id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
96,897,552 | As per prosecution case, dead body of Munnalal was found, as a result of which some communal tension arose.On 25.12.016, when the complainant was sitting along with his wife, son and daughter-in-law in his house, Ramvatar Yadav, Bhishma Bhadoria, Gauri Goswami, Lambu Nai, Banti Jain and 40-50 other persons came and assaulted them.When complainant ran to save himself, they set his house on fire, as a result of which, household articles got burnt.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in the case.The applicants are young boys aged 19-24 years.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicants have been arrested in Crime No.374/2016 registered at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 436 and 427of IPC.On similar allegations co- accused Anurag and Saurabh Dhakre have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 15.02.2017 and 27.02.2017 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1327/2017 and 1981/2017 respectively, hence on the ground of parity prayed for grant of bail. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
968,992 | The Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.(formerly named as Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Union) wasa society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operativeSocieties Act, 1935, hereinafter referred to as the Act.The appellant was the elected Chairman of the Society, andwas in control of its entire165affairs.The bank was engaged in carrying on a businessinter alia in salt, sugar and kerosene oil.It was allegedthat the appellant entrusted to one Suraj Banshi Choudharythe work of supplying, coal for which purpose he was givenan advance of Rs. 7,004-5-0 and that out of this amount asum of Rs.. 5,014-5-9 could not be realised from SurajBanshi Choudhary.Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 14, 1964of the Patna High Court in Original Criminal Misc.B. P. Singh, for the appellant.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byMitter, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the HighCourt at Patna under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution isdirected against the judgment and order of that court datedDecember 14, 1964 in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of1964 whereby the appellant was found guilty of contempt of,court, i.e., of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operativeSocieties, Sitamarhi Circle, exercising the powers of theRegistrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar under S. 48 of theBihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935.The three questions which were argued before us in thisappeal were :- (1) Whether the Assistant Registrar of Co-,operative Societies was a court within the meaning of theCon-' tempt of Courts Act, 1952; (2) Even if it was a court,whether it was a court subordinate to the Patna High Courtand (3) whether the words used by the appellant in one ofhis grounds of appeal to the Joint Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties, which formed the basis of the complaint, didamount to contempt of any court.The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are asfollows.Thereafter, a surcharge proceeding unders.40 of the Act was taken up before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on December 22, 1953 when a sum of Rs.14,288-13-9 was held to be realisable from *,be appellantand another person.The bank was not madea party to the appeal before the State Government and itraised a dispute under s. 48 of the Act that the appellantwas liable for the whole of the original amount of Rs.14,288-13-9 on the ,round that the State Government's orderbeing ex parte was not binding on it.In the meantime,however, the appellant had challenged his liability for theamount of Rs. 5,014-5-9 as determined in appeal by the StateGovernment by a Writ Petition to the High Court of Patnawhich was dismissed.He then filed a title suit before theSubordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur who decreed it in hisfavour and at the time when the contempt matter was heard bythe Patna High Court, an appeal preferred by the bank fromthe said decree was pending before the District Judge,Muzaffarpur.The appellant preferred an appeal to the JointRegistrar of Co-operative Societies against the order of theAssistant Registrar who was made respondent No. 2 in theappeal.One of the grounds of appeal ran as follows :-The bank filed an application in the Patna High Court onAugust 14, 1964 for starting proceedings in contempt againstthe appellant.This arose out of audit proceedings.There was awritten reference to the Registrar. | ['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,900,440 | Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this court towards the MLC of prosecutrix and statements of doctor PW-1 who conducted such MLC on the prosecutrix, who noted her age to be 35 years and also a fact that she was brought by Ajay Sharma and had come along with her father.There were four bruises and six abrasions on her body which were all termed to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object within 14 hours of such MLC which was carried out at 10 am.(21/08/2019) 2 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 Per Vivek Agarwal, J.These appeals have been filed respectively by the convicted accused and the prosecutrix being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.03.2014 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Case No. 246/2013, whereby learned Additional Session Judge has acquitted Kasumal Bai (accused No.2) from the charges under Sections 109 and 323 IPC but, convicted the appellant--Suresh Dhakad under Section 376 (1) of IPC with 10 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. of 6 months.He has also been convicted under Section 323 IPC with 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's additional R.I. The trial was conducted against two accused, namely, Suresh Dhakad (present appellant) and his wife Smt. Kasumal Bai.Thus, Criminal Appeal No. 455/2014 has been filed by the appellant-Suresh Dhakad seeking acquittal from the aforesaid charges and Criminal Appeal No. 595/2014 has been filed by the prosecutrix under Section 372 Cr.P.C. challenging the acquittal of accused No.2-Smt.Kasumal Bai.[2] Brief facts leading to present appeal are that, as per prosecution story Proseuctrix PW-1 is a Asha Karyakarta at village Jamnai.On 29.05.2013, there was a call for mass strike of Asha worker at Guna, and therefore, she traveled to Guna along with accused No.2 Kasumal, a Asha Karyakarta at village Pareva and her 3 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 husband Suresh Dhakad on their motor cycle.After such show of mass strike was over, they were returning to their respective villages between 7-8 pm on the motor cycle of convicted appellant, when at about 10 pm when such motor cycle reached dhodra puliya then Suresh had taken a bypass and had parked his motor cycle on a 'kachha rasta'.There convicted appellant had taken the prosecutrix to a nearby field where acquitted accused caught hold of her hands and then when prosecutrix shouted for help convicted accused had slapped her on her face and then committed rape on her.After such act was over, acquitted accused caught hold of her hand and brought her to the motor cycle and then she was dropped in village Pareva at her house with instructions, not to inform about such incident but only to tell she had fallen down from motor cycle.On the next day of incident i.e. 30.05.2013 at about 9:30, FIR was lodged at Police Station Jamner which is 5 km away.Copy of such FIR is Exhibit P-1 which was taken by Basant Naik (PW-8).Reading such MLC, it is pointed out that hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured, vagina was transmitting one finger easily, cervix was transmitting little figure easily and samples were collected, sealed packed and handed over to the constable for chemical examination but doctor had not given any opinion about recent intercourse opining that victim seems to be habitual of sex.It is submitted that in the FSL report (Exhibit P-12), semen was found on article 'A' i.e. petticoat of the prosecutrix, 'C' slide of the prosecutrix and 'D' slide obtained from the convicted accused.No semen or sperms were found on Exhibit B i.e. pubic hair of the prosecutrix.[4] It is submitted that merely on the basis of semen marks on the petticoat of the prosecutrix, conviction has been recorded whereas no confirmatory test has been applied as to whose semen was 5 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 available on the petticoat of the prosecutrix.Thus, on the basis of shaky evidence, out of professional jealousy and caste rivalry convicted accused has been falsely implicated.[5] Learned counsel for the appellant has read over evidence of PW-1 Prosecutrix to point out that she has admitted in her cross- examination that besides the acquitted accused, other Asha Karyarkat of neighboring village had also visited Guna to participate in such strike of Asha workers.She has also admitted that besides Asha Karyakarta, Nurses and Contract Managers were also present in such strike.She has also admitted that prior to alleged incident, she had travelled with the accused persons on their motor cycle on two-three occasions and she had good acquaintance with accused persons, and therefore, she had traveled to Guna on their motor cycle.Earlier she had visited Jamner and Raghogarh on their motor cycle.She also admitted that she is staying at Pareva in her maternal home where house of the accused is situated at some distance from the house of her father.She admitted that Kasumal is working as Asha Karyakarta prior to prosecutrix.She also admitted that Kasumal is Asha Karyakarta at village Pareva.It is also pointed out that prosecutrix admitted that Mangilal Dhakad, Shivcharan and Hariprasad are teachers and are also involved in local politics of the village.Mangilal is a teacher in the school in which Kasumal is working as a cook.She also admitted that Shivcharan and Hariprasad are brothers of 6 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 Mangilal.She denied suggestion that Kasumal had lodged a report against Mangilal, Shivcharan and Hariprasad but admitted that the society which was preparing mid-day meals in the school was headed by Kasumal and prosecutrix is a member of such society.It is also admitted that after alleged incident Kasumal and Suresh had dropped her to the village on their motor cycle and also admitted that she had not narrated such incident to any of the members of the village.She admits that she had narrated this fact to the Police while lodging FIR Exhibit P-1, but a fact that she was threatened with life by such accused persons is not mentioned in the FIR, then she cannot give any reason for such omission.She admits that her clothes were not torned and she did not narrate this incident to anybody in the village as she was not knowing any person in the village, then said her own that she is posted in village Jamnai.She also admitted in Para 14 of her cross- examination that when Suresh Dhakad had pushed her, she had fallen down on her face, but had not sustained any injury on her face because of such push, and thereafter, she was dropped by the accused persons at her home.She had straight away gone to her home and had not met anybody on the way, then she said that she did not narrate this incident to anybody at home as everybody had gone to sleep.It is submitted that this is contrary to her statement in examination in chief, where she has mentioned that she could not report the matter because of lack of conveyance and has mentioned that since her family members had 7 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 gone to sleep, she could not narrate any fact to anybody and had not reported the matter immediately.[6] It is also submitted that witnesses of recovery are Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix, and Kamlesh son of Ramesh Tiwari i.e. brother of prosecutrix and no independent witness has been examined as a witness of recovery of certain pieces of jewelry from alleged place of incident.It is also pointed out that statement of prosecutrix that she could not narrate anything to her family members as everybody had gone to sleep is contrary to statements of her father Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2), who has mentioned that at about quarter to 11, when her daughter had arrived at home he had seen her face to be swollen and had also seen bleeding from nose and mouth.He had asked his daughter as to what happened, then she had narrated about the incident.[7] It is submitted that Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2) has admitted that he had given permission to his daughter to travel to Guna along with accused persons.He also admitted that his daughter had travelled to Guna prior to the incident on two-three occasions along with the accused persons.It has also come on record that proscutrix is working at Jamnai whereas acquitted accused was working at village Pareva where exists maternal home of the prosecutrix.It is pointed out that this witness has admitted in Exhibit P-2, that mehrun color kangan with white color gems were seized from her on being presented by the prosecutrix.It is also submitted 8 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 that Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2) has admitted that at about 9:30 he had a talk with the prosecutrix when she had informed that they have reached Pipalkhedi.This witness has admitted that distance between Pipalkhedi to village Pareva can be traveled in hour's time on a motor cycle.This witness has admitted that despite getting information from his daughter about the incident, he had not informed anybody in the village in the night.This witness has improvised his statement that he was also threatened by the accused after he had reported the matter to the police.[8] Santosh Dhakad (PW-4) has given a contrary statement in cross examination.He has submitted that when he had heard some voice from the house of prosecutrix, he visited house of the prosecutrix at about 11 in the night, when she had narrated the incident to him in the night.[9] Similarly, Shivcharan Dhakad (PW-6) has stated that when he had come to know about the incident on 29.05.2013, he had visited house of Ramesh Prasad Tiwari who had given him intimation on his phone asking him to visit his house.[10] Basant Naik (PW-8) who had taken the FIR has admitted that prosecutrix had not given any reason for delay in lodging the FIR and he too had not asked any reason for delay in lodging the FIR.This 9 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 witness has admitted that he has not shown place from where earring, anklet (payal) and pieces of jewelry were collected in the spot map (Exhibit P-4), however, he has admitted that he had not shown these three things in the spot map because they were brought by the prosecutrix at the police station and were not seized from the place of the incident.This is a major lapse on the part of prosecution.It is apparent from Exhibit P-3 that such items have been shown to be seized from the place of the incident i.e. todra pavera kachi sarak puliya ke pass, therefore this seizure memo Exhibit P-3 is fake and contrary to the evidence of I.O. (PW-8) of the case.[11] Basant Naik (PW-8) has also admitted that place of incident is a nala which was uneven and if anybody is subjected to rape then injuries will be sustained in back and while recording FIR prosecutrix did not report any injury on her back.Even in the MLC Exhibit P-5, only one abrasion has been shown over the back which was not reported by the prosecutrix to the I.O. (PW-8).[12] PW-11 Dr. Mukesh Sharma who had examined the accused did not find any injury mark on his private parts.PW-12 though noted 10 injuries on the body of the prosecutrix but termed them to be simple in nature.No injury was found on her private part and refused to give any opinion as to commission of rape as prosecutrix was habitual of intercourse.This witness has admitted that such injuries could have been sustained to a persons falling down 10 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 from a motor cycle on path full of pebbles (kankar).She also admitted that there were no injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix.[13] Learned trial Court has recorded a finding of conviction qua Suresh Dhakad on the ground that there was no enmity between the proseuctrix and the accused person and her statements are corroborated from the FIR (Exhibit P-1) in addition presence of sperm marks on petticoat and vaginal swab are sufficient to convict the accused person.Learned Court noted that in case of Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs.State of M.P., 2013 Part I ANJ Page 30, finding material contradictions in the evidence of prosecutrix and her husband and that being not corroborated with the medical evidence, acquittal of Vinod Kumar Yadav was recorded.In case of State of Rajasthan Vs.Babu Meena, 2013 MPWN Note 66, there was ambiguity in the timing of the incident as narrated by the prosecutrix and that was not corroborated by the medical evidence so also it was not supported by the so called eye witness, therefore, acquittal was confirmed.In case of Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P., 2006 Part-2 MPLJ 141, explanation given by the prosecutrix that she was sleeping inside the house with her three children keeping the door open was not accepted and acquittal was recorded.But in case of Ganga Singh vs State of M.P. 2013 Cr.L.J 3966, wherein it has been held that proseuctirx is not a co-accused and there is no need for correlation of her evidence and at all cost her evidence should be accepted.Human sperms were 11 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 found on the private parts of the prosecutrix when Supreme Court had maintained the finding of conviction of the accused.Thus, it is evident that learned trial Court has noted a fact that there was an abrasion on the back of the prosecutrix and one bruise on the breast of the prosecutrix besides presence of human sperms on petticoat and vaginal swab and such evidence of the prosecution was supported by PW-2, 3, 4 & 6, therefore, in the light of law laid down in case of Ganga Singh (Supra) conviction of Suresh Dhakad has been recorded.[14] Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and submits that both the appeal need to be dismissed as learned trial Court appreciated the facts of the case in correct prospective, and therefore, that judgments do not call for any interference.[15] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.He has admitted that he had received intimation of such incident at about 11 pm, as he was at his home and had heard certain voice coming from house of prosecutrix and then he had asked prosecutrix about the incident in that very night when such incident was narrated to him in presence of Shivcharan, Amol Singh and parents of the prosecutrix.This witness also admitted in para 4 of cross-examination that 2-4 persons of the village had collected at the house of the prosecutrix.Similarly, PW-6 Shivcharan Dhakad has also admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination that at night itself Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2), had called him to his house by making a call on his mobile and when he had reached house of Ramesh, he had seen Santosh, Amol Singh and other persons of the village and then such incidence was narrated to them.This is a material omission in the testimony of the prosecutrix and Ramesh Prasad Tiwari (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix which has been ignored by the learned trial Court.Basant Naik (PW-8) I.O. of the case admitted that earrings, payal and pieces of kangan were produced by the prosecutrix at the police 13 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 station and they were not seized from the place of the incident.In fact in Exhibit P-3, it is clearly mentioned that seizure of such material was made from the place of the incident, where as contrary to this I.O. has mentioned that such items were produced by the prosecutrix at the police station.Thus, belying the story of the prosecution that while such rape was committed by the accused on prosecutrix she had lost such items at the place of the incident.This piece of corroborative evidence when eroded causes damage to the prosecution story.[17] Another omission which has been overlooked by learned trial Court is that there is a consistent suggestion to the prosecutrix so also other prosecution witnesses that there was a rivalry with the accused No.2 inasmuch as she was heading the society supplying mid- day meal in the school where Mangilal, Shivcharan and Hariprasad are teachers and who happens to be relative of each other inasmuch as they wanted to dislodge accused No.2 Kasumal from the responsibility of presidentship of such society, and therefore, the trial Court's contention that 'there is no material to point out that there was any element of previous enmity between the prosecutrix and the accused', is factually incorrect.In fact, PW-1 has admitted that Kasumal is the president of the society and she is a member, though she has denied that Gram Sabha had passed a resolution to remove Kasumal and to lodge Mamta Dhakad as president of the society but this suggestion of 14 Criminal Appeal Nos. 455/2014 & 595/2014 the prosecution witnesses clearly suggests rivalry between the parties overlooked by the trail Court.The trail Court has also overlooked another aspect that clothes of the prosecutrix were not seized, because if story of the prosecutrix is to be believed then there would have been damage to the clothes worn by the prosecutrix at the time of the incident, namely, a yellow color saree and a blouse of red color.[18] Learned trial court has also not adverted to another important aspect, that is reported by PW-12, that such injury could have been sustained by prosecutrix on falling from a motor cycle.It has overlooked the fact that there were no injury mark on the private parts of the prosecutrix to substantiate the charge of rape.[22] It has come on record that prosecutrix was knowing the accused and had moved on their motor cycle on previous occasions also with the consent of their relative. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
