Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

10K

like 0

The facts very briefly are that a fardbeyan was lodged on 17.12.2002by one Sanju Kumar (hereinafter referred to as Informant), resident ofVillage Mathura, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali.In the fardbeyan, it wasstated: Father of the informant, namely Ravindra Prasad, was running a teastall near the Eastern gate of the GPO.For the tea stall he requiredabout 25 Litres of milk everyday and this milk was being supplied bySanaullah Khan, the appellant herein, for about a month.Sanaullah Khanstarted mixing water with the milk and the customers of the tea stallstarted making complaints about the quality of tea.On 02.12.2002 at about2.00 p.m. Sanaullah Khan along with Md. Hamid and Arvind came to the teastall and demanded the dues for the supply of milk.After calculation itwas found that the dues amounted to Rs. 1,000/- and Ravindra Prasad gaveSanauallah Khan Rs. 500/- and told him that the rest of the amount will bepaid later.Ravindra Prasad, however, informed Sanaullah Khan that themilk supplied by him was not up to the mark and therefore he will no longerpurchase milk from his Khatal.Sanaullah Khan got annoyed and told himthat he will not allow him to run the tea stall.Ravindra Prasad retortedthat he had seen many persons like him at his tea stall.Sanaullah Khansaid that he will have to face serious consequences and that he will teachhim a lesson within two to four days.Thereafter, Sanaullah Khan, Hamidand Arvind went away.On 16.12.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. Arvind, who wasworking with Sanaullah Khan came and told Ravindra Prasad that his masterwas calling him for some urgent work and Ravindra Prasad went along withArvind and did not return for an hour.Arvind again came and told hisbrother Sunny Kumar, who was in the tea stall, that his master was callinghim and that Ravindra Prasad was in the Khatal.Ravindra Prasad and Sunny Kumar, however, did notreturn till the next morning.The Informant became suspicious and startedsearching for his father and his brother.A. K. PATNAIK, J.This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16.12.2009 of the PatnaHigh Court in Death Reference Case No. 1 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal (DB)No.He went to the Khatal of theappellant, but found it to be closed.He suspected that the appellant,Hamid and Arvind had kidnapped his father and younger brother.The fardbeyan given by the Informant was registered as FIR No.451 of2002 at Kotwali, P.S. for the offence of kidnapping under Section 364 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short ‘the IPC’).Wheninvestigation was done by the police, three dead bodies were foundconcealed in husk in a room on the eastern verandah of Pearl Cinema and thedead bodies were seized and a seizure list was prepared in which ParimalKumar and Baleshwar Ram signed as witnesses.Two of the dead bodies wereidentified by the informant as those of Ravindra Prasad and Sunny Kumar.Inquest reports and postmortem reports of the dead bodies were prepared.Later the third body was identified to be that of Arvind by Ramanand Ram,father of Arvind.The appellant was arrested and pursuant to theconfession of the appellant, the shoes, sandal and gamchha of the threedeceased persons, a rope, a small plastic bag and a knife were recoveredfrom the garbage situated in north-east of Khatal and were seized andParimal Kumar and Baleshwar Ram signed the seizure list.Offences underSections 302, 120B and 201 IPC were added and a charge-sheet was filedagainst the appellant and Hamid and the case was committed to the Court ofSessions.At the trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined.The TrialCourt held that the chain of circumstances is complete and does not leaveany reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of theappellant and it goes to show that in all human probabilities, the offencesmust have been committed by the appellant.The trial court, however,acquitted Hamid of the charges.After hearing on the question of sentence,the trial court took the view that the appellant should be hanged by theneck till death as he had killed three helpless persons brutally afterpremeditation and if he is allowed to continue to live in the presentsociety, he will be a threat to his co-human beings and this was one ofthose rarest of rare cases in which the appellant deserves the capitalpunishment of death.The trial court accordingly referred the sentence ofdeath to the High Court.The appellant also filed a criminal appeal against the judgment ofthe trial court.On 03.07.2006, the High Court directed recording ofadditional evidence on two points in exercise of its powers under Section391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’).Pursuant to the direction of the High Court the confessional statement ofthe appellant was marked as an exhibit through the investigating officer(PW-8) after his recall by the trial court and the knife which was seizedand listed as item 10 in the seizure list was also marked as an exhibit.CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:He submitted that the trial courtand the High Court has relied on the evidence of PW-6 to hold that theappellant summoned the deceased persons Ravindra Prasad and Sunny Kumarthrough his servant Arvind but PW-6 was not present at the tea stall.Hesubmitted that the evidence of PW-7 would show that PW-6 was in the houseof PW-7 on 16.12.2002 and remained there till the morning of 17.12.2002 andthus PW-6 was not present at the tea stall on 16.12.2002 when Arvind isalleged to have told Ravindra Prasad and Sunny Kumar that they have beensummoned by the appellant.Mr. Sharan next submitted that the third circumstance that deadbodies were recovered from the room belonging to the appellant is also notproved in as much as PW-7 has said in his evidence that the dead bodieswere in fact recovered in front of the Pearl Cinema.He submitted that thetwo seizure witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have clearly said that recovery of thedead bodies and the weapon with which the offence was committed and otherincriminating materials were not made in their presence.He argued thatRajender Tiwari, the officer who made the recoveries has also not beenexamined.FINDINGS OF THE COURT:The evidence of PW-6 on which both the trial court and the High Courthave relied on is clear that on 16.12.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. when he waspresent at the tea stall, Arvind, servant of the appellant came and calledRavindra Prasad saying that the appellant wanted to talk to him on certainissues and that Ravindra Prasad left with Arvind.PW-6 has also stated inhis evidence that after about an hour Arvind came again and told that theappellant was calling Sunny also and Sunny went along with Arvind andthereafter PW-6 closed the shop and went to his house.Hence, the evidence of PW-7 does not contradict theevidence of PW-6 that he was at the tea stall at 8.00 p.m. on 16.12.2002when Arvind told Ravindra Prasad and Sunny Kumar that they were beingcalled by the appellant.There is also evidence to show that the dead bodies of RavindraPrasad, Sunny Kumar and Arvind were recovered from the Khatal of theappellant.Though, the seizure witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 stated that nothingwas seized in their presence, PW-6 has stated that when the Khatal (cattleshed) of the appellant was opened, he saw some splashes of blood and thedead bodies were found in another room and these dead bodies were ofRavindra Prasad, Sunny Kumar and Arvind.Incross examination by the defence, PW-6 has denied the suggestion that thedead bodies had not been recovered in his presence and that the inquestreports were not prepared in his presence and that he had not put hissignatures on the inquest reports.Mr. Sharan relied on the evidence of PW-7 to submit that the threedead bodies were not recovered from the Khatal but we find that PW-7 hasalso stated that the three dead bodies were recovered from the room ofPearl Cinema where the Khatals of the appellant were situated.PW-7 has,however, admitted in cross-examination on behalf of the defence that he hadnot seen with his own eyes as to from which place the dead bodies wererecovered.PW-8, the I.O. who inspected the place of occurrence has stated inhis deposition that Pearl Cinema is situated to the east of the tea stallin Budh Marg and was closed for a long period and there is a verandah tothe east of the cinema hall which is divided into many rooms and the roomssituated to the north is in possession of the appellant.He has furtherstated in his evidence that in the western portion of the floor of thisroom, blood was found in huge quantity which had already clotted and thestains of blood were found on the western wall also.PW-8 has furtherstated that to the north of this room and near the door there is a vacantplace which is fitted with the grill gate and to the north of this placethere is another room in which there is heap of straw and the three deadbodies were found concealed in this very heap of husk which were recoveredand the husk was found sticking to the injuries on the dead bodies of thedeceased persons.PW-8 has further stated that the three dead bodies wererecovered from the place of occurrence itself.He has also stated thatRajender Tiwari, the SI of Police prepared the inquest reports of all thethree dead bodies and he put his signatures on all the three inquestreports which have been marked as Ex.5, 5/1 and 5/2 respectively.PW-8 has also stated in his evidence that in course of investigation,after the appellant had surrendered in court, he took him on police remandand in course of investigation he gave his confessional statement, andpursuant to information the appellant divulged, he seized two pair of bloodstained plastic shoes, a blood stained white gamcha (towel of Indian type),a blood stained chequerred gamcha, a plastic rope of green colour, a bloodstained piece of plastic, a blood stained old sack, a small sack of blood,a blood stained green small plastic sack, a blood stained small containermade of plastic, a knife of 16 inches used for slaughtering goat.PW-8 hasalso stated that a seizure list of all these articles which were recoveredwere prepared by Rajender Tiwari and he had identified the writing andsignature of Rajender Tiwari and the seizure list is marked as Ex.6/1.Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states that when any fact isdeposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from aperson accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so muchof such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relatesdistinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.Hence, theinformation received from the appellant pursuant to which the aforesaidincriminating materials were recovered is not only admissible but also hasbeen proved.Thus, three circumstances have been established by the prosecution.The first circumstance established by the prosecution is that Arvind cameto the tea stall on 16.12.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. and told Ravindra Prasadthat he was being called by the appellant and Ravindra Prasad went withArvind and within an hour thereafter Arvind again came to the tea stall andtold Sunny Kumar that he was being called by the appellant and Sunny Kumarwent along with Arvind.It, however, appears from the evidenceof PW-3 that it was Arvind who had a Khatal at Old Bakri Bazar.We haveperused the evidence of PW-3 and we do not find that PW-3 has stated thatthe appellant did not have a Khatal on the verandah of the Pearl Cinema.Of course, PW4 has stated that the appellant runs business of bakri (sheepgoat) and never ran milk business but in the evidence of PW-4 there isnothing to show that the room on the verandah of Pearl Cinema was not inthe occupation of the appellant.On the question of sentence, the trial court has recorded specialreasons under Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. for awarding death sentence to theappellant.The trial court has held that the appellant has killed RavindraPrasad and Sunny Kumar on an issue of petty amount and the appellant hasalso not spared his servant, Arvind.The trial court has also found fromthe post mortem reports of the three deceased persons that they have beenbrutally murdered after premeditation.Thus, the appeals are allowed only on the question of sentence, anddismissed as regards conviction.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents for arresting the accused persons and filing the charge sheet in Crime No.18/2018 registered at Police Station Girwai, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (5), 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a complaint was made by the applicant.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the FIR under the aforesaid Sections, but the police has neither arrested the accused nor has concluded the investigation so far.So far as the prayer made by the applicant for issuing a direction to the police to arrest the accused persons is concerned, the same cannot be granted.The High Court, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition, finally disposed of the same observing that, "it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property, perusal of various documents and filing 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29953/2018 Manish Mahor Vs.State of M.P. and another of chargesheet.It is also needless to state that if any account is available with the accused persons, or any amount is in their possession and any account is maintained in a nationalised bank, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the aggrieved persons in this case".The Court accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.The impugned order is a nullity and liable to be set aside only on that score.******* **********36.The power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court either suo motu or on an application (i) to secure the ends of justice; (ii) the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code; (iii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. '' 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29953/2018 Manish Mahor Vs.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 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']

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

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity) and applicants are seeking protection of their fundamental right enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.It is seen that applicant no.1 is the avk 1/12::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 ::: 909-APL-119-2020.doc Chairman cum Managing Director of applicant no.3 M/s.(a) Applicant no.3 Company is in the business of Free Trade Warehousing Zones (FTWZs for the sake of brevity) and they operate this godowns over 143 acres of land at Sai Village, Panvel, District Raigad.Goods are imported and kept in those warehouses for being sent to various countries apart from domestic consumption on payment of custom duty.(c) Because of the stress in the infrastructure sector, applicant no.3 Company underwent restructuring of the debt as per policy set out by the RBI.The funded Interest Term Loan amount of Rs.50.08 crore came to be sanctioned for funding interest in debt restructuring scheme.Due to violation of policy and unwarranted taxation disputes, growth of Free Trade Warehousing Zone got adversely affected.Arshiya Limited.Applicant no.2 is reported to be the Director of the said Company.First Information Report (FIR) came to be lodged against them by respondent no.2 UCO Bank on 23 rd December 2019 which has resulted in registration of Crime No.Applicants herein are accused in that crime registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).Accused no.4 is said to be unknown public servant and unknown others.The First Information Report (FIR) alleges fraud in obtaining loans from respondent no.2 UCO Bank and the FIR reveals that the same is to the tune of Rs.289 crores.2 Applicants have pleaded in the instant application that applicant no.1 as per his schedule returned back from London on 7th January 2020 at the airport at Mumbai but pursuant to the impugned warrant/ Look Out Circulars (LOC) he came to be avk 2/12::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 ::: 909-APL-119-2020.doc detained at the Airport till the officers of the CBI came and permitted him to leave by serving summons on him.It is further averred that applicant no.2 also returned back from London on 10th January 2020 but pursuant to the LOC she came to be stopped at the immigration counter of the Airport.She was permitted to leave the Airport only on getting clearance from the CBI.Notice dated 7th January 2020 issued by the Inspector of Police CBI BSFC Mumbai required the applicant no.1 to attend him on 13th January 2020 at the office of the CBI.The application states that warrants have been obtained against applicants from the learned trial court and they are aggrieved by an exparte classification by First Informant / respondent no.2 UCO Bank of accounts of applicant no.3 Company as "Fraud".Therefore, applicants are seeking protection of their fundamental rights by challenging the issuance of look out notice and warrants in pursuance to the FIR lodged with the respondent/ CBI.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::Mr.Venegaonkar, the learned counsel for the CBI has stated that in the morning itself he has received the brief and he is yet to get necessary instructions.4 The learned senior counsel appearing for applicants by drawing my attention to the facts pleaded in the application has made the following submissions :(b) During the financial year 2010-11 to 2013-14, total term loan of Rs.238.89 crores came to be distributed to applicant no.3 Company by respondent no.2/UCO Bank after appraisal of their project in a consortium lending.Total credit facilities underwritten by the respondent no.2/UCO Bank were to the avk 4/12::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 ::: 909-APL-119-2020.doc extent of Rs.1300 crores but the applicant no.3 Company had availed credit facility to the tune of Rs.950 crores.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::Thus, applicant no.3 Company was compelled to postpone construction of some warehouses.Even the Debt Restructure Scheme failed on account of stress in the sector.(d) It is further pointed out that as per guidelines of the RBI laid down in the Master Circular dated 1st July 2015, forensic audit of applicant no.3 Company came to be conducted by Forensic Auditor M/s.My attention is avk 5/12::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 ::: 909-APL-119-2020.doc drawn to the Master Circular of the RBI as well as Minutes of the Joint Lender's Forum Meeting reflecting the fact that audit of the Company's account for the period from 2010 to 2016 came to be conducted by Forensic Auditors, at the instance of members of the consortium, who granted the credit facility to applicant no.3 Company.Contention raised is to the effect that report of the Forensic Auditor was considered by members of the consortium in the meeting held on 7th January 2017 and "Red Flags" were directed to be removed.It is seen that, thereafter, avk 6/12::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 ::: 909-APL-119-2020.doc two consortium members entered into one time settlement and their accounts were closed.It is also revealed that all other lenders assigned their debts to Edelweiss Assets Restructured Company.The learned senior counsel further pointed out that after decision of removal of "Red Flag" respondent no.2/UCO Bank had also assigned its debt to Edelweiss Assets Restructured Company and therefore, outstanding debt of respondent no.2/UCO Bank became nil.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::(e) By drawing my attention to Table A at page 7 of the application, it is pointed out that against payment of Rs.289 crores to applicant no.3 Company, respondent no.2/UCO Bank has also secured / received an amount of Rs.360.16 crores.Then, by drawing my attention to the FIR dated 23 rd December 2019, it is pointed out that the FIR does not mention this fact of receiving or securing an amount of Rs.360 crores of the First Informant.According to applicants, this suppression of material fact and misrepresentation in the FIR so also the consequent actions amount to abuse of process of law.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::Besides, within 15 days of the RBI reporting, the bank commissioning/initiating the forensic audit would lodge a complaint with the CBI on behalf of all banks in the consortium/MBA."After conjoint application of mind by members of consortium, avk 8/12::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 ::: 909-APL-119-2020.doc following decisions came to be taken by the Joint Lender's Forum as reflecting in the Minutes of the said meeting dated 7 th January 2017 :::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::"Based on above discussion on forensic Audit Report, finally it was decided by the consortium that account to be removed from Red flat as identified by UCO Bank and inform CRILIC accordingly."6 At this stage, some merit is found in contention that there is no reference to the amount received/secured by the applicant no.3 Company which is to the tune of Rs.360.16 crores, though the FIR alleges that there is fraud in loan amount of Rs.289 crores.Significantly, other members of consortium are not alleging any fraud.Conduct of applicants as pleaded in the application avk 9/12::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 ::: 909-APL-119-2020.doc also deserves to be taken note of.Both applicants had returned to India even after registration of the FIR against them.This indicates that they want to participate in the investigation.This fact is also reflected from the notice dated 7 th January 2020 and reply to it given by the applicant no.1 on 10th January 2020, which as per pleading is by visiting the office of the respondent/ CBI.This aspect atleast prima facie deserves consideration.9 Upon being asked, the learned senior counsel, on instructions, submits that applicants shall assist the Investigating Officer by attending him as and when required, so also by producing all material which is relevant for the purpose of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::11 As prima facie case is made out, till hearing the respondents on merit, I pass the following order :i) Issue notice to respondents.ii) Learned counsel Mr.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::v) In the meanwhile, interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause(c).::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 03:36:00 :::

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate assisted by Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh as well as Sri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and perused the record.By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of First Information Report Registered vide Case Crime No. 104/2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Crl.Law Amendment Act at P.S. Umari Begam Ganj, District - Gonda.Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners submits that on 03.04.2020, an incident took place between the parties in regard to distribution of money under the MGNREGA scheme, as a result of which there were firing from the side of the petitioners as well as complainant and in the said incident two persons from the side of the petitioners have died, as such an F.I.R. (Case Crime No. 66/2020 under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 148, 149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Crl.Law Amendment Act, 1935 has been lodged from the side of the petitioners at Thana Umari Begam Ganj, District - Gonda against 9 persons, namely, Atul Singh, Asendra Singh @ Tilakdhari, Uday Pratap Singh, Bharat Bhushan, Tilakram Yadav, Mahesh, Pankaj Singh, Pushpendra Singh and Rajan Singh along with 3-4 unknown persons.He further submits that thereafter in respect to the same incident, an F.I.R./Case Crime No. 104/2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Crl.Law Amendment Act has been lodged at P.S. Umari Begam Ganj, District - Gonda and from the bare perusal of the said F.I.R., the position which emerged out is that three persons, namely, Pushpendra Singh, Udaya Pratap Singh and Aditya Singh have received injury.It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that so far as the Pushpendra Singh S/o Dinesh Singh is concerned, he was medically examined on 04.04.2020 and the injury which were received by him are as under:-"1. L/W (3x1cm) (Rt) side tip of thumb, 5cm above the (Rt) side basal thumb.2. L/W (1x0.5cm) present on (Rt) side tip of Ring Finger."So far as the Uday Pratap Singh is concerned, he was medically examined on 04.04.2020 and the injury which were received by him are as under:-"1. Abrasion (05 x 0.3cm) present (Lt) side Abrasion 16cm above (Lt) side lliac Crest.It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the said persons were again medically examined on 18.04.2020 and the injury of the said persons are as under:-Pushpendra Singh Final Diagnosis - Injury (Rt) Hand Fracture - distant, Ring finger (R) hand Middle Finger of Rt.Uday Pratap Singh X-Ray - Chest PA - NAD X-Ray - Abdomen on direct position - NADAditya Singh Final diagnosis - Injury (Lt) thigh X-Ray Thigh -Type Radio Opaque Swell.No Bony Issue seen on X-Ray."Irregular Metallic element foreign body over thigh and Lt. Knee.Accordingly, it is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that from the perusal of the injury report/medical report of the above three persons, there is no injury to them on their vital parts.It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that based on above said facts, present F.I.R. has been lodged at a belated stage only as a counter-blast, so keeping in view the abovesaid facts, arrest of the petitioners pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. may be stayed.Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and Sri Badrul Hasan, on the basis of instructions received to them submit that in the incident which took place on 03.04.2020, the injuries have been caused to the persons indicated in the impugned F.I.R. which has been challenged by means of present writ petition.Learned A.G.A. further submits that the petitioner No. 1/Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh, petitioner No. 2/Vijay Kumar Singh @ Tintoo, petitioner No. 3/Hanumant Pratap Singh @ Rishu, petitioner No. 5/Indra Bahadur Singh @ Pappu and petitioner No. 6/Balbeer Singh are concerned had ga criminal history as well.Learned A.G.A. on the instructions received to them further submit that in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R. two persons who are named therein i.e. Devendra Pratap Singh @ Pappu and Chandra Mohan Yadav have been arrested.However it has been disputed by them that in respect to the F.I.R. which has been lodged from the side of the petitioners i.e. Case Crime No. 66/2020 under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 148, 149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Crl.Law Amendment Act, 1935 at Thana Umari Begam Ganj, District - Gonda, two persons from the side of the petitioners have died.Sri H.G.S. Parihar learned Senior Counsel while opposing the submission as made by learned counsel for petitioners submits that incident in question has caused only due to the action of petitioners as a result of which injury has been caused to the three persons indicated in the F.I.R.He further argued that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 & 6 have got criminal history, so keeping in view the said facts, petitioners are not entitled for any relief in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

II), Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.458 of 1999 on the allegation that on 8/10/1998at 7 a.m., in a wordy quarrel between A.2 and P.W.3 while fetching water fromthe street pipe, the deceased who was passing by, intervened and shouted atthem and directed not to quarrel and since the quarrel continued, the deceasedbeat A.2, whereupon, A.2 instigated the appellant/A.1 to attack the deceased andaccordingly, the appellant stabbed the deceased on the chest with knife and theweapon got embedded in the chest and the deceasd, who was taken to the hospital,succumbed to the injuries.The prosecution case, as put forth by its witnesses, is conciselynarrated below:-P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 are cited as eye witnesses in the case.a. P.W.1 deposed that on 8/10/1998 at 7 a.m., at Venkatesapuram SouthStreet, while fetching water from the street, he had seen A.2 and P.W.2quarrelling and assaulting each other and at that time, the deceased, who cameby that way, directed both of them not to fight and since the fight continued,the deceased beat A.2, who in turn instigated the appellant/her husband toattack the deceased and accordingly, the appellant delivered a stab on the chestof the deceased with knife.P.W.7 on hearingabout the incident through his wife, visited the Government Hospital and waspresent there during inquest.The deceased was shifted in a van to theGovernment Hospital, Vilathikulam and the Doctor, after giving first aid,directed the deceased to be taken to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin,however, he died at 9.40 a.m. c. P.W.12 Police Constable, on 8/10/1998 at 9.40 a.m., received theintimation from the Government Hospital, Vilathikulam regarding the admission ofthe deceased with stab injuries and subsequently, received another intimation at9.50 a.m., about the death of the deceased and he passed on the informationthrough wireless to the Sub-Inspector of Police at 10.15 a.m. d. P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Kadalkudi Police Station,proceeded to the Government Hospital at 11 am., received the complaint/Ex.P.1given by P.W.1 attested by P.W.8 and thereafter, came to the Police Station at11.45 a.m., and registered the case in Crime No.14 of 1998 for an offence underSection 302 r/w. 309 IPC.Through P.W.10, the First Information Report/Ex.P.7 aswell as the complaint was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate and copiesthereof to the higher-ups.e. P.W.16 Inspector of Police, after receiving the intimation about theoccurrence by 12 noon, reached the Government Hospital at 3.15 p.m., and in thepresence of witnesses, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.P.14 is the inquest report and thereafter, he forwarded the dead body of thedeceased through P.W.11 for conducting post-mortem.He visited the scene ofoccurrence, examined the witnesses, prepared observation mahazar and roughsketch under Exs.P.3 and 15 respectively and recovered blood stained earth andsample earth and M.O.3 weapon in the presence of P.W.9 Village AdministrativeOfficer.f. P.W.15 Doctor, Government Hospital, Vilathikulam conducted post mortemover the dead body of the deceased on 6/10/1998 at 3 p.m. and issued post-mortemcertificate Ex.P.13 wherein it is opined that the deceased would appear to havedied due to shock and haemorrhage on account of stab injury noted to have beenentered into thoracic cavity.The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 16,marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and produced M.Os.The learned trial Judge, on conclusion of the trial, by order dated22/3/2002, while acquitting A.2, convicted the first accused for the offenceunder Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.g. The Investigating Officer on coming to know that the appellantsurrendered on 12/10/1998, took him into Police custody and recorded hisstatement.P.W.14, on receipt of the recovered material objects from theInvestigating Officer, forwarded the same to the Forensic lab for chemicalexamination.P.10 and P.11 are the chemical analysis and serologicalreports respectively.h. The Investigating Officer, after examining the witnesses and receivingmedical and forensic opinions, concluded the investigation and laid final reporton 4/11/1998 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302r/w. 109 IPC.i. When questioned under section 313 Cr.P.c., the accused denied hiscomplicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.Neither oral nor documentaryevidence was let in by the defence.Learned trial Judge, after examining thematerials placed and considering the arguments made on both sides, convicted andsentenced the appellant as aforementioned; hence the present appeal.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that from theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, it is apparent that there was a quarrel between A.2 andP.W.3 in which, both of them assaulted each other.At that time, thedeceased, who came to the place of occurrence, directed both of them to stopquarrelling but the quarrel continued, whereupon, the deceased is said to haveassaulted A.2 and in turn, A.2 instigated the appellant to stab the deceased andaccordingly, the accused with M.O.4 short edged knife - like weapon, stabbed thedeceased on the chest and after receiving the injury, the deceased fell down.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is consistent that the appellant caused a singlestab injury.Though the post mortem Doctor noticed two external injuries, ithas been clarified that the second injury would have been caused while removingthe embedded weapon.The occurrence had taken place at 7 am., andthe deceased was taken to the hospital by 9.30 a.m., and soon after his death,intimation was sent to the Police.P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of Police reached theGovernment Hospital and recorded the statement from P.W.1 which was attested byP.W.8 and there was no delay in registration of the case.Adverting to theevidence of eye witnesses, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairlyconceded that there was no pre-meditation on the part of the appellant to committhe offence since he reacted suddenly when his wife was assaulted in a publicplace/road by a third person/deceased.We have carefully examined the materials available on record andconsidered the submissions made on both sides.On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and Ex.P.1, it appearsthat there was a wordy quarrel between A.2 and P.W.3 in which they assaultedeach other.The deceased, who was passing by, on seeing the quarrel between A.2and P.W.3 directed them to stop the quarrel but they did not pay heed to hiswords, whereupon, the deceased with an intention to stop the fight, assaultedthe wife of the appellant i.e., A.2 and under such circumstances, A.2 instigatedthe appellant to attack the deceased and only under such circumstances, theaccused is said to have delivered a single stab on the chest of the deceased.All the eye witnesses consistently stated that the accused delivered only asingle stab.Theoccurrence had taken place in a spur of the moment, in that, on seeing theassault on his wife/A.2 by the deceased and at her instigation, the accuseddelivered a single stab.On a close scrutiny of the evidence of record, we areof the considered opinion that there was no premeditation on the part of theappellant to cause the death of the deceased.However, in view of the weaponused viz., M.O.3 and causation of injury at a vital part of the body, theappellant had knowledge that his act would turn to be fatal.Therefore, since,there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased, wehold that the offence under Section 302 is not made out and that the actcommitted by the accused is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and hencehe is liable to be convicted under Section 304 (i) IPC, in our considered view,imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years would meet theends of justice.In the result, the conviction of the appellant/accused in S.C.No.458of 1999 dated 22/3/2002 under Section 302 IPC is modified as Section 304 (i)IPC.The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment forfive years.The fine amount imposed on the appellant shall hold good.LearnedAdditional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Thoothukudi is directed totake necessary steps to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergothe remaining period of sentence.The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II) Thoothukudi District.The Inspector of Police, Kalalgudi Police Station Thoothukudi District.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

['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.

He submits that the CBI has, in fact, sent a communication to the respondent on W.P.(C.) No. 7071/2019 Page 3 of 6 12.03.2019 stating that the case is presently under investigation, and in case the petitioner is reinstated at this time, he may influence the witnesses to be examined further.W.P.(C.) No. 7071/2019 Page 3 of 6C.M. No. 29464/2019The application stands disposed of.W.P.(C) 7071/2019 & C.M. No. 29465/2019The Tribunal has W.P.(C.) No. 7071/2019 Page 1 of 6 rejected the said Original Application preferred by the petitioner wherein he had assailed the continuation of his suspension.His initial suspension of 90 days was extended vide order dated 28.09.2018 for a period of 180 days.The suspension of the petitioner has been further extended vide order dated 27.03.2019 for a period of 180 days.W.P.(C.) No. 7071/2019 Page 1 of 6He places reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.v. Vijay Kumar Jha, W.P. (C.) No. 6456/2016, decided on 26.07.2016, wherein the W.P.(C.) No. 7071/2019 Page 2 of 6 Division Bench invoked Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and did not interfere with the order of the Tribunal revoking the suspension of the employee.He also places reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Kulamani Biswal v. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C.) No. 6859/2018, decided on 31.10.2018, wherein the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration various decisions, including the decisions in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), Dr. Rishi Anand (supra) and the further decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Govt.(Home) v. Promod Kumar IPS & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 8427-8428/ 2018, decided on 21.08.2018W.P.(C.) No. 7071/2019 Page 2 of 6Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice has defended the continuation of the petitioner's suspension and the order of the Tribunal.He submits that the petitioner was holding a senior position as the Chief Engineer in MES, Ministry of Defence.There are serious allegations of corruption against the petitioner.The CBI has registered a case, which is presently under investigation under Section 120B IPC and under Section 7,8,10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges, as per the FIR pertain to demand and acceptance of illegal bribe by the petitioner from private contractors.Learned counsel submits that the CBI is still in the process of conducting the investigation and collecting evidence and, therefore, the charge sheet has not been filed in the Court.For the same reason, no charge memorandum has been issued for initiation of disciplinary proceedings.The CBI requested for extension of petitioner's suspension period.Moreover, the Director of Enforcement vide letter dated 01.03.2019 informed that their unit has been conducting investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA) and that the matter is under progress.We have heard the submissions of Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.W.P.(C.) No. 7071/2019 Page 5 of 6

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

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

But the notice itself does not refer to the alleged misappropriation or defalcation at all.It only calls upon the accused to remain present in the office for the purpose of certain clarifications.The accused remained present in the office on that day when he was called upon to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 1104.71 Ps.The contention of the petitioner before me is that there is a policy decision taken by the Government to condone or connive at certain kind of offences involving criminal misappropriation.The petitioner's contention is not that he had committed any such offences; but he relies upon the above policy decision of the Government and contends that even assuming that he was guilty of some kind of criminal misappropriation of the monies belonging to the Government, having regard to the above mentioned Government policy, he is entitled to be let off without any action against him.The fact that the Government has laid down such a policy has been conceded before me by the learned Public Prosecutor by producing the relevant Government circular in that behalf.The result is that I have no other alternative but to accept the petitioner's contention and to allow this appeal (petition ?) filed by the Government servant who was convicted by the Courts below for deflection of Public money.The relevant facts are very few :The petitioner (who will be referred to hereafter as the 'accused') was working as an Agriculture Assistant, in charge of the recovery of Tagai loans, at village Sadavan in Amalner Taluka of Jalgaon District.Some time during the period between 18-11-73 and 23-4-1974, he is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1104.71 ps.which he had recovered from various agriculturists in the village, who had taken Tagai loans from the Government.The modus operandi allegedly followed by him was that he recovered the instalments of Tagai loans from those various persons and even gave them receipts for the said recovery, but did not credit the amount in the Government Treasury.It is not clear from records as to how it was that the misappropriation was not noticed earlier, but the fact remains that so long as he was on that post and even some time, thereafter, the so-called misappropriation was not noticed by the department.The accused was subsequently transferred from that village and his successor made demands from the agriculturists in question.Those agriculturists showed their receipts and the prosecution case is that it is only thereupon that the misappropriation committed by the accused came to the knowledge of the new incumbent of the office of the Agriculture Assistant.The exact nature of realisation is somewhat shrouded in mystery.which he had received from the various agriculturists by way of recovery of Tagai loans.On 8th December, 1975 an order was passed against him for his suspension.However, the petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs. 1104.71 Ps.He even deposited the amount of interest on that sum, namely, Rs. 743.71 Ps.In spite of these deposits however, a criminal prosecution was instituted against him by the Government and a charge-sheet was ultimately file against him on 3rd August, 1979 for having committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by misappropriation of the said mount of Rs. 1104.71 Ps.and that was how the accused faced the Trial in the Trial Court of offence under S. 409 I.P.C. A charge was duly framed in that behalf by the Trial Court.The accused denied having committed any offence.He contended that he had deposited the said amounts in the Government Treasury immediately when he had recovered the same from the agriculturists.His contention was that the agriculturists in question had explained to him that they required additional loans; that they implored the accused to pass the receipts for the repayment of the loans already received by them so that they could get further loans from the Government.They explained that they did not have the money to repay the Tagai loans at that time, but assured the petitioner-accused that the amounts would be paid to him a little later.It was the contention of the accused that he relied upon their words and gave them receipts even though he had not received the amounts from them.As stated above, he pleaded that he received the amounts from the agriculturists on 12/13 December 1975 and that he deposited them immediately in the Government Treasury.It is unnecessary to refer to the evidence led by the prosecution.It is enough here to state that the Trial Court was satisfied by the evidence led by the prosecution and, hence, arrived at the conclusion that the accused had committed the act of criminal breach of trust of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1104.71 Ps.as alleged.The Trial Court, therefore, convicted the accused under Section 409, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The accused filed an appeal to the Session Court and before the learned Sessions Judge an additional point relation to the above mentioned policy decision of the Government was urged on behalf of the accused.I may state here that the only question that was argued before same was the one relating to the effect of the circular.The contention of the learned Advocate for the accused Mr. Jahagirdar was that if the said circular was for uniform application then there is no reason why the Public Prosecutor should not have made an application to the Court under Section 321 of the Cri.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused.My attention has not been invited to anything in the evidence from which it could appear that the Department had noticed this defalcation at any time beyond one month before the date of repayment.The record shows that the accused was informed about the department's knowledge on 20-11-1974 when the accused attended the office pursuant to the said notice received by him.He, in fact, deposited the entire amount on 12-12-1975 itself.In this view of the matter, the action of the Government to stick fast to its decision of not to withdraw the prosecution against the present petitioner is even less justified.In these circumstances, I have no other option by to assume that the legal duty which was a matter of obligation for the government, namely, to withdraw the prosecution has been performed by the prosecution.I, therefore, order that the prosecution should not be allowed to proceed.The ultimate order of conviction and sentence is, therefore, quashed and set aside.I make it clear that in view of this legal position, it is unnecessary to examine the question as to whether the charge of criminal breach of trust could be justifiably and legitimately brought home against the accused in the light of evidence led by prosecution.The petition, therefore, succeeds.

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

As per the informant/complaint, a jeweller, sometime in end April, 2005, the Petitioner visited his shop, introduced himself as a senior functionary of Bharatiya Janta Party, and expressed a desire to buy jewellery for the marriage of his brother-in-law, who had come from Canada, and to promote business in Delhi and Canada.The Petitioner allegedly convinced the complainant, and took jewellery worth Rs. 2,00,000/-.He gave ornaments of about Rs. 70,000/- and two cheques for Rs. 1,25,000/-.The next day, the Petitioner asked some more jewellery to be taken to his place, which was done; jewellery worth Rs. 11 lakh was accordingly handed over.Despite repeated requests, neither jewellery was returned, nor was any amount paid; the Petitioner gave post dated cheques for Rs. 9.45 lakhs.The Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order dated 26.11.2006, framing charges offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code (IPC).All the cheques were dishonoured.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

% 05.08.2014 CRL.M.A. 11849 & 11850/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.CRL.M.C. 3417/2014 & 3418/2014These two petitions have been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR Nos. 18/2012 under Sections 452/323/506/34 CRL.M.C. 3417/2014 & 3418/2014 Page 1 of 7 IPC, as well as FIR No. 180/2009 under Sections 324/326/34 IPC, both of which have been registered at Police Station Jaitpur, New Delhi, on the ground that the matters have been amicably settled between the complainants and the petitioners.CRL.M.C. 3417/2014 & 3418/2014 Page 1 of 7Since these matters involve the same family and have been filed by different members of the family against each other; and which have ultimately been settled by a single compromise deed dated 11.01.2013; and it is now prayed in both petitions that the FIRs that were lodged by each side against the other, be quashed, the matters are being taken together.Issue notice.Counsel for the State, as well as the complainant, Nikhil Mandal, enter appearance and accept notice.The matters are stated to be pending investigation.Ultimately, the parties entered into a compromise deed on 11.01.2013 mentioning both these FIRs and the terms upon which the entire dispute has been settled.The compromise deed dated 11.01.2013 has also been annexed to this petition.Consequently, the petitions are allowed and FIR Nos. 18/2012 under Sections 452/323/506/34 IPC, as well as FIR No. 180/2009 under Sections 324/326/34 IPC, both of which have been registered at Police Station Jaitpur, New Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petitions stand disposed off accordingly.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Here it would be pertinent to mention that in all 33 accused persons were prosecuted and tried for the aforesaid offences, but out of 33 accused persons 26 have been convicted and sentenced and they have preferred this appeal.Tersely, the facts of the prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court are that in the year 2002, the State Government had given some lands in village Latahedi, situated by the side of the bank of river, to the members of scheduled caste, on Patta and possession thereof also was given to them.The respective Patta-holders of the lands sown crops on the said lands.The residents of that village belonging to Brahmin, Yadav and Rathore communities were displeased on account of allotment of the said lands to the members of the scheduled caste, because their way to take their cattle to the river for water and the way to cremation ground was obstructed.The administrative officers attempted to pacify, but that exercise proved to be futile.On 12-8-2003 in the head-man-ship of Sarpanch Kumersingh, the residents of the village 30-32 in number, armed with guns and lathis along with their cattle went to the lands so alloted on Patta at 9.00 a.m. and got the sown crop destroyed by the cattle.At 10.00 a.m. some people went to the houses of the Patta Holders and first of all dragged out one Ghisalal from his house and asaulted him by lathi.When his son Arjun and wife Leelabai came to his rescue they too were assaulted, Thereafter, they went to the house of Bhagirath and damaged his house.There they also assaulted the daughter-in-law of Bhagirath named Antarbai.Thereafter they went to the house of Amarsingh and assaulted his wife Bulibai and daughter-in-law Leelabai and damaged the roof tiles of his house.They also assaulted Ganpat, his wife Bhagwatibai, Kalabai w/o Banesingh, Mangilal, Gokulbai, Suganbai and also damaged their houses.Arjun went to the Police Station Talen and lodged the report Ex. P/1 whereupon Police registered Cr.No. 139/ 2002 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 294, 452 and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused persons.Dr. R.B. Boriwal (PW-30) examined injured Bhagirath, Mangilal, Antarbai Leelabai w/o Ghisalal, Leelabai w/o Banesingh, Kalabai, Ganpat, Arjun, Bhagwatibai, Dhansingh, Amarsingh, Leelabai, Gokulbai, Suganbai, and Bulibai.Their MLC reports are Ex. P/87, P/89, P/ 90, P/91, P/92, P/93, P/94, P/95, P/96, P/98, P/99, P/100, P/101,P/103, and Ex. P/104 respectively.However, Ganpat was not found to sustain any injury.The X-Ray reports of Bhagwatibai and Gokulbai are Ex. P/97 and P/102 respectively.Arjun (PW.1) has deposed that he was knowing all the accused persons who were put on trial.According to him, on the date of incident at 10.00 a.m. his mother Leelabai (PW.26) came to his house in a frightened condition from the side of the field.He over heard the war cry made by the accused persons because of which under fear they entered inside the house and closed the door.The present appellants and other co-accused persons reached at his house and started breaking roof tiles.Appellant Jagdish s/o Kumer Singh was having a gun and rest were having lathis.The fourteen accused persons dragged out his father deceased Ghisalal from the house and fifteen persons started assaulting him by lathis, thereafter all the accused persons also started assaulting his father.When his mother Leelabai (PW.26) and Dhansingh (PW.27), brother tried to rescue his father, they, all the three were also badly beaten by the appellants.After their beating by the accused persons, accused persons went away in the colony situated behind his house.In cross examination, para 13, he has admitted that the villagers of his village belonging to chamaar and balai communities, were carrying on agricultural and labour work.They all were having good relations with the villagers and visiting terms on social functions.They were also having money transactions, but after grant of patta of lands in their favour, villagers were jealous with them.JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.The appellants named above being dissatisfied by the judgment dated 4-8-2003 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Shajapur in Special Criminal Case No. 233/2002 thereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:Sub Inspector Premanarayan Soni seized the blood stained clothes from injured and on disclosure statement of the accused persons seized a 12 bore gun along with its licence.After the arrest of the accused persons, respective weapons were also seized from them which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination together with blood stained clothes.Ex. P/63 is the spot map prepared by the Patwari.After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Court.The accused /appellants denied the guilt.Their defence was that they have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry.The Government allotted the land to the deceased Ghisalal and his family members against which the villagers, lodged their grievance and on account of this they have been falsely roped in.It has been suggested to the eye witnesses in their cross examination that village grazers were taking cattle to the river and they were stopped by the complainant party and pelted stones.At that moment they had also pelted stones and because of which the members of the complainant party also sustained injuries.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses.The accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.The learned trial Court, finding the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as indicated herein-above.Learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that the eye-witnesses have adopted the method of pick and choose.They have given clean chit to the seven aqauitted co accused persons out of 33 arid that the First Information Report Ext. P/1 was prepared afterwards and not as shown by the prosecution on the date and time.This argument is put forth on the basis of non-mention of the names of the accused persons in the MURG intimation report prepared as per provision under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and medical requisition forms of the deceased and injured prosecution witnesses who are in total 13 in number and no evidence is led by the prosecution to prove the compliance of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. regarding sending of the copy of MURG intimation and FIR to the concerned Magistrate and it is not possible for a person to remember the full name with father's name as mentioned by the author of the First Information Report i.e. Arjun (PW-1) and that the incident did not take place in front of the house of deceased Ghisalal, because there was no seizure of blood stained earth from the spot.He also submitted that it is a case of mob fury and several persons involved in assaulting the deceased and as many as 13 witnesses of scheduled case community on account of Patta of village land granted in their favour, by the appellants.Therefore, it was not possible for the witnesses to give specific account of individual accused.10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record carefully, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case before the trial Court against the present appellants.All the three injured eye witnesses were medically exmined by Dr. R. B. Goyal (PW30) who proved their medical reports.Eye witness Leelabai (PW-26), wife of Ghisalal suffered four injuries caused by hard and blunt object and on x-ray examination vide Ex. P/ 91 fracture of ulna bone of left hand was found.Eye witness Arjun (PW. 1) sustained four injuries i.e. swelling 7 x 4 cm left side of face, lacerated wound on right ring finger, two contusions on right small and middle fingers and contusion 20 x 2 cms on left scapula region.Dhansingh (PW2) received seven injuries, lacerated wound on left parietal region 4 x 1 x 1/2 cms, contusion 10 x 2 cms and 7 x 2 cms on left arm, swelling on left arm, contusion 7 x 2 cm on right arm, another contusion 8 x 2 cm on right thigh and abrasions 2 x 2 cm on right leg.All these witnesses and other 10 injured witnesses were also examined by the same doctor on the very day of the incident i.e. 12-8-2002 in the evening.Now we advert to the testimony of eye witnesses about assault on deceased Ghisalal.The lands were situated at the bank of Nevaj river.In para 18, he has admitted that before seven days prior to the incident, SDM had talks with all the villagers and the villagers made a complaint for approach way to take their cattle to river as well as to the cremation ground.The SDM made the provision for this purpose.The villagers were allowed to use the way going by the side of the field of Amarsingh and Ghisalal chamaar.In para 23, he admitted that none of the accused persons was having farsa (sharp object edged iron object) and about 30 accused persons were having lathis and assaulted them.He was confronted with the FIR (Ex. P. 1) and his statment (Ex. D/1) regarding omission that 15 persons mentioned in the examination in chief para three entered inside the house and dragged out his father, deceased Ghisalal and started assaulting him.According to this witness, he mentioned this fact in the FIR as well as in his case diary statement (Ex. D.I) and if the same are not mentioned, he could not assign any reason.This witness has admitted lodging of the report on the same day (Ex. P. 1) at 11.30 a.m. recorded by Sub Inspector S. C. Bohit (PW. 25).The say of this witness is also that all the injured persons went in a police lorry were also medically examined the same day.He denied the defence suggestion of not lodging the report immediately and prepartion of false repot after two days.Leelabai (PW-26), the next eye witness, wife of Ghisalal has deposed that she was knowing all the accused persons.They belong to her village.Out of 33 accused persons five were not present and rest came towards her house.The appellant Jagdish was having a gun with him.Ramesh and Bholaram were having farsi and remaining were possessing lathis.Appellant Kumersingh sarpanch was exhorting the other accused persons saying to thrash them (NIPTA DO), the holders of the lease deed.Thereafter, 14 accused persons brought out her husband from the house and except five accused persons, remaining assaulted her husband.She, her son Arjun (PW.l) and Dhansingh (PW.27) were also assaulted by the accused persons when they tried to save Ghisalal.After assaulting them, the appellants fled away and the prosecution injured witnesses Antarbai, Bhagirath, Kalabai, Amarsingh Balai, Bulibai, Leelabai, Mangu Balai, Ganpatlal, Bhagwatbai, Suganbai and Gokulbai reached over there.They all were injured and informed to each other of their being beaten by Kumersingh with his associates.Arjun (PW. 1) went to the police station for lodging the report.Thereafter police reached in the village and took all the injured persons.Her husband died on the way.They all were medically examined in Rajgarh Hospital.The learned Counsel for the appellants also raised a question about genuineness of the FIR because of mentioning of the names of all the accused persons with their father's name.On due consideration, we do not find any improbability on this issue.The witness Arjun (PW. 1) was the resident of same village and was acquainted with the accused persons.It has come in cross examination that they were having visiting terms and also money transactions.This witness found five external injuries and all the injuries were on right and left hands, legs.Out of these injuries, three were contusions and two were punctured wounds.Puncture wounds were of the size 'A" x 1/8" on right upper arm and second puncture wound was also of the same size on left palm.There were fracture of right femur bone of thigh, left tibia fibula bones, fracture of right humerus bone and fracture of left metacarpal bone.In the opinion of medical expert, the deceased died because of shock due to multiple fractures and bleeding, within 12 hours from the date and time of postmortem examination i.e. 12-8-2002 at 5.30 p.m. The doctor has nowhere stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased individually or cumulatively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Out of five injuries, none could be caused by Farsi, a sharp edged heavy iron made cutting object which normally causes incised injuries.Looking to the dimensions of the punctured wounds, it appears that some of the appellants were having sticks with a little iron nail (KEEL) on its one end which are generally kept by the ploughman for driving the bullocks.According to the eye witnesses account of causing injuries to the deceased Ghisalal and others in all 13 injured witnesses, none had sustained injuries caused by dangerous weapon.Some of the witnesses have stated that the accused persons were having Farsas, but looking to the medical evidence and the medical reports of all the injured persons, it is crystal clear that Farsa was not used.The appellant Jagdish was having a gun with him, but the same was also not used.If the appellants were having any intention to commit murder of deceased Ghisalal, they could have used these dangerous weapons.On over all assessment and appreciation of the statements of all the 13 injured witnesses namely, Bhagirath (PW-2), Antarbai (PW-3), Kalabai (PW-4), Bhulibai (PW-5), Amarsingh (PW-12), Mangilal (PW-13), Lilabai (PW-14), Ganpatlal (PW-15), Dhulji (PW-16), Gokulbai (PW-19), Bhagwatibai (PW-20), Suganbai (PW-21), and Lilabai w/o Ghisalal (PW-26), we are of the considered view that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly whose common object was to give good beating to the opposite faction and the dispute arose on account of way to take their cattle to river and way to cremation ground.There was no common object of the unlawful assembly to commit murder of Ghisalal and because of using the number of weapons, it could not be said that the members of unlawful assembly were knowing about likelihood of murder of Ghisalal.On perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses, we do not find sufficient material to hold that the appellants assaulted the complainant party on the ground that they belonged to scheduled caste community (See Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989).The dispute arose only on account of way to the river and cremation ground being obstructed.The total position boils out from the evidence available on record that the appellants, after forming unlawful assembly had the common object to cause grievous hurt or having knowledge of likelihood of causing grievous injuries to the deceased and other injured persons and in prosecution of said object, they assaulted the deceased and other injured persons, causing grievous injuries by hard and blunt object, to deceased and other four injured persons and simple injuries to remaining nine persons.Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part.The conviction and sentences of all the appellants for the offence under Sections 449/149, 302/149 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are hereby set aside.Instead, they are convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC on five counts (including deceased Ghisalal) and each of the appellants is sentenced to suffer R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer addl.R. I. for two months.Their conviction under Sections 323/149 as well as 147 IPC are hereby affirmed.The conviction and sentence of the appellant Jagdish under Section 148 IPC is also affirmed.Each of the appellants is also sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months under Section 323/149 IPC (on nine counts).All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.The appellants are on bail.They are directed through their counsel to appear before the trial Court on 23-1 -2007 for deposting the amount of fine, if not already deposited and the learned trial Court is directed to send the appellants to Jail for serving out the remainder part of their jail sentence, if any.On failure to comply with the aforesaid direction by the appellants, the learned trial Court shall take appropriate legal proceedings against them under intimation to this Court.On their surrender, their bail and surety bonds shall stand cancelled.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Issue notice.Complainant/respondent No.2-Meerajul Haq and petitioner-Tikam Chand Jaiswal are present in person.According to the complainant, the said fees was charged not only for providing education, but also for appropriate placement thereafter.And that he was told that this would be, "in number one shipping company...".It appears that after the complainant had completed the course, he was recommended for placement to a shipping company, but the prospective employer was not to the liking of the complainant, and he felt that he had been let down in this regard.Hence, his complaint.While the matter was pending investigation, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement on 10th July, 2014; and in terms thereof, petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of all his claims.M.A. 15423/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.CRL.M.C. 4500/2014 and Crl.M.A. 15422/2014 (for stay)This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 404/2014 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Moti Nagar on 6th May, 2014 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.They are also identified by the CRL.M.C. 4500/2014 Page 1 of 7 Investigating Officer/ SI Shashi Kumar Police Station Moti Nagar.CRL.M.C. 4500/2014 Page 1 of 7It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of the complainant out of certain disputes and differences that have arisen between the complainant/respondent No.2 and petitioner, who is the Director of Sea Hawk Maritime Studies Private Limited, in connection with admission to the B.Sc.(Nautical Science) course, which is a one year diploma, to which the complainant had been granted admission for a fee of Rs.2,50,000/-.CRL.M.C. 4500/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus at this stage itself where the parties have settled all their disputes which related to the terms and conditions of admission granted to the complainant by the institute being run by the petitioner, to the mutual satisfaction of both the parties; and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the investigation, thereby reducing the chances of its success.Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 404/2014 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Moti Nagar on 6th May, 2014 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) PW1 Mahendra Malvia is the First Informant.On the day of the incident i.e. on 25th January 2012 itself, he lodged a report which resulted in registration of Crime No.23 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 399, 397 read with 34 of the IPC as well as under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act with Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai.According to the prosecution case, PW1 Mahendra Malvia along with his friend PW4 Mansi Sawant were chitchatting near the wall of Sanjay Gandhi National Park at Borivali.At that time, all appellants / accused by threatening them with a deadly weapon indulged in commission of robbery.At the point of knife, informant PW1 Mahendra Malvia was robbed off his cell phone, cash amounting to Rs.300/- as well as ear ring.Similarly, the cell phone of PW4 Mansi Sawant is also robbed in the incident in question.According to the prosecution case, accused persons have also taken documents such as identity card etc. from First Informant Mahendra Malvia.(b) Immediately after the incident of robbing themselves, PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant raised hue and cry, avk 4/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc thereby attracting the public at large.The mob which gathered on the spot started chasing accused persons who were attempting to flee from the spot.Accused persons started pelting stones at the mob and threatening them with knives.At that time itself, police arrived at the spot in the patrolling van.The incident was made known to PW2 Mohd. Majawar, Assistant Sub Inspector from the police van.By that time, the mob had encircled accused persons.Police took them in custody.Personal search of accused persons came to be conducted and looted articles came to be recovered.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::6 PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant have stated that after committing this daring robbery, appellants / accused attempted to flee from the spot and therefore, both of avk 8/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc them raised hue and cry for help.As per version of both these witnesses, then public from the vicinity gathered and attempted to apprehend culprits.However, accused persons started pelting stones towards the crowd gathered there and threatened the crowd by pointing a knife at them.7 PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant consistently deposed that then police jeep came there and police apprehended all three accused persons.8 Both these victims of crime namely PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on record from their cross-examination to disbelieve their version about the incident in question.9 The prosecution has also adduced evidence regarding post event happenings on the scene of occurrence.PW3 Sandeep Bij is a witness, who is a resident of Sanjay Gandhi National Park.On 25th January 2012, he had been to darshan of Gaondevi Mandir and while returning he witnessed the post event happenings.As per version of this witness, three thieves were running and persons from adivasipada were chasing them.This witness has stated that those thieves were threatening the mob by pelting stones.This witness had also joined the mob for attempting to apprehend appellants / accused.As per version of this witness, then police came and with the help of people, police apprehended appellants / accused persons.original accused no.1 Raju Pradhan, Criminal Appeal bearing No.1263 of 2013 is filed by the original accused no.2 Amin Mordiya, whereas, Criminal Appeal bearing no.700 of 2014 is filed by original accused no.3 Azharuddin Shaikh.By these appeals, avk 2/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc they are challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.50 of 2012, thereby convicting all of them of offences punishable under Sections 341 read with 34, 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).For the offence punishable under Section 341 read with 34 of the IPC, they all are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 8 days, by each of them.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2 Brief facts leading to the institution of these appeals can be summarized thus :::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::avk 3/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::Routine investigation followed which ultimately resulted in filing of the charge-sheet.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::(c) The accused persons, after hearing the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In support of the charge, prosecution has examined in all five witnesses and ultimately the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict all appellants / accused persons and they were sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.PW1 Mahendra Malvia has narrated the incident to police in the van and then accused persons came to be arrested.As against this, PW2 Mohd. Majawar, A.S.I., has deposed that initially personal search of accused persons was taken as they were already apprehended and thereafter PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant had disclosed the incident to police.PW1 Mahendra Malvia is deposing about personal search of the accused resulting in recovery of mobile.The spot cum seizure panchnama as well as arrest panchnama is not properly proved by the prosecution and no documentary evidence of ownership of looted articles is placed on record by the prosecution.As against this, the learned avk 6/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc APP justified the impugned judgment and order of conviction by stating that with the help of consistent evidence, guilt of the accused persons is proved by the prosecution.4 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings including deposition of witnesses and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.Let us now examine whether the prosecution has established that appellants / accused, on 25th January 2012, had wrongfully restrained PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant in furtherance of their common intention and whether there upon appellants / accused had robbed cell phones / cash amounting to Rs.300/-, gold ear ring and other articles from them by using deadly weapon like knife in commission of robbery.5 Considering the case set up against appellants / accused persons, evidence of victims of the crime in question is of great importance.Let us, therefore, first put on record what PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant are stating about the avk 7/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc incident in question.Both of them, in unison, have deposed that on 25th January 2012, they were chitchatting near the wall of Sanjay Gandhi National Park.At that time, as per version of both these witnesses, appellant / accused no.1 Raju had slapped PW1 Mahendra Malvia and pointed a knife at his neck.PW1 Mahendra Malvia was threatened and then appellant / accused no.1 Raju relieved him of his cell phone as well as cash amounting to Rs.300/-, and identity card kept in his wallet.Both these witnesses congruously deposed that at the same time, appellant / accused no.2 Amin Mordiya pointed a knife at the neck of PW4 Mansi Sawant and snatched her cell phone.So far as third accused i.e. appellant / accused Azharuddin Shaikh is concerned, both these witnesses have stated that he gave a fist blow on the abdomen of PW1 Mahendra Malvia and snatched his gold ear ring.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::The incident lasted for few minutes enabling them to have every opportunity to identify appellants / accused persons, who were apprehended on the spot itself by the police.Evidence of First Informant Mahendra is gaining corroboration from the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by him with promptitude.The avk 9/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc FIR at Exhibit 19 lodged by PW1 Mahendra Malvia soon after the incident is fully supporting his version about the incident in question.Except a few insignificant variations, entire evidence of PW1 Mahendra Malvia and that of PW4 Mansi Sawant is in tune with the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::This witness has also deposed about personal search of accused persons and recovery of looted articles from them.avk 10/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc 10 PW1 Mahendra Malvia, PW4 Mansi Sawant as well as PW3 Sandeep Bij have categorically identified appellants / accused persons.PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant have, on identification of appellants / accused in dock, categorically ascribed role played by each of them in the incident of robbery with deadly weapons.Both of them have stated that appellant / accused no.1 Raju by pointing a knife at the neck of PW1 Mahendra Malvia had snatched a cell phone, cash amounting to Rs.300/- and identity card from PW1 Mahendra Malvia.Both these witnesses have stated that appellant / accused no.2 Amin Mordiya by pointing out a knife at the neck of PW4 Mansi Sawant, had snatched a cell phone from her whereas, appellant / accused no.3 Azharuddin by giving a fist blow on abdomen of PW1 Mahendra Malvia had snatched a gold ear ring from him.11 Seizure has been effected by PW2 Mohd. Majawar A.S.I., who had also witnessed post event happenings in this crime.As per his version, during the course of patrolling, he along with Mhaiskar, driver of the patrolling vehicle, reached Sanjay avk 11/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc Gandhi National Park at Borivali and found that three persons were threatening the crowd by pointing knife and pelting stones.As per version of this witness, then PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant approached him and disclosed the incident of robbing them, after he as well as other staff apprehended appellants / accused persons.PW2 Mohd. Majawar, A.S.I., stated that then personal search of appellants / accused was conducted on the spot itself in the presence of panch witnesses.Evidence of this witness reveals that apart from one knife, during personal search of appellant /accused no.1, a cell phone, cash amounting to Rs.300/- and identity card of PW1 Mahendra Malvia came to be recovered.From appellant /accused no.2 Amin Mordiya, cell phone of PW4 Mansi Sawant came to be recovered whereas, from appellant / accused no.3 Azharuddin, gold ear ring of PW1 Mahendra Malvia came to be recovered.Evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by contemporaneous seizure panchnama.There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his version about the incident in question.Articles recovered from appellants /accused persons were duly identified by PW1 avk 12/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::12 In the light of foregoing discussion, the prosecution has established that on 25th January 2012, at Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali, appellants / accused had wrongfully restrained PW1 Mahendra Malvia and PW4 Mansi Sawant and threatening them with deadly weapon, committed robbery of their belongings.Sentence imposed on them for proved offences is also in consonance with offences held to be proved against them.avk 13/14::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 ::: 501-APPEALS-677-2013-1263-2013-700-2014-J.doc 13 Resultantly, the appeals are devoid of merit and therefore the order :::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::i) Appeals are dismissed.ii) In view of dismissal of appeals, pending applications also stand disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:28:12 :::

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant Akash Rai in Crime No. 508/2015 registered by P.S. Bina, District Sagar under Sections 376 and 506-B of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Criminal Case No. 1377/2015 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bina).As per the prosecution case, the applicant committed rape upon minor prosecutrix who, on the date of the incident was below 18 years of age.Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein it has been stated that the physical relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix in January, 2015, were established with the consent of the prosecutrix, as a result of this relation the prosecutrix became pregnant.It has further been submitted that in their statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix and her mother have also stated that they do not wish to pursue any criminal proceedings against the applicant.The applicant has been arrested on 31.10.2015 and charge-sheet in the case has already been filed.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that as per school record the age of the prosecutrix is 25.11.1998; as such, on the date of incident she was minor and her consent is redundant.To counter the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix and her mother stated that at the time of the incident i.e. January, 2015, the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age and the parents of the prosecutrix registered her age lower by 2 years, at the time of admission to the school.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the age and the incident, and the fact that neither the prosecutrix nor her mother want to prosecute criminal proceedings against the applicant.in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant Akash Rai is allowed.It is directed that the applicant Akash Rai shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR)

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Yogesh Soni, counsel for the objector.This is first bail application moved under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to applicant Raj Nishad.The applicant has been arrested on 15.2.2017 in connection with Crime No.170/2017 of Police Station Kotwali, District Katni, for an offence punishable under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The complainant has received simple injury at the time of incident.On perusal of case diary, it appears that the applicant had assaulted the complainant by a knife.Co-accused Labbu had fired a gun-shot at the complainant.It is also alleged that there are more than 10 cases for the offences u/s 324, 327, 307, 364, 354 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act are registered against the applicant earlier.He seems to be a habitual offender.

