 'IPC' for short) and under the Juvenile Justice (Careand Protection) Act, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, thePresiding Officer has directed Firoz Pathan to do some social workfor the period of one year and pay some compensation to the legalheirs of the deceased.The learned Additional Sessions Judge hasconvicted accused No. 1 Nasir Osman Pathan, Accused No. 2Basaroddin Kazi and accused No. 3 Shaikh Munir for the offencepunishable under section 302 r/w. 149 of IPC and they aresentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.They are also convicted forthe offence punishable under sections 324 r/w. 149, 504 r/w. 149and sections 147 and 148 of IPC.Separate sentences are given bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge for these offences.CriminalAppeal No. 494/2018 is filed by the State and it is admitted by thisCourt as against 13 accused who are acquitted by the Trial Court.Leave was not granted by this Court to the State to file appealagainst the remaining accused.Accused No. 3 Shaikh Munir fromCriminal Appeal No. 151/17 filed separate appeal subsequently and ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::5) Due to the aforesaid incident, Bhaguram and Balaji, sonof Bhaguram started for police chowky as they wanted to give reportagainst Nasir.The informant also started following them and he was ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::7) During incident, Nasir Pathan gave blow of knife on theabdomen of Bhaguram, Munna Kazi gave blow of long knife in to thechest of Balaji and others started assaulting them by using weaponslike sticks.As there was streetlight, the informant and others whowere following Bhaguram could witness the incident.They rushed ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::forward to save the life of Bhaguram and Balaji and then YunusPathan gave blow of knife on the right leg of informant and MunirShaikh and Firoz Pathan gave beating by using sticks.After hearinghue and cry, many persons rushed to the spot and they separatedthe quarrel.8) Bhaguram, Balaji, Sandeep Gude, Shankar Kaspate hadsustained injuries in addition to informant and they were shifted tohospital.There doctor declared that Bhaguram and Balaji werealready dead.The report of Shankar Pende came to be recorded on27.12.2008 and crime came to registered at 3.30 a.m. for aforesaidoffences.9) During the course of investigation, inquest was preparedon the dead bodies and spot panchanama came to be prepared.P.M.was conducted on the two dead bodies.Some accused persons cameto be arrested immediately and on the basis of statements given bythem some weapons came to be recovered.The P.M. revealed thatdangerous weapons were used.Injury certificates in respect of otherinjured persons also came to be collected.Blood which was found onthe spot came to be collected and all the articles including clothescame to be sent to C.A. Office.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.Only on the basis ofcircumstance that all the accused were belonging to particularcommunity like Muslim community, it is never safe to infer that all ofthem had formed unlawful assembly with a particular object.TheCourt is expected to keep in mind that there is never such possibilityas every person has different mindset.Many a times, persons rush ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::to the spot where the incident is taking place and they remainpresent on the spot as passive spectators.Due to all suchpossibilities, various circumstances which can lend credence to theversion of eye witness need to be established by the prosecution.12) In the present matter, the prosecution has given bothdirect and circumstantial evidence.Three eye witnesses who includeShankar (PW 1), who gave first information report, are examined.Other deceased Balajiwas son of Bhaguram.Shankar has given evidence that his familyand family of Bhaguram were living in the same building, though indifferent portions at the relevant time.Both the prosecutionwitnesses, eye witnesses and the accused persons hail from thesame village viz. Pangaon, Tahsil Renapur, District Latur.In thepresent matter, it also needs to be kept in mind that there is nopositive evidence given by prosecution to show that any of theaccused is close relative of main accused, who is accused No. 1 asper the motive given for the crime.13) Shankar (PW 1) has given evidence that on that day, thefirst incident took place at about 8.30 p.m. when accused No. 1 wasseen defecating in open space in front of their building.Evidence isgiven that the deceased Bhaguram saw it and he questioned accused ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::No. 1 as to why he was defecating there in open space.Evidence isgiven by PW 1 that Bhaguram said that even the lady members ofhis family were passing by that side.PW 1 has given evidence that whileleaving the place, accused No. 1 gave threat to victim to teach him alesson.14) It is brought on the record in the evidence of PW 1 to 3that Bhaguram and his son Balaji were proceeding to police stationto give report about the aforesaid incident against accused No. 1 andon the way, they were intercepted by the accused persons in KhatikGalli and then the incident in question took place.15) Dhondiram Sherkhane (PW 2), other eye witness hasdeposed that when the first incident took place, he was present nearHanuman temple which is situated in the vicinity of the house ofinformant and there, he heard the noise of quarrel.He has deposedthat he went towards the house of informant and there, it wasinformed to him that there was quarrel of aforesaid nature.It is nothis version that he had seen accused No. 1 on the spot when hereached the spot.In the F.I.R., the name of Dhondiram (PW 2) is notmentioned showing that he was present on the spot when first ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::quarrel took place or to show that he had rushed to the spot afterhearing about first quarrel.16) Evidence of Shankar Kaspate (PW 3) shows that he wasnot present on the spot when the first incident of quarrel took place.The name of Shankar Kaspate (PW 3) is however mentioned in theF.I.R. showing that he was in the company of first informant whenthey started proceeding towards the police station.These threewitnesses have given evidence that they were following Bhaguramand Balaji when Bhaguram was proceeding towards police station onthat night.Thus, a particular reason is given by the prosecutionwitnesses for the incident in question.On the other hand, it is thecontention of the accused persons which can be found in thestatement given under section 313 of Cr.P.C. that on that day, in thefirst incident, not aforesaid incident, the persons of complainant'sside had assaulted accused No. 2 Munna, they had caused bleedinginjury to him and due to that the main incident took place.It is thecontention of the accused that the main incident took place out oftrivial reason and there was no intention of anybody to commitaforesaid offence, of two murders.17) Shankar (PW 1) and other two witnesses have givenevidence that they were proceeding towards police station and the ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::way goes through Khatik Galli.Their evidence shows that otherpersons like Indrajeet and Dharmaraj were also in their company,but they were at some distance from Bhaguram and Balaji when theincident started.18) Shankar (PW 1) has deposed that in Khatik Galli there isMasjid and accused like accused No. 1 Nasir, accused No. 2 Munna,accused No. 3 Munir Shaikh, accused No. 4 Firoz Pathan and otheraccused persons whose names were given in the F.I.R. had gatherednear masjid.He has deposed that after seeing Bhaguram and Balaji,these persons came running towards them with weapons like ironbars, knives and choppers.Thus, an attempt is made to prove thatall the accused rushed to the spot together.19) Shankar (PW 1) has deposed that all the accused startedassaulting deceased Bhaguram by asking him as to why Bhaguramhad abused Nasir (accused No. 1).He has deposed that duringincident accused No. 1 said that Yellam people had become arrogantand so, lesson needs to be thought to them.20) Shankar (PW 1) has deposed that during incidentaccused No. 1 gave blow of chopper below the belly of Bhaguram,accused No. 2 Munna gave blow of chopper on the chest of Balaji ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::and other accused also assaulted the two deceased with woodenlogs, sticks.PW 1 has deposed that due to this assault, both thedeceased collapsed on the spot of offence.Thus, Shankar (PW 1)has attributed specific role to accused Nos. 1 and 2, but so far as theassault made on Bhaguram and Balaji by other accused isconcerned, there is general evidence against the remaining accused.21) Shankar (PW 1) has deposed that he could see the entireincident in the street light.He has deposed that when he and otherpersons who were with him went ahead to rescue the two deceased,accused Yunus Pathan (accused No. 48) gave blow of knife on hisright knee.He has given evidence that then accused Munna(accused No. 3) and Firoz (accused No. 4) gave beating to him byusing wooden log, sticks.This part of evidence of PW 1 shows thataccused Nos. 3, 4 and 48 actively participated in the incident insome way and they were armed with weapons.22) Shankar (PW 1) has deposed that after starting of theincident, the villagers rushed to the spot and they separated thepersons of the side of complainant from the accused persons.23) Shankar (PW 1) has deposed that the witnesses likeShankar Kaspate (PW 3), Sandeep Ghude shifted Bhaguram and ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Balaji to hospital, but both of them died.He has deposed that whenhe learnt from Sandeep Ghude about the death of aforesaidrelatives, he went to Renapur Police Station and gave report.He has deposed that after registeringthe crime, he was referred to Renapur Rural Hospital for treatment.In the Court he identified all the accused persons anddefence did not dispute that he could identify all the accused.Hisversion that he knew all the accused from prior to the date ofincident is not disputed by the defence.Shankar (PW 1) has thengiven evidence that other accused instigated by uttering the wordslike 'gkuk] ekjk' [beat, kill].24) Shankar (PW 1) has given vague evidence againstacquitted accused persons that they had all assaulted Bhaguram andBalaji.There is vague evidence against those accused that theyinstigated the main accused during incident by uttering words like'gkuk] ekjk'.The omission in F.I.R. to the effect that PW 1 had notinformed to police that other accused were giving instigation byuttering words like 'gkuk] ekjk' is duly proved by the defence.Thisomission needs to be kept in mind while appreciating the otherevidence which can be used as circumstantial evidence in the ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::present matter.On the basis of othercircumstances, it needs to be ascertained in the present casewhether all the remaining accused had taken part in beating andsuch injuries were found on the prosecution witnesses or the deadbodies.It is also necessary to ascertain whether against otheraccused there is evidence to corroborate like recovery of weapons,presence of blood stains on the clothes etc. It is already observedthat the relationship of such accused with the main accused andtheir connection to the motive also need to be considered as thosecircumstances also can connect such