969,015 | The Sessions Court had also imposed afine of Rs.10,000/-, failing which the appellant has to undergo another3 years rigorous imprisonment.The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that anFIR was lodged on 27.4.2000 at 6.40 P.M. with Police Station,Rudrapur, by complainant Ajit Singh (PW.1) alleging that his grandfather Hardayal Singh had given certain shares in his immovableproperties to his three sons, namely, Gopal Singh, Joginder Singh andMahender Singh and denied a share to his father Inderjit Singh anduncle Paramjit Singh, the appellant.The appellant had fraudulentlysold a plot at Rudrapur and to prevent him from repeating such act,appellant's father Hardayal Singh executed a General Power ofAttorney, as well as a Will, dated 27.04.2000 in respect of one of hisproperties in favour of the complainant's father, Inderjit Singh andthus, the appellant became annoyed.The appellant misbehaved withhis father Hardayal Singh and brother Inderjit Singh and threatenedthem with dire consequences, at the office of the Sub-Registrar atKichcha.On the same day in the evening at 5.45 P.M., the complainantAjit Singh (PW.1), his father Inderjit Singh and brothers SurenderSingh, Saranjit Singh alongwith Satwant Singh and Gurmit Singhwent to drop Hardayal Singh at his residence in Matkawali Gali.When they were alighting from the car, the appellant Paramjit Singhand two or three of his associates were sitting there.The appellant,with an intention to kill them, started firing.Thus, complainant'sfather Inderjit Singh, his brothers Surender Singh and Saranjit Singh,died on the spot and complainant Ajit Singh (PW.1), his brother BaljitSingh (PW.2) and his grand-father Hardayal Singh got injured.Theincident was witnessed by Gurmit Singh (PW.3), Satwant Singh(PW.4) and cousins of complainant Ajit Singh (PW.1), RajinderKumar (PW.5), Harpal Singh (PW.6) and Hira Lal (PW.7).The Investigating Officer recovered and prepared the SeizureMemos of plain soil, blood soaked soil, three empty cartridges and aturban.The dead bodies of the aforesaid three persons were recoveredvide Panchnama and postmortems were conducted on the bodies of allthe three deceased on 28.4.2000 in the Base Hospital, Haldwani.Theother injured persons, namely, Ajit Singh (PW.1), Baljit Singh (PW.2)and Hardayal Singh were examined medically.During the investigation on 4.5.2000, the Investigating Officerrecovered the licensed Gun of the appellant, on the disclosure madeby appellant himself, from an Arms Dealer at Rampur and therecovery memo and site plan of the place of recovery was prepared.On beingcross-examined by the public prosecutor, he furnished the explanationfor changing his stand, stating that he had named the appellant for thekilling of Inderjit Singh, Surender Singh and Saranjit Singh andcausing injuries to three others including the complainant at the behestof the members of the crowd present there, whereas he had not seenthe appellant firing at the spot.He denied the suggestion that therewas a compromise in the family and because of that he had beenfalsely deposing to save the appellant.However, he had admitted thathe was medically examined.However, he did notsupport the case of the prosecution when he was examined in thecourt.He admitted his presence on the spot and admitted that he hadsuffered injuries.He also admitted that he was medically examined.He admitted that there was a dispute in the family on the issue ofsharing the immovable property, but he deposed that the appellant didnot cause three deaths or injuries to three others.In his cross-examination, he was confronted with his statement recorded underSection 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he had named the appellant as theperson who had committed the crime.He had also denied thesuggestion that he was deposing falsely because of the compromise inthe family.The other witnesses Gurmit Singh (PW.3), Satwant Singh(PW.4), Rajinder Kumar (PW.5), Harpal Singh (PW.6) and Hira Lal(PW.7) had even denied their presence on the spot.Harpal Singh 24 (PW.6) deposed that he had reached the place of occurrence after thecommission of the offence.None of the said eye-witnesses supportedthe case of the prosecution in spite of the fact that all of them hadnamed the appellant as an assailant in their respective statementsmade under Section 161 Cr.P.C.Shri Rajan Tyagi, Investigating Officer (PW.8), had provedthe statements of all the witnesses recorded by him under Section 161Cr.P.C. and deposed that it was the complainant, Ajit Singh (PW.1),who had stated that the appellant had caused three deaths and injuriesto 3 other family members.He had admitted his signatures on the saidstatements.The said witness admitted that hehad recovered empty cartridges and other materials from the place ofoccurrence including the piece of cloth, blood soiled earth andordinary soil.He had supported the postmortem report, thatpostmortems of the dead bodies were conducted on 27th April, 2000,which was recorded in the case diary.He has further deposed that at1.30 P.M. on 4th May, 2000 at the instance of a secret informer, the 25 appellant, Paramjeet Singh, was arrested and the appellant hadconfessed his crime and had told him that the appellant had depositedhis licensed gun with M/s J.B. Sales Arms & Ammunition Dealer,Railway Station, Rampur.The Investigating Officer (PW.8) wentalongwith the appellant and other police personnel to Rampur railwaystation for the recovery of the gun used in the offence.The appellant,Paramjeet Singh, had pointed out, from the distance of about 90 paces,the agency of the arms dealer.Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated30.4.2004, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital,dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.1767 of 2001 against thejudgment and order of the Sessions Court dated 9.8.2001 in SessionsCase No.254 of 2000 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called `IPC') andsentencing him to life imprisonment and 10 years rigorous 1 imprisonment respectively.The empty cartridges and recovered Gun were sent to the ForensicScience Laboratory, Agra and other materials e.g., blood soaked soiland the clothes etc. of the deceased were also sent to FSL, Agra forchemical analysis.The Investigating Officer completed the investigation andsubmitted the charge-sheet against the appellant.He denied thecharges and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 8 witnesses tosubstantiate its case before the trial Court.Out of 8 witnesses, 7turned hostile.After conclusion of the trial, the learned SessionsCourt vide its judgment and order dated 9.8.2001 found the appellantguilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC andawarded the sentences mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.Shri S.R. Bajwa, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant, has submitted that out of 8 witnesses examined by theprosecution, 7 turned hostile and none of them deposed that theappellant had committed any offence.The Investigating Officerremained the only witness in the trial who had not turned hostile.Thegun was allegedly recovered at the disclosure of the appellant asrequired but it was not in consonance with Section 27 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872, on the basis of which the recovery of the Guncould be proved.The trial Court as well as the High Court erred inconvicting the appellant as none of the alleged pieces ofcircumstantial evidence could be proved by the prosecution.Thecourts below committed an error in accepting the inadmissibleevidence e.g., confession before Police official; contents of statementrecorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter called `Cr.P.C.'); using the FIR as a substantial piece ofevidence; and recovery of 12 Bore Gun from an Arms Dealer atRampur on the disclosure of the appellant and held the appellant 5 guilty.No witness was examined to prove that the material collectedby the Investigating Officer had been placed in safe custody in theMalkhana; the Register maintained by the arms dealer at Rampur hadnot been produced before the court nor had the arms dealer beenexamined.None of the relevant incriminating pieces of circumstantialevidence had been put to the appellant by the court while examininghim under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The circumstances of the abscondingof the appellant for 6 days had been taken to show him as guiltyperson.In spite of the fact that a compromise by Panchayat was notproved before the trial Court, it had been used against the appellant.The other eye-witnesses even denied their presenceat the place of occurrence itself.In such a fact-situation, where all thewitnesses had been won over by the appellant, as the family hadpardoned the appellant, the case otherwise stood proved bycircumstantial evidence.The courts below have rightly convicted theappellant.All relevant questions had been put to the appellant underSection 313 Cr.P.C., and the appellant could not explain hiswhereabouts at the time of occurrence of the incident.The case of theprosecution has duly been supported by the medical evidence as wellas the other material collected by the Investigating Officer during theinvestigation.The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The present case requires to be examined in light of theaforesaid certain legal propositions.The offence as alleged, has been committed by the appellant,killing three persons and injuring three other persons who weremembers of his own family.An earlier incident had occurred in themorning in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Kichcha and the offencewas allegedly committed by the appellant on the same day in theevening at about 5.45 P.M. An FIR had been lodged promptly at 6.40 22 P.M. at Police Station: Rudrapur, which is located at 14 kms.awayfrom the place of occurrence.His version in the FIR standscorroborated by the medical evidence.The statement recorded by theInvestigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been inconsonance with his version made in the FIR.Baljit Singh (PW.2) was also an injured witness, and was alsomedically examined.They alighted from the jeep and theappellant walked towards it and got recovered the gun which waslying in an almirah of the said shop and identified the same.So, itwas the appellant at whose behest the gun was recovered.In spite ofthe extensive cross examination of Shri Rajan Tyagi, InvestigatingOfficer (PW.8), the defence could not make out anything which maydiscredit his deposition.The case should be examined from another angle also.Thepostmortem reports of 3 persons, who died in the incident, are part ofthe record and speak for themselves.26 Postmortem Reports :I. The postmortem report of Sharanjeet Singh (Ex.Ka.27) readsas under:1) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm circular, Margins inverted over forehead in between eyebrows.2) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm right side chest, 6 cm above right nipple.3) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm right side of lower abdomen 6 cm lateral to umbilicus, circular, margins inverted.4) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm over right shoulder, margins inverted, circular.5) Multiple firearm injuries measuring 1 cm x 1 cm in an area of 12 cm x 16 cm over middle of back, margins inverted, cavity deep, pellets and plastic cork recovered (wound of entering).The postmortem report of Surender Singh (Ex. Ka. 28) reads asunder:1) Lacerated would 12 cm x 14 cm right side abdomen 6 cm above and lateral to umbilicus and 10 cm below right nipple, margins crushed and multiple firearm injuries measuring 1 cm x 1 cm around the lacerated wound, margins inverted, muscle deep.2) Multiple lacerated wounds measuring 1 cm x 1 cm over left chest around nipple some are cavity deep and some skin deep.3) Lacerated wound 10 cm x 6 cm left abdomen lateral side.The postmortem report of Inderjeet Singh (Ex.Ka. 29) reads asunder:1) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1.5 cm left side chest oval in shape, margins inverted 6 cm above left nipple, cavity deep.2) Two circular lacerated wound right side chest 6 cm below right nipple, skin deep, margins inverted.3) Three lacerated wound in an area of 8 cm x 6 cm over right shoulder joint, skin deep, margins inverted.4) Three lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm circular in shape over right lower abdomen 6 cm lateral to umbilicus.5) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3.5 cm oval in shape margins averted and irregular over back of chest, left side, track corresponding to injury No. 1, injury No. 5 is wound of exit.R.M. present both upper and lower limbs.Injury Reports :I. Ajit Singh (PW.1) was medically examined and his injuries'report (Ex.Ka.37) reads as under:i) Lacerated wound of .3cm x .3cm on the back side of right hand, skin deep.Oozing of blood present.ii) Multiple firearm wound of entry size .3 x .3cm in the area of 18cm x 9 cm on middle part of the left thigh on the outer side.Black coloured.Jean pant is also torn on the same places.Margins are charred and indication is present around them.Advised X-ray of left thigh.iii) Multiple firearm wound of entry on the medial and anterior aspect of right thigh, some part of the Jeans is also torn on the same places over the injuries.Margins are charred and indication is present around them.Oozing of blood also present size 13cm x .3cm.Advised X-ray of the right thigh.The injuries' report of Baljit Singh, (PW.2) (Ex.Ka.38) reads asunder:i) Lacerated wound over the right side of face and neck involving the lower jaw and right angle of lip and tongue.ii) Excessive bleeding through the wound.iii) Irregular margin defect in the chin cut being received on mandible.iv) Right lower palpable throughout the wound.Opinion : The above injuries were caused by fire arm.The medical examination report of Shri Hardayal Singh(Ex.Ka.36) is as under:i) Punctured wound 4 mn x 4 round in the left side of temporal area 3 cm above the left extended ear.X- ray advised.ii) Punctured wound = cm x = cm round with level of 1st thoracic vertebra.X-ray advised.iii) Punctured wound = cm x = cm on left scapula.X-ray advised.It is evident from the above that the appellant had caused a verylarge number of injuries.The witnesses i.e. Ajit Singh (PW.1) and Baljit Singh (PW.2)in their respective depositions have admitted their presence at theplace of incident and admitted to suffering those injuries.In theirstatements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. they have also admitted thatthey suffered the aforesaid injuries at the hands of the appellant.Itwas at a later stage that they have denied any role of the appellant.Their statements to that effect are not trustworthy for the simplereason that they failed to offer any explanation for why they assignedthe said role to the appellant in their statements under Section 161Cr.P.C. and why the appellant had been named by Ajit Singh (PW.1) 30 while lodging the FIR.It is relevant to note that the witnesses,namely, Ajit Singh (PW.1) and Baljit Singh (PW.2) have also deposedthat after the incident, a Panchayat was convened and it pardoned theappellant.The version of convening the Panchayat and grant ofpardon to the appellant has duly been supported by Gurmit Singh(PW.3) and Satwant Singh (PW.4).Gurmit Singh (PW.3) deposed:The matter had been compromised in the Panchayat".Satwant Singh (PW.4) deposed:"....matter had been compromised in the Panchayat.Panchayat had pardoned Pamma accused".It is pertinent to mention here that injured Hardayal Singh couldnot be examined as he died of cancer during the trial.It is evident from the above that the view taken by the courtsbelow, that the eye-witnesses turned hostile because of the decisiontaken in the Panchayat, pardoning the appellant, does not require anyinterference.31 It is also evident from the above that the said eye-witnesseshave no regard for the truth and concealed the material facts from thecourt only in order to protect the appellant, for the reasons best knownto them.Such an unwarranted attitude on the part of the witnessesdisentitles any benefit to the appellant, who has committed a heinouscrime.The crime had been committed against the society/State andnot only against the family and therefore, the pardon accorded by thefamily and Panchayat has no significance in such a heinous crime.It has been canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the trialCourt committed an error relying upon various factors/incriminatingmaterials which were not pointed out to the appellant while recordinghis statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Such material had been inrespect of (i) recovery of gun from arms dealer at Rampur; (ii) motive;(iii) abscondance of the appellant; and (iv) compromise in Panchayatwhich pardoned the appellant.So far as the circumstance of recovery of gun from the armsdealer at Rampur is concerned, the trial court had put a question to the 32 appellant and he has answered the same.The question and answerread as under:"Q. It has come in evidence that the Investigating Officer prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence which is Exh.Your licenced gun 17466/96 was recovered at your instance from Rampur and the Recovery Memo was prepared which is K-39, the site plan of the place of recovery is Exh.The forensic science laboratory report in respect of the case property is Exh. K-44, what have you to say?The gun was not recovered at my instance.This number 17466/96 is the number of my licenced gun.I had deposited this gun with a dealer at Rampur.The police has concocted the story of recovery."But it is not a casewhere no question was put to the accused on the said circumstance.Thus,not putting a question on this particular circumstance to the appellantremained inconsequential.If the case is considered in the totality of the circumstances,also taking into consideration the gravity of the charges, the appellanthad killed his real brother, Inderjit Singh and his nephews, SurenderSingh and Saranjit Singh and injured his father Hardayal Singh andnephews Ajit Singh (PW.1) and Baljit Singh (PW.2) in broad daylight. | ['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. |
96,905,284 | The order of non-selection, dated 22.7.2011 issued against theWrit Petitioner for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, isunder challenge in this Writ Petition.2.The Writ Petitioner pursuant to the notification issued forrecruitment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, submitted hisapplication and participated in the process of selection.The Writ Petitionerwas successful in the written examination and participated in the PhysicalVerification Test.However, the case of the Writ Petitioner was rejected bythe second respondent in proceeding, dated 22.7.2011 stating that during therelevant point of time, a criminal case in Crime No.63 of 2004 under Sections323, 324 of IPC and 294(b) and 323 of IPC was pending.Accordingly, theWrit Petitioner had paid the fine amount.Therefore, it is a case ofpunishment and accordingly, the Writ Petitioner cannot seek for any selectionfor appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable .''No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by directrecruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority.ii)That his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him forsuch service.iii)That he has not involved in any criminal case before PoliceVerification.Explanation:-(1)A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubtor due to the fact that complainant ''turned hostile'' shall be treated asperson involved in a criminal case.Explanation:-(2)A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Policeverification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended inhonourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as notinvolved in criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only byparticipating in the next recruitment''.4.The candidates, who are having criminal case history cannot beconsidered for the post of Uniformed Services.The character and antecedentsof the candidates seeking appointment for Uniformed Services is of paramountimportance.5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.However, there shallbe no order as to costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions aredismissed.1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai.3.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,914,502 | As per the prosecution case, on 03.12.2017, on a dispute of entering a buffalo into the house of the applicants, there was some scuffle between both neighbours.It is alleged that during this scuffle, the applicants armed with farsi and danda, assaulted the complainant, who belongs to scheduled caste.On medical examination a lacerated wound was found on the head of the complainant.Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for bail.I have gone through the record.The accused are in jail since 14.12.2017 and trial is likely to take sufficient time.Investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.Considering the allegation, nature of the offence so also the other facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case to release the appellants on bail.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya Soumya Digitally signed by Soumya Ranjan Dalai DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, Ranjan postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e84322bb579 7cf28ee60671538b737cf52962d84 Dalai d7b527897e53ac, cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2018.01.22 11:12:24 +05'30' | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,316,735 | No.28 C.R.M. 2557 of 2019 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04/03/2019 in connection with Nalhati P.S. Case No. 190 of 2018 dated 12/06/2018 under Sections 464 /465 / 467/ 468 /471/472 /120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Amit Chakarborty ....petitioner.Mr. R. Banerjee ...for the petitioner.Furthermore, the uncontroverted allegations in the first information report do not relate to misuse of a valid licence but the wrongful conduct of accused in persons dishonestly utilizing forged licences/permits to cause wrongful gain to themselves.2 The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,318,885 | Heard on the bail application.Applicant has been arrested on 31-08-2014 in connection with Crime No.495/2014 registered at Police Station, Ambah District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 333, 353, 186, 294 and 506/34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, the incident has occurred on 17-07-2014 when Akhilesh Saxena and Deepak Shrivastava were returning from their duties, they were assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused persons.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that at the time of incident complainant was not performing any kind of public duty, therefore, looking to the nature of offence applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.Final disposal of trial shall take time, hence prayed for grant of bail.Prayer for bail was opposed by learned Panel Lawyer on the ground that in the incident Akhilesh Saxena has received fracture and sufficient evidence is available against the applicant, hence he does not deserve for any bail.2 M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 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. |