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

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

Case diary perused.This is first application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 138/2018 registered at Police-Station-Sarwan, District-Ratlam, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 307 and 506/34 of the IPC.As per prosecution case, on 20/06/2018, at about 6:45 p.m., complainant-Chanda Bai was worked at her house at that time her father-in-law and other family members went to applicant's house regarding some land partition, where applicants son Kailash abused them and he caused injury from the back side of the axe to one Laling; whereas co- accused Vishram assaulted Prakash by stick.It is also alleged that applicant assaulted Prabhulal by stick, due to which he sustained simple injuries.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the police registered the FIR against applicant and other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506/34 of the IPC.Police arrested the applicant on 20/06/2018 and thereafter he was released on bail by the Police and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.After that X-ray report of injured-Laling was received, in which a fracture was detected on his skull and Doctor opined that the head injury was dangerous to life, therefore, police added the offence under Section 307 of the 2 M.Cr.C. No.40588/2018 Humiya Vs.State of M.P.IPC against the applicant and other co-accused persons.It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant to cause any injury to injured-Laling.The only allegation against the applicant is that he gave a lathi blow to Prabhulal, due to which he sustained simple injuries.Under these circumstances no offence under Section 307 is made out against the applicant.It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigating Officer).The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.C. No.40588/2018 Humiya Vs.

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

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

1736/2008 & 1299/2009 Page 6 of 61736/2008 & 1299/2009 Page 6 of 6Through: Respondent in person with Ms. Uma, Advocate.Above two petitions are directed against the impugned order of learned M.M. dated 16th April, 2008 as modified vide order dated Crl.1736/2008 & 1299/2009 Page 1 of 6 28th May, 2008, whereby the respective petitioners have been summoned to undergo trial.Operative portion of the summoning order dated 16th April, 2008 as modified vide order dated 28th May, 2008 reads thus:I further direct that accused No. 3 be summoned u/S 5 read with Section 25 Arms Act".3. Learned Sh.Rakesh Tikku, Sr.Advocate appearing for the petitioners Kamla Sinha and Mugdha Sinha submits that impugned order of learned M.M. is liable to be quashed as it has been passed arbitrarily without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.In support of this contention, he has drawn my attention to the order dated 28th May, 2008 of learned M.M. wherein, apart from referring to the complaint and statement of complainant CW1, the Magistrate has referred to certain documents called from Ministry of Home, Government of Rajasthan as well as District Collector.In Para 5 of the order, learned M.M. inter alia records thus:1736/2008 & 1299/2009 Page 2 of 61736/2008 & 1299/2009 Page 2 of 6From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that in fact that the application for renewal of licence on behalf of the complainant was filed before ADM, Jaipur.This application has two handwritings.One, which according to the complainant is his and second at present is not known in whose handwriting it is.But as per report of handwriting expert the word "sale" as mentioned in the license renewal application is not written in the handwriting of the complainant.Considering the entire record before me, I find that the complainant has successfully proved prima facie case for summoning of the accused persons".Perusal of the above would show that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, while observing as above, has not identified the documents considered by him nor he has enumerated the contents or gist of contents of those documents which enabled him to form a prima facie opinion as to commission of offence by the petitioners Kamla Sinha and Mugdha Sinha.The impugned order of the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order and learned Metropolitan Magistrate has left it to the imagination as to how the unidentified documents referred to by him, prima facie, disclosed commission of offence by the petitioners.Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that reading of the operative part of the impugned order of the learned M.M. noted above would show that the learned M.M. himself was not sure of the offence committed by the petitioners.Manoj Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner Abdul Nasir stated that he has been summoned under Section 5 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act but learned Magistrate has not referred to any averment in the complaint or the statement of the complainant or any other document, which could justify the summoning of the petitioner Abdul Nasir, who, admittedly is a licensed arms dealer under Section 5 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.On the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that a prima facie case is made out against all the petitioners.Learned counsel has submitted that during the course of enquiry, Magistrate had summoned certain documents from Ministry of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Office of the District Collector and DCP (South-West), New Delhi and on perusal of the those documents, learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case for summoning of the petitioners was made out.Thus, respondent has pressed for dismissal of the petitions.I have considered the rival contentions.On perusal of the impugned order dated 16th April, 2008 as also the subsequent order Crl.In Para 5 of both the orders, it is observed that learned M.M. had seen the summoned record, which prima facie discloses the involvement of the accused persons in commission of offence and then, learned M.M. went on to pass the summoning order.Learned M.M. though, he has mentioned about certain record, has not identified the record by making specific reference to the documents which influenced his mind to come to a conclusion about prima facie commission of offence.He has not even reproduced the contents of the documents in verbatim or its gist, which may enable this court to come to a conclusion as to what formed basis for finding of the learned Magistrate.Thus, in my considered view, the impugned summoning order is a non-speaking order which does not give a clue about the basis on which the Magistrate came to the conclusion to summon the accused persons to undergo trial.Impugned order is accordingly set aside.Matter is remanded back with the direction that the Metropolitan Magistrate shall reconsider the matter and, if need be, he would conduct preliminary inquiry expeditiously and pass appropriate orders.1736/2008 & 1299/2009 Page 4 of 6The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.1736/2008 & 1299/2009 Page 5 of 61736/2008 & 1299/2009 Page 5 of 6Trial Court record along with the copy of this order be sent back immediately.(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE JULY 20, 2011 akb Crl.

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Respondent No. 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 444/98 Mulchand s/o Biharilal has also expired during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, the appeal stood abated against respondent No. 3 Mulchand.As per prosecution story, the incident took place on 24-1-1994 at about 8.00 in the night.On that day, appellant Naresh picked up stones which were kept outside the house of complainant Gyarasibai and started throwing them.Gyarasibai asked him not to do so.Thereon, Naresh started abusing her.Chander had also abused.Thereafter, accused Buddha carrying farsa, Ramesh Barchi, Kalu Luhangi, Munna, Prakash, Mulla, Rajesh and Khilan carrying lathis in their hands started beating Chander with an intention to kill him.Chander ran away from the spot.All the accused persons chased him.Thereafter, in front of the door of the house of Shahzad they surrounded Chander and started beating him.At that time, Ramesh assaulted Chander by Barchi on his back and Naresh assaulted by farsa on his head.Chander fell down on the earth.Thereafter, he was beaten by all.When the complainant Gyarasibai tried to save Chander, Ramesh gave one "Barchi" blow from the blunt side which caused injury in the elbow of right hand.Thereafter, another farsa blow was given to the complainant which caused injury in the finger of left hand.Thereafter, all went towards the house of the complainant and entered into her house.Complainant was also coming behind them.Ramesh gave Barchi blow to Rajju (deceased).Rajju received injury in the right rib.Ramesh gave another Barchi blow to Rajju on the right side.Accused Buddha assaulted by farsa to Rajju on his back and thereafter all had beaten him.Rajju fell down on the earth and treating him as dead, all the accused persons ran away from the spot.When they were running away, Mitthu was beaten by Prakash by lathi.Thereafter, the complainant saw that Rajju was dead.At the time of beating of Chander, Gopal, Hanif and Haricharan were also present who had seen the incident.It was the prosecution story that the incident took lace due to old enmity for taking out water from the field.FIR (Ex. P-l) was lodged by complainant Gyarasibai on the same day at about 8.45 p.m. at Police Station Kachnar.Thereafter, injured Mitthu, Chander and Gyarasibai were referred for medical examination.Panchanama (Ex. P-9) of the dead body of the deceased was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.Doctor has also opined that it was possible to save the deceased by giving him proper treatment and blood infusion.No motive or prior enmity of the appellant Ramesh and deceased Rajju is reported on record.The deceased had come a day earlier to his village and suddenly became victim of the crime as dispute arose under heat of passion.JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J.This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid criminal appeals.In Criminal Appeal No. 440/97 appellants have challenged their conviction under Sections 302/34, 324/34, 323/34, 450, IPC and in Criminal Appeal No. 444/98 the appellant/State after obtaining leave of this Court has challenged the acquittal of all the five respondents under the aforesaid sections.It is not in dispute that during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 440/97, appellant No. 2 Buddha s/o Mulchand has expired, therefore, his appeal against conviction stood abated.Gyarasibai also came on the spot.As per the post mortem report, the cause of death was shock due to injuries on the vital parts of the body and excessive bleeding.Spot map (Ex. P-8) was prepared.Accused persons were arrested.Weapons were seized on the basis of memorandum and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.At the trial, all the accused persons abjured their guilt.Defence of Khilan was that he was not present at the time of commission of the crime and he took the plea of alibi that he had gone for taking grass to Village Mudhra.Defence of other accused persons was that a quarrel took place between the brothers Rajju and Chander and they caused injuries to each other in which Rajju died and they have been implicated falsely.It was also stated in defence that it was Gyarasibai who killed one child of deceased Rajju about 7-8 months before, therefore, they have implicated them falsely.During trial, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and three witnesses were examined in defence to prove the plea of alibi.But the Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, acquitted five respondents Kallu, Munna, Mulchand, Khilan and Prakash from the charges and convicted three appellants Ramesh, Buddha and Naresh, against which appellants have filed appeal against their conviction and the Stet has preferred appeal against the acquittal after obtaining leave.In both the appeals we have heard Shri Rajeev Jain and Shri A.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the convicted appellants and acquitted respondents and Shri C.S. Dixit and Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, learned Public Prosecutors for the State and perused the evidence on record.He was not having any quarrel with the appellants.Deceased and the appellants and other accused persons are the members of one and the same family.There was no enmity between them.Complainant Gyarasibai had not seen the incident and she is not the eye-witness.There is no motive or prior enmity of the accused with the deceased.The doctor has not opined that the injuries received by the deceased were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature and the doctor has clearly stated that if the deceased would have received blood and proper treatment, then, he might have been saved.As per prosecution evidence, there is no allegation against the appellant naresh for causing any injury to the deceased and moreso, Ramesh has already suffered jail sentence of more than eleven years.Since appellant Ramesh has already suffered jail sentence of more than eleven years and appellant Naresh had undergone jail sentence of one and half years and he has been convicted with the aid of Section 149, IPC, the appellants-be sentenced to the sentence already undergone and they have no objection for the enhancement of amount of fine.Learned Public Prosecutors appearing for the respondent/State supported the judgment of conviction, but challenged the judgment acquitting five respondents, and has not opposed the prayer of undergone jail sentence.Gyarasibai (P.W. 1) has stated that she has seen the incident.However, Mitthu (P.W. 4) who is the father of the deceased Rajju in his statement in Paras 1 to 10 has stated that Gyarasibai reached the spot leateron after he reached the spot.Hanif (P.W. 5) has also stated in Paras 1 and 8 of his statement that Gyarasibai was standing outside the house when the assailants were beating Rajju inside the house.Chander (P.W. 7), the injured, has also stated that he had not seen the assaults which were given to Rajju.Therefore, as per evidence of Mitthu (P.W. 4), and Hanif (P.W. 5), there was no eye-witness for the murder of Rajju.Only allegation against appellant Naresh is that he caused injury from the backside of farsa to Gyarasibai and it was Ramesh who caused Barchi injuries and Buddha caused farsa injuries to deceased Rajju.It has also come in the evidence that Ramesh also caused injury by Barchi on the back of injured Chander and Naresh has caused farsa injury to Chander.Therefore, from the aforesaid prosecution evidence it can be safely concluded that Ramesh and Buddha both had caused injuries to Rajju.Admittedly, during the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Buddha has expired.Hence, now we are required to only consider the nature of injuries and the motive behind which are alleged to be caused by appellant Ramesh.Post mortem was performed by Dr. M.L. Agrawal (P.W. 10).As per post mortem (Ex. P-6) he found following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:(1) Penetrating (stab) wound over left side chest of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm x deep to chest in cavity 2nd space.Placed horizontally below and laterally to nipple.Spindle in shape.Margins sharp.Clotted blood present.(2) Penetrating (Stab) wound on right side of chest of size 2 cm x 1 cm x deep to chest cavity.Placed horizontally oblique on antero-lateral aspect of chest.(3) Incised wound on right side back in lumber region of size 4 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm.Margins clean cut.Clotted blood present.(4) Wounds similar to wound Nos. 1 and 3 present on both sides of Lungs.On the right side of lever, wound adjoining to wound No. 2 was present.In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock due to injuries on the vital parts of the body and excessive bleeding.He also opined that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 can only be caused by weapon which is sharp edged from both the sides.He has further stated that if the weapon is having only one sharp edge and the other edge is blunt then injuries Nos. 1 and 2 can not be caused from such a weapon.It is true that he has not given opinion whether injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.On the contrary, he has stated that on giving proper treatment in time alongwith infusion of blood, it was possible to save the deceased.He has also stated that he had not seen any lathi injury on the body of deceased Rajju.From this medical evidence, it is clear that deceased died because of causing of injuries by "Barchi" which is a sharp edged weapon from both the sides.Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued on the point that at the time of trial, neither the seized weapon was available nor it was shown to the doctor nor any information was sought from which whether injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by such a weapon.They also vehemently argued that doctor has not opined that the injuries were dangerous to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and in this regard they placed reliance on Bawa Singh v. State of Punjab in which under the circumstances that injury attributed to accused was not individually sufficient to cause death, conviction of appellant was altered from Section 300 to that under Section 304, .Part II and Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration) wherein under the circumstances that accused alone had inflicted injuries which caused death but deceased died two days after infliction of injuries, it was held that though the injury resulted in death of deceased, it can not be conclusively said that it was sufficient to cause death and conviction of the accused was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II and also on Shivappa Budhappa Kolkar v. State of Karnataka and Ors.2005 SCG'(Cri) 93-wherein under the circumstances that appellant inflicted single blow with an axe on the head of deceased causing an incised wound on occipital region and depressed fracture on the skullbone and other accused persons inflicted blows with clubs causing a lacerated wound on outer aspect of left thigh and fracture of both the bones of left forearm, internal examination of thorax disclosed fracture on second and third ribs on right side at the anterior axillary portion, lacerated pleura, lacerated and collapsed right lung and collapsed blood in right side of thorax and no external injury corresponding to this internal injury in thorax region was found and there was not evidence of medical expert that the skull injury alone would have caused instantaneous death, it was held that internal thorax injury may be the result of beating with clubs and since the appellant was not responsible for any injury other than the skull injury, it can not be conclusively held that the skull injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.He has also admitted that article "A" is not a pointed weapon, but is a blunt weapon.Doctor has denied that Chander had told him that Ramesh had caused injury on his back by giving two "Barchi" blows and one "Barchi" blow on his left thigh and Naresh had given "Farsa" blow on his head from the evidence of doctor Arya, it appears that prosecution has not produced firm evidence about the weapon used in the commission of crime.So far as the question of causing injury by appellant Naresh is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that he caused injury to Gyarasibai on head, but from the medical report, Gyarasibai had not received any injury on the head and the injuries received by Gyarasibai were caused by hard and blunt object.Now the question is whether the conviction of appellants Naresh and Ramesh under Sections 302/34 of IPC can be affirmed.Looking to the evidence on record, it is clear that appellant Naresh was present on spot and the only allegation against him is that he abused Chander.It has also come in the evidence that in return Chander also abused him and he only caused injury by "Farsa" to Gyarasibai.Gyarasibai has not received any "Farsa" injury as per medical evidence.Appellant Naresh has also been convicted under Sections 324/34 for one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/-, under Section 323/34, IPC for three months' R.I. and under Section 450, IPC for two years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 250/-.He has already suffered jail sentence of more than six months.As incident took place suddenly, there is no evidence of any premeditation.So far as the conviction of appellant No. 3 Ramesh is concerned, it has come in the evidence that the incident took place suddenly without premeditations on the dispute of throwing of stones.It has also come in evidence that deceased and appellant Ramesh are members of the same family.Ramesh is a young man and he has already suffered jail sentence of more than 11 years.Also, there is no opinion by the doctor that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The blood group of the deceased on the weapon was also not proved by the prosecution and the weapon was also not shown to the doctor.Trial Court has also found that prosecution has failed to prove that respondents were also the members of any unlawful assembly and their common object was to commit any crime or to cause injuries to the injured or to cause death of deceased Rajju, and therefore acquitted them.Findings recorded by the Trial Court do not appear to be perverse as the incident took place between injured Chander and accused Naresh, Ramesh and Buddha.They assaulted Chander and when mother Gyarasibai came, they also assaulted her.In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 440/97 stands partly allowed.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Background facts as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:At the time of marriage, PW.1 father of the deceased gave rupees 10,000/- in cash, five tolas of gold, other household articles worth Rs.3000/- and Rs.1200/- towards clothes to accused No.1, who was employed as sub-staff of Karnataka Bank, Secunderabad.Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1 and she used to visit accused No.1 in the city and did not allow the deceased to fulfil conjugal obligations.At the instigation of accused No.2, accused No.1 had demanded Rs.5,000/- more from the parents of the deceased to purchase a Scooter as additional dowry.In spite of the same, both the accused made repeated demands for additional dowry upon the deceased.On one occasion, a sum of Rs.1,000/- and on another occasion a sum of Rs.2,000/- was paid by PW.1 to the accused.But the accused persons did not stop ill-treatment and harassment towards the deceased.After some time, when the deceased and her parents came to know that accused No.2 was thinking of a second marriage of accused No.1, immediately they went to the house of the accused but accused No.1 refused to take the deceased into the house.Accused No.2 ill-treated the deceased and both the accused asked the deceased to go back to her parents' house.Accused No.1 threatened to immolate the deceased and accused No.2 threatened to poison the deceased and insisted that she continues to stay in the house of her parents.Therefore, the deceased was taking shelter in the house of her parents and about 2 months prior to the incident, on the assurance given by both the accused before the elders, the deceased joined accused Nos.1 and 2 to fulfil conjugal obligations.J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2002Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 304 B and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').Sentence of seven years was imposed on each count.By the impugned judgment conviction recorded in respect of co-accused Laxmi was set aside and she was directed to be acquitted.In spite of the same, the accused continued ill-treatment and harassment for more dowry.Because of the persistent ill-treatment and cruelty meted out by the accused towards the deceased, on 17.9.1992 at about 9.30 a.m. the deceased set herself ablaze and died with 100% burn injuries in Gandhi Hospital while undergoing treatment.First information report was filed, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge sheet was filed.Accused persons pleaded innocence.3. To establish its accusations prosecution examined 11 witnesses and 16 documents were exhibited.1 and 2 were the father and mother of the deceased respectively while PW3 was a relative.PW4 was a brother of the deceased while PW5 was the sister of the deceased.PW 6 was a caste elder.PW 10 is the Doctor who conducted the autopsy while PW 11 was the investigating officer.On consideration of the evidence on record, learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304B and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.The acquitted co-accused A2 i.e. the mother of the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years.Though the accused person was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 498A no separate sentence was imposed.Questioning correctness of the trial court's judgment, an appeal was preferred before the High Court by both the accused.It was essentially the stand of the appellant before the High Court that there was no material to show any demand of dowry and therefore neither Section 498A nor Section 304B had any application.It was pointed out that the deceased stayed for only 12 days at the matrimonial home.Reference was made to several letters which clearly establish that the deceased was unhappy not because of any demand of dowry but because the appellant used to stay most of the times with the parents and the mother in law was taking objection to her long absence from the marital home.The High Court did not find any substance in the stand of the appellant but found that there was no material to show that the co-accused i.e. the mother in law was guilty of the charged offences.Accordingly her conviction was set aside and she was acquitted.However, in case of the appellant the conviction was maintained and the sentence was reduced as afore-stated.In support of the appeal, it was submitted that there is no evidence of any dowry demand.On the contrary, the letters on which prosecution placed reliance indicated that the dispute was not relating to demand of dowry but was on account of normal marital discord.(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies.Explanation I- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.Explanation II- The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."The prosecution version primarily rests on three documents i.e. exhibits 2, 3 and 4 dated 3.1.1990, 20.6.1991 and 25.10.1990 respectively.A careful reading of these documents which were letters by the deceased show there was in fact no allegations of any demand of dowry made by the accused.Exhibit 3 i.e. the letter dated 20.6.1991 is very significant.Grievance in the said letter was not to any demand of dowry.In fact the deceased had clearly written that she was forced to marry with the accused against her wish and that created a lot of problems for her.The underlying essence of the letter is that the deceased was not willing to get married and wanted to continue her studies and she was married against her wish.There is one significant statement in the letter, which is to the effect that the deceased did not want to go to her parental home for Gangamma festival as her husband was taking due care of her.In exhibit 4 i.e. letter dated letter dated 25.10.1990 she has clearly stated that she was all right and was happy in her in laws place and her in laws were taking good care of her and she on the other hand stated that somehow or other she does not want to live in the marital home.In Exhibit 2 i.e. letter dated 3.1.1990 also she had stated that she was happy.In fact she wrote to her father that he should take good care of her mother.Learned counsel for the State referred to a particular sentence which speaks as to the effect that Rajamma was scolding her.It is to be noted that Rajamma was appellant's grand mother, she is not an accused.It is also not indicated in the letter that she was scolding her for any dowry.It is to be noted that the reference to the grand mother being unhappy is relatable to the deceased's long absence from the matrimonial home.In fact there is no allegation of any harassment due to dowry.What the trial court and the High Court appears to have done is to pick up one line from one place and another from another place and conclude that there was demand of dowry.Reading of the letters in the entirety show that there was, in fact, no mention of any demand for dowry.Bail bond executed for the release of appellant on bail pursuant to the order dated 8.1.2002 shall stand discharged.The appeal is allowed.

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

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

They beat me and abused me.My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time.He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law.Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."The appellant is assailing the judgment and order dated 20.2.2004, rendered by 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial 112 of 2000, by and under which, the appellant - accused Dada Sudame is convicted for offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 ::: 2 Rs./3,000/- and is further convicted for offence punishable under section 498-A of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-.The mother and two sisters of accused Dada Sudame who also faced trial are acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::2 None appeared for appellant-accused.Heard Shri N.B. Jawade, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.Lata committed suicide after ten years of marital life and having given birth to three children, is again not in dispute.4 The edifice of the prosecution case is constructed on two dying declarations Exh. 41 recorded by Police Head Constable Surajkumar Shrivastava (PW 7) and the Dying Declaration Exh. 50 recorded by the Executive Magistrate Shri Prakash Batwe (PW 9).In order to prove that Lata was subjected to cruelty, the::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 ::: 3 prosecution examined her mother Anusaya (PW 1), her father Charandas (PW 2), her maternal uncle Anandrao (PW 3) and her paternal uncle Atmaram (PW 4).::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::5 The father of the deceased Lata, Charandas did not support the prosecution.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross examined Charandas, to no avail.PW 1 Anusayabai deposed that all the accused started illtreating Lata after having treated her well for the initial 2 to 3 years of marital life.Accused Dada Sudame used to beat Lata on the instigation of other accused, is the deposition.The evidence of Anusayabai is vague and not at all confidence inspiring.No light is thrown on why the family members would instigate accused Dada Sudame to beat Lata having treated her well for the initial 2 to 3 years of marital life.Be it noted, that accused 2 to 4 are acquitted and even if the evidence of PW 1 Anusayabai is taken at face value, it is difficult to segregate the evidence qua the convicted accused.PW 3 Anandrao claims that when the first son of Lata was six months old, she disclosed to PW 3 that accused used to beat her and that she was not provided meals.The alleged disclosure, according to PW 3 was made some years prior to the death.Moreover, the alleged disclosure, fragile as the evidence is, is a general allegation::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 ::: 4 against all the accused and no specific or different role is assigned to the convicted accused.Similarly, PW 4 Atmaram claims that Lata disclosed that the accused were not treating her properly and that accused Dada Sudame used to beat her.PW 4 states that his statement was not recorded by the police at any time.The evidence of PW 4 must be subjected to strict scrutiny on the anvil of caution since concededly his statement was not recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::The defence of the accused is that Lata suffered from a neurological order after giving birth to her second child which aggravated when the third child was born.Even if the defence of the accused, which is sought to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities by examining DW 1 - Shila Sakharkar, is kept out of consideration, the answer to the crucial question would have to be given in the backdrop of the fact that Lata committed suicide after ten years of marital life and there is no confidence inspiring evidence on record to suggest that she was persistently illtreated or beaten.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 ::: 7 8 Having given due consideration to the evidence on record, in my opinion, offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is clearly not established.In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306, I.P.C. basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me."A word uttered in a fit of anger of emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and difference were not, expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 ::: 10 that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25 th July, 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant has used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased 'to go and die'.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 ::: 11::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::If the evidence is tested on the anvil of the statutory provisions and the enunciation of law by the Apex Court, it is difficult to hold that the accused instigated Lata to commit suicide.11 The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under section 306 and 498-A of I.P.C.12 The fine paid by the accused, if any, be refunded to him.::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:23:59 :::

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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.Call for the record.Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.6083/2017, an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant Dule Singh for suspension of custodial sentence.The appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 363 IPC & 366A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- on each count.Though the prayer for suspension is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant.Accordingly, I.A. No. 6083/2017 is allowed and it is directed that on execution of personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial sentence imposed against him shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 21.09.2017 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.CC as per rules.(VED PRAKASH SHARMA)

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The animal was missing from that date.ORDER Choudhuri, J.The applicant Adhargir was convicted under Section 379, Penal Code by the Magistrate Second Class Amarwada, for the theft of a horse belonging to Jawaharlal (P. W. 1) and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment.His conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the Additional District Magistrate, Chhindwara.Lula (P. W. 2), who is a servant of Jawaharlal, searched for the animal for a week.During the search, he saw a dead horse from a distance and thinking it to be the one which was missing he informed his master accordingly.Subsequently in the month of September he found his master's horse with Sawlia in village Bhanaswada and reported to his master.During the investigation the horse was seized from Sawlia on 22-9-1951, vide seizure memo (Exhibit P. 4).Sawlia had informed that he had purchased it from Ramcharan for Rs. 110/-.Ramcharan admitted to have sold this horse to Sawlia, but stated that he had purchased it from the accused Adhargir for Rs. 58/.- as per receipt (Exhibit P. 7).Ramcharan was also prosecuted along with Adhargir.He was convicted under Section 411, Penal Code by the Magistrate of the trial Court, but was acquitted in appeal by the Additional District Magistrate.The accused Adhargir denied that he stole this horse.He also denied that he sold it to Ramcharan.They were let loose for grazing in the morning.

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

When the complainant came to know of this fact he filed a complaint against the appellant.The defence of the appellant was that apart from working in the Bank of the complainant the appellant had his other properties including a steel factory and the complainant had given him the cheque for Rs. 50,000/- in connection with one of the business transactions regarding sale of a steel almirah.The trial court disbelieved the case of entrustment as made out by the complainant which really formed the sheet anchor of the prosecution case.(1) That the cheque book was entrusted to the appellant.The accused before forging the cheque of Rs. 50,000/- knew that such amount as Rs. 50,000/- could not be cashed by the Bank because the complainant had no such account with the said Back and the cheque was likely to baince.This would naturally put him on the guard from committing any forgery at all.This clearly shows that the cheque must have been given to him by the complainant himself, and the complainant tried to retract from his position for some reason or the other.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

He was chased by Mantu (PW 1) and Nantu (PW 3), sons of Sadhan, but could not be apprehended.Sadhan was immediately removed to Badla Primary Health Centre where he succumbed to his injury on the same night at 2.05 A.M.JUDGMENT Jyotirindra Nath Hore, J.For committing murder of Sadhan Ruidas appellant Anil Ruidas was convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.The appellant seeks to assail the said order of conviction and sentence in this appeal.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:Sadhan (the deceased), his elder brother Abala and younger brother Jatiram (P.W. 9) used to live with their families in the same homestead but in separate mess at village Chotobahar Kuli, P.S. Kalna, Dist.Appellant Anil, native of village Baruipara, P.S. Kalna is the son-in-lawof Jatiram(PW 9), younger brother of the deceased and at the material time he was living with his wife in the house of Jatiram whose wife was then dead.On the night of 10-7-1983 between 10.00 P.M. and 11.00 P.M. Sadhan (the deceased), his wife, sons and daughter were sitting in the verandah of their room.Anil had an altercation with his father-in-law Jatiram in his room within the same compound.He used abusive and filthy language to which Sadhan objected saying that being a son-in-law he should not abuse his father-in-law in such a way.At this Anil stabbed Sadhan on his abdomen causing a serious bleeding injury.Sadhan fell down on the courtyard with a cry.Shortly after the occurrence, a complaint was written by Dipak Banerjee (PW 5) as per instructions of Sandhya Ruidas (PW 2), The written complaint was sent to the Kalna Police station through Chowkidar Rahindra Nath Santra.It was received at the police station on 11-7-83 at 8.05 A.M. A formal First Information Report was drawn up on the basis of the written complaint and a case under Section 326, Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant.After receipt of the death report, police added Section 304, Indian Penal Code.PW 10 S.I. Probhas Chandra Dey took up investigation.In defence, the appellant pleaded innocence.The defence case was that both the appellant and the deceased were intoxicated and when the deceased attacked the appellant with a knife a scuffle ensued between them and during the scuffle the dagger which was in the hand of the deceased accidentally struck him on the abdomen causing the fatal injury.There is overwhelming evidence to show that the deceased died of stab injury on the night between 10-7-83 and 11-7-85 at Badla Primary Health Centre where he was taken for treatment shortly after he received the stab injury at the hands of an assailant in the courtyard of his house at Chotabharkuli, PWs.1,2 and 3 who witnessed the occurrence have deposed that Sadhan was stabbed with: a knife in the abdomen in the courtyard and he fell down with a serious injury.He was removed by these witnesses and PW 5 Dipak Banerjee to the local Badla Primary Health Centre where he succumbed to his injury at 2.05 A.M. PW 7 Dr. N.C. Paul, the then Medical Officer of Kalna Sub-Divisional Hospital who held the autopsy on the dead body of Sadhan Ruidas found the following injury:Incised wound upper part left side of abdomen 3' X 2 with portrusion of small intestine.Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above noted injury which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature.Clearly, therefore, it was a case of homicide.The next question - and the crucial one - for our consideration is whether., appellant Anil Ruidas caused the death of the deceased by inflicting the said fatal injury.The prosecution case primarily rests on the direct evidence of 3 alleged eye witnesses - PW 1 Mantu Ruidas, son of the deceased PW 2 Sandhya ruidas, daughter of the deceased; and PW 3 Nantu Ruidas, another son of the deceased.Let us advert to their ocular testimony.The evidence of PW 1 is that on the night of occurrence between 10.00 P.M. and 11.00 P.M. Sadhan along with his wife, sons Mantu (PW 1), Nantu (PW 3) and Subal and daughter Sandhya (PW 2) were sitting in the varandah of their room.Appellant Anil had a quarrel with his wife and father-in-law Jatiram (PW 9) and abused his father-in-law in filthy language.Sadhan protested against the abusive language used by Anil saying that a son-in-law should not have uttered such objectionable words against his father-in-law.At this, Anil stabbed Sadhan on the abdomen in the courtyard, in front of the Verandah of the house of Sadhan.Sadhan cried out 'Babago' (Oh, father) and fell down sustaining bleeding injury in the abdomen.Anil fled away.The witness and others tried to catch Anil but without success.Sadhan was removed to local Badla Primary Health Centre where he succumed to his injury on that very night.In cross-examination Mantu has stated that there was the festival of Goddess Jagat Gouri in their village on the night of the incident.The Puja of the deity continued throughout the night in the Thakurtalaof the village and many villagers attended Puja festival on that night.He also went to see the puja.On the date of the Puja of Jagat Gouri, the para people were in an intoxicated state.Anil prepared the wine.Sadhan, Jatiram and Anil were in an intoxicated state on the night of the Puja.He did not take wine.He denied the suggestion that the deceased attacked Anil with a dagger under the influence of liquor and in course of a scuffle between him and Anil, the dagger which was in the hand of the deceased accidentally struck him on the abdomen.The above testimony of Mantu was substantially corroborated in material particulars by his sister Sandhya Ruidas (PW 2) and brother Nantu Ruidas (PW 3) both of whom claimed to have witnessed the occurrence from the verandah.Let us consider if the evidence of these 3 witnesses can be accepted as reliable and true.All of them were the most natural and probable witnesses.They have no grudge against appellant Anil who is a close relation.Their evidence is straightforward and has not been shaken in the least in the cross-examination.There is no cogent reason to disbelieve their testimony.The testimony of the 3 eye-witnesses receives corroboration from PW 5 Dipak Banerjee who is an absolutely disinterested and independent witness.The evidence of PW 5 shows that on receipt of the information from some villagers he came to the house of the deceased at or about 11.00 P.M. and saw Sadhan in injured conditioa He wrote out the complaint according to the instructions of PW2 Sandhya Ruidas.The written complaint is Ext. 1/2 which has been treated as the First Information Report in this case.PW 2 reported the incident to PW 5 immediately after the occurrence and Ext. 1/2 was written even before the death of the deceased.There was no time or scope for embellishments.Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the statement of PW 2 Sandhya in her cross-examination to the effect that after her father was stabbed she called her brothers who came one after another and contended that this statement clearly shows that PWs 1 and 3 did not see the incident.We are unable to accept this contention.The evidence of all the 3 witnesses is that all of them were sitting in the verandah and they saw the incident of stabbing from verandah.The occurrence took place in the courtyard in front of the verandah.The statement of PW 2 referred to above really means in the context that PW 2 first rushed to her father after he was stabbed and her brothers then rushed to the spot being called by her.Nowhere in her evidence she has stated that PWs 1 and 3 were not present in the house at the time of the occurrence and that they came from outside being attracted by her shouts.Mr. Dutta has also referred to the statement of PW 1 in the last part of his cross-examination to the effect that his sister rushed to his father and on hearing her shouts he then went to his father who was then injured and has argued that PW 1 did not actually see the assault.The statement of PW 1 does not really mean that he did not actually see the occurrence.Mr. Dutta has referred to the statement of PW 9 Jatiram Ruidas in the cross-examination to the effect that at the time of the incident his nephews Mantu and Nantu (PW 3) were at Thakurtala and that they came much later.PW 9 who is the father-in-law of the appellant was declared hostile.He was interested in saving his son-in-law.Moreover, in the examination-in-Chief he has specifically stated that at the time of the occurrence the sons and daughter of Sadhan were present near Sadhan.On a careful scrutiny of the testimony of these 3 witnesses we have no hesitation in accepting their evidence as entirely true and reliable.The defence case also appears to be highly improbable.In his examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code appellant Anil has not put forward such a plea.It appears that the defence case as suggested to PW 1 was subsequently abandoned.There was only one blow inflicted by the appellant on the spur of the moment.The appellant had no malice against the deceased.There was a quarrel between the appellant and his father-in-law (PW 9) in which the appellant used abusive and filthy language.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The matter has been heard through video-conferencing.2. Heard Sri Bhuwan Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA for the State.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Munni Devi with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No.1083/2018, under Sections-498-A, 326, 323, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Naini, District-Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.Perused the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof.From perusal of the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections-498-A, 326, 323, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act;(ii) against FIR lodged on 15.09.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 28.01.2019;(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation.Perusal of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad dated 28.01.2019 reveals that it has been specifically recorded therein that initially the maternal grand mother of the two children of the deceased took them in her custody only to return them to the applicant of her own free will.In such circumstances, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad has given the custody of the minor children of the applicant, in jail.In such facts, it cannot be lost sight of that the applicant's two sons i.e. husband of the deceased and her brother-in-law are both in jail.Interest of justice would thus be balanced if the applicant would be enlarged on bail solely in the interest of two minor children of the deceased.It also appears that the applicant being a lady and a senior citizen, no prejudice would be caused to thetrial if she is enlarged on bail especially as her two sons are similarly accused and are already in jail.Once the applicant is enlarged on bail on consideration of the interest of her grand children, such plea may never be available to the other two accused.Accordingly, applicant be enlarged on bail.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad."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 :- 21.5.2020 Shubham

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

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

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;Charge- sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.There is no likelihood of applicant absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence and his further custody is not required in this case.On the aforesaid grounds, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.In the event of breach of any of the conditions imposed by this Court, the complainant/victim/State will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted today.Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE navin Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 2020.11.05 11:25:00 IST

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Ashok since deceased.PW 6 Gogan Yadav and PW 7 Rajinder had come to Delhi for earning their livelihood from their village Sakra Paharpur.JUDGMENT P.K. Bhari, J.Virender Kumar Yadav and Mukhtiar Yadav alias Mukho Yadav alias Raju have been convicted of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide his judgment dated August 28, 1991 and by subsequent order of the even date they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the first count and have been also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each on the second count.They have come up in appeal challenging their convictions and sentences.P. O. Simribak Tungar Pur, District Saharsa (Bihar).Ashok was working as a labourer in Connaught Place area whereas PW 6 and PW 7 were playing 'rickshaws at the relevant time.It is alleged that on September 14, 1987, Ashok had come to visit PW 7 and he along with Parmeshwar had come to bus stand to see off Ashok who was to go to his place, there the appellants are stated to have met Ashok and Ashok accompanied them for witnessing a movie.Virender Yadav appellant had told at that time that Ashok would stay with him for one or two days and thereafter they had gone towards Ajanta Cinema.The story further proceeds that Virender Yadav appellant had come to the place of PW 7 at about 9.30 PM in Kachha Tihar and after sometime Mukho-appellant as well as Ashok arrived and they took their meals with him and thereafter appellants took Ashok saying that they would be now seeing a night show.On September 16, 1987, it is alleged that PW 6 and PW 7 in routine had started from their house for plying their rickshaws that they reached near Beriwala Bagh and found a crowd collected at that spot and police was also present and a dead body was recovered from the well and the same was of Ashok PW 6 and PW 7 did not come forward to identify the said dead body and they had proceeded towards Subhash Nagar where they were met by the appellants and they noticed some scratches on Virender Yadav's (appellant) neck and on query about Ashok Virender told them that both the appellants had murdered Ashok as Ashok used to harass them and they threatened PW 6 and PW 7 if they informed the police they would be dealt with in the same manner as they had dealt with Ashok.The prosecution version further proceeds that Dev Narain PW 9, real brother of Ashok, got information at his village from one Bachan Tati, resident of the same village who was also working in Delhi and had come back to the village that his brother Ashok had been murdered and his dead body had been recovered by the police and that appellants were involved in the commission of the said murder.He came to Delhi on October 17, 1987, and identified his brother Ashok from the photographs which were taken of the aforesaid, dead body by the police when the dead body was recovered and he have a statement to the police.PW 10 Dharam Pal and PW 11 Mohinder Singh were employed as watchmen in Beriwala Bagh by the Delhi Development Authority and on the morning of September 16, 1987, they had noticed the dead body lying in the well and they informed their higher officers and also the police and the police had taken out the dead body from that well and also lifted the blood and blood stained earth vide recovery memo Ex. PW 10/A. A pant and a pair of chappal were also found lying at some distance from the well which were also converted into sealed parcel and taken into possession.Appellant-Virender was arrested in presence of Dharam Pal PW 10 on Nov. 20, 1987 and it appears that a confessional statement made to the police was exhibited as PW 10/B and a pointing out memo of the said well was exhibited as PW 10/C which were not admissible in evidence as the well was very well known to the police when they had recovered the dead body and the confessional statement of Virender which had not led to any discovery of any material fact was totally inadmissible in evidence.There appears to be a tendency in the lower courts to exhibit the confessional statements, made by the accused to the police, during the trial which is not in accordance with law because Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits only that portion of the disclosure statement of the accused made to the police admissible which leads to recovery of any material fact.The trial courts should not exhibit any document which is inadmissible in evidence and strictly comply with the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act while recording the evidence.PW 12 S. I. Amrit Lal on receiving the information as per daily diary report, copy Ex. PW 12A, had reached the said well in Beriwala Bagh on September 16, 1987 and had got recovered the dead body from that well and had recorded the statement of PW 11 and as the circumstances disclosed commission of murder of the said dead body, he made his endorsement on the statement of Mohinder Singh and got registered a case under Section 302, IPC.PW13/B1 to 7 and Exs.PW4/A to C.It appears that dead body could not be got identified and was handed over to Sewa Samiti which cremated the same.The post-mortem was carried out by PW 21 Dr. L. T. Ramani on September 17, 1987, at about 10 a.m. and he found two incised wounds on the neck and some abrasions and he opined as per his post-mortem report Ex. PW 21/A that injuries were ante-mortem and injuries in the neck were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and death had occurred due to haemorrhage and shock and time of the death was about 40 hrs which will take us to the date September 15, 1987, at about 6 p.m. Efforts were made for getting the dead body identified by issuing hue and cry notices, publishing posters having the photographs of the deceased and also locating the tailor which had stitched the same pant (sic) without any success.It is not necessary to refer to the witnesses who made all these efforts.They have urged that it has not been brought on record that the appellants were any desperate characters who could have overawed the two witnesses in order to prevent them from informing anyone about their involvement in the commission of this ghastly murder of Ashok.They have also pointed out to some discrepancies appearing in the statements of these two witnesses as to when in fact they had gone to the village and informed the relations of the deceased.At the time they claim to be present when the dead body was recovered, there was no occasion for them to just slip away from the spot because some police was present and not to identify the dead body.After all Ashok belonged to their village and was very much known to them and as claimed by PW 7 Ashok had visited them on September 14, 1987 and had taken meals with him.If that was the close relationship between Ashok and PW 7, there could be no earthly reason for PW 6 & PW 7 not to come forward and identify the dead body as that of Ashok if they were present at the time the dead body was recovered.Mere fact that they had not been shown to be having any animus against the appellants, in our view, is not sufficient for us to believe their statement.It is evident from the record that they came to give their statements to the police only on October 25, 1987 when the Investigating Officer visited that village and before that date on October 22, 1987, already a Panchayat had been held which had given a finding of their own that the two appellants were guilty of the murder of Ashok.If we peruse the Panchnama in question we find that it has been clearly recorded that Panchayat had come to the decision that both the appellants were guilty of murder of Ashok and thereafter it had been recorded that the appellants had voluntarily admitted their guilt.May be the villagers have convinced themselves by some material in coming to the conclusion that the appellants were murderers of Ashok and that could be the reason for them to come forward as witnesses against the appellants and also persuade PW 6 & PW 7 to give statement to the police implicating the appellants.The human mind is quite complex and it is not possible to fathom as to why people act in a particular manner in similar circumstances and act in a different manner, may be the circumstances be the same.It is significant to mention that Gogan Yadav PW 6 deposed that four persons of the same village were living with him at the relevant time where the appellants were living and still they had not informed about the complicity of the appellants for the murder of Ashok to said co-villagers.He has deposed that he gave the information to Ashok's brother after one month of reaching the village.It means that he had gone to the village soon after the occurrence but had not informed Ashok's brother or father about the involvement of the appellants in the murder of Ashok.He has not given any explanation as to why he took one month to inform Ashok's brother about this matter.If he had come to Delhi, according to him about 30-40 days prior to the murder of Ashok and he had gone to the village after one month of the occurrence, it means that he was in village in middle of September 1987 but according to him, till middle of October 1987 he remained mum.It is not possible to give any credence to statement of such a witness who remains silent for such a long period when the fear of the appellants was no longer working on his mind and still he failed to inform the relations of Ashok about the death of Ashok or of the involvement of the appellants in the murder of Ashok.It is only on October 17, 1987, that Ashok's brother had come to Delhi and then identified the dead body of his brother.He has named another person for getting the information about the murder of Ashok in Delhi and complicity of appellants in that murder.That witness had not been examined by the prosecution.In cross-examination he admitted that he had gone to his village after two or four days of having seen the dead body of Ashok and immediately on reaching the village had informed Ashok's father that his son had been killed.In case this witness had given the information to Ashok's father soon after reaching the village it is not possible to believe that Ashok's father and brother would not have rushed to Delhi to identify the dead body of Ashok.So, this witness appears to be having no regard for truth.He claims to have recorded the dates September 14, 1995 and September 16, 1987, in his diary, but no such diary had been taken into possession by the police or brought by him in Court.He had stated that he remembered the dates because he had recorded them in a diary.PW 6 while referring to meeting the appellants on that day on Subhash Nagar Road, deposed that on his query from Virender-appellant as to whether he had killed Ashok and on Rajinder mentioning that Virender had taken away Ashok from his room on September 14, 1987, Virender extended the threat by uttering the words "that in case their names were mentioned, they would meet with the same treatment as was given to Ashok Yadav." In Hindi the words recorded were as follows :He does not say that the appellant-Mukho had made any confessional statement at that time.On the other hand, PW 7, who initially had not even mentioned about his companion PW 6 on that particular day, had deposed that on reaching the Bus Stand Subhash Nagar on that day he found Virender-appellant present and on enquiring from him as to Ashok who was with him from September 14, 1987, how he had been killed.Virender threatened him and he deposed that Mukho was also present at that time and he himself was alone.When he was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecutor, he gave additional facts by mentioning that Virender had, on his query, told that he Along with Mukho had murdered Ashok because Ashok used to come and harass them.If we peruse the testimony of these two witnesses, we find that there is lot of variation as to what appellant-virender uttered while giving the threat.Both the witnesses do not refer to any extra-judicial confession made by Mukho, the other appellant.It is not to be forgotten that PW 7 initially had not admitted the presence of PW 6 when he met the two appellants but later on when subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution, he toed the line of the prosecution and parrot like affirmed the questions put to him in leading form by the prosecutor.Now coming to the holding of Panchayat and the Panchayat finding the appellants guilty of the offence and then recording a panchnama in which it was mentioned that appellants had also admitted their guilt, we have quite a few witnesses who had deposed to these facts.If we go by number of witnesses and the fact that those witnesses had no animus against the appellants, normally we should have been guided to put implicit faith in the statements of such witnesses, but unfortunately in the present case, there are circumstances present which throw a lot of suspicion regarding the credibility of said witnesses with regard to confession of the appellants.We have no hesitation in holding that a Panchayat had gathered in that village where perhaps a large number of villagers were present including these witnesses.There have been variation between the statement of the witnesses with regard to the number of persons present and the exact time consumed by the Panchayat in reaching the decision.They admitted that there was a Chowkidar and a Dafedar, officials living in the village and one of the witnesses admitted that both of those officials were present in such a Panchayat.This panchnama also was kept back from the police for a pretty long period.If that is so, it is not understood why the statements of these PW 6 & PW 7 were not taken prior to October 25, 1987 and why there arose any necessity of holding any Panchayat when police was already present in the village.It appears that this police officer must have been present when the so-called Panchayat was held and if he was present in the village it is not understood why he could not arrest the appellants if they were the guilty persons at that time.According to him, they had moved against the appellants when appellants failed to give the penalty imposed upon them.It appears that these witnesses and other residents of the village have devised their own legal method of dealing with the persons who are guilty of committing such heinous offence as murder of a co-villager which Court cannot approve.Be that as it may, all these witnesses have not in their statements referred to the words allegedly used by any of the appellants from which it could be inferred that appellants had confessed to their guilt, rather there have appeared inconsistent statements from these witnesses.Most of them saying that both the appellants admitted that they had killed Ashok but one of the witnesses deposed that only Virender admitted this fact whereas the other appellant-Mukho was not even present.These witnesses had not been able to prove as to what words were actually uttered by the two appellants or one of the appellants and they have not even given us the substance of the admissions made by the appellants or one of them.The presence of Investigating Officer in the village during that period also throws a lot of suspicion regarding the veracity of the prosecution case that the appellants had made any voluntary confessional statements in any such Panchayat.It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not in any depth examined the evidence in this case.He had devoted only a few words in discussing the evidence led before the Court and had given the findings against the appellants.Appellants were seen with Ashok, according to PW 7, on September 14, 1987, at 9.30 p.m. The murder of Ashok took place on September 15, 1987, in the evening.So, there was sufficient time gap in between for Ashok to have gone anywhere else.There is no evidence that Ashok continued to be with the appellants till he met his death.In Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 CAR 248 : (1992 Cri LJ 4027) (SC), the only circumstance proved was that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused.It was held that this circumstance alone would not sufficient to bring home the offence to the accused.We have already found PW 7 to be not truthful and reliable witness.So, his sole testimony that deceased Ashok was last seen with the appellants on September 14, 1987, at 9-30 p.m. cannot be wholly relied upon without there being any other corroborative evidence led by the prosecution.The order be communicated to the appellants through Superintendent (Jail).Appeal allowed.

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

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

The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:The appellants - accused are residents of Nalegaon, Taluka Chakur, District Latur.Poonam [deceased] was the wife of accused Dayanand.On 17.01.2012 in the morning, the deceased Poonam sustained burns in her house.She was taken to Lahane Hospital, Latur, having sustained 72% burns.She was admitted in the Lahane Hospital and intimation was given to the Police Station, Shivaji Nagar, Latur regarding her admission in the said Hospital.A.S.I. Venkat Poul of Shivaji Nagar Police Station went to the Lahane Hospital and recorded the statement of Poonam between 3.10 p.m. to 3.50 p.m. Poonam stated in the said statement that she was pregnant of six months.On 16.01.2012, accused Dayanand had told her that the child in her womb was not from accused Dayanand.She stated that after two months of their marriage, accused Dayanand used to suspect about her character.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::crapl724.15 -3- Accused nos.2 and 3, namely Harnabai @ Harubai Shivdas Rajmane and Deepali Shivshankar Usturge, used to poison the ears of accused Dayanand.She also stated that on 17.01.2012, accused Dayanand poured kerosene on her person and accused no.2 Harubai had burnt her by match stick.A.S.I. Poul sent the said statement to the Police Station, Chakur.On the basis of the said statement, Crime No.12/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered at Chakur Police Station, District Latur.A.S.I. Poul had also given intimation to the Naib Tahsildar, Latur, namely, Vilas Jogdand to record the statement of Poonam.In the said dying declaration also, Poonam stated that the accused Dayanand was suspecting about her character and accused nos.2 and 3 i.e. Harnabai @ Harubai and Deepali were poisoning his ears.On 17.01.2012, the accused Dayanand had poured kerosene on her person and accused Harnabai @ Harubai had set her on fire.He recovered one can, pieces of burnt saree and one match box from the spot of incident.He recorded the statements of the witnesses.The deceased Poonam succumbed to burns on 23.01.2012 and the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was included and the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was deleted.The inquest panchnama of the dead body of the deceased Poonam was prepared and the post mortem on the body of deceased was conducted, which revealed that she died due to septicemia due to burns.They contended that before marriage, accused Dayanand was working as Tailor in Pune.However, as he was the only son of his parents, he started working at Nalegaon.Deceased Poonam was desiring to settle in Pune.On 17.1.2012, when P.W.5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul was present in Shivaji Nagar police station, Latur on that day at about 2.05 p.m. one M.L.C. Letter was received from Lahane Hospital, Latur informing therein that one Poonam was admitted in the said hospital in burnt condition.The investigation of case was entrusted to him.P.W.5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul thereafter went to the said hospital and met P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake and at his request P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake had examined Poonam and certified that she was in good condition and was able to talk.P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake also told P.W.5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul that he could record the statement of deceased Poonam.Thereafter, P.W. 5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul introduced himself to deceased Poonam and explained to her that he has come there to record her statement.Deceased Poonam had shown her readiness to give her statement.P.W. 5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul has deposed that deceased Poonam told him that she was carrying pregnancy of seven months and from 2 months after the marriage, the appellant/accused no.1 used to harass her by suspecting about her character.Deceased Poonam also told him that sister of accused Dayanand viz. Deepa and accused No.2 Harubai::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -14- (mother in law of deceased) were also poisoning ears of accused No.1 against her.Deceased Poonam explained that on 17.1.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. when she was performing Pooja, her husband accused No.1 poured kerosene on her person and accused No.2 mother in law set her on fire with the help of matchstick.She also told that she ran out of house towards veranda, shouting for help and thereafter some people extinguished the fire by pouring water on her person.P.W.5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul has explained that at the time of recording her statement, he himself, P.W. 4 Dr. Ashok Dake and deceased Poonam were present.Dying declaration Exh.42 is in the hand writing of P.W.5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul and it bears his signature.There is an endorsement of concerned doctor to the effect that the patient was conscious and well oriented while recording the complete statement.The endorsement bears the signature of PW.4 Dr. Ashok Dake and date is 17.1.2012 in between 3.10 p.m. to 3.50 pm.Date of Reserving the Judgment : 06.07.2018 Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 03.08.2018 JUDGMENT (PER V.K. JADHAV, J.) :-This Appeal is filed by the appellants-accused, challenging the judgment and order passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, on 06.08.2015 in Sessions Case No.68 of 2012, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -2- 302 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rs. One Thousand only], in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months.The appellants are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- [Rs. Five Hundred only], in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::At the time of recording of the above mentioned two dying declarations, Poonam was examined by the Doctor Ashok Dake, who was attending her.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::The viscera of Poonam was sent to Pathology Department of Civil Hospital, Latur.The seized can, match box and pieces of burnt saree as well as another viscera of Poonam were sent to Chemical Analyzer.After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed.The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC against all the accused persons and under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against accused Dayanand and Harnabai @ Harubai.The charge was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular.They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.Their defence is of total denial.They filed their written statement [Exh.67] under Section 313 of the Criminal::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -5- Procedure Code.They have further submitted that on the occasion of first Sankranti, Poonam had told her father to take her to her maiden house.However, her father had not taken her to his house and hence Poonam was annoyed.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses.Learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur by judgment and order dated 6.8.2015 convicted the appellants-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months.The appellants are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w.34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months.The learned Judge of the trial court has directed that all substantiative sentences shall run concurrently.The learned counsel for the appellants-original accused Nos.1 and 2 submits that the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -6- has recorded the findings of conviction contrary to the evidence on record.The learned Judge of the trial court has not considered the evidence of the father of deceased Poonam, P.W.3 Baswaraj Karbhari, who has deposed that death of deceased Poonam was suicidal and she was not in conscious state of mind to give alleged dying declarations.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake, who was the treating doctor of deceased Poonam, has deposed that condition of deceased Poonam was very critical and she was given oxygen support at the rate of 2 liters per minute immediately since her admission in the hospital and as such, it was impossible for deceased Poonam to give dying declarations, as alleged.Learned counsel submits that the trial court has failed to appreciate that deceased Poonam, who had sustained burns to the extent of 72%, was put on oxygen support at the rate of 2 liters per minute to talk about 70 minutes continuously while recording her two successive dying declarations.P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake has admitted in his cross examination that he was on duty from the moment when deceased Poonam was admitted in hospital and on that day his duty was up to 5.00 p.m. and during this entire period deceased Poonam was being given oxygen.If it is being so, it was impossible for deceased Poonam to give any statement when oxygen mask was put to her mouth.The learned counsel submits that trial court has failed to appreciate that there was material discrepancy in the two dying::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -7- declarations of deceased Poonam.The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the motive behind the crime.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::Learned counsel for the appellants, in order to substantiate his contentions, placed reliance on the following judgments:-Learned A.P.P. for the respondent State submits that P.W.3 Baswaraj Karbhari, who happened to be father of deceased Poonam has not supported the prosecution case and he had resiled from his earlier statement.Thus, the prosecution has sought permission from the court to cross examine the said witness and after grant of permission, P.W.3 Basawraj Karbhari was subjected to cross examination at length by the prosecution.Learned A.P.P. submits that P.W.3 Baswaraj has not stated the truth before the trial court and denied to have stated the portion marked "A" and "B" of his police statement.Learned A.P.P. submits that P.W.5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul has recorded the statement/dying declaration of deceased Poonam::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -8- Exh.42 in between 3.10 p.m. to 3.50 p.m. on 17.1.2012 and thereafter P.W.6 Naib Tahsildar, Vilas Jogdand has recorded the dying declaration of deceased Poonam at Exh.48 in between 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that deceased Poonam was admitted in the hospital around 11.00 a.m. and the intimation about sustaining burns by deceased Poonam was given to the concerned police station and it was received by the said police station at about 2.05 p.m. The learned A.P.P. submits that immediately after the incident, on the same day within some hours, both the dying declarations Exh.42 and 48, respectively, came to be recorded after examination of deceased Poonam by the concerned Medical Officer on his certification that she was able and conscious to give her statement.Learned A.P.P. submits that both the dying declarations Exh.42 and 48 respectively are consistent on its material part.The prosecution has examined P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake, who has made endorsement on both the dying declarations and certified about conscious state of mind of deceased Poonam while recording her dying declarations.Learned A.P.P. submits that there is no specific cross examination to P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake that at the time of recording of dying declarations Exh. 42 and 48 respectively, deceased Poonam was put on oxygen mask.Even there is no entry about oxygen being provided to deceased Poonam in the admission and treatment papers.Learned::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -9- A.P.P. submits that the trial court has rightly convicted both the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::The prosecution case rests upon two dying declarations.The Supreme Court, in the case of P. V. Radhakrishna vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2859 in paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment, has made the following observations:::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::P.W.6 Naib Tahsildar Vilas Jogdand has deposed that on 17.1.2012 he had received a requisition for recording statement of Poonam Dayanand Rajmane, who was admitted in the Lahane Hospital, Latur.He had received the said letter at 2.45 p.m. Accordingly, he went to Lahane Hospital at 3.45 p.m. P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake was on duty there.He had taken opinion of Dr. Ashok Dake.Thereafter P.W.6 Naib Tahsildar, Vilas Jogdand had examined Poonam in his presence and found that deceased Poonam was fit and conscious to give statement and made an endorsement to that effect.P.W.6 Naib Tahsildar, Vilas Jogdand thereafter has disclosed his identity to deceased Poonam and asked her name and age etc. P.W.6 Naib Tahsildar, Vilas Jogdand further deposed that deceased Poonam disclosed to him that her husband was suspecting about her character.On the day of incident, when she was performing Pooja, her husband had poured kerosene on her person and her mother in law had set her on fire with the help of match stick.Thereafter she ran away from the house shouting for help and the neighbours extinguished the fire by pouring water on her person.On perusal of dying declaration Exh.48, we find on top of it an endorsement of P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake about the conscious state of mind of deceased Poonam which bears his signature and also the date 17.1.2012 and timing 4.00 p.m. The dying declaration Exh.48 bears::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -16- signature of deceased Poonam and also bears signature of P.W.6 Naib Tahsildar Vilas Jogdand, as deposed by him.Even below the dying declaration Exh.48 there is one more endorsement of P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake about fit and conscious state of mind of deceased Poonam till completion of recording of her dying declaration.The said endorsement bears signature of P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake with date and timing as 17.1.2012 at about 4.30 p.m.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::We have also carefully examined the evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake.At the time of recording of both the dying declarations, he has examined deceased Poonam and found that she was in conscious state of mind and he had made endorsement to that effect on both the dying declarations Exh.42 and 48 which bear his signatures.Learned counsel for the appellants accused has assailed the aforesaid evidence mainly on the ground that P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake has admitted in his cross-examination that deceased Poonam was being given oxygen support since her arrival in the hospital till P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake left the hospital at about 5.00 p.m. and in such circumstances it is difficult to believe that deceased Poonam could have made dying declarations when she was not even capable by::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -17- breathing by herself.Learned counsel, in order to substantiate his contentions, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and others vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).The Supreme Court, in para 7 of the above cited case, has made the following observations:-::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::So far as the genuineness of dying declaration is concerned, having perused the material on record, we are also satisfied that the said document is not a genuine document.Until PW-5 the doctor who conducted the post mortem was examined, the defence did not, in any manner, indicate or disclose the factum of the existence of a dying declaration.No suggestion was put to the other prosecution witness as to the existence of a dying declaration.It is very surprising that a doctor who admittedly did not treat a patient during her life time would be called upon to certify the fitness of the patient to make a dying declaration when other doctors who treated the said patient were available for the said purpose.From the evidence on record also, it is clear that the deceased was in no condition to make a dying declaration.She had almost 95% burns and she was put on oxygen right from the moment she was brought to the hospital and continued to be on oxygen till she died.In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that she could have made a dying declaration when she was not even capable of breathing by herself.The evidence on record shows that she died within about half an hour after making the alleged dying declaration.All these circumstances leads to one and the only conclusion that this dying declaration is not a genuine document and the High Court was justified in rejecting the same on that basis."In the facts of the said case, the deceased had almost 95% of::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -18- burns and died within half an hour after making alleged dying declaration, coupled with some other circumstances including oxygen was being administered to the deceased prior to recording of her alleged dying declaration, the Supreme court held that the dying declaration is not a genuine document.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::In the instant case, in our considered opinion, the dying declarations Exh.42 and 48 appear to have been made by deceased Poonam voluntarily.They are trustworthy and have credibility.Both the dying declarations inspire confidence of the Court for implicit acceptance.P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake has stated in his cross examination about oxygen being administered to deceased Poonam right from her arrival in the hospital at about 11.00 a.m. till he left the hospital at about 5.00 p.m. on that day.However, except this admission, there is no further specific cross examination of P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake as to impossibility of giving dying declaration when oxygen was being administered to deceased Poonam.P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -19- has specifically deposed that he had examined deceased Poonam before recording both the dying declarations and on examination, he found that deceased Poonam was conscious and well oriented throughout while recording her dying declaration.It has also come in the evidence of P.W.5 A.S.I. Venkat Poul and P.W.6 Naib Tahsildar Vilas Jogdand and also P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake that all of them had asked certain questions to deceased Poonam and she had answered their questions, though formal in nature.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::In view of this we are not inclined to give importance to the said admission on the part of P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake about oxygen being administered to deceased Poonam and draw an inference on its basis that deceased Poonam was not in a position to make dying declaration as she was not even capable of breathing by herself.In the other two cases Tukaram Dashrath Padhen (supra), and Sunil and others (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants/accused, in the facts of the aforesaid cases, the Division Bench of this Court found that the dying declarations on record do not inspire confidence and accordingly extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant accused therein.In our opinion, both the cited cases cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::In the instant case we find both the dying declarations Exh.42 and 48 reliable, trustworthy and voluntarily made by deceased Poonam and the same inspire confidence.Deceased Poonam had sustained 67% of burns.P.W.8 Dr. Vikas Mahadeo Kumare, who has conducted post mortem examination, has given details of the percentage of burns spread on the parts of body of deceased Poonam with sparing area of body.The distribution of burns on the body of deceased Poona is described by Dr. Vikas Kumare, as follows:-"Superficial to deep burns present on body at places.Yellow coloured pulse pockets with yellow slough present on area with smelling.Distribution of burns on the body as follows:-::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::The total percentage of burns was 67%.Injection mark was present on right supra calvicular region margines reddish brown.All the above injuries were ante mortem."Deceased Poonam had put her signatures on both the dying declarations at Exh.42 and 48 respectively.As per post mortem notes Exh.58, the burns were found only at right elbow joint, sparing rest of the right upper limb.In view of the same, in our considered opinion, both the dying declarations Exh.42 and 48, inspire full confidence in its correctness and there is no possibility of either tutoring, prompting or that they were the product of imagination.There is no need of any further corroboration.Both the dying declarations Exh.42 and 48 are consistent on material point.There is no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction.In the facts of the present case, the trial court is justified in placing reliance on the dying declarations Exh.42 and 48 for the purpose of convicting the appellants.We find no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the trial court.The criminal appeal is hereby dismissed, accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 :::