accused with the main accusedcan help the prosecution to prove that they had become themembers of unlawful assembly.25) There is corroboration of F.I.R., Exh. 185 registeredunder section 154 of Cr.P.C. which is available under section 157 ofEvidence Act atleast in respect of specific oral evidence given asagainst accused Nos. 1 and 2, who had assaulted the two deceasedand on the oral evidence given on the assault made by accused Nos.3, 4 and 48 on the first informant.Even if the omission in respect ofthe evidence given on instigation that accused No. 1 was instigating ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::others by saying that people of Yellam community had becomearrogant and lesson needs to be though to them, is considered andthat part of evidence given as against accused No. 1 is ignored, toother part of oral evidence, there is corroboration of F.I.R.26) Shankar (PW 1) has given evidence against accused No.48 Yunus Pathan that he assaulted by using knife on his knees.Accused No. 48 was absconding when the case was tried againstavailable accused, but this part of evidence needs to be kept in mindas to form 'unlawful assembly', there need to be five or morepersons available in the assembly.27) The omission in F.I.R. in respect of oral evidence ofShankar (PW 1) about the existence of street light is also dulyproved by the defence.At proper place the evidence of spotpanchanama is discussed and that also shows that the circumstancelike availability of facility of street light is not mentioned in the spotpanchanama.The other two eye witnesses have given evidence onexistence of such facility.If due to the circumstance of absence ofstreet light in the spot panchanama, that part of the evidence ofthese three witnesses is ignored, in that case also only due to thatcircumstance, the evidence of these three eye witnesses cannot bediscarded.When the incident takes place in the night time and when ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::there are houses adjacent to the spot of offence, the light fromthose houses comes to the street.Further, when there is evidence ofeye witness who knew the assailants, Court can safely believe theevidence if his evidence is credit worthy and has corroboration ofcircumstantial evidence.Even in the dark, in the month of Decemberin the light of stars a person can identify other person who is knownto him from such close distance.28) Dhondiram (PW 2) has given evidence on the mainincident by saying that at the relevant time, he was in the companyof Shankar (PW 1) and that is why he could witness the incident.In his evidence, he hasdescribed the weapons as big knife (Sura) used by accused Nos. 1and 2 when PW 1 described the weapon as chopper.Not much canbe made out due to this discrepancy as many times a big knifeappears like chopper which is ordinarily bigger in size than theregular knife.The incident took place in Khatik Galli, where personsof Khatik community live.These persons possess weapons like smalland big knives for their business.He has given evidenceagainst other accused that they were giving abuses to Yellam ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::He has given evidence that when the mob thought thatDhondiram and Balaji were dead, the mob left the place.Though inthe evidence of Dhondiram it is brought that attempt was made tosave the life of two deceased by shifting them to the hospital, notmuch can be made out of the circumstance that Dhondiram felt thatBhaguram and Balaji died on the spot.29) Dhondiram (PW 2) took the names specifically ofaforesaid accused and other accused like Azimoddin Maniar, MeharajPathan, Shaikh Asad, Vasikoddin Sidique, Akbar Bagwan and SayedHamed.His examination in chief itself shows that he could identifythe accused only named by him in the Court.His evidence showsthat he did not know all the remaining accused.He could not identifythe other accused by taking the names the in the Court.30) The evidence of Dhondiram (PW 2) shows that in onevehicle Bhaguram and Balaji were shifted to the hospital and in theother vehicle PW 1 was taken to Rural Hospital.His evidence showsthat from Rural Hospital Bhaguram and Balaji were shifted toGovernment Hospital, Latur.31) In the cross examination of Dhondiram (PW 2), theprevious police statement of this witness, statement given under ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::section 164 of Cr.P.C. and evidence given by him before JuvenileJustice Board were confronted.The statement given by him undersection 164 of Cr.P.C. gives general corroboration to his versiongiven in the present matter on material points.The inconsistenciespointed out to him during his evidence by the defence are not thatmaterial and due to those inconsistencies, it is not possible todiscard his evidence.32) The evidence of Kaspate (PW 3), the last eye witness issimilar to the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 on material points.Thestatement given by this witness under section 164 of Cr.P.C. at Exh.214 is consistent with his version given in the Court on materialpoints and it gives corroboration to the oral evidence.Though he hasdenied that he had stated before police that accused No. 3 Munir hadassaulted PW 1 by using knife, that part of evidence is not sufficientto discard his remaining part of evidence.33) To all the three eye witnesses the defence has suggestedthat accused persons are implicated in the case falsely and thereason behind it is political rivalry between the prosecutionwitnesses and accused.This suggestion is denied by all the three ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::It is brought on the record in the evidence of PW 3 thatthe main incident took place out of trivial reason.All the threewitnesses have given the same reason for the incident.Noprobability is created by the defence that there was any particularreason for any of the three witnesses to falsely implicate accusedNos.34) In the cross examination of all the three eye witnesses itis suggested to them that accused No. 3 Munir had sustained injuryin the incident.This suggestion is admitted by the prosecutionwitnesses.Similar suggestion was given to the Investigating Officerand it was suggested that report was given by accused No. 2 inrespect of the same incident against the persons of side of thecomplainant.Though such kind of defence was taken, the relevantrecord was not produced before the Trial Court.It was necessary forthe defence to prove the injuries sustained by accused No. 2 orother accused and on that basis, it could have been ascertained asto whether dangerous weapons were used against accused persons.35) In absence of evidence and when no probability iscreated which could have helped the defence, not much can bemade out due to admission by the prosecution witnesses thataccused Munir had sustained some injuries in the incident.Unless ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::No other inference can be drawn in the present case.F.I.R. at Exh. 185 was givenby PW 1 by visiting the concerned police station.As the evidence of PW 1 and otherprosecution witnesses show that PW 1 had not gone to Latur, he hadno opportunity to see the actual injuries found on the dead bodies,necessary weight needs to be given to his version which iscorroboration of F.I.R. If the medical evidence corroborates his oralversion, that circumstance certainly lends credence to the evidenceof such injured witness.37) Dr. Shelke (PW 6) performed post mortem on the twodead bodies.In his evidence, the two P.M. reports are duly proved as ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::38) Dr. Shelke (PW 6) has given evidence that he foundfollowing injuries on the dead body of Bhaguram :-"(i) Punched out wound on left forehead measuring 2 x 1 cm, bone deep.(ii) Incised injury on left parietal region, 5 x 1 cm, bone deep oblique.(iii) Stab injury over left upper abdomen (hypocondriac) transverse oblique, zig zag clear cut, measuring 10 x 5 cm., opening into obdminal cavity.Intestinal coils with mesentry protruding out and blood oozing.(iv) Stab injury over lumbar region of back left side, transverse measuring 6 x 1.5 cm., opening to abdominal cavity tailing medically.(v) Small incised injury over right hand thiner eminence 1 x 0.2 cm.(vi) Red abrasion over (a) left lumbar region 7 x 0.5 cm.(b) left hand dorsally 2 x 0.5 cm." All the injuries were antemortem.According to PW 6 the external injuries had caused following internalinjuries.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.(i) Minimal hamatoma under neath injuries over left forehead and parietal region.Corresponding to stab injuries, injures to corresponding wall and peritoneum mesentry clean cut at two places 5 cm and 3 cm gaping.Hemoperitoneum 3.5 litres including cluid blood and clots contaminated with intestinal contents.Incised injuries at two places opening into lumen mucosa everted.Perinepheric hematoma on right kidney.Retro peritoneal hemorrhage with mesentric hemorrhage."39) Dr. Shelke has given evidence that the death ofBhaguram took place due to stab injuries which was found onabdomen and due to corresponding internal injury caused by stabinjury.He has given evidence that suchinjury is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death.Exh. 232, post mortem report is consistent with this oral evidence.In the cross examination of this witness it is brought on the recordthat the external injury Nos. 3 and 4 caused death.The tenor of thecross examination of the doctor shows that the defence has notdisputed that both Bhaguram and Balaji died homicidal death.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.40) Dr. Shelke (PW 6) has given evidence that he foundfollowing external injuries on the dead body of Balaji.(i) Red abrasions (a) over right mandibular body lower margin 0.5 x 4 cms.situated 7.5 cm.below left clavicle vertical 4 x 2.5 cm.opening into chest cavity subcutaneous tissue exposed in lateral part.Angle and margins clean cut.Blood coming out fish tail appearance at lower medial aspect.Left rib fracture.The injuries were antemortem and fresh.Dr. Shelke (PW 6) has deposed that he found following internalinjuries on the dead body of Balaji :-(i) Minimal hematoma corresponding to stab injury ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Vertical oblique left lung exposed.(ii) Hemothorax 1.4 litre blood and clot in right and 1 litre in left.(iii) Larynx, Trachea and Bronchi were intact.(iv) Corresponding to stab injury following internal injuries found.(a) Left lung upper lobe anterior margin with incised injury 1 cm.Pericardium clearly cut vertically over left and anterior aspect.(b) Right ventricle showed perforating clean cut injury.Wound of entry 4 cm.gaping over antrior aspect of right ventricle opening into cavity, wound of exit posterior aspect of right atrium minimally gaping 3 cm.Heart almost empty.Another stab injury to right ventricle 1 cm.below dound of entry measuring 1 cm.with minimal gaping.Right lung shows stabinjury near hillium going laterally in middle lobe 2 cm.Minimal gaping at entry.Reaching up to sub pleural space.Direction of stab :- Antero posterially left to right, supero inferiorly.Right lobe contused 2 cm.above anterior inferior::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::border 0.5 x 10 cm.41) Dr. Shelke (PW 6) has given evidence that external injuryNo. 