144,320,972 | PRAYER: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of CriminalProcedure Code, to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitionerunder the guise of enquiry without due process of law.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondentnot to harass the petitioner under the guise of the enquiry.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that already therespondent has filed one case against the petitioner herein and in that case,the petitioner was acquitted and subsequently, the respondent is frequentlycalling the petitioner and compelling him to give false evidence in someother cases and for that, the petitioner has not agreed and hence, therespondent is harassing the petitioner.3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) has submitted that thecontention of the petitioner that already the petitioner was acquitted inanother case is not true.He further submitted that a case has beenregistered against the petitioner herein and three others in Crime No.199 of2016 under Sections 392, 397, and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and in that case, afterinvestigation, charge sheet has also been filed before the learned AdditionalDistrict Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and case has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.14 of 2017 and in that case, summons has been issued bythe learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamaduraito the petitioner herein for his appearance and the respondent attempted toserve the said summons, but, the petitioner refused to receive the saidsummons and apart from that, the respondent has not done anything.He furthersubmitted that the petitioner has rushed to this Court and filed the presentpetition stating that the respondent is harassing the petitioner.He alsoproduced a copy of the summons issued by the learned Additional DistrictMunsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai.4.A perusal of copy of the summons issued by the Additional DistrictMunsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, shows that a case in PRC.No.14 of 2017 ispending against the petitioner herein under Section 392, 397, 506 (ii) ofI.P.C and summons has been issued to the petitioner on 05.02.2018, directinghim to appear on 14.02.2018 before the said Court.It appears that therespondent attempted to serve the said summons to the petitioner herein.Instead of receiving the said summons the petitioner has refused the same andfiled the present petition by saying that he has been harassed.Thepetitioner has not produced any material to show that he has been subjectedto anyharassment by the respondent.Therefore, I do not find any merit in thispetition.Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.1.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,322,920 | C. C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE e sh ad pb Pr a Digitally signed by PRASHANT hy BAGJILEWALE ad Date: 2018.05.08 03:35:31 -07'00' M of rt ou C h ig HTHE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-14876-2018 (VIVEK DIXIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 Jabalpur, Dated : 04-05-2018 Shri Narendra Sharma, counsel for the applicant.Shri B.P. Pandey, Govt. Adv.for the State.Shri Amit Jain, counsel for the objector.This is first application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for e ad grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.60/2017, Pr registered at Police Station Timarni District Harda for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and a 120-B of IPC.hy Earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the ad trial Court vide order dated 27.03.2017 for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC.Subsequently, M Section 409 of IPC has been added by the prosecution hence, the of applicant filed another application for grant of anticipatory bail before the trial Court.ou During the period 2011-12 to 2015-16 Societies purchased wheat from farmers on support price fixed by the Government.C Audit of the Society was conducted and no irregularity was found.h Subsequently, complaints were made that a loss to the different ig Societies was caused.Thereafter, special audit was conducted H and an offence under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC was registered.Accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court.Subsequently, Section 409 of IPC has been added.Prima facie, the offence of Criminal breach of trust appears to be suspicious.Applicant was granted anticipatory bail.It is directed that at the event of arrest of the applicants in respect of the aforesaid crime, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating officer, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency.He will further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr. P. C. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,330,704 | The petitioners are co- villagers./34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Deebakar Mishra @ Babusona and others ... Petitioners Mr. Nirupam Dhali ... For the Petitioners Mr. S.S. Imam ... For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Chopra Police Station Case No. 931 of 2014 dated 20.08.2014 under Sections 186/353/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Defence counsel submits that the petitioners are in no way involved in the alleged offence.They have been falsely implicated as the police was unable to arrest hardcore criminal at Narayanpur Hat Bazar.Charge sheet has already been submitted. | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,333,726 | Her daughter has narrated the story of rape.She went to the grove and found that her daughter was weeping and she was unable to walk.This fact is relevant under Sections 6 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.She further stated that she brought her daughter to her house.When she reached near the sugarcane field Mahendra took her inside the sugarcane field, then he caught and threw her on the ground and after removing his own trouser and her salwar, he raped her.She started crying then Mahendra left her and gave three sugarcanes and sent her back with threat that if she will tell it to anybody she will be killed.Then somehow she reached out limping and told the entire incident to Rana and Puja.They came to her house and informed her mother.1. Heard Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sharad Dixit learned AGA for the State.The present criminal appeal has been filed by Mahendra Harizan challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded in S.T. No.114 of 2008, under Section 376 (2) (e) and 506 IPC of order dated 31.3.2009 passed by Additional Session Judge, Room No.2, District- Pratapgarh.According to the prosecution version a first information report was lodged by Kalawati in Police Station-Patti, District-Pratapgarh on 4.1.2008 at 10.15 a.m. through a written report alleging that, at about 4 P.M., her daughter was picking Kanda, then Mahendra Harizan came there and started irrelevant talks and took her to nearby sugarcane field of Sipahi Shukla and after removing his trouser and salwar of the victim, raped her.When her daughter raised alarm, he fled away threatening her that if she will tell anyone else she will be killed.On this, a case under Section 376/506 IPC was registered at Police Station-Patti, District-Pratapgarh.The victim was sent for medical examination and for X-ray to establish her age, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and charge-sheet under Section 376/506 IPC was submitted.After taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Session.Trial court framed charge under Sections 376, 506 IPC.Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Prosecution examined P.W.1 Kalawati, P.W. 2 Victim, P.W. 3 Dr. Sulbha Pathak, Zila Mahila Chikitsalya, P.W.4 Sub-Inspector Dinannath Tripathi, P.W.5 Constable Krishna Kumar Mishra and P.W.6 Dr. R.S. Verma radiologist.Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was examined from the side of accused.Learned court below after going through the evidence on record and hearing the parties, convicted the accused under Sections 376 (2) (e) and 506 IPC and directed the accused to undergo 10 years R.I. and also to pay Rs.1000/- as fine under Section 376 (2) (e) IPC and to undergo one year R.I. under Section 506 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo three months additional imprisonment.Feeling aggrieved, this criminal appeal has been filed.It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that FIR is anti timed.Burden of proof is on the prosecution and evidence of P.W.2 is not worth relying.Before appreciating the evidence on record it will be proper to discuss the evidence of Dr.Sulbha Pathak P.W.3, this witness has examined the victim, and prepared her medical examination report on 5.1.2008 at about 3.00 p.m. at District Hospital, Pratapgarh.A perusal of the Ext. Ka-3 reveals that no mark of external injury over her body was found, but hymenal tear was found towards left laterally.There was no bleeding or redness present.This witness has further proved supplementary report Ext. K-4, and according to this supplementary report, radiological age of patient was about 12 years, one more thing is important Ext. Ka-12 is the report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, and according to this report, blood was found on the salwar of the victim.From the statement of P.W.3 and injury report Ext. Ka-3, it is proved beyond doubt that the hymenal tear was present and blood came out when tear occured, and blood stained her salwar.It is worth noting that the incident is of 31.12.2007 and victim was medically examined on 5.1.2008, this explains absence of bleeding and redness.P.W. 1 is not the eye witness but she has stated that when her daughter returned in the grove she was weeping, Puja her companion came to call her.Her husband was not present there.When her husband came back, she narrated the entire story to him.Then, they went to the house of the accused to complain but they were threatened by the accused.Due to fear, they did not go to police station.After three days she went to police station, she got the report scribed by a person and after putting her thumb impression it was handed over to the police station.A suggestion was given to her that her Dewar had sold his share to mother of the accused.Prior to this incident and due to which she was inimical to the accused.This witness has denied to this suggestion.10. P.W.2 is the victim she has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 3.00 p.m. She had gone to pick kanda from the grove along with Puja and Rana.Mahendra came there and asked Rana as to whether she would like to take sugarcane then she said that if he will give sugarcane, then they will take it Puja and Rana told her that you go and collect sugarcane from Mahendra.She went with Mahendra then on the way he started talking irrelevant.Then her mother reached there and brought her back to his house.She took her to the house of the accused where both were threatened and asked to leave.Her father came in the night then on second day, they all went to the police station, where her report was not lodged.After fourth day, a first information report was lodged, her statement was recorded in the Court.She was medically examined and interrogated by the Investigating Officer.The victim identified the accused in the Court to be the person, who had raped her.Nobody else was near the place of occurrence.When she gave the sugarcane to Rana and Puja, they all threw it and nobody consumed it.She has further stated that the male organ was inside her vagina for about one and half minutes to two minutes.She did not notice as to whether it was a total penetration or not, as she was writhing in pain and was crying.In the instant case, plea has been taken that FIR is delayed.A perusal of statement of PW-1 Kalawati reveals that sufficient explanation has been given.PW-1 Kalawati has stated that when her daughter reached home, her husband was not present in the house.When he came, entire episode was narrated to im, then they went to the house of accused to complain, then they were threatened.The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes.The occular evidence, being cogent, credible and turst worthy, minor variance, if any, with the medical evidence are not of any consequence.It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye witnesses' account, which had to be tested independently.In the instant case, the victim, who is a 12 years old girl, has categorically stated about the incident.Her statement is corroborated by the hymenal tear and presence of blood on her salwar, which was sent to Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala.PW-1 has denied to this suggestion. | ['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. |
14,433,443 | (d) Under Section 511 r/w 420 IPC To undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs i/d to undergo 6 months SI 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2755 of 2019 Now, the petitioner is before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition for granting parole to the life convict on medical grounds.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's husband is undergoing life sentence in Central Prison, Puzhal for the last five years.While so the convict showed signs of having residual of Pituitary Tumour and he was admitted in Government Stanley Hospital on 20.11.2018 for treatment and the Doctors suggested to undergo surgery compulsory.The convict is not willing to take treatment at Government Hospital.He further contended that during the year 2014 he had undergone brain operation in Apollo Hospital before imprisonment and that the life convict is in need of treatment and seeks leave for a period of four weeks.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that Specialist Surgeons in Government Stanley Hospital had advised the prisoner to undergo surgery but the prisoner refused to give his consent to undergo surgery in Government Stanley Hospital.Sufficient facilities are available in Government Stanley Hospital to treat the prisoner and thus he opposed to grant leave to the life convict.http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2755 of 2019In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner's husband is suffering from Pituitory Tumour and that he has to undergo treatment, this Court is inclined to grant four weeks leave for the life convict to undergo required treatment for the Pituitory Tumour suffered by him and for surgery, if so, suggested by Doctors, at the cost of the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the usual conditions and formalities which are to be followed as per the Prison Manual.Accordingly, the life convict, viz., K.V.Meenakchinathan is entitled for four weeks leave from 03.02.2020 to 02.03.2020 and he has to return back to prison on 02.03.2020 at 5:00 p.m. without fail.a) The Jail Authorities, during the leave period, as mentioned above, shall provide adequate and minimum escort to the life convict, viz., K.V.Meenakchinathan, in order to ensure his safety and security, at the cost of the petitioner.They shall also impose suitable conditions to that effect.b) The life convict should abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Jail Authorities.http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2755 of 2019The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of with the above direction.For reporting compliance post on 04.03.2020 [R.P.S., J] [R.P.A., J] 22.01.2020 Index:yes/no Internet:yes dpq 5/6http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2755 of 2019 R.SUBBIAH, J and R.PONGIAPPAN, J dpq ToThe Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai.The Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai.H.C.P.No.2755 of 2019 22.01.2020 6/6http://www.judis.nic.in[Order of this Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] The petitioner is the wife of the life convict, viz.,V.Meenakshinathan, who has been convicted under Sections as stated below:-(a) Under Section 120-Br/w 419, To undergo SI for 4 years and to 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 511 IPC pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh in default r/w 420 IPC to undergo SI one year(b) Under Section 420(3 counts) To undergo RI for 5 years each IPC count and to pay a fine of Rs.6 lakhs in each count (Rs.6 lakhs x 3 = 18 lakhs) i/d to undergo SI for 6 months.(c) Under Section 471 IPC (3 To undergo RI for 5 years in each counts) count and to pay a fine of Rs.6 lakhs in each count (Rs.6 lakhs x 3 = Rs.18 lakhs), i/d to undergo SI for 6 months4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
144,340,761 | Perused the record.Counter affidavit has been filed by the State.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.487 of 2019, under Sections420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 3/5/9 Sarvajanika Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1998, Police Station Cantt, District Ayodhya.As per version of FIR on 08.12.2019 there was an examination for CTET in the Cambridge School, Saadatganj, Faizabad.Let applicant (Chandra Shekhar Pandey) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,152,516 | C.C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) V. JUDGE Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2018.06.14 16:04:51 +05'30' Pallavi sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig HRecord of the trial Court be called for.sh For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is e allowed.ad Also heard on I.A. No. 8239/2018, an application for suspension Pr of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence a hy punishable u/s 451 of IPC, r/w Section 3(2)(V-a) of SC/ST Act, Section 323 of IPC r/w Section 3(2) (V-a) of SC/ST Act, Section 354 ad of IPC r/w Section 3(1) (W) (i) of SC/ST Act with a direction to M undergo one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in first count, three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- in second count, two years R.I. with of a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in third count.rt The trial Court has already suspended the sentence and released ou the appellant on bail.In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on C merits of the case, the application is allowed and subject to depositing h the fine amount, jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.ig It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- H (Fifty thousand only), alongwith solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court by the appellant, he be released on bail.It is further directed that appellant shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18.12.2018 and on such other dates, as may be notified by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,313,183 | The charge found established against him is that he committed murder of his wife Smt. Babitabai on 23-12-1986 at about 3-45 p.m. by giving blows to her with a Gadasa and caused 3 injuries on various parts of the body including neck and cut vital parts resulting in her death.The finding of the trial court is mainly based on the testimony of PW 8 Halkibai, PW 9 Shantibai, PW 10 Santosh, brother of the deceased aged about 10 years, and PW 11 Motilal father of the deceased who lodged the F.I.R.. The murder was committed in the house of Motilal where the deceased was at the relevant time and where the accused had gone that day.Babita died at the spot at once as a result of the injuries.PW 8 and PW 9 asserted having seen the accused striking the deceased with Gadasa while PW 10 only said that the fact was told to him by Halkibai and Shanti as he found his sister Babita lying dead.There is further circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial court that is on arrest of the accused on 24-12-1986 at about 6.30 p.m., the pant and bush-shirt of the accused were taken into possession and were sent to chemical examiner and serologist and as per reports Ex. P-21 and P-22 these were found to be stained with human blood.The autopsy surgeon's report indicated 3 injuries with sharp edged weapon on the neck and shoulder part of the body of the deceased.These injuries had cut spinal vertebra No. 3 on the right side of the neck and also cut acromion process of scapula.The death was caused due to shock resulting from the haemorrhage from the injuries.The FIR Ex.JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.The appellant has been convicted in S.T. No. 38/87 by judgment dated 1-2-1989 of Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.P-13 was lodged by Motilal on 23-6-1986 at 5 p.m. i.e. within 2 hours of the incident.In this the accused was named as the author of the crime.In defence, the accused had simply denied that he attacked his wife or caused her death.He gave no explanation regarding blood stains on his clothes or why PW 8 and PW 9 as also PW 10 were deposing against him.Learned counsel for the appellant during the argument asserted that at pre-trial stage the accused had been sent to mental hospital Gwalior and remained there for a year and thereafter he was tried when he was found fit to be tried and of sound mind which resulted into present conviction.We find that no defence was taken by the accused during the trial that at the relevant time of offence he was suffering from any mental infirmity or he did not understand the nature of his action.That defence was not suggested to neither any witness nor taken even in statement of the accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code.On close perusal of the testimony of PW 9 Shantibai who is neighbour of Motilal where the incident had occurred and whose attention was drawn on hearing the shrieks, there is no reason to discard her testimony.Her presence is natural being a neighbourer.There was no impediment in her seeing the incident and there is no reason why she should depose falsely against the accused.She had asserted that she saw the incident and accused had given blows to deceased with Gadasa.The witness is fully supported by PW 8 Halkibai.So far as PW 10 is concerned he is brother of the deceased and saw the deceased dead.PWs 8 and 9 had told him that the accused had hit Babita.Santosh in his turn told his father to lodge the FIR and that is the reason why he named this accused as assailant in the FIR.The narration that hits were given with Gadasa is corroborated by the medical evidence of the autopsy surgeon.It is further confirmed by the fact that the accused's clothes were stained with human blood for which there is no explanation given by him.Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to create any dent in the evidence of these witnesses or in the circumstantial evidence.We find that the trial court has rightly believed the evidence and reached the conclusion of the guilt of this accused.Of course there is no evidence of motive against the appellant as to why he should kill his wife and so far as Santosh is concerned he says that the accused was attacking his wife.So absence of motive cannot disprove the crime or lead to an inference about its non- commission by an accused.The net result is that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused of the crime of murder.The victim had died at the time of assault itself. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,358,240 | However, the material brought on record falls short in scribing any role to the applicant in happening of the offence much less designing or causing the same, the applicant seems to have been roped in as he is the owner of the offending vehicle.-( 4 )- CRR.No.927/2016(13.12.2016) The applicant has preferred this revision application on feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the XI Additional Session Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.200/2016, whereby the trial court has framed the charges under Sections 302/109, 307/109, 332/109 of IPC and Section 25, 27 read with Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 5/181 of Motor Vehicle Act against the applicant.The facts in brief are like that on 06.03.2016 at about 5:30 AM accused Rajesh alias Lalla was illegally transporting the sand by tractor trolley at the bank of Chambal River.When the deceased Narendra Sharma who was discharging his duties as Forest Guard posed to stop the vehicle, however the Rajesh did not adhere to the request of the deceased and pushed out him.-( 2 )- CRR.No.927/2016 After that he ran the vehicle over the deceased which led to fatal injuries and on account of the same Narendra Sharma died on the spot.During the investigation, the police has found that the applicant is owner of the tractor trolley and he gave the tractor trolley to the accused Rajesh alias Lalla and instigated him for commission of the said offences.Therefore, the applicant was also made as an accused.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,377,848 | The deceased was the wife of the applicant who, died after seven years of her marriage.Under such circumstances, applicant prays for bail.Learned P.L opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,314,817 | In brief outline the complainant's case is that the first accused is the President of Ghetti.kurioh Panchayat and he is also a dealer in Pump sets being the proprietor of Essarkey Agendas at Maunaohanallur.Both A-l and A.2 are close friends.A.3 (the first petitioner) was formally the Branch Manager at Tiruchirappalli of the State Bank of Travancore.At the time of the alleged commission of the crime in the instant case he was on leave.A. 4 (the second petitioner) is the present Branch Manager of the State Bank of Travanoore Tiruchi.They live in rent free bank quarters.The complainant is the Branch Manager of the Best and Co. Private Limited Tiruchi.A-l and A-2 (who are not before this court) approached the complainant in the company of A-3, a close acquaintance of the complainant on 14-9.1971 for a business deal.A-l told that he required 25 pump lets urgently on credit to be delivered to various ryots in his area.He promised a cash deposit of Rs.- 3000/- and be undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- towards the gale price before 30-9-71 and remit the balance after collection from ryots within 30 days. A-2 and A-3 also sponsored and recommended the case of the first accused.The complainant had no ready stocks.On 17-9-71 and 18-9-71 the complainant received 33 pump sets from Madras and Bangalore.Document No. 1 filed along with the complaint contains the serial number of the said 25 pump sets.On 20-9.71 A-l to A-3 were staying at Hotel Jayanthi and they spoke to the complainant on phone. A-2 and A-3 commended that A-l could be trusted since he was helping in the collection of loans granted to the ryots.A-2 was having money dealings with the Tiruchi Branch of the State Bank of Travancore.Acting on the representations of the accused 1 to 3, the complainant agreed to sell 25 pump sets to A-l.A-l paid a sum of Ra.But document No 1 would indicate the delivery only to Valmiki (i-1) personally.All the accused told the complainant that the pump seta had to be taken to Valmiki's place for delivery to various ryots and they said they were taking the said pump sets to Gandhi Market for being transported in local lorries.A.1 to A-3 took the pump sets in two or three big bullock carts.A.1 did not keep his word and therefore he did not pay any amount.According to the complainant.A-3 had advanced fairly huge Sum to A-2 and could not collect the same for a long time.In a desperate bid to find some money to enable the 2nd accused to pay the dues to the bank, A-3 seems to have suggested A.2 to secure the services of A.1 and make an approach to the complainant and buy 25 pump sets on credit and then pledge the same to Tiruohi Branch of the State Bank of Travanoore and obtain money and use the same to pay the arrears to the Bank.According to the complainant, this fact was disclosed by A-4 subsequently.The twenty.five pump sets were pledged on the same day by A-l with the Tiruohi branch of the State Bank of Travancore and obtained a sum of Rs. 45, 000/-.Undoubtedly, the cash bill appears to be a bogus one and a forged one.The farther averment in the complaint is that A-l to A-3 have forged and produced a bogus cash bill with inflated value for satisfying the rules governing the policy of the Bank in the matter of advancing loans against pledge of goods.The complainant bases his case mainly on the averment that A.I to A-3 did not take the pump sets to the ryots as represented and that they have pleaged the identical pump sets with the Tirucby Branch of the State Bank of Travanoore.A sum of as.45, 000 in the name of A.I was raised and the money due to the bank from A-2 was repaid.Another averment is that A-l to A-3 produced a forged and inflated cash bill as documents of title for pledging the 25 pump sets.The representations made by A-l to A-3 were false to their knowledge.A-l. A-2 and A-4 admitted their guilt to the complainant The pump sets are stored in premises No. 37, West Chintamani. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,545,994 | JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment, dated September, 15, 1977 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, arises out of these circumstances:On the night intervening January 5 and 6, 1968, two dacoities were committed in the houses of Ramgopal Soni (P.W. 1) and Rampratit Saraf (P.W. 4) at village Nagama, and property consisting of gold and silver ornaments worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs was looted.In this connection 19 persons were arrested by the police.Out of them, 15 were charged with offences under Sections 395/397/109 read with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code.Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to four years rigorous imprisonment.He acquitted the remaining 13 accused, including Antar Singh.Against the order of their acquittal, the State of Madhya Pradesh carried an appeal to the High Court, which set aside the acquittal of Antar Singh, Tulsi Ram and Ajijuddin, who were original accused I, 4 and 8 respectively, and convicted and sentenced each of them under Section 395, I.P.C. to four years rigorous imprisonment.Antar Singh only is the appellant before us.The mainstay of the prosecution case against Antar Singh was the testimony of the solitary witness, Diwakar son of Rampratit.The appellant and the co-accused were not known to the witness.The entire case, therefore hinged on the question of identification.One of them was holding a Tamancha, the other a gun and the third a lathi.The dacoits had battery torches which they were flashing.A lantern was also burning in the room.A test identification parade was held on Nov. 17, 1968 before a Magistrate in respect of some of the co-accused of the appellant who were alleged to be concerned in the same dacoity.But, the appellant was not then put up for identification.Diwakar is said to have identified Antar Singh only at that parade.This unexplained delay, according to the learned trial Judge, was capable of lending support to the defence plea that the accused had been shown to the witness.In the opinion of the trial Judge, this belated test identification of the appellant "was not of high quality that could lend assurance or complete veracity to the identification of this accused by Diwakar in Court." He, therefore, accorded the benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquitted him.The High Court has reversed this finding of the trial Court with this reasoning:(3) Even at the test Identification held before a Magistrate on Dec. 26, 1968, Diwakar failed to identify eight co-accused who were allegedly concerned in the same dacoity.It was therefore, highly possible that Diwakar picked out the appellant at the test identification merely by chance.(4) In his previous statements (Ex. D-6) dated Feb. 8, 1968 and Ex. D-7, dated March 26, 1968 made during the course of investigation, Diwakar had referred to only two dacoits whom he could Identify and gave their description.The witness made a deliberate improvement on this point at the trial.(5) In his previous statements, Diwakar did not mention about the burning lantern in his room.At the trial, he advisedly introduced a burning lantern inside the room in which he was sleeping. | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,586,428 | No oral and documentary evidences were available and the witnesses have not proved the age, occupation and income of the deceased.Thus, the award of the Tribunal is perverse and liable to be scrapped.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, 3/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 relied on the grounds raised in the Cross Objection, contended that the negligence was fixed on the driver of the Transport Corporation and it is further stated that the deceased was working as Security Guard in M/s.Jayaram Industries, SIPCOT II at Hosur and he was earning a monthly salary of Rs.7,000/-.2.Chandran @ Chandrasekar58/2019 CMA No.4400 of 2019 is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.271 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special 1/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 is filed to enhance the compensation amount awarded in the judgment and decree dated 10-01- 2014 made in MCOP No.271 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge, Krishnagiri by allowing this Cross Appeal in CMA 4400 of 2019 on the file of this Honble Court.For Appellant in CMA and For Respondent in Cross Obj.D.Venkatachalam For Respondents in CMA and For Cross Objectors in Cross Obj.: Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj COMMON JUDGMENT CMA No.4400 of 2019 is filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.271 of 2013 by the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 is filed by the 2/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 respondents/claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation.Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as well as the Cross Objection are heard.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation contended that the evidence of PW-1 has not been corroborated with other witnesses.It is contended that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and therefore, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and not in commensuration with the total income earned by the deceased.No future prospects are also ordered by the Tribunal and therefore, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation.The accident occurred on 18.10.2010 at about 05.20 A.M., at Krishnagiri to Hosur National Highways Road at Bandhanapalli Bus Stop.The Hosur TIW Police Station registered a case in Crime No.285 of 2010 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.The first claimant is the wife of the deceased person and the claimants 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased.The claim petition was 4/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 filed and the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation.The eyewitness filed an affidavit also.The said Transport Corporation Bus commenced its trip towards Salem and when the bus had hardly moved 100 feet from Bandhanapalli Bus Stop, there is a 'U' turn, roughly about 100 feet from Bandhanapalli Bus Stop.The driver of the bus saw two people approaching on a two wheeler on the other side of the road riding the two wheeler towards the 'U' turn, he was expecting that they will take the 'U' turn and therefore, he slowed down the bus and stopped it near 'U' turn.Thus the two wheeler rider was riding the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner.He had taken the 'U' turn without reducing the speed and therefore, he lost balance and hit on the stationed bus on the right side of the bus.The rider and pillion rider of the two wheeler fell down 5/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 on the road and sustained injuries.The driver of the bus Mr.Kannan RW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the claimants' side.It was established that criminal case was registered by the police against RW-1 and further, the driver of the Corporation Bus was suspended by the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation for causing the accident.Based on these documents, more specifically, FIR Ex.P-1, wherein the cause of the accident is narrated by the complainant Thiru Radhakrishnan, who is the Contractor under whom the deceased was employed as Security Guard.The Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus.The evidence of RW-1 Mr.Kannan was not accepted in view of the evidence of PW-2 eyewitness Thiru Manju.The deposition of eyewitness Thiru.Manju corroborates with the narration of complaints in the FIR and the complainant Mr.Radhakrishnan, the Contractor, is the employer of the deceased.6/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019This being the factum established, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly arrived a conclusion that the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus has committed an act of negligence and consequently, the Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the monthly income of Rs.7,500/- fixed by the Tribunal is also reasonable in view of the fact that the deceased was working as a Security Guard with the Contractor.Thus, no interference is required regarding the fixation of monthly income by the Tribunal.As far as the compensation granted under other heads are concerned, the same requires no interference.However, the Tribunal has not granted future prospects in view of the fact that the deceased was 50 years of age.However, the claimants are entitled for 25% future prospects, which is to be added along with compensation.7/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019The Tribunal has committed an error in not granting the benefit of future prospects.Thus, the total compensation of Rs.8,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as detailed hereunder:-Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.11 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.The appellant in CMA No.4400 of 2019 Tamil Nadu State Corporation Limited is directed to deposit the entire award amount 8/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 along with accrued interest, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective portion as per the apportionment granted by the Tribunal in its award by filing an appropriate application and all payments are to be made through RTGS.Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.271 of 2013 by the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri stands modified and consequently, CMA No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 are allowed in part.However, there shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.08-09-2020 Index : Yes/No.Internet: Yes/No.Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Svn 9/10http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.Svn To The Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.CMA No.4400 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.58 of 2019 08-09-2020 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,623,941 | (1) Issue notice to the respondent.(2) The learned A.P.P. waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent - State.(3) Admit the Criminal Revision Application.(4) The substantive sentence of imprisonment passed against the applicant shall remain stayed during pendency of this revision application on his executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with a surety in the like amount.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 23:57:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 23:57:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2018 23:57:59 ::: | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
124,275,610 | Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.The Bench has been constituted in pursuance of the order dated 04.04.2020 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice which is available on the official website of this Court.By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 29.1.2020alongwith stay of arrest in Case Crime No. 49 of 2020 under sections 420, 467, 468, I.P.C., police station Chandpur, District Bijnor.Perused the impugned FIR and the pleadings as has been averred in the present writ petition which is supported by an affidavit.The office has not placed before the Court any E-Mail received from the learned A.G.A for the State, informant/complainant/aggrieved person regarding any objection with respect to the prayer of stay of arrest of the petitioners.It appears from the FIR and the averments made in the present writ petition that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature as the same is with respect to execution of sale deed of a house and the petitioners are ladies.The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
124,278,465 | Appeal No.359/2011 3 Criminal Appeal No. 359/2011 is by original accused No.1 Nilesh Abhiman Gaikwad and accused No.3 Anil Gulab Yashwante.The appellants - accused have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief) for committing murder of one Bharat Sahebrao Dhokne and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::They have also been convicted for attempting to commit murder of complainant Sachin Ashok Dhokne and under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.Case of the prosecution in brief can be stated to be as under :-(a) Complainant Sachin Ashok Dhokne and deceased Bharat Sahebrao Dhokne were residing at Siddharthnagar, Ward No.1 Shrirampur.In exchange of words, Bharat Dhokne slapped accused no.1 Nilesh Gaikwad and Sachin and Bharat came back.After some time, accused No.1 Nilesh Gaikwad alongwith 3-4 other persons went to the house of complainant Sachin.At that time, the matter came to be resolved.On that day, at about 2 p.m. complainant Sachin Ashok Dhokne alongwith his uncle Bharat Dhokne had gone near Bharat Gas Agency at Shrirampur.The place is on Shrirampur -Newasa road.They had gone to the place, as near Bharat Gas Agency they had given mobile for repair, which was belonging to Bharat Dhokne.At such time, accused Amol kept holding complainant Sachin.When Sachin was trying to escape from clutches of accused Amol Hivrale, the accused Anil Yeshwante gave blow by sword on the head of Sachin.Accused No.2 Mahindra reached the spot on motorcycle and gave first blows to the chest of Sachin.All accused then ran away on motorcycle.Bharat Dhokne had fallen on the ground on the spot with grievous injuries.Sachin had also sustained grievous injuries.He ran to his house and informed his family.Family members of Bharat Dhokne went to the spot and took him to Sakhar Kamgar Hospital.Sachin Dhokne was taken to the hospital by one Dnyneshwar Magar.At Sakhar Kamgar Hospital, Bharat Dhokne was declared dead and Sachin filed the F.I.R. while he was admitted in Sakhar Kamgar Hospital which was forwarded to Shrirampur City Police Station and crime ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 7 No. 243/2009 under Section 302, 307, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 4 read with 25 of Arms Act came to be registered.Inquest panchanama was drawn and the postmortem was conducted on the same day.Spot panchanama was prepared and from the spot rexine cover of the chopper and two pairs of footwear were seized.Police collected sample of blood from blood which had fallen on the spot.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Blood stained clothes of deceased Bharat Dhokne were seized.Blood stained clothes of complainant Sachin also came to be seized.Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 came to be arrested on the same day.Appeal No.359/2011 20 went to his house and informed his family members.He deposed that his friend, Dnyneshwar Magar took him to Sakhar Kamgar hospital and family members of Bharat Dhokne brought Bharat also to Sakhar Kamgar hospital.Appeal No.359/2011 21 in condition to give statement and medical officer endorsed that the patient was conscious.He deposed that he then recorded F.I.R. of injured Sachin and forwarded the same with A.S.I. Shelar to register the crime.The offence was accordingly registered.According to him, he has taken the endorsement of Medical Officer even on the F.I.R.when he recorded the same.The prosecution has drawn support from the evidence of PW-3 panch Krushna Ashok Umap.He has deposed that on 08.08.2009, PW-10 P.I. Padole had called him and seizure panchanama of the clothes of the deceased Exhibit 60 was prepared.The panchanama was drawn between 6 to 6.45 p.m. The clothes of deceased were produced by the Police Constable Alam Papa Patel who had received the same from doctors after postmortem.JUDGMENT : (PER A.I.S. CHEEMA, J)Criminal Appeal No. 264/2011 is by original accused No.4 Amol Dada Hivrale while ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Under both sections they have also been imposed fine and sentence to be suffered in default.All the accused came to be acquitted for offences punishable under Section ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 4 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC.Accused No.2 Mahindra and accused No.5 Sandip were acquitted of offences punishable under Section 302, 307 read with 34 of the IPC.Trial Court directed payment of compensation of Rs.5,000/- to complainant -::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::injured Sachin Ashok Dhokne from the fine.Thus, these appeals by three accused who came to be convicted.Accused Nilesh Gaikwad was also residing in the same locality.On 07.08.2009 at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. Accused Nilesh Gaikwad had abused father of Sachin Dhokne in Siddharthnagar Square.Bharat Dhokne is uncle of complainant Sachin.Both of them went to ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 5 the house of accused No.1 Nilesh and asked him why he had abused Ashok Dhokne (the father of Sachin).::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::At such time, accused No.1 Nilesh Gaikwad, Accused No.3 Anil Yeshwante and accused No.4 - Amol Hivrale assaulted Bharat Dhokne.Accused Nilesh ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 6 gave blow by chopper and accused Anil Yeshwante gave blow by sword on the neck of Bharat Dhokne.