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

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

DATED :- 13.06.2019 ORAL JUDGMENTPrinted FIR (Exh.19) is on record.As per the oral report, the victim used to stay along with her family at village Saur and was taking education in 7 th standard in a school known as Dada Bhamorkar Krishi Vidyalaya,::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 3 apeal96.06.odt Saur.The appellant is also resident of the same village and stays in her neighbourhood.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::Oral report (Exh.-18) asserts that on 21.08.2004, it was the second day of Nag Panchami festival at 11.00 a.m. she alone was present in her house and was sleeping.Taking advantage of the situation that her parents are not available in the house and her brother and sister are also not there, appellant took entry in her house and thereafter removed her clothes and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.After completion of the said act, he extended threat to her that she shall not disclosed the said fact else he will commit murder of her parents.By the said judgment and order of conviction, the learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years, seven years and six months as jail punishment for respective offences and fine of Rs.500/- on::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 2 apeal96.06.odt each count with a default clause that if the fine is not paid, he shall be subjected to suffer further incarceration in jail for three months and fifteen days.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::Prakash Deshmukh (PW2) was the investigating officer.His evidence would show that initial investigation in crime was carried by PSI Meshram and API Mankar and he took over the investigation on 30.10.2004 and subsequently filed final report in the Court of law.The criminal law was set into motion by the victim (PW1).The report was disclosing commission of cognizable offence.Resultantly, PSI Meshram registered an offence against the appellant vide Crime No.189/2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the IPC.Therefore, she did not disclose the said incident.Report (Exh.18) further recites that after 8 to 10 days of the first incident, again when the victim was alone at 12.00 O'clock the appellant repeated forcible sexual intercourse on her and when she was weeping, her neighbour Sau.Arti Bangar, though peeped in her house, did not make any inquiry with her.It is further disclosed in the oral report that one month prior to lodging of the said report, when she was not keeping good health, therefore, she was taken by her mother to Dr. Mrs. Takur and after her examination, Dr. Thakur found that she was carrying::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 4 apeal96.06.odt pregnancy.In order to avoid bad name in the society, her father went to the father of the appellant for some settlement.However, since there was no positive response from them, report is lodged.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::The arrest panchanama (Exh.-8) is available on record.All other investigation, it appears from the record, was carried by earlier two investigating officers.Spot panchanama (Exh.-20) and report of medical officer (Exh.-21) dated 28.10.2004 are on record.Under seizure panchanama (Exh.-22), the victim's blood samples, her pubic hair and vaginal swab were seized.Seizure panchanama (Exh.-24) is a seizure panchanama done after arrest of the appellant, under which his pubic hair, semen samples and blood samples were seized.PI Deshmukh (PW2) filed final report.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in whose Court final report was presented, found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.Resultantly, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The learned 2 nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati framed the charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 506 of the IPC.The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for his trial.In order to substantiate the charge framed against the appellant, during trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses namely; Victim (PW1) and PI Prakash Deshmukh (PW2), who filed challan before the Court of law and also relied upon various documents duly proved during the course of trial.Learned Court below found that prosecution has proved charge against the appellant and therefore convicted him, as observed in the opening paragraph of this judgment.Hence, this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::I have heard Mr. Badar, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Tembhare, learned A.P.P. for State.With their able assistance, I have gone through entire record and proceedings.After reading in detail evidence of the victim, he submitted that the appellant's father is murdered by the victim and her mother therefore he is being falsely implicated in the crime and it would be unsafe without there being any corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix to record his conviction, is the another limb of submission.To sum up, his argument, if entire prosecution case is read in correct perspective, benefit of doubt is required to be extended in favour of appellant and he therefore prays for setting aside the impugned judgment.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::He, therefore, supported the reasoning given by the learned Court below and::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 7 apeal96.06.odt prays for dismissal of the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::Quantity of the evidence can never be a yardstick for decision of a criminal trial.What is required is to be examined is the quality of evidence adduced during the course of trial.In a rape case, the prosecutrix is victim.It is a trite law that the prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put at par with an accomplice.In fact, she is the victim of the crime.There is no rule that there should be corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix and her solitary evidence is sufficient to record the finding of the guilt.However, in such fact situation, the quality of the evidence of the prosecution case as adduced and her evidence should be of sterling quality.The evidence of the prosecutrix herself should inspire confidence in judicial mind.Keeping this principle in mind, now let us analyse and reappreciate the entire prosecution case.According to the charge, at the time of commission of rape, the age of the victim was 14 y ears.Oral report (Exh.-18) would disclose that though he did not disclose her date of birth, it is stated that her age was 14 years.It is also disclosed in the oral report that at the relevant time, she was taking education in 7 th::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 8 apeal96.06.odt standard at Dada Bhamodkar Krushi Vidyalaya, Saur, District Amravati.Thus, this document corroborates the oral version of the victim about her date of birth.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the investigating officer PI Prakash Deshmukh (PW2) is silent about collection of document (Exh.-28) by him.It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that reliance cannot be placed on this document.Record and proceedings show that during the pendency of the trial, an application was moved seeking permission to assist the prosecution.The said application is on record at page no.61 of Part-IV.This application is signed by counsel for the complainant::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 9 apeal96.06.odt and on the top of said application in brackets it is mentioned that, "complainant is in jail." Vakalatnama of Advocate Smt.Varsha Sanjay Nerkar (Exh.-13) is filed on record signed by Smt. Lata Gangadhar Tayade, as complainant.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::Record page no.63 of part-IV shows that an application for permission to file transfer certificate/school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix was filed on record.It is not only signed by the learned A.P.P. incharge of the sessions trial but it is also singed by Smt. Lata Gangadhar Tayade.By moving the said application (Exh.-27), permission was sought by Smt. Lata Gangadhar Tayade to produce the school leaving certificate of her daughter.Record shows that in the left hand column, the learned Judge called say of the accused and on the very same day, the defence counsel states that production is admitted and accordingly the document i.e. transfer certificate given by Head Master of the school came on record.Further, perusal of the document (Exh.-28) would show that below the said document on left hand column side, learned counsel for the appellant, who was representing him during trial, has admitted genuineness of the said document.Since, the::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 10 apeal96.06.odt genuineness of the said documents was admitted by the defence, it appears therefore the prosecution did not adduce evidence of the Head Master and the said school though he was cited as a witness.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::For the aforesaid reason, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of evidence from the investigating officer about collection of transfer certificate, reliance cannot be placed on the school leaving certificate (Exh.-The FIR (Exh.-18) was lodged on 28.10.2004 in which the victim disclosed her age as 14 years, leaves no doubt in my mind to record a finding that the victim was aged about 14 years.The age would play a very important role during trial if a defence is taken by the accused about consent.In the present case, neither such a defence was taken nor it was the submission before this Court.The defence as it could be seen from the line of cross-examination of the victim and from the statement of the::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 11 apeal96.06.odt appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that of his false implication in the crime.In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., according to him, pregnancy of the victim was known to the entire village and he was not responsible for the same and when he refused to pay the amount, he is being falsely implicated.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::The question that this Court has to answer is; whether the appellant was responsible for the pregnancy of the victim.From the cross-examination of the victim, it is brought on record that on 07.12.2004, victim delivered a female child.Medical report (Exh.-21) of the victim, when she was referred to Women's Hospital, Amravati is on record.This document is also admitted by the defence.Therefore, the medical officer, who examined the victim is also not examined as prosecution witness.Contents of this exhibited document would show that after examination of the victim, the medical officer found that her hymen was not only torn but her vagina was admitting two fingers and thus, she was habituated to sex.The medical officer also recorded a finding that at the time of her physical examination,::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 12 apeal96.06.odt the girl was found to be carrying pregnancy of 26 weeks.However, when defence has admitted this document that does not mean that it is admitted by defence that accused is responsible for pregnancy.By admitting the said document, only the status of the victim that she is pregnant is admitted.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::It was the duty of the prosecution to prove, by adducing cogent evidence, about the authorship of victim's pregnancy.The medical officer also collected blood sample, vaginal swab, etc. of the victim and those were seized by the investigating officer under the seizure memo (Exh.-22).The Chemical Analyser's report (Exh.-25) about the said shows that no semen was detected at the pubic hair and the vaginal swab of the victim and in my view, much importance cannot be given to this CA report inasmuch as the sample was obtained by the medical officer at the time when the girl was carrying 26 weeks of pregnancy.The FIR (Exh.-18) is also very specific.It states that on 21.08.2004, it was second day of Nag Panchami festival.Her father was at Mumbai in connection with some work.Her mother::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 13 apeal96.06.odt was in agriculture field, her brother had been to the place of her uncle Kameshwar and sister Rajashri was playing outside and prosecutrix alone was present in the house.At 11.00 a.m. on the said day, when she was sleeping, the appellant took entry in her house and noticing that she is sleeping, committed sexual intercourse against her wish and thereafter extended threats to her.Resultantly, she did not disclose the said incident to her parents.It is also alleged in the report that after lapse of 8-10 days of the first incident, noticing prosecutrix all alone in her house, the appellant again repeated the said act of entering into her house and when she was weeping, her neighbour Sau.Arti Bangad peeped into house, however, did not make any inquiry.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::From the FIR (Exh.-18), it is clear that as per the victim, the first act of forcible sexual intercourse took place on 21.08.2004 and the second such act occurred after 8-10 days of the same.It is not the prosecution case that the said female child was a premature baby.On the contrary, the victim has::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 14 apeal96.06.odt admitted in her evidence that she delivered female child after a full pregnancy of nine months.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::In my view, the learned A.P.P. has culled out this circumstance against the appellant, however, again in my view that alone cannot be sufficient to hold against the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::By that time, medical certificate (Exh.-21) was already part of the investigation and the record.Evidence of PI Prakash Deshmukh (PW2) is very interesting.He states in his examination-in-chief itself that after he took over the investigation, he found that in the medical certificate, the victim girl was found carrying pregnancy of 26 weeks and therefore he recorded supplementary statement.The record shows that supplementary statement of the girl was recorded on the very same day on which he took investigation.Thus, from March-2004 to 30.10.2004, the victim was blissfully silent about the alleged atrocities committed on her by appellant.It is also to be recorded here that it would have been very convenient for the prosecution to examine Sau.Arti Bangad who, though only peeped in the house of victim noticing her weeping.However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, she is not::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 ::: 16 apeal96.06.odt examined.Her evidence would have shown the fact, which victim has narrated in her oral report (Exh.-18), which would have been a corroborative piece of evidence to the victim's version about the appellant having entered inside her house.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::It is an admitted position on record that murder of appellant's father took place and in it the victim as well as her mother were accused persons.In this case, three investigating officers have conducted investigation.The prosecution was aware about the fact that the victim has delivered a female child.It was always open for the prosecution to take necessary steps for sending the blood sample of the said female child and the appellant and the victim to the forensic laboratory for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test.In not taking such steps, the prosecution, at least investigating officer, was lethargic in collection of the scientific evidence and only trying to prove the prosecution case by recording supplementary statement at a belated stage.::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::In somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijayan Vs.State of Kerala; reported in (2008) 14 SCC 763, found that in absence of the DNA test, it was unsafe to accept the version of the prosecution.In the present case, in the light of the evidence that is brought on record that the victim as well as her mother were facing trial for murder of the appellant's father, speaks volume against the prosecution and therefore absence of the DNA report plays pivotal role in this case, allowing me to give benefit of doubt to the appellant.Resultantly, I pass the following order.passed by 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.14/2005 is quashed and set aside.(iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 452, 376 (1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.JUDGE kahale::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 08:30:24 :::

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts of the case are that on 9.3.2000 at about 9 AM complainant Pratap Singh, Hari Singh, Tilak Singh, Maya and Anita were cutting crop.Narayan Singh and Ramraja armed with gun, Subaju, Ramsingh, Bundelsingh, Mulayamsingh, Hargovind, Ratansingh, Devisingh and Ramsingh resident of Madaukhedi armed with farsa and Udyajit armed with 12 bore gun came to their field.Narayan Singh abused the complainant and asked them to leave the field.When Sardar Singh and and brother Pratap Singh refused to leave, then, Narayan Singh, Subaju, Bundel Singh, Ramraja, Ramsingh and Mulayam Singh gave beating by means of farsa to Sardar Singh and Pratap Singh.Ramsingh gave a farsa blow on the head of Sardar Singh, Narayan Singh fired from his gun which hit on the right wrist of Sardar Singh.Pratap Singh was also beaten.When Tilak Singh started running away, then Ramraja fired at him which hit him on right side of his abdomen.Devisingh, Hargovind Lodhi, Ratansingh Lodhi and Udyajit Lodhi remained standing.(6).A swelling (tenderness) at right knee joint size 5CmsX2Cms.Lacerated wounds of each 2cmX1/2cmxskin deep at posterior aspect of left parietal region of head;(11).This witness has further stated that he also examined Sardar Singh (PW4).(1).An incised wound of V shaped at medial aspect of right forearm lower 1/3rd of size 8cmX1cmXbone deep and at prone position of right forearm lower 1/3rd of size 10cmX1cmXbone deep with lower end of right ulna bone cut seen in depth of wound near right wrist joint.Excessive bleeding present; (2).A swelling of 3cmX2cm size at left parietal region of head associated with redness and tenderness;According to him, injury no.1 was caused by sharp cutting object while injury no.2 was caused by hard and blunt object.Narayan Singh tried to fire again but he caught hold the gun due to which, pellets inserted in his mouth.Thereafter, Ramsingh gave a farsa blow.He fell down.Narayan Singh fired at him.He fell down.One of them had cut his leg.He became unconscious.A.No.690/2003 are partly allowed.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE Rks(Delivered on 15th December 2016) Per Justice D.K. Paliwal,By this common judgment, both the appeals bearing Cr.Appeal No.690 of 2003 and Cr.A. No.24 of 2004 are being disposed of as both the appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge Mungawali district Guna in Sessions Trial No.216 of 2000 whereby, the appellant Ramraja of Cr.Appeal No.690 of 2003 has been convicted under section 307 read with section 149, 326 read with section 149 (on two counts) and 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for Seven years with fine of Rs.5000/-, Five years R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/- and One year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulation and appellants of Cr.Appeal No.24 of 2004 Narayan Singh and Subaju have been convicted under section 307 read with section 149, 326 read with section 149 (on two counts) and 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for Seven years with fine of Rs.5000/-, Five years R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/- and One year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- each respectively with default stipulationPratap Singh and Tilak Singh fell down then Sardar Singh and Hari Singh reached on the spot and report was lodged at Mungawali Police Station.Injured Pratap Singh, Sardar Singh, Tilak Singh and Maya Bai sent for medical examination.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed.The learned trial court has framed and explained the charges.Appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial.Their defence was that due to previous enmity, the complainant party assaulted them and they have been falsely implicated just to save themselves from the prosecution on the report lodged by the accused.The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case while in defence, Narayan Singh (DW1), Subaju (DW2), Udyajeet (DW3) and Hargovind (DW4) have been examined.Learned trial court after appreciating the evidence and material on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.Being aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal.It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellants in both the appeals that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material on record and has erred in convicting the appellants.Admittedly, there was a cross case relating to the same incident in which, Narayan Singh and Subaju also sustained grievous injury and no explanation has been given by the prosecution witnesses as to how, they sustained injuries.Learned trial court has not considered this aspect properly.It is further submitted that there is no clear evidence on record as to which party was aggressor.Under these circumstances, conviction of the appellants with the aid of section 149 of IPC is illegal and unwarranted.It is further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is highly interested, inimical and full of exaggeration and contradictions on material particulars.On the same set of evidence, co-accused Devi Singh, Ratan Singh, Hargovind, Udyajeet, Ram Singh and Mulayam Singh have been acquitted by the learned trial court.Therefore, conviction of the appellants on the same set of evidence is not sustainable.It is prayed that both the appeals be allowed.Pratap Singh (PW3), Sardar Singh (PW4), Maya Bai (PW6) and Tilak Singh (PW8) have stated that they received injuries.Harisingh (PW5) and Anita (PW7) have also stated that Pratap Singh, Sardar Singh, Maya Bai and Tilak Singh have received injuries.Dr. R.K.Arora (PW10) has stated that he examined Pratap Singh (PW3) vide Ex.P/4 and found following injuries on his person :(1a).4cmX1cmXskin deep size incised wound at lateral aspect of left knee joint;(b).An incised wound of 12CmsX2CmsXbone deep at lateral aspect of just below the left knee joint appeared at left fibula bone cut;(2a) A lacerated wound of 8CmsX1CMsXbone deep at upper aspect of occipital region of head;(b).A lacerated wound of 4CMs X1CmXskin deep at right side of forehead;(3).Abrasion of 4CmsX1cm size at left side of waist; (4).A diffused tenderness swelling at back of left waist joint;(5).A lacerated wound of 4 CmsX1/2CMXskin deep at base of left index finger;According to him, injury no.1 was caused by sharp and cutting object and injury no.2 to 6 by hard and blunt object.He further deposed that he also examined Tilak Singh vide report Ex.P/5 and found following injuries :(1).(a).Gun shot entry wound circular in shape size 1.5 cms diameter, shot changing of periphery of edges at right Iliac region of abdomen, 4 Cms above the right anterior superior iliac spine.No blackening or tattooing at periphery of wound, piece of omentum seen at depth of wound and outside of wound.Depth of wound to the peritoneal cavity and direction of wound towards backward and transversely edges are inverted and bleeding present;(b).Circular in shape 1 CM diameter excessive bleeding present.No changing at edges, edges are inverted at back of right illiac region 5Cms above the mid part of illiac chest right side ;(2).He gave report Ex.P/6 and found following injuries :On the same day, he also examined Maya Devi.He found contusion on lateral aspect of mid part of right forearm caused by hard and blunt object and injury was simple in nature and gave his report Ex.R.K.Jain (PW2) has taken X-ray of Pratap Singh.According to this witness, he has found fracture of left fibula bone and metacarpal of middle finger of left hand and gave his report Ex.Thus, the statement of Sardar Singh, Pratap Singh, Tilak Singh and Maya Bai are corroborated by the statement of Dr.R.K.Arora (PW10) and it is proved that Sardar Singh, Tilak Singh, Pratap Singh and Maya Devi have sustained injuries.Sardar Singh (PW4) stated that he alongwith his brother Pratap Singh, Harisingh, Tilak Singh, Anita, Rajkumari and Maya Devi were cutting chana crop in their field in the morning on 8-9 AM.Narayan Singh and Ramraja armed with gun, Bundel Singh, Hargovind, Ramsingh and Subaju armed with farsa and other accused Mulayam Singh, Meharban Singh and Adhyajeet armed with lathis came there.They asked not to cut the crop.When they told that the crop belongs to them, hence, they would cut the same, then they started abusing.Narayan Singh fired a shot which hit Pratap Singh.Subaju threw Pratap Singh on the ground and gave a farsa blow on his leg.Bundel lSingh also gave a farsa blow on the leg of Pratap Singh.Thereafter, Hargovind gave lathi blow on the head of Pratap Singh.Ramraja fired at Tilak Singh which hit him on his abdomen.He rushed to police station and informed the police.Pratap Singh (PW3) supported the statement of Sardar Singh and stated that Ramraja fired at Tilak Singh which hit in abdomen of Tilak Singh.Tilak Singh (PW8) says that Narayan Singh fired at Pratap Singh which hit him on his mouth.Thereafter, other accused persons gave blow by means of farsa on his father cutting his leg.Thereafter, Ramraja fired at him which hit on his abdomen.Subaju gave a farsa blow on his head.He fell down and became unconscious.Maya Bai (PW6) says that Narayan Singh fired at Pratap Singh which hit him on his mouth.Her father fell down, thereafter, Subaju, Bundel, Hargovind and Ramsingh assaulted by means of farsa.Ramsingh fired a shot at Tilak Singh which hit him on his abdomen.Tilak Singh fell down.Thereafter, Subaju gave farsa blow on the leg of Tilak Singh.When she tried to save her father and brother, then Narayan Singh gave a lathi blow on her waist.She fell down.Hari Singh (PW5) says that Narayan Singh fired a shot which hit Sardar Singh.Thereafter, Ramraja fired which hit Tilak Singh on his abdomen.Narayan Singh also fired at Pratap Singh which hit on the mouth of Pratap Singh.Subaju gave farsa blow on the left leg.Bundel Singh also gave a farsa blow to Pratap Singh who fell down.Thereafter he rushed to police station.Pratap Singh (PW3) denied that he has given farsa blow on head of Narayan Singh.Sardar Singh also gave farsa blow on the leg of Narayan Singh.He gave farsa blow on left shoulder of Subaju.In para 13, he denied that Narayan Singh and Subaju have sustained injuries.However, this witness has admitted that trial is pending against him causing injury to Narayan Singh and Subaju.Sardar Singh (PW4) stated in para 13 that patta has been granted in favour of his brother Pratap Singh and the land of accused Narayan Singh is adjacent to the land of which patta has been granted in favour of Pratap Singh.He admitted that when quarrel took place, he along with Pratap Singh was cutting Chana.In para 16, he denied that after verbal altercation, his brother Pratap Singh brought farsa and gave a farsa blow on Narayan Singh.He further denied that another farsa blow was given by him to Narayan Singh on his left leg and Pratap Singh gave farsa blow on the shoulder of Subaju.He further denied that incident took place in the field of Narayan Singh.In para 25, he admitted that the land of which patta has been granted in favour of his brother Pratap Singh was in the name of accused Narayan Singh.He denied that his brother Pratap Singh was forcibly wanted possession of the land belonging to Narayan Singh.He further denied that on the date of alleged incident, Narayan Singh was in possession of the land.Tilak Singh (PW8) denied that his field is adjacent to the field of Narayan Singh.He has stated that the government land is adjacent to his land.He denied that Narayan Singh is in possession of the government land.In para 6, he further denied that the field on which they were cutting crop belong to Narayan Singh and when Subaju objected then, his father gave farsa blow on Narayan Singh.When Subaju came to intervene, Sardar Singh gave farsa blow to him.In para 14, he denied that no fire has been made at him and there is enmity with the accused persons.He further denied that he along with others cutting the crop of accused persons.In para 20, he denied that he fell on the Thooth of tree, hence, he sustained injury.Maya Bai (PW6) denied that Narayan Singh has not fired.She further denied that her father, uncle and brothers gave beating to Narayan Singh and Subaju.She further denied that the accused persons gave beating.Anita (PW7) denied that the field of Narayan Singh is adjacent to the field where incident took place.She admitted that there is government land adjacent to the field of Narayan Singh.She further admitted that Pratap Singh has obtained patta of the government land but Narayan Singh is in possession.She says that crop was sown by them.She denied that accused persons objected when they were cutting crop.She admitted that verbal altercation took place, thereafter marpeet was started between party of her father and accused persons.However, she denied that Narayan Singh and Subaju also received injuries.Hari Singh (PW5) says in para 7 that patta has been granted to his brother Pratap Singh.He denied that his brother Pratap Singh, Sardar Singh, Anita and Maya Bai were cutting crop in the field of Narayan Singh.In para 13, she denied that Narayan Singh asked them not to cut crop of his field on account of which, Pratap Singh started abusing and thereafter, gave farsa blow on Narayan Singh and Sardar Singh also gave farsa blow to Narayan Singh.When Subaju came to save, Pratap Singh and Sardar Singh also gave farsa blow.In para 21, Hari Singh further denied that Narayan Singh was also having injury.He further denied that he is not witness of the incident.In defence, Narayan Singh (DW1), Subaju (DW2), Udyajeet (DW3) and Hargovind (DW4) were examined.Narayan Singh (DW1) deposed that Pratap Singh, Sardar Singh, Hari Singh and Natthu Singh were cutting crop of his field.When he objected, then Pratap Singh gave farsa blow on his head and another blow on left leg.He further stated that Pratap Singh also gave farsa blow on the left shoulder of Subaju.Subaju (DW2) has also corroborated the statement of Narayan Singh.According to him he and Nararayan singh went to see their field Pratap Singh, Sardar Singh,Hari Singh,and nathu Singh were cutting their crop Narayan Singh asked them not to cut their crop Pratap Singh,Sardar Singh,Hari Singh,and nathu Singh started abusing.He further says that Pratap Singh gave farsa blow on head and leg of Narayan and also on his shoulder.Pratap Singh (P.W.3), Sardar Singh (P.W.4), Tilak Singh (P.W.8) and Maya Bai(P.W.6 ) in their cross examination have denied that Narayan Singh and Subaju sustained injuries.But Dr. R. K. Jain (P.W.2) in para7 of his cross examination has admitted that he took x ray of Narayan Singh and Subaju on 11/3/2000 and found fracture on parietal bone of Narayan singh and fracture on scapula of Subaju and gave report Ex.From medical report Ex.D8 it is evident that Narayan Singh sustained one L.W. on left ankle, one I.W. Bone deep over left parietal region and a contusion over left shoulder.As per Ex. D 9 it is evident that Subaju sustained one I.W. bone deep over mid part of shoulder.Thus the statements of Narayan Singh and Subaju are corroborated by statement of Dr. R.K.Jain and also by medical and x-ray reports and it is proved that appellants also sustained grievous injuries in the same incident.Since in the present case, Pratap Singh(P.W.3), Sardar Singh(P.W.4), Tilak Singh (P.W.8) and Maya Bai(P.W.6 ) are injured witnesses, therefore, their presence at the scene cannot be doubted.The learned counsel submitted that appellants were in possession of the land where incident took place and complainant party was aggressors hence they were having right of private defence.From the site map Ex.P1 it is evident that blood stained earth and simple earth has been collected from the land belonging to Government.Both parties are claiming their possession on the government land.Both parties have received injuries.Hence in such circumstances, it can not be said that complainant party was aggressors.The learned counsel submitted that both the parties have suffered injuries and there was free fight between the parties.State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 (SC) 414, may be referred to in which the Supreme Court has held that no right of private defence is available to either party and each individual is responsible for his own acts.As already stated above, when there is free fight, no one can be convicted under Section 148 IPC or with the aid of Section 149 IPC and since the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 148 IPC as well as with the aid of Section 149 IPC, these findings are erroneous one and palpably wrong and against the well settled principles of law, thus, liable to be set aside.Consequently, the appellants are entitled to acquittal for offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and no appellant would be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC.From the aforesaid discussion it is found that on account of possession on the government land free fight took place as a result of which, Pratap Singh, Sardar Singh and Tilak Singh of the complainant party and Narayan Singh, Subaju of the appellants side sustained grievous injuries.It is proved that appellant Ramraja caused fire arm injury to Tilak Singh.Appellant Subaju caused farsa injury to Pratap and Sardar resulting into fracture.Though, Pratap Singh (PW3), Sardar Singh (PW4), Tilak Singh (PW8) and Maya Bai (PW7) have stated that Narayan Singh fired at Pratap and Sardar but no fire arm injury has been found by the Doctor in the medical report of Pratap Singh and Sardar Singh.In the F.I.R. no allegation made that Narayan Singh fired at Pratap Singh.The injuries of Pratap Singh found to have been caused by hard and blunt object except the injury no.1 and 2 while injury no.1 of Sardar Singh has been caused by sharp object and injury no.2 was caused by hard object.Thus, it is doubtful that appellant Narayan Singh who was alleged to armed with gun, actively participated in the incident and caused any injury by means of gun to Pratap Singh and Sardar Singh.Hence, Narayan Singh is entitled for benefit of doubt.The next question remains to be examined is whether by causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses, the appellants Ramraja and Subaju had committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.In medical examination, injury on the person of Tilak Singh opined to be dangerous to life.It is caused by gunshot.Injury of Pratap Singh and Sardar found to have been caused by sharp as well as by blunt object.To constitute offence under section 307 of I.P.C, the intention has to be seen and it can be ascertained from the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, the weapon used, the part of the body which was targeted, the force used, the previous relation between the parities etc.In the present case the injuries to Tilak Singh have been caused by Ram Raja by fire arm suggest that the appellant had an intention or knowledge of inflicting injuries which would attract provisions of Section 307 of IPC.Appellant Subaju caused grievous injuries to Pratap Singh, and Sardar Singh by means of sharp object.The injuries of Pratap Singh and Sardar Singh have not been found on vital part and there is no medical opinion that injuries were dangerous to life.Hence, appellant Subaju is liable to be punished under Section 326 of IPC (on two counts).As regards sentence, considering the facts of the case and the fact that appellant Narayan Singh and Subaju have also sustained injuries in the same incident, there is no previous conviction, the incident was not preplanned and the fact that appellant Ram Raja remained under custody from 06.4.2000 to 13.11.2001 during trial and from 13.11.2003 to 30.1.2004, after trial, appellant Subaju remained under custody from 10.03.2000 to 08.6.2000 during trial and from 13.11.2003 to 17.02.2004, end of justice would met if the appellants Narayan Singh and Subaju are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and fine.Consequently, the Cr.A.No.24/2004 and Cr.The conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 148, 307 read with Section 149 and 326/149 of IPC is set aside.The appellant of Cr.A. no.690/2003 Ram Raja is convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him and fine of Rs. 5000/-.Appellant Subaju of Cr. A. no.24/2004 is convicted under Section 326 of IPC on two counts and sentenced to the period already undergone by him and pay fine of Rs.3000/- on each counts.Appeal of Appellant Narayan of Cr.A. No.24/2004 is allowed and he is acquitted of the charges.The amount of fine shall be deposited within two months from today.In default of payment of fine appellant Ram Raja shall undergo four months RI and appellant Subaju shall undergo three month's rigorous imprisonment.The amount of fine if already deposited by the appellants, same shall be adjusted.The amount of fine if already deposited by the appellant Narayan, same shall be refunded to him.The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

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

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

The deceased in this case was one Mr.Kothandaraman.In connection with the rights claimed by the villagers, in the celebration of the village festival also, there was enmity between A.1 and the deceased.In a meeting of the villagers held during the year 2011, to resolve the dispute in respect of the village festival, there arose a quarrel between A.1 and the deceased.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.3.On 29.01.2012, at about 6.00 pm, the deceased had gone to his farm where he had raised watermelon.He had to return by 8.00 pm.But till 9.00 pm, he did not return.P.W.1 who is the son of the deceased got perplexed.He went to P.W.2, a retired Village Administrative Officer who also belonged to the group of the deceased in V.Nayampadi village.As a matter of fact, P.W.2 was very close to the deceased.Then, P.Ws.1 & 2 went in search of the deceased.After 9.00 pm when they were proceeding to R.Nayambadi Village near Olaganda Amman temple, they found blood stains on the road.They walked along the blood stains which led them to a nearby bush.In the bush, they found the dead body of the deceased and the same was tied with a big stone.The body was rolled into a brown colour bed sheet.There were cut injuries on the neck.The white shirt and lungi on the body of the deceased and the inner garment of the deceased were stained with blood.4.Then, P.W.1 went to Sathyamangalam Police station and made a complaint on 29.01.2012 at 10.30 pm.P.W.12, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.13/2012 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. In the said complaint, P.W.1 had mentioned the names of A.1 & A.2 as the suspects.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.5.P.W.19, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch, in the presence of witnesses.He recovered the blood stained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence.P.24 is the post mortem certificate.He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained.He further opined that the death would have occurred within 18 to 22 hours prior to the post mortem.7.P.W.19 recovered the stone, clothes and other material objects from the dead body of the deceased.Accordingly, the sniffer dog has brought to the place of occurrence.But, it did not bring out any clue.On 31.01.2012 at 8.00 am, it is alleged that A.2 & A.3 surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.14).They confessed that they had killed the deceased.The same were recovered under a mahazar.Then A.2 produced a hero honda motorcycle (M.O.12) and a blood stained shirt and a lungi (M.Os.2 & 3).A.3 produced a lungi with blood stains and a shirt (M.Os.14 & 15).P.W.19 recovered the same under a mahazar.8.On returning to the Police Station, P.W.19 forwarded A.2 & A.3 to Court and also handed over the material objects to Court.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 30 documents were exhibited, besides 16 Material Objects.10.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 - the son of the deceased; P.W.2 - a friend of the deceased; P.W.3 - a Villager; P.W.4 - yet another Villager and P.W.5 another Villager, have stated about the motive between A.1 and the deceased.They have also stated about the quarrel that ensued in the Villagers meeting some time before the alleged occurrence.P.Ws.6 & 7 have stated that on 29.01.2012, around 6.45 pm, when they were proceeding in the motorcycle, in the flash of the head light of the motorcycle, they found A.2 & A.3 standing near the land of one Mr.Ramesh.Both of them were armed with one aruval each.There were blood stains on the same.On seeing them, P.W.6, stopped his motorcycle.A.1 shouted and asked A.2 & A.3 to attack them also.A.2 & A.3 rushed towards them.Out of fear, they abandoned the motorcycle and returned to their respective houses.After some time, according to them, again they went to the place of occurrence where this time, they did not see anybody.There were only blood stains found at the place.He has further stated that he examined the internal organs of the deceased and he has opined that there was no alcohol or poison.J) The appellants are A.2 & A.3 in S.C.No.43 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi.A.1 was one Mr.The trial Court had framed a lone charge against A.1 for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C and framed charges against A.2 & A.3 for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 506(ii) & 201 I.P.C. By judgment dated 23.07.2015, the trial Court acquitted A.1 from the charge under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., however, convicted A.2 & A.3 under all the three charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. The trial Court ordered the above sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A.2 & A.3 are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post mortem.6.P.W.18, Dr.Suresh, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 30.01.2012 at 2.50 pm and he found the following injuries:-Cut injury of size 10x4x4cm present in front of neck with exposing the cut muscles, blood vessels and trachea margin is regular.Chop wound of size 13x3x2cm present over the right side hand it extends from right side ear upto just above the right eye brow invoking the right ear.Margin regular.Chop wound of size 6x2x2cm present over the right cheek (just below and front of the right ear).Chop wound of size 9x3x3 cm upto scapula bone present over the back of the shoulder.Lacerated wound of size 18x3x2 cm in the centre of right side of chest abrasion of size 1x1cm present over right little toe (norcal aspect).Ex.He made an arrangement for a Police sniffer dog.The report revealed that there were blood stains on all the material objects including the Veecharuvals.On completing investigation, P.W.19 laid charge sheet against all the three accused.9.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment, against the accused.They took the motorcycle and returned home.But they did not disclose about the occurrence to anybody.They have further stated that on 31.01.2012, they disclosed the above facts to the Police during interrogation.P.W.9 has stated about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch from the place of occurrence and the recovery of material objects.P.W.10, a Forensic Expert, has submitted that he examined the material objects and found blood stains on all the material objects including the billhooks.P.W.13, the then Village Administrative Officer, has stated that two persons came to him on 31.01.2012 and wanted him to help them.Then he produced them before the Police however, he did not record any extra judicial confession from them.He was treated as hostile as he had not supported the case of the prosecution.12.P.W.14, the then Village Administrative Officer, has stated about the disclosure statement made to the Police and the arrest of A.2 & A.3 and the consequential recoveries made.P.W.15 is the Head of the Police Dog Squad.He has stated that he brought the Police Sniffer dog to the place of occurrence.A.3 was very much available in his house.The dog barked at him and immediately he was taken to the police station for interrogation.P.W.16, the Head Constable has stated that he handed over the dead body to the Doctor for post mortem.P.W.17 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence.P.W.18 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.19 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed in this case.P.W.20 is the Head Constable who has stated that he accompanied P.W.19 to the place of occurrence, at the time of investigation.13.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side, one Mr.Ravi, Mr.Pazhani & Mr.Arumugam were examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 respectively and four documents were marked as Exs.He has stated that A.1 was granted bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram in Crl.M.P.No.3293/2012 on 17.04.2012 in connection with Crime No.13/2012 on the file of the Sathyamangalam Police Station.The said order copy is marked as Ex.D.W.2 is the then Supervisor of a TASMAC shop at Gingee Taluk.He has stated that A.1 was working in the said shop.According to him, on 29.01.2012 A.1 was on duty between 4.00 pm to 10.00 pm.D.3 is the movement register.D.W.3 is the Salesman in the same shop and he has also stated so.Thus, from the evidences of the defence witnesses and the defence documents, A.1 had pleaded alibi.14.Having considered all the above, the trial Court acquitted A.1 from the charge under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., however, convicted A.2 & A.3 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused 2 & 3 are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.15.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A.2 & A.3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.16.As we have already narrated, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has ofcourse succeeded in proving the motive, inasmuch as out of the election dispute and out of the dispute regarding the village festival, there was enmity between A.1 and the deceased.A.2 & A.3 are the son and a close associate of A.1 respectively.Thus, we can hold that the prosecution has proved that there was enmity between A.1 and the deceased.When he along with P.W.2 went in search of him, around 9.00 pm, he found the dead body of the deceased in a near by bush.According to the Doctor who conducted autopsy, the death was due to homicidal violence.To this extent, the prosecution has succeeded.18.Now, the question is Who caused the death of the deceased ?. In order to prove the same, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidences of P.Ws.6 & 7 alone.P.Ws.6 & 7 have stated that on 29.01.2012 around 6.45 pm, when they were proceeding to V.Nayampadi village, at the place of occurrence, they found A.2 & A.3 standing and they were holding one Veecharuval each.The Veecharuvals were stained with blood.P.Ws.6 & 7 could see them in the flashing of the head light of the motorcycle.On seeing them, they shouted at them that they would do away with them also.Out of fear, they escaped from the place of occurrence abandoning the motorcycle in the said place itself.19.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws.6 & 7 cannot be believed because of their conduct.We find force in the said argument.Had it been true that they had seen the occurrence, certainly, on returning to the village, they would have raised hue and cry or atleast informed the family members of the deceased.It is not as though, P.Ws.6 & 7 are total strangers to the deceased.They are very close relatives of the deceased.The said fact has also been admitted by them.But, they did not either inform the family members of the deceased or anybodyelse.The only explanation offered by them is that, out of fear, they did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone.But, they have stated that after some time, they went again to the place of occurrence where they found blood stains.Earlier, when they had seen A.2 & A.3, they found a person lying covered with a cloth also.Even after that, they did not disclose about the same to anybody.They claim that they took the motorcycle back to their house.Even thereafter, they claim that they did not say anything to anybody.When the wife of P.W.6 enquired him, he did not disclose anything even to her also.On the next day, when the dead body of the deceased was kept at the house of the deceased for condolences, these two witnesses participated.They were present when the Police came to the village and interrogated.They participated in the funeral of the deceased also.After funeral was over, when they were returning, they claim that they informed P.W.2 about the occurrence.Even thereafter, P.W.2 did not inform the Police about the same.It was only on the next day, these two witnesses were interrogated by the Police.Going by the above unnatural conduct of these two witnesses, we find it difficult to attach any weightage to the evidences of these witnesses.But, P.W.15, the head of the Sniffer dog squad has stated that on 30.01.2012, at 7.00 am, he had brought the police sniffer dog to the place of occurrence.Thus, A.3 was very much present at his house, and then out of suspicion, he was taken by the Police into custody.The Court's of law, cannot convict an accused on mere surmises and conjectures.Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof.In this case, the prosecution has not even been able to succeed in creating a very strong suspicion against these accused.

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

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

Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.25/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 342, 363, 506, 34 and subsequently enhanced 366A of the IPC.Prosecution story, in short, is that on 17/01/2020 at about 10 AM, applicant along with co-accused Rahees Kewat, by enticing, took away the daughter of the complainant along with them without informing her family members.On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality and has been falsely implicated in the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 17592/2020 (Satish Kumar Vs.It is further submitted that according to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C, she has not levelled any allegation of offence under section 376 of IPC.The applicant shall install Aarogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;If the applicant commits any offence while on bail, this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the SHO of concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:"Police challaned all the above named 3 accused persons and sent them to the court to face trial for the offence u/s. 302 r/w 120-B and 34 IPC on the allegations that Smt. Murti (deceased) was living with her husband in house No. RZ-31 New Roshanpura Extn., Najafgarh, Delh and she obtained divorce from her previous husband and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from his and thereafter, she married for the second time with Raj Kumar, the son of above named accused Jage Ram and Vedo.It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased has paid the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to the above named accused Ram Singh, who is her maternal grandfather and he was not returning the said amount despite demands made by the deceased and on 1.7.97 at about 7 p.m. the above named accused Ram Singh along with his son and co-accused Dharambir (who is already P.O.) and the above named two other co-accused Jage Ram and Vedo went to the house of the deceased and at that time the husband of the deceased was not present in the house and the accused Ram Singh poured kerosene oil from a container on the deceased and set her ablaze and the deceased received burn injuries and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the PCR Van where she was medically treated and on receiving information of this incident, DD No. 27-A (Ex.PW21/A) was recorded and the copy thereof was handed over to SI Shailender Singh, who along with Const.Manoj went to the place of occurrence and came to know that the injured has already been taken to the hospital and thereafter SI Shailender Singh went to the hospital and he also informed the SDM about this incident as the deceased had received burn injuries within 7 years of her marriage and Si Shailender Singh reached in the hospital and Sh.Devender Singh, SDM, also reached in the hospital at about 11 p.m. and SI Shailender Singh moved application (Ex.PW21/B) before the doctor for recording the statement of the injured Murti and the doctor declared her to be fit for statement through his endorsement (Ex.PW20/B) and thereafter Sh.Deveder Crl.A. No. 525/1999 Page 2 of 13 Singh, SDM, recorded the statement (dying declaration Ex.PW8/A) of the deceased and in the said dying declaration the deceased told that she had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- to accused Ram Singh which he was not returning despite the demands made by her and on that day at about 7 p.m. the above named all the three accused persons alongwith their co-accused Dharambir came to her house and accused Ram Singh poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze and thereafter on the next day on the directions of the SDM, the case was got registered against the accused persons.It is the further case of the prosecution that on 2.7.1997, the IO went to the place of occurrence and got the same photographed and also got the same inspected from the crime team and he also seized from the spot oil container (Ex.P.1), burnt match stick (Ex.P.2), match box (Ex.P.3), 5 match stick (which were in the match box collectively) (Ex.P.4) and the broken pieces of bangles (Ex.PW2 Daya Prakash, the only independent witness deposed :"About 6-7 months back, Murthi had burnt at about 6:30/7:00 p.m.. I along with Madan Lal, Dilbagh and Rajender were sitting out the house of Rajender.PW20/A. PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai deposed:"On 01.07.1997, I was posted in Safdarjung Hospital and was working as Sr.On that day, I had medically examined Murti in the hospital at about 9:15 p.m. The patient has given the history of sustaining Crl.A. No. 525/1999 Page 9 of 13 burns while cooking food on kerosene stove.And suddenly, the stove burst and she sustained the burns.On examining Murti, I found that her condition was critical but she was conscious.Her pulse rate was 120 per minutes regular.Respiratory rate was 22 per minute.She was dehydrated.She was having 80% burns on her body.On 01.07.1997 at about 11:20 p.m., after examining Murti, I had also declared her fit for giving statement at 11:20 p.m., on the application moved by the IO, vide my endorsement Ex.PW20/B, which also bears my signatures at point A.On 01.07.1997 at about 7:00 p.m. my maternal grandfather S/o Netraram, my maternal uncle Dharambir S/o Ram Singh resident of Gurgaon, Jage Ram S/o Not known (Father-in-law) and my mother-in- law Vedo W/o Jage Ram came to my house, at that time I was sitting, my maternal grandfather took a container of 5 ltr.which was containing 2 ltrs.of kerosene oil and poured on me and set fire with match stick.At that time, I was wearing a terricot Salwar Kameez.I started burning and all four jumped the small height walls and ran away.At that time my husband Raj Kumar was not at home.I started running but fell down in between and thereafter found myself in the hospital.The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 10.9.99 and order on sentence dated 14.9.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.A. No. 525/1999 Page 1 of 13P.5) and he also prepared the site plan (Ex.PW21/C) of the place of occurrence and the IO also recorded the statements of the witnesses at the spot.It is the further case of the prosecution that Murti died in the hospital on 7.1.97 and thus inquest proceedings were completed and her dead body was sent for post-mortem.It is the further case of the prosecution that accused Jage Ram was arrested, on 3.7.97 and on 23.12.97 the above named accused Ram Singh was arrested and the above named accused Vedo was arrested on 31.8.98 and her supplementary challan was filed in the court and the IO also got prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence from the draftsman."A. No. 525/1999 Page 2 of 13To prove its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses in all.Thereafter, statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein oral and as well as documentary evidence were put to them in question form and they denied the allegations made against them and claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.A. No. 525/1999 Page 3 of 13After appreciating the entire material available on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 10.9.99 and order on sentence dated 14.9.99 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as stated above.Mr. M. L. Yadav, Advocate appearing for appellant/Vedo submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant/Vedo is contrary to law and the facts established on record.It is argued that in the instant case the deceased made one oral dying declaration and two written dying declarations and the so called dying declaration relied upon by the learned Trial Court is surrounded by suspicion there being every chance that the signatures purporting to be of Murti Devi were obtained on a blank paper as the prosecution failed to prove that she was in a fit state of mind to give a statement despite 80% deep burns.It is further argued that there are many inconsistencies in the dying declarations of the deceased.PW8/A is that she accompanied Ram Singh to the scene of occurrence.It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that appellant/Vedo was having any ill-will or was inimical towards the deceased.It is further contended that first written dying declaration of the deceased Crl.A. No. 525/1999 Page 4 of 13 incorporated in her MLC Ex.PW20/A proved by PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai shows that the deceased sustained burn injuries due to bursting of stove and the same has not been challenged by the prosecution.The burn injuries caused to the deceased from stove burst mentioned in Ex.PW20/A is corroborated with the oral dying declaration made by deceased to her parents PW6 Smt. Krishna and PW7 Jagdish and PW2 Daya Prakash, the only independent witness.A. No. 525/1999 Page 4 of 13On the other hand, Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, Learned counsel for the State argued that the dying declaration Ex.PW-8/A was recorded by PW8 Devender Singh, SDM after the doctor had declared the deceased to be fit for statement; that in the dying declaration, the name of the appellant/Vedo has been mentioned and the deceased narrated the events which took place on the day of the incident; that the motive of the appellants in committing the murder also stands proved as they wanted to usurp Rs. 50,000/- of the deceased and entered into criminal conspiracy to murder her; that recovery of articles seized from the spot have been duly proved by the prosecution.We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties.The dying declaration if found reliable can form the base of conviction.A. No. 525/1999 Page 6 of 13Murthi came out in the gali while in flames by saying "Bachao Bhachao".We extinguished the fire.On enquires, she told that she had received burn injuries on stove."PW6 Krishna, mother of the deceased deposed :"I made inquiries from my daughter as to how she has received burn injuries.She told me that she had received burn injuries from burning stove."PW7 Jagdish, father of deceased also appeared in the witness box and deposed on the same lines as of PW6 Krishna Devi.The first dying declaration was given by deceased to PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai, who reproduced the same in writing and proved the same as Ex.A. No. 525/1999 Page 9 of 13Deceased gave her second written dying declaration before PW8 Devender Singh, which is reproduced as under:"Statement of Murti W/o Raj Kumar R/o 2 Block, New Roshan Pura, aged about 21 years.I along with my husband live at aforesaid address.First marriage was solemnized about 3 years back with Ram Kumar resident of Naya Baans, Delhi.I got legal divorce after three years litigation and I received Rs.50,000/- This amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken by my maternal grandfather Ram Singh S/o Netraram resident of Bapdoda, Haryana.I was demanding the said amount after my second marriage, which he refused to return and threatened me to kill.All above four persons did the Crl.A. No. 525/1999 Page 10 of 13 said act for not returning the amount of Rs.50,000/-.Legal action be taken against them.A. No. 525/1999 Page 10 of 13Statement heard and found it correct."The first oral statement was given by deceased to PW2 Daya Prakash that she got burnt injuries due to burst of stove.The similar oral statement was given by deceased to her parents PW6 Smt. Krishna and PW7 Jagdish.The statement Ex.20/A given by deceased before PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai was reproduced into writing which is unchallenged by the prosecution.Apart from this, the deceased made one more statement Ex.PW8/A before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.The Trial Court has relied on the dying declaration Ex.8/A ignoring the inconsistencies when compared to the other dying declarations.If we examine all these dying declarations one by one, we notice glaring inconsistencies.In oral dying declarations and the earliest dying declaration Ex.PW20/A reproduced by PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai in writing, the deceased stated that she caught on fire while preparing food.When she gave her statement Ex.8/A narrated a totally different and inconsistent version.She stated that I was sitting, my maternal grandfather took a container of 5 ltr.which was containing 2 ltrs.of kerosene oil and poured on me and set fire with match stick.Postmortem report Ex.PW20/A shows the injuries as "Burn throughout body except face, both legs, gluteal region, 80% deep burn." In case, kerosene is poured from the top, the hair, head scalp and face of the deceased would have been burnt but the post-mortem report Ex.PW20/A does not suggest anything about the burn injuries on these areas.Under these circumstances, the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out.A. No. 525/1999 Page 11 of 13She has stated that the container was containing approximately 2 litres of kerosene oil but when the police went to the place of occurrence and seized the said container, it was containing approximately the same quantity.Thus it can be seen that there are glaring inconsistencies in these dying declarations.A dying declaration should satisfy all the necessary tests and one such important test is that if there is more than one dying declaration, they should be consistent particularly in material particulars.Under these circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that the dying declarations are inconsistent and in such a situation one cannot pick a statement, Ex.8/A and base the conviction of the appellant on the sole basis of such dying declaration.The Courts have cautioned that in view of the fact that the maker of the statement cannot be cross-examined, the dying declaration should be carefully scrutinised.In the instant case the deceased was wavering for the reasons best known to her.The inconsistencies among the oral as well as written dying declarations Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW8/A, are enough to manifest the same.Having given our earnest consideration, we feel that under these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to convict the appellant/Vedo on the sole basis of the dying declaration Ex.8/A recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.Moreso, the prosecution has failed to assign any role to the appellant/Vedo except her presence.A. No. 525/1999 Page 12 of 13In the result, the appeal succeeds.

['Section 406 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.

The applicant has been arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with Crime No. 63/2014 registered at Police Station Fatehgarh district Guna for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/34, 201, 120- B and 498-A of IPC.It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased was solemnised with the applicant four years back but due to demand of dowry and harassment, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself.Heard on I.A. No. 8473/2014, for assisting the prosecution under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicant has no objection.Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwaha, Advocate for the complainant Dhyanilal Kirar is permitted to assist the prosecution.Heard on bail application.This is the second application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.Complainant Ram Singh received a phone call from brother -in- law (Jeth) of the deceased saying that her niece Lalita is dead due to vomiting and dysentery.When he reached to her in-laws, he found that the death was caused due to hanging.On his report Merg was 2 M.Cr.C. No. 9964/2014 registered.After investigation, offence under Section 304(B)/34 of IPC was registered but later Sections 201, 320(B) and 498(A) of IPC have been enhanced.2 M.Cr.C. No. 9964/2014On behalf of the applicant, it is requested that the marriage was solemnised four years back.There is no report of any demand of dowry or harassment earlier.It is also submitted that Kamla Bai and Ramshree Bai were earlier granted bail.There is no omnibus allegation of demand of dowry subsequent to the death of Lalita Bai.Therefore, the applicant be granted regular bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed on the ground that suicide was committed at the house of the applicant.The applicant has the burden to prove that there was no harassment.Earlier uncle of the deceased was informed that deceased was suffering from vomiting and dysentery, whereas she died due to hanging.The postmortem report reveals that the deceased died due to hanging.The subsequent police statement also reveals demand of dowry.Accordingly, this second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, is dismissed.(S.K. Palo) Judge Abhi

['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary is not available.This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.216/2017 registered by Police Station Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 452, 324, 294 and 506/34 of IPC and Section 25-B or Arms Act.Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge bj/-

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The factual matrix from which these appeals germinate is as under :The informant-victim Hemant Ramchandra Holkar (P.W. 1) is a resident of Thane District.At about 9 p.m. on 26th January, 1981, he and his friend Anant Iyer (P.W. 2) had gone for walking.At about midnight they reached the Thane Railway Station where from a handcart, outside the station, they ate bread and Batata-Vada.Thereafter they went to the tea stall situated on platform No. 1 of Thane Railway Station and took tea.At that time three persons came.One of them namely respondent Vinayak caught hold of his shirt and snatched three gold buttons therefrom.The informant caught the hand of the respondent Vinayak.He tried to run away.However, the informant succeeded in apprehending him.Respondent Vinayak took out a knife from the back pocket of his trouses and with it inflicted a blow on the shoulder of the informant.A grappling between him and the informant took place.Ultimately both fell down on the ground.In the meantime Anant Iyer snatched the knife from the person of Vinayak.In the trial Court he identified the said knife (Article 2).He also picked up the gold buttons from the ground.Thereafter both the informant and Vinayak started shouting "Police - Police".With knife and buttons Anant Iyer rushed to the outpost of the R.P.F. situated at the station.He contacted Senior Rakshak Awad Bihari Singh (P.W. 3).Along with Anant Iyer, Awad Bihari Singh, came on the place of the incident.He found two persons lying on the ground.Respondent Vinayak was trying to extricate himself from the clutches of the informant-victim.The respondent tried to run away.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned judgment we propose disposing them of together.By the said judgment the Additional Sessions Judge convicted Vinayak Tukaram Utekar for the offences under Sections 379 and 324, I.P.C., instead of S. 397, I.P.C. and gave him the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 1984 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the order releasing respondent Vinayak Tukaram Utekar u/S. 360, Cr.P.C.We begin this appeal with a note of anguish.In spite of the fact that the matter has been on the Board for a sufficiently long time Mr. Y. J. Master, learned Counsel for the respondent, in both the appeals, is not available.Since these appeals pertain to the year 1984 and 13 years have elapsed we yesterday appointed Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere as counsel for the respondent.We are grateful to her for having accepted this duty.Awad Bihari Singh apprehended the respondent Vinayak.The other two associat of Vinayak ran away.Meanwhile the informant Hemant Ramchandra Holkar was sent to Civil Hospital, Thane.At about 12.45 p.m. he was examined by Dr. Govind Mahadeo Kolge (P.W. 4), who found that he had sustained an injury of the dimensions of 3" x 2" x 3", which was attributable to a sharp cutting object.The said injury was possible by the knife shown to him.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Hemant Ramchandra Holkar (P.W. 1) and on its basis P.S.I. Sidheshwar Ramchandra Digole (P.W. 6) registered an offence at about 3 a.m.The investigation was conducted by P.W. 7 Police Jamadar Pramod Tatyaba Amolik and P.W. 5 P.S.I. Vasant Bhagwanrao Sathe.The evidence of Pramod Amolik is that at about 12.30 a.m. on 27-1-1981 he was at the outpost of the R.P.F. at Thane Police Station.At that time the informant-victim, Anant Iyer (P.W. 2) and two to three constables came with the respondent Vinayak.Anant Iyer told them that the respondent Vinayak had given a knife blow on the shoulder of the informant-victim and had thrown three gold buttons on the ground.He stated that he had snatched the knife from the hands of respondent Vinayak and had picked up the gold buttons.Consequently in the presence of panchas, under a Panchnama the gold buttons and knife were recovered by Police Jamadar Pramod Amolik.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner.In the trial Court the respondent Vinayak was charged under Section 397, I.P.C. To the said charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During trial in all the prosecution examined seven witnesses.Two of them, Hemant Holkar and Anant Iyer P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses.In defence no witness was examined.The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the statement of respondents under S. 313, Cr.P.C. hearing the learned Counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment.As mentioned earlier the appeal against respondent No. 2 Kashinath Shankar More has been dismissed by this Court at the admission stage.We have heard Mr. S. R. Borulkar, for the appellant and Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere for the respondent Vinayak, in both the appeals.We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; and the impugned judgment.After reflecting over the matter we are implicitly satisfied that both these appeals deserve to be allowed.Mr. S. R. Borulkar, vehemently urged that the learned trial Judge erred in acquitting respondent Vinayak for the offence punishable u/S. 397, I.P.C. and in only convicting him for the offences punishable u/S. 379 and 324, I.P.C. On the other hand Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere equally effectively urged, with her suave advocacy, that no offence under Section 397, I.P.C. was made out against respondent Vinayak and if at all, he could have only been convicted, as he has been, for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 324, I.P.C. She urged that both these appeals deserve to be dismissed.In para 5 we have detailed the prosecution story exhaustively.In short it is that on 26th January, 1981, at about 9 p.m. the informant along with his friend Anant Iyer (P.W. 2) had gone to take a stroll.At about midnight the two of them reached Thane Railway Station.They decided to have tea at Platform No. 1 of the said Station.After taking the same while they were returning, three persons came.One of them namely respondent Vinayak put his hand in the shirt of the informant and snatched three gold buttons.The informant caught the hand of respondent Vinayak.He tried to run away.Thereupon respondent Vinayak took out a knife from the back pocket of his trousers and inflicted a blow on the shoulder of the informant.The informant overpowered him.A grappling between them took place.Both fell on the ground.In the meantime Anant Iyer snatched knife from respondent Vinayak and picked up the three gold buttons which had fallen on the ground.He then informed the RPF on Platform No. 2 of Thane Railway Station.Thereafter Senior Rakshak Awad Behari Singh P.W. 3 came.The recovery panchnama of the three gold buttons and the knife which was promptly prepared also corroborates the prosecution case.The biggest guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution case is that respondent Vinayak was apprehended, on the spot and during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses his spot arrest could not be assailed.Further he has not been able to spell out any plausible reason for his false implication.