2 found on the dead body of Balaji caused aforesaid internalinjuries and this injury is sufficient in ordinary course of nature tocause the death.He has deposed that weapon like Article 14 cancause such injury.In the cross examination of this witness, somehypothetical questions were put to him regarding the possibility ofuse of Article 14 as weapon used as this Article is not having handleand after the blade there is some metal portion to which handle isgenerally attached.Doctor has given evidence that he cannot sayanything as to whether such weapon could have been used.Whetherthe weapon was having handle or not at the relevant time is adifferent question and whether a person who wants to use suchweapon could have firm grip on the weapon for giving blow is alsohypothetical point.Not much can be made out due to thecircumstance that Article 14 is not having handle.There is specificevidence only against accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they used ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::dangerous weapons and they assaulted two deceased persons.Considering the time taken for the incident which was 2-4 minutesand which is brought on the record by the defence, not much can bemade out due to the circumstance that the prosecution witnesseshave not given positive evidence that these two accused inflictedmore blows.In such a case, it is not possible even forinjured eye witness to describe each and every blow of weapongiven to the deceased.This Court holds that due to thesecircumstances, the evidence of PW 1 to 3 cannot be discarded.Onthe contrary, it can be said that even when there were many injurieson the dead body of Bhaguram, PW 1 did not make an attempt togive specific role to other accused persons in that assault.Whenthere is specific evidence that only few accused used dangerousweapons and there is medical evidence of aforesaid nature, notmuch can be made out due to such circumstance in favour of theaccused.This Court holds that the aforesaid medical evidence givesnecessary corroboration to the direct evidence of aforesaid threewitnesses given on the murders of Bhaguram and Balaji.43) Dr. Dandade (PW 7) was incharge of Renapur RuralHospital and he is examined to prove the injuries sustained by ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Shankar (PW 1) in the incident.The injury certificate is proved asExh.He found following injuries on the person of Shankar (PW(i) An incised wound, deep, reddish oblique, to medial aspect of right knee joint, clean cut margins everted oblique in direction.The size of the injury was 3.5 x 2 x 2 cms., caused by sharp and hard object.(ii) A contusion, superficial, reddish brown to dorsum of right hand, diffused margins, oval in shape.The size of the injury was 4 x 2 x 1 cms., caused by hard and rough object.(iii) An abrasion superficial reddish brown in colour to the nep of the neck on left side, distorted margins vertical.The size of the injury was 5 x 2 x 1 cms., caused by hard and rought object.Dr. Dandade has given evidence that the age of the injuries waswithin six hours.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.44) In the evidence of Khandade (PW 8) the spotpanchanama at Exh. 242 is proved by the prosecution.Blood was found on the spot and spot was shown by PWEarth samples mixed with blood and blood collected by usingcotton swab from the stones which were lying on the spot weretaken over under the panchanama.So many chappals and shoeswere lying in scattered condition on the spot of offence.The spotwas situated on Gandhi Chowk to Bus Stand road.As alreadyobserved there is no mention of facility of street light in the spotpanchanama.The defence is not disputing that Bhaguram and Balajidied homicidal death and incident took place on the spot shown inExh.45) Prosecution has given other circumstantial evidence likediscovery of weapons on the basis of statements given by accusedNos.1 and 2 under section 27 of Evidence Act. Panch witness Ige(PW 4) has given evidence that accused No.2 Munna gave statementto police in his presence and memorandum of the statement wasprepared.Exh. 220 memorandum of statement is duly proved in hisevidence.He has given evidence that after preparation of ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::This article was seized under panchanama at Exh. 221 asper the version of this witness.He has given similar evidence againstaccused No. 1 Nasir.According to him, Exh. 222 is memorandum ofstatement and Exh. 223 is panchanama of seizure of knife producedby this accused from his house.Article 13 was produced by accusedNo.1 as per the version of this witness.He identified both theaccused in the Court.There is evidence on memorandum statementsand also seizure panchanama of the Investigating Officer also.Though PW 4 belongs to Yellam community, only on that ground hisevidence cannot be discarded.From the nature of evidence given byhim, this Court holds that he was not interested witness.There is evidence ofInvestigating Officer Ranjalkar (PW 10) that after recovery of theseweapons the weapons were sent to C.A. Office.46) Evidence is given by Investigating Officer Ranjalkar (PWC.A. report atExh.262 shows that blood of group 'A' was detected on theseweapons.The evidence of doctor who conducted P.M. examinationshows that the blood samples were collected from two dead bodies.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.The evidence on record shows that these samples were forwarded toC.A. Office along with covering letter.This record shows that bloodgroup of Balaji was 'A'.But the blood group of Bhaguram could notbe ascertained as the results of C.A. were inconclusive.Evidence isgiven that blood of accused No. 1 was collected and as per therecord, blood group of this accused is 'AB' (Exh. 259).The evidenceshows that the blood of accused No. 2 is of group 'B' (Exh. 263).Thus, the evidence on discovery of weapons on the basis ofstatements given by accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section 27 ofEvidence Act and the presence of blood on the weapons is availableas circumstantial evidence and that gives more corroboration to thedirect evidence.47) There is no positive evidence from the side of defence tocreate probability that the circumstances were such that they wererequired to exercise right of private defence.No such probability iscreated in the evidence of prosecution witnesses also.As alreadyobserved, even the injury certificate was not produced and proved inrespect of any accused for creating reasonable probability.In theappeal, certified copy of chargesheet came to be filed thoughwithout application for getting permission.Even if that record isconsidered it can be said that crime No. 160/2008 was registered inrespect of the same incident on the basis of report given by accused ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::No.2 and the chargesheet came to be filed in the year 2009 foroffences punishable under sections 336, 324 and 149 of IPC.Asalready observed, even after consideration of such record, it is notpossible to infer that there was free fight or there was exercise ofright of private defence by the accused persons.48) The Trial Court has believed the eye witnesses.These witnesses have attributed specific role to fiveaccused persons.Considering the number of injuries which werefound on the two dead bodies, the number of injuries found on theperson of PW 1, the circumstance that out of five accused threeaccused had used deadly weapons, by using deadly weaponsaforesaid number of injuries were inflicted, the site of the injuriesinflicted by using dangerous weapons, the medical evidence of thenature available in the present matter, the circumstance that the ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::spot of offence was away from the place of residence of accused, itis easy to infer that these five accused persons had formed unlawfulassembly and the object of the unlawful assembly was to assault thetwo deceased persons.Three accused used dangerous weapons.Inview of nature of evidence and the aforesaid circumstances, there isno other inference possible than to infer that injuries were inflictedintentionally by these accused.These injuries proved to be sufficientto cause the death in ordinary course of nature.For all thesereasons, this Court holds that accused Nos. 1 to 3 who are convictedand sentenced by the Trial Court are liable for conviction for offencesof murder of Bhaguram and Balaji punishable under section 302 r/w.149 of IPC.For the same reason, this Court holds that they are alsoguilty of the offence of causing simple injury to PW 1 punishableunder section 324 r/w. 149 of IPC.They are convicted for the offences punishable undersections 504, 147, 148 etc. of IPC.It can be said that the Trial Courtcould have avoided to convict accused No. 3 for the offencepunishable under section 148 of IPC in view of nature of weaponused by him.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.For the reasons already given, thisCourt holds that the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view.If all the accused had assaulted the two deceased, more injuries andof different nature would have been found on the dead bodies.Thecircumstance like not attributing specific role to these accused andabsence of injuries which could have been caused by them arecircumstances which are sufficient to create reasonable probabilitythat they were not members of unlawful assembly.This Court hasalready observed that there is always possibility of false implicationof some in such cases.In the present matter, the other accused arebelonging to Muslim community and there is every possibility thatthey were present on the spot by chance as they had come out ofMasjid.So, the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view.50) It was submitted for the convicted accused that in placeof provision of section 302, the provision of section 304 Part II ofIPC can be used against accused as many accused were involved inthe incident and incident took place out of trivial reason.Reliancewas placed by the counsel of appellants on the case reported as AIR1982 SC 126 [Kulwant Rai Vs.State of Punjab] .The facts of thisreported case were different.In criminal cases the facts of each and ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::That part ofevidence is carefully considered by this Court and so, this Courtholds that the observations made by the Apex Court in the casecited supra cannot help the convicted accused.In the presentmatter, the learned counsel placed reliance on two more casesreported as 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1874 [Sitaram Tukaram MasulkarVs.State of Maharashtra] and 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1800 [Stateof Maharashtra Vs.Raju s/o.Bhagwan Kothimbire & Ors.].Factsof these two reported cases were also different and for the samereasons, this Court holds that observations made by this Court in thecases cited supra can be of no help to the convicted accused.51) The learned counsel representing acquitted accusedplaced reliance on following three cases :-State of Haryana], and(iii) AIR 1965 SC 202 [Masalti Vs.State of ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 151/17 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2019 22:46:24 :::

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(G.O. 1175 Home Department.dated 30-6-36).On this approach.The Sessions Judge made a reference to quash the committal.Vide their letter No. 150749-pr.III/59-12 dated 30th January.The Honourable Judges of this Court on the administrative side agreed to the above suggestions (P. Dis. 242 of 1961).