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Accused No.1 Nilesh was arrested and blood stained chopper was also seized from him.Clothes of accused Nos. 1 and 3 had blood stains.Clothes of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were seized, when they were arrested.Sachin also came to be seized.Accused Nos. 1, 2(c) Injured complainant Sachin was shifted from Sakhar Kamgar hospital to Shirdi Sansthan ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 8 Hospital in the same evening for better treatment.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::On 09.08.2009, accused no.3 Anil gave memorandum statement and motorcycle used at the time of incident and blood stained sword came to be seized at village Padhegaon.Police completed investigation and seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyser and reports were obtained.In the investigation it transpired that accused no.5 Sandip provided sword which was used at the time of incident.Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur committed the matter to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed against all the five accused persons under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, Section 307 read with 34 of IPC, Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and Section 504 read with 34 of IPC.Prosecution brought on record oral evidence of 10 witnesses.Documentary ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 9 evidence was also proved.Accused, who had denied the Charge, took the defence of being falsely implicated.They claimed that unidentified assailants were responsible for the incident and they have been falsely implicated.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur considered the evidence and by judgment dated 26.04.2011 has convicted the appellants - accused while the other two accused came to be acquitted, as mentioned earlier.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, in the appeal by accused no.1 Nilesh and accused No.3 Anil, it has been claimed and argued that if the quarrel had been settled on 07.08.2009, there was no motive for the incident on 08.08.2009; person to whom mobile was given for repairs was best witness to the incident, but he has not been examined; if there was exchange of hot words before the incident started, grave and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 10 sudden provocation can not be ruled out and Section 302 of IPC would not be attracted, and that, the evidence shows that the accused reached the spot from different directions and so there was no premeditation.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::In the appeal by accused no.4 Amol, it has been claimed and argued that acts attributed to Amol in the incident are not sufficient to hold him guilty under Section 302 of IPC.He had released the complainant Sachin before Sachin was injured and so he should not be held liable even for Section 307 of IPC.There was no blood on his clothes and so the evidence is not reliable that complainant, who came to be injured on the head, was held by him.The appellants - accused thus want that the judgment of conviction be set aside and claim that they should be acquitted.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 11There is evidence on record of PW-10 Investigating Officer, P.I. Shrikant Padole, which shows that soon after incident when he went to the hospital, he was informed that Bharat Dhokne had expired.There is evidence of PW-1 Panch Sunil Magar regarding the inquest panchanama.PW-8 Dr. Anil Momle has deposed that he received letter Exhibit 71 for conducting postmortem.The letter clearly mentions the crime number also.Dr. Anil claims that he conducted the postmortem between 5.45 p.m. to 6.45 p.m. and found the following injuries :-Incised cut injury on left side of neck size 12 cm X 5 cm X 6 cms cutting skin superficial deep plasma muscle deep fascia.Carotid vessels external jugular veins deep upto C 4 and c5 Vertical it was extending ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 12 from carotid triangle to posterior triangle of neck of left side.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Incised cut wound on right posterior triangle of neck size 5 cm X 2 cm X 2 cms(I) left arm at upper end cut injury of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm(ii) left arm lower end cut injury of size 6 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5(iii) Cut injury skin deep on right side of chest and abdomen anterior.Size 15 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cms (skin deep) Evidence is that cause of death of Bharat Dhokne was hemorrhagic shock due to cut injury of major vessels of neck.According to doctor, injury no.1 was possible by chopper and injury no.2 was possible by sword which were shown ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 13 to him at the time of evidence.As per the Medical evidence even injury no.2 could cause death due to heavy bleedings.The cross examination of PW-8 Dr. Anil has brought on record the fact that there are less chances of survival in case of injury no.1, even if the medical treatment is immediately provided and patient is immediately operated.In the cross examination, the evidence of doctor cannot at all be said to be shattered.It is clear on record that Bharat Dhokne suffered culpable homicide.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::As regards injuries to the complainant PW-7 Sachin Ashok Dhokne, his own evidence shows that at the time of incident accused Anil had given blow of sword on his head and blood was oozing from his head injuries.The cross examination brought on record details that injury was on the right portion of head above his ear.Evidence of PW-7 Sachin is that he was taken to ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 14 Sakhar Kamgar hospital by one Dnyaneshwar.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::According to him, he lodged the F.I.R. while he was admitted in Sakhar Kamgar hospital.The cross examination of PW-10 Shrikant Padole brought on record the document Exhibit 92 which shows that Sakhar Kamgar hospital referred Sachin to higher center.Evidence shows that on 08.08.2009 itself injured Sachin was taken to Shirdi trust hospital at 8.50 p.m. for neurological examination.Primary treatment had already been done at Sakhar Kamgar hospital.As per Dr. Raju he found sutured wound on back side of right ear.Patient was well oriented and fully conscious.There was also abrasion on left knee of Sachin.As per Dr. Raju there was fracture of occipital region.Extra dural heamotama 29 X 49 mm was recorded.According to doctor nature of said injury was grievous injury and cause of the head injury was sharp edged weapon.Doctor proved certificate Exhibit 74 in this regard.His evidence is that due to such ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 15 head injury sustained by Sachin death is possible.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Doctor deposed that injury of Sachin was possible by sword which was before the Court.Cross - examination of Dr. Raju shows that the evidence of doctor was supported even by C.T. Scan record which he had brought.Cross examination shows that the head injury had not touched the brain matter.Thus, it appears he got saved.Doctor denied that injury no.1 was not dangerous to life in ordinary course.Inspite of cross examination, the evidence of Dr. Raju is not shattered.Keeping in view the oral and medical evidence on record, the prosecution has proved that PW-7 Sachin was inflicted such injury which in ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death.Regarding the incident dated 07.08.2009, there is evidence of PW-6 Macchindra Dhokne, the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 16 brother of deceased Bharat and PW-7 Sachin Dhokne.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::If the evidence of PW-7 Sachin is perused, he has deposed that on 07.08.2009 at about 8.00 p.m. when his father Ashok Dhokne was in Siddharthnagar Square, the accused Nilesh had abused his father and his uncle Bharat Dhokne was present there.After hearing the abuses, Bharat Dhokne had come to PW-7 Sachin and informed him about the incident.Thereafter, PW-7 Sachin and his uncle Bharat went to the house of Nilesh and asked him why he had abused Ashok Dhokne.There was exchange of words and at such time, Bharat Dhokne slapped Nilesh Gaikwad (accused No.1).Then they returned home.After some time, accused No.1 Nilesh Gaikwad alongwith four to five other persons went to the house of complainant Sachin.However, at that time, the matter was settled but Nilesh Gaikwad returned to his house saying that he will see him in the next morning.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 17 Regarding this incident, PW-6 Macchindra has stated that on 07.08.2009 at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m., accused no.1 Nilesh Gaikwad had abused Ashok Dhokne and Bharat Dhokne had slapped accused Nilesh Gaikwad.PW-6 Macchindra deposed that on the same day at 8.30 p.m. accused Nilesh alongwith accused No.2 Mahindra, accused No.3 Anil and accused No.4 Amol had come but the quarrel was settled.PW-6 Macchindra has deposed that while going accused Nilesh had said that he will see later on.Trial Court clearly recorded that omission related only ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 18 regarding the time.Regarding the incident of earlier day, PW-7 Sachin was also cross-examined.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::It has been brought on record in the cross examination that for incident dated 07.08.2009 no F.I.R. was filed.Incident of Bharat Dhokne slapping Nilesh Gaikwad on 07.08.2009 happened on the road infront of house of accused Nilesh.The house of accused Nilesh is at Siddharthnagar square.Siddharthnagar is slum area and thickly populated.Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are not residents of Siddharthnagar.Inspite of cross - examination of PWs 6 and 7, regarding their evidence relating to incident dated 07.08.2009, no such material has come on record so as to disbelieve them regarding the broad incident that on prior day deceased had slapped accused no.1 Nilesh and Nilesh had expressed anger about the same.As regards the incident dated 08.08.2009, PW-7 Sachin Dhokne has deposed that at about 2 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 19 p.m., he alongwith his uncle Bharat Dhokne went to the mobile shop which is opposite the office of Bharat Gas company for mobile handset which was given for repairs.At that time, accused No.1 Nilesh, accused No.4 Amol and accused no.3 Anil came there.Accused No.1 was having chopper and accused No.3 was holding a sword.Accused No.4 Amol caught complainant Sachin and accused No.1 Nilesh gave chopper blow on the neck to his uncle Bharat and accused No.3 Anil gave blow by sword on the neck of Bharat.PW-7 Sachin has deposed that at this time, he was trying to escape from the clutches of accused No.4 Amol and at that time, accused No.3 Anil gave a blow by sword on the head of Sachin.The evidence is further that the accused no.2 - Mahindra Salvi came to the spot at that time.He came on motorcycle and took away the other three accused.Bharat Dhokne had bleeding injuries over his neck and he had fallen down.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Blood was oozing from head injury of Sachin.He ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::During medical treatment, Bharat Dhokne expired.Evidence of PW-10 Investigating Officer, P.I. Shrikant Padole shows that on 08.08.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. he received telephone call that on Shrirampur - Newasa road, opposite office of Bharat Gas, 3 to 4 persons assaulted two persons by chopper and sword and the injured had been admitted to Sakhar Kamgar hospital.His evidence is that he went to that hospital and came to know that Bharat had already expired and that the injured Sachin was admitted.His evidence is that he gave letter to the doctor, if the injured was ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Evidence of PW-1 Sunil Magar shows that on 08.08.2009 between 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. at Sakhar Kamgar hospital, the inquest panchanama Exhibit 54 was recorded.The witness is also panch of the spot and it transpired from his evidence that between 4.30 to 5.30 p.m. he had gone to the spot which is opposite Bharat Gas Company on Shrirampur-Newasa road and spot pachanama came to be recorded.From the spot the cover of chopper and two pairs of chappals were seized and police had collected ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 22 samples of blood lying on the road.PW-10 is supported regarding these documents at Exhibit 54 and 55, by PW-1 Sunil.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::The clothes were blood stained.The blood stained clothes of injured Sachin were produced by his father Ashok Dhokne before the Police on 08.08.2009 and panchanama drawn between 7.30 to 8.15 p.m. Regarding this, there is evidence of PW-4 panch Bharat Tribhuan, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Then there is evidence of PW-2 panch Baban Borge whose evidence shows that Police had seized the clothes from the person of accused Nos.The panchanama shows that the shirts worn by accused Nilesh and accused Anil had blood stains on them.PW-10 P.I. Padole has deposed and the arrest panchanama Exhibit 48 of accused No.1 Nilesh which was admitted by the defence shows that when he was arrested the chopper having blood stains, (which was before the Court) was seized.Evidence of PW-5 panch Vitthal Galphade and PW-10 P.I. Padole is that on 09.08.2009, the accused No. 3 Anil volunteered to show where the motorcycle which was used at the time of incident and sword has been kept.Police recorded the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Ignoring contents self implicating the accused, the memorandum shows that the accused in presence of panchas volunteered to produce the articles and had taken the police and the panchas to a spot in village Padegaon.It was near a well.The motorcycle was hidden in thorny bushes and sword was under heap of stone and earth.PW-5 deposed regarding the description of sword and deposed that same was blood stained.The motorcycle was of SUZUKI make.At the time of evidence, panch could not recall the registration number of the motorcycle.According to panch, police seized the motorcycle and sword.The sword was sealed in cloth and his signature was obtained on the seal.Other panch was also present.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::According to the witness, the spot was near the field of one Pandharinath Gaware.Witness identified sword before the Court as the same.What can be said from the evidence of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 25 PW-6 and PW-7 is that on 07.08.2009, the incident did take place wherein Bharat had slapped accused no.1 Nilesh.Due to the slapping it appears that accused Nilesh went to the place of complainant Sachin but the tempers were pacified.Accused Nilesh still does not appear to have been satisfied and had said that he would see on the next day.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::We find this not to be material.The cross examination of complainant Sachin brought on record the various details.It appears that Bharat Dhokne was residing at some distance from the house of Sachin and in between ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 26 there are 10-15 houses.It has to be remembered that he is referring 10-15 houses of slum area which is thickly populated.So the distance may not be much.Complainant was working on Garbage vehicle of the Municipal Council.PW-7 Sachin deposed that the house of person who repairs the mobile was opposite Bharat Gas Company and he did not know the name of the said person.It was brought on record that Sachin and Bharat Dhokne talked between themselves at about 12 noon regarding getting the mobile handset.In the cross examination, the witness was asked and he stated that they stopped with the said person for 15-20 minutes but they could not receive the mobile handset from him as the same was yet not repaired.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::It is tried to be argued referring to such evidence that the person with whom the complainant and Bharat met for the purpose of mobile has not been examined as it was just before the incident took place.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 27It may be mentioned that the witness was deposing in relative terms by saying that they met mobile repairer at "about 1.45 p.m." and talked to him for "15-20 minutes".The evidence of PW-7 Sachin is that he alongwith Bharat had gone to the mobile shop where the mobile was given for repairs.The incident, however, has occurred on the road.PW-7 has deposed that they were at a distance of 10-15 ft.from the door of house of person to whom the mobile handset was given for repairs.Even if the PW-7 Sachin and Bharat had gone to the place of such person, who repairs mobile, it appears that when they came on the spot infront of house or shop of mobile repairer, the incident occurred.The mobile repairer may have been in his shop/house.Looking to the details of the incident, it may have occurred quickly as there must have been seething anger in the mind of accused Nilesh due to the incident of earlier day.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 28 Only because the mobile repairer has not been examined does not affect the case of prosecution as the evidence of PW-7 who received the grievous injuries to his head appears to be reliable.In the cross examination of PW-7 accused sought details and he deposed that accused Nilesh Gaikwad and Amol Hivrale were seen coming to the spot from eastern side and accused Anil was seen coming from western side.Further details were taken from this witness who works on Garbage Vehicle regarding directions.It was brought on record that when accused Nilesh and Amol came to the spot, this witness was facing towards east and when he saw, they were at a distance of 25-30 feet; and that, while accused Nilesh and Amol were coming to the spot of incident, Nilesh was towards north and Amol was towards southern side.We find that much cannot be made from such cross examination of this labourer, who had suffered ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 29 almost fatal injuries.Gist remains that when these people were near mobile repairer's shop accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 reached the spot and incident occurred.Further cross examination of PW-7 is that he was asked if he had said that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 came to the spot from one direction.The witness stated that he did not say so.The contradiction was marked in F.I.R. Exhibit 67, as if it is some statement where it was recorded that when the complainant was at spot opposite Bharat Gas office with his uncle "from front they saw Nilesh Gaikwad, Amol Hivrale, Anil, whose full name was not known, coming".We do not give value to such contradiction brought on record as F.I.R. is not supposed to be recording graphic details.Persons coming from front may have been earlier coming from different directions.If the F.I.R. says that these persons came infront and incident took place, it cannot be said that there are contradictions.The details as to how exactly ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 30 accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 approached the spot were extracted from the witness in the cross examination.Regarding any given incident various details can be sought from a witness.After extracting details in the cross examination, they cannot then be celebrated or criticized as omissions.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::From the cross examination of PW-7, where details have taken that accused Nilesh and Amol came from one side and accused Anil came from another side, it is tried to be argued by the learned counsel for the accused that it shows that there was no common intention or pre-meditation.But then, it can be said to be an attempt to encircle the victims due to the incident of earlier day.Spot panchanama shows it was road going East-West with houses on the North and South.Accused Nilesh having chopper and Amol approached from eastern side and accused Amol ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 31 approached from western side having a sword.In cross examination of PW-7 it was extracted from him that when these accused were approaching, he did not expect such type of incident.In his further cross examination, the witness stated that when accused Nilesh started abusing then he felt that such type of incident and quarrel can take place.We find that not much can be made from such cross examination as what the witness was thinking when accused were noticed at 25-30 feet does not make difference looking to the actual incident which soon occurred.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:15 :::It has been argued that if PW-7 was given head injury by accused Anil by means of sword, it was surprising to say that he was being held by accused Amol.The evidence of PW-7 shows that when the accused came there, there was no exchange of words but only accused abused for 2-5 seconds and the incident took place.The actual incident is ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 32 not very long where accused Amol caught PW-7 Sachin by his hands from behind and accused no.1 and accused no.3 gave blows by chopper and sword on the neck of Bharat.Simultaneously, PW-7 Sachin was trying to get himself released, and it appears that he was given a sword blow by accused no.3 on the head.Such incident may have been over in short time.The evidence of PW-7 shows that when accused Anil was dealing blow by sword accused Amol released his hands from behind.In such situation, naturally, accused Amol had no risk of injury.