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution's case in short is that on 9.6.2002 the victim Mihilal (PW4) and Ramcharan (PW5) were coming back from the marriage ceremony arranged at the house of Patwari Harchatlal Choudhary (PW2) at Village Itaura (Police Station Barhi, District Katni) and at about 4.30 p.m they stopped in front of Pan Shop of Chandrabhan Tiwari, then the appellants and 15-20 other persons started quarreling with them on the basis of their caste and also assaulted them.Thereafter, the appellants and such persons went to the house of Harchatlal and destroyed so many things in his house.A bullock cart and one motor cycle was also damaged.A written report was submitted by the complainants which was registered by the Police at Police Station, Barhi.The injured persons were sent for their medico legal examination.Dr. Jasuja (PW10) examined the victim Mithilal at Government Hospital, Katni and gave his report Ex.He found a lacerated wound on his left forehead whereas no visible injury was found to the victim Ramcharan.(Delivered on the 21st day of December, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15.10.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Katni in Special Case No.10 of 2003 whereby the appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be mentioned as the "Special Act) and section 323 of I.P.C and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and fine of Rs.300/- respectively.In default of payment of fine, one months and 20 days rigorous imprisonment was directed respectively.Criminal Appeal No.2185/2005After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Katni who, committed the case to the Special Court, Katni.The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea but, they have stated that they were innocent.Rajkumar Tiwari (DW1) was examined as a defence witness.The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 506-B of the I.P.C but convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 323 of I.P.C and 3(1) 3 Criminal Appeal No.2185/2005(x) of the Special Act.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellants no.1 and 2 submits that both the victims did not tell about the fact that the incident took place on the basis of the caste or the appellants abused them on the basis of caste and therefore, no offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special act is made out.The FIR was lodged in a routine form typed by some law knowing person.Soon after the incident the FIR was not prepared but when some destruction was caused in the house of Harchat, then Harchat who was the Patwari got the FIR Ex.P/2 prepared and the genesis of the crime as mentioned in favour of the victim.There is a lot of contradiction between the version of the FIR and the statements given by the witnesses.The appellants are convicted without any basis and therefore, it is prayed that the appellants may be acquitted.The appellant no.3 was not appearing in the Court from so many days.He could not be traced even with the help of the surety and therefore, Ku.Manisha Shrivastava, Advocate was appointed from the panel of Legal Services Authority to defend the case of the appellant no.3 and to act as amicus curie.The learned counsel for the appellant no.3 has also submitted that there was no role of the appellant no.3 in the crime.On the other hand the learned Panel lawyer has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court and it is prayed 4 Criminal Appeal No.2185/2005 that the appeal may be dismissed.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted ? And whether sentence directed against the appellants can be reduced ?The incident took place in two parts.Firstly a quarrel took place in front of a Pan Shop and after some time the appellants went to the house of the complainant Harchatlal (PW2) and damaged his property including a motor cycle.There is no allegation against the appellants that the second incident was done on the basis of the caste or any abuses uttered by the appellants on the basis of the caste at that time.It is apparent that the second incident was a reaction relating to the first incident and therefore, for consideration of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) if the Special Act only first part of incident is relevant.In that part Mihilal (PW4), Ramcharan (PW5) were the victims and eye witnesses.Santosh Kumar (PW7) examined as an eye witness for the first incident whereas, Harchatlal (PW2), Ram Milan (PW3) and Sokhilal Choudhary (PW6) were examined as eye witnesses of the second incident.In the cross examination, witness Santosh Kumar (PW7) has accepted that when the incident took place in front of the Pan Shop he was not present and the incident which took place in the house of Harchatlal, he saw the incident.Under such circumstances, it is apparent that Santosh Kumar is an eye witness of the second incident though he 5 Criminal Appeal No.2185/2005 claimed to be an eye witness of the first incident in the beginning.Hence except for the witnesses Mihilal (PW4) and Ramcharan (PW5) no witness is examined for the first incident.The witnesses telling about the first incident are hearsay witnesses and therefore, their testimony has no value.Mihilal (PW4) has mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/2 that the appellants asked about his caste and thereafter, he was assaulted but in his evidence before the trial Court he did not say anything about the quarrel which took place on the basis of the caste.He also refused that he gave any typed report to the Police.Similarly Ramcharan (PW5) could not say about the genesis of the crime as to how the quarrel started.He was declared hostile by the prosecution and he accepted that in the case diary statement he told the Police that he was assaulted on the basis of the caste.The witness Ramcharan did not accept that such incident took place which was mentioned in his case diary statement whereas the case diary statement given by this witness cannot be taken as a substantial piece of evidence.Case diary statement of a witness can be used only for contradiction and omission.If a witness tells a different story in the case diary statement but does not tell such a story before the Court then due to his admission that he gave such a statement to the Police, it cannot be said that he told the same story before the Court unless he repeats the story in the Court.In para 15 of the cross examination the witness Ramcharan has accepted that the appellants did not abuse by any other words except with some filthy abuse.He accepted that initially they 6 Criminal Appeal No.2185/2005 tried to lodge a FIR at Police Station Gadh and thereafter, a written report was given to the Police Station AJK, Katni.The FIR Ex.P/20 lodged by five complainants including Harchatlal Patwari.The application was addressed to the S.P. Katni.It appears that FIR was lodged with delay and it was prepared by some law knowing person and therefore, FIR loses its value.If the entire statements of Mihilal and Ramcharan are considered then it would be clear that none of the appellants abused them on the basis of the caste.Similarly a quarrel did not take place on the basis of the caste.No body asked them about their caste.These witnesses were suggested that, they spit pan on the leg of one accused and therefore, quarrel started.In this connection Shri Raj Kumar (DW1) was examined who has clearly stated that the spit of Pan was dropped on the leg of Sanjay Tiwari and thereafter, a quarrel took place.Though such suggestion was not accepted by Mihilal and Ramcharan but it is very much clear that neither the quarrel started on the basis of the caste nor the appellants abused the victims Mihilal and Ramcharan on the basis of the caste and therefore, no insult of these two persons was caused on the basis of the caste.No offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is made out against the appellants.Learned Special Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellants for that offence.Looking to the statements given by Mihilal and 7 Criminal Appeal No.2185/2005 Ramcharan it appears that the appellants assaulted these two persons.Dr. Jasuja (PW10) found a lacerated wound to the victim Mihilal whereas the victim Ramcharan was complaining about the pain but no visible injury was found.According to the defence witnesses a quarrel took place between the parties.If Mihilal spitted pan on the leg of the complainant Sanjay Tiwari it was not a case of sudden or grave provocation or any right of private defence so that the appellants could assault the victims.It is also apparent that in reaction the appellants and other 25 persons went to the house of Harchatlal Patwari and destroyed his valuables and damaged the property.Under such circumstances, the evidence of Mihilal and Ramcharan is acceptable that the appellants assaulted them without any cognate reason.As it is considered that no right of private defence accrued to the appellants, no sudden or grave provocation was given by any of the victims then it is apparent that the appellants assaulted the victims Mihilal and Ramcharan voluntarily causing them hurt.Hence the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants for offence punishable under section 323 of I.P.C.So far as the sentence is concerned each accused person remained in the custody for more than seven days.Only fine is imposed by the trial Court for offence punishable under section 323 of I.P.C. There is no ground so that advantage of probation may be given to any of the appellants.No counter appeal is filed by the prosecution for enhancement of the sentence whereas the trial Court has imposed some fine for that offence 8 Criminal Appeal No.2185/2005 upon the appellants.Under such circumstances, the sentence directed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C appears to be appropriate and no change is required in the sentence.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed.The conviction as well as the sentence directed for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby set aside.The appellants have already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court.It is my duty to extend special thanks to Ku.Manisha Shrivastava, Advocate who assisted the Court for appellant no.3 as amicus curie from High Court Legal Services Authority.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 21.12.2012 bina 9 Criminal Appeal No.2185/2005

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 2 of 30So far as the first bail application no. 1511/2011 is concerned, the allegations in the FIR, in brief are that M/s Zenith Mining Pvt. Ltd. through its CMD Shri Syed Najam Ahmed and others, during the year 2004-2005, in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy and on the basis of false claims about their business, obtained loan/advance of `90.22 crores from NAFED for carrying out business of procurement and export of iron ore fines.It was alleged that M/s Zenith Mining Pvt. Ltd. had repaid only `30.47 crores upto 22.03.2005, and thereafter, they stopped payment to NAFED, and accordingly, an amount of `67.11 crores including the interest and service charges was outstanding against them.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 3 of 30During the investigation by the CBI, the regular bail application of the co-accused Syed Najam Ahmed and Vinod Gupta was dismissed on 18.10.2011 and 21.10.2011 respectively.Both the co-accused persons are presently stated to be in judicial custody.In the investigation, it was revealed that during the relevant period of time, the petitioner, though not named in the FIR,was posted as Additional Managing Director of NAFED and he was a part of the conspiracy with the co-accused Syed Najam Ahmed and Vinod Gupta, office bearers of M/s Zenith Mining Pvt.Ltd.and he had fraudulently and unauthorizedly executed an agreement dated 12.02.2004 with NAFED for supplying 60,000 MTs of iron ore fines on tie up basis after fraudulently obtaining conditional approval of the then Managing Director, NAFED.NAFED was to export the iron ore fines which was to be supplied by the M/s Zenith Mining Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged against the petitioner that he had signed the agreement for and on behalf of the NAFED and falsely represented that Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 4 of 30 NAFED has obtained a contract the foreign buyers for export of the iron ore fines, while as there was none.The petitioner is purported to have released a sum of `9 crores to M/s Zenith Mining Pvt. Ltd. without obtaining the mandatory approval of the competent authority i.e. Managing Director of the NAFED and no requisite documents were purported to have been executed as mandated in the agreement.It is alleged by the CBI that the proposal for the release of `9 crores was objected by the subordinate officials of the petitioner to which no heed was paid and bogus certificates were submitted by the co-accused persons.It is alleged that no material was ever supplied against this advance of `9 crores given in pursuance to the agreement dated 12.02.2004 and no export was made.It is further alleged that despite no material having been supplied by the accused company i.e. M/s Zenith Mining Pvt. Ltd. against the first agreement, the petitioner without even obtaining the approval of the competent authority, again entered into Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 5 of 30 another agreement dated 16.03.2004 with the same company for export of 90,000 MTs of iron ore fines.Against this agreement also, the accused/petitioner further released advance to the tune of `81.22 crores without obtaining the approval of the competent authority.It is alleged that fake certificates of quality/quantity were submitted by the co-accused to facilitate the release of the amount.It is alleged that the petitioner released the advances willfully ignoring the follow-up of the advances to ensure their utilization for the intended purpose.It is alleged by the CBI that out of the advance, an amount of `6.5 crores was shared among the petitioner, co-accused Vinod Gupta and one Himanshu Tayal, who is yet to be located and examined.The petitioner is alleged to have received an amount of `4 to `4.5 crores.Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 6 of 30 The wife of the petitioner and the servants available at the residence of the petitioner are not furnishing the details of his whereabouts, and therefore, the custodial interrogation is required.Bail Appl.Presently, he is posted as Commissioner of Income Tax at Agra and despite this, his residence in Delhi has been raided on two occasions and the arrest of the petitioner is being sought with a view to humiliate and embarrass him.While in OMP No. 589/2007 petitioner- NAFED advanced a sum of Rs.223.93 Crores as a means of finance for the purpose of procurement of iron ore, in OMP No. 449/2007 petitioner-NAFED advanced an Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 18 of 30 amount of Rs.90.7 Crores for export of iron ore.Similarly, in A.A. No. 73/2010 petitioner- NAFED advanced a sum of Rs.2.3 Crores towards financial assistance for export of fuel oil, sugar and other products.Both these bail applications were filed with the supporting affidavit of Alka Rajvansh, wife of the petitioner.However, a question of maintainability of the petitions was raised by the learned counsel for the CBI during the course of issuance of notice.Subsequently, the petitioner has filed his own affidavit in support of both the petitions.In both these petitions, the CBI/respondent is investigating the matter.The bail application bearing no. 1511/2011 pertains to CBI case bearing RC No. 6(E)/2010-EOU-VII under Section 120 B read with section 406/409/420 IPC and Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 2 of 30 the second bail application bearing no. 1512/2011 pertains to CBI case bearing RC No.7(E)/2010-EOU-VII under Section 120 B read with section 406/420/467/468/471 IPC which were registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police, Delhi.Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 3 of 30Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 4 of 30Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 5 of 30Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 6 of 30So far as the second bail application bearing no.1512/2011 is concerned, the said case was also registered vide FIR No. 166/2007 dated 20.04.2007, under Section 120B read with section 406/420/467/468/471 IPC by P.S. Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi on the complaint of Sh.However, in pursuance to the orders of Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi, the investigation of this case was also transferred to CBI.During investigation, it was revealed that proposal was submitted by M/s Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan to the present petitioner for tie up business for procurement of dry fruits and kirana items.For this purpose, a memorandum of understanding dated 05.07.2004 was signed between the Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 7 of 30 present petitioner, for and on behalf of NAFED and the proprietor Mr. Lalit Mohan of the aforesaid concern.It is alleged that these changes were made to benefit the said private party with a dishonest intention.While as at the Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 8 of 30 time of release of payment of `21 crores no stocks were deposited by M/s Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan in the cold storages in the name of NAFED.Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 7 of 30Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 9 of 30Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 9 of 30Although, both the petitions were filed by the same counsel, but it seems that from strategic point of view two senior counsel Mr.Dinesh Mathur and Mr. Arun Bhardwaj appeared and made extensive submissions for grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.The submissions which were made by the learned senior counsel in two separate matters are somewhat common and therefore, I feel it will be convenient to sum up the submissions made by the learned senior counsel on the basis of which the anticipatory bail was sought.Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 10 of 30(ii) That admittedly the petitioner has joined the investigation right from 2004 onwards when the FIRs were registered by Delhi Police on number of occasions.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 13 of 30State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) SCC 514 in order to canvass the question of grant of anticipatory bail.The learned counsel for CBI has vehementally opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.The next question which arises is as to whether the allegations against the petitioner are serious or not, and if, serious as to whether it warrants his interrogation by insulating his liberty by granting him anticipatory bail or whether the investigating agency be given free hand to interrogate the petitioner in custody.In this regard, the conduct of the petitioner in so called joining the investigation will have to be seen, with regard to the enormity of charges and the seriousness of the Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 17 of 30 allegations.There is no dispute about the fact that the enormity of the charges or the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature.It may be pertinent here to refer to the observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh while entertaining three petitions for arbitration, the learned Judge had observed as under:Bail Appl.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 17 of 30In a short span of about five months, I have come across three cases wherein petitioner-NAFED, a national level cooperative society set up under the Multi- State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, has filed proceedings to secure its interest in financial transactions.Accordingly, both the applications are rejected.Nos. 1511/2011 & 1512/2011 Page 30 of 30

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

By order dated 04.04.2016, IA No.2767/2016, an application for condonation of 18 days delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal, has been allowed.Heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal.applicant No.3 Talsim s/o Mangu Shah; non-applicant No.5 Roostam Ali s/o Sharif Shah; and non-applicant No.4 Guddi @ Kulsumbi w/o Mangu Shah can be granted, accordingly, application filed by the applicant under Section 378 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted.Appeal filed, as a consequence of this order, be registered and proceeded as per rules, as admitted.On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to issue bailable warrant in the sum Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) against non-applicant No.2 Pramukh Purohit s/o Satish Purohit; non-applicant No.3 Talsim s/o Mangu Shah; non-applicant No.5 Roostam Ali s/o Sharif Shah; and non- applicant No.4 Guddi @ Kulsumbi w/o Mangu Shah.They are also directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM / Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry / Office of this Court on 29.08.2016 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.Record of the Trial Court be called for.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2642/2016 is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the First Information Report it was alleged that victim Debal and his friend, Sasadhar Mondal (P.W. 4) were returning home by their respective bicycles at about 7 P.M. on 20.11.1992, when they were detained by six accused persons near a culvert.The accused persons dragged the victim Debal to a nearby paddy field and assaulted him with fists and blows.P.W. 4 immediately rushed to the house of P.W. 1 by his cycle and reported the incident.P.W. 1 thereafter along with Nemai Naskar (P.W.5), Sarat Chandra Mondal (P.W.7), Provash Naskar (P.W.8) and many others rushed to the paddy field.With the help of torch light of Nemai Naskar, the informant saw that accused Gunadhar and Madhab were pulling a rope in the opposite directions around the neck of Debal.Accused Rohit and Sankar assaulted the victim by iron rod and lathi while Suresh and Sunder caught hold of legs of the victim.When the people raised hue and cry, the accused persons fled away from 3 the spot.P.W. 1, Dhirendra Nath Mondal stated in his evidence that at about 7 or 7.30 P.M. on 20.11.1992, when he was at home, he heard a hue and cry of Sasadhar and he along with other persons went to the paddy field of one Dhruba Bar and saw that the accused Madhab and Gunadhar were pulling a rope around the neck of his son while Sankar was assaulting by an iron rod and Rohit Hazra was assaulting with brick.He raised shout when other people came and then the accused persons fled away.P.W. 2, Sudarsan Naskar stated in his evidence that at the time of incident he was at home and on hearing a hue and cry coming out from the side of a culvert he rushed towards the culvert.Victim's father and one Sarat also went there and he found that Debal was being dragged in the paddy field by tying a rope around his neck by Gunadhar and Madhab.Accused Sankar and Rohit were assaulting him with iron rod and brick.P.W. 3, Rati Kanta Naskar is not an eyewitness and he stated in his evidence that at 10 P.M. on 20.11.1992 he returned home and came to know about the murder of Debal by some persons by the side of a culvert near his house.He had been to the police station and scribed the complaint according to the instructions of the informant.She was not an eyewitness to the incident and she stated in her evidence that she found that her husband and Sasadhar were 4 untying rope from the neck of Debal.Debal was lying in the paddy field and he was taken to the hospital.She stated that her husband, Sasadhar and Provash told her that the accused persons had assaulted Debal.P.W. 7, Sarat Chandra Mondal stated in his evidence that in the evening at 7.30 P.M. on 20.11.1992 he was in the house of P.W. 1 and after hearing the hue and cry of P.W. 4, Sasadhar he came out and rushed to the culvert wherefrom the sound was coming.He found that the accused persons were assaulting Debal in the paddy field near the road.He could not exactly remember which of the accused persons was assaulting in which way.P.W. 8, Provash Naskar stated in his evidence that he was in the house of P.W. 1 and was playing cards.Hearing the shout of Sasadhar he came out of the house and rushed to the culvert and he saw that the accused persons were assaulting Debal on the paddy field by the side of the road.was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by P.W. 1, Dhirendra Nath Mondal, the father of the deceased.P.W. 1 with the help of P.W. 4 untied the nylon rope from the neck of the deceased.He was taken to the hospital by an auto rickshaw where he died after sometime.To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and none was examined on behalf of the defence.The defence was a plea of innocence and of false implication.He stated that by the torchlight of Nemai he saw the assault on Debal.When the other people came at the place, the accused persons fled away.P.W. 9, Khagen Gayen could not say anything about the incident.P.W. 11, Subal Naskar heard about the incident on the next day.P.W. 12 was the A.S.I. of Police, who recorded the formal FIR.P.W. 13 was the Autopsy Surgeon, who held post mortem over the deadbody of the victim and on examination he found the following injuries :-"1. Abrasion over left chest wall anteriorly middle portion measuring 1" x " .2. Abrasion over left elbow 1 " x 1".3. 10 (ten) small abrasions over front and lateral part of left leg upper portion of varying sizes an area of 6" x 4".4. 5 small abrasions over left elbow and forearm of varying sizes from 1" x 1" to " x " covering an area of 5" x 3".Obliquely placed small abrasions eight in number over the left side back middle portion of varying sizes from 1" x " x " x " covering an area of 8" x 4".Multiple small abrasions six in number obliquely placed over the right scapular region of varying sizes from 3" x " to 1 " x 1 " covering an area of 10" x 6".Abrasion over upper lip measuring 1" x ".Bruises over middle size of right elbow measuring 2" x 2".9. Bruises over whole of the back.Bruises over left elbow measuring 4" x 4".Bruises over right parietal region measuring 2 " x 1 ".Bruises over left temporal region measuring 1 " x 1 ".Bruises over whole of the neck anteriorly placed side by side measuring 6" x 3".One continuous ligature mark around the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage having measurement of 14" x 1 " with no gap."P.W. 14 was the Police Officer, who held inquest over the deadbody.P.W. 15 was the Investigating Officer of the case.He visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses, seized articles and ultimately on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet.From the evidence of this witness it appears that neither the articles seized by him were sent to FSL for examination nor those articles were produced in court.P.W. 16 was Dr. Biswadip Ghosh.He attended the victim Debal Mondal immediately after the incident when he was taken to the hospital.This witness stated that the patient was unconscious at that time and he got smell of alcohol from the breath of the victim.As stated by P.W. 1, this witness recorded that the victim was assaulted by Gunadhar, Madhab and Rohit.Mr. Bose, learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that in the present case FIR was allegedly registered at 23.55 hours on 20.11.1992 on the basis of a complaint lodged by P.W. 1, Dhirendra Nath Mondal.It was the further contention of Mr. Bose that 6 although the case was registered on 20.11.1992, the same was received by the learned Magistrate on 27.11.1992, i.e. 7 days after registration of such FIR.Two other witnesses to the inquest, namely, Panchu Sardar and Shyamal Sardar, were not examined.According to Mr. Bose, this casts a serious doubt about the presence of the eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence.The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for certain internal and external checks, one of them being the receipt of a copy of the first information report by the Magistrate concerned.It is not in dispute that in a grave case of this nature, the copy of the first information report was received by the magistrate four days later.No explanation has been offered therefor.The prosecution party was also inimical to the accused.The first and foremost reasons given by the High Court was that although the inquest report was prepared by the A.S.I. at about 2-30 A.M. in the morning yet the names of the four accused did not find place in the body of the inquest report which was made on the basis of report made to the police by the informant Banta Singh.It is true that the names of all the nine accused were mentioned at the top of the inquest report but the High Court found that this appears to have been an addition made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector to help the prosecution and to bring the inquest report in conformity with the F.I.R."The learned Advocate of the appellants next argued that the alleged incident took place on 20.11.1992 at about 7.00 P.M. and it was in the evidence on record that there was no light at the place of occurrence and the only source of recognition was a torch light of one Nimai Naskar, as it was stated in the FIR.Some wearing apparels were seized, but those were not sent to FSL for examination and alamats were also not produced in court.The Investigating Officer (P.W.15) himself stated in his evidence that seized articles were not sent to FSL for examination and not a single article was produced in court.Pursuant to confessional statement made by accused Sankar Mondal one iron pipe was recovered from a banana garden.But such statement was not signed by the accused.The iron pipe, which was allegedly recovered from a banana garden, was not produced in court.Mr. Bose further submitted that at the time of alleged incident P.W. 1 was at his home and was playing cards with Sudarsan (P.W.2) and Provash Naskar (P.W.8).So, what P.W. 8 stated in court was nothing but embellishment and he cannot be said to be an eyewitness to the incident.Referring to the medical evidence it was argued by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate that although P.W. 13, the Autopsy Surgeon, stated about one ligature mark around the neck, P.W. 16, Biswadip Ghosh, who examined the victim immediately after the incident, did not mention about any ligature mark.FIR was registered on 20.11.1992, but the same was received by the Magistrate on 27.11.1992 and there was no explanation for such delay of seven days in 13 reaching the FIR to the Magistrate.In the present case articles were seized by the police.But not a single item was produced in court.Weapon of assault, namely, the iron pipe was allegedly recovered pursuant to confessional statement of one of the accused persons, but such statement was not signed by the accused.The iron pipe, which was seized as weapon of assault, was not produced in court.Some wearing apparels, which were claimed to be that of the deceased, were also seized by the police.But such an argument does not appeal to us.During cross-examination the eyewitnesses were confronted with their previous statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to indicate that they did not make such statement as eyewitnesses while examined by the Investigating Officer.Though each of the said witnesses denied such suggestion, the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination had admitted that none of those witnesses had stated before him about seeing the assault or attack by the accused persons.In view of the discussion made above, we find sufficient merit in the submissions made by Mr. Bose, learned Advocate of the appellants.The appeal is accordingly allowed.The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 1 (6) of 1997 is hereby set aside.(DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA, J.) I agree, (PRABHAT KUMAR DEY, J.)

['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.

The petitioner, being aggrieved by registration of Criminal Case and criminal proceedings, has filed this petition on the ground that the petitioner was not a contractor and the petitioner was assigned the work to provide labours for that work.He only engaged the labours.The work was not performing under his guidance.Respondent No.2 is responsible for that act.The petitioner is a service provider.( 08/02/2019) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the proceeding of the Criminal Case No.2300876/2016 initiated against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.720/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 336, 337, 304-A, of IPC.The facts given rise to this petition, in short, are that the petitioner, contractor of Sikkim Fiyaro Limited Company, has been assigned the work to dismantle the iron platform and during that work the petitioner engaged labourer Devendra Kumar, Surendra, Ramesh Arvind, Ramlal, Singarchand without adopting any safety measure.During the work of dismantle, one of the iron pillar of the platform fell down, 2 Ramlal and others sustained injuries.Ramlal succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.Marg intimation lodged in Police Station Sarani being No.100/15 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. During the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was engaged to do that work and he engaged the labours without adopting safety measures.During cutting of iron pillar, one piece of platform fell down.For the negligent work of the petitioner, prima faice, FIR to that effect has been lodged at Crime No.720/15 for the offence under Sections 336, 337 and 304-A of IPC against the petitioner.After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the CJM, Betul.He provided only a semi skilled labours to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is keeping the persons for conducting the work of dismantling.The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this crime.After perusal of the case diary, it is prima facie emerged out that at the time of dismantling work labour Devendra Kumar, Surendra, Ramesh Arvind, Ramlal, Singarchand were engaged for the said work and the witnesses, whose statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., have stated that at that time work was performing under the guidance of the petitioner.This fact clearly goes to show that it is the petitioner under whose guidance work was going to perform.No doubt, if in the guidance of the 4 petitioner work is going to perform, then it is his duty to adopt safety measures before engaging the labour for work.It is not an ordinary work, however, it is a dangerous work.Every safety measure for protecting the labour should have been adopted by the petitioner.If he has not done so, prima facie, he is neglecting the work which had already been assigned to him.If any accident happened, the petitioner is prima facie responsible for the same because there was no due diligence to adopt the safety measure and his act, prima facie, comes under the negligent work.Labour-Ramlal died during the accident because there was no safety measure.The neglect act of the petitioner reflects from the evidence collected during investigation.If there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner, FIR and criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Sections 336, 337 and 304-A of IPC is not needed to be interfered with while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.In the judgment of Rajan (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, the labour was engaged but he died due to electric shock sustained by her while working on the washing machine in the house and the Hon'ble Apex Court 5 has held that death of the deceased caused while doing the household work, therefore, no offence under Section 304-A of IPC is made out, however, compensated the labour.In this case the deceased was engaged for doing a dangerous work for dismantling iron platform.The basic requirement for the said work was to adopt the safety measures, however, during investigation, it did not found that the petitioner whose guidance the work of cutting iron platform was going to perform, had adopted any safety measures.He can adopt the safety measure to support from the earth so that during cutting of iron platform, nobody could fall or engage any crane for doing that work.The petitioner was totally negligent to adopt the safety measure, therefore, due to non-availability of safety measures, labour-Ramlal died.

['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Petitioner states that therefore, the nomination of the Respondent is improperly accepted.Para 13 - The Petitioner states that the Petitioner has cast his vote in the election in question.However, before voting, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 ::: 6 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09 the Petitioner went to the office of the Sub Division Officer i.e. the Returning Officer and saw the affidavit of the Respondent displayed by the Sub Division Officer on the notice board, which gave details about the criminal cases pending against the Respondent and the movable, immovable properties etc. of the Respondent.However, there are no annexures to the said affidavit.Para 15 - The Petitioner states that apart from the aforesaid defects, the Respondent was also owner of two properties on the date of filing of his nomination.However, the Respondent has not disclosed the same in the affidavit filed along with the nomination form.The details of which are as under :-a. Land bearing survey No.101, Hissa No.1A, admeasuring area bout 24 Acres out of the total area under the said 7/12 extract situates at village Talekarwadi, Post & Tal.Vengurla, Dist.Sindhudurg under the Registration and Sub-Registration District ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 ::: 7 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09 Sindhudurg.The certified copy of the said 7/12 extract and the Pher Far are enclosed and marked as Exhibit F1 to F4 in Marathi and English translation thereof, respectively.c. The Petitioner states that, there is another property of the Respondent, which has also not been declared by the Respondent i.e. a property bearing Survey No.90, Hissa No.1, admeasuring area bout 1 Acre and 13 Gunthas alongwith the dwelling house admeasuring area about 32' X 24' = 768 sq. ft of carpet area situates within Grampanchayat Waingani, Village Talekarwadi, Post & Tal.Vengurla, Dist.The Petitioner had given the details of the dues owed by the Respondent to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board on account of two unpaid bills for Rs.79,200/- and Rs.66,250/- which the Respondent had not disclosed in the affidavit.Reserved on : 16th December 2010 Pronounced on : 17th February 2011 JUDGMENT :-1 The above Application has been filed by the original Respondent in Election Petition No.16 of 2009, who is the elected candidate and whose election is challenged in the above Election Petition, inter alia claiming the following reliefs :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::"(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the election Petition filed by the Petitioner;(b) That the pleadings in Paragraphs No.12 to 18 of the Election Petition be struck off."(iii) The Applicant has left blank, the column in respect of the income of his spouse and dependent (vide paragraph No.15-f of the Election Petition).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::3 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09(iv) The Applicant has not disclosed the properties of his wife at Vengurla and Belgaum (vide paragraph No.15-f of the Election Petition).(v) The Applicant has suppressed information in respect of pending criminal cases in the two affidavits filed along with nomination in terms of Section 33-A r/w, rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 r/w the directions/order dated 27th March 2003 issued by the Election Commission of India.The said grounds, according to the Petitioner, fall within the ambit of Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of People Act 1951 (for brevities sake herein after referred to as "the said Act").It is required to be noted that in so far as the aspect of criminal cases is concerned, the Applicant/Respondent has filed a separate Application being Application No.24 of 2010 for striking off the pleadings in the Election Petition concerning the said aspect.The said Application No.24 of 2010 has been dealt with separately.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::4 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09It is the case of the Applicant in the above Application that assuming for the sake of arguments that the candidate in question has not disclosed his income or disclosed income incorrectly, such non-disclosure of income or incorrect disclosure of income can be an offence punishable under the Act but cannot be treated as disqualification under Section 100 or corrupt practice under Section 123 and if that be so, the Petitioner, who has relied upon the said ground in the present case, has no cause of action to file the present Election Petition.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::5 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09Therefore, considering the said settled legal position, even if the averments made by the Petitioner in Paragraph Nos.12 to 18 of the Election Petition are accepted as true, the Election Petitioner on the said basis cannot seek a relief of setting aside the election of the Applicant.The directions given by the Election Commission of India dated 27th March 2003 are issued under Article 324 of the Constitution of India.Therefore, they have a statutory force.(After perusing the said affidavit, the Petitioner and other voters of the said constituency got an impression that no criminal cases are pending against the Respondent.Thus, the Respondent has secured highest votes by deliberately filing two false affidavits.The election of the Respondent is also in violation of the law laid down by Supreme Court.) Para 14 - Without prejudice to the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent has not filed affidavit in the prescribed form, the Petitioner states that the affidavit filed by the Respondent purportedly disclosing movable, immovable properties etc. also does not comply with Section 33-A of the said Act r/w the said order dated 27th March 2003 for the reasons set out hereinbelow.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::6 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09(a) On page 8 of the said affidavit, the Respondent has written description of immovable properties jointly and individually held by Respondent.As per the said Sale Deed the Respondent has paid total consideration of Rs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::7 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/0980,00,000/- (Rs. Eighty Lacs only) to the Sellers.The Petitioner has got the said information from the Assistant Registrar, Vengurla, who has supplied the certified copy of the Sale Deed and the Registration Receipt.The certified copy of the said Sale Deed along with Registration Receipt without annexures is enclosed and marked as Exhibits E1 to E4 are the said documents in Marathi and English translation thereof respectively.Thus the Respondent has suppressed the said property while declaring his assets by way of sworn affidavit filed before the Returning Officer.Sindhudurg under the Registration and Sub-Registration District ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 ::: 8 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09 Sindhudurg.As per the said Sale Deed, the Respondent has paid a total consideration Rs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::8 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/097,00,000/- (Rs. Seven Lac only) to the Sellers.The Petitioner has got the said information from the Assistant Registrar, Vengurla, who has supplied the certified copy of the Sale Deed and the Registration Receipt.The certified copy of the said Sale Deed alongwith Registration Receipt with out annexures is enclosed and marked as Exhibit G1 to G4 are the said documents in Marathi and English translation thereof respectively.d. The Petitioner further says and submits that, in order to establish that the said property is standing as of today in the name of the Respondent, the Petitioner has also obtained a 7/12 extract and Pher Far (i.e.extract of Form No.6) in respect of the said property i.e. Survey No.90 and Hissa No.1 admeasuring area about 1 Acre and 13 Gunthas alongwith the dwelling house admeasuring area bout 32'x24'=768 sq.ft of carpet area situates in Grampanchayat Waingani, Village Talekarwadi, Post and Tal.Vengurla, Dist.This property is also standing in the name of the Respondent on the date of filing his nomination.Thus, the Respondent has suppressed the said property while declaring his assets by way of sworn affidavit filed before the Returning Officer.The certified copy of the said 7/12 extract and the Pher Far are enclosed and marked as Exhibit H1 to H4 are the said documents in Marathi and English translation thereof respectively.e. The Petitioner says and submits that the Respondent has also not disclosed the Government dues as per Serial No.(a)(iii) and also Serial No.(b)(i)(ii)(iii) and(iv) at Page No.10 of the said affidavit.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::9 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09f. It is submitted that the affidavit having sworn by the Respondent is incomplete as the material column in respect of the income of spouse and the dependent has been left blank.In fact, the wife is having properties in Vengurla and Belgaun (Karnataka).Thus it is a misinformation or disinformation caused on account of disclosure made by the candidate on affidavit.Para 17 - The Petitioner states that as stated hereinabove by filing separate and/or incomplete affidavits the Respondent has suppressed material facts from the voter like Petitioner.Such suppression and/or misinformation has resulted in the Respondent securing more than 30,000 votes.(The Petitioner states that voters of the said constituency are mainly farmers, fishermen and small traders.The voters vote for candidate against whom no criminal cases are pending and who is honest in disclosing his true assets and liabilities.The Respondent has filed affidavit in form No.26 by showing that no criminal cases are pending against Respondent.) The Respondent has also filed affidavit in prescribed form without showing all the properties and without showing all the liabilities.This has resulted in the Respondent getting the majority of votes.The present election petition is filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of the result.Therefore, the present petition is filed within time"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::By another order dated 27 th March 2003, the Election Commission directed that the direction No.4, as contained in the order ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 ::: 11 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09 dated 13th March 2003, in so far as verification of assets and liabilities by means of summary enquiry and rejection of nomination paper on the ground of furnishing wrong information or suppressing material information should not be enforced.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::Thereafter the Election Commission issued a further order dated 17.01.2006 by virtue of which filing of affidavits by the last date and hour fixed for filing of nomination papers was made permissible and the failure to submit the affidavits by the aforesaid date and time would be considered as a defect of substantial nature entailing rejection of the nomination paper at the time of scrutiny.Hence, as can be seen from the orders issued by the Election Commission, what was sought to be done by the order dated 17.1.2006 was to permit the candidate to file affidavits in question by the last date and hour fixed for filing of nomination paper.The learned counsel also contended that the column regarding government dues has also been kept blank.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::(d)(iv) was in contention in the said Election Petition.Insofar as his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 ::: 15 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09 prospective voters are concerned, they have a "fundamental right" to receive complete and truthful information to enable them to make an informed choice of the candidate, so as to then exercise their statutory right to vote.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:45 :::The Petitioner had given details of the properties owned by the wife of the respondent which were not disclosed, being Bungalow No.866/4, situated in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 ::: 20 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09 limits of the Kulgaon Badlapur Municipal Council and the property at Bhilkhede, Taluka Jamner, Dist.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::20 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09The Petitioner had given details of the vehicle owned by his wife being Motor Vehicle No.MH-05-AC-555 of Mahendra Scrorpio make as also the loan from Thane District Central Co-operative Bank, which the Respondent had not disclosed in the affidavit.Padmavati Developers of which the Respondent was a partner and which was not disclosed by the Respondent in the affidavit.In so far as the property in the name of the wife of the respondent at Bihilkhede, Dist.Jalgaon is concerned, the joint purchaser of the said property was one Vimal Gokul Patil, wife of Gokul Patil, who was a Senior Inspector of Police who was arrested in what is known as the Telgi scam.It was therefore the case of the Petitioner therein, that it was for the said reason that the property in the name of the wife of the respondent was not disclosed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::21 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09The learned Judge, on an appreciation of the evidence which was adduced at the trial of the said Election Petition, came to a conclusion that the allegation in respect of the wife of the respondent in respect of the purchase of the purchase of the property at Bhilkhed could not be said to be proved.However, in so far as the other allegations were concerned, the learned Judge held that the non-In so far as present Election Petition is concerned, the Petitioner has given details of only two agricultural properties which, according to him, have not been disclosed by the respondent in the affidavit.However, in so far as the properties allegedly owned by the wife of the Respondent are concerned, the Petitioner has made a bald statement that the wife of the Respondent owns properties in Vengurla and Belgaum, so also is the case as regards the government dues.The Respondent in his written statement has stated that the valuation of the said two agricultural lands i.e. Rs.1,30,50,000/- has been mentioned in the Affidavit, however, the other details regarding the said properties have not been mentioned.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::25 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09The Petitioner thereafter filed complaint before the Election Officer and the Election Officer has held that the Respondent No.1 was guilty of suppression of material facts and therefore directed the Assistant District Election Officer to register the offence as per law.It is then mentioned that the said act of Respondent No.1 falls squarely into the grounds for declaring the election to be void under Section 100 of the Act. It is stated that if the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 suffers from any defect of substantial character, the nomination filed by the Respondent No.1 is deemed to be defective and the same should have been rejected.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::27 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09The Petitioner ventured to give the assets which were owned by the Respondent, which according to him were suppressed by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::35 Application No.26/10 in EP No.16/09No order as to costs.(R.M.SAVANT, J) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:51:46 :::

['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary is available.The case of the prosecution is that, on 10.04.2018 the prosecutrix aged about 17 years had been disappeared from her house, situated at Venkatnagar under the jurisdiction of Police Station Jaithhari, District Anuppur.A missing person's report was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix namely Radha Yadav.On that basis offence under Section 363 of IPC has been registered under Crime No.95/2018 against unknown person.During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was appeared before Police Station Jaithhari where her statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code has been recorded.Later on, her statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code has also been recorded in which she has narrated that she had gone with the applicant with her will and have remained with the applicant.The applicant has not committed any forceful intercourse with her; however, the prosecutrix found to be of minor age, the offence under Sections 366 and 376 (2) Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 08/01/2019 20:56:58 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-52979-2018 (RAVI GOSWAMIVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 (N) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been added in the already registered crime.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 08/01/2019 20:56:58 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-52979-2018 (RAVI GOSWAMIVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 The prosecutrix has narrated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code that she had gone with the applicant with her will and no forceful intercourse has been committed by the applicant with the prosecutrix.She is technically a minor; hence, offence have been registered against the applicant.It is submitted that statements of prosecutrix and her mother have been recorded before the trial Court.Looking to the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother Radha Yadav (PW-2), it seems that they have not supported the story of the prosecution.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, allegation made against the applicant and also looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it would not be proper to keep the applicant in custody for the remainder of the trial.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant Ravi Goswami, is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 08/01/2019 20:56:58

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) The deceased Kamaludeen is a lorry owner.He is residing along with his wife (P.W.1), son (P.W.2) and his daughter.The accused 1 and 2 are brothers.They are also residing in the same area.(b) About six months prior to the occurrence, while P.W.2 Yusuf, the son of the deceased, was driving the jeep, the mud water in the road got splashed on the face of the sister-in-law of A2 Nagappan.A quarrel was ensued.From then onwards, there is a misunderstanding between the two families.It was about 5.45 p.m. when P.W.1 Fathima Beevi and her daughter were sitting at the pial of the house and chit-chatting.At that time, the deceased Kamaludeen came to the house in a motor bike, and on seeing his wife (P.W.1) and his daughter sitting outside the house, he abused them in a filthy language.A1 Selvam and A2 Nagappan, who were living in the same street at about 45 feet away from the house of the deceased, mistook that the deceased abused them indirectly.Then, both of them came near to him and questioned him as to how he could abuse them.There was a wordy quarrel between them.The accused were pushed back up to their house by the deceased, who was continuously abusing them.At that time, A1 and A2 went inside the house and came with iron pipe and knife respectively.A1 Selvam beat with iron pipe on the head of the deceased.The deceased fell down.A2 also, with the knife M.O.2, cut on the mouth of the deceased.On hearing the noise, P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the rescue of the deceased.Thereupon, A1 hit with iron pipe on the left eye-brow of the deceased.P.W.1 shouted.On seeing the arrival of P.W.3 Ismail, the brother of the deceased and Mariam Beevi, the sister of the deceased, both the accused ran away with the weapons.At about 8.20 p.m., P.W.2 got admitted in the hospital.P.W.6, doctor, treated him and issued Accident Register Ex.The deceased, despite the treatment, died by about 10.10 p.m. Therefore, P.W.7, doctor, sent the death intimation (Ex.P6) to the police.(f) P.W.10, Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of the First Information Report, took up investigation.He went to the scene of occurrence at about 12.30 in the mid night.He prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and Sketch Ex.Then, he came to the hospital the next day morning and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased.She opined in the post mortem certificate Ex.P9 that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained.(h) On 30.12.1996 at about 3.00 p.m., P.W.10, Inspector of Police, arrested A1 (Selvam) and A2 (Nagapan) and obtained their confessional statement (Ex.P19).He seized M.O.1 (iron pipe) and M.O.2 (knife) under the mahazar (Ex.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Nagappan, A2, was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.Originally, both the appellant Nagappan (A2) and one Selvam (A1) were charged for the offences under Section 302 read with 34 and 324 read with 34, I.P.C. Since A1, during the course of trial, died, the charge as against Selvam got abated.(e) P.W.1, thereafter, went to the Solavaram Police Station and gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to P.W.9, Sub Inspector of Police at about 11.45 p.m. on the same day.P.W.9 registered the complaint Ex.P1 for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sent a copy of the First Information Report and the complaint to the Court and to the superior Officer.He examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and Mariam Beevi.Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased with a requisition (Ex.P8) to the Doctor (P.W.8) for post-mortem.(g) P.W.8, doctor, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 28.12.1996 at about 2.30 p.m. She noticed the injuries viz., two lacerated wounds and one incised wound.P20).Thereafter, he arranged through Court to send the material objects for chemical examination.After observing all the formalities, P.W.10 Inspector of Police, completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against A2 alone.A1 Selvam died even before the framing of the charge.Therefore, trial was conducted only as against A2 Nagappan.On the side of the defence, Ex.D1 was marked.(j) The accused, when called upon under Section 313, Cr.P.C., simply denied his complicity in the crime.The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder.5 Challenging the said impugned judgment of conviction, Mr. R. Margabandhu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit the following:P1 Complaint and Ex.P4 Accident Register respectively.(b) Even though P.W.1 would state that the neighbourers witnessed the occurrence, those neighbourers have not been examined.Even though the occurrence took place at 5.45 p.m., the complaint was lodged only at 11.45 p.m.(c) P.W.2 had gone to his aunt's (rpj;jp) house to inform about the incident and there is no reason as to why he has not gone to the police station to inform about the incident.P.W.1, in her cross-examination, has admitted that M.O.1 (iron pipe) and M.O.2 (knife) were shown to her on the same day of occurrence, namely, 27.12.1996 night, and therefore, the recovery is doubtful.(e) Even according to the prosecution, the deceased went to the house of the accused and attacked A2, and therefore, the act committed by the accused is only in exercise of his self-defence.Therefore, at the most, the accused would be liable to be convicted only for a lesser sentence and not under Section 302, I.P.C.In reply to these submissions, Mr. E. Raja, Additional Public Prosecutor, points out various portions of the evidence and contends that there are acceptable materials to conclude that the accused alone had committed the offence of murder.He would further state that Ex.D1 relates to the occurrence which took place at about 5.30 p.m. on 27.12.1996; and the incident in question took place at 5.45 p.m., and as such, Ex.D1 cannot be taken into consideration to conclude that the accused exercised the right of private defence, and hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be confirmed.We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the entire records.According to the prosecution, at about 5.30 p.m. on 27.12.1996, the deceased came back to his house in a motor bike and on noticing that his wife (P.W.1) and his matured young daughter were sitting at the pial of the house just opposite to the house of the accused, the deceased scolded them in a filthy language, asking them as to why should they sit outside.Both the accused, who were available at that time, took it that he was abusing them indirectly.Therefore, they came near the deceased and questioned him.The deceased retaliated telling them that he had not abused them but only his wife and daughter.Both the parties indulged in a quarrel.Then, the deceased went up to the house of the accused and abused them.Then, both A1 and A2 went inside the house, brought M.O.1 (iron pipe) and M.O.2 (knife) and both of them attacked the deceased.It is contended that P.W.3 would not have seen the occurrence, as he is residing in Gandhi Nagar.It is stated that in Ex.P4 it is mentioned that the deceased was attacked by only one person, who is a known person, with a knife and as such, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be true.On going through Ex.P4, it is seen that the deceased was attacked by a known person with a knife.But the Doctor would state in his evidence that the said statement given by P.W.3 Ismail, who brought the deceased to the hospital.It is a matter of fact that P.W.2 is an injured witness.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, they went and cried aloud when the deceased was attacked, and when P.W.2 intervened, he was attacked by P.W.2 with a knife.It is true that P.W.1 would state that the neighbourers have also seen the occurrence.Even assuming that some neighbourers have seen the occurrence, the non-examination of those neighbourers would not affect the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, even though they are related to the deceased, since their evidence are otherwise reliable.Much was said about the delay.Despite the treatment, the deceased died at 10.10 p.m. Then the intimation was sent to the police.P.W.1, thereafter, went to the Solavaram Police Station and gave the complaint (Ex.P1) to P.W.9, Sub Inspector of Police at about 11.45 p.m. on the same day, mentioning this incident in the complaint.It is true that P.W.1 would admit that the M.O.1 (iron pipe) and M.O.2 (knife) were shown to her on 27.12.1996, viz., the same day.This is purely a mistake, because, according to P.W.10, Inspector of Police, the accused were arrested on 30.12.1996, and on that day, on their confession, M.O.1 and M.O.2 were recovered and the same were sent for chemical examination thereafter.Under those circumstances, we cannot disbelieve the evidence of P.W.10 who stated that the accused were arrested on 30.12.1996 and only thereafter the weapons were recovered.Though A1 died, the doctor would state that injuries 2, 3 and 4 are sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature, taking into account the gravity of injury No. 2, which has been caused with M.O.2 (knife).Under those circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt.However, the question which remains for consideration is whether the offence committed by A2 will come under Section 302, I.P.C. In that context, as pointed out by the Additional Public Prosecutor, we can take into consideration Ex.D1 also.As per Ex.D1, at about 5.30 p.m. on 27.12.1996, the deceased went near the house of the accused and attacked the sister of the accused, namely, Mariammal.Thus, the deceased has not only attacked the sister of the accused earlier but also made the accused think that he had abused them in a filthy language indirectly.So, this would indicate that the earlier occurrence took place at 5.30 p.m. when the deceased had gone to the house of the accused and caused injury on the sister of the accused.Further, even as admitted by P.W.1, when the deceased was abusing his wife and daughter, the accused thought that they were being insulted and came and objected.At that time also, the deceased beat A2 Nagappan.Not only that.The deceased, thereupon, got down from the bike and there was a quarrel, and in that quarrel, both have indulged in the exchange of words.This only made the accused to go inside the house to take the weapons and attack the deceased.Thus, it is clear that the occurrence had taken place not only in a sudden quarrel, but also out of a sudden and grave provocation.Since the deceased abused them, the accused were made to take the weapons and thereupon, attack the deceased.With the above observation, this appeal is dismissed.

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

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

The prosecution case as emerges out from the F.I.R. is that a written report was given by one Girish Verma (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant') to the concerned police station alleging that his sister, namely, Smt. Manju Verma (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') was married to appellant Satish Kumar Verma resident of Parsadi Lal Road Chowk, Tadi Khana, police station Civil Line, District Moradabad and from their wedlock two sons an d one daughter were born.One Rinki Verma wife of Sanjay @ Banti resident of Buddhi Vihar, police station Majhola, district Moradabad started visiting his sister's house and gradually illicit relationship was developed between the husband of the deceased, namely, Satish Verma and Rinki Verma.When, his sister objected to the said relationship, his sister's husband had consoled his sister that there is no illicit relationship between them and she was engaged for making silver neckless and, therefore, she may be allowed to stay at their residence.His sister being an innocent lady believed her husband and kept quiet but their illicit relationship did not stop, hence his sister had told about the said illicit relationship of her husband and Rinki Verma to her family members on which her family members made a complaint to the police officials and on interrogation being made about the said fact from Satish Kumar Verma and Rinki Verma both of them denied the illicit relationship and Satish Kumar Verma admitted that from now Rinki would not come to his house nor he would go to her house.After 15 days of the said compromise, Satish Verma disappeared along with Rinki Verma and after two months it was disclosed that both of them were illegally living as husband and wife at Amroha.On pressure being made on the family members of Rinki Verma, the brother of Rinki Verma brought them back at Moradabad.Satish again promised to live with his wife-the deceased.Thereafter Satish kept a condition before his sister whether she wants to live with him or with her family members on which his sister got ready to live with her husband, hence his sister's husband kept informant's sister and Rinki Verma together at the house situated at Line Par where Rinki Verma used to take all household work from his sister and treat her like a servant and also used to torture her.Four days prior to the incident, Satish Verma at the behest of his sister had left his sister and her children at the house situated at Tadi Khana and after three days when her husband did not come then on 3.5.2008 his sister had gone to the house of Rinki Verma situated at Line Par to call Satish Verma.In the night at 10:30 p.m., Satish Verma and Rinki Verma both came to the house of his sister situated at Tadi Khana and assaulted her.An information about the said fact was received by the informant, hence on 4.5.2008 at 6 a.m. in the morning the informant along with Suraj Gupta resident of Buddhi Vihar, police station Majhola and Chandra Prakash Varshney resident of Jayantipur police station Majhola went to the house of his sister and when he reached there, he met Satish Verma and Rinki Verma at the door and when he asked about his sister then they told him that he can go upstairs to meet his sister and when the informant along with his companions went upstairs, then he saw his sister Manju Verma lying on the double bed and after tilting her he found her to be dead.The informant further stated that Satish Verma and Rinki Verma together in order to eliminate his sister from their way had killed her so that they may not be interrupted in their relationship.In the meanwhile, Satish Verma and Rinki Verma fled away when he went upstairsThe investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Kavindra Narain Mishra of police station Civil Line, who recorded the statement of the Constable clerk Ghanshyam Rathi and the informant Girsih Verma and thereafter he visited the place of occurrence for spot inspection and at the instance of the witnesses he prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka-9) in his hand writing and signature.The inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted under the supervision of Station Officer of Manila Thana, namely, Lokesh Sharan, who was called for the said purpose.The inquest report was prepared by Lokesh Sharan in the presence of the family members of the deceased Manju Verma and other persons.She proved the inquest report (Ex. Ka-4) in her hand writing and signature and further prepared the relevant documents with respect to the same such as, letter to R.I. (Ex. Ka-10), letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-11), seal sample (Ex. Ka-12), Photo Nash (Ex. Ka-13, Challan Nash (Ex. Ka-14) which were also proved by her.Thereafter the dead body was sealed and handed over to Constable Manohar Singh and Constable Geeta Chaudhary along with relevant document for being sent to mortuary for conducting post mortem of the deceased.The post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 4.5.2008 at 2:20 p.m. by Dr. Rajendra Singh, who found three ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased and as per the post mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of throttling.The Investigating Officer arrested the accused appellants on 4.5.2008 and recorded their statements.He further recorded the statement of the witnesses of inquest and also collected photograph from the informant (material Ex. Ka-1).The said photograph relating to marriage of Rinki Verma and Satish Verma.The prosecution in support of its case has examined P.W. 1-the Informant Girish Verma, P.W.2-Suraj Gupta, P.W. 3-Constable Ghanshyam Rathi, P.W. 4-Chandra Prakash Vashney, P.W. 5-Dr.Rajendra Singh, P.W. 6-Police Inspector Rakesh Vashishtha Investigating Officer, P.W. 7-Police Inspector Kavindra Narain Mishra.Both the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution evidence.The accused appellant Satish Kumar Verma has taken a plea that the deceased Manju Verma has some land dispute with her brother Girish Verma and her mother and due to the fear of Girish, he had left his house and was not residing at the house situated at Tadikhana.Accused-appellant Rinki Verma has taken the plea that she was not present at the spot.In evidence, P.W. 1 Girish Verma, who is brother of the deceased Manju Verma, has stated that the marriage of his sister Manju Verma with accused-appellant Satish Kumar Verma had taken place on 24.6.1994 and out of that wedlock, they were blessed with three children.About seven months prior to incident, appellant Rinki Verma started coming to the house of his sister and meanwhile accused-appellant Satish Kumar Verma developed physical relations with Rinki Verma while the deceased Manju Verma used to object the same.P.W. 1 Girish further stated that regarding the illicit relations of accused persons, a complaint was made to the police and accused Satish had promised that now the accused Rinki Verma would not visit his house.After that for some time, accused appellant Satish and deceased Manju Verma stayed together.On the day of Karwachauth, the accused Satish Kumar Verma had taken Rinki Verma to Amroha and they started residing there at a rental house.P.W. 1 Girish and his family members made pressure on the family members of Rinki Verma and consequently they called back Rinki and Satish Verma again promised that now he reside with the deceased Manju Verma and he has given written undertaking (Ex. Ka-2) to this effect before the police.Thereafter Satish Kumar Verma and the deceased Manju Verma started residing at the house situated at Line Par, Moradabad but later on Rinki Verma also he started living there and both the accused used to beat the deceased.Thereafter, Satish left the deceased at the house situated at Tadi Khana and started residing with Rinki Verma at Line Par house.When Satish Verma did not return at his house at Tadi Khana for several days, the deceased Manju Verma went to the house at Line Par to call him then Satish promised that he would come in the night.On the night of 3/4.5.2008, Satish and Rinki came at the house of deceased at Tadikhana and they did beatings with her.The deceased informed to P.W. 1 Girish about this incident on telephone.On 4.5.2008 at about 6 a.m., when P.W. 1 Girish along with Suraj Gupta (P.W. 2) and Chandra Prakash Varshney (P.W. 4) reached at the house of the deceased situated at Tadi Khana and knocked the door, Satish opened the door and Rinki was also standing near the staircase.When P.W. 1 Girish enquired about the deceased, Satish told him that she is at upstairs and he can meet her there.When P.W. 1 Girish reached there he saw that his sister was lying dead on her bed.P.W. 1 Girish stated that Satish and Rinki had committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating her as they wanted to eliminate her so that there may not be any hindrance in their illicit relationship.P.W. 1 Girish reported the murder to police by submitting Tehrir (Ex. Ka-3) and after that police reached at the spot and prepared the inquest report (Ex. Ka-4).P.W. 2 Suraj Gupta has stated that on 4.5.2008 he along with Girish Verma and Chandra Prakash Varshney had gone at Tadi Khana at the house of sister of Girish Verma.The accused Satish Kumar Verma met at the door whereas Rinki was standing near the staircase and when they enquired about the deceased, Satish told that they could see her at upstairs and when they reached at the room situated at upstairs, they saw that the deceased was lying dead on her bed.When they came back on the ground floor they saw that both the accused Satish and Rinki had fled away.Similarly, P.W. 4 Chandra Prakash Varshney has stated that about quarter to two or two years back he along with Girish Verma and Suraj Gupta had gone at the house of Satish Verma situated at Tadi Khana and when they reached at the door of the house, Satish and Rinki Verma met at the door and when they enquired about Manju, they told that she is at upstairs and they can see her there.Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.(Per Ramesh Sinha, J. for the Bench.)The above two criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.9.2012 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Moradabad in S.T. No. 1094 of 2008 convicting and sentencing the appellants Satish Kumar Verma and Rinki Verma @ Poonam Verma under section 302/34 I.P.C. for imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine one year furtherAs the above mentioned two criminal appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and order, hence the same are heard and decided together by this common judgment.He also took on record the compromise entered into on 17.10.2007 between Satish Kumar Verma, Manju Verma and Rinki Verma which also was handed over by the informant to him.The case was committed to the court of Sessions on 28.8.2008 by the C.J.M. Moradabad.The trial court on 12.9.2008 framed charges against the two appellants Satish Kumar Verma and Rinki Verma under section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., who denied the charges and claimed their trial.After hearing and analyzing the evidence on record, both the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial court as stated in opening part of this judgment.Being aggrieved, the accused-appellant Satish Kumar Verma and Rinki Verma @ Poonam Verma have preferred Crl.Appeal Nos. 2750 of 2017 and 4186 of 2012 respectively.Heard Sri G.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Km.Meena, learned A.G.A. for the State.No one appeared on behalf of the complainant.This statement (Ex. Ka-1) was signed by both the accused-appellants as well as by P.W. 1 Girish Verma.When he along with Girish and Suraj reached there, they saw that the deceased was lying dead at her bed and when they came down they saw that both the accused Satish and Rinki had already fled away.P.W. 4 has further stated that the police have conducted the inquest proceeding before him and he has signed the inquest report (Ex. Ka-4).P.W. 3 Constable Ghanshyam Rathi has recorded the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-5) and G.D. entry (Ex. Ka-6).P.W. 5 Dr. Rajendra Singh has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Manju Verma vide post mortem report (Ex. Ka-7), the deceased has received following injuries."1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm.x 0.5 cm.medial from angle of mouth.Multiple abrasions, contusions in area 11 cm.x. 4 cm.on both side of neck and front of neck 5.5 cm.below from chin, underneath echymosis present.Contusion 2 x. 1 cm.on front of right forearm, 3 cm.below the elbow joint."The cause of death of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling.20. P.W.7 Kavindra Narain Mishra has conducted the investigation.He stated that inquest proceedings were conducted and documents Ex. Ka 10 to 14 were prepared.He also prepared the site plan of spot (Ex. Ka-9).P.W. 6 Inspector Rakesh Vashishtha has conducted further investigation and has filed charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-8).He stated that he heard some noise at 6 a.m. and when he came on the ground floor, he saw that the deceased was lying in Verandah and many persons were present there.The police have also reached there.D.W. 1 Sanjiv further stated that at the time of incident, his brother Satish Kumar Verma used to reside at the house situated at Line Par whereas the deceased was residing in the room situated in front of his room at upstairs.On the night of 3/4.5.2008, the deceased was not present at her room and that on 3.5.2008, he has seen that the deceased was going with Girish at 7-8 p.m. and she did not return at night.Satish also did not return in the night.He further stated that there was no dispute between Satish and the deceased and when he enquired from the deceased as to why Satish is residing separately, the deceased told him that her father had a house at Rishikesh which was sold by Girish Verma and he had misappropriated the sale proceeds and when Satish demanded the share from Girish he has refused and due to this reason some altercation had taken place between Satish and Girish and due to fear of Girish, Satish started residing at Line Par.D.W. 1 has stated that there was no dispute between Satish and the deceased.He further stated that the deceased was suffering from fits of epilepsy.Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that there is no eye witness of the incident and that as per the prosecution only circumstance shown against the accused-appellants is that on the morning of 4.5.2008 when P.W. 1, 2 and 4 have gone at the house of deceased, they were seen at the door of the house of the deceased and thereafter both the accused-appellants had fled away, however, this circumstance is not established.It was stated that the version of P.W. 1, 2 and 4 is highly improbable and unreliable and it appears that they have concocted a false story that they have seen both the accused persons at the door of house of the deceased.P.W. 1 Girish has stated that when he along P.W. 2 and 4 reached at the house of the deceased, he knocked the door on which Satish had opened the door and Rinki was standing near the staircase whereas P.W. 2 Suraj Gupta and P.W. 4 Chandra Prakash Varshney have stated that when they reached at the house of the deceased, both the accused-appellants Satish and Rinki met at the door and thus P.W. 2 and 4 have not stated that they knocked at the door or the door was opened by accused Satish.Thus, the trial court has not considered the evidence in correct prospective and committed manifest error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants.Per contra, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that though there is no eye witness of the alleged incident but there is strong circumstantial evidence against the accused-appellants.The deceased was wife of accused-appellant Satish Kumar Verma and there is evidence that on the night of incident, the deceased told P.W. 1 Girish Kumar Verma on telephone that on the intervening night of 3/4.5.2008, both the accused-appellants had come there and assaulted her.There is sufficient and reliable evidence that both the accused-appellants were having illicit relationship which was being objected by the deceased and thus both the accused-appellants had strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased in order to remove the hindrance in their illicit relationship.We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.There is a long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.We have already seen that the prosecution not only has not proved its case but palpably produced false evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant let alone beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant and he alone committed the offence.We had already allowed the appeal and acquitted him by our order dated April 12, 1993 and set the appellant at liberty which we have little doubt that it was carried out by date.The appeal is allowed and the appellant stands acquitted of the offence under S. 302, IPC"It is essential for the prosecution to cogently and firmly establish the circumstances from which inference of guilt of accused is to be drawn.These circumstances then have to be taken into consideration cumulatively.They must be complete to conclude that within all human probability, the accused and none else have committed the offence.Keeping in view the above discussed legal position regarding circumstantial evidence, in the instant case it may be seen that the prosecution has heavily relied on the alleged circumstance that about three four days prior to the alleged incident both the accused-appellants have left the deceased at the house situated at Tadi Khana and both the accused persons started residing at the house situated at Line Par, Moradabad and when the appellant Satish did not visit the house at Tadi Khana for three days, on 3.5.2008, the deceased gone at his house at Line Par to call him and accused Satish Verma told her that he would visit his house at Tadi Khana in the night.Thereafter in the night on 3.5.2008 both the accused-appellants came there and beaten the deceased and in this regard, the deceased had informed her brother-P.W. 1 Girish Kumar Verma on telephone.It is further the case of the prosecution that on 4.5.2008 when P.W. 1, 2 and 4 reached at the house of the deceased at Tadi Khana, both the accused met at the door and when they enquired about the deceased Manju, accused Satish told that she is on the upstairs and when he along with P.W. 2 and 4 reached there, they saw that the deceased was lying dead on her bed.In this regard, it may be seen that the prosecution has not filed any record of call details of telephones in order to show that on the night of 3.5.2008, the deceased had made any telephonic call to P.W. 1 Girish Kumar Verma.Further in his statement, P.W. 1 Girish has stated that after reaching at the house of the deceased, he knocked the door and thereafter the door was opened by accused Satish whereas P.W. 2 and 4 have not stated anything regarding knocking of the door and they simply stated that both the accused-appellants were present at the door.The statement of these witnesses, that when they reached there both the accused persons were standing at the door and after finding the deceased was lying dead at upstairs when the witnesses came down, the accused appellants have fled away from there, appears to be a some what improbable and artificial.There is absolutely nothing to indicate that these witnesses had tried to catch hold the accused appellants.It appears against natural human conduct that after committing the murder of the deceased, the accused appellants would wait at the door of their house till 6 a.m. and when suddenly these witnesses reached there, they would run away from there and that said witnesses would not try to get them caught.One of the important aspect in the matter is that the Investigating Officer-P.W. 6 Rakesh Vashishtha has stated in his cross examination that the deceased had three children, who were residing with the deceased at the time of incident.P.W. 1 Girish had also stated that the deceased had three children.However, surprisingly the Investigating Officer did not record any statement of these children.In the site plan of the spot two rooms have been shown at upstairs, one room has been shown of deceased and another room has been shown of D.W. 1 Sanjiv Kumar Verma and between these two rooms there is an open space.Doors of both the rooms are opposite to each other.From the site plan it appears that the deceased was residing only in one room and as her children were residing with her, thus naturally they might have also been residing in the same room and, therefore, these children were most important witnesses to state as to how the incident had taken place but surprisingly, the Investigating Officer did not record any statement of these three children.It is also not disputed that D.W. 1 Sanjiv Kumar Verma and his wife were residing in another room in the same premises but it appears that he has also not been examined during investigation.P.W. 7 Inspector Kavindra Nath Mishra has also stated in his cross examination that mother of the accused Satish Kumar Verma and two other families were residing on the ground floor but the Investigating Officer also did not examine any of them.It was said:

['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.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail.However, she has stated that the applicant is in jail since 05/09/2016, meaning thereby, for almost 03 years and 10 months.She has further stated that there is one more case against the applicant registered under Section 420 of the IPC.The applicant shall also attend each and every date of hearing before the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by Tej Prakash Vyas Date: 2020.06.22 14:51:05 +05'30'

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.Hence, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant-accused Deepak Dehariya be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.40,000/- 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.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE JP

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER R.N. Dutt, J.On June 26, 1962 the Director of Public Prosecution on behalf of the State filed a petition before the Special Court for joint trial of these two cases.The Special Court rejected this petition on the short ground that till then no complaint was filed before it on the basis of the second allotment and the Special Court had not till then taken cognizance of the alleged offence in the second case.Thereafter on July 10, 1962 a complaint was filed before the Special Court on the basis of the second allotment and case No. 11 of 1962 was started against the petitioners and those two other persons.The prosecution case in case No. 4 is that the petitioners and the other two accused persons entered into a conspiracy between September 7, 1960 and October 1. 1960 to commit offences of cheating, forgery and/or using forged documents as genuine and in pursuance of that conspiracy, forgery and cheating were committed in respect of five money orders and five forged documents were used as genuine.The prosecution case in Case No. 11 is that the petitioners and the other two accused persons entered into a conspiracy between October 11, 1060 and October 15, 1960 to commit offences of cheating, forgery and/or using forged documents as genuine and in pursuance of that conspiracy ommitted forgery and cheating in respect of one money order on October 15, 1960 and also used the forged document as genuine.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.527 of 2020 registered by the 1st respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.In fact, the defacto complainant and the group of persons attacked the petitioners and their parents, in which, the parents of the petitioners A1 to A3 were sustained grievous injuries and also their teeth were broken, even the 1st respondent police registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the very same occurrence there are two F.I.Rs, and as such they have to investigate the matter and to find out the real aggressor of the occurrence.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 CRL.O.P.No.12934 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5044 of 2020Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Considering the above submissions, the first respondent is directed to follow the procedures laid down under 588 A of Police Standing order and find out the original aggressor of the occurrence took place on 14.07.2020 and complete the investigation in Crime No.527 of 2020 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.25.08.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ssnhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 CRL.O.P.No.12934 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5044 of 2020The Inspector of Police, Royakkottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 CRL.O.P.No.12934 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5044 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., ssn CRL.O.P.No.12934 of 2020 and CRL.M.P.No.5044 of 2020 25.08.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.411/2019, registered at P.S -City Kotwali, District - Khandwa under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC.Thereafter she lived with the applicants Abbas Ali (husband), Sharifa (mother-in-law)and Neelofar, sister-in-law (Nanad) but their behaviour was not good with her.They used to quarrel with her.Applicants used to assault the complainant and six month prior to the lodging the report, applicants expelled the complainant from her matrimonial house asking her to bring Rs. One lakh from her parents or not to come back to their house.On that, police registered Crime No.411/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC.Applicants apprehend their arrest in the aforesaid offences.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case.Complainant left the applicants' house herself without any reason and is living with her parents.Applicant Abbas Ali also filed a civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the complainant due to which complainant THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. 25884/2019 ( Abbas Ali and Ors.State of M.P.) 2 has lodged this false report against the applicants.Applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.In the event of arrest, their reputation will be ruined.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicants used to harass the complainant and also assaulted her, so they should not be released on anticipatory bail.The police registered crime against the applicants for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which are non bailable.A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.06.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 23649/2019 (Smt. Ramvilas Sharma Vs.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date:2019.07.03 18:41:44 +05'30'

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

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

Appearing counsel for the parties heard on the alleged first anticipatory bail petition filed before this court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant/ accused, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with the crime No.160/2018 registered at Police station- Kalapipal, District Shajapur in reference offences punishable under Section 341, 354, 354-A, 354-D of I.P.C. and produced the case-diary and papers filed by the petitioner are also perused.Per Contra, above mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the grounds that in the FIR it is complained that at the time of incident, petitioner caught hold HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.26758/2018 ( Dinesh V/s.State of M.P.) 2 the wrist of the complainant.In complainant's MLC recorded by the Doctor, a bruise injury has been found on left wrist of the complainant and it is contended that petitioner is absconding from the date of registration of crime against him and his family members are pressurizing the complainant and her family members to compromise the matter with the petitioner, therefore, dismissal of the anticipatory petition is prayed.Considering the rivals contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merits of the case, in view of the fact that FIR was lodged on 03.07.2018 in the night and on the next date in medical examination of the complainant, an injury was found on her left wrist, petitioner's case does not appear fit to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.Consequently, the anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.Case-diary be returned.Certified copy as per rules.(Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2018.07.18 18:05:34 +05'30'

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

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

CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 1 of 9CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 1 of 9On 13 th May, 2008, due to disputes and differences, respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid FIR.Subsequently, respondent No.2 also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.On 18th April, 2011, both parties resolved all their disputes and differences by way an agreement before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.The relevant portion of the aforesaid agreement is reproduced hereinbelow:-".....Now the parties have decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent on the following terms and conditions:i) That parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and further agreed to move appropriate petitions under section 13 B (1) and 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.ii) That in view of the settlement between the parties, the respondent/husband has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) as total lump sum amount to the petitioner/wife towards istridhan, maintenance (present, past and future) dowry articles and permanent alimony etc.iii) It is further agreed between the parties that the CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 2 of 9 respondent/husband will pay the first installment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of DD to the petitioner/wife at the time of recording of statement in a petition filed u/s. 13 B (1) of HMA.The petition for divorce with mutual consent will be filed mutually within seven days from today.CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 2 of 9iv) It is further agreed between the parties that the respondent/husband will pay the second installment of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of DD to the petitioner/wife at the time of recording of statement in the second motion petition for divorce by mutual consent u/s. 13 B (2) HMA as per law.CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 3 of 9viii) The parties have further agreed that they will not further litigate with each other or against their family members in respect of matrimonial dispute in any manner before any court of law as they undertake to abide by the terms of the present settlement and if any other case/complaint has been filed by both the parties against each other or their family members and relatives, it shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.The above said settlement has been arrived at between the parties out of their own free will and without any force, pressure and coercion....."(emphasis supplied)However, as respondent No.2 refused to cooperate with filing of the first motion petition, petitioner agreed to pay her an additional sum of ` 1,00,000/- over and above the agreed amount of ` 3,00,000/-.(emphasis supplied) CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 5 of 9CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 5 of 9CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 9 of 9MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.127/2008 registered with Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi under Sections 498A IPC as well as any other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.v) Thereafter the parties will move an application for quashing of the FIR bearing no. 127/2008 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and at the time of quashing the respondent/husband will pay the final installment of Rs. 50,000/- by way of DD to the petitioner/wife and the petitioner will cooperate in quashing of the FIR.Both are pending before the court of Ms. Priya Mahindra, Ld. MM, Saket Courts, Delhi.vii) That after the total payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- all claims of complainant/wife will stand settled i.e. istridhan, maintenance (present, past and future).No claim left for permanent alimony, jewellery articles dowry articles etc. CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 3 of 9In February, 2012, in pursuance to the aforesaid agreement, respondent No.2 withdrew her complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act as well as all execution proceedings filed by her.On 03rd April, 2012, the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2 was also dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 4 of 9 consent.Thereafter, petitioner filed the present petition for quashing of the aforesaid FIR.CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 4 of 9However, respondent No.2 has opposed the quashing of FIR on the ground that her entire jewellery/istridhan has not been returned.In fact, respondent No.2 has filed an application being Crl.M.A. 14412/2012 seeking return of her entire jewellery/istridhan.The relevant portion of the application is reproduced hereinbelow:-That subsequently thereafter the matter was finally settled out of the court and the petitioner was agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and also agreed to return entire jewellery/stridhan of the respondent no.2 provided that the said condition of return of jewellery/stridhan shall not be disclosed by the respondent no.2 before the court or anywhere as he wanted to conceal the same from his parents because his father is a heart patient.It is submitted that the petitioner had already paid total settlement amount to the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 had also signed and facilitate the petitioner for quashing of the said FIR and made statement before this Hon'ble Court with regard to the settlement.However, despite the statement made by the respondent no.2 before this Hon'ble Court and the respondent no.2 had also did not disclose the factum of return of jewellery/sridhan before the court, the petitioner has failed to return the jewellery/stridhan to the respondent no.2 despite various requests and demands rather he refused to return the same."Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed.It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 6 of 9 Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained.Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein.Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others -CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 8 of 9(2005) 3 SCC 299 and Mohd. Shamim and Others Vs.No cost."Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the settlement agreement executed between the parties is a comprehensive legal, valid and binding document and respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to wriggle out of it.Consequently, present petition is allowed and FIR No. 127/2008 registered with Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi as well as any other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.The petition and pending applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.However, respondent No.2 is directed to pay costs of ` 10,000/- to the petitioner.MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 29, 2012 js CRL.M.C. 2090/2012 Page 9 of 9

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

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

Certified copy, as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2018.11.29 14:18:24 +05'30'Learned counsel for the appellant submits that charge- sheet has been filed and thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.In the application itself, it has been stated that appellant being a labourer has to move out of place to earn his livelihood.The appellant has given the assurance that if given the benefit of bail he would comply the terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

['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.

[V.D.P.J.,] [G.C,J.,] 16.06.2014Index : Yes / NoabeTo :(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Sl.Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.77/2012294(b), 324, 307 IPC2.T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.345/2012294(b), 323, 506(ii)3.T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.954/2012379 IPC4.T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.106/2013341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii)T-3 Korattur Police Station Crime No.1247/2013341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 25.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-2 Ambathur Estate Police Station in Crime No.943/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is variation in translation of the remand order dated 26.07.2013, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.No complaints against the police.Grounds for arrest known to him.Arrest intimated to his father.The Tamil version reads thus:"vjphp khiy 5/50 kzpf;F M$h;gLj;jg;gl;lhh;/ g[fhh; VJk; ,y;iy/ ifJf;fhd fhuzk; bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ 07/08/2013 tiu milg;g[ fhtyplg;gLfpwJ/ "On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order dated 26.07.2013 found at pages 112 and 113 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation.Though in the English version of the remand order, the aspect 'Arrest intimated to his father' is stated, the same is omitted to be translated in the Tamil version.Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention.For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Sathish made in BDFGISSV No.736/2013 dated 19.08.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Police, Egmore, Chennai.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.V.DHANAPALAN,J.AND G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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.41768/2019 (Golu @ Lalit s/o Shubhas Malviya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 16.10.2019 Mr. Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.They are heard.Perused the challan papers.As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix, alleged offence under Section 376 (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 has been registered against the present applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a youth aged about 24 years and Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 16/10/2019 16:52:57 2 he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.The prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court 24.09.2019 and she has not stated anything against the applicant and turn hostile.Her father has also not supported the prosecution story.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 16/10/2019 16:52:57

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The instant application has been filed u/s 482 with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no. A-309/2017 dated 24.7.2017 arising out of Crime No. 768 of 2017, U/s 420, 447 I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao as well as criminal case no. 11455/2019 (State vs. Muna Khatik).Heard Sri Gyan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on a false report submitted by the Halka Lekhpal.

['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioner is a recognized private un-aided senior secondary school in which the respondent was working as a driver for a school bus.On 27th February, 2007, the respondent reported for duty when he was asked by the school to submit the medical fitness certificate to drive the school bus.W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 1 of 19As such you cannot be permitted to continue with the service and drive the bus of the school children who are of tender age and mind.In view of the above said actual position, your services are no more required by the school management and you are terminated from 15.02.2007 when you were sent to jail as a convict.W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 8 of 194(iv).The post of driver is a post of more confidence W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 11 of 19 than the post of a cashier.The life of a passenger sitting in the vehicle is in the hands of the driver who is holding the wheel.The petitioner has deposited Rs.4,14,018/- towards the back wages which has been released to the respondent on the undertaking to refund the said amount in the event of the petitioner succeeding in this writ petition.The respondent is directed to refund the back wages of W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 18 of 19 Rs.4,14,018/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum.W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 18 of 19W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 19 of 19The petitioner has challenged the award dated 26 th May, 2011 whereby the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with full back wages to the respondent.On 28th February, 2007, the respondent submitted a letter dated 28 th February, 2007 in which he disclosed that he was not ill from 15th February, 2007 to 26th February, 2007 but was facing trial of a case under Section 279/337 IPC registered in P.S. Model Town in which he was convicted and sent to jail.The respondent further disclosed that he filed a revision petition against the conviction order and was released on bail.The true translation of the respondent's letter in Hindi is reproduced hereunder: -The reason for this is that I was facing a trial under S.279/337 I.P.C. of P.S. Model Town, Delhi in which orders were passed against me and I was sent to jail.I have filed a revision petition against the above order in which it was prayed that the above order be set aside and I have been released on bail.Vide letter dated 19th March, 2007, the petitioner terminated the respondent's service w.e.f. 15th February, 2007 on the ground that the Supreme Court judgment and the Notification No.F17/3/98/Vol.II/1061-75 W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 2 of 19 dated 23rd July, 1998 issued by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi prohibited the appointment of a driver challaned or charged with the offence of over-speeding, drunken-driving, driving dangerously, rash driving or riding on a public way causing hurt or grievous hurt by an act of endangering life or culpable homicide.The letter dated 19th March, 2007 is reproduced hereunder: -W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 2 of 19While joining Lancer's Convent Senior Secondary School you never disclosed that you were facing criminal trial in respect of accident caused by you on 01.04.1999 at 2:30 PM while driving school bus bearing No. DL 1P - 2420 and thereby concealing material fact because as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Satinder Prasad Vs.Union of India and notification No. F 17/3/98/Vol.II/1061-75 dated 23.07.1998 issued by Government of Union Territory of Delhi, Directorate of Education School Branch Old Secretariat Delhi a driver who has been challaned or charged with the offence of over-speeding, drunken driving, driving dangerously rash driving or riding on a public way causing hurt or grievous hurt by an act of endangering life or other culpable homicide of the IPC cannot be appointed as a driver of any school bus.In addition to the above you have also remained in jail as a convict from 15.02.2007 to 26.02.2007 as mentioned by you in your letter written to this school.W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 3 of 19(JOGINDER SINGH) Secretary (Emphasis Supplied)The respondent raised an industrial dispute alleging that he has been illegally terminated by the petitioner without holding an inquiry.The respondent alleged that he was working with the petitioner since 1996 at a monthly salary of Rs.7,667/- per month.The petitioner alleged that the respondent was guilty of concealment of the material fact of the respondent facing a trial of a criminal case at the time of his appointment.The petitioner claimed the termination of respondent to be legal and valid.Union of India (1988) 1 S.C.C. 676, according to which no bus belonging to or hired by educational institution shall be driven by a driver who has been challaned/charged even once for the offence of over-W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 5 of 19II/1061-75 dated 23rd July, 1998 issued by the Directorate of Education, Government of W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 6 of 19 NCT of Delhi prohibits the school from permitting any school bus to be driven by a driver challaned or charged with the offence of over-speeding, drunken-driving, driving dangerously, rash driving or riding on a public way causing hurt of grievous hurt by an act of endangering life or culpable homicide.W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 6 of 19-- been charged for any offence relating to rash and negligent driving.All such drivers would be dressed in a distinctive uniform, and all such buses shall carry a suitable inscription to indicate that they are in the duty of an educational institution.(Emphasis supplied)(Emphasis Supplied)Vide office order No.DE23(47)/School Br./2004/66942-66988 dated 18th November, 2005 the Directorate of Education, School Branch of W.P.(C) 6279/2011 Page 8 of 19 Government of NCT of Delhi issued the following directions to all the schools:The position of the driver of the school bus is a position of trust and confidence as the driver of the bus has to drive the bus with students and the management cannot put the lives of its students in danger by permitting the driver charged with rash and negligent driving to drive the school bus.The petitioner was, thus, justified in losing the confidence in the respondent on the ground of concealment of material facts.

['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.The present criminal misc.The opposite party may file counter affidavits within three weeks, rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05/10/2018 in connection with Panskura P.S. Case No. 362 of 2018 dated 23/07/2018 under Sections 376/354C/506 of the India Penal Code.And In the matter of: Babulal Dhoni @ Dhani ....petitioner.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim was ravished and blackmailed by posting offensive pictures in the social media.We have considered the materials on record.We find that there was a dispute over non-payment of loan between the parties.In the event the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

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

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

JUDGMENT Das Gupta, J.On and February 1948, a petition of complaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta by one Haridas Mukherjee.On that petition of complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:"To D. C. D. D., for enquiry and report.If it is found that the Bank has ceased functioning, the enquiring officer to seize the books at once on the strength of a search warrant I should issue on his application.If the Bank is functioning he should apply to me for instructions.To 13/2."On 9th February 1948, a report was received that the Bank had ceased functioning.On 10th February 1948, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered issue of a search warrant.On 14th June 1948, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate passed the following order:Thereafter a challan was sent up by the police under Section 408, Penal Code, against Abani Kumar Banerjee.On 7th February 1949, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate recorded the receipt of the challan under Section 408, Penal Code, and then transferred the case to Mr. C. C. Chakravartti for disposal.

['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On 10.10.2017 the prosecution filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. along with one CD (compact disc).From 10.10.2017 onwards the trial Court is continuously adjourning the case for arguments on the said application.On 10.10.2017 the case was adjourned to 31.10.2017 for arguments on the application.On 6.12.2017, again the case was adjourned for arguments as well as for reply and arguments on the application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. On 28.02.2018, 27.03.2018, 27.4.2018, 19.06.2018, 31.07.2018 and 10.09.2018 the case was adjourned for filing the reply and arguments on the application.It is submitted that on 21.11.2018 the case has been adjourned and till today no progress has taken place in the trial and the matter is being adjourned only for the purposes of filing reply and arguments on the application filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the applicant has filed the certified copy of the order sheet of the trial Court which clearly shows that from 10.10.2017 onwards the trial Court has not proceeded with the matter and has granted time to the respondent only for the 2 M.Cr.C. No.721/2019 purposes of filing reply and arguments on the application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. This conduct of the trial Court cannot be appreciated.The District and Sessions Judge Sheopur is directed to forward the certified copy of the order sheets to the Principal Registrar Vigilance, High Court, Jabalpur to take cognizance of the matter.Apart from that, the trial Court is directed to immediately proceed further with the case by deciding the application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.2 M.Cr.Let the certified copy of this order be placed before the trial Court by the applicant on the next date of hearing.With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.A copy of this order be also sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Sheopur for immediate compliance.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge van VANDANA VERMA 2019.01.11 10:19:41 +05'30'

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

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

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Having considered the materials in the case diary and bearing in mind the nature of allegations and the fact that the injuries as transpiring from the medical papers do not appear to be grievous, we are inclined in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, however, subject to strict conditions.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 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.

Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 This appeal under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act has been filed on behalf of appellants for grant of bail who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 216/2017 registered at Police Station Bhagwa, District Chattarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 452/34 of I.P.C. and 3 (1)(r)(s) & 3 (2)(V)(A) of SC/ST Act.The arrest of the appellants are wanted in the aforesaid said case.Learned counsel for the appellants in order to show the malafide nature of the complainant against the appellants herein has drawn the 2 attention of this Court to a complaint made by the wife of the appellant no. 1 on 29/04/2016 which is at page 19 of this appeal which is addressed to the T.I. Bhagwa at District Chhatarpur.The wife of the appellant no. 1 stated that there has been an altercation between her and the complainants side and that they have been threatened to get the appellants herein falsely implicated for offences under the S.C./S.T. Act. The said altercation is said to have taken place with regard to filling of water from the tanker.Thereafter, on 18/06/2017 also there was a dispute between the appellants' wife with the complainant pursuant to which the complaint is preferred by the wife of the appellant no. 1 to the incharge of Police Station Guwara of Police Station Bhagwa, District Chhatarpur stating that there was an altercation between her and the complainant's side and that they would implicate the appellants in a false case under the provisions of S.C./S.T Act. Looking at the long standing feud between the parties and the threats which has been held over by the complainant side to the appellants herein on two earlier occasions as are reflected from the documents filed along with the appeal and the trivial nature of the offence that is mentioned in the F.I.R. relating to the provisions of the I.P.C., I am inclined to allow the appeal and direct that appellants be enlarged on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Vy/- Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR VAIBHAV DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5d417c5e2cdb0fdfcea7271b912989ff YEOLEKAR fd7a8d3dbf63db4ebdc42355e64abf7c, 2.5.4.45=0321007752E925403D6A9CA64C0AF 28688DDCEFD19008152D550BB9E37BE4DAF FE2DB9, cn=VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2017.12.07 03:12:01 -08'00'

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In view of the nature of allegations made by the two victim girls in the two cases, the case of the prosecution in its entirety mentioned in both these cases need to be mentioned for better appreciation of the facts and also to understand the plight of the two victim girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::4) The two victim girls PW-1 and PW-2 were friends.They were residents of Partur, District Jalna.At the relevant time they had not crossed age of 16 years.Mother of PW-1 was working as maid servant to earn livelihood and she was required to maintain not only the prosecutrix but also other issues as her husband is dead.The parents of PW-2, other prosecutrix, hail from Hiwarkheda.The parents of PW-2 are very poor and as they could not afford to maintain PW-2, they had kept PW-::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::8 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 2 in the house of sister of mother of PW-2 in Partur.PW-2 was not happy due to poverty and also due to bad treatment which she was receiving in the house of her aunt on maternal side.5) On 3-7-1994, PW-2 had some dispute with her maternal aunt.As she was being starved she met PW-1 and expressed that she wanted to work to earn for her livelihood.PW-1 has a relative by name Sham Agrawal and he was running a shop in Parbhani city, District Parbhani.PW-1 expressed that Sham Agrawal can help them in giving job in Parbhani.Due to these circumstances on 3-7- 1994 PW-1 and PW-2 left Partur for Parbhani without informing anything to anybody from Partur.On 4-7-1994 early in the morning they went to Osmanpur railway::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 ::: 9 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 station on foot and there they boarded a train proceeding to Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::These boys were also proceeding to Parbhani as they were doing some diploma course in Parbhani.During talk, PW-1 and PW-2 disclosed to these boys that they were going to Parbhani in search of job.These boys advised the victim girls not to go to Parbhani and return to home.They informed that it was not safe for them to go to Parbhani.PW-1 and PW-2 and the two boys alighted at Parbhani from train.As the boys were advising the girls to return home but as there was no train up to 3 p.m. the boys gave tea and food to these girls in a hotel.As there was time upto 3 p.m., the boys took these two girls to Talreja Talkies to see a movie.It was a matinée show and after seeing the movie the girls were expected to return by train to home.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::(accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994) occupied the seats by the side of the two girls.They opened talk with the two girls and during talk the three accused realised that these two girls wanted to go to Sham Agrawal.Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 falsely represented to these girls that they knew Sham Agrawal and Sham Agrawal was their friend.They gave false promise to the victim girls that they would take them to Sham Agrawal.After arrival of accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 in the theatre, the aforesaid two boys viz Raju and Abhay left the theatre.9) Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No. 121 of 1994 took the two girls in an auto-rickshaw first to the house of a friend where they provided meals to the girls.From this house accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 took the girls to a banana garden situated at the outskirts of Parbhani city.In the banana garden, accused No.1 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 ::: 11 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 one side and then he committed rape on her.After that accused No.1 to 3 from that case took PW-1 and PW-2 towards side of a brook known as Pingad-Gad-Nala.There was water in the brook.PW-1 and PW-2 could not resist as threats were given to them.From there, accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 to a lodge of Parbhani by name Visawa Lodge.They reached there at about 10.00 p.m. There accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 informed to PW-1 and PW-2 that two Sahibs, accused Nos.6 and 7 of Sessions Case No.121/1994, were to come to the lodge and they would::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 ::: 12 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 help PW-1 and PW-2 for getting work.After some time accused Nos.6 and 7 of that case namely Nitin Dudhgaonkar and Kalyan Renge came to the lodge.They gave threats not to disclose the incident to anybody.Accused Nos.8 and 9 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 were managing the lodge and they kept watch to see that there was no interference or there was no help to the victim girls.When accused Nos.6 and 7 left the lodge, accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 to campus of Shanti Niketan school.There accused Nos.1 to 4 consumed liquor.Accused Nos.2,3 and 4 then left the campus of the school.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::11) From the campus of the school, accused No.1 took the two victim girls to other place which is called as Wada, big house, where accused No.5 Tukaram Kharat of Sessions Case No.121/1994 was present.Tukaram gave::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 ::: 13 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 threats to PW-1 and PW-2 to facilitate rape which accused No.1 wanted to commit.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::12) From the last place accused No.1 took the two victim girls to Parbhani Railway Station and there he left them.While leaving, he again gave threats to them not to disclose the incident to anybody.Under the pretext that he would help PW-1 and PW-2 he took these two girls to retiring room situated at railway platform.Abbas Baig then called accused No.2 Ashok, who was working as Police Head Constable and accused No.3 Tabuka, who was working as Railway ticket booking clerk to the room.One more person also came with them.The retiring place had many rooms.Accused No.3 Tabuka and the other person took PW-1 to one room and there they raped her.After committing the rape these persons allowed the victim girls to leave the retiring room.The victim girls were very::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 15 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 much frightened and in that condition they went to the bridge of the railway and from there in search of water they went towards railway quarters situated by the side of the railway station.It was day time.There, accused No.4 Bhansing Bundele, who was occupying a railway quarters as he was employee of railway, promised them to help and took them to his residential quarters.In his quarters, accused No.5 Raju was already present and one young boy aged about 12 years was also present.accused No.4 supplied water to the victim girls and then he left the railway quarters by informing to accused No.5 that he would return after some time (after attending the duty).::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::15) At about 2.30 p.m. of 5-7-1994 accused No.4 of the present matter returned to the railway quarters.He had brought with him a bottle of liquor and some food items.He gave the food items to the victim girls and asked the aforesaid young boy to leave the quarters.When the young boy left the quarters, accused No.5 took PW-1::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 16 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 to one room and there he raped her.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::16) Accused Nos.4 and 5 of the present matter virtually used PW-1 and PW-2 upto 4.00 p.m. of 5-7-1994 and then they called accused No.6 Munna @ Ravindra Singh and accused No.7 Mahesh to the railway quarters.From the railway quarters PW-1 and PW-2 were taken by accused Nos.4 and 5 in an auto-rickshaw to other place by name Shakti Bungalow from Parbhani.Accused No.6 and 7 had come on their motor cycle and they followed auto rickshaw to that place on their motor cycle.This incident was going on upto early hours of 6-7-1994 (upto 3 A.M.).PW-1 somehow saved her by giving information regarding her menstruation period.On::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 17 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 the night between 5-7-1994 and 6-7-1994 the two victim girls were present in Shakti Bungalow.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::17) On 6-7-1994, in the morning when PW-2 woke up from sleep, she noticed that PW-1 was not there.Accused No.5 Rameshwar from the present matter was present in Shakti Bungalow and he informed that PW-1 had already left the building.PW-2 searched for some time to find PW-1 and then she went to Parbhani Railway Station as she intended to return to home by railway.In the meantime PW-1 had gone to other station viz. Purna and from there a lady police constable took her in railway to Parbhani Railway Station.At Parbhani Railway Station PW-1 pointed PW-2 to the lady constable and due to that the lady constable took PW-2 to Railway Police Chowki and PW-2 was asked to stay there.18) The lady police constable Giribai reached PW-1 to Partur by train.After returning from Partur, Giribai took PW-2 to Purna Railway Police Station.There, the FIR of PW-2 came to be recorded and the crime came to be::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 18 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 registered.PW-2 was taken to Parbhani for medical examination on 7-4-1994 and she was medically examined.During course of investigation her clothes were taken over.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::19) On 9-7-1994 PW-2 was taken to New Mondha Police Station Parbhani where another FIR came to be recorded and another crime came to be registered.Sessions Case No.121/1994 is filed in the crime registered at New Mondha Police Station Parbhani in respect of the incidents which took place in banana garden, near Pingad- Gad-Nala, Visawa Lodge, Shanti Niketan school and one Wada.She has deposed that first, accused No.6 raped her against her will by removing her clothes.Bleeding through cervical os seen.The vaginal mucosa is contested.57) On 20-8-1994 Jadhav (PW-17) held T.I. parade in which opportunity was given to PW-1 and PW-2 to identify accused Nos.6 and 7 of the present matter.On this occasion he used six dummy persons.accused No.6 also gave statement to him and he prepared memorandum of his statement.73) Sahebrao Vyavahare (PW-23) was working as Police Inspector in CID and he made remaining investigation of the case.He has deposed that, he took over the investigation of CR No.29/1994 registered in Purna Railway Police Station by PSI Khan and he also took over the investigation of CR No.82/1994 registered with New Mondha Police Station which was with Chalak.1) All the appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.139/1994 which was pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge,::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 ::: 6 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Parbhani.The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced accused Nos.4 to 7 for offence punishable under section 366 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and for offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code.Accused Nos.4 and 5 are convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under section 342 read with section 34 of IPC also.The convicted accused persons have filed the first four appeals.The State has filed Criminal Appeal No.306/1999 as the trial Court has given jail sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment to accused Nos.4 to 7 and the State wants to see that they get imprisonment for life.Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeals can be stated as follows :--3) Two minor village girls were ravished in Parbhani city and at the outskirts of Parbhani city by different persons.In respect of these incidents two separate charge-sheets were filed and two cases were tried separately against those persons in respect of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 ::: 7 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 different incidents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::9) Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No. 121::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:12 :::committed rape on PW-2 and accused Nos.2 and 310) From the side of the brook accused No.1 to 3 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 towards the side of road.There they met accused No.4 of that case namely Rameshwar.In respect of the aforesaid five incidents of rape separate charge sheet was filed and Sessions Case No.121/1994 was tried against the aforesaid 9 accused persons.In that case accused Nos.1 to 4 and accused Nos.6 and 7 are convicted and sentenced for offence of gang rape.Accused Nos.1 to 3 are also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 366 read with 34 of IPC.These accused are convicted for different incidents mentioned above.13) The second part of the prosecution case starts from the incident which took place at Parbhani Railway Station.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::On 7-7-1994 police from Kotwali Police Station Parbhani went to Partur and they brought PW-1 to Kotwali Police Station.PW-1 was then sent to New Mondha Police Station and in the crime registered there, her statement came to be recorded.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::place in retiring room of the railways station, railway quarters and Shakti Bungalow came to be recorded as per the narration made by PW-2 and Sessions Case No. 139 of 1994, present matter, was filed after making investigation of that crime.During course of investigation statements of PW-1 and PW-2 came to be recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.PW-2 took police to various places where the offence was committed against them.Accused persons came to be arrested.Some incriminating articles like clothes, carpets came to be recovered on the basis of statements given by accused persons.Blood samples of the accused persons came to be sent to CA office along with blood samples of the two victim girls along with vaginal swabs collected by medical officer.Charge sheet came to be filed in the present matter in Crime No.29/1994 registered in Purna Railway Police Station and Crime No.82/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::22) Charge was framed against accused separately in accordance with the allegations made against him by the two victim girls and the material collected against accused.All the accused pleaded not guilty.Prosecution examined 23 witnesses who include the two victim girls.All the accused took the defence of total denial.No defence evidence is given.23) The prosecution relied on both, direct and the circumstantial evidence.The trial Court has believed both the victim girls so far as the evidence given by them as against accused Nos.4 to 7 is concerned.The evidence given as against accused Nos.1 to 3 is not believed by the trial Court.The trial Court has held that there is circumstantial check to the evidence given as against::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 21 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 accused Nos.4 to 7 and the evidence as against these accused given by the two victim girls is consistent with each other.In view of these circumstances the evidence of prosecution given as against accused Nos.4 to 7 only and with regard to the incidents in which they were involved need to be considered and appreciated.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::24) Both the victim girls have given evidence in respect of the incidents which took place between 4-7- 1994 till early hours of 5-7-1994 and that evidence shows that prior to the incidents in which accused Nos.4 to 7 were involved both the victim girls were ravished by other persons at various places like banana garden, near brook, in a lodge, in the campus of a school, in Wada and also in the retiring room of Parbhani Railway Station.It needs to be mentioned here that the Court has not believed the victim girls in respect of the incidents of rape took place in the retiring room in which accused Nos.1 to 3 and one unknown person were involved.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::No.1") has given evidence that when the incident which took place in retiring room was over, she and PW-2 (victim girl No.2) came out of the retiring room, went to the stairs of the bridge and stayed there for some time.She has deposed that they wanted to have drinking water and so they started to proceed towards railway quarters of the railway employees situated by the side of the railway station.She has given evidence that on the way one man who was known, accused No.4, Bhansing, met them.This accused is identified by both the victim girls in the Court.She has given evidence that accused No.4 took them to his railway quarters by promising to give them drinking water.She has given evidence that one boy aged about 12 to 13 years was also present in this residential quarters.She has given evidence that accused No.4 gave water to them and then said that there was train for Partur at 3.00 p.m. and he would arrange to send them by train to Partur.She has given evidence that by saying so::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 23 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 he left the quarters but while leaving, he closed the entrance door of the quarters and put a lock on it from outside.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::She has deposed that accused No.4 had brought liquor bottle with him.She has given evidence that accused No.4 supplied food to both of them and then accused Nos.4 and 5 consumed liquor.food to both of them and then accused Nos.4 and 527) PW-1 has given evidence that accused No.4 then took PW-2 to a room of the quarters and closed the door of the room from inside.She has given evidence that accused No.5 then raped her by removing her clothes.She::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 24 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 has described the incident of rape in her evidence.She has given evidence that after some time PW-2 came out of the aforesaid room and she informed that accused No.4 had raped her.She has given evidence that accused No.5 gave threats to finish them by braking glass and so they could not resist and they stayed inside of the quarters.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::She has given specific evidence as against accused No.4 that in the noon time, when accused No.4 returned to the railway quarters, accused No.4 raped her.She has given evidence that the act was against her will.She has given particulars of the incident of rape.She has given evidence that during the incident the lace of her Salwar got broken and so accused No.4 gave lace of his shoe for using it as lace of her Salwar and she used that lace for her Salwar.She has identified accused Nos.4 and 5 in the Court and she has also identified her Salwar having lace of the shoe which was produced by her during course of investigation before police.She has given evidence that when accused No.4::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 25 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 was committing the offence, accused No.5 had done the same thing against PW-1 and that incident was disclosed by PW-1 to her.The evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 as against accused No.4 and 5 on the incident of rape which took place in the railway quarters of accused No.4 is consistent with each other.There is also circumstantial check and those circumstances are being discussed at other place.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::PW-2 has given similar evidence as against accused Nos.6 and 7 and their evidence leads to inference that it is accused No.4 who had called accused No.6 and 7 to his railway quarters.PW-2 has identified::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 26 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 accused Nos.6 and 7 in the Court and she gave their description also.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::30) PW-1 has given evidence that from the railway quarters of accused No.4 she and PW-2 were taken in an auto-rickshaw by accused Nos.4 and 5 to one bungalow viz. Shakti Bungalow.She has given evidence that accused Nos.4 and 5 were sitting on the two sides of PW-1 and PW-PW-1 has given description of this bungalow and the substantive evidence which is being discussed shows that only due to information given by PW-2, police could trace both, the railway quarters of accused No.4 and Shakti bungalow.Some articles were also recovered in connection with the crime by police at the instance of one accused and on the basis of statement given under section 27 of the Evidence Act.She has given evidence that she was not raped because she was in menses.She has deposed that after coming from the room where rape was committed, PW-2 narrated the incident to her by saying that all the four accused (accused Nos.4,5,6 and 7) had raped her.She has deposed that PW-2 was weeping, she was feeling tired and she was having pains.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::She has specifically pointed accused No.6 in that regard.She has given evidence against accused No.4 that he had raped her in Shakti bungalow against her will.She has given evidence that accused No.7 then committed rape on her and at the end accused No.5 committed rape on her.She has identified these four accused persons in the Court as the persons who had raped her in Shakti::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 28 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 bungalow.She has given evidence that she was ravished for long time by these four persons, till early hours of the next day.She has given evidence that she was having pains, she could not walk and she was frightened and as she was not able understand what to do, she slept in Shakti bungalow on that night for the remaining period.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::33) The remaining evidence given by PW-1 and PW- 2 is with regard to their subsequent conduct.The evidence shows that after the incident of rape which took place in Shakti bungalow they were allowed to leave Shakti bungalow.Their evidence shows that first PW-1 left the Shakti bungalow, she went to Purna station where a lady constable made inquiry with her and by way of precaution the lady constable took PW-1 with her.Evidence of PW-2 shows that after searching for PW-1 for some time, she went to Parbhani Railway Station as she wanted to return to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 29 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Partur and there the aforesaid lady constable came to her and then she was taken to railway police Chowki by the said lady constable.The evidence of PW-1 shows that from Purna Railway Station she was taken to Partur to her residential place by the lady constable and she was reached to her house.The evidence of PW-1 shows that when train reached Parbhani, she showed PW-2 to the lady constable and so the lady constable took aforesaid step.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::The evidence of PW-2 shows that in the Parbhani Railway Police Station one PSI Khan made inquiry with her and he recorded her statement.PW-2 has tried to say that her entire version was not recorded by Khan and only the portion which he felt necessary was recorded by him.On that statement her signature was obtained by Khan.She has given evidence that on 7-7-1994 she was taken to Parbhani from Purna::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 30 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 for her medical examination and there she was medically examined.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::35) PW-2 has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 her clothes were taken over by police which were Salwar and Kurta and they were the clothes which were on her person when she was raped in railway residential quarters of accused No.4 and in Shakti Bungalow.She has identified articles 9,10 and 11 as her clothes which were produced before police by her.She has deposed that her signature was obtained on the seizure panchanama (Exhibit 28) when the clothes were taken over by police.She has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 P.S.I. Yeshwant took over inner wear, nicker, which is article 6 and separate panchanama in that regard was prepared.36) PW-2 has given evidence that on 10-7-1994 she showed the places where the incidents narrated by her had taken place.The places were the railway quarters of accused No.4 and the Shakti Building.The evidence as regards the other place viz. retiring room of railway::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 31 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 station need not be considered as that matter is not before this Court.PW-2 has deposed that panchanama of the incidents in which she showed the places was prepared in her presence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::37) PW-2 has given evidence that during investigation, she was given opportunity to identify the accused persons.She has deposed that in the test identification parade dated 2-8-1994 she identified accused No.4 Bhansing and accused No.5 Raju.This witness has identified accused Nos.4 and 5 during the deposition in the Court also.PW-2 has given evidence on test identification parade dated 20-8-1994 in which she identified accused No.6 Ravindra @ Munna and accused No.7 Mahesh.PW-2 identified accused Nos.6 and 7 during deposition in the Court also.38) PW-2 has given evidence that the Judicial Magistrate recorded her statement (under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.) during the course of investigation.It is brought on the record in her evidence that the term used::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 32 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 in Marathi by her viz. "Angawar Haat Takla" (v ax koj gkr Vkdyk ) means the commission of rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::39) PW-1 has given evidence that on 7-7-1994 PSI Yeshwant took her from her residential place from Partur to Parbhani Police Station and then her report was recorded.PW-1 has given evidence that PSI Khan recorded her statement in Parbhani on 8-7-1994 but that statement was not recorded as per the version given by her.PW-1 has deposed that her clothes viz. article Nos.4 and 5 (shown to be seized in Sessions Case No.121/1994) were taken over during investigation and she was wearing these clothes viz. Salwar and Kurta at the time of the incidents in question.40) PW-1 has given evidence that opportunity was given to her to identify accused persons in test identification parades.She has deposed that in the test identification parade dated 2-8-1994 she identified accused No.4 Bhansing and on that occasion she was::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 33 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 asked to identify associate of the accused who raped her.PW-1 has deposed that on 20-8-1994 in other test identification parade she identified accused No.6 Munna and accused No.7 Mahesh.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::41) PW-1 has given evidence that her statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.) but she could not give the narration of the incidents correctly when the statement was recorded as she was still in shock.She has given evidence that she was referred for medical examination and she was medically examined.42) The prosecution has given other circumstantial evidence.His evidence shows that PW-1 produced Salwar and Kurta and they came to be seized.Panchanama of seizure of the clothes of PW-2 is also proved in his evidence as Exhibit 37and there were blood stains on the underwear of PW 2.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::dated 17-7-1994 in which he stated that he would show the places of the incidents like residential quarters of the railway and Shakti bungalow.No recovery or seizure of articles took place on the basis of the statement.However, there is circumstance that only after showing the places of the incidents by PW-2 and after arrest of accused No.4, accused Nos.6 and 7 were traced and arrested.They were not known to PW-2 prior to the date of incident.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::35 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999Panchanama of seizure of underwear and 'T' shirt of accused No.6 is proved at Exhibit 48 and the clothes were recovered on the basis of statement mentioned in Exhibit47.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::The evidence on record shows that this motor cycle is not identified by the two victim girls.44) Vaijnath (PW-12) is another panch who has given evidence on the seizure of clothes of accused No.4 Bhansing and on his arrest panchanama.His evidence shows that PW-2 was with police and panchas when they visited the quarters.One underwear having stains of blood was also taken over.A pair of shoes was taken over and to one shoe there was no lace.Here only it needs to be again mentioned that it is the case of PW-2 that she was given lace of this shoe by Bhansing as the lace of her Salwar got broken during the incident.Another document at Exhibit 77 is proved in the evidence this witness.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::46) Dr. Jaishri Deshpande (PW-14) is examined by prosecution to give medical evidence.She examined PW-2 on 7-7-1994 at about 4.p.m.On local examination she noted following things in respect of PW-2 :-Matting of pubic hair was seen.Blood stains on clothes and genitals.No evidence of external injuries over genitals.Hymen - torn, congested+ oozing through tear present.P.S. : Speculum could be passed with difficulty tenderness i.e. severe tenderness.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::38 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 On PV examination she found following things :Vagina admits one finger with pains i.e. severe tenderness.Bleeding through cervical was present.This document is consistent with the oral evidence of the witness.47) Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) examined PW-1 on 8-7-1994 at 9.00 p.m. She has deposed that on local examination she found following things :-Matting of pubic hair not seenBlood stains on the clothes and genitals were seenPosterior fourchette congested and redness.Lebia minora was slightly congested.Hymen torn (old tear), no oozing bleeding through vagina was present.No evidence of injury over the external genitals.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::"Medium size speculum passed with a minimum tenderness means pains.Vagina admits two fingers with tenderness.Uterus - normal size, retroverted bleeding through cervical seen.No living or dead spermatozoa. "48) The evidence of Dr. Jaishri Deshpande shows that on microscopic examination no living or dead spermatozoa were revealed.Her evidence, however, shows that living spermatozoa can be seen within 2 to 3 hours after sexual intercourse and dead spermatozoa can be seen within 24 hours of sexual intercourse.The evidence on the record shows that both the victim girls were examined after 24 hours of the last incident of rape.49) Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) has given evidence on the examination done by her of both the victim girls to ascertain their age.Her evidence shows that she had taken X-rays and she had done clinical examination also.In respect of PW-2 she has deposed that iliac crest had appeared but not fused.The process of fusion of lower end was not yet started but the head of radius was found::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 40 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 fused.The X-ray plates are produced in the Court.On the basis of the clinical and radiological examination she gave opinion about the age of PW-2 as age between 14 and 16 years which include margin of error which is 1 to 2 years.She has given specific opinion that the age of PW-2 was less than 16 years.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::She has given evidence that the age of PW-1 was between 14 and 16 years which include margin of error.She has given specific evidence that the age of PW-1 was not more than 16 years on the date of examination.X-ray plate of this victim girl was also produced.This record is consistent with the oral evidence of Dr. Jaishri.Specific opinion was obtained by police from this doctor by putting some queries and that opinion is given at Exhibit 81 which is proved in her evidence.At Exhibit 82 there is the record with regard to radiological examination.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::birth also in respect of two victim girls.Krishnarao Choudhari (PW-15) is working as Clerk in Dhapibai Maternity Home Amarawati.He has given evidence that as per the record one Kirandevi Mor was admitted in this hospital for delivery on 12-3-1979 and on the same day she delivered a female child at 1.30 p.m. According to him, as per the record, it was second female child to Kirandevi.He has given evidence that after the delivery, information was given to local body, Municipal Corporation by this hospital.Challenge with regard to the surname of the mother mentioned in the register is being discussed at later place.Original record was brought to the Court and Exhibit 84 is consistent with the original record.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::medical officer in the Department of Registration of Births and death of Municipal Corporation Amarawati is examined by the prosecution to prove the registration of birth of PW-1 on the basis of information give by Dhapibai Maternity Home, mentioned above.Entry was made at Sr.No.2131 in the register in respect of PW-1 and he has given evidence that it is in respect of female child name of whose father was Rameshwar Gangabhishan Mor and the name of the mother of the child was Kiran.The date of birth is recorded as 12-3-1979 and the girl was born in Dhapibai Maternity Home Amarawati.It was the second female child to this couple.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::Bahadur Shastri High School Partur is examined by the prosecution to prove the date of birth of PW-2 on the basis of her school record.The transfer certificate issued by C.P.S. is proved in Sessions Case No.121/1994 as Exhibit 229 and its copy is produced in the present matter.He has given evidence that as per original transfer certificate which was received by his school, the PW-2 was admitted on 10-7-1981 and accordingly the date of birth was recorded by his school.Copy of the transfer certificate is taken on the record at Exhibit 175 in the present matter.In the school register entry of the admission was taken and the original school record was also brought to the Court.Thus, there is medical evidence and also the evidence given on the basis of school record by the prosecution to show that the age of PW-2 was not more than 16 years at the relevant time.The dates of birth of both the victim girls show that their age was less than 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::54) Namdeo Jadhav (PW-17), Executive Magistrate, has given evidence on test identification parades (hereinafter referred to as "T.I. Parade") held by him in the campus of Parbhani Jail.He has given evidence that after receipt of letter of police, he collected information about the case and then he arranged for conducting T.I. parade.The evidence of T.I. parade was seriously challenged before the trial Court.Though the learned Senior Counsel for the present appellants-accused submitted that the trial Court has discarded the evidence of T.I. parade, the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 ::: 45 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 judgment does not show that there is such specific finding.The trial Court has held that two victim girls were in the position to identify the accused, who were identified by them in the Court and identification in Court is sufficient.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:13 :::55) Namdeo Jadhav (PW-17) has given evidence that in the T.I. parade held on 2-8-1994 PW-2 identified accused Nos.4 and 5 of the present matter.The evidence of Jadhav shows that he used 7 dummy persons for T.I. parade dated 2-8-1994 and they were resembling to the accused persons in appearance, in age and in height.He has given evidence that opportunity was given separately to PW-1 and PW-2 to identify accused Nos.4 and 5 though accused Nos.4 and 5 were standing in the same group of aforesaid 7 dummy persons.He has given evidence that PW-1 and PW-2 were asked to identify the accused persons who had raped them and also the persons who had acted as associates in the incidents.He has given evidence that PW-1 identified accused No.4 Bhansing as an associate.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::This record is consistent with the evidence of Jadhav and also the substantive evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 on T.I. parade.Evidence of Jadhav shows that in the T.I. parade dated 20-8-1994 the position of accused Nos.6 and 7 was changed and second opportunity was given to both PW-1 and PW-2 to identify these two persons.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::investigating officers also.Khan (PW-18) is the first investigating officer and he was attached to Purna Railway Police Station as Police Sub Inspector.He was in charge of Parbhani Railway Police Station also.According to him, the railway quarters of the employees of the railway like accused No.4 is not within his local jurisdiction.This circumstance needs to be kept in mind as some incidents are omitted in the report recorded by Khan (PW-18).He took over the clothes of PW- 2 which were on her person like Salwar, Odhani and Kurta (articles Nos.9,10 and 11) under Exhibit 28 in CR No.29/1994 registered by him in Purna Railway Police Station.According to him, during investigation he::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 48 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 collected record of Lal Bahadur Shastri High School in respect of PW-2 to ascertain the date of her birth.He has given evidence that he had sent PW-1 and PW-2 to the Judicial Magistrate First class for recording their statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He has given evidence that he had sent articles which were seized by him to C.A. office on 14-7-1994 with covering letter.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::60) Khan (PW-18) was cross-examined by learned Special Public Prosecutor.The evidence of both the victim girls shows that they had the grievance against PW-18 that their versions were not completely and correctly recorded by PW-18 Khan.It is suggested to him that he did not record the incidents which took place near brook, the incident of rape which took place in Visawa Lodge and the incident of rape which took place in the campus of a::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 49 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 school even when they were disclosed.These incidents are not involved in the present matter but due to these circumstances, Khan was cross-examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::61) In the examination-in-chief itself Khan (PW-18) has deposed that PW-2 was appearing weak and she was not able to speak and so he had obtained the information by putting some questions to her.This evidence also needs to be kept in mind as some incidents were not recorded by him.62) Here only it needs to be observed that the mental condition of these two girls needs to be kept in mind at the time of the appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and at the time of consideration of absence of some incidents in the first disclosures made by them to police.They had left the shelter of their parents/::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 50 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 guardians, they were minor and were afraid of some action against them.It also needs to be kept in mind that their evidence shows that their guardians/parents preferred to stay away from them and they did not opt for the custody of these two minors and the minors were required to be kept in Remand Home.These victims girls must have felt that they were responsible for everything including the incidents that had taken place against them.The circumstance that PW-1 had given her age as 18 years at the relevant time also needs to be kept in mind.However, PW-2 had given her age as 14 years.It can be said on the basis of evidence of PW-1 that she was little more mature than PW-2 at the relevant time.Even when their evidence was being recorded, they were kept in Female Reformatory school.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::63) Chandrabhan (PW-19) was attached to Kotwali Police Station Parbhani as Police Sub Inspector.He has deposed that he recorded statement of PW-1 and then sent her to New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.He registered crime at CR No.73/1994 in Kotwali Police::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 51 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Station on the basis of report recorded by him.His evidence shows that this record was used in Sessions Case No.121/1994 which was in respect of the incidents which took place in Banana garden, near brook, in the lodge, in the campus of the school and then in one Wada.On the basis of the evidence of Chandrabhan it can be said that only after recording of the statement by Chandrabhan of PW-1, he realised that some more incidents had taken place and then PW-1 was referred to other Police Station, New Mondha Police Station as other incidents had taken place within local jurisdiction of New Mondha Police Station.Police realised that in the disclosure recorded on 7-7-1994 of PW-2 by Khan (PW-18) many incidents were not recorded.He recorded the age of PW-1 as::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 52 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 16 years and the age of PW-2 as 14 years when he recorded their statements.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::64) Shaikh Mujib (PW-20) is other investigating officer who was working as Assistant Police Inspector in New Mondha Police Station.He has deposed that on 9-7- 1994 he recorded statement of PW-2 and in that statement she narrated all the incidents including the incidents of retiring room of Railway Station Parbhani.This statement of PW-2 is given Exhibit 29 and on that basis crime at CR No.82/1994 was registered in New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.Shakti bungalow where one incident took place is within local jurisdiction of New Mondha Police Station.According to PW-20 he recorded two separate F.I.Rs (after realising the aforesaid things).PW-20 has given evidence that the first F.I.R. was recorded by him in respect of the incidents of Banana garden, brook, Visawa Lodge, school campus and one Wada (Munde Wada) and these places were situated within the local jurisdiction of Kotwali Police Station.He has deposed that Circle Police Inspector Chalak was having jurisdiction over both New Mondha::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 53 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Police Station and Kotwali Police Station.Thus, Chalak could have made investigation of all the incidents of rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::65) Chalak (PW-21), Circle Police Inspector, has given evidence that aforesaid two police stations were under his jurisdiction he had power to make investigation of all the incidents.However, he has given evidence that he took over the investigation of CR No.82/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station from Shaikh Mujib (PW-20).He has given evidence that he arrested accused No.4 Bhansing on 9-7-1994 and during his arrest he took over the clothes of Bhansing (articles, 9,10 and66) Chalak (PW-21) has given evidence that on 10- 7-1994 PW-2 showed to him the places where the incidents of rape had taken place.He has deposed that the railway quarters of Bhansing, accused No.4 was also shown by PW-2 and during that incident he took over the articles like a pair of shoes in which one shoe was not having lace under panchanama at Exhibit 77.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::He has given evidence that he had requested the learned Executive Magistrate to hold T.I. parade.He has given evidence that he collected blood samples of these persons and sent them to CA office along with covering letter which is at Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 55 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::He has given evidence that he had sent PW-1 and PW-2 to the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::He has deposed that he took over investigation of CR Nos. 73/1994 and 81/1994 which were registered in Kotwali Police Station from P.S.I. Yeshwant and P.S.I. Jagadale.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::He has given evidence that he had sent a lace of the shoe which was recovered from the house of accused No.4 in the present case along with lace of PW-2 to CA office for comparison purpose along with covering letter at Exhibit75) The record of investigation and the aforesaid evidence show that blood samples of all the accused were collected and the samples of blood of the two victim girls were collected.Similarly, vaginal swab collected by the medical officer along with pubic hair so also the clothes of the accused mentioned above and the mattresses used at the time of rape in the lodge, in railway quarters of accused No.4 and in the Shakti bungalow were sent to C.A. office.The CA reports in respect of these articles are produced before the Court.The trial Court has considered all the aforesaid evidence for giving conviction against the appellants in the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::PW-2 is at Exhibit 189, the articles like clothes Salwar, Odhani, Kurta.Covering letter dated 12-7-1994 is there.On the article Salwar, blood mixed with semen stains was found.Group of the blood of PW-2 is "A" and the stains gave reaction for both "A" and "B" groups.C.A. report at Exhibit 194 is in respect of carpet shown to be recovered on the basis of statement given by accused No.6 and blood group "B" was found on it.Similarly, on the clothes of PW-1 like Salwar, Kurta, jangiya human blood was found.Though it is true that she was observing menses, as per CA report, on other article like Kurta blood was found and this fact needs to be kept in mind.The blood group of PW-2 is "B".::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::it transpired that accused Nos.6 and 7 were involved in the incident of rape which took place in Shakti bungalow, they were not available and they came to be arrested after about one month.78) Challenges of the accused to the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution and other contentions of the accused made during arguments of these matters are as under :(i) Both the victim girls did not disclose the incidents immediately even when they had opportunity to disclose the incidents to the persons in the vicinity and even to the parents.They disclosed the incidents only when police specifically made inquiry with them.(ii) Both the victim girls gave different versions when different police officers recorded the reports.Both the victim girls did not narrate some of the incidents of rape::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 60 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 when they made first disclosure and then did not disclose some incidents even when their statements were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::(iii) The victim girls had left the shelter of their guardians/parents on their own and so no offence of kidnapping or abduction was committed by any of the accused.(iv) The evidence given by the prosecution on age is not that convincing and the victim girls had probably crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.(vii) The evidence of T.I. parade cannot be relied upon as the procedure laid down in Criminal Manual of this High Court was not followed.The Executive Magistrate did not::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 61 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 act fairly and he arranged even second T.I. parade for giving one more opportunity to the victim girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::(viii) The evidence of the investigating officers shows that the State was required to change the officers many times.Their evidence creates probability that they were not fair during conducting the investigation.79) This Court is considering the aforesaid challenges one by one.The first challenge regarding the age of the victim girls needs to be considered first.AGE OF THE VICTIM GIRLS.80) The evidence of the prosecution on the age of the victim girls needs to be considered first.The finding on the age of the victim girls will help in deciding the other points like the possibility of consideration of defence of consent.Finding on the age of the victim girls will also help in appreciating the evidence of the two girls in entirety as the conduct and reaction of minor is ordinarily different than the conduct and approach of an adult.The evidence on the record shows that these two girls were in::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 62 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 distress as the financial condition of their parents/ guardians was not that good and they were feeling that they had no prospects with their guardians/parents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::81) For proving the age of PW-1 the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-1, the evidence of entry in the birth register, the entry in the hospital where PW-1 was born, the evidence of opinion of doctor about age which is on the basis of clinical and radiological examination.82) Learned Single Judge of this Court (one of us) had occasion to consider the evidence which can be available for proving the date of birth, the age of a person and the importance of various kinds of evidence which can be available for proving the date of birth or the age.In the case reported as 2014(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 353 (Mahesh vs. State of Maharashtra) this Court has made following observations on the basis of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case reported as AIR 1982 SC 1297, Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others).::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::63 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 "13. 'Age' as ingredient of both the aforesaid offences is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.This 'proved' under section 3 of Evidence Act need to be proved like any other fact in criminal case.Oral evidence as to the age may always be available in such a case.Corroboration need not be only of expert evidence.Corroboration may be of circumstances which may differ for each case.The opinion of doctor on clinical or radiological examination cannot be accepted straight way as a legal proof.The margin of error is of two years on either side even when the age is ascertained on the basis of radiological examination.(Reliance placed on AIR 1982 SC 1297, Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.].It is only medical opinion and other evidence including oral evidence cannot be discarded only because the medical evidence is in conflict with the oral evidence.Further, the medical evidence cannot stand against entries made in birth register, which are properly authenticated.Entry made in birth register has presumptive value in view of section 17(2) of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and this position of law needs to be kept in mind, when there is conflict between medical evidence and the other evidence.In view of section 35 of Evidence Act, the entry made in school register about the date of birth also needs to be treated as relevant.Such register is kept in regular discharge of duty by school and it is required to be kept as per the Rules made by the State Government.When such entry was made before starting of dispute, many years prior to the commission of offence and when entry is proved by giving oral evidence of the concerned, due weight needs to be given to such entry.Such entries need to be treated as relevant and admissible in evidence, though such entry cannot form sole clinching factor for determining the age.It has no presumptive value like::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 64 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 in the case of entry made in birth register as already observed."::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::83) PW-1 has given evidence that she was born at Amarawati on 12-3-1979 but she received education in Partur upto 5th standard.She has given evidence that one Gangabhishan Mor was her grand father of parental side.She has given name of her father as Rameshwar.She has given evidence that her mother had informed to her the date of birth.In the cross-examination of PW-1 it is brought on record that Rekha is her elder sister and Rekha was given in marriage about 1 and half years prior to the date of incident.Her evidence shows that she was daughter No.2 to her parents.84) It is brought on record in the cross-examination of PW-1 that she received eduction upto 4th standard in Ganj school Partur and then she was admitted to other school.It is brought on the record that when her::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 65 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 statement was recorded by police, she had not informed the date of birth to police.It is already observed that the mind set of such girls needs to be kept in mind at the time of considering the discrepancies which can be there in the disclosures made by them and the record which is available.Further the record in respect of date of birth in such cases has the precedence.It appears that PW-2 had given age more than 16 years on different occasions to police.Her evidence shows that she was frightened and she did not want to inform the incident even to her mother.The evidence on the record also shows that when she was reached to Partur by a lady constable she did not disclose the incident to her mother and she disclosed the incident only when the report of PW-2 was recorded and she was brought to Parbhani from Partur for the purpose of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::85) In the cross-examination, PW-1 has specifically deposed that at the time of the incident her age was 15 years.In the cross-examination some questions were to put to her in respect of her two sisters.Even if the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 66 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 answers given by PW-1 to those questions are accepted as they are, those answers have not created probability that she had crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::86) In the record of birth register initially the surname of her parents was recorded as "Mor" and the surname "Agrawal" was shown as other surname.PW-1 is cross-examined at length to test as to whether she was knowing the particulars of the family of her grandfather from paternal side, Gangabhishan Mor @ Agrawal.She successfully faced the test of cross-examination and she gave the particulars of the family of Gangabhishan.Father of PW-1 is dead though mother is alive.The record shows that evidence of PW-1 is on the basis of information supplied by mother and it can be said that it is also on the basis of the record of her birth.She has received eduction::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 67 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 at least for some time and so it can be said that she can give evidence about the birth date also.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::87) Evidence of Krishnarao Choudhari (PW-15), one employee of the hospital where PW-1 was born, is on the basis of record of the hospital.If the evidence of PW-1 is compared with the description of the parents given in the register of the hospital, the description tallies.In view of this check and the manner in which the record was maintained, this Court has no hesitation to observe that there was no possibility of interpolation.There is only suggestion from defence that surname Agrawal was added subsequently in the register.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::This register was also regularly maintained.Names of father and mother mentioned in the register of the issue tally with the names given in the present matter.The entry was made on the basis of information supplied by Dhapibai Maternity Home.In the cross-examination of this witness it is brought on record that in the original register there is one correction and name of the hospital which was initially mentioned as "Ji.Ru." was changed to make it as Dhapibai Maternity Home.This change was not only for the present entry but it was for many entries.The present entry is shown at Sr.Thus, the correction was made in respect of many entries viz. 2125 to 2131 and it does not look probable that for the present matter any manipulation was done by the local body.Thus, at the relevant time, in July 1994, the age of PW-1 was below 16 years.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::She has given evidence that she received education in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School Partur till 6th Standard.Her evidence shows that she was kept in Partur by her parents who are residents of Hiwarkheda and so she was admitted in this school by her uncle living there.Her evidence shows that prior to her admission in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School she was receiving education in Ganj school Partur.Even before police she had given her age as 14 years.Her cross-examination shows that when she was a kid, she was shifted to Partur.She does not know even the particulars about her brother and sister, what they are doing.Her evidence shows that her parents visited Partur only twice after sending her to Partur from Hiwarkheda.These circumstances show that whatever happened to her was due to her poverty and absence of care and protection of the parents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::Lal Bahadur Shastri High School Partur shows that it is on the basis of the original admission form in respect of PW-His evidence shows that Ganj school had given transfer certificate and on that basis PW-2 was admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School.Original register was brought to the Court and it was found to be regularly maintained.Though Kukde (PW22) could not say as to who had admitted PW-2 in the school on the basis of the signature, there is evidence of PW-2 that her uncle/guardian at Partur had admitted her in the school.In view of nature of evidence and the record there was no possibility of interpolation or manipulation.This record is very old and it is relevant in view of provision of section 35 of the Evidence91) In the evidence, Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) has given approximate age of PW-2 as already quoted.There is no reason for not accepting the opinion given by Dr. Jaishri in::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 71 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 view of the aforesaid record and the substantive evidence.No other probability is created during cross-examination of this witness.It is not even suggested to PW-2 that she was studying in any other institution.At the cost of repetition this Court feels it necessary to mention here that due to the incidents in question, the parents and guardians of PW-1 and PW-2 disowned them, they did not even turn up to give evidence for the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::92) The provisions of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 quoted already, and the provision of section 35 of the Evidence Act show that even without examining the official, certified copy of entry made in the birth register is admissible in evidence.Further, when there is such record giving specific date of birth, such record needs to be given precedence over the school record if there is inconsistency between the two records.Similarly, the opinion given by doctor on age if it is inconsistent, ordinarily precedence needs to be given to the record of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 72 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 birth date prepared under the aforesaid Act. In the present matter, the medical evidence is also consistent with this record and no probability is created in this matter that age of PW-1 was more than 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::It was also argued that Dr. Jaishri used a chart given by civil hospital for ascertaining the age in which tests/data were given.There is no force in both the challenges.Evidence of Dr. Jaishri shows that under her instructions and supervision the X-rays were taken by the technician.She has completed post graduate course after completing MBBS.This Court holds that the age of both the victims was below 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::94) Both the sides placed reliance on some reported cases.There was no record of birth register.Mother's evidence on factual aspect was not found convincing and the Court held that the opinion of the Radiologist was necessary, which was not available.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::95) In the case reported as (2010)1 SCC 742 (Sunil v. State of Haryana) on which reliance was placed by the counsel for the accused, the facts were different.The prosecutrix was not certain about her age and there was no record on the basis of which she had given age.In that case the doctor had clinically examined the prosecutrix and had sent the prosecutrix to Dental Surgeon/ Radiologist for verification but such verification was not done.Thus, the doctor who had done clinical examination was also not sure about the opinion which was possible on::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 75 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 the basis of clinical examination.In view of these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the age of the prosecutrix was not below 16 years.However, the Apex Court made it clear that there is no rule as such that such examination needs to be done in every case.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::96) In the case reported as 2010 Cri.There cannot be dispute over this proposition.Evidence on wrongful confinement and abduction:::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::residential quarters under pretext that he will supply drinking water is consistent with each other.It can be said that there could have been charge against accused No.4 for this incident also.There was intention of accused No.4 right from the beginning to commit the offence of rape by exploiting the situation in which PW-1 and PW-2 were found.The evidence shows that accused No.5 did not allow them to leave from the quarters when the key was with him.In the noon time, accused No.4 returned to the quarters and even after that they did not allow the two victim girls to leave the railway quarters.Both the victim girls were kept in the railway quarters and from there they were taken to Shakti Bungalow by accused Nos.4 to 7 in the evening time.This evidence is sufficient to prove that there was wrongful confinement from accused Nos.4 and 5 of PW-1 and PW-2 and they committed offence punishable under section 342 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::PW-1 has given evidence that accused No.5 committed rape on her.PW-2 has given evidence that accused No.4 committed rape on her.The trial Court has considered some omissions in the first disclosure made by the girls in respect of this incident and that point is being discussed at later place.It can be said that accused Nos.4 and 5 both wanted to commit offence as both the victim girls were available.Considering the intention of accused Nos.4 and 5 and the fact that both girls were kept in the railway quarters with that intention, this Court holds that the act amounts to gang rape.99) The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 given on rape committed on PW-2 in Shakti Bungalow is consistent with each other.The evidence of these two girls shows that after every incident they used to disclose about the incident to each other as they had no other option.The::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 78 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 evidence shows that to Shakti Bungalow PW-1 and PW-2 were taken by accused Nos.4 and 5 in a vehicle and accused Nos.6 and 7 had followed that vehicle up to Shakti Bungalow.The evidence on the record shows that accused Nos.6 and 7 were using that premises, Shakti Bungalow.The very nature of the evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 shows that it is accused Nos.4 and 5 who had contacted accused No.6 and 7 and it was informed to accused No.6 and 7 that these two victim girls were available for commission of rape.The evidence of PW-2 shows that accused Nos.4 to 7 raped her one by one by many hours on that night, till 3.00 a.m. Thus there is specific evidence from PW-2 that in Shakti Bungalow accused Nos.4 to 7 raped her one after other and they committed offence of gang rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::100) The record which is referred during cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-2 by the defence counsels for proving the inconsistencies in the versions of the PW-1 and PW-2, the omissions and the contradictions show that the relevant portions were confronted to the witnesses::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 79 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 and on proof, the relevant portions are exhibited.Much was argued on this circumstance by the learned Senior Counsel and other counsels for the appellants.At the time of considering these inconsistencies or omissions, it is necessary to keep in mind in a case like the present one that many police officers have recorded the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and many supplementary statements were recorded by them.Even statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded many times.PW-1 and PW-2 have made allegations against investigating officer Khan (PW-18) that their versions were not correctly and completely recorded by him.It needs to be kept in mind that two girls are from very poor families and there was no support of anybody to them at the relevant time.Some accused persons from the two cases were employees in Railway and some were involved in politics.It can be said that only the officer of C.I.D., who ultimately took over the investigation, made an attempt to record the statements in detail and those statements cover all the incidents.Police officers acted as per their notions.Even, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not record the statements in respect of all the incidents and it can be said that the learned Judicial Magistrate had not gone through the record of the investigation already made by police before recording the statements.When statement is being recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the learned Judicial Magistrate to ascertain the nature of allegations, disclosures already made by the witnesses and then elicit the information from the witness by putting questions if they are missing something while disclosing the incidents before him.It can be said that most casual approach was used by the Judicial Magistrates while recording statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. What is important in a criminal case like the present one is the substantive evidence given by the victim girls.Due to the existence of the circumstances like::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 81 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 above, the Court can look for corroboration but the Court cannot discard the substantive evidence only due to the existence of such circumstances.The circumstance that the two victim girls did not know the accused and only on the basis of disclosures made by them the accused were traced and police went to the various places where the incidents took place need to be kept in mind while considering the defence of the aforesaid nature of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::There was contention that due to something which was::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 ::: 82 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 done against her (when she was under intoxication) she had suffered pains in the private part.While ascertaining the exact omissions in the evidence of the victim girl, narrations of the victim girl before police in entirety need to be considered and then the nature and extent of the omission needs to be ascertained by the Courts.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:14 :::102) PW-2 has given evidence on the rape committed on her by accused Nos.4 to 7 in Shakti Bungalow.In that regard also some omission is brought on record in the previous statement about the actual act.In the previous statement, PW-2 had stated before police that she was feeling drowsy due to liquor but she was feeling that these persons were doing something against her and she could see that.What is said above, needs to be applied in respect of this omission also.In the subsequent disclosure made to police they had specifically contended that accused No.4 had raped PW-2 and accused No.5 had raped PW-1 in the railway quarters.PW-2 had disclosed that she and PW-1 both were raped in Shakti bungalow one by one by accused Nos.4 to 7 and it can be said that::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 ::: 83 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 to some extent there is inconsistency and even contradiction in the evidence of PW-2 in relation to such previous statement.PW-1 has deposed that as she was observing menstruation period and that disclosed by her to the accused, she was not raped in Shakti Bungalow.While considering such inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions the evidence as a whole needs to be considered and the evidence as a whole shows that they had named accused Nos.4 to 7 as the persons who had exploited the situation, who had raped them at two places.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::103) In the statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. of PW-2 there are some omissions and also inconsistencies.If the evidence of PW-2 is compared with the disclosures made to Judicial Magistrate on 29-7-1994 it can be said that in the statement dated 29-7-1994 these witnesses did not disclose the incidents of Shakti Bungalow.Necessary observations in respect of this omissions are already made by this Court.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::PW-2 had recent tear of hymen.There were other signs showing that there was sexual intercourse with these two minor girls.Dr. Jaishri was extensively cross- examined by the defence counsel on the opinion given by her on the basis of her observations but she stood to the test of the cross-examination.Such things were there as from the railway quarters itself on 7-7-1994 PW-2 was picked up and she was referred by police for medical examination.PW-14 Jaishri noticed bleeding through cervical OS.On PV examination, speculum tenderness and vagina admitted one finger with pains.The record of the examination of PW-2 is at Exhibit 79 and it is consistent with the oral evidence of the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::noticed posterior fourchette congested and redness and she noticed that hymen was congested.She found that vagina was admitting one finger with minimum pains, bleeding through cervical was present.The record of the examination is at Exhibit 79 and it is consistent with the oral evidence.107) Many persons had raped these two victim girls.Though it is possible for the accused from the present case to say that these two victim girls were raped already in other incidents which had already taken place and so the medical evidence cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration in the present matter, that proposition could not have been accepted by the trial Court.These persons exploited the situation in which PW-1 and PW-2 had found themselves and there are specific allegations against the accused from the present matter.As the acts against PW- 2 were continued till 3.0 a.m. of 7-7-1994, there were aforesaid signs of rape.Only due to the period expired, living spermatozoa could not be noticed by the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::108) While considering the challenge to the prosecution evidence on the ground of delay caused in giving F.I.R. and on that ground it is very difficult to ascertain as to which was the first statement given in respect of the incident by PW 2, this Court holds that whatever is said in respect of approach and conduct of PW-1 and PW-2 already is applicable as explanation to the delay caused in making the disclosure.To add few more circumstances it can be said that these girls were new in the city and they must have been shocked due to the behavior of the accused persons with them and the things which were done to them by many persons who included some influential persons and some persons holding posts in Government departments.Further, PW-1 has given specific evidence that she did not want to disclose the incident out of fear to anybody including to her mother.They had left the shelter of their guardians without::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 ::: 87 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 informing anything to anybody and they must have guilty feeling that they were responsible for whatever had happened to them.If police had not intervened, the girls would not have even approached police on their own.Due to these circumstances, this Court holds that not much can be made out due to delay caused in disclosing the incidents to police.In such cases due to delay caused in making disclosures, the Court can scrutinize the evidence minutely but only on that ground the Court cannot discard the substantive evidence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::109) In respect of the challenge to the evidence given on T.I. parade it can be said that there is substance in the contentions that there was no strict compliance of the guidelines given in Criminal Manual in paragraph 16 of Chapter I by this Court.Number of dummies used by Jadhav at the time of conducting T.I. parade were less than the number expected in the guidelines.There is no record to support the evidence of Jadhav that the dummy::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 ::: 88 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 persons had appearance which was similar to the accused persons.However, the evidence of Jadhav shows that he was satisfied about the identification of the accused persons made by the two victim girls during T.I. parade.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::110) Accused No.4 was identified by PW-1 though as associate.PW-2 identified all the remaining accused in T.I. parade.These two girls were together.Evidence of PW-1 shows that accused No.4 had not raped her.Thus, the evidence of PW-2 on identification given as against accused No.5 can be used in the present matter.111) The trial Court has considered the CA reports in respect of incriminating articles recovered during investigation by police.Different police officers had taken::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 ::: 89 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 over different articles.Some stains of blood were found on those articles as per the CA reports.Similarly, some stains of blood were found on the clothes of some accused persons.Accused Nos.6 and 7 came to be arrested after many days though accused Nos.4 and 5 were arrested immediately.Due to the circumstances of the present matter even if this circumstantial evidence is ignored, there is more than sufficient evidence against accused Nos.4 to 7 to hold them guilty for the offences for which they were charged and tried.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::112) The prosecution has proved that both the victim girls had not crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.Thus the defence of consent is not available to any of the accused from the present appeals.The tenor of the cross-examination made by learned counsels of the accused show that indirectly it was suggested that the prosecutrix was the consenting party.It was also suggested that the prosecutrix did not resist or did not raise hue an cry when the offence was taking place.It is already observed that the accused persons were not known to both PW-1 and PW-2 though by referring to previous statement of PW-2 the defence tried to show that::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 ::: 91 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 probably PW-1 had initial talk with accused No.4 before going to his railway quarters.The circumstance that PW-1 had disclosed that she had girl friend at that place or probability that she knew accused No.4 cannot make difference in the present matter.Admittedly PW-2 was not acquainted with any of the accused and it is due to the information supplied by her the police traced accused persons.Further, the evidence of the investigating officer does not show that at any time they treated PW-1 as an accused person.The evidence given by her is already discussed and it shows that she was also raped.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::113) Some argument was advanced by the counsels for the accused on the circumstance that Sham Agrawal, a person from Parbhani who is relative of PW-1 was not::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 ::: 92 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 traced.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding.There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration.The identification parades belong to the investigation stage.They are generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of enabling the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who were not previously known to them.This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses and also to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimony in court.Identification proceedings in their legal effect amount simply to this: that certain persons are brought to jail or some other place and make statements either express or implied that certain individuals whom they point out are persons whom they recognise as having been concerned in the crime.They do not constitute substantive evidence.These parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code."::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::It was case filed for offences punishable under sections 302, 392, 120-B, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::The provision of section 376(2)(g) which was applicable at the relevant time is as under:::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:16 :::They have given evidence that they were supplied with food.In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed.The appellants-accused to surrender to bail bonds for undergoing sentence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:16 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on I.A.No.21329/2018, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on behalf of the appellant Kamal for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Objection has already been filed, it is on record.T h e appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Three years along with fine in the sum of Rs.500/-, R.I. for Five years along with fine in the sum of Rs.500/-, R.I. for Ten years along with fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/- with fine stipulation respectively.Perused the record.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 23/02/2019 14:49:33