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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 other words this appeal only survives against respondents Stanley @ Starline, Sadashiv @ Baba, Abdul Hamid Abbas, Fakir Mohd. @ Fakira and Mohamed Hasan.Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :-The deceased Abdul Razak Khan was the real brother of P.W. 2, Chotibi and P.W. 3 Sabirabi.The third eye witness Nasima Banu P.W. 4, being the daughter of Chotibi was the niece of the deceased.The evidence shows that the deceased as well as the three eye witnesses lived in the same locality namely Chitta Camp, G-Sector, L-1 within the limits of Police Station Trombay, District Bombay.There was an inimical strain between the respondents on one hand and the deceased on the other.Three reasons for the same have been furnished by the prosecution in the evidence.It is alleged that during the course of these proceedings four of the respondents were served with notices in April, 1980 to show cause as to why they should not be externed.Secondly it is said that on 21st January, 1980, Baba respondent No. 4 and Karunakaran respondent No. 3 alongwith some others went to the house of Gulab Khan who resided in the room adjoining that of the informant Chotibi.It is said that the said respondents and others forced Gulab Khan to open the door of his room.Thereafter they injured Gulab Khan and started dragging his daughter Hayatbi.Consequently Chotibi and the deceased Razak Khan intervened and this intervention of theirs seems to have irked the said respondents and their associates (the remaining respondents).It is said that in respect of this incident Hayatbi's husband lodged a complaint and Chotibi and deceased Abdul Razak Khan were witnesses.Thirdly the next day i.e. on 22nd January 1980, the respondents other than Baba and Karunakaran attacked Chotibi's house.During the course of the attack they caused extensive damage.Consequently she lodged a complaint against them.3A. According to the prosecution on 13th June, 1980 at about 3-30 or 4 p.m., Chotibi and her daughter Nasimabanu were sitting in the open space in front of their room No. 23 in Chitta Camp within the limits of Trombay Police Station, District Bombay.At that time they were cleaning rice.They heard cries 'Madat Madat, Bachav, Bachav'.On hearing the said cries both of them advanced towards the direction from where they were coming.They went towards Chawl No. M-1 which was in front of their chawl.They noticed that Razak Khan was running and was being pursued by the nine respondents and the absconding accused Appa Durai.At that time respondent Raj Mohd. inflicted a sword blow on the right side of the skull of Razak Khan, which resulted in his falling down.Thereafter respondent Raj Mohamed gave a clarion call to the other respondents to assault Razak Khan and in response to it they assaulted Razak Khan with their respective weapons.It is also alleged that one of the blows dealt by Karan landed on the right arm of respondent Sadashiv @ Baba and that respondent Abdul Halim @ Jalia Halim was also injured while some of the respondents were launching an attack on Razak Khan.According to the prosecution as a consequence of the assault Razak Khan started having convulsions.Chotibi understandably asked her daughter Nasimabanu to run away from the place of the incident and lodge a complaint (F.I.R.) .As Nasimabanu started running, three of the respondents chased her and threatened that in case she lodged an F.I.R. she would be killed.Nasimabanu however, escaped from the clutches of the respondents.Thereafter the respondents are alleged to have run away from the place of the incident alongwith the absconding accused Appa Durai.The evidence of Chotibi P.W. 2 shows that immediately after the assault on the deceased was over and the respondents had run away, Constable Mohamad Patni P.W. 8, her sister Sabirabi P.W. 3 and her brother Chand (not examined) came on the place of the incident.A taxi was arranged for and in the same Mohamed Patni, Sabirabi and Chand alongwith Abdul Razak Khan proceeded for police station, Trombay.His statement is that when he reached the place of the incident Chotibi was already present there.S.I. Jadhav who was alongwith him called for two panchas and thereafter at about 6-45 p.m. the panchanama of the place of the incident was prepared.From the place of the incident in the lane between Chawl No. L-1 and M-1 of G-Sector, a pool of blood was found.Some of this blood was taken into possession.Then P.I. Ravidhone started making inquiries about the eye witnesses of the locality.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.By means of this appeal preferred under section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant impugns the judgment and order dated 20th December, 1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 444 of 1980, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section 143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. in the alternative under section 302 r/w section 34 I.P.C.We may straight away mention that the appeal against respondents No. 1 and 9 namely Abdul Kadar @ Raj Mohd. Kadar Badshah and Abdul Halim s/o Abdul Gani has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide the Order dated 24-2-1986 passed by a Division Bench of this Court.It is alleged that respondents 1 to 4 were armed with swords; respondents No.4 and 5 were armed with Trishuls; and respondents No. 7,8, 9 and the absconding accused Appa Durai were armed with hockey sticks.On seeing the respondents chasing Razak Khan, Chotibi shouted for help.Since Razak Khan was precariously injured at the said police station he was immediately directed to be taken to Rajawadi Hospital.In the meantime Chotibi without losing any time proceeded to Police Station Trombay.The evidence of P.I. Ravidhone (P.W. 23) of Trombay Police Station is that she reached the said Police Station at about 4-13 p.m. Immediately P.I. Ravidhone sent for a typewriter and typed her F.I.R. The statement of P.I. Ravidhone shows that the recording of the F.I.R. was concluded at about 4-30 p.m. The F.I.R. is Exhibit 20 and its perusal shows that in the same the recitals mentioned in respect of assault on the deceased are contained.In the F.I.R. the nine respondents are also named.Surprisingly, contrary to the normal practice after recording of the F.I.R. had been completed, P.I. Ravidhone did not make any entry in the station diary of Police Station Trombay regarding the fact that Chotibi had lodged a F.I.R.With this aspect of the matter we would subsequently deal because the contention of Ms. Kiran Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents is that the said circumstances blasts the claim of the prosecution that the F.I.R. was actually lodged at 4-30 p.m. In her contention it was lodged later and has been shown to be anti-timed by the prosecution.Meanwhile Abdul Razak Khan had reached Rajawadi Hospital.There Dr. Rajkumar Nebhrajani (P.W. 17) medically examined him.He found on his person the following injuries;1) Incised wound on the occipital region 3" x 1/2" bone deep.2) Incised wound on the right occipital parietal region 3" x 1/2" x bone deep.3) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x skin deep x occipital deep.4) Punctured wound with heamotoma on the right forearm middle 1/3rd.6) Incised wound on the right arm 1" x 1/4" x skin deep.In the opinion of Dr. Nebhrajani the said injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged object and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The evidence of Dr. Nebhrajani is that on 15-6-1980 at about 1.50 a.m. Abdul Razak breathed his last in Rajawadi Hospital.The Postmortem examination of the corpse of Abdul Razak Khan was conducted on 15-6-1980 between 4.35 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. by Dr. Sayed Sami (P.W. 18).On the corpse Dr. Sami found the following injuries :--(1) Sutured wound 8.0 cms, long over occipital region.(5) Linear abrasion 10 cms.over right neck posteriorly extending to right ear.(6) Linear abrasion 8 cms.and 7 cms.over right neck posteriorly.(7) Linear wound 24 cms.long skin deep over right upper back extending to righ arm laterally.(8) Linear wound 3 cms.over right shoulder superiorely skin deep.(9) Sutured wound right arm laterally 11 cms.(10) Stab wound over right forearm lower 1/2 portion posteriorly x 1 x 1/2 x 1 cms.muscle deep.(11) Abrasion 2 x 1 cms.over left forehead.(12) Abrasions both elbow posteriorly.(13) Small abrasion over left 2nd, 3rd and 4th interphalangeal joints posteriorly.(14) Abrasion 1 x 1 cms.over right 2nd interphalangeal joint posteriorly.(15) Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cms.over right matacar-pophalangeal joint of middle finger.(16) Linear wound skin deep 11 and 13 cms.over left and right thigh respectively on the posteriorly aspect.(17) Linear wound 8 cms.long over left leg posteriorly skin deep.(18) Abrasion 2 x 2 cms.over right upper 3rd leg posteriorly.In paragraph 4 of his deposition Dr. Sami stated that as the injuries were sutured it was not possible to opine whether they were caused by a hard and blunt object or by sharp-edged object but weapons like swords or hockey sticks (Article 4 to 6) could have caused those injuries if the blows were dealt with sufficient force.Going backwards the bulk of the investigation was conducted by P.I. Ravidhone P.W. 23 and P.I. Mahadeo Benulkar (P.W. 22).A perusal of the statement of P.I. Ravidhone shows that after recording the F.I.R. he proceeded to Rajawadi Hospital.Thereafter from the said hospital he came back to Police Station Trombay by 5.45 p.m. and at about 6.30 p.m. left for the place of incident.He went to the house of the complainant as he was told that Nasimabanu was residing with her but did not find her there.On 14-6-1980 he recorded the statement of Chotibi under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the same day at 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. he interrogated Sabirabi, and Nasimabanu under section 161 of Cr.P.C. respectively.Thereafter it appears that he was selected for Refresher's course.The evidence of P.I. Mahadeo Benalkar shows that on 20-6-1980 he took over investigation of this case.A perusal of his statement also shows that the main investigation carried out by him centred around recoveries of incriminating weapons on the pointing out of the respondents.A detailed reference with respect to this is found in paragraphs 2 to 10 of his statement.His statement shows :-(a) that on 20th June, 1980 he recovered a blood stained sword on the pointing out of Raj Mohd.