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::It has been argued that PW-10 Shrikant Padole has deposed that at 2 p.m. he received telephonic call about the incident but he did not record that information as F.I.R. and went to the hospital and recorded the F.I.R. from Sachin.The evidence of PW-10 shows that what he was informed was that on Shrirampur - Newasa road opposite ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 33 office of Bharat Gas Company, "3-4 persons" had assaulted two persons by chopper and sword and injured persons were admitted to Sakhar Kamgar Hospital.The cross examination of Investigating Officer shows that he did not feel necessary to effect the entry about said telephone call in Station diary and he did not inquire during investigation as to who had informed him on telephone.It shows that the person who had informed had not revealed his identity.The informant had not disclosed his identity and had given vague information that 3-4 persons assaulted.Thus there was no definite or clear information regarding the assault and what had happened in the assault.In the matter of "Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana V/s State of W.B." reported in (1994) 2 SCC 220, it was held that vague and indefinite information given on telephone cannot be treated as F.I.R. Thus, no fault can be found with PW-10 P.I. Padole.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 34 In fact in the present matter, PW-10 acted very swiftly.He appears to have reached the hospital almost immediately.The incident occurred at about 2 p.m. and after reaching the hospital, he gave letter Exhibit 79 to the Medical Officer to know if the injured was in condition to give statement.Doctor appears to have endorsed on the letter that patient is conscious.There is then some further endorsement which is not legible but date has been put and time was recorded which appears to have overwriting.Learned counsel for the accused tried to say that, correction in timing makes the document doubtful.It is further argued that after writing down F.I.R. PW-10 has forwarded the same to the Police Station vide direction Exhibit 89 and in Exhibit 89 the portion of time was left blank.We find that the letter Exhibit 89 mentions that the P.I. had recorded the complaint of the injured on the same day of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 35 08.08.2009 and same was being forwarded.No doubt, the portion of time remained blank, however, F.I.R. Exhibit 67 appears to have been registered on 08.08.2009 at 15.15 hours i.e. 3.15 p.m. The evidence of P.W.10 shows that when he recorded the complaint of injured Sachin he had also obtained endorsement of concerned Medical Officer on the F.I.R. The F.I.R. Exhibit 67 shows endorsement by doctor that the patient is in a state of giving the statement.Signature of the doctor has the date as 08.08.2009 and time as 3.00 p.m. There is no reason to doubt such endorsement by the doctor.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::Merely because in the forwarding letter or order Exhibit 89 time remained to be mentioned does not caste doubt on other evidence.On registration of F.I.R. within no time further investigation was done and so many steps were taken like recording inquest panchanama, getting post-mortem done, making recovery of clothes, recording spot panchanama and even arrests were done in the same ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 36 half a day.Inquest panchanma Exhibit 54 records time as done between 3.30 to 4 p.m. Crime number 243/2009 is mentioned in it.Naturally crime was registered before that.There is lot of material to show that quick F.I.R. was recorded and prompt investigation done.There is further no reason to doubt the evidence of PW-7 who had suffered such grievous injury and whose evidence is consistent with F.I.R. which he had lodged while he was admitted at Sakhar Kamgar Hospital.Evidence shows that by evening he had already been shifted to Shirdi Trust Hospital at Shirdi.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::It has been argued that although PW-6 Macchindra claims that from the spot he had taken his injured brother Bharat Dhokne to the hospital, his clothes did not get blood stains.On this basis, the submission is that Macchindra cannot be relied on as witness, who carried injured Bharat to hospital.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 37 We find that when a person carries the injured to hospital, it depends upon the facts of the case, whether or not the person is likely to have blood stains on his own clothes.In the present matter, PW-6 Macchindra has not claimed to have been present at or around the spot when the incident occurred or that moment assailants left he rushed to pick up his brother.Facts of the present case show that it was PW-7 Sachin, who was on the spot and himself an injured.Sachin appears to have run from the spot immediately after he was released by accused no.4 Amol.Evidence of PW-6 Macchindra shows that from Siddharthnagar, the spot where the incident occurred, was at a distance of hardly 2-3 minutes by walk.Thus, when he was injured, it was natural conduct for PW-7 Sachin to immediately rush home and inform the incident so that he gets help and also help gets sent to his injured uncle Bharat, who was on the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 38 spot.Evidence of PW-6 Macchindra shows that coming to know of the incident, he had gone to the spot with 7-8 persons.Naturally, he had other persons to help him.PW-6 has deposed that when injured Sachin Dhokne had come to his house, one lady had kept covered injury by cloth and she had kept her palm on the said head injury.This is natural conduct to cover or hold the injury to stop loss of blood.Main bleeding injuries of Bharat were on his neck.It is natural to help the victim by covering the injuries and to take the victim to the hospital.It is not a case of splash of blood in the incident.In the circumstances, only because the clothes of PW-6 Macchindra did not have blood stains is not a reason to doubt his evidence that he had helped to take injured Bharat to hospital.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::Evidence of PW-7 Sachin is that he had sustained injury over his right portion of head ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 39 above ear and after incident he went running to his house first.His brother Santosh and friend Dnyaneshwar were at his house at that time and no others were in the house.He deposed that he did not enter his house and informed his brother Santosh and Dnyaneshwar while he was outside the door of his house and Dnyaneshwar Magar took him to Sakhar Kamgar hospital, while his brother Santosh went to the house of Bharat Dhokne.In view of such evidence of injured Sachin, the evidence of PW-6 Macchindra that injured Sachin himself told him the incident will have to be ignored as PW-7 has deposed that it was Santosh who went to the house of Bharat Dhokne to inform.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::This difference in version of PW-6 and PW-7 cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution as it does not relate to main incident.Bharat died in the incident and PW-7 Sachin was grievously injured is a matter of record supported by the oral evidence of PW-7 Sachin and Medical evidence.In the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 40 circumstances, no undue weightage can be attached to the differences in details of periphery part of incident.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::It has been argued that the Chemical Analyser's Report shows that grouping of blood on the clothes of accused no. 4 Amol was reported as inconclusive.Thus, Amol had opportunity to tamper with blood which was on his clothes.In any case, C.A. Report Exhibit 96 shows that blood stains on the clothes of Amol were of human origin.C.A. Report shows that there was blood on the T Shirt, Underwear and Full Pant of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 41 deceased Bharat which was of `AB' group and Full shirt, sandow Baniyan and Full pant of injured Sachin, which was of `B' group.There are their respective blood groups.On the shirts of accused No.1 Nilesh and accused No. 3 Anil there were blood stains of `B' group.Chopper had blood stains of `B' group.While group on the sword and cotton swab was reported as inconclusive but human blood.Evidence of Dr. Momle shows that deceased Bharat had not merely two incised cuts on his neck but also had (i) injury to left arm at upper end cut injury, (ii) left arm lower end cut injury,::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::(iii) left forearm upper end cut injury and there was yet another cut injury which was skin deep on right side of chest and abdomen anterior.PW-7 Sachin himself had in addition to the contused lacerated wound on occipital region an abrasion to his left knee which could have been caused by hard and blunt object.The ocular evidence of PW-7 does not give details how these other injuries on the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 42 person of Bharat and the abrasion to his own knee were caused.In the heat of moment, it is likely that PW-7 may not have been able to mentally register all the details of the incident in which he was trapped.Thus, although, the causing of injury by accused Anil on the head of Sachin by sword and blood group of injured Sachin gets connected to the Shirt of accused No.1 Nilesh having blood stains, particulars as to how blood group of injured Sachin was on the shirt of accused No.3 Anil is not connected.It appears that minute details of the incident how it occurred have not been deposed to by PW-7, may be because he himself suffered severe blow on his head and missed details as simultaneous actions mere taking place at the time of incident.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::It has been argued that the injury inflicted by accused no.3 Anil was not fatal injury so he at the most may be convicted under ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 43 Section 304 II of IPC.For this, the learned counsel referred to Exhibit 67 F.I.R. where injured Sachin had reported that accused Nilesh gave blow by chopper on "Gala" and accused Anil gave blow by sword on "Maan" of Bharat.In the cross examination of PW-7, the accused brought on record the differences witness made of these terms.It was deposed that he knows difference between neck and throat and he called front portion of neck as throat i.e. "Gala" and back portion is called by him as neck i.e. "Maan".The learned counsel for accused tried to submit that the injury no.2 noticed in the postmortem can be stated to be by accused Anil and the evidence of doctor is that the injury no.1 was such that there would be very less chance of survival even if the medical treatment is immediately provided.While regarding injury no.2, it was stated that if heavy bleeding takes place due to deepness, the death was possible.We do not think that any such ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 44 factors can weigh to give accused Anil benefit of Section 304 II of IPC.All the three accused had reached the spot carrying sword and chopper and all the three knew what they were doing.Giving such serious injuries on the neck to deceased Bharat where he appears to have not even been able to reach hospital alive shows that the intention was to cause his death.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::It has been argued that the accused no.4 Amol had merely held victim Sachin and so at the most he should be held responsible for offence under Section 307 of IPC.Accused Amol had definite and clear role in the whole incident where while Bharat was being assaulted, he had to prevent Sachin from interfering.(We will discuss this further in the next paragraph.) Thus, not merely for attack on victim Sachin, he is also responsible for the act ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 45 of assault on Bharat, which was in furtherance of common intention.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::It has been argued that accused No.4 Amol had merely held the injured at the time of incident and so he should not be held guilty under Section 302 of IPC.The evidence brought on record itself shows that accused Nilesh alongwith accused Amol had approached the spot from eastern side on the road.Nilesh was carrying chopper and accused Amol must be said to be sharing the common intention as to why accused Nilesh was approaching Bharat and Sachin with a chopper.One day earlier incident was the cause.Accused Anil was approaching the spot from western side.As mentioned earlier, it indicates that these accused had common intention to ensure that Bharat and Sachin should not be able to run away.Inter alia, the trial Court rightly relied on the case of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 46 "Nandu Rastogi @ Nandji Rastogi V/s State of Bihar" reported in "(2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 9" that to attract Section 34 of IPC, it is not necessary that each one of the accused must assault the deceased.It is enough if it is shown that they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in furtherance thereof each one played his assigned role by doing separate acts, similar or diverse.In the matter of Nandu Rastogi, the Supreme Court referred to the facts of that case which were eloquent that the role played by Bal Mukund Rastogi of preventing the prosecution witnesses from going to rescue of the deceased was the role played by him with a view to achieve the ultimate objective of killing Shankar Rastogi.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had applied Section 34 of IPC.In the present matter also, we find that immediately after reaching Bharat and injured Sachin, accused Amol caught hold of the hands of injured Sachin so that he should not be able to ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.When such blow was being given at that time accused No.4 Amol left his hands.The intention was obvious.Injured Sachin was assaulted by means of sword and suffered injuries as mentioned above.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::It is apparent that accused persons, who acted in furtherance of common intention of each other intended to murder Bharat and were knowing that injuries which they were causing Sachin can cause death of victim Sachin.The circumstances were such that if Sachin had expired, they would have been guilty of murder.Thus, the accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 in furtherance of common intention of each ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 48 other are guilty of murder of Bharat and attempting to commit murder of PW-7 Sachin.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::Other argument is that if there was exchange of hot words before the incident started, grave and sudden provocation can not be ruled out.This also deserves to be rejected.The evidence shows that after accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 approached the spot, there were sudden abuses from the side of accused and the attack took place.There are no particulars to show that Bharat and injured Sachin behaved in such a manner that it could be said that they gave any provocation.The learned Additional Sessions Judge ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 49 considered the evidence.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::Regarding the accused No.2 Mahindra Salvi, it was observed that the evidence on record was that he came to the spot on motorcycle after the assault was over.He did not participate in the incident.Although, it was mentioned in the F.I.R. that accused Mahindra had given fist blows on the chest of Sachin, the witness was silent at the time of evidence in the Court and so there was no evidence to prove that accused Mahindra actually participated in the assault.Regarding accused No. 5 Sandip it was observed that there was no iota of evidence of his involvement or being on the spot.The Court thus held that accused Nos. 2 and 5 were ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: Cri.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.Appeal No.359/2011 50 entitled to be acquitted.Trial Court also considered the applicability of Sections 323 and 504 of IPC and found that there was no sufficient evidence that the accused Mahindra dealt blow of fist over chest of Sachin.The offence was held as not to be proved under Section 323 and 504 of IPC.There is no appeal against such acquittal.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::We have considered the record.Appeal No.264/2011 with Cri.We thus maintain the conviction and sentence of the accused persons.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 :::The Appeals stand dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:05:16 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,242,810 | J U D G M E N TD.K. JAIN, J.:The appellants and the deceased are closely related.Appellant no.1, including the deceased - Partap Singh, were seven brothers, out of whom he and four others were from one mother and two from the other.The case set up by the prosecution, in brief, was that on 16.7.1999 Amarjit (PW-8) son of the deceased made a statement before the S.H.O., Police Station Gohana to the effect that Partap Singh along with his four brothers from one mother were having a joint khewat.One of the brothers, namely, Haria was unmarried and was living with his father, who also used to cultivate the share of land belonging to Haria.However, his uncle, appellant no.1 and his sons, Raj Singh and Raj Kanwal (as per High Court Judgement), appellants no.2 and 3 respectively as well as Kitaba, his uncle and Bijender s/o Kitaba were holding a grudge against his father, the deceased, for not partitioning the land belonging to Haria.A day before the incident all of them had asked his father to divide the land of Haria, failing which he would not be allowed to see the sun of the next day.On 16.7.1999 at about 6.00 a.m., he alongwith his mother and father - the deceased, his uncles Jagdish and Raghbir had gone to the fields to fetch grass; all the aforementioned five persons came to the fields belonging to the deceased and his brothers and started erecting a boundary wall; when they were stopped from doing so, all the five went towards their tube well and came back with arms, namely, Phali and Farsas; Dharam raised a Lalkara to teach a lesson to the deceased's party for not permitting the raising of boundary, upon which Bijender gave a spear blow on the head of the deceased whereas Raj Singh gave second spear blow on the head of the deceased; when he and others intervened, Bijender hit him with a spear in the right arm.Raj Kumar and Dharam (as per the Trial Court Judgment) also gave spear blows on the head of the deceased, as a result whereof he fell down and when his uncle Raghbir intervened, Kitaba inflicted a Phali blow on the left side of his chest.In the meanwhile, crowd gathered at the spot and on seeing them all the five accused fled alongwith their respective weapons.The deceased was brought to Civil Hospital, Gohana where he was declared brought dead.The three appellants, namely, Dharam, Raj Singh and Raj Kumar, alongwith two others, Kitaba and Bijender, faced trial in Sessions case No. 135 of 1994 (Sonipat) for having committed offences under Sections 148, 302, 323 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").The Trial Court found them guilty; convicted them for offences punishable under all the aforementioned Sections and sentenced them to suffer the following punishments:"OFFENCESPUNISHMENT148 IPCTo undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default thereof to undergo RI for six months.302/149 IPCTo undergo RI for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo RI for three years324/149 IPCTo undergo RI for two years as also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default thereof to undergo RI for six months323/149 IPCTo undergo RI for six months"All the convicts preferred common appeal to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but were unsuccessful.This appeal by special leave is brought by the three appellants before us against the order of the High Court.Dr. Rajesh Kumar, PW-12 conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on his person:"On left parietal bone 10cmx3cmx3cm wound.Edges of the wound were well delineated.Underlying bone was fractured and fractured bone had pierced the brain matter.Posterior to this wound, there was horizontal wound 3 cm x 1 cm on scalp and just behind this wound there was 4 cm x 2 cm lacerated wound."He also examined Dharam, appellant no.1, Raj Kumar, appellant no.3, Ranbir and Kitaba and found various injuries on their person.A major injury found on the person of Dharam was "Incised wound 2cm x 1cm x 5cm deep on left upper part of chest, just lateral to sternum" and that on Kitaba a "5 x 5 cm wound right hypochondrium.Depth of the wound could not be ascertained."In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses.In their statements made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants, without disputing their presence or participation in the fight, took a common plea of self defence in the following terms:"On the day of alleged occurrence, Partap Singh deceased and his son Amarjeet started the tubewell of Dharma for irrigation of their fields without his permission and when he protested and switched off the electricity, Partap armed with Farsa and Amarjeet armed with jelly attacked him.On his alarm, we reached there and tried to save him from them.They were also assaulted by the complainant side and he was given as many as six injuries by Farsa.Dharma picked up a Farsa lying by the side of Kotha of tubewell and caused only one injury to Partap deceased and Amarjeet to save himself and also to save to me and Kitaba.Partap Singh died at the spot and we took his dead body first to the police and police of police station Gohana had taken the dead body of Partap Singh to PHC, Gohana.I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case."Rejecting the plea of private defence, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants, armed with deadly weapons, with the common intention to commit murder, had attacked the deceased as well as his other family members, including the complainant and were, thus, guilty of offences under the aforementioned Sections.The High Court has affirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the occurrence had taken place in the fields belonging to the deceased Partap and his family. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