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

The complainant was one Sonpal, resident of village Jonthri which is situate within the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha Mohabbatpur Labhna.He filed a complaint before the Panchayati Adalat Deohli against three persons, Mohar Singh, Pokhu and Badnu, also residents of the same village.This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution for an appropriate order Setting aside a conviction by the Panchayati Adalat of Mohabbatpur.The charges were under Sections 323 and 447, Penal Code.The Sarpanch constituted a bench of five Panches, of whom only one belonged to Gaon Sabha Mohabbatpur Labhna while (he other four belonged to some other Gaon Sabha or Gaon Sabhas.The Panchayati Adalat convicted the three accused under Sections 323 and 447, Penal Code and imposed fines of Rs. 80/- and Rs. 70/- respectively on each of them.This amendment was made retrospective.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.1.The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certirorari quashing First Information Report dated 22-07-2015 bearing Case Crime No. 400 of 2015, under sections 354-A(5), 354-D, 323, 504,506 Indian Penal Code & 7/8 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Police Station-PGI, District-Lucknow.None appears on behalf of the petitioners.We have gone through the allegations made in the First Information Report.It has been alleged that petitioner no. 4, Shubham, used to stalk the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix had to cover her face to move about, so that accused was unable to take her photograph.The prosecutrix thereafter reported the matter to her parents.When the parents of the prosecutrix approached the parents of petitioner no. 4, they were abused.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(2) In case the information is given to the Protection Officer under sub-rule (1) orally, he or she shall cause it to be reduced to in writing and shall ensure that the same is signed by the person giving such information and in case the information is not in a position to furnish written information the Protection Officer shall satisfy and keep a record of the identity of the person giving such information.(3) The Protection Officer shall give a copy of the information recorded by him immediately to the informant free of cost.Domestic incident reports.-By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 31st May, 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case No. 934/2003 titled as Manjari Vs.Shambhu Prasad Singh issuing notice to the Petitioner on a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short D.V. Act) without calling for a report from the Protection Officer and the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th August, 2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that on an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, no notice could have been issued to the Petitioner/ husband of the complainant without calling domestic inspection report from the Protection Officer as mandated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Reference is made to Sections 4, 5 & 12 of the D.V. Act and Rules 4, 5, Crl.Application to Magistrate.--(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MARCH 05, 2012/'ga' Crl.M.C. 3083/2011 Page 12 of 12

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

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

JUDGMENT Malik, J.(1) On the night intervening 30th and 31st July 1983 one Kewal Kishan was done to death by the appellant at about 1-30 A.M."while the deceased was sleeping on a col spread outside his house No. 2/21, Vijay Nagar, Delhi.At the same time the appellant had also caused injuries to his cousin sister Kumari Seema, daughter of Jagjit Singh.This, was done pursuant to an attempt to kill her.The weapon of offence , used is sword Ex. P-14, recovered pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant before Shri Harnath Singh,Sub-lnspector,(P.W. 19).The F.I.R. was lodged by Ranjit Kumar, brother of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the appellant attacking.Kumari Seema with a sharp edged weapon and then running away from the scene.Simultaneously, be .also found his brother Kewal Kishan having been murdered.Jagjit Singh, father of Kumari Seema.and Ranjit Kumar, brother Of the deceased, tried to apprehend the appellant but did not succeed.Ranjit Kumar also informed the police that on that very night a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased on spreading of cot.At the time of the incident Kumari Seema along with her mother were sleeping on separate cots outside their house No. 3/23, Vijay Nagar, Delhi.The appellant was found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 Indian Penal Code He was also found guilty under Section 507 Indian Penal Code and was awarded five years' rigorous imprisonment on this count.The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently.(2) At trial the prosecution examined a number of witnesses.The testimonies of Public Witness I Ranjit Kumar and his brother-in law Sushil Kumar (P.W. 8) have not been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given proper and cogent reasons for refusing to place any reliance on their testimony and we find no scope for disturbing the same.Reliance by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been placed on the testimony ofP.W.5 Kumari Seema and her father Jagjit Singh (P.W.6).The conclusion of guilty is also founded on the circumstantial evidence, i.e. a letter Ex.P-12 written by the appellant and found on his cot soon after the incident and also recovery of the sword Ex. P-14 made pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the accused.Dr. Bharat Singh (P.W. 7) after seeing the weapon of the offence has also opined that the injuries sustained are possible with this weapon.We-do not therefore, purpose to go into this - aspect.(4) Kumari Seema (Public Witness .5) has testified that .she could not get sleep on the night of the incident due to hot and hostile weather and she saw the appellant coming out of the house with a sword and inflicting blows on the deceased.According to her, the appellant thereafter came towards her but she raised an alarm which attracted her father Jagjit Singh (P.W. 6) Ranjit Kumar and Sushil Kumar.The appellant had meanwhile struck a blow with the sword on her neck and had escaped.She further slates that the appellant was chased by all the three aforesaid persons but they did not succeed in apprehending him.According to her, in the evening of 30th of July when the deceased wanted to spread his cot near the corner of her house, a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased as the appellant bad objected to the action of the deceased of spreading his cot near the corner of her house and had asked the deceased to spread his cot in front of his own house which the deceased did.She admits not to have raised any alarm when the appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased and says that she did so only when the appellant proceeded to attack her.(5) Public Witness 6 Jagjit Singh father of Kumari Seema, has deposed that on being awakened by the alarm raised by his daughter he came out of his room and saw the appellant inflicting a blow on his daughter with a sword.He also saw the accused proceeding towards her from the place where the cot of the deceased was spread.The accused, according to him, was based by him, Ranjit Kumar (P.W. 1) and Sushil Kumar (P.W. 8) but the appellant succeeded in escaping. ' According to him, on the arrival of the police the sheath of the sword and a hand-written note by the appellant in Gurmukhi marked Ex. P-12 were found on the cot of the appellant.(6) Before proceeding further in the matter some more facts need to be noticed.Admitted case of the parties is that the appellant who is a nephew of Jagjit Singh (P.W. 6) bad come to reside with him from Punjab a few months back and on the night of the incident he together with Jagjit Singh and his sons were sleeping inside their rooms.Only Kumari Seema and her mother were sleeping outside in front of their house while the deceased had spread his cot and was sleeping outside his house.The exact English transaction is asunder: "BIRA(Brother), Nobody should at all involve my uncle and aunt in the proceedings I myself have committed-this murder.I saw.some happening.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for the objector.Heard with the aid of case diary This is first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as the applicant apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.116/2017 registered at Police Station Jawa, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (jha), 376(2) (g), 506-2 of IPC and 3 /4 POCSO Act.As per prosecution case, on 18.06.2017 at about 10 P.M. co-accused Nikhil Dubey alongwith two other persons came to the house of prosecutrix situated at village Sitalha P.S. Jawa District-Rewa and took prosecutrix from her house and took her to village Jawa on motorcycle where co-accused Nikhil Dwivedi committed rape with prosecutrix.On the threat of life next day in the morning co-accused Nikhil Dwivedi took prosecutrix to Rewa.At Rewa co-accused Nikhil Dwivedi met with present applicant Sudhir Dwivedi and handed over the position of the prosecutrix to the applicant.He left the prosecutrix to her house situated at village Sitalha on motorcycle.He also threatened the prosecutrix that if she narrate the incident to anybody he will destroy her whole family.Thereafter the prosecutrix narrate the whole incident to her mother.On that her mother lodged report on 19.06.2017 on that police registered crime No.116/17 against the co-accused Nikhil Dwivedi.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the offence.The allegations against the applicant is that, applicant threatened the prosecutrix that she should not narrate the incident to anybody.From that at the most offence under Section 506 of IPC is made against the applicant.Appellant is permanent resident of village Sitalha.On due consideration and contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no allegations against the applicant that he abducted the prosecutrix or committed rape with her.On the contrary in the statement of prosecutrix it is mentioned that applicant took the prosecutrix to her house and only threatened her not to narrate the incident to anybody.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Visera is sent to chemicalanalysis.Head is removed from the body and sent for complete forensic labanalysis".The Doctor gave final opinion under Ex.P.5, wherein it is stated that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorhage due to cutting ofvital major blood vessels and trachea in the neck about 4 to 5 days prior to thePost Mortem.The Investigating Officer, recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth(M.Os.7 and 8) from the place where the dead body was buried.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.) Both the accused persons and the deceased are friends and they were doingthe business of sale of cattle.Both the accused borrowed money from thedeceased and delayed re-payment of the same.When the deceased repeatedlyinsisted for repayment, they conspired to finish off the deceased and, as perthe plan, A-2 took the deceased to A-1, who, by dropping a heavy stone on thehead of the deceased and by stabbing him with knife on the neck, caused hisdeath and thereafter, in order to screen the offence, buried the dead body neara bush, resulted in registration of the case.Learned I Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,Madurai, during the course of the trial in S.C.No.117/99, framed four chargesagainst both the accused.As per the first charge, the accused/appellants, inorder to get rid of the deceased, who insisted for re-payment of the loanborrowed by them, conspired to murder the deceased, thereby, committed anoffence punishable under Section 120-B IPC.As per the second charge, on04.11.1996, A-2 took the deceased from his residence by projecting as if A-1 waswaiting for him with money to make re-payment and handed him over to A-1 andfacilitated A-1 to commit the murder of the deceased, thereby committed anoffence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.As per the third charge,the 1st accused, on the same day at 6.30 p.m., while the deceased was sleeping,by dropping a heavy stone on the head and stabbing him on the neck with a knife,caused his death, thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 302IPC.When the accused were questioned initially by the trial Judge, they deniedthe commission of the offence and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution, in orderto substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 24, marked Exs.On conclusion of the trial, by order dated 19.10.2000,the learned trial Judge found the first accused guilty under Sections 302 and201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and RigorousImprisonment for two years.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Thesecond accused was found guilty under Section 302 read with 34 and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life.Aggrieved against the said order of convictionand sentence, the present appeals have been preferred.2.The motive part of the prosecution case has been spoken to by P.W.1,wife of the deceased.As per her evidence, the first and second accused wereliable to pay a sum of Rs.63,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively in the businesstransaction and they were delaying re-payment and on 04.11.1996, A-2 came to herresidence and asked the deceased to come along with him to the place of A-1, whois willing to repay the money.Since her husband did not turn up even after fourdays, she enquired A-1 about the whereabouts of her husband, for which, it wasreplied that the deceased was given Rs.28,000/- and sent back.Thereafter,P.W.1, accompanied by P.W.6 her brother-in-law, went to the police station andlodged a complaint under Ex.P.W.19, the Sub Inspector of Police, on 08.11.1996, at 11.45 a.m.,received the complaint given by P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.207/1996for "man missing", took up the investigation and examined the witnesses.P.W.5,the Village Administrative Officer, in his evidence, stated that A-1 came to hisoffice on 09.11.1996 at 12.30 p.m. and made a statement confessing that on04.11.1996 at 6.30 p.m., he had committed the murder of the deceased by droppingstone on the head and concealed the dead body near a bush.After reducing thestatement into writing, P.W.5, proceeded to the place where the dead body wasconcealed and thereafter, handed over A-1 to P.W.19, the Sub Inspector ofPolice.P.9 is the statement given by the accused.On 9.11.1996, at 2.00 p.m., after production of A-1 by P.W.5, along withthe statement given, P.W.19, altered the penal provision as one under Section302 IPC and forwarded copies of Ex.P.W.24, the Investigating Officer on receipt of copy of the FirstInformation Report on 09.11.1996, took up investigation.He recorded thestatement of the accused and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 7.30 p.m.and a requisition has been given to P.W.4/Tahsildar for conducting inquest.P.W.9 along with P.W.10 exhumed the body of the deceased.P.W.11, the VillageAssistant, brought two petromax lights to the scene of occurrence since it wasdark at that time.Through P.W.23, Photographer, the dead body was photographed.P.25 series are the photographs and negatives.After the body was taken out,the Tahsildar/P.W.4 conducted inquest and Ex.P.8 is the inquest report.By thattime, P.W.2, the Medical Officer, on receipt of requisition from theTahsildar, reached the scene of occurrence.Since the dead body was highlydecomposed, he conducted Post Mortem at the place where the dead body wasexhumed and issued Post Mortem Certificate as per Ex.P.4, wherein, it has beenstated as follows:"Exhumation started.Its headis covered with dirty towel.The body was buried in prone position with upperlimbs adducted and lower limbs stretched.Because of the advanced degree of decomposition and peeling of skin,identification could not be done.The exhumated body is a male bdy since thepresence of male genitalia.Fare left side is flattered.Right eye protrudedout.There is no obvious fractures on the vault of the skull.Soft tissueportion over the left side of the fact in glimy due to decomposition.To avoidiotrogenic small tender bones fracture of face only vault is exposed and rest isleft for expert's analysis like X-ray superimposition.The neck is irregularlycut anteriorly and anterior half of the neck is completely cut.Trachea is cutand tiahced opening is seen.The continuity of the blood vessels between headand thorax is cut and major blood vessels of neck are cut and discontinue.Dueto decomposition the identification of names of vessels not possible.Tecieptionof the shape of the Wound on the neck: An irregularly cut wound 14cm long rightside transversely width is 6 cm.Depth is bone depth upto vertebral bones(cervical vertebra) cut trachea.the openings of neck blood fractured hyoidbone.viscera is sent for chemical analysis.Stomach, intestine, kidney aredecomposed stage lungs and heard are decomposed.He preparedObservation Mahazar and Rough Sketch Exs.P.12 and P.27 respectively.Inpursuance of the statement given A-1, the Investigating Officer recovered M.O.9stone, weighing 14 Kg, bloodstained cloths of the deceased and Knife (M.O.12) inthe presence of witnesses.P.W.3, the Forensic expert, on receipt of the skulland photographs of the deceased conducted superimposition test and the reportgiven by him is Ex.P.W.12, speaks about the arrest of A-2 by the Investigating Officer andrecording of the statement from him.No incriminating material was recoveredfrom him.P.W.13/Wireman, has been examined to substantiate that there wasuninterrupted power supply on 04.11.1996 to the village, however, he has beentreated as hostile since he did not support the case of the prosecution.According to him, a sum of Rs.63,000/- was payable by A-1 to the deceasedand after the death of the deceased, Rs.30,000/- was repaid by the father-in-lawof A-1 and it was assured that the balance amount would be paid after a month.P.W.15 has been examined to substantiate the conspiracy between both theaccused.In his evidence, he has stated that 5 days prior to the occurrence, at9.00 p.m., near Vidathakulam Chavadi, he heard them saying, "in lieu of re-payment, let us finish off the deceased".P.W.16, stated that he had seen A-1with spade and crowbar and subsequently, he came to know about the death of thedeceased.P.W.17 has been examined to substantiate that the accused and the deceasedwere seen together prior to the date of occurrence and in his evidence, hestated that he is running a tea stall and the accused and the deceased camethere for taking tea.P.W.18, has been examined to substantiate that the dead body of thedeceased was buried in his land, however, he turned hostile.P.W.20 is the Court Clerk, who, on receipt of the material objects alongwith requisition, forwarded the same to the Forensic Lab for receiving opinionfrom the experts.P.23 and P.24 are chemical examination and serologicalreports and Ex.P.7 is the superimposition test report.The Investigating Officer, after examination of witnesses and receivingmedical and forensic opinions and, on conclusion of the investigation, filed thefinal report.When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to theincriminating materials produced on the side of the prosecution, the accusedpleaded innocence.The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of the materials placed andconsidering the arguments advanced on both sides, convicted and sentenced theappellants as stated supra; hence, the present appeal.3.Learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused (Crl.Though P.W.1has stated in her evidence that she searched for the deceased on the next dayand even enquired with the 1st accused, seemingly, she did not prefer acomplaint to the police immediately.P.Ws.1 and 6 to 9 speakabout the second accused taking the deceased from his residence and though ithas been stated that the second accused had taken the deceased to meet the firstaccused, they do not speak anything about the first accused.The evidence ofP.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, is not natural and the same cannot bebelieved, for, an accused person, while confessing, would not give a lengthy andgraphic story including the motive and other aspects of the case and therefore,the alleged extra judicial confession by A-1 to P.W.5, on the face of it, isartificial and highly unbelievable.The vital aspect of conspiracy by theaccused could not be discerned from the alleged extra judicial confession,wherein it is simply stated that the deceased came to the tea shop, thereafter,he was taken by A-1 to his land.It is the prosecution case that the firstaccused dropped a heavy stone weighing 14 Kg on the head of the deceased.If itwas really so, the skull would have been crushed and the overtact, as put forthin the extra judicial confession itself is not corroborated by medical evidence.Though it is stated in the confession statement that the first accused delivereda stab on the neck of the deceased, the injury found on the deceased does notcorroborate such statement.P.W.5 attested the arrest and recovery Mahazar relating to the firstaccused and on perusal of the materials, it appears that P.W.5 obliged theInvestigating Officer and that materials have been created against the accusedto foist a false case.Insofar as the money transaction is concerned,contradicting versions were given by P.W.1 and other witnesses and therefore,the motive as put forth by the case of the prosecution has not beensubstantiated.4.Learned counsel appearing for A-2/appellant in Cr.A.No.1086 of 2000submitted that the name of A-2 has not been mentioned at all in Ex.P.1, thecomplaint lodged by P.W.1 and it is simply stated that the deceased, on his own,went to meet the first accused to get back the money.Further, A-2 visiting theresidence of P.W.1 for taking the deceased to A-1 is also not mentioned therein.Even in the alleged extra judicial confession, A-1 has elaborated thetransaction between the deceased and himself and further stated that thedeceased came to his village on 04.11.1996 on his own to meet him and at thattime, A-2 also came there to that tea shop.Nothing has been stated thereinabout the conspiracy by A-1 and A-2 together.It is further stated therein thatA-2, after taking tea, returned back to his residence, therefore, the conspiracyby A-1 and A-2 to finish off the deceased and the role played by A-2, inpursuance of such conspiracy, are not at all established.The evidence of thewitnesses/P.Ws.15 and 22, who were examined to substantiate the conspiracy, isunbelievable, because, their statements reached the Court after much delay andtheir evidence is also artificial.The evidence of P.W.17 does not in any wayimprove the case of the prosecution since it has been simply stated by him thathe had seen the accused and the deceased taking tea in his shop.P.9.Nothing has been mentioned therein about the conspiracy; further, there arecontradictory versions about the motive part of the prosecution, therefore,even accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution caseas against the accused/appellants is not substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.6.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that thoughthere is no direct evidence regarding the overtacts attributed in the extrajudicial confession given by A-1, the same can be believed since it came intoexistence through the Village Administrative Officer, who, after recording thesame, produced the accused before the police officer.Through P.Ws.8 and 17, itis substantiated that both the accused were seen together in the company of thedeceased prior to his death.The identity of the deceased has been provedthrough superimposition test.The Post Mortem Doctor has categorically statedthat the death of the deceased was due to homicidal violence.7.We have perused the materials available on record and considered thesubmissions made on either side.8.In a case of circumstantial evidence, the materials produced by theprosecution must be strong and continuous leading to a reasonable conclusionpointing only towards the guilt of the accused.P.1 and 9 to substantiate the conspiracy between A-1 and A-2 tofinish off the deceased.If really A-2 conspired along with A-1, A-2 also wouldhave accompanied A-1 and the deceased and would have been present at the time ofoccurrence.Curiously, in Ex.P.1, nothing has been mentioned about A-2 visitingthe residence of P.W.1, on the contrary, it has been mentioned that the deceasedwent in search of A-1, on his own.Even in Ex.P.9, which is a lengthy narrationalleged to have been made by A-1, nowhere, conspiracy by both the accused isstated.It is mentioned in Ex.P.9 that the death of the deceased was caused bytwo major overtacts.A-1 is alleged to have dropped a heavy stone weighing about14 kg over the head of the deceased at the time when he was sleeping on theground.If it was really so, the head of the deceased would have been crushedand the skull would not be available for superimposition test for comparison.Though it has been stated that the first accused stabbed the deceased on theneck, the Post Mortem Doctor, P.W.2, in his evidence categorically stated thatthe head of the deceased was almost severed, therefore, the extra judicialconfession is not effectively corroborated by medical evidence.If we are tobelieve the medical evidence, then, necessarily, we may have to eschew Ex.P.9from consideration.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 to 8 is contradictory with theversions in Exs.Though we canbelieve the superimposition test report, there is no material to substantiatethat the occurrence had taken place in the manner as put forth by theprosecution.Moreover, statement of many witnesses reached the Court after along delay.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the recovery ofmaterial objects through the accused is highly unbelievable.The extra judicialconfession by its very nature is a weak piece of evidence and it requirescorroboration from other material evidence.In this case, the chain ofcircumstances are not continuous and sufficient enough to conclude that it wasthe first accused who alone has caused the death of the deceased and similarlythere is no material available to connect the second accused with the crime.Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution case as againstthe appellants/accused is not substantiated.Consequently, the order ofconviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and both theaccused are acquitted of the charges.Bail bond executed by them shall standcancelled.Appeals are allowed accordingly.The Inspector of Police,Tirumangalam Police Station,Thirumangalam Taluk,Madurai District.

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

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

Thereafter Dr. Ajay Singh and Dr. Neelam operated her and took out the baby.Dr. Anil Singh after examining declared the baby dead and Dr. Devesh Shrivastava came to gallery from the operation theater, accused Rajeev Shrivastava, Mahendra Shrivastava, applicant Kaptan Singh Parmar and unknown lady abused him and started to inflict injuries by fits and kicks.Dr. Ajay Singh and 2 MCRC.No.13219/2015 Dr. Neelam saved him.Dr. Devendra Shrivastava received injuries.On his report, crime has been registered.This is the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.331/2014, registered at P.S. Kotwali, Datia District Datia for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 353, 186, 332, 506-B/34 of IPC.It is alleged that on 12/09/2014 at about 08:35 in front of Lady Hospital, Datia, it was observed that in the womb of patient Monika Shrivastava, there was no sound of baby's heart beat.However, the applicant has to furnish a fresh bail bond and surety before the trial Court after the filing of challan.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K.Palo) Vacation Judge AK/-

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 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', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 20/11/2018 passed in M.Cr.As per prosecution case, applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix, who was minor aged about 15 years, due to which she became pregnant and gave birth to a child.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was major and a consenting party.From the statement of parents of the deceased i.e. Ramkali (PW-2) and Netlal (PW-3) it is clear that the prosecutrix was major and went with the applicant on her own will.The police falsely implicated the applicant in the crime.The applicant has been in custody since 17/7/2018 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and Signature Not Verified SAN submitted that applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix who was minor, Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.11.11 14:24:05 IST 2 MCRC-23801-2020 due to which she became pregnant and gave birth to a child, so applicant should not be released on bail.It is alleged that the applicant who is the relative of the prosecutrix and already married sexually exploited the prosecutrix who was minor aged about 16 years, due to which she became pregnant and gave birth to a child.Accordingly, the application is rejected.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.11.11 14:24:05 IST

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated 29-08-2015 and 31-08-2015 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court cum Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur, in Special.No. 09(12) 2014 in Special.No. 29 of 2014, convicting the appellant under Sections 448/307 of the Indian 2 Penal Code (in short the IPC) and under Sections 4/18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (in short the POCSO Act).By the said judgment, the learned trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another 2(two) months for offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another 5(five) months for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.The trial Court further sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further 3(three) months for offence punishable under Sections 4/18 of the POCSO Act.The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the defacto complainant and the mother of the victim Dipali Sarkar lodged complaint before Balurghat Police Station on 22-09-2014 to the effect that on 21-09-2014 around 4:30 p.m, when her daughter Sikha Sarkar aged about 15 years was alone in her house, the accused-appellant entered into their house on the pretext of borrowing a chopper (daa) and taking advantage of the child being alone in the house the appellant dragged her to the room, undressed her and attempted to commit rape on her.He also dragged her by her hair and throttled her with a rope with the intention to kill her as a result of which blood and saliva oozed out of her mouth.The appellant fled away leaving the 3 child alone.The complainant returned home and found her daughter lying unconscious.She took the child to the hospital where she regained her sense after treatment and narrated the incident.The complaint was lodged after a day's delay as the mother was busy attending the child.On receipt of the complaint, Balurghat Police Station Case No. 713 of 2014 dated 22-09-2014 was registered under Sections 448/376/511/307 of the IPC read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 448/376/511/307 of the IPC read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The case was committed to the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge and thereafter transferred to the Learned Special Judge (under POCSO Act) cum Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur for trial.Charge was framed against the accused-appellant under Sections 448/376(2) (i)/511/307 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 9 (nine) witnesses in support of its case and the defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination as well as statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, is a denial of the prosecution case and a plea of innocence.Upon consideration of the evidence on record, ld. trial Court passed the order of conviction and sentence.In assailing the judgment impugned, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the charge framed by the Trial Court is bereft of the mode and manner of the alleged offence as well as the place of occurrence.The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded about 2(two) months after the alleged occurrence and such recording was also not in accordance with law.There are contradictions in the statement of the victim before the doctor, before the Magistrate, and before the Trial Judge.The chopper (daa) was not seized by the Investigating Officer.The evidence on record is too scanty to bring home the charge against the accused-appellant.Learned advocate has prayed for acquittal of the appellant.Learned advocate representing the State has supported the judgment impugned and has submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) is corroborated by the evidence of the defacto complainant and the victim and is also supported by medical evidence.The rope of the mosquito net which was used by the appellant to strangulate the victim was seized in course of investigation.The prosecution evidence, considered as a whole, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant and none else committed the offence.The prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the appeal ought to be dismissed.It is the case of the prosecution that on the relevant day, i.e., 21-09- 2014 at about 4:00 p.m, the accused trespassed into the house of the victim when she was alone on the pretext of borrowing a chopper and 5 tried to commit rape upon her.He also tried to strangulate her with a rope of the mosquito net which was lying in the room.The victim girl who was a minor on the date of the incident adduced evidence as PW-1 wherein she identified the accused as the perpetrator of the offence and stated that she knew the accused from her childhood.The victim alleged that the accused hugged her from behind, pressed her mouth, forcibly dragged her to the cot in the room, tried to pull out her shirt and removed her pant forcibly in an attempt to rape her.When she raised alarm, the accused tried to strangulate her with the rope of a mosquito net lying in the room for which she sustained severe injuries around her neck as well as on her leg and stomach.She was admitted to Balurghat District Hospital and remained there for 6/7 days.She narrated the incident before the doctor at the hospital and thereafter before the Police and the Magistrate who recorded the same.She also disclosed the incident to her parents and to local people.The defacto complainant of the case who is the mother of the victim was examined as PW-2 and stated that on the relevant date, when she was returning home from her place of work, she noticed her neighbour Badal (the accused) fleeing away by scaling the boundary wall adjacent to her house.Upon entering the house, she found her daughter Sikha lying unconscious on the floor with a rope tied around her neck.Sikha regained her sense at the hospital and narrated the incident to her.10. PW-3 Anjali Sarkar who is a neighbour of the defacto complainant and 6 the accused, saw the accused proceeding towards the house of the defacto complainant on the relevant date.After sometime, she heard hue and cry of the defacto complainant and rushed to her house where the victim was lying unconscious with a nylon rope around her neck.She accompanied the victim to the hospital.PW-4 Chhabi Sarkar saw the victim being taken to the hospital and noticed that the victim was not able to speak and there was a mark around her neck.This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.Another neighbour PW-5 heard the incident subsequently and did not witness the same.PW-6 Dr. Sukanta Manna who treated the victim at the hospital noted the following injuries of the victim in his report: "a ligature mark found on frontal & upper portion of neck.Subconjunctival haemorrhage also found over both eyes." He recorded the statement of the victim in presence of staff, nurses and according to this witness, though the victim was little drowsy at that time, she was conscious and mentally fit to make such statement.The doctor also opined that the injuries inflicted on the victim could be fatal.11. PW-7 who is the E.N.T. surgeon found brown black mark of ligature in front of upper part of the neck from one lateral side to the other.He noted that the patient could "speak well".The Medical Officer of the hospital (PW-8) also examined the victim and noted the following injuries.Subconjunctival haemorrhage (both eyes)Abrasion round the neck.Abrasion right shoulder.Abrasion right foot.According to the doctor, the said injuries could be caused by strangulation.PW-9 Patrick Karketta, Sub-Inspector of Police and the Investigating Officer investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the accused.He seized two ropes from Namadanga forest on being shown by the accused.The victim girl (PW-1) who was admittedly a minor at the time of the alleged incident is the star witness.She stated that the accused hugged her from behind inside the room, pressed her mouth, forcibly dragged her to the cot and tried to disrobe her and also removed her panty forcibly.She also stated that the accused tried to strangulate her with the rope of a mosquito net for which she sustained severe injuries around her neck and also injuries on her leg and stomach.The victim shifted from her evidence in her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that the accused pressed her mouth from behind and forcibly lay her down on the bed while threatening to kill her if she shouted for help.The accused also tied a nylon rope which was used as a clothes line and tied it round her neck tightly.In her statement before the doctor at the 8 hospital, she said that the accused smothered and throttled her from behind and she became unconscious.It is a fact that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded at different points of time.At the same time, the Court should not lose sight of the fact that the victim was a child of about 14 years at the relevant time and was undoubtedly in a state of pain and trauma when she gave statement before the doctor soon after the incident.It is not unlikely that she was unable to reconcile with the incident and was not physically and mentally fit to narrate every minute detail of the incident when her statement was recorded by the doctor on the date of the incident.The victim was examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. about two months after the incident and she adduced evidence in court about five months after the incident.Therefore, such minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the victim which does not strike at the root of the case can be safely ignored, more so, as the statement of the victim is supported by contemporaneous medical documents.Strangely enough, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act besides other provisions of law but convicted the appellant under Section 4/18 of the POCSO Act. No case of attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault has been made out by the prosecution and no injury was detected in the private parts of the victim.The evidence on record is silent regarding any attempt of penetrative sexual assault upon the victim at the behest of 9 the accused.It transpires from the evidence on record that the accused embraced the victim from behind, lay her on the cot and tried to strangulate her.A copy of the judgment along with the lower Court records be sent down to the ld. trial Court at once.Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.I agree.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 2 08.05.2017 SK Court No.26 CRM 3404 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.04.2017 in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 510/2014 dated 26.12.2014 under Sections 419/420/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 354A/384/363/342/376D/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.Perused the Case Diary.It is true that the petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years.Out of 7 charge-sheeted accused, 6 are on bail.Although, it is submitted to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that lastly on May 4, 2017, was the date fixed for consideration of charge and the prayer for discharge, but he is unable to inform us what happened on that day.Be that as it may, we have gone through the case diary and considering the nature of allegations, so far as this petitioner 2 is concerned and his extent of involvement, we are of the opinion that this not at all a fit case for bail.Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Earlier Sri Rajan Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has given statement before the Court that parties are entered into compromise and further prayed some time to file affidavit to that effect.This Court vide order dated 06.03.2020 has granted time to Sri Tripathi to file counter affidavit.Counter affidavit filed today by Sri Rajan Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 be taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajan Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the registration of the case against the accused person, as per prosecution, are that:"In the year 2009, prosecutrix used to live with her family CRL.L.P. 31/2013 Page 1 of 8 including sister, brother Mohd. Arif and parents in the area of Nabi Karim, Delhi.Nazaqat Ali, father of the Prosecutrix used to drop her and her sister at Nav Shakti Vidya Mandir, Arakasha Road, Nabi Karim, Delhi.On 26.11.2009 too the Prosecutrix and her sister accompanied their father on the scooter at about 7.00 a.m. for their school.They were dropped by him at some distance from the school i.e. near the street, as there were big pot holes in the street.After having alighted from the scooter of father, the Prosecutrix and her younger sister started proceeding towards the school.Whereas the sister of the prosecutrix entered the school, the Prosecutrix was still outside the school, accused was found standing there.He caught hold of the Prosecutrix by her hand and pulled her.Accused then asked her to sit on his bike and also threatened with dire consequences.At that time accused was having a blade in his hand which he showed her.Accused then took prosecutrix in Inderprastha Park on his bike, made her to sit there.He kept talking to her.Ultimately, he dragged the prosecutrix by her hand and brought her out of the park, made her sit on the bike, kept on driving the bike through street near her school and ultimately took her to Hotel Orient Palace.In a room of the Hotel, accused is alleged to have attempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix.He then opened the door and brought prosecutrix out of the hotel, drove his bike and left her near her house.On the way when accused reached near Mikky Hotel, Mohd. Arif, brother of the prosecutrix and her parents saw him and the prosecutrix.Accused was caught hold by her father and brother, and then taken to the police station.Younger sister of the prosecutrix returned from the school, she informed her parents that the prosecutrix had not attended the school.That is how parents of the prosecutrix and Mohd. Arif had left in search of prosecutrix.Parents of the prosecutrix when took prosecutrix to the police station, she made statements levelling allegations on the accused.SI ram narain appended endorsement to the statement of the prosecutrix and got the case registered."CRL.L.P. 31/2013 Page 1 of 8CRL.L.P. 31/2013 Page 2 of 8Addressing arguments in support of the present criminal leave to appeal, Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim of crime in the present case was a small child of 12 years of age and she was under a threat and fear because the accused had shown a knife while kidnapping her.Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that a small child, facing a threat, could not have raised any hue and cry to resist the accused, when she was physically lifted by the accused to sit on his bike.Counsel in support of his contention, further invited attention of this Court to the statement made by the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused had himself admitted that he took the prosecutrix on his bike first to IP park, Naib Sarai Kale Khan and then to the hotel, where he remained with the prosecutrix for about 1 hours.Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that this admission on the part of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is sufficient enough to prove that he had kidnapped the said minor child and then had raped her in a room taken by him in a hotel.Counsel further argued that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the victim had fully supported the case of the CRL.L.P. 31/2013 Page 3 of 8 prosecution by making the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., supported by the other circumstantial evidence, yet the learned Trial Court has passed an order of acquittal ignoring the statement of prosecutrix and other incriminating evidence, proved on record by the prosecution.Based on these submissions counsel for the petitioner prayed for the grant of criminal leave to appeal to challenge the said judgment on acquittal.CRL.L.P. 31/2013 Page 3 of 8We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by him.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 of Cr.PC, to quash the proceedings, against the Petitioner/A1, in CC.No.22 of 2017, on the file of the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.The facts, leading to filing of this Criminal Original Petition, are as follows:-a) On the basis of source information, a case in RC52(A)/201 was registered on 19.12.2015, by the Respondent/ CBI, ACB, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 120B read with 420 IPC and Section 13(2) 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, againsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 (1) K.Rajkumar (A1), Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited (NIACL), Purasawakkam Divisional Office, Chennai, the Petitioner herein, (2) B.Shanmugam (A2), Divisional Manager (Retired), New India Assurance Company Limited (NIACL), Alwarpet Branch, Chennai, (3) P.Kayalvizhi (A3) (Private Person) and (4) S.Chindambaram (A4), Insurance Agent, alleging that the Petitioner/A1 and A2, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with A3 and A4, to cheat NIACL and that in pursuance of such a criminal conspiracy, the Petitioner/A1 and A2, knowing fully well that the Banker's Indemnity Insurance were taken directly by the India Bank, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, Government of India, during the financial years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, with NIACL, not through any Agent, had fraudulently inserted the names of A3 and A4 as Agents in the agents column of the above said Policies and thereby, facilitated A3 and A4 to receive purported Agent's Commission through their Bank Accounts and thus, caused a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.22,80,000/- to NIACL and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.A3 became approver and her statement was recorded under Section 164(1) of Cr.PC and A3 had given conditional tender of pardon under Section 306 of Cr.PC.c) It is further alleged in the Final Report that the Petitioner/A1, whilehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 working as Divisional Manager, NIACL, Alwarpet Divisional Office, Chennai, during the period 2008-2010, had processed four policies, knowing fully well that they were directly obtained from the Indian Bank and in collusion with the other accused, dishonestly released fraudulently the agent's commission in favour of A3 and A4, as if it was brought by the Agents.d) It is further alleged in the Final Report that the Petitioner/A1, while functioning as a Public Servant, in the capacity of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Alwarpet Divisional Office, Chennai, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused, to cheat the New India Assurance Company Limited and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, A1 and A2, knowing fully well that the Banker's Indemnity Insurance were taken directly by the Indian Bank, a Public Sector Undertaking, Government of India, during the financial years 2008-2009 and its subsequent renewal during the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11, with the New India Assurance Company Limited, not through any Agent, fraudulently inserted the names of A3 and A4 in the agent's column of the above said Policy and thereby facilitated A3 and A4 to receive purported Agent's Commission through their Bank Accounts.e) It is further alleged in the Final Report that during the year 2009-10, the Indian Bank had taken two more policies, namely, Standard Fire Policy and Electronic Equipment Policy, directly from the New India Assurance Company Limited and that the Petitioner/A1, in collusion with the otherhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 accused, facilitated A3 to receive fraudulently the amount under the pretext of agent's commission and thereby, the accused had caused a total wrongful loss of Rs.26.46 lacs (including the TDS amount) to NIACL under the guise of agent's commission and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.The aforesaid acts constitute commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and substantive offences thereof.f) The final report was taken on file in CC.No.22 of 2017, by the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.The Petitioner/A1, in order to quash the impugned charge sheet, has raised the following grounds:-c) The four Indemnity Policies issued by the Petitioner/A1, listed as LD16, LD17, LD22 and LD23, contain the name of the Agent, Kayalvizhi (Approver) and that if the Indian Bank did not engage her as their Agent, they must have protested the same with the Company.Likewise, for two policies,namely, Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and Electronic Equipments Insurance Policy, they had been issued in the Agent Code, instead of direct Code and a sum of Rs.3,21,263/- as agent's commission was paid to Kayalvizhi.e) Apart from the New India Assurance Company Limited, formulated under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and governed by the said Act, three other Companies, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the National Insurance Company Limited, were also formulated and governed by the same Act. Subsequent to the Act, 1972, the Generalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Insurance Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, had been framed to govern all the said four Insurance Companies, including the New India Assurance Company Limited.However, all the said Rules, formulated in the years 1975, 2003 and 2014, respectively, were not notified in the Official Gazette.A.Nos.933 C/W 835 of 2010 (K.T.Uthappa and another Vs.The said judgement relates to the employees of the United India Insurance Company Limited.The Karnataka High Court, apart from allowing the appeal on other grounds, relied on the evidence of PW.1, wherein he had deposed that he was not specifically authorised by the Board to issue sanction and that the Memorandum of Articles of Association placed on record by the accused, as per Ex.14.While so, after the pronouncement of the judgement of the Karnataka Highhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 Court, dated 01.03.2012, in Crl.A.Nos.933 C/W 835 of 2010 (K.T.Uthappa and another Vs.State of Karnataka), the same issue regarding the non notification of the Rules under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, came to be agitated before the Kerala High Court in WP(C)No.26520 of 2012, wherein, the Kerala High Court, after carefully considering the issue and on examination of the provisions of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, found that there is no mandatory requirement for placing the matter before the Parliament for notification and finding that the Respondent Insurance Company had framed the Rules to regulate the service conditions of the employees under the inherent powers vested in it, after being incorporated as a Company under the Statute and based on its legal status, as validly registered Company, had dismissed the petition.Further, this Court finds no valid grounds to quash the impugned proceedings against the Petitioner and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.19.07.2019 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To:1. XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasInspector of Police, CBI:ACB, Chennaihttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.Srcm Crl.OP.No.4889 of 2019 19.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the F.I.R dated 12.05.2010 in Crime No:456 of 2010 for offences under sections 417, 420 and 506(1) of IPC pending investigation on the file of the first respondent police.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.On the complaint lodged by Anthony Gomez, the first respondent police have registered a case in Crime No:456 of 2010 on 12.05.2010 u/s.417, 420 & 506 (i) of IPC, challenging which the petitioner is before this Court.On a reading of the complaint, it is seen that, Anthony Gomez is running a Blue Metal crushing business in the name of MAG Blue Metals and that the petitioner is running a business in the name of ACE Concretes Pvt.Ltd.It is stated in the complaint that, ACE Concretes Pvt.Ltd., did business dealings with Blue Metal Construction for which a sum of Rs.53,71,752/- is due.Even in the complaint, Antony Gomez has stated that, ACE Concretes Pvt.Ltd., had given 7 cheques which had bounced.On a reading of the FIR, the transaction appears to be a business transaction between the petitioner and Antony Gomez.In the result, the petition is allowed and FIR Cr.No.456 of 2010 is quashed.Consequently miscellaneous petition is also closed.The Inspector of Police, S-11 Tambaram Police Station,The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.P.N. PRAKASH, J.dpq CRL.OP.No.17771 of 2010and MP.No.1 of 201021.09.2016

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

M.C.3589/2014 Page 3 of 15The relevant order sheets of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are reproduced as under:-"FIR No.549/13 PS Uttam Nagar 19.04.2014 Fresh challan along with E-challan filed.It be checked and registered.All three accused persons are stated to be not arrested.Same is allowed only for Crl.M.C.3589/2014 Page 5 of 15 today and it is made clear to the counsel for the accused persons that no such applications shall be allowed in future.Documents supplied to accused Arvind.M.C.3589/2014 Page 5 of 15: SUNITA GUPTA, J.This is a petition u/s 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred as `Cr.P.C'), 1973 against the order for grant of bail dated 26.04.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No.549/2013, P.S. Uttam Nagar u/s 354/376/506/34 IPC.Respondent no.2 filed an SLP(Crl.No.10133/2013) before Hon'ble Supreme Court.While issuing notice, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an interim order not to arrest the petitioner (respondent no.2 herein).After completion of service, when the SLP was called up for hearing on 03.07.2014, counsel for respondent no.2 made a statement that respondent no.2 has already been granted regular bail by the competent Court.In view of this statement, the SLP was dismissed as infructuous.It is submitted that thereafter counsel for the petitioner inspected the judicial file which revealed that on 09.04.2014, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate noted in the order that all three accused persons are stated to be not arrested but this fact was not verified by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.On 19.04.2014, there was no order from any Court regarding stay of arrest of accused Bhanwar Pal and Anmol nor were they on bail.An incorrect statement was made by the Investigating Officer on that day.On 26.04.2014, respondent no.2 appeared along with his counsel.However, the remaining two accused Bhanwar Pal and Anmol did not appear and were granted exemption from personal appearance.Without filing a bail application by respondent no.2 and without notice to the State, by completely ignoring the bar u/s 437(1)(i) Cr.P.C, the Metropolitan Crl.M.C.3589/2014 Page 2 of 15 Magistrate, Delhi granted regular court bail to respondent no.2 for offences punishable u/s 354/376/506/34 IPC.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not even deem it proper to impose any condition on respondent no.2 while admitting him on regular bail nor recorded any reasons for granting regular bail.On 01.05.2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate also granted regular bail to accused Bhanwar and Anmol without filing any bail application.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate thereafter committed the matter to the Sessions Court as offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.M.C.3589/2014 Page 2 of 15The Magistrate can exercise powers u/s 437 Cr.P.C only on filing a proper application for grant of bail.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to assign any reasons for admitting respondent no.2 to regular court bail.Even no condition was imposed on respondent no.2 while admitting him on regular bail.Under the circumstances, the order is illegal.has been constantly extending threats to the petitioner and her family with the result petitioner had to shift to a rental accommodation.A letter to this effect was also written to the SHO but no action was taken.Reliance was placed on Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T Crl.SLP was filed by respondent no.2 and while issuing notice, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an interim order:-"In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No.549/13 dated 04.10.2013 registered at P.S. Uttam Nagar, New Delhi."Thereafter charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer of the case.As per the certified copy of the charge sheet placed on record Crl.M.C.3589/2014 Page 4 of 15 by the petitioner, in the column of "Particulars of accused person charge sheeted", it was mentioned as under:-(l) date of arrest- Without Arrest(q) status of accused - Stay on arrest by Supreme Court(i) Name - Bhanwar Pal(xv) Date of arrest- Without Arrest (xxi) Status of the accused- Not Arrest(i) Name- Anmol Kumar(ii) Date of Arrest-Without Arrest(iii) Status of the accused-Stay on arrest by Supreme Court/Not Arrested."It take cognizance of the offence.Let accused be summoned for 26.04.14."26.04.2014 Present: None for the State.Accused Arvind with counsel.Rest two accused absent.An application for exemption has been moved on behalf of the accused Bhanwar Pal and Anmol.Further accused Arvind is being admitted to regular court bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount.Bail Bond to be furnished on the NDOH.List for appearance of all the accused persons for 01.05.14."01.05.2014 Present: Ld. APP for the State.All three accused with Ld. Counsel.Bail bond of accused Arvind Kumar furnished and the same be verified through the SHO for the next date of hearing.Accused Bhanwar Pal and Anmol Kumar is admitted to court bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety each in the like amount.Bail bond of accused Anmol Kumar furnished and accepted.Documents are stated to be completed.List for verification of bail bonds and for committal proceedings on 06.05.2014."06.05.2014 Present: Ld. APP for the State.All three accused with Ld. Counsel.Bail bond of Arvind and Bhanwar Pal accepted.Copies are stated to be complete.Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence file be placed before Ld. District Judge(W) cum ASJ for 12.05.2014 for committal to the Court of Sessions.Accused be produced accordingly.Ahlmad is directed to send the file complete in all respects well within time.APP for the State be notified."When the matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.07.2014, counsel for respondent no.2 made a statement that Crl.(7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non- bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution Crl.M.C.3589/2014 Page 8 of 15 by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered."M.C.3589/2014 Page 8 of 15In Prahlad Singh (supra), similar question arose.In that case, respondent no.2 who was alleged to have murdered his wife and against whom the FIR u/s 302 of the IPC was registered, was released on bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.The revision filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court.The matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court.M.C.3589/2014 Page 11 of 15On 26.04.2014, the petitioner appeared while the other two accused were absent.Their exemption was granted pursuant to an application moved by them.That being so, accused was not entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right.He was required to move an application for bail which was not done.Even if the challan was filed showing accused "not arrested", Court could have informed him that he may, if so desire, move application for release on bail.As such, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them.Even no reason was assigned as to why the accused was being admitted to regular bail and while releasing him on bail, even no conditions as were required to be imposed by virtue of sub-section 3 of Section 437 were imposed.P.C, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not have released the accused on regular bail.Under the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate releasing respondent no.2 on regular bail cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.M.C.3589/2014 Page 12 of 15In this case, anticipatory bail was granted to the appellants.State of Haryana filed a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was allowed.Thereafter the matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court.M.C.3589/2014 Page 14 of 15 cancelled in a mechanical manner.In State of U.P through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was observed that in an application for cancellation of bail, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant.But in an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were relevant u/s 439 read with Section 437 continue to be relevant.M.C.3589/2014 Page 14 of 15However, respondent no.2 is enjoying the benefit of bail since 26.04.2014 as such, while allowing this petition and setting aside the order impugned, respondent no.2 is permitted to apply for regular bail in the Sessions Court where the case has been committed for trial within a week.If any such application is filed, the same shall be disposed of on its own merits, failing which learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter is directed to take him in custody.The petition is accordingly disposed of.Order dasti.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE MAY 20, 2015 as Crl.M.C.3589/2014 Page 15 of 15M.C.3589/2014 Page 15 of 15

['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.10.2018 in connection with Itahar P.S case no. 308 of 2018 dated 28.8.2018 under sections 147/148/149/447/188/186/353/333/325/326/307/427/435 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 9 of the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act And Allowed In Re : Nimai @ Nemai Singha & Anr....... petitioners Mr. Sudip Guha ...... for the petitioners Mr. A.K. Maiti Mr. Prodipto Ganguly ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.Petitioners are in custody for 46 days and it is submitted that the co-accused persons have been granted pre-arrest bail.Learned lawyer for the State seeks time for production of case diary.We have considered the materials on record and we note that some co-accused persons have been granted pre-arrest bail.Under such circumstances pending hearing of the matter, we are inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioners.Accordingly, the petitioners be released on interim bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of 2 learned CJM, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj on condition that the petitioners shall not enter the jurisdiction of Itahar P.S except for attending court proceedings and provide address where they shall presently reside to the investigating agency and the court below and shall report to the officer in charge of the police station within whose jurisdiction they shall reside once in a week until further orders and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event they fail to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail automatically without reference to this court.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri R.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 in both appeals.None for remaining respondents in both appeals.Since both these appeals arise out of the common award dated 23/1/2017, therefore, this order shall govern the disposal of both these appeals.These appeals have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.Since notices of the appeal filed by the claimants (MA No.517/2017) were not issued, therefore, today hearing of the said Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:54 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.531/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Shiva Devi and others MA No.416/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Shiva Devi and others appeal has been deferred and the counsel for the respective Insurance Companies have accepted the notice on behalf of their Insurance Company.In these appeals filed by the Insurance Companies they have also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants under the miscellaneous head.Since hearing of the appeal filed by the claimants has been deferred and the question of quantum is yet to be decided in that appeal, therefore, in order to avoid any conflicting judgments with regard to the amount of compensation, the grounds with regard to the quantum of compensation raised by the Insurance Company in these appeals is kept open and shall be decided while deciding the appeal filed by the claimants.The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the deceased/injured persons were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.On 5/3/2013 at about 8 PM the said jeep collided with a tractor trolley bearing registration No.MP06 AA/5382 from behind, as a result of which, Ku.Priti Parmar, Ku.Ritu Parmar, Gambhir Singh, Bhairosingh, Ramdeen Singh, Sangita Parmar and Bhagirath Singh lost their life, whereas Rajabeti and Smt. Manju Parmar sustained injuries.Accordingly, the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:54 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.531/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Shiva Devi and others MA No.416/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Shiva Devi and others compensation.The respondents no.4 and 5 (defendants no.1 and 2), who are the driver and owner of the tractor, filed their written statement and conceded that the respondent no.4 was the driver of the tractor and the respondent no.5 was the owner of the tractor and it was pleaded that the said tractor was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company.It was the case of the claimants that the tractor was parked in the middle of the road without any sign or obstruction / any warning, as a result of which the offending jeep, which was being driven by Late Ramkrishna Singh @ Kallu (who also lost his life in the said accident), collided with the said tractor, as a result of which, seven persons lost their life and two persons sustained grievous injuries.Accordingly, the police also registered Crime No.41/2013 for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304- A of IPC against the driver of the jeep and since he had also lost his life, therefore, the closure report was filed.Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:54 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.531/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Shiva Devi and others MA No.416/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Shiva Devi and othersIt is further Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/01/2020 09:51:54 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.531/2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Shiva Devi and others MA No.416/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Smt. Shiva Devi and others Chandoriya (DW-1), who reached on the spot and investigated the matter, had found that the tractor and trolley were parked on the road.He should have driven the jeep cautiously.The judgment of the Tribunal indicates that the defence of the insurer based on the first information report, the complaint Ext. P-1 and the supplementary statement of the appellant at Ext. P-2 was duly evaluated.The Tribunal, however, observed thus:"... Respondent 3 and RW 1 submitted that the petitioner has invited the alleged unfortunate accident but except the FIR and complaint Ext. P-Smt. Shiva Devi and others MA No.416/2017 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Shiva Devi and others relevant date and time of the accident the petitioner was travelling as a passenger by sitting on the engine of the tractor.If really the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries by falling down from the engine of said tractor Respondent 3 insurer could have produced the separate file maintained by it in respect of the accident in question and it could have also produced investigator's report in respect of the said accident but admittedly Respondent 3 has not produced the said separate file and investigator's report in respect of the accident in question for the reasons best known to it.On the other hand as already stated above it is clear from the statement of petitioner on oath and eyewitness and from the supplementary statement of petitioner at Ext. P-2 and police statement of witnesses at Ext. P-3 and charge-sheet at Ext. P-6 it is clear that due to rash and negligent driving of said tractor by Respondent 1 the said tractor turtled down and fell over the petitioner who was about to board the tractor and as a result of which the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries.Moreover as already stated above the Investigating Officer concerned after detail investigation has filed the charge-sheet against Respondent 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC..."The High Court has proceeded to reverse the finding of the Tribunal purely on the basis that the FIR which was lodged on the complaint of the appellant contained a version which was at variance with the evidence which emerged before the Tribunal.With aforesaid observations, award dated 23/1/2017 passed by the Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No.274/2014 is hereby affirmed.Accordingly, the both the appeals are hereby finally disposed of.