(b) On 21-6-1980 he recovered swords on the pointing out of respondents Karan and Stanley;(c) On 21-6-1980 he recovered a hockey stick on the pointing out of respondent No. 5 Abdul Hamid; and(d) On 22-6-1980 he recovered 4 hockey sticks on the pointing out of respon- dent Abdul Halim.The evidence of P.I. Ravidhone is that on 1st August, 1980 he again took up the investigation.It is significant to point out that it was he who had sent some of the recovered articles like three blood stained handkerchiefs with which the injuries of the deceased were tied while taking him to the hospital, to the Chemical Analyst.After completing the investigation on 11-9-1980 he submitted a charge-sheet against the respondents.During the trial the respondents were charged on the counts enumerated in para 1 of this judgment.To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During trial apart from tendering and proving a large number of material exhibits prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses.Three of them namely Chotibi, Sabinabi and Nasimabanu P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 respectively were examined as eye witnesses.In defence no witness was examined.After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the statements of the respondent under section 313 Cr. P.C.; and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and hence acquitted them vide the impugned judgment.As mentioned earlier the appeal against respondent Nos. 1 and 9 has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide the order dated 24-2-1986, passed by a Division Bench of this Court and that against respondents 3 and 8 has been ordered by us to abate today.Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant streneously urged that flimsy reasons for acquittal have been assigned by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment.A Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Vishnu Sahai, J.,) was a party in the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Balram @ Nam Amarsingh Talwar, Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1983 decided on 28-8-1996 has held that in an appeal against acquittal the Appellate Court should not confine itself only to the reasons given out for acquittal by the trial Court but should meticulously examine the entire material on record and take into consideration all other plausible reasons which can be pressed into service to defend the impugned judgment of acquittal.They read thus;(a) recovery of incriminating weapons on the pointing out of some of the re- spondents; and(b) Ocular account furnished by the three eye witnesses namely Chotibi, Sabirabi and Nasimabanu, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.We would first like to take up the evidence of recovery of incriminating weapons on the pointing out of the respondents.(a) The officer had already prepared the recovery panchnama and only asked him to sign on it;(b) The accused did not lead the police to the hidden place and take out a sword from beneath the plank; and(c) The sword recovered (Article 3) was not shown to him at the time he put the signatures on the recovery memo.c) Anybody could have gone in the laterine where the sword was found.(a) The recovery panchanama was not prepared before him.The officer had already written something on a piece of paper and only asked him to sign it;(b) It did not happen that Stanley led them to a condemned Military Barrack from where the sword was recovered; and(c) It did not happen that respondent Munna led them to a common water tap at B-Sector on the western side and from the bushes Hockey stick was recovered.Ms. Gupta also urged that no reliance can be placed on the recovery of 4 hockey sticks on the pointing out of respondent Abdul Halim in view of the following infirmities emerging from the statement of public panch Mohamad Khan (P.W. 16) ;(a) P.I. Benalkar had told them that the respondents stated that they had committed murder and they could show the place where weapons were kept and thereafter he obtained a signature on a piece of paper.He does not say that paper was prepared before him; and(b) The four hockey sticks recovered had been shown to him at the police station.We have given our anxious consideration to the scathing criticism levelled by Ms. Gupta against the recovery evidence and we have no hesitation in accepting her submission that in view of the infirmities mentioned above the evidence of recovery of weapons only has a waste-paper value.Consequently in our view no reliance can be placed on the evidence of recovery of incriminating weapons from the respondents.We are constrained to observe that to us it appears that the said evidence has been engineered by P. W. Benalkar and if this can happen in a murder case the Court has to become extremely circumspect and cautious while evaluating the testimony of the eye witnesses.Ms. Gupta invited our attention to the statement of Chotibi wherein in paragraphs 4 and 5 she stated that after the assault on the deceased was over and the assailants had run away did immediately thereafter Sabirabi arrive on the place of the incident with Mohamed Patni and her brother Chand.Ms. Gupta urged that this is at variance with the statement of Sabirabi wherein she has claimed to have witnessed the entire assault on the deceased.She urged that in view of Chotibi's statement it is clear that Sabirabi did not witness the incident.After going through paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of Chotibi we find the contention of Ms. Gupta to be correct.The unhappy situation which emerges is that the prosecution has tried to create a false eye witness in Sabirabi as Nasimabanu stated that Sabirabi saw the entire incident."The High Court accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who claim to have seen the incident except that of Jait Singh (P.W. 7).Jait Singh and Ram Rikh (P.W. 6) both claim to have seen the assault together from Ram Rikh's house and both have said that they hurried to the place of occurrence.The High Court thought that Jait Singh's presence at the time of the incident was doubtful and excluded his testimony from consideration.If Jait Singh was not a truthful witness, we do not see how Ram Rikh (P.W. 6) and the other two eye witnesses examined, Mahabir (P.W. 1) and Satyapal (P.W. 2) could be relied on, because they have also said that Jait Singh was present at the place of occurrence.As stated already, the F.I.R. also mentioned Jait Singh as an eye-witness."She contended that whereas the statement of Chotibi is that she had asked Nasimabanu to lodge the F.I.R. Sabirabi stated that if was she who had asked her to report the matter to the police.Ms. Gupta also pointed out that although Sabirabi and the other two witnesses allege that Sabirabi accompanied Mohamed Razak on a taxi to the police station but the evidence of S.I. Subhash Shinde P.W. 20 does not show this.The said S.I. in paragraph 1 of his statement has clearly stated that Razak Khan was only accompanied by Chand and Mohamed Patni.Ms. Gupta also contended that had Sabirabi seen the incident and had she taken the deceased in a taxi to the police station then the Investigating Officer would have taken her blood stained sari in possession.She invited our attention to that portion of her testimony wherein she stated that her sari had become stained with blood.In this connection she also referred to paragraph 6 of Sabirabi's statement wherein it is mentioned that on account of blood falling the seat of the taxi had become stained with blood.She urged that the Investigating Officer took no blood from the taxi.Ms. Gupta also contended that had Sabirabi seen the incident then being the own sister of the deceased it was only natural for her to have rushed to his rescue and in that process she would have sustained injuries.The argument of Ms. Gupta is certainly attractive on the first blush but we are not inclined to give much credence to it.In our judgment it all depends on the disposition of a individual.There are some in whom the instinct of blood is stronger than that of self-preservation and they rush to rescue when a close relation like a brother is being attacked.She firstly contended that her claim of lodging the F.I.R. immediately after the incident does not inspire any confidence, because had it been correct an entry in the station diary of police station Trombay regarding recording of the F.I.R. would have been made by P.I. Ravidhone, who recorded the F.I.R., immediately after the F.I.R. had been recorded.Secondly Ms. Gupta contended that the evidence on record shows that when on the evening of 13.6.1980 P.I. Ravidhone visited Rajawadi Hospital Chotibi and Sabirabi were there.In her contention had Chotibi and Sabirabi really seen the incident, the Investigation Officer would have interrogated them then and there.She also contended that the evidence of P.I. Ravidhone is that at about 6-30 p.m. the same day he reached the place of incident and Chotibi was also there.She urged that at that juncture Chotibi's statement should have been recorded by P.I. Ravidhone.In our view the inordinate delay in interrogating Chotibi (she was interrogated on the next day i.e. 14-6-1980) shows that she had not