124,285,187 | Heard on I.A.No.15538/2015 which is an application seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellants Indraj Ahirwar and Gudda Raikwar.At the outset learned counsel for the appellants seeks withdrawal of bail application of appellant no.1 Indraj Ahirwar with a liberty to renew the prayer after serving half of the jail sentence awarded to him.Prayer seems to be reasonable and is not opposed by the other side.Therefore, the same is allowed.Accordingly, application stand dismissed as withdrawn so far as it relates to appellant no.1 Indraj Ahirwar with the aforesaid liberty.As regards appellant no.2 Gudda Raikwar, this is second application under section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on being rejection of first bail application on 7.1.2014 as not pressed.Appellant Gudda Raikwar has been convicted for the offences and directed to undergo the sentence as per the table below :-default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 months.Section 323 I.P.C. R.I. for 6 months Section 25(1-Kha)(ka) of R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in Arms Act default of payment of fine, further R.I.for 3 months.Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the case of the present appellant as well as appellant no.4 Rajesh is on similar footing as he has not identified and recovery has been made from him.Other co-accused persons namely Ramesh and Rajesh have already been enlarged on bail, however, on the ground of parity, prayer is made to enlarge the appellant on bail.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,242,930 | Whilethe earlier enactment of 1940 was to be the most expeditiousmethodology of adjudication and disposal of disputes througharbitration but practicability of the situation latelyproduced a rather dismal picture and proved contrary to thenormal belief and expectation that arbitration would be anotherwise expeditious method to do so.The uncitral modelon the basis of which this Act of 1996 was engrafted in thestatute book, in no uncertain terms recognises partyautonomy philosophy and minimum interference from theCourts. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
124,981,690 | ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 :::APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 3ORAL JUDGMENT :2] The facts giving rise to the applications may be stated, in brief, as under :(a) Applicants Jadavlal and Ramesh are the original complainants.At the relevant time, non-applicant nos.2 and 3 were the members and non-revealed that assurance given by non-::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 :::APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 4applicants was totally false and lay-out was not in the name of M/s. Ma Sharda Housing Agency.In fact, agency was not the original owner, but non- applicant no.1 representing himself as Chairman of agency and non-applicant nos.2 and 3 as members, cheated and duped applicants by entering into false agreement of sale.recording verification of complainants, process was issued to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The evidence before charge was recorded by the trial court.Vide order dated 7.5.2010, accused were discharged under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.This order is impugned in present applications.::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 :::APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 53] Heard Dr. R.S. Sundaram, learned counsel for applicants and Ms. M.A. Jaiswal holding for Shri P.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for non-applicants.4] It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for applicants that both the courts below missed an important ingredient of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code that applicants were induced to part with the huge amount by falsely making a representation that agency is the owner of the plot.The learned counsel urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court ought to have framed charge against the non-applicants as prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were very much present to proceed against the accused persons.He submits that posing as an owner when not an owner and with dishonest intention to induce the person to part with huge amount would constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and as such error is apparent in the order of the trial court as well as revisional court, which according to him, needs to be rectified in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court.5] Per contra, Ms. M.A. Jaiswal holding for learned counsel for the non-applicants, strongly supports the orders ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 ::: APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 6 and submits that there was no sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused, hence, trial court was right in discharging the accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 :::APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 66] In normal course, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this court would have been slow in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the revisional court.According to non-applicants, they were in possession and lateron sale deed came to be ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 ::: APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 7 executed in favour of Ma Sharda Housing Agency.They submit that being in possession they had interest in the property and having interest, they entered into agreements with the complainants.In such a situation, non-applicants submitted that there was no question of inducement or cheating as alleged by complainants.It is contended that dispute is purely of civil nature and both the courts rightly concluded that case to frame charge was not made out.::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 :::APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 7They urged that in extra-ordinary jurisdiction, concurrent findings recorded by the courts may not be interfered with, as act alleged on the part of non-applicants/accused does not fall within the purview of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.8] Needless to state that facts in the present case will have to be appreciated in the light of the definition of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.The said definition reads as under :Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 :::The injury alleged may form the basis of civil claim and may also constitute the ingredients of the crime punishable under the criminal law.In a dispute between the parties arising out of transaction involving passing valuable ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 ::: APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 9 properties/consideration between them, the aggrieved person may have a right to sue in civil law and at the same time, law permits the victim to proceed against the wrong door for having committed an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, as the case may be.::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 :::APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 9Had the non-applicants informed the applicants that real owner was the third person, applicants would not have parted with the huge consideration.Copy of agreement placed on record is self explanatory to indicate dishonest concealment of facts.This agreement shows that the agency as an owner agreed to sell the plot though it was not the real owner at ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 ::: APL 480.12 + 481.12.odt 10 the relevant time.In such a situation, this court finds that entering into an agreement to sell the plot owned by third person would fall within the ambit of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 :::Hence, the following order :(i) Criminal Application [APL] Nos.480/2012 and 481/2012 are allowed.(ii) Impugned orders dated 7.5.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case Nos.63/2001 and 64/2001 and of Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application Nos.492/2010 and 493/2010, dated 16.5.2012, stand quashed and set aside.(iii) Regular Criminal Case Nos.63/2001 and 64/2001 are restored to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur for disposal in accordance with the law.::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:56:47 ::: | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,249,828 | The respondent - Suresh Thorat was a resident of Vithalnagar Zopadpatti, Mulund, Bombay.He was known to the prosecutrix from before the incident.The prosecutrix had three brothers viz : Ashok, Santosh and Arvind.She had one sister Sampada.Sometimes before the incident she started going to Balmandir School, which was near her house.Her brother Ashok also used to go to school and she had seen the said school.There is an open space around the building of Ashok's school.The prosecutrix used to play in the compound of that school.On 23-2-1983 while the prosecutrix was playing near her house, the Respondent took her near the taps in the school of Ashok.He told her that he would give her ten paise for sweets.There were no lights at that place.Thereafter, the Respondent took off her under wear and his full pant; made her lie on the ground; and raped her.She started bleeding and her frock became smeared with blood.Thereafter one boy pushed her.Again there was bleeding from her private parts and she could not know the reason for it.She did not know the name of the boy, who pushed her.In her statement, the prosecutrix says that the bleeding commenced after Suresh (Respondent) had raped her.In her statement in examination in chief, she also stated that she did not know what the respondent did after removing her under-wear.After the incident the prosecutrix came to her father.She was crying.When her father asked her whether she had fallen down or not, she did not reply.Her clothes had become stained with blood and there was bleeding from her private part.The mother of the prosecutrix Laxmibai Balu Mandke, who was also there questioned the prosecutrix.She told her that the Respondent had done something on account of which there was pain in her private part.Since the prosecutrix was profusely bleeding, she made her lie down on the cot.Thereafter, Laxmibai Balu Mandke and her husband Balu took the prosecutrix to a doctor, who had a dispensary in the zopadpatti, at a distance of about 25 feet from their house.The doctor examined the prosecutrix and asked them to take her to Jasraj Hospital.They accordingly took her to the said hospital.The injuries of the prosecutrix were medically examined by Dr. Shyamlal Mukhi (PW6) of Jasraj Hospital, at about 9 p.m. the same day.The doctor stated that the prosecutrix told him that one male person took her in dark and tried to do something on account of which bleeding started.Dr. Mukhi sensing the gravity of the matter sent a note to Mulund Police Station to the effect that, an alleged raped victim had been admitted in the hospital.On examining the prosecutrix Dr. Mukhi found swelling of vulva, vaginal tear communicating with rectum and anal canal and there was profuse bleeding.In Dr. Mukhi's opinion these injuries must have been caused by forcible sexual intercourse by an adult male.Since the condition of the prosecutrix was precarious Dr. Mukhi advised that she be taken to J.J. Hospital.JUDGMENT Sahai, J.By means of this appeal the Appellant - The State of Maharashtra, has impugned the judgment and Order dated 31-8-1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1983 acquitting the Respondent for offences punishable under Ss. 366 and 376 of the IPC.Briefly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :Consequently, her parents took her to J.J. Hospital, where the evidence is, she was admitted for about two months and had to undergo three operations.Going backwards, the FIR of the incident was lodged the same day at about 9 p.m. by Balu Mandke (PW1), the father of the prosecutrix, at Police Station Mulund.After the FIR had been recorded, S.I. Gurav recorded the statement of the informant.Thereafter, he along with P.I. Ashok Ingle proceeded to Jasraj hospital.S.I. Gurav drew up the panchnama regarding blood sample of the prosecutrix and the sample of her hairs.The frock of the prosecutrix was taken into possession under a panchanama.Thereafter, P.I. Ashok Ingle visited the place of incident that very night.He along with S.I. Tambwekar arrested the respondent.The case was committed to the court of sessions in the usual manner.In the Trial Court the Respondent was charged on a duel count namely u/S. 366 and 376 of the IPC.To the said charges, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the trial Court in all the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.Only one of them viz. the prosecutrix Anita Balu Mandke is an eye-witness of the incident.In defence no witness was examined.After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and the statement of the Respondent under S. 313, Cr.P.C., and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge concluded that the prosecution had lamentably failed to prove the charges against the respondent and consequently acquitted him.It is this acquittal of the respondent which has been taken offence to by the State of Maharashtra which has challenged it by means of this appeal.We have heard Mr. Mohmad Iqbal Galeria for the Appellant and Ms. Aruna Kamath for the respondent.We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered by the prosecution; the statement of the respondent recorded under S. 313, Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment.In short, what the prosecutrix has stated is that she knew the respondent from before the incident.On the date of the incident the respondent came to her house where she was playing; gave her 10 paise for sweets and thereafter took her to the water taps in the school of her brother Ashok.Thereafter, he took off her under wear and his full pant; raped her resulting in profuse bleeding from her private part, and at that juncture a boy whose name she did not know pushed her and she again started bleeding as a consequence of the fall resulting from her being pushed.Had only the prosecutrix stated the facts mentioned above in her statement we would have had no difficulty in believing her statement.But she made matters really difficult for us.In her cross-examination she stated that there was no light on the place of the incident and that she was not sure whether it was the respondent, who had raped her.In her cross-examination she further stated that a boy called Bhaskar had told her that it was the respondent, who has raped her.In view of the aforesaid admissions emerging from the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, it was imperative for the prosecution to have examined Bhaskar.We find that, for reasons best know to it the prosecution has not examined Bhaskar nor furnished any explanation for not doing so.In such a situation, we find it extremely difficult in accepting the statement of the prosecutrix as making the respondent culpable for offences under Ss. 366 and 376, IPC.To make the matters still worse Dr. Mukhi, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, stated in cross-examination that the injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix could have been caused if a child fell on a compound having sharp pointed iron bars.In paragraph 6, during her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that at the place of the incident there was fencing having sharp pointed iron bars.The evidence of a child witness should therefore be accepted with great caution."When the statement of the prosecutrix is tested on the anvil of the ratio laid down in the said two cases, we feel implicitly satisfied that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in rejecting her evidence and in acquitting the Respondent on both the counts.In the result, this appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
124,983,061 | 279 & 356 of 2007 Page 1 of 13In short the allegations of the prosecution are that a contract was awarded by Shri D.S. Kanwar (Accused No. 1/ A1) while working as the General Manager with M/s. National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) in favour of Shri Dilawar Mir (Accused No. 2/ A2) for handling-cum-general services to National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) & transporting supplies to cooperatives and other institutional agencies in the State of Punjab and Haryana vide Agreement dated 9.9.1993 for a period of five years.The contract was signed by Accused No. 1 in his capacity as General Manager(Marketing ) on behalf of NFL.As per the terms and conditions the Accused No. 2 was to be paid remuneration of Rs.65/- per metric tons of Urea manufactured by NFL and supplied to the institutional buyers.If the quantity of the fertilizers supplied exceeded 2 lacs tons, the enhanced remuneration was payable @ 100 per metric ton.In case the take-off was less than 1.5 lakh tons, the remuneration was to be reduced to Rs.50/ per metric ton.It is also the case of the prosecution that Accused No. 1 to give undue favour to Accused Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 2 of 13 No. 2, executed the contract in his favour without following the guidelines, in particular the guidelines given in letter dated 22.06.1990, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the General Manager ( Marketing) though has full powers to enter into contract regarding handling of material, subject to conditions namely: (i) financial concurrence; (ii) allocation in the budget and279 & 356 of 2007 Page 2 of 13(iii) prior approval of the Director (Finance) or Managing Director with regard to the rates and terms and conditions of contract involving the expenditure of Rs.50,000/- or above in each case.However, Accused No. 1 neither followed the guidelines nor invited tenders for the execution of this contract.The Accused No. 2 was a former Minister of Jammu & Kashmir State.The Accused No. 1 asked Sh.M. A. Sharma to release the ad-hoc payment without the same being verified by the field staff.This aspect of release of payment without verification stands established by the statement of prosecution witnesses M. A. Sharma and Anil Kumar Sharma.This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid revision petitions which assails the order dated 06.03.2007 passed by a Learned Special Judge CBI in criminal case No. 10/2000 arising Crl.During the course of investigation, the CBI also recorded the statement of various witnesses who stated that no work was Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 3 of 13 performed by M/s Good Friends Agencies and was actually done by the field staff of NFL.The perusal of letter dated 31.3.1995 also shows that Accused No. 1 facilitated the release of an ad-hoc payment of Rs.30 lacs against the bill of Rs.40 lacs.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 3 of 13The learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties, framed charges against both the petitioners under Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with section.120- B/420, IPC and directed the petitioners to face trial in the aforesaid case.Both the petitioners have assailed the said order and during the course of arguments have made identical submissions.He has submitted that the agreement dated 9.9.1993 was entered into between National Fertilizers Limited and proprietorship concern of the petitioner namely M/s. Good Friends Agencies (GFA) on the recommendation of the then Union Ministers of state categorically.Thus it is submitted that there was no conspiracy between the petitioners and it falsifies the allegations made in the charge sheet of entering into a conspiracy by him with D. S. Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 4 of 13 Kanwar.It has been submitted that the allegations of the prosecution that the established procedure as set up by the various guidelines and rules of NFL was not followed stands falsified in the light of the fact that the contract dated 9.9.1993 was a rate contract and that the charge sheet nowhere discloses that the person finally signing the agreement was not empowered to enter into a rate contract.However the trial court in the impugned order dated 6.3.2007 in deciding that the person did not have power to enter into the contract states the rates at which the contract was to be given but fails to state that the Accused D. S. Kanwar was not entitled to enter into a rate contract.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 4 of 13It is also submitted that the liability to pay various amounts to Accused No. 2 was recognized and accepted by the Apportionment Committee which documents has been completely ignored by the trial Court.While framing of the charge.In so far as Accused No. 1 is concerned while reiterating the submissions made by Accused No. 2 he also stated that the agreement in question was prepared by one Anil Kumar Sharma, the Deputy Manger and not by the petitioner D. S. Kanwar.The agreement went up to the higher authorities before it was finally executed.It is also stated that the Additional Manager (F & A) had given approval for payments and thus it cannot be said that the senior officials were not brought into the picture and were not aware of their entering into agreement in question.It is also submitted the Apportionment Committee nowhere states that there was any offence committed by the petitioner or that any fraud was played by him or that any act of cheating was done while entering into the agreement or while approving the payments to Mir Dilawar.It is, thus, submitted that in the facts of the case, the charges framed against the petitioner D. S. Kanwar Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 6 of 13 are required to be quashed.