['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 20.01.2016 relating to Crime No. 10/2016 registered at Police Station Amola District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 of IPC, Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.However, the applicants could not be arrested at the spot.They were arrested after the information given by the co-accused persons.Thereafter, no TIP was arranged against the applicants to show that they were present at the time of alleged encounter.It would be apparent that the applicants were falsely implicated on the basis of information given by the co-accused persons, which was not admissible.No alleged offence is made out against the applicants either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.Offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is triable by the Court of Magistrate and, therefore, it is not so grave.They are in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2323/2016 applicants pray for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No. 2323/2016It is directed that the applicants namely Halke alias Ramprakash and Naval Pal be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with a surety bond of the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.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.

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

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

On 30.6.2013 the police had called thepetitioner to the Police Station for enquiry on his application forpassport and after reaching inside the police station he was locked up.Thereafter on 1.7.2013 early morning, the petitioner was taken to theresidence of one Shri Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate who is arrayed as 6threspondent in this writ petition.There, the petitioner was beaten withlathi by DSP, Manish Kumar Suman, who is arrayed as 9th respondent herein,in the presence of the said Judicial Magistrate and it is also alleged thatwhile beating he was told that it is a reward for his parents for reportingor complaining against him to the Supreme Court, and insulted him bystating that low caste people should not become malik of the land of theupper caste people like mausaji.Thereafter, the petitioner was taken fromthe house of the Judicial Magistrate to the Koneila jail where he is keptunder detention.The petitioner states that he was unnecessarily andillegally detained by the police.32 read with Art.14, 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India directingthe Respondents to produce the petitioner Saurabh Kumar before this Hon’bleCourt and also to direct the respondent-State to devise a way to preventmalicious arrest and detention by the police that too without maintainingnecessary record and further to direct the State to pay the petitionercompensation considering that the detention is a black mark to his careerprospects and future.Initially there were eleven persons shown as respondents.But lateron, the petitioner has withdrawn respondent nos. 3 to 11 from the array ofparties.I would all the same add afew words of my own to what has already been stated by my esteemed anderudite brother.Petitioner’s case is that he was called to the police station on 30thJune, 2013 in connection with some enquiry about the issue of a passport.N.V. Ramana, J.This habeas corpus petition is filed by one Saurabh Kumar who is inKoneila Jail, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur (Bihar).In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was XII pass andwanted to leave the village in search of a decent job.In that connectionhe made an application for passport.When theyapproached the local MLA, the MLA contacted the SHO of Dalsingsarai,District Samastipur, and the police informed the MLA that there is nocomplaint against the writ petitioner and they are going to release him butin spite of repeated requests they have not released him.Hence, the petitioner prayed for grant of a writ of habeas corpusu/Art.After issuing notice two counter affidavits have been filed, one byrespondent nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 and the other by the sixth respondent,Tripathi, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Judge In-charge(Administration) Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, Bihar.From these twoaffidavits, it appears that there were land disputes between petitioner’sfamily and one Rama Kant Singh.A Mortgage Suit No. 30/94 was filed againstBanwari Roy, who is the grand-father of the petitioner and obtained adecree against him on 28.2.1997 by the Munsif Court.The said Rama Kant Singh filed an execution case for delivery ofpossession of the land.The Munsif (Civil Judge, Jr. Division,Dalsingsarai) ordered for deputing the police force for the delivery of theland to the decree-holder.Thereafter, one Mohan Kumar filed a complaint before the AdditionalChief Judicial Magistrate on 29.4.2013 which was referred to the police on1.5.2013 P.S. No. 72/13 and was registered under Section 147, 148, 149,323, 427, 504, 379 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 ofthe Arms Act for necessary action and investigation under Section 156(3)Cr.The writ petitioner Sumit Kumar alias Saurabh Kumar alongwith his family members Banwari Roy, Dinesh Roy, Rekha Devi, Golu Kumar,armed with lathis, pharsa, pistol beaten Mohan Kumar and snatched his wristwatch.It was also further alleged that at the gun point the petitionerparty threatened the complainant therein to put his thumb impression on astamp paper.On his refusal, the petitioner party threatened him to kill.When the matter came up before this Court, the learned counselappearing for the petitioner Smt. Lily Isabel Thomas contended that thepetitioner is in illegal custody and sought a direction for his release.This Court has pointed out to the counsel for writ petitioner about thecounter affidavits filed by the respondents which show that the petitioneris an accused in a criminal case which was registered under Sections 147,148, 149, 323, 427, 504, 379 and 386 of IPC and under Section 27 of ArmsAct and after such registration he was arrested and produced before theAddl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, Biharand then he was detained in judicial custody.However, the counselcontended that a direction be given to the jailer-respondent No. 1 toproduce the remand report of the petitioner as that itself shows theillegal detention.In spite of this Court’s suggestion to the petitioner’scounsel to approach the criminal court for obtaining bail, she repeatedlymade request for the production of order passed by the Judicial Magistrateremanding the petitioner to jail.We have heard the counsel for the State Government also who made astatement that the allegation made in the affidavit is false and thepetitioner is an accused in a criminal case and therefore he is in judicialcustody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate and thereis no illegal detention as alleged by the petitioner.After hearing the counsel and on perusing the affidavits and thematerial placed before us, it is evident that there are series of casespertaining to land disputes between the family of the alleged detenu andother villagers.Civil cases were filed initially.During the pendency of aSuit, the father and mother of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 197of 2012 before this Court.In the said Writ Petition, this Court has passedthe following orders:Order dated 9.5.2013 “Heard Ms. Lily Isabel Thomas, learned counsel for the petitionersand perused the record.The District Judge, Samastipur, Bihar is directed to pass anappropriate order in the pending appeal within a period of two weeks fromthe date of receipt/production of copy of this order.With the above observation, the applications are disposed of.In the meantime and until further orders the petitioners shall not bedispossessed as the order dated 9.5.2013 indicates that this Court hadalready permitted the petitioners to approach the District court fordisposal of their application.In the meantime, the learned counsel for thepetitioners has sought protection from dispossession, which prayer primafacie appears to be reasonable.The order may be given dasti.”A mortgage Suit No. 13/94 was also filed in which a decree wasobtained against the grandfather of the petitioner and thereafter thegrandfather of the petitioner Banwari Roy has also filed a civil Title Suitbearing T.A. No. 17/99 which was dismissed by the learned AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge-I, Samastipur on 1.6.2013., taking intoconsideration the orders passed by this Court.Acomplaint was given by one Mohan Kumar which was registered as FIR P.S. No.72/13 under different Sections of the IPC and under Section 27 of the ArmsAct.At that point of time, the petitioner was produced before theAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate.Then the Magistrate after examininghim, directed to send him to jail by order dated 1.7.2013 (annexure R.6/3).The said order reads as under:“Sub Inspector, P.S. Ujiarpur arrested named accused of this case, SumitKumar @ Saurabh Kumar aged 22 years son of Shil Kumar Rai, VillageBhagwanpur Desua, P.S. Ujiarpur, District Samastipur and sent ForwardingReport to the Court, seeking judicial remand of accused on the basisevidence indicated in the report and arrest memo along with reasonableescorting force.Accused has no complaint against the escorting force.Nose, Ear, Eye etc. of the accused is functional and on query by the Court,accused said he is able to defend his case.The accused is remanded in thiscase and being sent to Up-Kara (Sub-Divisional Jail), Dalsinghsarai.Officeclerk is directed to issue custody warrant.Fixed for 15.7.2013 for production of accused from jail.”It is clear from the said narration of facts that the petitioner isin judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the JudicialMagistrate.The same is further ensured from the Original Record whichthis Court has, by order dated 9th April, 2014, called for from the Courtof Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur,Bihar.Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerthat there was illegal detention without any case is incorrect.Therefore,the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.Even thoughthere are several other issues raised in the Writ Petition, in view of thefacts narrated above, there is no need for us to go into those issues.However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for hisrelease in Criminal Case No. 129/13 pending before the Court of the learnedAddl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai.After the conclusion of hearing, when the matter was reserved forjudgment and the pronouncement of judgment is pending, a Crl.M.P. No. 12866of 2014 has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking reliefs which are notconcerned with the main prayer.The petitioner has also filed anotherCrl.M.P. No. 14378 of 2014 seeking release of petitioner’s mother and grandfather.In view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons given in thejudgment, the reliefs so sought by the petitioner in the said Crl.M.Ps.also cannot be granted in the present habeas corpus writ petition.However,the petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies as available to him inaccordance with law.Accordingly, the writ petition as well as the Crl.M.Ps. standdismissed.……………………………………..J.(T.S. Thakur)……………………………………..J.I have had the advantage of going through the order proposed by myesteemed brother N.V. Ramana, J. I entirely agree with the view taken byhim that the petitioner cannot be said to be in illegal custody so as towarrant the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus.He was,according to the averments in the petition, beaten up with lathis by oneManish Kumar Suman, DSP arrayed as respondent No.9 in the writ petition.The beating is alleged to have taken place in the presence of the JudicialMagistrate as a reward for the audacity of the petitioner’s parentsreporting against the Magistrate to the Supreme Court.The petitioneralleges that when his parents approached the local MLA for help, they weretold that there was no complaint against the petitioner and that he will bereleased shortly.The detention of the petitioner, in the abovecircumstances, it is asserted, was without any lawful justification,whatsoever hence illegal.The respondents have appeared to file two separate counter affidavitsfrom which it appears that not only are there disputes between the familymembers of the petitioner, on the one hand, and one Rama Kant Singh, on theother, but on the complaint of one Mohan Kumar, filed before the AdditionalChief Judicial Magistrate, the later had passed an order on 29th April,2013, referring the matter to the police for investigation.The Order passed bythe Magistrate reads:“Accused produced from Jail.Perused the FIR charge sheets and case diary.After perusal prima facie case is made out against the accused (1) SumitKumar @ Saurav Kumar, (2) Banwari Rai (3) Dinesh Rai, (4) Rekha Devi and(5) Golu Kumar U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 504, 379, 386 IPC with Section27 of the Arms ActHence cognizance taken against the accused persons in above sections.Thecase record is kept in personal file for trial and disposal (sic) issuesummon to the unappeared against persons.Produce on 2-01-2014 for production and appearance. “Subsequent orders passed in the case show that the accused has beenproduced before the Magistrate concerned from time to time and remanded tocustody, awaiting service of summons upon the remaining accused persons whoare, according to the affidavits filed by the respondents, absconding.Two things are evident from the record.Firstly, the accused isinvolved in a criminal case for which he has been arrested and producedbefore the Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody, Secondly, thepetitioner does not appear to have made any application for grant of bail,even when the remaining accused persons alleged to be absconding and remainto be served.The record whichwe have carefully perused shows that the petitioner is an accused facingprosecution for offences, cognizance whereof has already been taken by thecompetent Court.He is presently in custody pursuant to the order ofremand made by the said Court.A writ of Habeas Corpus is, in thecircumstances, totally mis-placed.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case in nut-shell is that, on 19-12- 2018, the complainant Nilawatibai Maroti Jogdand visited the Police of Bori Police Station, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani, and filed report that on 17-12-2018 in the night at about 9.15 p.m. she accompanied with her younger daughter Laxmi after enjoying the meal, both went to bed.But, somebody else knocked the chain of door of her house.She opened the door and saw that appellants Nitin Sampatrao Maske and Baliram Ganesh Raut were standing in front of door.Complainant asked about the cause of their arrival at her house.It has been alleged that appellant Baliram with ill-intention caught her hand and made demand for physical relation.But, the complainant refused to yield their overtures.The appellants hurled abuses on her caste saying "Mangte".Meanwhile, younger daughter Laxmi woke-up and came there and on seeing the daughter, appellants went away.JUDGMENT :-The appeal is taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both parties.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::2 CriAl-9-19Present appeal is directed against the impugned order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellants in Crime No. 187 of 2018 registered with Bori Police Station, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani under Sections 354-A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as "Act of 1989" for the sake or brevity).::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::3 CriAl-9-19Pursuant to FIR of complainant Nilawatibai Jogdand, Police of Bori Police Station registered the Crime No. 187 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Act of 1989, and set the penal law in motion.The appellants, apprehending their arrest in the present crime, filed the application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, for their pre-arrest bail bearing Criminal Misc.Application No. 01 of 2019 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).But, learned Additional Sessions Judge found reluctant to nod in favour of applicants-appellants of their pre-arrest bail by exercising powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court held that in view of statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989, Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for anticipatory bail.Eventually, learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application of appellants for anticipatory bail and passed the impugned order, the validity, propriety and correctness of which is agitated in the present appeal.Mr. Ghatol-Patil, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the appellants have not committed any crime as alleged by the prosecution, but they are falsely implicated in this case.According to the learned counsel, complainant- first informant started construction of toilet at her::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 ::: 4 CriAl-9-19 house and she was in a need of bullock-cart for carrying sand from the river bed.But, appellants did not allow for the same as excavation of the sand at Dudhana river was strictly prohibited by revenue personnel.The complainant became furious and she had given threat to implicate appellants by filing complaint under the Atrocities Act. The family members of the appellants also approached to the Bori Police Station on 19-12-2018 and requested to restrain the complainant-first informant from doing any illegal activities.However, taking umbrage of the same, complainant preferred the present complaint, which is false baseless and concocted one.Therefore, he requested to entertain the appeal and grant the relief of pre- arrest bail to the appellants in this case.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::6. Learned APP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 vociferously raised objections and submitted that Section 18A of the Act of 1989 put statutory bar for exercising the powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by the Court.The appellants abused the complainant on her caste within a public view.The appellants also intentionally touched the complainant by holding her hand with an ill- intention.The appellants had an knowledge that complainant is from "Mang" community recognized as Scheduled Tribe.Therefore, there is no propriety to grant relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.xx xx xx xx xx xx xxThe exposition of law as referred above unequivocally pointer to the inference that the application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 ::: 6 CriAl-9-19 of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertainable only on perusal of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not beyond that, because once it is gathered from the FIR that the applicant is accused of committing the offence prescribed under section 3 of the Act of 1989, a bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 would instantly operate against him.Therefore, the Courts are not permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant.Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::In the instant appeal, the prosecution applied the provisions of section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellants, which reads as under :Punishments for offences of atrocities :-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-(w)(i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent;It means that there must be prima facie affirmation or say in the FIR-complaint that the accused is not the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.In addition, it must be clear in the FIR that accused were aware or they had knowledge that complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::In the present complaint, absolutely there are no averments to the effect that both appellants-applicants are belonging from higher caste or atleast that they are not a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.There are also no whisper in the FIR/complaint that both appellants had knowledge that complainant was from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes community.It is true that there are allegations that appellants hurled abuses to the complainant on caste by saying "Mangte".But, bare uttering word "Mangte" would not sufficient to draw inference that appellants had knowledge or aware about the caste of complainant, and therefore, they abused the complainant in the name of her caste to insult or humiliate her within public view.The possibility of uttering word "Mangte" during the course of hot exchange of words may be to abuse her more filthily can not be ruled out.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::The circumstances on record are not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that there are material prima facie on record to draw adverse inference against the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::9 CriAl-9-19 Therefore, there is no impediment to entertain the application of appellants for the relief of his pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.In regard to the allegations of assault or criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty and intimidation as envisaged under Sections 354-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, I find that custodial interrogation of the appellants is not necessary for the sake of investigation.There is no recovery from the appellants nor there is any apprehension about absconding of the appellants.Most of the part of investigation has already been completed.Therefore, there is no impediment to allow present appeal for the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of appellants-accused in the present crime.Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed.In sequel, the appeal stands allowed.The impugned order dated 03-01-2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Misc.Application No. 01 of 2019 filed by the appellants is hereby quashed and set-aside.The application of the appellants-applicants filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for their pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court is hereby allowed.The appellants - (1) Nitin S/o Sampatrao Maske and (2) Baliram S/o Ganesh Raut be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 187 of 2018::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 ::: 10 CriAl-9-19 registered at Bori Police Station, Ta.Jintur, District Parbhani for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Act of 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellants-applicants shall not indulge, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness.The appellants/applicants shall attend the Bori Police Station, Tq.Jintur, District Parbhani on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 09:29:25 :::

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner.The pleadings are, thus, complete in the present Writ Petition."(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (Annexure-13 to the writ petition).(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.8.95 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Badaun; the order dated 29.4.97 passed by the Dy.Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, Bareilly and order dated 25.9.98 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly (Annexure 6,8 & 10 to the writ petition).(iii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefit, continuity of service, seniority, arrears of salary and promotion etc. within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.(v) award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition."It appears that the petitioner was working on the post of Constable in Civil Police.At the relevant time, he was posted at Police Station Civil Lines, District - Badaun.A charge-sheet dated 2.5.1994 was served on the petitioner, interalia, alleging that in the morning of 5.9.1993 while posted on the post of Constable in Police Station, Civil Lines, District- Badaun, the petitioner,in uniform, was found lying in a drain in intoxicated state near the first gate of S.K. Inter College, Badaun; and that Sub-Inspector A.L. Dohare, Constable Raj Kishore and Constable Sarvesh Singh alongwith the Driver of the Government Jeep, Jagmohan, were on duty in the area for maintenance of law and order, and they found the petitioner in his uniform lying in the drain, and they took-out the petitioner from the drain, took him to the Police Station, Civil Lines for completing formalities and then got the petitioner examined by Doctor in the District Hospital, Badaun, whereby it was confirmed that the petitioner had consumed alchohal; and that the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence, indiscipline and failure in the discharge of his duties.Copy of the said charge-sheet dated 2.5.1994 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition.The petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.5.1994, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition.Thereafter, enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, and the Inquiry Officer (Circle Officer, Sahaswan, Badaun)submitted his Enquiry Report dated 22.3.1995, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition.The Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were fully established.After the submission of the Enquiry Report, the Superintendent of Police, Badaun issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 17.6.1995 to the petitioner, interalia, requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why punishment of dismissal from service be not awarded to the petitioner.Copy of the Enquiry Report was enclosed with the Show-Cause Notice.Copy of the said Show-Cause Notice dated 17.6.1995 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition.The petitioner submitted his reply dated 26.6.1995, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition.After the receipt of the reply of the petitioner to the Show-Cause Notice, the Superintendent of Police, Badaun in exercise of his power under Rule 7 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short '1991 Rules') passed an order dated 17.8.1995 awarding punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner, as contemplated in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the 1991 Rules.Copy of the said order dated 17.8.1995 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition.The petitioner, thereupon, filed an Appeal dated 8.9.1995 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, Bareilly.The said Appeal was evidently under Rule 20 of the 1991 Rules.Copy of the said Appeal has been filed as Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, Bareilly (Appellate Authority) by the order dated 29.4.1997 dismissed the said Appeal filed by the petitioner.Copy of the said order dated 29.4.1997 has been filed as Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition.The petitioner thereupon filed a Revision dated 6.9.1997 before the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly under Rule 23 of the 1991 Rules.Copy of the said Revision has been filed as Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition.The Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly (Revisional Authority) by the order dated 25.9.1998 dismissed the said Revision filed by the petitioner.Copy of the said order dated 25.9.1998 has been filed as Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition.Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition being Claim Petition No. 963 of 1999 before the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow.Copy of the Claim Petition has been filed as Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition.Written Statement was filed on behalf of the respondents in reply to the said Claim Petition.Copy of the Written Statement has been filed as Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition.The Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (in short 'the Tribunal') by its judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 dismissed the said Claim Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner.Copy of the said judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 has been filed as Annexure-13 to the Writ Petition.The petitioner has, thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above.Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the present Writ Petition.The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit.We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri V.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record.Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions:It is necessary that the Enquiry Report submitted against the delinquent employee should be a reasoned Report.The Enquiry Report dated 22.3.1995, submitted in the present case, was not a reasoned Report, and as such, the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was vitiated.The Inquiry Officer did not consider the defence taken by the petitioner regarding his developing pain in stomach, and consuming medicine having smell of alchohal on account of the pain, and thereafter, developing giddiness in his head, and consequently becoming unconscious.3. Objections raised by the petitioner in regard to the Report of the Doctor were not considered by the Inquiry Officer even though the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet was referred to in the Enquiry Report.Copy of the preliminary Enquiry Report and copies of the Statements of witnesses examined in the preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the petitioner, and this has vitiated the entire proceedings against the petitioner.In support of his above submissions, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:Anil Kumar Vs.Sher Bahadur Vs.M.V. Bijlani Vs.Union of India and others Vs.The enquiry against the petitioner was held in accordance with the relevant Rules and the principles of natural justice, and the petitioner was given full opportunity in the enquiry proceedings.The petitioner failed to establish his defence that he developed pain in the stomach and consumed medicine, which was having smell of alchohal.On the contrary, the evidence on record established that during the course of duty, the petitioner consumed alchohal, and was found in intoxicated state at a public place (Nala).Reference in this regard has been made to the reasoning and conclusions mentioned in the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.No relief has been sought in the Writ Petition in respect of the Enquiry Report.Punishment awarded to the petitioner was not disproportionate keeping in view the gross indiscipline committed by the petitioner.Reference in this regard is made to the reasoning and conclusions mentioned in the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.Smt. Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions:State of Punjab and others Vs.Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs.We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.The Inquiry Officer has further referred to the evidence led on behalf of the respondents during the enquiry proceedings.Reference has been made to the statements of 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents.The Inquiry Officer has, thereafter, referred to the statement dated 24.2.1995 submitted by the petitioner in his defence wherein he stated that while going for duty on 5.9.1993, he suddenly developed severe pain in his stomach, and for this reason, he took medicine from a Medical Store, and after mixing the same in water, he drank the same, and after drinking the same, the petitioner developed giddiness in his head and fell down, and he had no knowledge as to what happened thereafter.As was established from the evidence of various witnesses that the petitioner in his uniform was lying in a drain in intoxicated state, and he was taken to the District Hospital, Badaun where the Doctor examined the petitioner and confirmed that the petitioner had consumed alchohal.The Doctor was examined as a witness (P.W.9) during the enquiry proceedings, and proved the Report submitted by him.The Doctor reiterated his opinion that the petitioner had consumed alchohal.The High Court found that the appellant was drunk on that night and he was driving the Car rashly and negligently at an excessively high speed.The Circle Inspector investigated the matter further and confirmed the incident that the respondent misbehaved with Smt. Kamasani Susheela and he was in a drunken condition so much so that when the respondent went to the Doctor for some medical treatment at the relevant time the Doctor declined to administer injection as the respondent was drunk.The finding given by the Inquiring Officer has been affirmed in appeal and the same having been examined by the Tribunal in threadbare there was no justification for the High Court to come to its own conclusion when there was concurrent finding given by the Inquiring Officer and the Tribunal.But the High Court appreciated the whole evidence which was unwarranted.The respondent was drunk as is apparent from the testimony of the Doctor to whom the appellant had approached for some treatment and wanted to administer injection but having seen him in a drunken state the Doctor declined.Hence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and confirm the order of the Tribunal.There would be no order as to costs."In the above decision, the charge against the respondent - Police Constable was in regard to misbehaving with lady by going to her house in drunken state for satisfying his sensual lust.The Inquiring Officer found the respondent guilty.Thereafter, explanation of the respondent was called for as to why he should not be removed from service.Subsequently, he was removed from service.Thereafter, the respondent filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected.The respondent filed the Original Application before the Administrative Tribunal.The Administrative Tribunal affirmed the order of removal from service.The respondent filed Writ Petition before the High Court.The High Court re-appreciated the evidence on record, and set-aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Inquiring Officer, and directed for reinstatement of the respondent and for payment of 50% of backwages.The Tribunal examined in detail the material on record and found the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as proper.

['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution story in short was that one Suresh while driving the liquor loaded truck had turned turtle resulting in death of Suresh.Thereafter, there was a Chakka Jam (Blockade) by villagers demanding action against liquor contractor.When the police arrived at the scene, crowd became unruly and started throwing stones on the police resulting in injuries to police personnels' including fracture on one head constable namely; Noor Singh and the police vehicle was also damaged.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.22312 OF 2020 (Mukesh Vasuniya vs State of Madhya Pradesh) Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out the order dated 13.07.2020 passed by this Court in MCRC No.19201 of 2020 in which the applicant had been given liberty to press for fresh bail application after framing of charge.He further points out that the charges have since been filed in the matter and has filed the order-sheet dated 30.07.2020 which shows that the charges have not been framed against the present applicant.With these submissions, bail has been sought.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one local solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Committal Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court/Committal Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.22312 of 2020 is allowed and stands disposed of.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per Rules.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.22312 OF 2020 (Mukesh Vasuniya vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The informant Saibabai Rajulal Pawar P.W. 5 was the wife of the deceased Rajulal Pawar.She along with the deceased, co-wife of the deceased and the children of the deceased lived in village Hotgi in Taluka South Solapur, within the limits of Police Station Valsang District Solapur.Their neighbour was appellant Bhimsha Subanna Pawar, Bhimsha's brothers Namdeo Subanna Pawar, and Ashok Subanna Pawar were residing separately from him, though in the same village.The appellant Vishwanath Bahadur Chavan who is the cousin brother of appellant Bhimsha was also residing in village Hotgi.Appellants Menjya Mastan Chavan and Bhimya Menjya Chavan are father and son inter se.They are said to be relations of appellant Bhimsha Subanna Pawar and were also residing in village Hotgi.It is alleged that appellant Bhimsha Subanna Pawar and their brothers were thieves.They were bearing a grudge against the deceased because they had a feeling that he used to report about them to the police.It is said that some panchas tried to effect reconcilliation between appellant Bhimsha Subanna Pawar and others on one side and the deceased on the other.However, their efforts failed.On 21-5-1992, at about 7 a.m. the informant and the deceased had gone to Solapur by a city bus to see the former's mother who was ailing.After visiting her, the same day, at about 7.30 p.m. they started back from Solapur to their village on a city bus.At about 8 to 8.15 p.m. when the bus came near the Government School, and stopped on the bus stop situated there, the informant and the deceased got down from the aforesaid bus.After they had walked a distance of about 100 steps, suddenly from a ditch, the six appellants along with co-accused.A Basu, Subhash and Rangappa emerged from the aforesaid ditch.After assaulting the deceased and the informant, the appellants and others are alleged to have run away.It is alleged that they were recognised in street light.Apart from the informant (wife of the deceased) this incident is alleged to have been seen by Bashir Tamboli P.W. 4, Jaganath Umaji Pawar P.W. 6, (brother of the deceased), Babu Umaji Pawar and Shantabai Pawar; the last two have not been examined by the prosecution.It may be mentioned that Police Station Valsang is situated at a distance of about 30 kms.from the place of the incident, and the place of incident falls within its jurisdiction.At the time of lodging of the complaint, P.S.I. Vijay Singh Ramkrishna Gaikwad (P.W. 14) was present at the Police Station Valsang.It was he who had reduced the complaint of the informant in writing.On the basis of the complaint Exh. 39 he registered the case as C.R. No. 32 of 1992 under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 323 I.P.C. and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.P.S.I. Gaikwad commenced investigation of the case.On 22-5-1992, he prepared the inquest panchanama, (Exh. 12), spot panchanama (Exh. 21) and thereafter, sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Solapur for the autopsy.Thereafter, he recorded statements of witnesses Bashir Tamboli and eight others.The same day appellants Bhimsha, Namdeo, Ashok, Vishwanath and Menjya were arrested.On 23-5-1992, the informant produced her blood stained sari which he attached under a panchanama.It is alleged that during the course of investigation, the appellants Bhimsha, Namdeo and Ashok admitted that they could get the weapons of assault recovered and pursuant to their statements on 24-5-1992 in the presence of public panchas, Kailash Kingi P.W. 2 and Kalshetty P.W. 3 and P.S.I. Gaikwad, himself the weapons of assault were recovered; an iron bar, at the pointing out of Bhimsha, a hunter at the pointing out of Namdeo and a stick at the pointing out of Ashok.After completing the investigation, P.S.I. Gaikwad submitted the charge sheet against the appellants and co-accused Basu.Appellant Rangappa was shown to be an absconder in the charge sheet.Going backwards, the injuries of the informant Saibabai were medically examined on 22-5-1992 at 10.00 p.m. by the Casualty Medical Officer, General Hospital, Solapur.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.The appellants aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 29-5-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 271 of 1992 connected with Sessions Case No. 22 of 1993 convicting and sentencing them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years R.I. under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C.; to one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo four months R.I. under section 323 read with section 149 I.P.C.; to three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months each under section 148 I.P.C.; and to two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months R.I. under section 147 I.P.C., the sentences to run concurrently, have come up in appeal before us.The prosecution case as emerging from the recitals contained in the FIR and the evidence of the ocular witnesses, runs as follows :It is alleged that Bhimsha was armed with an iron bar, Namdeo with a hunter, Ashok Subanna Pawar, Basu and Subhash with sticks, Bhimya Menjya Chavan and Rangappa with axes.It is said that Vishwanath Bahadur Chavan and Menjya Mastan Chavan were not carrying any weapons.It is said that seeing the appellants and others, with their weapons, the deceased tried to run but, on the road passing in front of the canteen, of Bashir, he was overpowered by the appellants and others who thereafter, launched an assault on him with their respective weapons.On seeing the deceased being assaulted, the informant started shouting resulting in Menjya Mastan Chavan and Vishwanath Bahadur Chavan catching hold of her.Thereafter, Ashok is alleged to have assaulted her with a stick on right leg, left arm and back.It is also stated Vishwanath shouted and asked the appellants and others accused persons to kill the deceased because, he was informer of the police.On her person, the doctor found three contusions, one each situated at right thigh, left forearm and back respectively.In the opinion of the doctor, the aforesaid injuries were caused within 24 hours of the incident and were simple in nature.The autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 22-5-1992 between 11.25 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. by Dr. A.S. Kanaki.On the person of the deceased, the doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries :"Incised wound on the scalp at occipital region.2" x 1/4 " scalp deep transverse.Two abrasions on the forehead 1/2 " x 1/2 " each brown.3. Abrasion on the scalp left parietal region 2" x 1" brown.4. Abrasion at outer corner of left eye 11/2 " x 1/2 " brown.Abrasion on top left shoulder 1" x 1" brown.Superfixial L-W. on left shoulder lateral aspect 4" x 1/4 " skin deep transverse.P.W. post lateral aspect left arm.3" x 1/4 " skin deep.4" x 1/4 " skindeep.3" x 1/4" muscle deep.3" x 1/4" muscle deep.one below anotherL.W. post left forearm 11/2" x 3/4" skin deep.C.L.W. post left forearm 11/2" x 3/4" skin deep 2 radius/ulna.I.W. on lateral aspect left lumbar region near coastal margin 5" x 1/4" skiny deep transverse.Chop wound on lateral aspect left knee 3" x 1" skin deep.Chop wound on lateral aspect just below knee left 6" x 3" bone deep, P.W. below it, 2" x1/2" skiny deep clean cut margins.Two abrasions one anterior aspect left thigh 2" x 1" and 1" x 3/4" each brown.P.W. on med.aspect rt.leg above ankle 11/2" x 1/2" skin deep transverse.Abrasion on post, aspect rt.elbow 1/2" x 1/2" brown.I.W. on back lumbar region 5" x 1/4"oblique.Abrasion on back left scapular region 3" x 1" brown oblique and below in 3" x 1" brown transverse.All I.W. are having clean margins, all above injuries are ante mortem in nature.In the opinion of the doctor, death of the deceased was primarily on account of shock and haemorrhage, on account of head injury and injuries on the limbs.The case was committed to the Court of sessions in the usual course where charges under sections 147 I.P.C., 148 I.P.C., 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. and 323 read with section 149 I.P.C. were framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During the trial, any large number of documents were admitted by both the sides, they being post mortem report of the deceased, injury report of injured Smt. Saibabai, inquest panchanama and report of the Chemical Analyst.That is the reason in the instant case, neither the doctor who performed that autopsy on the dead body of the deceased nor the doctor who medically examined the injuries of the informant Saibabai have been examined.In the trial Court, apart from tendering voluminious documentary evidence, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses.In defence, no witness was examined from the side of the appellants.The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and passed the impugned judgment.Hence, this appeal.We have heard Mr. V.M. Thorat for the appellants and Mr. D.G. Bagwe, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra (respondent).We have also perused theoral evidence adduced by the prosecution in the instant case and the various exhibits tendered and proved by it.After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we have reached the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants Bhimsha Subanna Pawar, Namdeo Subanna Pawar, Ashok Subanna Pawar, and Bhimya Menjya Chavan.We however, feel that so far appellants Vishwanath Bahadur Chavan and Menjya Mastan Chavan are concerned, the prosecution case against them is not free from doubt and they deserve benefit of doubt.We now propose giving our reasons for reaching the aforesaid conclusion.Out of these witnesses, Smt. Saibabai is an injured witness.It is well settled that if the testimony of an injured witness inspires confidence, the same by itself can be sufficient for sustaining the finding of conviction.We have gone through the evidence of Saibabai P.W. 5 and in our opinion, it inspires confidence.As stated earlier, she is an injured witness.To us, her presence on the place of the incident appears to be extremely probable and natural.Her evidence is that on the date of the incident at about 7.30 a.m. she along with the deceased had gone to Solapur to see her mother, who was ailing.She also stated that at about 7.30 p.m. from Solapur in a city bus, they departed for their village.She further stated that at about 8.15 p.m. when the bus had reached near the place of incident, from a ditch the six appellants along with Basu, Rangappa and Subhash emerged with their respective weapons.She stated that all of them launched an assault on the deceased; Bhimsha with a iron bar, Namdeo with a hunter, Ashok, Subhash and Basu with sticks and Bhimya and Rangappa with axes.She also stated that Vishwanath and Menjya caught hold of her and Ashok assaulted her with a stick.The manner of assault as given out by her in her statement both vis-a-vis the deceased and herself is corroborated by the nature of the injuries found in the post-mortem report of the deceased, and those found on her person by the doctor who medically examined her.In paras 6 and 7 of our judgment, we have given out in detail the injuries received by the deceased as well as by her.The autopsy report of the deceased shows that he had on his person injuries attributable to iron bar, axe and sticks.The three contusions found on her person clearly corroborate the correctness of her version that Ashok assaulted her with a stick.In our opinion, the corroboration of the manner of assault as given by her, by the nature of the injuries, found on deceased and her speaks volumes in favour of truthfulness of the prosecution story.Criminal Courts are very loath in rejecting the testimony of an injured witness because the injuries guarantee the presence of such a witness.We may mention that the presence of Saibabai on the place of the incident is explained.As stated earlier she had gone with the deceased to see her ailing mother at Solapur and while the two of them were returning the present incident took place.Thus her presence on the place of the incident was very natural.Saibabai's account of the incident appears to be very probable and has a ring of truth.In our view her solitary statement is sufficient to establish the prosecution case.Saibabai's account of the incident is also corroborated by that of P.W. 6 Jagannath Pawar.The manner of assault as described by him in his deposition in the trial Court is just on the same lines as that of Saibabai.In his statement in the trial Court, he has explained his presence on the place of the incident.He has stated that when the incident took place, he was standing at the bus stop (the same bus stop where Saibabai and deceased alighted on way back from Solapur).It was near this bus stop that the assault on deceased and the injured was launched by the appellants as well as by co-accused Subhash, Basu and Rangappa.He also corroborates Saibabai on the time of the incident.It lends tremendous reassurance to the statement of Saibabai.It is true that the third eye witness of the incident, namely, P.W. 4 Bashir turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.The ocular account in the instant case is also corroborated by recoveries of iron bar, at the instance of appellant Bhimsha; a hunter at the pointing out of Namdeo; and a stick, at the pointing out of Ashok.Thereafter, they are alleged to have stated before the Investigating Officer P.S.I. Gaikwad that they could get the weapons recovered.Pursuant to their statement, on 24-5-1992, the aforesaid recoveries were made.It is true that both recovery witnesses Kailash Kingi P.W. 2 and Kelshetty P.W. 3 have turned hostile and on the recoveries, we have the solitary evidence of P.S.I. Gaikwad.However, there is no immutable proposition of law of universal application that in no circumstances the solitary evidence of a Police Inspector can be the sole basis for believing recoveries.In some cases, purely on account of the dictates of prudence, the Courts look for corroboration.However, in the instant case, after going through the evidence of P.W. 14 Vijaysing Gaikwad, we strongly feel that the evidence of recoveries at the pointing out of the aforesaid three appellants can be believed on his solitary statement.Neither any animosity of these appellants with P.S.I. Gaikwad has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the appellants nor any suggestion was made to P.S.I. Gaikwad that he foisted these recoveries.In the over all analysis of the statement of P.S.I. Gaikwad we feel that it would be safe to believe his uncorroborated statement in respect of recoveries.The question which perturbs us is as to whether would it be prudent and safe to sustain the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellants Vishwanath Bahadur Chavan and Menjya Mastan Chavan.After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we feel that the answer to this question would have to be in the negative.We now propose to give our reasons for arriving at the aforesaid answer.Firstly it was a case of pre-planned murder.As mentioned earlier the prosecution case was that the deceased and his wife Saibabai on the morning of 21-5-1992 at about 7.30 a.m. had gone to Solapur where Saibabai's mother was ailing and the same evening at about 7.30 p.m. they left Solapur in a bus for their village and when at about 8.15 p.m. the same day they had alighted from the bus and were proceeding towards their village from a ditch the six appellants and three accused persons came out.In other words the appellants and the aforesaid co-accused persons had prior information about the time of return of the deceased and Saibabai and hence they concealed themselves in the aforesaid ditch and were waiting for them to come.Since it was pre-planned murder, we think it to be extremely improbable that appellants Vishwanath Bahadur Chavan and Menjya Mastan Chavan would have participated in the same without carrying any arms with them.This could have been understandable had the murder had taken place on the spur of the moment.The absence of arms in the hands of appellants Vishwanath and Menjya renders their participation in the instant crime highly improbable.We further find that there was no direct motive for these appellants to participate in this incident.There was no enmity between these appellants on one side and the deceased and informant on the other.In the earlier part of our judgment, we have stated that the motive alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant Bhimsha had a feeling that the deceased used to inform police about his nefarious activities and hence he was inimical to him.This in our view may be a plausible reason for the participation of Bhimsha and his brothers Namdeo and Ashok.However, it is too hazardous and unsafe to believe the prosecution case that because of their relationship with Bhimsha these appellants participated in the crime on the converse it may be that on account of their relationship with Bhimsha these appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Unlike appellants Bhimsha, Ashok, Namdeo and Bhimya, who are alleged to be armed with iron bar, hunter, stick and axe respectively and whose participation is clinched by the nature of the ante mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased (Ashok's participation is also fixed by the presence of blunt weapon injuries on the body of Saibabai) there can be no question of any corroboration by medical evidence with respect to the participation of these two appellants because they are alleged to have participated in the incident, unarmed.In other words, we have to fall back on ocular testimony with respect to the participation of appellants Vishwanath and Menjya.We have stated earlier that out of three eyewitnesses, P.W. 4 Bashir Tamboli turned hostile.The other two witnesses Saibabai and Jaganath P.W. 6 being the brother and wife of the deceased respectively are highly interested witnesses.In the background of the reasons enumerated above we do not think that it would be prudent and safe to sustain the conviction of appellants Vishwanath and Menjya on the testimony of these two witnesses.In our judgment, these appellants may or may not have participated in the incident.Since we are not in a position to conclude with definiteness either way the safer course would be to give them the benefit of doubt.Mr. V.M. Thorat, learned Counsel for the appellants made a number of submissions before us.He firstly contended that the claim of Saibabai of being an injured witness should be taken with a pinch of salt because being the wife of the deceased she could volunteer to become an injured witness and, her injuries were located on non-vital parts of the body, were simple in nature, and were examined nearly 26 hours after the incident.We regret that we cannot accede to the submission of Mr. Thorat for reasons more than one.In the first place, we find that the doctor who had medically examined Saibabai gave out the duration of her injuries as twenty four hours old and this fits in with the time of the incident.The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 8.15 p.m. on 21-5-1992 and Saibabai's injuries were examined on 22-5-1992 at 10.00 p.m. Secondly, we are not prepared to believe that Saibabai who was aged about 45 years, would have chosen to get injuries manufactured, particularly on the posterior portion of her right thigh.Thirdly, we find that no suggestion has been given to Saibabai in her cross examination that she got these injuries manufactured or they were self-inflicted injuries.The solitary circumstance that they are simple injuries and they are situated on non-vital parts of the body, would not in our judgment be sufficient to construe that these injuries were either manufactured or self-inflicted, as canvassed by Mr. Thorat.19-A. Mr. Thorat next contended that the F.I.R. in the instant case was lodged after a considerable delay and this throws a cloud of suspicion on the truthfulness of the prosecution story.We regret that we cannot accede to this contention of Mr. Thorat either.We may mention that the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 8.15 p.m. on 21-5-1992 and the F.I.R. was lodged at 1.15 a.m. on 22-5-1992, by Saibabai P.W. 5 who received injuries during the course of the incident.In other words, the F.I.R. was lodged within five hours of the incident taking place.In this context, we would like to point out that Police Station Valsang where the F.I.R. was lodged is situate at a distance of about 30 Kms.from the place of the incident.In our view, considering that the distance to police station was about 30 Kms.a delay of five hours in the lodging of the F.I.R. is no delay.The evidence of P.W. 6 Jagannath is to the effect that the last bus had left.Therefore, we believe the statement of Saibabai that from the place of incident Solapur, they covered the distance on foot.That distance is about 15 Kms.Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the distance between the place of the incident and Solapur is about 15 Kms.The learned Counsel for the parties also did not dispute the distance.The evidence further is that from Solapur to Valsang, Saibabai and Jagannath had gone on a bus.In these circumstances, in our view there is no delay in the lodging of the F.I.R.19-B. Mr. Thorat learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended on the basis of some portions in the cross examination of Jagannath P.W. 6 that even after assault, the bus was available to Saibabai and Jagannath and they should have gone by the bus to Solapur.He invited our attention to para 4 of the cross examination of Jagannath, wherein he has stated that the same bus from which Saibabai had alighted returned via the place of incident after sometime.He contended that by it, they could have come to Solapur.Again we cannot persuade ourselves to agree with Mr. Thorat.It may be that by the time the bus returned back, Saibabai and Jagannath may well have been on their way to Solapur to lodge the F.I.R. It can also be that the bus may have been full and hence, there was no question of its stopping and picking up Saibabai and Jagannath, it cannot be definitely said that a bus was available for them for going to Solapur.19-C. Mr. Thorat also emphatically contended that the evidence on record shows that on the way to Police Station Valsang, fell police outpost of Hotgi, and Police Station Solapur, but no F.I.R. was lodged at the aforesaid places.We are afraid that we cannot accede to this contention of Mr. Thorat either.In the cross examination of the informant, Saibabai, no question was put to her as to why she did not lodge the F.I.R. at the aforesaid places.It is true that Jagannath P.W. 6 who was accompanying Saibabai was asked whether they lodged a report at Hotgi or at Solapur and he replied in the negative.However, the cross examination did not probe further.He did not ask Jagannath as to why the F.I.R. had not been lodged at the aforesaid places.To our mind, the conduct of the informant who was an elderly lady in lodging the F.I.R. at Police Station, Valsang cannot be faulted with for reasons more than one.Firstly, the place of the incident falls within the limits of Valsang Police Station and hence, she and Jagannath may have thought that it would be proper to lodge the F.I.R. there.Secondly, appellants Ashok and Bhimsha had been bound down in chapter proceedings from Police Station Valsang and Saibabai who must be understandably wanting that the killers of her husband should be punished might have thought that from Police Station Valsang she would get justice and hence, chose to lodge her F.I.R. there.In our judgment, there is nothing unnatural if she choose to lodge the F.I.R. at the Police Station Valsang.19-D. Mr. Thorat finally contended that although the incident took place on 21-5-1992, at about 8.15 p.m. there is no satisfactory evidence about the existence of any source of light in which the witnesses could have recognised the appellants.However, the informant Saibabai and Jagannath have stated in their depositions in the trial Court that they saw the incident in street light.Nothing could be elicited from them in their cross examination which would detract from this claim of theirs.We further find that P.W. 10 Ambanna Koli, peon in Gram Panchayat whose duty was to put on the street lights deposed that on 21-5-1992 he had put on the street light.After going through his statement, we finds no reason to disbelieve the same.We regret that we cannot accede to this contention for another reason also.It is a trite that known persons can be recognised in feeble light and also by their gait, voice etc. The evidence on record is that the appellants were very well known to the witnesses from before the incident.It has come in the evidence of the informant Saibabai that appellant Bhimsha lives in her immediate proximity.The evidence of Saibabai is to the effect that between Bhimsha and the deceased, there was enmity because, the former had a feeling that the latter had reported to the police about his nefarious activites.It is also in evidence that about an year prior to the incident, an application was made by the deceased against the appellants Bhimsha and Ashok.In view of all this evidence, it can be safely said that the appellants on the one hand and the deceased and the informant on the other were well known to one another from before the incident.A perusal of the statements of eye-witnesses Saibabai and Jagannath also show that they (especially Saibabai) came into close contact with the assailants.The autopsy report shows that the number of injuries on the deceased were as many as 17 and the injury report of the informant Saibabai shows that she sustained three injuries.In other words, the accused persons must have taken sufficient time in infliciting these injuries.Since they were known to the informant and Jagannath from before the incident and must have come in close contact with them when they assaulted them, and as the incident must have taken a fairly long time, Jagannath and Saibabai had ample opportunity to identify the accused persons particularly, because the incident took place on 21-5-1992 at about 8.15 p.m. when it must have been something in between light and darkness and not complete darkness.Further, where the accused persons are intimately known to the witnesses from the incident, they can be recognised by them by their voice, gait etc. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Apex Court , Kripal Singh, appellant v. State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent, in para 4 Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed thus :'It is true that the evidence about identification of a person by the timbre of his voice depending upon subtle variations in the overtones when the person recognising is not familiar with the person recognised may be somewhat risky in a criminal trial.But the appellant was ultimately known to Rakkha Singh and for more than a fortnight before the date of the offence he had met the appellant on several occasions in connection with the dispute about the sugarcane crop.Rakkha Singh had heard the appellant and his brothers calling Karam Singh to come out of the hut and had also heard the appellant, as a prelude to the shooting referring to the dispute about sugarcane.In the examination in chief, Rakkha Singh had deposed as if he had seen the actual assault by the appellant but in cross examination he stated that he had not seen the face of the assailant of Karam Singh.He asserted however, that he was able to recognise the appellant and his two brothers from their gait and voice.It cannot be said that identification of the assailant by Rakkha Singh, from what he heard and observed was so improbable that we would be justified in disagreeing with the opinion of the Court which saw the witness and formed its opinion as to his credibility and of the High Court which considered the evidence against the appellant and accepted the testimony' For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this contention either.Pursuant to the above discussion, we reach the conclusion that appellants Bhimsha Subanna Pawar, Namdeo Subanna Pawar, Ashok Subanna Pawar and Bhimya Menjya Chavan have been correctly convicted and sentenced on various counts by the learned trial Judge and their appeal deserves to be dismissed.However, we feel that the prosecution case against the appellants Vishwanath Bahadur Chavan and Menjya Mastan Chavan is not altogether free from doubt.By way of abundant caution, we give these appellants benefit of doubt.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed.The appeal of appellants Bhimsha Subanna Pawar, Namdeo Subanna Pawar, Ashok Subanna Pawar and Bhimya Menjya Chavan is dismissed.Their convictions and sentences on all the counts are confirmed.We are informed that they are in jail.They shall remain there till they serve out their sentences.The appeal of appellants Vishwanath Bahadur Chavan and Menjya Mastan Chavan is allowed.They are acquitted on all the counts.In case they have paid the fine, the same shall stand refunded to them.If an application is made for a certified copy of this judgment by learned Counsel for the parties, the same shall be issued at an early date.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by applicant against judgment dated 19.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No.63/2011, whereby judgment dated 11.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sironj, District Vidisha, convicting the applicant under Section 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") with sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence and fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment for each offence, has been upheld.It is applicant's contention that the Courts below have failed to see the inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.It is their case that no recovery was made from the applicant and, therefore, the prosecution story was doubtful.It is also submitted that the applicant had enmity with the family of the complainant due to election of Sarpanch and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated.It is also mentioned that 2 Cri.Revision No.285/2014 (Afroz Khan v. State of MP) PW5 Roopwati Bai, PW3 Harnaam Bai, PW4 Sonu Sharma and PW6 Bahadur Singh have not supported the prosecution story and, therefore, the provisions of Section 457 of IPC will not attract.It is also submitted that the injuries, which were incurred by the applicant, indicate the story of the applicant that there was an enmity because of election and the applicant was falsely implicated.Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgments and submits that the judgments impugned have been passed on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence.According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution story is that Bhagwan Singh alongwith his wife, mother, sister, brother Jeewan Singh and his children was sleeping in his Bakhar at about 8-8.30 PM on 10.06.2004, when at about 10.00 PM, the mother of Bhagwan Singh had called Harnam suspecting some thieves to have entered into the house.On her call, Bhagwan Singh and his brother Jeewan reached the spot and saw Afroz taking away a suitcase, then Afroz was chased and caught by Bhagwan Singh and Jeewan, and in this operation, Afroz's head hit the gate, but they could get the suitcase from the hands of the accused.The other persons like Heeralal, Ganpat and Sonu also reached at the scene of the crime and thereafter FIR bearing Crime No.183/04 3 Cri.Revision No.285/2014 (Afroz Khan v. State of MP) for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 511 of IPC was recorded at Police Station Sironj.Perused the records of the Courts below.To constitute an offence of theft, it is necessary that there should be a dishonest removal of any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent.To constitute an offence under Section 380 of IPC, it is necessary that the accused must have committed theft and that such theft was committed in any building, tent or vessel and that such building, tent or vessel was used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property.In the present case, the allegation on the accused is that he had taken away a suitcase and was trying to run away when he was caught.But the prosecution witness PW7 N.R. Chowdhary, ASI, who is also an Investigating Officer of the case, admitted in paragraph 8 of his statement that he had not seized any suitcase from the accused.Even the author of the FIR (Ex.P/1) namely Bhagwan Singh Son of Daulat Singh (PW2) admitted that they had not taken the suitcase when they had gone to report the matter.Thus, in absence of confiscation of the suitcase, which was the movable property and which was alleged to have been removed 4 Cri.Revision No.285/2014 (Afroz Khan v. State of MP) from the custody of the complainant by the accused, it cannot be said that vital ingredients of Sections 378 and 380 of IPC are fulfilled to constitute an offence of theft, specially when there is sufficient material on record to show that the applicant had enmity with the complainant party as his brother was a candidate to the election for the post of Village Sarpanch.It is also important to mention that the prosecution did not examine the concerned doctor who had conducted MLC on the accused.There is no reasonable explanation for the applicant sustaining various injuries as are mentioned in the MLC report inasmuch as the concerned Dr. N.K. Sharma was not examined by the prosecution.Therefore, it cannot be said that it was simply a case of theft or house lurking inasmuch as PW4 Sonu Sharma, Village Chowkidar, has mentioned in his examination-in-chief, that Daulat Singh and Harnaam Bai had come to his house and had informed that Afroz was standing at their house with a knife and was hurling abuses to them.When he reached there, he found that Afroz was tied to a pillar and thereafter the Police had come and he had untied Afroz and had handed over him to the Police.Therefore, there is contradiction in the prosecution story inasmuch as on the one hand 5 Cri.Revision No.285/2014 (Afroz Khan v. State of MP) Bhagwan Singh (PW2) had said that Afroz had entered their house with a view to commit theft, whereas only independent witness examined in this case submits that Daulat Bai and Harnaam Bai had informed him that Afroz was standing at their house and was hurling abuses.This possibility cannot be denied that Afroz was caught from outside the house of the complainant and was tied, and a story of theft and house lurking was cooked inasmuch as there was enmity between the two rival parties.This aspect has not been appreciated and looked into by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.