seen the incident and P.I. Ravidhone was searching for ocular account.In our view not only was the F.I.R. not lodged at 4.30 p.m. but no one was prepared to depose about the incident and, therefore, P.I. Ravidhone was fishing in the dark for the witnesses and that to us is the reason why Chotibi was not interrogated the same day.In our Judgment this circumstance coupled her being a very highly interested witness and that the station diary entry does not confirm her claim of immediately lodging the F.I.R. in asmuch as immediately thereafter no corresponding entry was made in it, are sufficient to throw out her testimony.We next take up the evidence of Nasimabanu (P.W. 4) the daughter of Chotibi.We regret to observe that mother and daughter sail in the same category.Ms. Gupta also contended that though Dr. Sami who had performed the autopsy of the deceased did find some injuries attributable to hockey sticks but in view of the categorical statement of Dr. Nebhrajani and the conflicting medical evidence, the benefit should go to the respondents and not to the prosecution.We admit that we find the submissions of Ms. Gupta pertaining to the conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence to be fairly plausible.We would also like to express our anguish that in murder case in which as many as 9 persons were tried such a sketchy judgment should have been recorded by the trial Judge.The learned trial Judge to our regret has not exhaustively dealt with the evidence of the eye witnesses, and the other infirmities in the prosecution case.It may be that had the impugned judgment been better written this appeal may not have been filed.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In that party, Kundan Kumar and Govind Kumar were taking liquor.In the meantime, they also called my husband and my husband also started taking liquor.During that, a scuffle took place between them and Kundan asked my husband to give Rs.500 back on which my husband asked Kundan that he had brought Drill machine from my husband and has not made payment for that.On this, Kundan at once took out 500 rupees note and gave it to my husband.For some time Kundan remain pacified but later on started abusing my husband.He asked my husband to return back the remaining amount as Rs.500/- could not be the amount of drilling machine otherwise he will teach my husband a lesson and whatever my husband had taken inside in the form of liquor he will take it out by stabbing knife CRL.L.P. 3/2020 Page 2 of 15 in his stomach, Govind and Ramnath also took the side of Kundan.I was watching all this in the stairs but the when the matter was not sorted, at about 11 pm, I also rushed to the roof and tried to pacify my husband and Kundan.After some time, Kundan again started abusing my husband and stated that today let him (my husband) finish as earlier also he had not paid for the party.Ramnath and Govind took side of Kundan and they all lifted my husband and thrown him in the nearby house.I immediately after shouting ran towards the nearby house.The assaults were made at random.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JBy the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the State seeks enhancement of sentence pursuant to the judgment dated 23.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, whereby the respondents (accused persons before the Trial Court) were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304(II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').CRL.L.P. 3/2020 Page 1 of 15The brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned Trial Court are reproduced as under:"Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused persons along with accused Govind (JCL) were arrested by the Police officials of Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi and were challaned to the court for trial of commission of the offences punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.Prosecution story, as unfolded from the perusal of the charge-sheet is that on 28.07.2013 on receipt of DD No.4B, SI Krishan along with Ct.Laxman Pandey reached at BJRM hospital where on MLC no. 63252/13 patient Dharmender Sharma aged 32 years was found admitted and it was mentioned on the MLC that patient was unconscious and not responding to physical stimulation and had been declared brought dead.In the hospital, witness Poonam met who got recorded her statement as: I am residing at tenanted premises i.e. Gali no. 19, D block, Kargil colony, Mukundpur.Yesterday on 27.07.2013, the neighbourer of our room Ram Nath Chaudhary had hosted a party in lieu of birth of a baby girl and that party was going on the roof of our room.Ramnath also came there and we both after taking TSR of Mohit reached at Jagjivan Ram hospital, where my husband was declared brought dead by the doctor."CRL.L.P. 3/2020 Page 2 of 15On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and charges for the offences under Section 302/34 of IPC were framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, however, accused Govind was declared as a juvenile and proceedings qua him were initiated before Juvenile Justice Board.To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined twenty witnesses in all.Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, wherein they reiterated their innocence and denied all prosecution charges and both accused persons took a plea that deceased had a quarrel with them which was resolved and they returned to their respective houses, however, the deceased remained on the roof in an inebriated condition and slipped and fell down from the roof.No defence evidence was led by the accused persons.CRL.L.P. 3/2020 Page 3 of 15Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned APP for the State opened her submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2019 was based on conjectures and surmises; that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the facts of the present case and the established principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court; that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the respondents for the charged offences beyond any reasonable doubt.6. Learned APP for the State restricting her arguments to the extent that the respondents are liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC contended that the deliberate act of the respondents of throwing the deceased from the rooftop shows their premeditation and intention to kill the deceased and clearly brings the offence within the ambit of Section 302/34 IPC.She further added that 'knowledge' as contrasted with 'intention' signifies a state of mental realization with the bare state of conscious awareness of certain facts in which human mind remains supine or inactive.On the other hand, 'intention' is a conscious state in which mental faculties are aroused into activity and summoned into action for the purpose of achieving a conceived end.CRL.L.P. 3/2020 Page 4 of 15We have heard the learned APP for the State at length and carefully examined the impugned judgment and the material available on record as well.Undoubtedly, medical evidence plays a vital role to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused persons.In the instant case, PW-10 Dr. V.K. Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital has deposed that he conducted the Post Mortem on the dead body of deceased and observed following injuries:i. Abrasion of size 3cm x 2cm and 2cm x 2cm at the lower end of right and left leg respectively.Abrasions of size 3cm x 3cm mid region of left leg.Abraded bruise on left shoulder of size 3cm x 2cm.lacerated wound on left occipital region 3cm x 1 cm x bone deep.Further, in order to determine whether the respondents had committed the said offence with premeditation and intention to cause CRL.L.P. 3/2020 Page 5 of 15 death of the deceased, we deem it appropriate to peruse the testimonies of PW-1 (Poonam) and PW-2 (Pappu).CRL.L.P. 3/2020 Page 5 of 15Ms. Poonam, wife of the deceased appeared as PW-1 and deposed as under: -"While my husband and accused persons were drinking at the roof of our house, accused Kundan demanded Rs.500/- from my husband.My husband earlier had left his drill machine at the house of accused Kundan where he worked.Accused Kundan told my husband that he would return his drill machine only when my husband would pay him Rs.500/-.Accused Kundan falsely demanded Rs.500/- from my husband who refused to pay the same by saying that there is no amount he owed to accused Kundan.Accused Kundan said that if my husband would not pay Rs.500/- to him, he would get the liquor consumed by him back by stabbing his stomach (agar tune 500 rupaye nahi diye to jitna piya hai sharab chaku marke nikal lunga).Accused Kundan, Ramnath and Gobind (JCL) started quarreling (hathapai) with my husband.I saved my husband from the accused persons and brought him to the ground floor of our house.The mobile phone of my husband was left behind at the roof of our house where my husband went to the roof our house to took back his mobile phone.The accused Kundan, Ramnath and Gobind (JCL) lifted my husband and threw him in the aangan (courtyard) in the house of my neighbourhood i.e. house belonging to Pappu.I was in the staircase of my house going upwards to the roof of my house.I followed my husband to the upstairs.I was pregnant and walking slowly in the staircase.I saw the accused persons threw my husband in the courtyard of the house of Pappu.Gobind (JCL) jumped on the body of my husband who was lying on the ground in the courtyard of Pappu."CRL.L.P. 3/2020 Page 6 of 15PW-2 Pappu, a neighbor of the deceased and the respondent No. 1 (Ramnath Choudhary) turned hostile.During cross examination by learned APP for the State, he deposed that:"It is correct that the incident took place in the year 2013 during summer season.It is correct that there was a party on the roof top of the house of accused Ramnath.

['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT A.H. Khan J.Khalaksingh son of Budheram was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Khalaksingh's son, Mangaram was tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 (abetment of murder).The Additional Sessions Judge convicted Khalaksingh under Section 304(1) and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.Accused Mtingaram was acquitted.Against this decision Khalaksingh has preferred appeal No. 13 of 1956 & the Govt. of Madhya Bharat has preferred appeal No. 40 of 1955, against the acquittal of Khalaksingh Under Section 302, and also against the acquittal of Mangaram of the offence of abetment.As both the appeals arise out of the same case, they are being disposed of by a single judgment.The prosecution story briefly is that two Children of Khalaksingh named Sita and Kapoora were playing in the Chopal of village Bhatpura on 3rd October 1954 at about 4 p.m. Gaurishankar, brother of Mama (deceased) stopped them from jumping about and playing there.It is said that Gaurishankar pulled them by the are also.They cried and went home and reported the incident to their elder brothers, Bhika and Mangaram.Both the elder brothers went to the Chopal and finding Gauri Shankar there, remonstrated with him and also threatened him.Gauri Shankar said to them "you are two and I am alone."The two elder brothers suggested that Gauri Shankar's elder brother, Mansa Ram, who was, thereabout, could join him.Thus an invitation for a free fight was extended.On this, Gauri Shankar and Mansa with lathis on one side, and Bhika and Manga Bam with lathies on the other side were arrayed and the parties indulged in what is described as Ojha Ojhi and Hooda Hoodi.This means that they flourished their lathis, hit the Jathios on the grounds without causing any injury to any one.When this display of force was going on, the accused Khalaksingh appeared on the scene.From this stage the prosecution story branches off into two versions.Acrording to one version, Khalaksingh appeared with a gun and according to the other version Khalaksingh came there armed with a stick, but that later on his yonger son, Sita fetched a gun and gave it to his father.Khalak Singh is first of all said to have asked the combatants not to fight, but later on Khalaksingh threw himself heart and soul in the fight, which hitherto was no more than mere brandishing of sticks.With the gun, which he either brought or which was later on handed over to him, he fired at Mansa Ham hiting him on the check.Mansa Ram fell down and died.The learned Additional Judge has convicted the accused under Section 304(1) Indian Penal Code and has held that he fired the gun at Mansa Ram, causing his death.But the learned Sessions Judge has also held that Khalaksingh used the gun in self-defence, but exceeded his right of self-defence and caused excessive injury.The learned Sessions Judge has been of the opinion that the accused could have prodded the deceased with the butt of the gun and could have thus protected himself.I shall now consider the evidence as to whether the Reused fired the gun or not and also whether there was any occasion for the exercise or the light of self defence,The most important evidence with regard to the firing in this case is that of Gauri Shankar P. W. 10, who was in the thick of the fight himself.This witness (P. W. 10) gives a graphic description of how the whole incident happened.He says that at about 4 in the after-noon, Khalaksingh's two younger sons Sita & Kapoora came to the Chopal and began to jump over cots lying in the Chopal.He asked the boys not to jump like that, because the cots will get damaged.One of the boys, Sita protested and said that the cots did not belong to the witness's father.On this he caught hold of both the boys by the arm and removed them from the Chopal.Both the boys abused him and went home weeping.After sometime, Manga and Bhika the two elder sons of Khalaksingh came there armed with lathies, and began to abuse Gauri Shankar and challenged him to settle the old score.Gauri Shankar protested and said that while; he was alone they were two.Manga Ram suggested that the witness's brother, Mansa Ram, who was sitting some distance away, could join him and Mansa Ram thus also came there.Thereafter a fight began between Manga and Bhika on one side and Gauri Shankar and Mansaram on the other.They began to indulge in what is described as Hooda Hoodi and Ojha Ojhi.This witness has explained the meaning of Hooda Hoodi and Ojha Ojhi.He says that it means the flourishing or brandishing of lathi in the air, making a pretence to hit.Prom this it appears that they confined their activities to the mere flourishing of the lathies in the air, and that it was no more, than a mere display of force, and that no one was being actually hit with lathis.The witness says that Ram Narayan and Balram P. Ws. 8 and 13 also came there, and, they tried to intervene without success.Jag-ram another P. W. 9 also came there.He also tried to intervene but with no effect, and, so he went home.Thereafter Khalaksingh, the father of the two combatants, Manga and Bhika, came on the spot, armed with a 12 bore double barrel gun.The father also joined the fight.This witness says that at the instigation of Manga Ram, Khalaksingh fired his gun at Mansa Ram.It is said that Khalaksingh took two or three steps back and then fired, hitting Mansaram in the eyes.The shot killed Mansa Ram almost instantaneously.After this the accused Khalaksingh and his two sons went away.On reading the statement of this witness carefully, there is nothing in it which disentitles it to belief.He is a young boy of 17 years, and his statement appears to be quite natural without any attempt to cook the evidence.The only contradiction, which the learned counsel for the appellant has been able to point out is that in his statement before the Police he had stated that Karansingh was present on the spot with a lathi in his hand.But before the Sessions Judge he stated that he did not see Karan Singh there.There is no doubt that this is a contradiction but it is not material for the purpose of this case and makes no difference so far as the firing of the gun is concerned.His statement that Khalaksingh fired has been believed by the learned Sessions Judge.In this fight, the parties hurled abuses at each other and brandished lathies.It is possible that in the midst of this confusion, perhaps the witness did not fully observe the presence of all those persons who were there, or it may be that when making a statement before the Court more than six months after the actual occurrence, he did not remember the facts of Karansingh's presence.It is so, but the main reason for it is that other prosecution witnesses said that in the din and noise, they could not say definitely who instigated Khalaksingh to shoot and that it was perhaps Mangaram.He says that when he was returning from his field, he saw that near the Chopal there was an altercation between Mangaram and Bhika on one side and Gaurishankar and Mansa on the other, He asked them not to fight but did not attach much importance to such quarrelling in which people were' confined to the flourishing of lathies in the air.So he went home.After he had reached home, he heard a lot of noise and when he came out, he saw that Khalaksingh had also joined the quarrel.Khalaksingh had gone with a gun and that at the instigation of Mangaram, Khalaksingh moved 3 or 4 paces and fired at Mansa Ram.The criticism levelled at this witness is that in the statement before the committing Magistrate he said that the incident took place after Dashera.But as a matter of fact it occurred 3 or 4 days before Dashera.But though he has faltered in his statement as to whether It was before or after Dashera, but all the same, in both the Courts he has stated that the occurrence took place on Sunday and that fact is true.The statement of this witness was recorded before the Sessions judge eight months after the actual incident took place.This is a. variation in his statement but it, is an indisputable fact that the incident took place near about Dashera.Apart from the statement or Gauri Shan kar, (P.W.10), which has been discussed above, I should like to place particular credence in the statement of Bhogiram, who was examined as a court-witness.He is a person who lives in the village and his presence has been referred to by almost all prosecution witnesses.The accused submitted an application to the Sessions Court that Bhogiram should be examined as a Court-witness land he was examined as such.The application made by the accused for the examination of this Witness as a Court-witness inclines one to the view that the defence considered him to be above local prejudices and treated him as a witness of truth.This Court witness says that when he was at home, he heard a lot of noise, whereupon he came out and went to the Chopal.He saw that Gauri Shankar, Managaram and Bhika were quarrelling with each other and that Ram Narayan Patel P. W. 8 and Balram P. W. 13 wore trying to intervene.He too advised the combatants not to fight.But no one listened to him.In the meanwhile Khalaksingh arrived there with a lathi in his hand and he too joined the quarrel.After the arrival of Khalaksingh, Mamaram deceased also joined the light.This witness alter recounting the prosecution story has stated that when Khalaksingh arrived at the scene, he said to the combatants "Gam Khao Lado Mat" which means have patience and do not fight.If Mansaram, the deceased had lifted his lathi to deal a blow at Khalaksingh," and if Khalaksingh had apprehended that the blow would cause grievous hurt or death then Khalaksingh was justified in shooting at the deceased.First, the two most important prosecution witnesses in his case are Gauri Shankar P.W. 10, who was one of the combatants, and Bhogiram the Court-witness, who was examined at the instance of the accused.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 476 OF 1998 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1705 of 1997] J U D G E M E N TThomas J.Leave granted A two judge bench has referred these cases to bedecided by a larger bench upon a contention that there isconflict between the ratio in State of West Bengal vs.Falguni Dutta and others [1993 (3) SCC 288] and that inDurgesh Chandra Shah vs. Vimal Chandra Shah [1996(1) SCC341].The question relates to the interpretation of Section167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by theState of West Bengal.By such amendment those sub-sections now read as follows: -(6) Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made and the accused has been discharged under sun-section (5), the Session Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (5) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify."The facts in the criminal appeal arising from SpecialLeave Petition (Criminal) No.1609 of 1997 Nirmal Kanti Royvs.State Of West Bengal are the following: Appellant wasinvolved as accused in an offence under Section 409, IndianPenal Code.During investigation of the case he applied forand got a pre-arrest bail order and surrendered himselfbefore the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah on18.3.1993 and was released on bail.As the investigation wasnot completed within two years therefrom, he moved the saidMagistrate on 22.9.1995 for discharging him as provided inSection 167(5) of the Code.Appellantchallenge that order in revision before the High Court ofCalcutta.Nonetheless, learned Single Judge granted further timeto the Investigating Officer, on an application filed by himin that behalf as the said officer satisfied the High Courtthat he could not complete the investigation within thetime schedule on account of his falling sick by jaundice.Charge-sheet was however filed within the extended time.