['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

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; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned Police station in the first week of every month, till conclusion of investigation (pending if any) and if charge sheet is being filed, he will mark his presence as per the directions issued by the concerning trial Court : andThe applicant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- in PM CARE Fund having Account Number : 2121PM20202, IFSC Code: SBIN0000691, SWIFT Code : SBININBB104, Name of Bank & Branch : State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch within seven 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.18598/2020 (Sanju Bagdi Vs.State of M.P.) 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 Panel Lawyer to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as concerned Superintendent of Police who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.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 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.(Delivered by Hon.5- Thus, appeals in respect of appellants Nafees, Ghulam Sabir, Asif @ Kalwa, Aslooq, Zakir, Qayyum and appellant- Masoom Ali survives.6- In brief, the prosecution story, is that on 21.05.2001 at about 12.30 p.m., the informant Ghulam Hasan gave a written report at the police Station, Bhojpur district, Moradabad alleging therein that one Imtiaz of his village had given 11 bigha land to the Mosque, but the same was not mutated in the name of Mosque.The said land was being cultivated by Azamuddin son of Nazar Uddin who is the sister's son of Imtiaz; the grand father of informant Ahmad Noor is the Mutawalli of the said Mosque who did pairavi in the matter and the land was recorded in the name of Mosque.On account of this, accused Azamuddin became inimical to them, he filed a case at Moradabad; that case was fixed on 21.05.2001 (i.e.date of occurrence); in order to attend the proceedings on 2.1.05.2001, the informant, his father Mubarak Husain, his uncle Mehndi Hasan and Sharafat Husain, cousin brother Ali Husain and Shafi sons of Abdul Wahid were going for pairavi of the said case on foot, ahead of them, accused- Ashfaq, son of Bashir and Nazim son of Chidda were also going; at about 10.00 a.m. when they reached the jungle of Trilokpur at about 1 km from Ramganga river, then from the bush near Damdama nalla(rivulet), the accused persons, Ashfaq son of Mushtaq, his brother Nafees, Azamuddin sons of Nazaruddin, Ghulam Sabir son of Himayat, Asif @ Kalwa son of Ibrahim, armed with country made pistol and the accused Yusuf son of Himayat, Aslam son of Nazaruddin, Jamil son Ibne Ali, all armed with Tabals and accused Qayyum, Masoom Ali, Jabir son of Ghulam Sabir armed with knives in their hands, all of a sudden came out of the bush tried to surround the informant and others accompanying him; in order to save their lives, the informant Ghulam Husain and Ali Hasan returned, but being of old age, Mehndi Hasan, Mubarak Husain, Sharafat Husain and Shafi were surrounded by the accused persons armed with country made pistols started firing; Shafi sustained fire arm injury but manage his escape; Mehndi Hasan, Sharafat Husain after sustaining injuries fell down, whereas Mubarak Husain ran towards west to save his life, but the accused persons also fired on him.Thereafter, the accused persons armed with Tabals and knives inflicted serious injuries; the informant and his associates were unarmed/empty handed, they could not save the deceased persons; the informant and others raised alarm upon which the accused persons ran away towards east; all the aforesaid accused persons (appellants) belong to same group and are notorious; the occurrence was seen by informant himself, Ali Hasan, Afaq, Nazim, Shafi and others; after the accused persons ran away, when the informant and others reached at the place of occurrence, they saw Mehndi Hasan, Shafat Husain and Mubarak Husain lying dead; leaving Ashfaq, Ali Hasan and Nazim on the spot, the informant Ghulam Husain along with Shafi went to the police station and lodged the first information report; on the written report scribed by Noor Hasan, case was registered at police station, Bhojpur, District Moradabad at 12.30 p.m. on the same day under Sections 147,148,149, 307 and 302 IPC and GD was executed at Sl.No. 22 on the same date at 12.30 p.m. S.I. Ashok Kumar (P.W-8) conducted the investigation of the case, visited the place of occurrence, on his direction, S.I. Shudan Singh prepared inquest report of deceased-Mehndi Hasan, Shafat Husain and Mubarak Husain and on the pointing of informant, he prepared a site plan (Ex.Ka-37), collected blood stained and plain earth from near the dead bodies, prepared memos Ex.Ka-25 to Ex.Ka-31, collected empty cartridges from near the dead body of Mehndi Hasan and Sharafat Husain, prepared recovery memos Ex.He also collected one danda in three broken pieces from near the dead body of Mehndi Hasan containing blood stains, two pairs of plastic shoes were also collected during course of investigation and Fard was prepared as Ex.Ka-29 and Ex.Ka-28 respectively.The investigating Officer-Shudan Singh prepared inquest report at the spot which is Ex.Ka-7, photo lash Ex.Ka-8, letters to CMO and R.I Ex.Ka-9 and Ex.Ka-10 and challan lash Ex.Ka-11.The inquest of Sharafat Husain commenced at 3.00 p.m.(Ex.Ka- 8 to Ex.Ka-12), then inquest of the body of Mehndi Hasan started at 4.15 p.m.( Ex.Ka-13, to Ex.Ka-18)) and inquest of the body of Mubarak Husain was done at 5.30 p.m (Ex.Ka-19) and prepared other police papers (Ex.Ka- 20 to Ex.Ka-24).All the three dead bodies were handed over to Constables 2201 Satyapal and 172 Karan Singh along with other relevant documents for autopsies.Blood stained and plain earth, empty cartridges recovered from the spot, recovery memos are exhibited as Ex.Ka-25 and Ex.From near the dead body of Mehndi Hasan, he collected blood stained and plain earth, two pairs of plastic shoes and broken danda, empty cartridges and prepared recovery memo Ex.Ka- 27 to 30; also collected blood stained and plain earth from near the dead body of Mubarak Husain and recovery memo Ex.Ka-31 was prepared.7- The post mortem examination of the bodies of deceased persons Sharafat Husain, Mehndi Hasan and Mubarak Husain were conducted by P.W.4/ Dr. S.K. Rastogi and during post mortem examination, he found following injuries on the bodies of the deceased persons;19- For convenience, following is the chart showing the exhibits which have been exhibited in the case;Items Proved by 1 Ex.Ka-1 Written report P.W.1-Ghulam Husain 2 Ex.Ka-2 FIR P.W.3-Bhagwan Singh 3 Ex.Ka-3 GDReport No.22 dt.21.5.2001 P.W.3-Bhagwan Singh 4 Ex.Ka-4 Post Mortem Report-Mubarak Ali P.W.4- Dr. S.K. Rastogi 5 Ex.Ka-5 Post Mortem Report-Mehandi Hasan P.W.4- Dr. S.K. Rastogi 6 Ex.Ka-6 Post Mortem Report-Sharafat Husain P.W.4- Dr. S.K. Rastogi 7 Ex.Ka-7 Inquest- Sharafat Husain P.W.5-Shudan Singh 8 Ex.Ka-8 Photo-naash P.W.5-Shudan Singh 9 Ex.Ka-9 Letter to C.M.O.P.W.5-Shudan Singh 10 Ex.Ka-10 Letter to R.I.P.W.5-Shudan Singh 11 Ex.Ka-11 Challan naash P.W.5-Shudan Singh 12 Ex.Ka-12 Seal P.W.5-Shudan Singh 13 Ex.Ka-13 Inquest- Mehandi Hasan P.W.5-Shudan Singh 14 Ex.Ka-14 Photo-naash- Mehdi Hasan P.W.5-Shudan Singh 15 Ex.Ka-15 Letter to C.M.O.P.W.5-Shudan Singh 16 Ex.Ka-16 Letter to R.I.P.W.5-Shudan Singh 17 Ex.Ka-17 Challan-nash P.W.5-Shudan Singh 18 Ex.Ka-18 Seal P.W.5-Shudan Singh 19 Ex.Ka-19 Inquest- Mubarak Ali P.W.5-Shudan Singh 20 Ex.Ka-20 Photo-naash P.W.5-Shudan Singh 21 Ex.Ka-21 Letter to C.M.O.P.W.5-Shudan Singh 22 Ex.Ka-22 Letter to R.I.P.W.5-Shudan Singh 23 Ex.Ka-23 Challan-naash P.W.5-Shudan Singh 24 Ex.Ka-24 Seal P.W.5-Shudan Singh 25 Ex.Ka-25 Recovery Memo, blood stained, plain earth-Sharafat Husain (Material Ex.1,2) P.W.5-Shudan Singh 26 Ex.Ka-26 Recovery Memo, empty cartridge P.W.5-Shudan Singh 27 Ex.Ka-27 Recovery Memo, blood stained, plain earth- Mehandi Hasan (Material Ex.3, 4) P.W.5-Shudan Singh 28 Ex.Ka-28 Recovery Memo, Two pair shoes (Material Ex.8, 9) P.W.5-Shudan Singh 29 Ex.Ka-29 Recovery Memo, blood stained danda (3 broken pieces) (Material Ex.7) P.W.5-Shudan Singh 30 Ex.Ka-30 Recovery Memo, empty cartridges P.W.5-Shudan Singh 31 Ex.Ka-31 Recovery Memo, blood stained, plain earth- Mubarak Ali (Material Ex.5, 6) P.W.5-Shudan Singh 32 Ex.Ka-32 Charge Sheet No.68/2001 P.W.6- Vinod Kumar Sharma (S.H.O/ I.O.) 33 Ex.Ka-33 Attachment Order dated 7.7.2001 - Yusuf P.W.6- Vinod Kumar Sharma (S.H.O/ I.O.) 34 Ex.Ka-34 Attachment Order- Qayyum P.W.6- Vinod Kumar Sharma (S.H.O/ I.O.) 35 Ex.Ka-35 Attachment Order- Masoom P.W.6- Vinod Kumar Sharma (S.H.O/ I.O.) 36 Ex.Ka-45 Recovery memo of Tamancha- 315 bore (Material Ex.14) P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 46 Ex.Ka-46 Recovery memo of Tabal from Aslam (Material Ex.15) P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 47 Ex.Ka-47 Recovery memo of blood stained knife from Jabir (Material Ex.16) P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 48 Ex.away from Ramganga river (on way from village Shahpur to Moradabad) in the forest of Trilokpur.22- P.W.1 Ghulam Husain, P.W.2 Ali Hasan are the eye witnesses, whereas C.W.2 Shafiq is an injured eye witness.P.W.1 Ghulam Husain narrated that one Imtiaz a settler executed a Waqf/ Mosque of 11 bigha of his land, but it could not be mutated in the name of Mosque.At about 10.00 a.m., when they reached near forest of Trilokpur, adjacent to Damdama nalla(rivulet), accused persons Ashfaq, Nafees, Ghulam Sabir, Azamuddin and Arif armed with country made pistols, accused Yusuf, Ashfaq , Jamil armed with Tabals, accused Qayyum, Jabir and Masoom armed with knives surrounded them and started firing.C.W.2 Shafiq escaped from the place, but received pellet injuries.Mehndi Hasan, Sharafat Husain and Mubarak Husain ran towards west in the field, then Mehndi Hasan and Mubarak Husain were hit by fire arm shots and Sharafat Husain fell down, received injuries inflicted by Tabals and knives.After receiving fire arm injuries, Mehndi Hasan also fell down and the persons having tabals and knives inflicted injuries.Mubarak Husain attempted to run away but fell down 100-150 steps away towards west he too received fire arm injuries.He stated that he was at the place of occurrence by 6.00 p.m. and up to that time, all proceedings were completed and then they went to Moradabad with the dead bodies.He pointed out the place from where he saw the occurrence to the I.O. also.He further narrated that accused persons did not commit the offence soon after coming out from jhunds, but they reached up to pathway about 30-40 steps towards west and then committed the offence.The accused persons surrounded deceased persons from eastern side and not from all four sides.His village is at a distance of 9 km. from the village of informant.Ghulam Husain met him near chauraha.He stated that he also resides at Shahpur and knows Shafi.From the close scrutiny of the statement of this witness, nothing adverse could be elicited that this witness is not a scribe of the FIR.27- Shafiq (C.W.2), an injured eye witness stated that Mallu and Ali Hasan were behind 8-10 steps, and Ashfaq and Nazim were just ahead of him, Mubarak Husain, Mehndi Hasan and Sharafat Husain.He proved the check F.I.R., G.D. entry (Ex.Ka 2 and Ex.Ka-3).30- Dr. S.K. Rastogi (P.W.4) conducted post mortem on the bodies of all three deceased, which were exhibited as (Ex.Ka-4 to Ex.Ka-6).Umesh Kumar, J) 1- These three criminal appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 29.05.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S. T. No. 623 of 2001 (State Vs.Ashfaq and others) convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302/149 IPC and 7 years R.I. under Sections 307/149, IPC and also to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section 148 of IPC.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2- In Criminal Appeal No. 3136 of 2003, the appellants- Ashfaq, Azamuddin and Jamil have died during pendency of appeal and therefore, appeals in respect of them stands abated.3- The Criminal Appeal No. 2771 of 2003 preferred by appellant- Yusuf stands abated vide order dated 29.03.2017 on his death during pendency of the appeal.4- Criminal Appeal No. 2909 of 2003 has been preferred by appellant- Masoom Ali.Mubarak Husain-deceased:1- Fire arm wound of entry 5 cm x 4 cm over left ear brain cavity deep.Tattoing and blackening present around the wound.Left eye ball completely out on exit.2- Gun shot wound of entry multiple, .15 cm x .12 cm over left side front of chest, 2 cm below left nipple.3- Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep Blackening and tattoing are present, 8 cm above chin.4- Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 4 cm x cavity deep with blackening and tattoing, around the would .14 cm on left of abdomen.5- Gun shot wound of entry over left congrechal region with intestines coming out, .5 cm below the chin.6- Several gun shot wounds of entry 8 cm x 4 cm in an area, index finger laterally.Mehandi Hasan-deceased:1- Multiple incised wound in an area of .20 cm x .15 cm on front face and fore head x brain cavity deep with brain material coming out, both eyes and nose lost.2- Gun shot wound of entry 4 cm x 4 cm x brain cavity deep over right ear, blackening and tattoing and charring present.3- Wound of exist 6 cm x 4 cm on the back of left ear.4- Multiple incised wound in an area of 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep with intestines coming out at right side of upper abdomen, 10 cm below right nipple.5- Gun shot wounds of entry 4 cm x 3 cm over left side thigh with blackening and charring present, 1`5 cm below right iliac chest.6- Wounds of exist 6 cm x 5 cm over back of thigh, 10 cm above back of left knee, margins everted.Sharafat Husain-deceased:1- Multiple incised wound in an area of .15 cm x 10 cm x brain deep over front of face.2- Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep over left side of chest, 8 cm below left muscle, margins clear cut.3- Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x abd.cavity deep at umblicus.Margins clear cut.4- Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep at right upper arm, 7 cm below right shoulder.6- Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep x right side of chest, .20 cm below axilla.7- Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x abd.Cavity deep over left side of abdomen, .12 cm below left axilla.8- Injured Shafiq Ahmed was medically examined by P.W.7/ Dr. Rakesh Kumar on 21.5.2001 at about 9.00 p.m. and during medical examination, he found following injuries on his body;9- After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons under Sections 148,149,307 and 302 IPC.10- Charges against the accused persons were framed under Sections 148, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC.The accused denied their guilt and claimed trial.11- In support of prosecution case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Ghulam Hasan, P.W.2 Ali Hasan, C.W.2 Shafiq as eye witnesses.P.W.3 Bhagwan Singh prepared check FIR and G.D. entry of the case.P.W.4 Dr. R.K. Rastogi conducted the post mortem examinations.P.W.7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar prepared the injury report of injured Shafiq.C.W.1 Noor Hasan, scribe of the FIR and P.W.5 Shudan Singh prepared inquest of the deceased.P.W.6 and P.W.8 are the Investigating Officers of the case.12- Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.The accused persons denied the occurrence and stated that they have been implicated due to enmity and the witnesses have given false evidence on account of enmity.13- The accused-Ashfaq has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was in the Court of District Judge for attending the date fixed in the case and remained there in the Court from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. He is a patient of Tuberculosis and is still under treatment.14- In defence, D.W.1 Balram Singh, Lekhpal has been examined.15- The accused-appellants have filed certified copies of order dated 30.5.1988 passed in Case No. 291 of 1975 under Section 34 of L. R. Act, ( Ameer Chand Vs.16- We have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey for the appellants, Sri Rajesh Pathik, learned Counsel for the informant and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA on behalf of State.Ka-36 Injury Report P.W.7- Dr. Rakesh Kumar 37 Ex.Ka-37 Site plan- 302P.W.8- Ashok Kumar (I.O.) 38 Ex.Ka-38 Recovery Memo of Tabal from Jamil (Material Ex.10) P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 39 Ex.Ka-39 Recovery Memo of Tamancha from Arif (Material Ex.11) P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 40 Ex.Ka-40 Confessional statement of Ashfaq P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 41 Ex.Ka-41 Confessional statement of Nafees P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 42 Ex.Ka-42 Recovery Memo of Tamancha- Ashfaq (Material Ex.12) P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 43 Ex.Ka-43 Recovery Memo of Tamancha- Nafees (Material Ex.13) P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 44 Ex.Ka-44 Confessional statement of accused- Azamuddin, Aslooq, Gulam Sabir, Jabir P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 45 Ex.Ka-48 Search memo of Jhund P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 49 Ex.Ka-49 Site plan- on pointing of Ashfaq, Nafees P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 50 Ex.Ka-50 Site plan- on pointing of Arif @ Kalua P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 51 Ex.Ka-51 Site plan- on pointing of Aslooq, Jabir P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 52 Ex.Ka-52 Site plan- on pointing of Sabir and Azmuddin P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 53 Ex.Ka-53 Site plan, recovery of Tabal on pointing of Jamil P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 54 Ex.Ka-54 Report of Forensic Laboratory P.W.8- Ashok Kumar 20- The accused-appellants have also filed following documents as per list 58/C, before the trial Court;I) Copy of order dated 30.5.1988 passed in Case no. 291/75, under section 34 L.R.Act(Amir Vs.Imdad Husain & others).II) Extracts of Khatauni-1395 F to 1400 Fasli, 1407 Fasli to 1412 Fasli, 1401 Fasli to 1406 Fasli.21- It is a triple murder case in the day light at about 10.00 a.m., one Km.The land was being cultivated by nephew of Imtiaz namely Azamuddin, but due to effective pairavi of the case by Mutawalli-Ahmad Noor (grand father of witness P.W.1), land was mutated in the name of Mosque.After mutation, a case was instituted by Azamuddin in Tehsil Moradabad.On account of this, the accused persons turned inimical to us.On the date of occurrence, P.W.1 along with other, uncle Mehndi Hasan, father Mubarak, Sharafat Husain, C.W.2 Shafiq along with Nazim and Ashfaq were going to Tehsil.His grand father being ill on the said date, did not went.PW-1 and PW-2 hide themselves in a jhund (bushes) from where they saw the occurrence.Nazim and Ashfaq saw from a distance on the road.All the accused persons after committing murder of Mehndi Hasan, Sharaft Husain and Mubarak Husain ran away towards east.When the witnesses and other persons came near Mubarak Husain, Sharafat Husain and Mubarak Husain, they found them dead.All the accused persons are residents of the same village whom the witnesses knew very well.Leaving Ali Hasan, Ashfaq and Nazim near place of occurrence, witnesses along with Shafiq (CW-2) went to the police station, Bhojpur, dictated a tahrir to his relative Noor Hasan, gave written report ( Ex.Ka-1) which is proved by him.In cross examination, he admitted that accused,deceased and witnesses belong to the same village Shahpur 12 km. away from the place of incident.He stated that the accused were closely related to each other and they belong to the same group.Further in cross examination, he stated that village Pradhan election was contested by accused- Azamuddin, Ashfaq and Ali Hasan and in the said election, Ali Hasan succeeded, due to which, accused persons turned inimical.He further deposed that distance from his village Shahpur to place of occurrence is about 12 Km., whereas, Moradabad is about 14-16 km away from his village.There is another road option from Moradabad, but that is longer, but they always prefer to travel Moradabad by crossing Ramganga directly, although Bus, Truck and Tempo run on that route, but they travel by road passing through the forest and Damdama Nalla (rivulet) on the way.Damdama Nalla (rivulet) merges in Dhela river 3 km prior to the place of occurrence.In cross examination, he stated specifically about the place of occurrence narrating that there are bushes near Damdama Nalla(rivulet) and jhunds at a distance of 150-200 meters away from the place of occurrence.Her further stated that when the accused persons came out from jhunds, deceased were 50 steps away from them.When Mehndi Hasan and Sharafat Husain fell down after receiving injuries, then he came back and from some distance, saw the entire occurrence.He was around 50 steps as and the accused came out from the jhunds.He also stated that the accused did not fire just after coming from jhunds, but they fired when they reached near the deceased.The accused surrounded them and fired from a short distance.In the post mortem report P.W.4 found tattoing, blackening in the injuries of Mubarak Husain and during post mortem, 49 small metallic pellets, 3 waddings, 3 bob cock of plastic and 2 waddings were recovered from the body of deceased-Mubarak Husain.Post mortem report of deceased- Mehndi Hasan also denotes blackening and charring which clearly shows that firing was made from a close range, as narrated by eye witness-Ghulam Husain (P.W.1) during cross examination.23- From lengthy cross examination of (P.W.-1) Ghulam Husain, nothing adverse to the prosecution version has come out.Though minor discrepancies are there, but it is well settled that minor discrepancies guarantees that witnesses are not tutored and they are telling truth before the Court.(P.W.1) is reliable, trustworthy, though he is son of deceased-Mubarak Husain, but that makes no difference, as he is natural witness.25- Ali Hasan (P.W.2), is the son of deceased- Mehndi Hasan who was present at the place of occurrence fully supported the prosecution version.He stated that accused persons surrounded Mubarak Husain, fired on him and killed him on the spot.He stated that accused killed Mehndi Hasan by firing and inflicted Tabals and knife injuries on the Sharafat Husain, the entire incident few steps away from the place of occurrence.He stated that when the accused left the place of occurrence, all three, (i.e. he, Shafiq injured and P.W.1 Ghulam Husain) went near the injured and found that Sharafat Husain, Mubarak Husain and Mehndi Hasan were lying dead.P.W.-2/ Nazim and Ashfaq stayed near the dead bodies and Ghulam Husain (P.W.-1) and Shafiq (C.W.-2) went to the police station for lodging first information report.In cross examination, he stated that witness- Shafiq was won over by the accused persons on account of relationship that he will not support the prosecution case.He specifically denied the suggestion of defence that witness-Shafiq did not want to give false evidence, hence the prosecution was not willing to produce him as a witness.He stated that none of them touched the bodies of the deceased.The witness narrated the prosecution version, assigned specific roles to accused persons and mode and manner of occurence.In totality, evidence of Ali Hasan (P.W.2) is reliable and supporting the prosecution case.26- Noor Hasan (C.W.1) the scribe of check FIR has proved (Ex.Ka-1 and Ex.Ka-2).He stated that on 21.5.2001, Ghulam Husain was with Shafiq and he told him that his father Mehndi Hasan and Sharafat Husain have been murdered.On the dictates of informant-Ghulam Husain, he scribed tahrir and read over to informant who put thumb impression on (Ex.Ka-1).He admitted this tahrir in his hand writing and his address is also written over it.In cross examination, he admitted that he knew Ghulam Husain since 1982 after his marriage.On the said date, he was going to Bhojpur by a cycle.He was accompanied by one more person namely Shafi.When they were about 1 km from Ramganga, then accused persons Azamuddin, Ashlooq, Ghulam Sabir, Jabir and Asfaq came out from jhunds near Damdama nalla(rivulet) and soon thereafter, started firing on Mehndi Hasan and Mubarak Husain and on himself.He also received fire arm injuries.Mehndi Hasan died on the spot and after receiving injuries, he ran away from the place of occurrence.He stated that he saw 5-6 accused persons who were just a head, but by that time, he could not identify them.They were having country made pistols, Tabals and knives.He could not assign any specific weapon and role of the accused as all of them were in state of fear and shock, ran away from the place of occurrence to save their lives.Although, CW-2 received pellet injury but who had fired at him is not disclosed.He stated to have seen 11 persons who participated in the commission of crime and they are Azamuddin, Ghulam Sabir, Jabir and Ashfaq.He identified remaining accused persons involved in the occurrence in the Court.In cross examination, he stated that while they were on their way, the accused persons came out from jhunds and fired on them in which, he also sustained injuries.Mehndi Hasan fell down after receiving fire arm injury.But what happened to Mubarak Husain and Sharafat Husain, he could not say because he ran away from the place of occurrence.The accused persons did not surround them, but they attacked from eastern side.The witness ran about 2-3 km., came back after 20 minutes.By that time, the police had not reached.The I.O recorded his statement after one and half hour.He denied that he did not receive any pellet injuries.He also denied that at the time of occurrence, he was not at the place of occurrence as also denied the suggestion that he did not witness the occurrence.He stated that all injuries of deceased persons possibly might have been caused on 21.01.2001 at around 10.00 a.m. 31- Vinod Kumar Sharma (P.W.6), Station House Officer of P.S. Bhojpur, district Moradabad at the time of occurrence proved documents regarding proceedings of attachment of properties of absconding accused persons and other recovery memos.32- Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W.7) examined injured- Shafiq Ahmad and found 4 simple injuries on his body which have already been mentioned herein above.The witness denied to explain that whether injury nos.1 and 3 on the injured, would have been caused by pellets or not, but in cross examination, stated that these injuries cannot be caused by a gun shot.33- Ashok Kumar (P.W.8), Investigating Officer completed investigation and submitted charge sheet.In the cross examination, he stated to have prepared map on the pointing out and the information furnished by the witnesses.It took around one and half hour to reach the place of occurrence.He depicted 'jhund' near Damdama nalla (rivulet) in the site plan.In these jhunds, one can easily hide himself.He further stated that informant disclosed that he and other witnesses saw the occurrence from place 'M' shown in the site plan (Ex.Ka-3).He admitted that he had not shown distance from place 'H' to 'G', nor distance from 'G' to 'A.B'.He had not explained the area of 'A.B.C' agricultural field.The place of occurrence is denoted as plain area near a nalla (rivulet) and river as uneven.The river is around 3-4 km from place of occurrence.From place 'H', distance of dead bodies was around 150 steps.He stated that informant did not disclosed him that the place (jhund) where, he was standing.Near place 'H', a road runs on one side and on another side, nalla(rivulet) is situated.34- The argument of learned counsel for the appellants, that fair investigation has not been done as the place from where, (PW.1) and (P.W.2) saw the occurrence has not been shown in the site plan (Ex.Ka-37) creates doubt about the presence of eye witnesses at the same.In spite of the fact that these witnesses have been subjected to intensive and incisive lengthy cross examination, nothing material has been brought on record to discard their testimonies.They remained firm on the point what they saw.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is submitted that the deceased Pancham Singh on his own has climbed on D.P. and touched the electric wire.It is submitted that the applicant was not present on the place of the incident rather he was actually present at Alapur D.C. Office as he was given charge of Singroura and Burawali Feeder and has no relation with Dhamkan Feeder.On 08.12.2019 the police authorities to demonstrate the aforesaid fact.Initially the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was preferred before this Court challenging the validity and for quashment of FIR under Section 304 of IPC which is pending before this Court.The bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. of co-accused Anil Rajak as being M.Cr.Under these circumstances, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the complainant has opposed the application contending therein that the 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.8854/2020 (Naseer Khan Vs.The State of M.P. ) applicant is the main culprit in the matter.He has instigated and has directed the deceased Pancham Singh to climb the DP knowingly that there is a electric current in the wire as the current was not switched off which has ultimately resulted into the death of deceased Pancham Singh.The cause of death of deceased Pancham Singh is also shown to be cardio respiratory failure which is caused by electrocution.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Mr. Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Ms. Kishwar Khan, counsel for the applicant.Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned G.A. for the State.This application has been filed U/s.439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant Dharmendra Singh, in connection with Crime No.154/16 of P.S. Chandla, Distt.Chhattarpur for offences U/s.489- A, 489-C, 489-D and 420/34 of I.P.C.According to the case of the prosecution, the Police had received source information relating to the applicant herein who is stated to be in possession of counterfeit notes and was planning to make use of the same as genuine.The Police arrested him and from him was seized 146 notes of Rs.2000/- which according to the prosecution was counterfeit notes.Upon his statement U/s.27 he has also taken the name of the co-accused Kamta Prajapati with whom the said notes are stated to have been printed.From the applicant, only the counterfeit notes have been seized.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.The appellant Pappu alias Baijnath, Jagannath and others were tried by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur on various charges related to the murder of Markandey Dhar Dubey.The incident occurred in broad day-light when athletic sports were going on in the ground of Government Normal School, Gorakhpur.A large number of spectators and the District Inspector of Schools was also present.At about noon on 13-11-1968, the deceased Markandey Dubey was seen coming from the eastern side towards the race course, hotly chased by the appellant and five others.The pursuers overtook the deceased.The appellant then stabbed Markandey Dubey with a knife on the chest, as a result of which he dropped to the ground and died there and then.The trial judge found that it was the appellant Pappu who had caused the fatal injury to the deceased with a knife and convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. to imprisonment for life.The co-accused Jagannath was also convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction of these two persons holding that there was no doubt that this solitary, fatal injury to the deceased was inflicted by Pappu alias Baijnath, appellant.This Court granted Special Leave to appeal under Article 136 limited to the nature of offence and sentence only.We have heard the counsel on both sides.It is clear from the testimony of Dr. Brajendra Kumar who conducted the autopsy that there was a punctured wound "1 1/2 X 1/2" cavity deep, both edges sharp and curved, both ends tapering on the left side of the chest of the deceased.On opening of the body, the Doctor found that this wound was going deep into the heart cutting the auricle and root of the aorta.In the Doctor's opinion, this injury was certainly sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The appellant's case does not fall under any of the exceptions in Section 300 I.P.C. He deliberately caused an injury on the most vital part of the body, which was necessarily fatal.The appellant was, there-tore, rightly convicted under Section 302 I.P.C.The appeal fails and is dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicant shall install Aarogya Setu App (if not already installed) in his mobile phone.In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 10/06/2020 by Police Station- Kachnar, District- Ashoknagar in connection with Crime No.89/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and further added sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant and prosecutrix used to talk on mobile phones and on 28/05/2020, the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-38043-2020 (Gajendra @ Rajendra Ahirwar Vs.State of M.P.) applicant by enticing took the presecutrix alongwith him and committed rape with her.On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 19 years of age and he has been falsely implicated in this case.However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture.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;Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible by the office of this Court.Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2020.10.15 08:42:31 +05'30'

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

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

1. Heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 12.09.2018 passed by learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1086 of 2017 (Annu Balha Vs.I.C.I.C.I. H.F.C.Limited and others) whereby applicants have been summoned to face trial for offences under section 420, 465, 468, 471 I.P.C. as well as to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been filed on false and baseless allegations and that impugned order dated 12.09.2018 is against facts and law.Applicant No.1 is an employee of I.C.I.C.I. Bank, whereas applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are ex-employees of I.C.I.C.I. Bank, while applicant No.5 is working with I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Limited.It was stated that the Directors of Airship Cargo Pvt. Ltd. had approached the I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance, branch office Noida in February 2008 to avail credit facility against property plot no. 550 situated at Sector 23, 23A Gurgaon, (Haryana) and consequently the I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Ltd. has agreed to grant loan to Airship Cargo Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to which, Airship Cargo Pvt. Ltd. executed credit facility application form and the I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Ltd. disbursed loan of Rs. 1,38,00,000/- on 31.07.2008 against mortgage of the aforesaid property.However, Directors of Airship Cargo Pvt. Ltd. failed to discharge their financial obligation and defaulted in making payment of regular monthly installments, due to which the said loan was classified in Non-Performing Assets (N.P.A.) on 04.03.2012 in accordance with regulations and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.Thereafter, I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Limited issued notice under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as SARFAESI Act, 2002) to the borrower Airship Cargo Private Limited and its Directors calling upon them to pay outstanding amount of Rs. 1,45,29,639/- within 60 days as on 28.09.2012 for closure of said loan account but despite initiation of proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the borrower/ Airship Cargo Private Limited failed to make payment of the outstanding dues and thus the I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Ltd. had no option but to file a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 2,32,14,444.95 before Delhi High Court and in that suit the complainant and the Directors have already filed their written statements.During the pendency of the suit, Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 18.07.2019 directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- and further directed the purchaser of said plot, namely Mrs. Rachna Ajmani to deposit Rs. 1,30,00,000/- in the Court.Mrs. Rachna Ajmani, the purchaser had complied with the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by Delhi High Court but the complainant did not deposit the said amount before the Court.Learned Senior counsel further submitted that it was also revealed that above stated property plot no. 550 which was lying mortgaged against said loan was sold by the complainant company/ opposite party no.2 to said Rachna Ajmani, who has also lodged an first information report against the complainant company.It was further submitted that in the impugned complaint earlier summoning order was passed on 25.07.2017 by learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar, which was challenged by the applicant No.1 by way of filing criminal revision (No. 161 of 2017) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gautambudh Nagar vide order dated 24.02.2018 allowed the revision and by making clear observation that no case of cheating or forgery is made out, learned Magistrate was directed to pass the order afresh, however learned Magistrate again passed the impugned summoning order for offences under section 420/465/468/471 IPC in utter disregard to the directions of revisional court.On the other hand, Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that initially the opposite party No.2 has availed home loan of Rs. 51,19,361/- from City Bank against property no. 550, Sector 23-23A Gurgaon (Harayana) but in July 2008 said loan was transferred as a portfolio to the ICICI HFC Ltd and as per home loan agreement with ICICI HFC Ltd, the opposite party No.2 has availed home loan of Rs. 1.30 crore, which was re-payable in 40 EMIs of Rs 68,07,581/-each.It was submitted that later on, M/s Airship Cargo Pvt. Ltd. had agreed to sell the property no. 550 to Mrs Rachna Ajmani vide agreement to sell dated 20.04.2011 and that I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Limited was communicated about the said transaction.It was submitted that consideration for selling of the said property was Rs 3,32,50,000/ but as the purchaser Mrs Rachna Ajmani has assured that she would deal directly with ICICI Bank to clear the dues of loan and thus in sale deed the consideration was stated Rs 1,90,00,000/ only.Learned counsel submitted that Mrs. Rachna Ajmani did not clear the balance of home loan and misappropriated balance sale consideration and thereafter complainant came to know that ICICI bank has terminated the home loan agreement and issued notice under SARFAESI Act. It was further stated that Rachna Ajmani lodged an F.I.R. on false allegations after five years of sale of property.Mrs Rachna Ajmani has filed an application under section 17 of the said Act before DRT Chandigarh but later on it was rejected on 27.07.2018 and appeal against that order was also dismissed.It was further submitted that from reply filed by the ICICI Bank, the complainant came to know that I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Limited has relied upon a fabricated bank loan kit to allege that amount of Rs. 1,38,00,000.00 disbursed to the Airship Cargo Pvt. Ltd. as loan against property upon which signatures of Directors of Airship Cargo Pvt. Ltd. have been forged.The Airship Cargo Pvt Ltd filed an application dated 19.01.2014 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking action against the bank officers under Section 195 of I.P.C. and Section 340 Cr.P.C. It has been further argued that on 06.08.2018 I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Limited filed a suit for recovery before Delhi High Court but the bank did not disclose about the proceedings initiated by Rachna Ajmani before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.It was further submitted that said Rachna Ajmani filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for her impleadment in the proceedings pending before Delhi High Court, which was allowed.The matter was referred for mediation but the proposal of complainant was rejected by the Bank.Mrs Rachna Ajmani has filed I.A. No. 8020 of 2019 seeking permission to redeem the aforesaid property alleging herself to be bonafide purchaser but copy of that application was not served upon the Directors of Airship Cargo Pvt. Ltd and vide order dated 28.05.2019 she was asked to deposit Rs 1.23 Crores before the court.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.The case put forward by the O.P. No. 2/ complainant is that it was a housing loan and the bank did not issue appropriate loan kit and documents regarding said loan and on insistence of complainant, the loan documents issued by the Bank, were found forged, as on these documents the signatures of directors of said Airship Cargo Pvt Ltd as well signatures of Deepak Bahla and Smt Nidhi Bahla were found forged.In this connection it may be seen that initially the complainant has obtained loan from City Bank by mortgaging the alleged property (plot in Gurugram) and thereafter loan in question was availed from the ICICI HFC Ltd replacing the loan of City Bank.It was only thereafter, complaint was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR No.P.C. in Criminal Misc.Application No.2735/2017 to quash the FIR I-194/2016 is to be allowed.''In the instant matter perusal of record shows that in the impugned complaint even it was not specified that what were the documents, on which the signatures of directors of complainant and directors were forged.That order was challenged by the applicant no.1 by way of filing criminal revision no. 161 of 2017 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gautambudh Nagar vide order dated 24.02.2018 allowed the revision and directed the learned trial Court to pass afresh order.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-On 29.06.2004, at around 1.30 p.m., the accused 1 to 9 have assembled unlawfully in front of P.W.1/defacto complainant's house and assaulted him with iron pipes, knives and poles and caused injuries.Hence, the respondent police registered a criminal case in Crime No.311 of 2004 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 294, 506(ii) of IPC and 307 IPC.The Investigation Officer had conducted enquiry on the said complaint and collected statements from the witnesses and filed a charge sheet before the Assistant Additional Sessions Judge, Tindivanam.The charge sheets were served on all the accused and on questioning them regarding the offence, they pleaded not guilty.Hence, the prosecution case had been proceeded with.The prosecution had listed 14 witnesses and marked 19 documents, viz., copy of the complaint, photo copy of the case records, photo copy of operation notes, discharge slip, observation mahazar, wound certificates of injured persons confession statements and seizure mahazars, F.I.R., rough sketch and admissible portion of confessional statements.The prosecution had also produced two knives, iron pipe and 6 poles as material objects.3. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 29.06.2004, at about 1.30 p.m., all the 9 accused assembled in front of his house with iron pipes, poles and knives with an intention to kill him.The third accused Jayakumar had a cut injury by knife on his head.The fourth accused, viz., Kuzhandaivelu assaulted him with poles.The first accused assaulted P.W.4 with iron pipes on her head.The fourth and fifth accused, viz., Kuzhandaivelu and Senthil had assaulted P.W.3 with a pole.The ninth accused, viz., Ilangili assaulted P.W.3 with a pole.The second accused assaulted the head of P.W.6 with a pole and caused cut injuries.The first and third accused have assaulted P.W.2 with poles and caused simple injuries.P.W.1 further stated that he was taken to the Government Hospital, Tindivanam, wherein the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.3 had come and recorded his statements.P.W.1 further stated that all the accused are related to him.P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 are the injured witnesses and they have spoken about their injuries.P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.11 were eyewitnesses and they had turned hostile.P.W.10 and P.W.2 deposed that they have signed in the white paper and disowned the statements given to the Investigation Officer.P.W.13 had adduced evidence that counter case has been filed against the accused.On recording the evidence of both sides and on perusing the exhibits marked by them, the learned Judge dismissed the prosecution case and acquitted the accused.The learned Judge observed that a counter complaint was received by the Investigation Officer and his bounden duty was to investigate the occurrence.Instead of that, the Investigation Officer had prosecuted the case against the accused alone.Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said prosecution case, the defacto complainant has filed the above revision.The highly competent counsel, Mr.The Investigation Officer had conducted an enquiry on the occurrence place and collected statements from the witnesses and also prepared observation mahazar, seizure mahazar and also recorded material objects in the presence of the witnesses.Further, there is a civil dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant and hence all the accused have assembled in front of P.W.1's house and assaulted P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6, who have given detailed evidence regarding nature of injuries sustained by them due to assault made by the accused.The learned Judge observed that the counter complaint had not been proceeded further as the criminal case had been registered as mistake of facts.The medical practitioners had also adduced evidence regarding nature of injuries.As such, all the accused had committed the said offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC.The very competent Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.C.Balasubramaniam for the State submits that the Investigation Officer, after receiving information had rushed to the Government Hospital, Tindivanam, wherein he had collected a statement from the defacto complainant / P.W.1., the injured witness, and registered a criminal case for the offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.After registering the said case, the Investigation Officer had conducted an enquiry on the spot and prepared rough sketch, observation mahazar.The Investigation Officer had collected the material objects, viz., knives and poles which were used by the accused to assault the defacto complainant and prosecution witnesses.The doctor had also given a detailed statement regarding nature of injuries.Therefore the prosecution have proved their case beyond doubt without any shortcomings.The learned Judge's observation was that counter complaint had not been proceeded with and hence, the prosecution case had been rejected.As such, the injured persons have been denied justice.The counter complaint can be proceeded with by the Investigation Officer separately.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the trial Court's judgment, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding acquittal of all the accused from the said criminal case.This Court is of the view that the said occurrence had taken place at a particular area on the same date and time between the accused and the defacto complainant and others.As such, it is considered as same occurrence and therefore, the counter complaint given by the accused should also have been proceeded with as joint trial.The complaint and the counter complaint had been registered on the same occurrence.As such, both the cases have to be proceeded with by the same investigation officer in order to determine the veracity of the counter complaint also.Accordingly ordered.

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

"I consider that this is an eye-opener case, which reveals the manner in which police lets off real culprits and falsely implicates innocent persons, who dare ask for justice or who want erring police officials to be brought to book.The police torture of Prempal has converted him into a living corpse."Surprisingly, police did not examine the landlord of house to show that accused had lived in that house as tenant at any point of time.In fact, the accused was being falsely framed and for this reason a stand was taken that accused had lived as tenant for three months, despite the fact that he had his own house about 4 kms.Away from that place and was living in that house since 1990 with his family except that after the year 2000 when he was implicated in several theft cases and he, out of fear, had stopped living in Delhi.The documents filed by him are Ex.DW2/1 to DW2/68 (187 pages).During his examination, ld.Prosecution had nothing to belie his version.She has narrated how police tortured her and implicated her son, her husband and herself in false cases, how no law and rules were followed in her arrest.These complaints were made on 15.10.91 (Ex. DW2/67) 22.11.97 (Ex.DW2/68), undated (Ex.DW2/9), 30.12.91 (Ex.DW2/11) 17.3.92 (Ex.DW2/12), 23.3.92 (Ex.DW2/13), 25.3.92 (Ex.DW2/3), 8.4.92 (Ex.DW2/14), 14.5.92 (Ex.DW2/15), 1.2.93 (Ex.DW2/16), 6.11.98 (DW2/51), 9.11.98 (DW2/54), 11.11.98 (Ex.DW2/55) and 2.5.01 (Ex.DW2/61).In these complaints, accused had also narrated the threats given to him by Sangam Vihar police officials of ruining his life.The present petition by Prempal (Petitioner No.1), his wife, Munni Devi (Petitioner No.2) and his four children (Petitioners 3 to 6) claims compensation for the undue harassment that Prempal and his family have been subject to at the hands of the Delhi Police.The basis for the claim is a judgment dated 28th September 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi in SC No. 29 of 2002 (State v. Prempal) acquitting the Petitioner of the offence under Section 376 IPC.In the process, the learned ASJ observed:"This case is a glaring example that the poor in this country WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 1 of 31 have no say and if they cry for justice, their cries fall on deaf ears.They are made to suffer and pay by their life and liberty, when they complain against police officials."WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 1 of 31After narrating the long history of the suffering undergone by Prempal, at the hands of the police for about 15 years in a number of false cases, including the one in which he was being acquitted, the learned ASJ concluded:It is a case which shows that police force has persons of criminal character in it, who are out to damage the whole institution and needed to be weeded out.It is recommended that all police officials who were involved in framing Prempal in different cases be given exemplary punishment and Prempal be adequately compensated for loss of valuable years of life and wrongful imprisonment for several years and his harassment for 15 years and physical and mental torture.Copy of this judgment be sent to Commissioner of Police, New Delhi for necessary action."What is significant as far as the present proceedings are concerned is that the above judgment of the ASJ has attained finality since no appeal was filed against it by the Delhi Police.When on the basis of the above judgment, Prempal and his family members made a claim for compensation by serving a legal notice dated 28th January 2006, they received no response.Prempal and his family state that they still live under the fear of harassment by the police.It is stated that even WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 2 of 31 after the above acquittal, Prempal has been falsely implicated in yet another case FIR No. 893 of 2005 registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, the quashing of which is also sought in the present writ petition.The Respondents sought time on 29th January 2008 to place on record a copy of the departmental inquiry report before the court.On 9th January 2007, an affidavit of denial was filed by the Delhi Police.It was maintained that Prempal had never been implicated falsely; that he and his son Sanjay Kumar were "noted criminals" in the records of PS Sangam Vihar and that they were arrested and charge-sheeted for their "criminal acts".Even while not denying that the Petitioner No. 1 has been convicted in 5 cases and "acquitted in some cases by Honble Court after due course of trial", it was stated that the "police officials have acted as per the provisions of law and performed the lawful duties assigned to them".It was contended that "the action of respondent never resulted in the violation of the human rights".WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 3 of 31In it, it was interestingly maintained that "apart from the testimony of the doctor all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case.However, the Ld.ASJ has been pleased to acquit the accused Prempal only because of the earlier complaints made by the accused against the police machinery".It was further stated that the "ASJ was swayed away with the defense created by a known criminal which is not only illegal but also unconstitutional".The affidavit chose to ignore the fact that several strictures have been passed against police officials by the learned ASJ while acquitting Prempal.Although the affidavit of Mr. Meena stated that the State was "in the process of challenging the judgment" dated 28th September 2004, no appeal has in fact been filed since then.The order dated 11th July 2005 passed by the competent authority ordering a departmental inquiry against the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case was enclosed.On 28th February 2008, a further affidavit was filed by H.M. Meena in this Court stating that the outcome of the departmental inquiry against the IO was that "two years approved service of SI Major Kumar No. D/3568 has been forfeited permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay for his alleged misconduct."On 19th May 2009 while admitting the writ petition, this Court WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 4 of 31 passed the following order:The petitioner has claimed compensation on the ground of malicious prosecution and has relied upon judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 28th September, 2004 and the observations made therein.The Petitioner and the respondents will file written synopsis not exceeding three pages along with relied upon judgments within one month from today."In response to the above order, on 22nd September 2009, Prempal filed his written submissions.It has been pointed out between 1991 and 2007, 18 criminal cases were filed against Prempal by the Delhi Police.Out of the 18 cases, Prempal was acquitted in 13 cases after a full trial.He was finally acquitted by the judgment dated 28th September 2004 of the learned WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 5 of 31 ASJ who found that the prosecution had hopelessly failed to prove its case.On the other hand, it was held that the police had deliberately fabricated the evidence to somehow rope in Prempal as well as his son Sanjay.Meanwhile, a hearing of the case took place on 4th November 2009, when the following order was passed by this Court:The Court file of the said case will be requisitioned by the Registry for the next date of hearing.The respondents will file their written submissions at least two weeks before the next date of hearing.""That in the present case while the records show that the victim baby * had very clearly identified the accused as the offending person, the Ld. Trial Court had thrown away the necessary testimonies and fall prey to irrelevant details in acquitting the petitioner."(In order to preserve her privacy, the name of the victim is indicated as '*')This court found that the language used in the affidavits of Mr. Meena and Mr. Kashyap to criticize the judgment dated 28th September 2004 of the learned ASJ and the learned ASJ himself, far exceeded the permissible limits of legitimate criticism by a party to a case.This Court passed an order on 24th February 2010 asking them to explain why proceedings should not be initiated against them for contempt of court.In response to the said order, both Mr. H.M. Meena and Mr. Mangesh Kashyap have filed their affidavits dated 3rd March 2010 in identical terms.Paras 3, 4 and 5 of each of the WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 7 of 31 affidavits read as under:WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 7 of 31That there was no intention on the part of deponent to lower the dignity of the Ld. Trial Court Judge, nor it was the intention to interfere in the administration of justice.That the deponent submits its unconditional apology with the request that averments made in the written submissions dated 09/02/2010 may kindly be expunged and it is humbly prayed that further action in this regard may kindly be dropped accordingly."The most precious years of his life were spent in merely trying to defend himself against a number of false cases.Despite so many acquittals, the Delhi Police continues to dub him as a hardened criminal, an appellation that is at once unfair and unjustified.WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 10 of 31And, since they were able to demonstrate his criminal background, notwithstanding the number of acquittals, the Delhi Police had Prempal done in for.It was fortunate that Prempal was able to establish his innocence in this case and justice prevailed.WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 12 of 31Accused had made specific request that his DNA test be conducted and also sperm if any found on the frock of prosecutrix, be got compared.However, CFSL report shows that no sperms were found on the frock of victim.It is stated that police was shown the place in the jungle, where rape had taken place but police did not collect any evidence from the place of rape.If *victim was raped in the jungle and there was bleeding from her private part and her frock got blood smeared, it is obvious that some part of the blood would have found on the ground or bushes under nearth (sic `earth') but in this case, purpose of police was not to catch hold of the real culprit but to use this child as a tool to falsely implicate accused Prempal in this case.For this purpose, police went to the house of accused and pressurized his wife to call the accused from village.Accused came from the village, he was apprehended, given beatings brutally by the police and implicated in this case."The story of prosecution about accused having taken a room on rent in the house of Aleem is unbelievable.He himself was a tenant in one room accommodation.So, accused could not have lived in the room as tenant of Aleem.There were other tenants in that compound.If accused had lived there as a tenant, the landlord would have been called to prove it.Neither landlord nor any other tenant was examined to prove tenancy of accused.The statement of *victim, telling that an old man who used to beg with a temple on a rickshaw and then twisting the story that accused used to collect donation for the temple shows that police deliberately implicated the accused.No person has been examined from whom the accused might WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 13 of 31 have collected donation and no recovery of rickshaw with temple has been made." (emphasis supplied) [In order to preserve the privacy, the name of the victim is concealed and indicated as `*]WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 13 of 31The learned ASJ thus commented on the testimony of the victims mother and babys father and found that the same has been totally unbelievable as under:"I consider that testimony of "victim on the question of identification of accused and testimony of Baby* and Aleem on all points is unbelievable.They seem to be deposing under police pressure or influence.The accused who has been fighting for justice had limited resources.He had been working as `Raj mistri' and then as a labour.His house is in a resettlement colony.He could not engage good counsel to defend him to move higher courts in time, against his false framing in various cases of Arms Act, theft cases, murder case and then rape case.Had accused been a rich man, he would have been able to engage good advocates and move wheels of justice.The police atrocities on him had been unending.He made application after application to CP but with no result.He placed on record his all complaints made to CP and other officers with proof of receipt of complaints."(emphasis supplied) [In order to preserve the privacy, the name of the victim is concealed and indicated as `*]The judgment of the learned ASJ also shows that Prempal did WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 14 of 31 make use of the opportunity during his examination under Section 313 CrPC to put across his case.CPP observed that DW2 Prempal was a real sufferer and a truthful witness.No woman constable ever accompanied when she was apprehended.Police invariably came at night, several times, in absence of her husband.Her hands were tied with a `balli' above her head and she was beaten by male police persons.In cross examination, prosecution has not disputed most of the vital facts stated by defence witnesses and their false implication in cases.Accused proved the complaints made by him and his wife.This figure can be rounded to Rs. 2,70,000/-."WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 27 of 31Before concluding this Court would like to deal with the affidavits of apology dated 10th March 2010 filed by Mr. H.M. Meena and Mr. Mangesh Kashyap, both senior police officers serving as DCPs.Yet, the WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 28 of 31 Respondents took their own time.WP(C) No.11079/2006 Page 30 of 31For the aforementioned reasons, in addition to the directions issued to the Commissioner of Police in para 36 above, a direction is issued to the Respondent No. 1 to pay to Petitioner No. 1 a sum of Rs. 5,32,750/- together with simple interest at 6 per cent per annum from 23rd May 2002, the date on which Prempal was arrested till the date of payment, and a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards costs of the present petition, within a period of four weeks from today.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.A certified copy of this order be delivered forthwith each to the Commissioner of Police as well as the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, for compliance.The trial court record be returned.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard finally.Case diary perused.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicants are in custody since 15.04.15 in connection with Crime No. 60/15 registered at P.S. Bakshwaha, District-Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 307,294,323,506-B,34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.9146/15 on 22.06.2015, and on principle of parity, present applicants are also entitled to be released on bail.He lastly submits that applicants are in custody since 15.04.15, and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they may be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that case of released co-accused Raghvendra Singh is not having parity with the present applicants because applicants caused injuries to the complainants Harpal, Daryao and Devendra by fire arms which is also apparent from memo recorded under Section 27 of the EvidenceAfter perusal of the case diary, it is clear that applicant no.1 Hallu was having lathi and other applicants Lal Singh and Kanchhedi were having fire arms.On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation against the applicants, and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release only applicant no.1 Hallu on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is partly allowed and it is directed that applicant no.1 Hallu shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.The application so far as it relates to applicant no.2 Lal Singh and applicant no.3 Kanchhedi is hereby dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(Subhash Kakade) Judge.

['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.

JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J.2. Prosecution case in short is that on 2.5.94 an altercation took place in the noon between Riyaz Baksh @ Munna Khan and accused Babloo, the report of the same (P-13) was lodged by Maiyadeen (PW-12), thereafter the deceased Munna Khan was going on a scooter driven by Bobby Ahuja, Munna was sitting in the middle and Shekhar Nai was also on the scooter.Mohd. Muin (PW-1) had also followed them, he was relative of the deceased, when they reached near house of Lakhan Nai, they met with Babloo.Babloo and Munna scuffled, Mohd. Muin and Shekhar intervened, in the course of scuffling Babloo took out a big needle and inflicted two blows on the chest of Munna Khan and ran away.Munna Khan was taken to the hospital by Bobby, Shekhar Nai and Muin where he was declared dead.Munna Khan died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the accused.Dehati-nalishi was drawn, that was taken from hospital by Laxmi Prasad (PW.5) to the police station, on that crime was registered and the FIR was reduced in writing.Seizure of big needle was made at the instance of Munna, seizure memo (P-3) was drawn in the presence of Mohd. Muin (PW-7), accused was charged for committing the offence under section 302 of IPC.The accused abjured the guilt and contended that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.The prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses.No witness in defence has been examined.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, this appeal has been preferred by the accused Babloo.Shri Alok Tapikar, learned Counsel appearing for the accused appellant has submitted that it is a case where appellant was not aggressor.It appears from the statement of Mohd. Muin (PW-1) that in order to take revenge of the altercation that had taken place on the same day, accused Babloo was chased by the deceased and his companions and when accused was going away on seeing them, the scooter on which deceased was travelling was stopped, Munna Khan got down and other companions also followed him.He has also submitted that in their statement other eye witnesses Shekhar Nai (PW-9) and Bobby (PW-10) did not support the prosecution case.Even the report of Serological examination has not been filed as such the corroborating evidence was also missing.In the facts and circumstances of the case accused be acquitted or alternatively his conviction be converted under section 304 of IPC as accused has undergone the sentence of more than 12 years, he was arrested on 2.5.1994, consequently appellant be released.Shri S.K.Rai, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that in the noon also the altercation had taken place between the deceased Munna and accused Babloo of which report (P-13) was lodged which was recorded in general diary, thereafter, when deceased Munna was going back he was again attacked by the accused Babloo and with a big needle on the vital part of the body i.e. chest, two injuries were inflicted by the accused.Injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, consequently conviction of appellant under section 302 of IPC was proper.There was nothing to disbelieve version of Mohd. Muin (PW-1).Thus no case for interference in the appeal was made out.In the instant case prosecution has examined three eye witnesses Mohd. Muin (PW-1), Shekhar Nai (PW-9) and Bobby Ahuja (PW-10).Mohd Saeed (PW-2) and Mohd. Dawood (PW-3) are the witnesses of inquest.Lakshmi Prasad (PW-5), Constable took Dehati-Nalishi from the hospital to the police station, on that case was registered by G.L.Tiwari (PW-8) and FIR was reduced in writing.Gajraj Singh Patel (PW-6) was examined to prove the spot map.So as to prove seizure of big needle Ayub Khan (PW-7) had been examined.Gajraj Singh (PW-11) Constable took the body to the hospital and brought back to the clothes of the deceased after post mortem was performed by Dr. Hari Agrawal (PW-14).Beside P.L.Ahirwar (PW-13) Investigating Officer, had also been examined on behalf of prosecution.First coming to the ocular evidence and circumstances leading to the incident.It is not in dispute that in the noon altercation had taken place between deceased Munna and accused Babloo on the date of incident itself of which the report was lodged by deceased Munna, it was recorded in the general diary (P-13) at 4:25 PM on 2.5.1997 by Maiyadeen (PW-12).It was recorded in the general diary that when deceased was sitting in the Watch Repairing Shop, accused was also sitting in the shop of General Stores of Kanhaiya since Babloo was the driver of shop keeper, Babloo was drunk and had abused brother in law of Munna, on that Munna intervened, accused also hurled abuse to him and brought lathi and caused injury on the elbow of right hand.When accused Babloo ran towards him with knife he ran away and went to the police station and lodged report (P-13).It was found to be a case of non-cognizable nature, it was mentioned in general diary that there was no visible injury on the right elbow of Munna.It appears that thereafter, deceased Munna was going on the scooter along with two other companions, driven by Bobby (PW-10), Munna was sitting in the middle and Shekhar Nai (PW-9) was also the pillion rider.The story as unfolded by Mohd. Muin (PW-1) the complainant who lodged dehati-nalishi on the basis of which FIR had been recorded by the police.In dehati nalishi it was mentioned that he came to know that there was altercation between deceased Munna and accused Babloo, while he was sitting he saw Bobby, Shekhar Nai and deceased Munna going on the scooter, he also followed them, when they reached near the house of Lakhan Nai, Babloo came there and started scuffling with Munna, however, in the statement recorded in the Court Mohd. Muin (PW-1) has given a different version.He has clearly stated in Para -6 of cross examination that Shekhar asked Munna to stop the scooter as accused Babloo was standing.In Para -7 he has further deposed that as soon as Babloo saw that Munna, Shekhar Nai and Bobby came on the scooter, he approached towards narrow lane, he was followed by deceased, Munna, Shekhar Nai and others.Then deceased Munna and Shekhar Nai asked the accused to stop and talk with them, there a part scuffle took place betwen the deceased and accused and in the course of scuffling accused inflicted two blows with the help of a big needle on the chest of Munna.Men may lie but circumstances do not, it was clear from the circumstances projected by this witness that it was not the intention of accused Babloo to quarrel with deceased Munna, Shekhar etc., he wanted to escape into a narrow lane and he has proceeded towards the same but the scooter on which deceased Munna, Shekhar Nai and Bobby were traveling was stopped, Mohd. Muin (PW-1) was also following them, it appears that all of them had followed the accused and when he wanted to escape asked him to stop.It appears that they wanted to take the revenge of the incident that had taken place in the earlier hours of the day and wanted to teach a lesson to accused Babloo.It was on sudden provocation that accused had inflicted two blows with big needle on the chest of Munna resulting in his death.When we consider seizure, its memo that has been proved by Ayub Khan (PW-7), spot map has been proved by Gajraj Singh Patel (PW-6), Maiyadeen (PW-12) has proved the report (P-13) recorded in general diary which was lodged by deceased Munna, Inquest has been proved by Mohd. Saeed (PW-2) and Mohd. Dawood (PW-3).Statement of Maqbool Baksh is of no value as he has not witnessed the incident he was informed later on.Lakshmi Prasad (PW-5) took dehati nalishi to the police station.FIR was proved by G.L.Tiwari (PW8).Other part of investigation has been proved by P.L.Ahirwar (PW-13), Investigating Officer.In the facts and circumstances of the case not filing of the report of FSL could not be said to be causing dent in the prosecution case with respect to the aforesaid offence committed by the accused.

['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 the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant Santosh.The applicant is in custody since 24.02.15 in connection with Crime No. 352/2014 registered at Police Station Gyaraspur, Distt.Vidisha for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506B, 34 of IPC and subsequently added Section 307 IPC.It is alleged that on 24.02.15, the applicant was arrested on the ground that he was roaming in a drunkard state and was also abusing Ganeshram Adiwasi.When the complainant Sanjiv Lodhi opposed, the applicant had an altercation with the complainant.The applicant inflicted injuries by fists and kicks to the complainant.Co-accused Kalyan Singh and Santosh Lodhi came and abusing the complainant inflicted injuries by Lathi.On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the applicant was released on bail for offence under Section 294, 323 and 506/34 IPC, but after receiving the MLC report, charge under Section 307 IPC was added.The applicant has never misused the privilege of bail.The applicant is innocent.On the report of accused persons crime No. 351/14 for offence under Sections 294, 506B /34 IPC read with Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (POA) Act has been registered.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application.State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2484/2015 24.02.15 and the disposal of case will take considerable time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant.Accordingly, this bail application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing his presence before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant will not interfere or influence the prosecution witnesses;The applicant will make himself available or represent through his counsel on early date of proceedingsThe applicant will not indulge in any similar offences during the pendency of the trial.If the applicant found breach of any of the conditions above, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge VS

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

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