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on admission.The applicant has challenged the order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the learned JMFC Panna in unregistered Complaint Case (Panbai Vs.Ramratan & another) whereby the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed the criminal complaint against the respondents that on 14.1.2011 when she was in her house at Devendra Nagar the respondents came inside the house and assaulted her by slaps.Thereafter they abused her on the basis of her caste.They also gave a threat to the complainant.Therefore a complaint under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was filed before the committal Court.After considering the evidence adduced under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. the committal Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the evidence adduced by the complainant before the Magisterial Court, it appears that the complainant could not tell the date of incident even before the Court.She did not say anything that the respondents abused her on the basis of her caste, whereas her witnesses Pawan Vishwakarma (PW-2) and Jiauddin (PW-3) have stated about the abuses told by the respondents on the basis of the caste.But it appears that Pawan Vishwakarma and Jiauddin were the tutored witnesses, who repeated the pleadings of the complaint.If such incident took place with the complainant, who was the Ward Member at that time, then an FIR must have been lodged but no such FIR has been produced before the Magisterial Court.On the contrary, it appears that on 14.1.2011 a case of offence under Sections 353, 332, 294, 506 of IPC was registered against the husband of the complainant that he assaulted the respondent Ramratan.Consequently, this revision is hereby dismissed at motion.A copy of this order be sent to the Magisterial Court along with its record for information.

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 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 theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderpassed in H.S.(M).Confdl No.08/2015 dated 01.02.2015 by the detainingauthority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against thedetenu by name Mani @ Manikandan, Son of Nambi Thevar and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, Srivaikundam Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein itis stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:(i)Crime No.255 of 2011, Seidunganallur Police Station registered underSections 147, 148, 427, 294(b), 342, 324, 307, 506(ii) of the Indian PenalCode and Section 4 of TNPHW Act.(ii)Crime No.12 of 2013, Seidunganallur Police Station registered underSections 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 109, 506(ii) and 120(b) read with 149 ofthe Indian Penal Code.(iii)Crime No.13 of 2013, Seidunganallur Police Station registeredunder Sections 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.(iv)Crime No.7 of 2015, Seidunganallur Police Station registered underSections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 07.01.2015 oneKrishnakumar as de facto complainant has given a complaint in SrivaikundamPolice Station against the detenu and others and the same has been registeredin Crime No.10 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 384, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii)of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority toinvoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.4.The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein afterconsidering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documentshas derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is ahabitual offender and ultimately branded him as 'Goonda' by way of passingthe impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the presentHabeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu aspetitioner.5.On the side of the respondents a counter has been filed, wherein ithas been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petitionare false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended thaton the side of the detenu two representations are submitted and the same havenot been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order inquestion is liable to be quashed.8.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted whereinit has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation inbetween Column Nos.7 to 9, thirty eight clear working days are available andin between Column Nos.12 and 13, three clear working days are available andwith regard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, thirtyfive clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13,three clear working days are available and no explanation has been given onthe side of the respondents with regard to such huge delay in disposing ofthe representations submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself wouldaffect his rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of Indiaand therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.9.In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detentionorder passed in H.S.(M) Confdl No.08/2015 dated 01.02.2015 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondentsare directed to set the detenu viz., Mani @ Manikandan, Son of Nambi Thevarat liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connectionwith any other case.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

O.P.(MD) No. 4947 of 2018Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.O.P.(MD) No. 4947 of 2018 the investigation.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.O.P.(MD) No. 4947 of 2018 entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4947 of 201813.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and complete the investigation and file a final report, within a period of Four weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.16.10.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no ksa ToThe Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch (CCB), Trichy City.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4947 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki,J.) :These two separate appeals are being taken together as they are filed by he two accused against the common judgment.Both the accused were tried in Sessions Case No. 1473 of 1999 along with other two accused.The first accused, who has filed Appeal No. 898 of 2001 has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default he has to undergo further imprisonment for one year.The conviction is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The second accused, who has filed Appeal No. 882 of 2001, has been convicted under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals as well as the Public Prosecutor.We have also perused the record and evidence and also went through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.It may be pointed out that the accused were charged under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 35(1)(a) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act for committing offence of murder or causing the death by choppers of the deceased on the night of 19th September, 1999 in front of Samudra Villa Building, Off.Napean Sea Road, Mumbai.At no stage there was any charge of conspiracy nor have we found any evidence on record to show any conspiracy between the accused to commit offence.Yet accused No.2 was convicted for the offence under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, in paragraph 54 of the Judgment, for convicting accused No.2 under Section 120(B) of the IPC are not supported by the evidence.There was no charge framed under Section 120(B) of the IPC and at no stage any of the witnesses deposed with regard to any conspiracy and if accused No.1 was convicted for murder, which was a result of conspiracy with accused No.2, then there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge not to convict accused No.1 also for the charge under Section 120(B) of the IPC and if the accused No.2 was convicted for charge under Section 120(B) of the IPC for conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased then there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge not to convict accused No.2 under Section 302 of the IPC along with Section 120(B) of the IPC.But since the accused No.1 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, a look at the evidence is necessary.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::When the charges were framed, all the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.PW 1 projected as an eye witness.PW 2 is brother of the deceased.PW 3 is the neighbour.PW 4 is the doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body.PW 5 is the Special Executor Officer who held the identification parades.Before PW 6 the choppers were recovered at the alleged disclosure.PW 7 is the Police Officer, who recorded FIR.PW 9 is the Investigating Officer.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::PW 6 turned hostile and he stated in his stated that he signed the panchnama which had already been prepared in the police station.He admitted signature on the panchnama, but submitted that he had not read it.He was also categorical that no statement of disclosure was made by the accused.This witness was, therefore, declared hostile.But inspite of that he was not put to any cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor.Now coming to the evidence of PW 1 - Suresh Govind More.He has no where stated in his statement that he saw any assault being made by any of the accused on the deceased.As a matter of fact, he submitted that accused No.1, deceased and the witness belong to the same locality and from their locality two processions for Ganesh idol immersion are being taken every year.The accused and the deceased belong to two groups of the locality.They were taking Ganesh idols for immersion separately.There was an altercation between two groups at 7.30 p.m. when accused No.1 allegedly had thrown some gulal over the ladies belonging to the group of the ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 ::: 6 deceased.Police case was registered.The witness stated that on 19th September, 1999, late in the night around 2.00 a.m., he saw Mahesh Ramchandra Kadam lying in a pool of blood near the Ganeshotsav Mandap and he was in injured condition.Thereafter he went to inform Mahesh' s family members and when he came back with the family members, Mahesh had died.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::Nowhere, this witness has ever stated that he saw anybody attacking Mahesh.He did not, in fact, have any knowledge about the actual assault on Mahesh or any knowledge about a person who had attacked Mahesh.In fact, this witness was also declared hostile and was put to cross-examination, but nothing worthwhile, which could support the prosecution story, could be elicited from this witness."20. POINT NO. 2: This issue goes to the root of the trial.Accusations are made against accused No.1 Ajay Kokare and the other co-accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as his associates having participated in the assault on Mahesh Kadam with choppers causing him several bodily chop injuries described above resulting in instantaneous death before he was being admitted in Nair Hospital.The main object of the trial after ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 ::: 7 the accused having denied the charge and pleaded innocence, is to discover the guilt of the accused.The burden to prove the charge is certainly on the prosecution.Therefore, learned defence counsel Shri Shinde for accused No.1, Shri Nitin Shejpal for accused Nos.2 and 4 and Miss Anjali Patil for accused No.3 made their submissions in support of innocence of the accused, criticised the prosecution evidence produced on record in the form of recovery evidence and oral testimony of the witnesses.Various discrepancies have been pointed out.The most of the points in their arguments were common.They argued in one voice that the total evidence is falling short and not to be trusted for want of support from independent witnesses such as panch witnesses (referring to recovery evidence)."::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::The statements which were attributed by the learned Judge to the witnesses were never spoken by the witnesses.But their statement was made either under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in the F.I.R.Therefore, the mistake was committed of committing the accused on the basis of the statements made by the Police or in the F.I.R. since there is no evidence which could connect the accused persons to the crime.PW 1, who is a star witness, could not support the prosecution case.PW 6, who was another star witness and to whom the prosecution projected as witness to recovery of the choppers used in the alleged crime did not also support to the prosecution.All other witnesses are formal.In the circumstances, both the appeals are allowed.Conviction and ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 ::: 8 sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to accused No.1 and accused No.2 in Sessions Case No. 1473 of 1999 by the Judgement dated 28th and 29th September, 2001 is set aside.Their bail bond to stand discharged.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::(BILAL NAZKI, J.)::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::For the reasons separately recorded in the judgment, the following order:::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::In the circumstances, both the appeals are allowed.Conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to accused No.1 and accused No.2 in Sessions Case No. 1473 of 1999 by the Judgement dated 28th and 29th September, 2001 is set aside.We are told that both the accused are on bail.Their bail bond to stand discharged.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:25:47 :::

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

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

Despite several time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by learned AGA.Office report shows that though notices were served upon opposite party no. 2 but he has not filed any counter affidavit, the court is left with no option, but to decide the matter.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 355 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366,376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was lodged by father of the victim on 19.03.2018 with regard to the incident which was taken place on 14.03.2018, against the applicant and co-accused Ajit.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.07.2019, 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- Sumit, 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. 355 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366,376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri, 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 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.