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 6 of 13I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the sides and have perused the written submissions.From the written submissions placed on record by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it has come on record, that agreement in question though could have been executed by the General Manager, requires (i) financial concurrence; (ii) allocation in the budget and (iii) was subject to prior approval of the Director (Finance) or Managing Director which is not available in this case.The defence raised by the petitioner can always be Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 7 of 13 examined by the Trial Court while recording the evidence.The facts which have been revealed by the prosecution in the challenge filed by them after investigation reveals that both the petitioners were found guilty of having committed offence under Section 420/120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 7 of 13It is well established that at the stage of framing of charges under Section 227 and 228 of CrPC, the truth, veracity and the necessary effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to prove, is not required to be meticulously judged by the learned trial court.This exercise cannot be done with the standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be filed finally before finding the accused to be guilty or otherwise.The charges against the accused persons can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion found on the material collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation.The trial court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and thus in that event, be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by them.In this regard reference has also been made to the following judgments by the respondents, i.e.:I have gone through the aforesaid judgments as well as the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners and I have also examined the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charges against both the petitioners.A perusal of the order goes to show that the learned Special Judge has taken into consideration the material which was available on record, specifically the contract which was entered into between both the petitioners on behalf of National Fertilizers Limited without complying with the necessary formalities; the fact that no work was done in pursuance of the contract which was required to be done by M/s. Good Friends Agencies (a proprietary concern) of Dilawar Mir.Some of the observations made by the Special Judge can be incorporated for reference which shows that charge in question has been framed by the learned Special Judge after applying his judicial mind to the facts Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 9 of 13 of this case.It is part of the terms and conditions itself that A2 was entitled to enhanced remuneration @ 100 PMT if the quantity was to exceed 2lacs MT for a single crop season of six months.It was therefore apparent that even during the period of six months A2 could get a commission of more than Rs.2 Crores if the supplies were above 2 lacs MTs.A perusal of the letters dated 18.12.93 (d42), 4.1.94 (D.44), 15.2.94 (D45), 15.2.94 (D46), 10.2.94 (D47) would show that during the span of couple of months the bills @ Rs.65 PMT totaling about Rs.40 lacs were raised by A2 on NFL, it is therefore apparent that the contract involved expenditure of more than Rs.50,000/- and therefore prior approval of Director (Fin.)/ Managing Director was required for entering the contract.There is not even a whisper in the agreement dated 9.9.93 signed by A2 and A1 that there was approval of Director (F)/MD.Thus at this stage, I am inclined to believe that the contract was entered into by Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 10 of 13 A1 without requisite authority for the same.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 10 of 13It has come in the statement of Shri M. A. Sharma that on 31.5.1994, A1 had asked him to stay in the office after office hours.When they reported to A1, they were informed that the company (NFL) had entered into a contract with M/s. Good Friends Agencies and had appointed them as handling and general service contract for the sale of Urea fertilizers to institutional agencies.He states that it was later learnt that Dilawar Mir was the Ex Minister of J & K State.The witness has stated that he had asked A1 while releasing an ad-hoc payment that the bills submitted by M/s Good Friends Agencies have not been verified by the field staff of A1 and did not care for the work and asked him to make payment.To the same effect is the statement U/s.161 CrPC made by witness no. 34 Anil Kumar Sharma.A perusal of the various bills i.e. D.43 to D.47 on record would show that the same have been claimed @ Rs.65 PMT though as per the revised offer made by A2 vide letter dt. 31.3.95 (D52), A2 had mentioned that he may be paid @ Rs. 15PMT (instead of Rs.65 PMT) and that except for the work of liaison procurement of order and realization of payment could not be done by Good Friends Agencies.During the course of investigation the CBI has recorded the statement of number of witnesses to the effect that the work was not performed by Good Friends Agencies and that the work was in fact done by the field staff of NFL.The dishonest intention could be inferred on the part of A2 in raising the bill @ Rs. 65 PMT, when A2 was well aware that the work in terms of contract dt. 9.9.93 had not been done.If the subsequent letter dated 31.3.95 (D52) is Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 11 of 13 accepted on the face value, asking for release of adhoc payment of Rs.30 lacs against the bill for Rs.40 lacs by A1 to his subordinate officers would lead to an inference of conspiracy between A1 and A2 for doing an illegal act.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 11 of 13This amount of interest was also recoverable from the remuneration paid to M/s. Good Friends Agencies.The statement of witness no. 2 that the contents of the contract were typed by him on dictation of A1 in September 1993 would also point out that there was no approval from the ED(F) or MD of NFL.Statement of witness No. 3 would show that there was no need of the contract like the one dated 9.9.94 as NFL had sufficient field staff to take care of the work (and in fact the major work had not been done by A2 as was stated by him in his letter for revising the terms of the contract vide D.52)."The aforesaid discussion clearly holds that in this case Accused No. 1 not only mis-used his official post in executing the agreement in favour of Accused No. 2 without following the guidelines so as to benefit him out of the bill; Accused No. 2 also Crl.279 & 356 of 2007 Page 12 of 13 tried to cheat NFL without doing the work.Thus, all the ingredients of charges framed against the petitioner were available on record.The parties may appear before the learned Special Judge on the date as fixed for further proceedings. | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,249,861 | "iii) That Sh.Surinder Mohan was removed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in the night of 14.5.1995 in un-conscious state as the case being serious the Doctors of Hindu Rao Hospital then removed the patient to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for better treatment and accordingly Sh.Surinder Mohan was admitted in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he remained unconscious and died on 12.6.1996 at about 12.35 am."The respondents contested the petition before the learned Tribunal.The driver and owner of the offending vehicle denied the accident by the offending vehicle.The appellant deposed that the deceased was hit by the offending bus on 13th May, 1995 and became unconscious and was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital who referred the deceased to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.He further deposed that the deceased remained unconscious till his death on 12th June, 1995 in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.The relevant documents for the present context are FIR - Ex.PW1/3, MLC - Ex.PW1/13, letter-Ex.PW1/15, death summary and post mortem report - Ex.The MLC - Ex.PW1/13 does not show any head injury or that the petitioner was unconscious.It merely records that the deceased was unfit for statement.The police registered FIR - Ex.PW1/3 under Sections 279/337 IPC which resulted in a Challan dated 7 th September, 1995 - Ex.PW1/2 under Sections 279/337 IPC.The appellant has not produced/examined the doctor who treated the appellant.In my opinion, the doctor who treated the deceased was the most important witness.The appellant filed a petition for compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of bus bearing No.DL-IP-2184 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.FAO No. 575/2002 Page 1 of 7FAO No. 575/2002 Page 1 of 7FAO No. 575/2002 Page 2 of 7 The appellant deposed that he spent Rs.40,000/- on the illness of his brother but no document was produced to prove the same.FAO No. 575/2002 Page 2 of 7The appellant proved the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.The Challan-Ex.If the death would have been the cause of accident dated 13th May, 1995, the police would have converted the case to Section 304-A, IPC.The death summary and the post mortem report-Ex.The cause of death in the death report form has been mentioned as cardio-respiratory arrest following head injury and the duration of illness has been mentioned as two days.It further records that the deceased had suffered a road accident one month FAO No. 575/2002 Page 3 of 7 back for which he was admitted but CT did not show any operable lesion.FAO No. 575/2002 Page 3 of 7The counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged that the deceased Surinder Mohan died due to the head injury suffered in the road accident on 13th May, 1995 and the testimony of PW1 and the documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/13 and Ex.The appellant has referred to and relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Yallappa Patil vs. General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. reported as Vol.However, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case.No other ground has been urged.The MLC - Ex.The deceased was thereafter referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital from where he was discharged on 19th May, 1995 which is recorded in letter-Ex.There is an endorsement on Ex.PW1/15 by Dr. Puneet of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital stating that "As per hospital records nature of injury - simple".The appellant has not produced the discharge summary dated 19th May, 1995 of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.PW1/15 records the statement of the doctor that the nature of injuries were simple.In any view of the matter, it is highly improbable to believe in the course of natural events and human conduct that the hospital would discharge an unconscious patient to be taken back home.Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the appellant took back the deceased in an unconscious state back home, it does not appeal to reason that an unconscious person would sit on a chair.PW1/18 clearly shows that the deceased fell from the chair on 10th June, 1995 and lost consciousness.The death report form clearly records that the duration of illness had been two days.FAO No. 575/2002 Page 4 of 7No document to prove the expenditure on the treatment has been produced.The accident dated 13th May, 1995 resulted in simple injuries (no head injury) for which the deceased took treatment for few days.The documents filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal belie his claim.FAO No. 575/2002 Page 5 of 7The appellant is guilty of concealment of the fact that the deceased fell from chair on 10 th June, 1995 and lost consciousness and underwent treatment for two days.I also draw adverse inference against the appellant for not producing the discharge summary dated 19th May, 1995 of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, the treatment record from 13th May, 1995 up to 10th June, 1995 and the record of the expenditure on treatment for the said period and not producing any doctor who treated the deceased.The adverse inference is that all the aforesaid documents would have contradicted the appellant's case and, therefore, were not filed.FAO No. 575/2002 Page 6 of 7FAO No. 575/2002 Page 6 of 7I do not find any merit in this appeal.The appeal is dismissed with costs.The appellant is guilty of filing a frivolous claim and also making false statements on oath to link the death arising out of fall from chair on 10th June, 1995 to a past motor accident which resulted in minor injuries.It shows the extent to which greed can make a person fall.I am, therefore, constrained to impose cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.J.R. MIDHA, J. | ['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
124,986,728 | The police mayexamine witnesses and record their statements.On 16th December, 2012 a young lady (23 years in age) and her friendwere returning home after watching a movie in a multiplex located in one ofthe glittering malls of Delhi.They boarded a bus to undertake a part ofthe journey back home.While the bus was moving, 5 persons brutallyassaulted the young lady, sexually and physically, and also her friend.Both of them were thrown out of the bus.Five persons were apprehended in connection with the crime.One ofthem, identified for the purpose of the present case as Raju, was below 18years of age on the date of commission of the crime.Accordingly, incompliance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 ( asamended and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) his case was referred forinquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board.The other accused were tried in aregular sessions court and have been found guilty, inter alia, of theoffences under Section 376 (2)(g) and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short “the Penal Code”).They have been sentenced to death bythe learned trial court.On the very next day, the Board by an elaborate order dated24.01.2013 rejected the prayer of the petitioners for impleadment in theproceeding against the delinquent and seeking participation therein.Inthe aforesaid circumstances, on 19.02.2013, Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.1953 of 2013 was lodged before this Court challenging the aforesaidorder of the High Court of Delhi.We, therefore, will proceed to hear the special leave petition on merits and attempt to provide an answer to the several questions raised by the petitioners before us.” (sic)9. Notice in the special leave petition was accordingly issued inresponse to which detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf ofthe Union as well as the respondent-juvenile Raju.In addition, Crl. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
12,499,438 | Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 4.7.2017 in connection with Indas P.S. Case No.133/2016 dated 29.7.2016 under Sections 498a/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya ... For the petitioner.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.) 2 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
60,978,275 | This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 22.05.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1181 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2018, u/s 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 325, 336, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Jarcha, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar.Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA.Entire record has been perused.Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that initially an N.C.R. was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against them in which by virtue of order of Magistrate passed under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. the investigation had taken place.Thereafter, the first informant had lodged an F.I.R. against them with the same allegation in which investigation again took place which resulted in submission of charge sheet in the present case.Submission is that registration of subsequent F.I.R. for the same occurrence against the same accused persons was not permissible in the eyes of law and if criminal proceedings were allowed to proceed on the basis of charge sheet so submitted, it will amount to abuse of process of law.Further submission is that investigation of F.I.R. which was registered as Case Crime No. 163 of 2008, was in fact re-investigation, which was also not permissible.Other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact.The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel.On the other hand, the injured persons were medically examined and it was found that the injured Kamal had sustained a fracture of frontal bone in the said assault.There was fracture found on left clavical of injured Hasin Abbas.The injuries of Aftab was also found grievous in nature.A perusal of purcha no. 7 of case diary, photocopy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 10 to the present affidavit, shows that on the basis of medical evidence Sections 325 and 308 I.P.C. were added and N.C.R. No. 98 of 2018, was accordingly converted into Case Crime No. 163 of 2018, under Sections 323/325, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. It has also been mentioned that further investigation would be conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. However, it seems that on the basis of the earlier application which was given by the first informant for lodging of his N.C.R. a fresh Check F.I.R. was again executed by the police at P.S. Jarcha, District Gautam Budh Nagar and a separate crime no./F.I.R. No. 163 of 2018 was assigned to it.In this Check F.I.R. sections were mentioned as 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. Thereafter the investigating officer proceeded with the investigation of the present case and recorded statement of witnesses including that of injured persons as their second statement (Majid Bayan).In fact, it is fallacious to state that investigation with respect to N.C.R. No. 98 of 2018 was dropped and de-novo investigation was started as is clear from annexure no. 10 showing that during investigation upon the N.C.R. the investigating officer had found that the acts of the applicants did constitute some cognizable offences.Therefore, the said N.C.R. was converted into present F.I.R. Investigation thereafter was conducted by the then investigating officer as subsequent investigation.Applicants had not faced two investigations or two different court proceedings for the same cause of action.The other submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
60,978,330 | The process of law in FIR No.558/2005 under Section 498A/304B IPC registered at PS Dabri commenced on July 26, 2005 when a PCR call was received at Police post Palam Colony vide DD No.13 at about 11.48 AM that in the house of one Suresh Mishra a women had hanged herself.On reaching the spot on the first floor from Chokhat of the ventilator, a woman aged 23/24 years was found hanging.On inquiry her name was revealed as Vidya Meena, wife of Ram Dayal respondent No.2 herein.It was revealed that she was married 1 years prior to the occurrence to respondent No.2 who was employed as LDC in CBI and at the time of incident her husband was not there, as he had gone to the office in the morning.No suicide note was recovered.The dead body was sent to post- mortem.She was living under pressure for doing job.Q. Whether any telephonic talk was held with your daughter before suicide?A. Yes on 25.7.05 at about 9 PM no tension at that time and on 26.7.05 at 8.30AM.The father of the deceased appeared as PW-1 in the trial and deposed that his daughter Vidya Meena was married to Ram Dayal on May 04, 2004 at their native place in Rajasthan.He gave `5 lakhs at the time of marriage of his daughter to the accused persons as dowry.Thereafter, the accused persons demanded `8 lakhs from him as dowry.For that his son Arvind Meena was called urgently at Ganga Pur City where Kailash elder brother of Ram Dayal Meena resides.Batti Lal, Kailash, Sanwaliya Ram and Ram Dayal all demanded `8 lakhs as dowry.His son expressed his inability to meet this huge demand as they were not financially sound and told the in- laws that they would give dowry articles as per their own capacity.On May 04, 2004 the marriage was performed.After 3-4 days of the marriage his son Arvind visited the accused persons at the matrimonial home of the Crl.A.No.532/2010 Page 4 of 9 deceased and all the accused persons raised demand of `3 lakhs from his son and stated that articles given to them in the marriage were of 'D' category.In October, 2004 Ram Dayal Meena gave beating to his daughter at Jodhpur.In December 2004 his daughter came to Bombay to see him and disclosed that all accused persons used to demand dowry and cash from her and also used to give beatings and harass her.In May 2005 his daughter visited their native place at Rajasthan and disclosed to her sisters-in-law Badam and Furanto Meena that she was being given beatings by Ram Dayal on account of dowry demands.On July 25, 2005 he had a conversation with his daughter on phone at Delhi.She was perplexed at that time and was in sad mood.However, she could not talk to him freely and answered to the queries only in 'Yes or No'.On July 26, 2005 he made a call to the deceased at about 8.30 AM.Since there was heavy rain in Mumbai on that day, he could not talk to the deceased.However, his wife had a conversation with the deceased on phone and Ram Dayal was giving beatings to the deceased at that time.So his daughter could not talk to them and Ram Dayal Meena snatched the mobile phone from her.At about 12 noon they received a phone call from Delhi Police informing about the death of their daughter.A.No.532/2010 Page 4 of 92. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no dispute to the ingredients of offence under Section 304B that the deceased was married to respondent No.2 and died an unnatural death within 7 years of the marriage.The prosecution through the evidence of the father, mother, brother and sisters-in-law of the deceased has proved beyond reasonable doubt the continuous course of harassment meted out to the deceased in relation to the demand of dowry and her consequential death.Thus, the learned Trial Court committed a serious illegality in acquitting the respondent No.2 of the offences charged with.Reliance is placed on AIR Crl.A.No.532/2010 Page 1 of 9 2003 SC 2865 Hira Lal and Others Vs.State NCT of Delhi and 2013 (3) JCC 1775 SC Gurnaib Singh Vs.State of Punjab to say that even if the offence under Section 304B IPC is held to be not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the offence under Section 306 IPC stands proved and hence the respondent No.2 be convicted for the offences under Section 306 and 498A IPC and sentenced accordingly.A.No.532/2010 Page 1 of 9Since the paper books were ready and the counsels were ready for addressing arguments we have proceeded to hear the appeal finally.PW-12 Dr. Anil Aggarwal who conducted the post-mortem along with other doctors exhibited the report as Ex.PW-12/A and opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging which was anti-mortem in nature.Dr. Anil Aggarwal also noted ligature mark deeply grooved present all over the neck, obliquely placed above the thyroid cartilage.Thus, it is the case of prosecution that the deceased died a suicidal death and not Crl.A.No.532/2010 Page 2 of 9 homicidal.A.No.532/2010 Page 2 of 9On July 30, 2005 the father of the deceased Giriraj Prasad made statement to the SDM which was recorded in question answer form as Ex.PW-1/A and reproduced as under:25 (son), 2nd Vidya Meena (daughter) age 23 and 3rd Vijender Meena (20 years) Q. Where are you living at present.A.No.532/2010 Page 3 of 9peacefully or any dispute was there after marriage? A. She was living peacefully with her husband and occasionally since beating incident.In cross-examination Giriraj Prasad was confronted by his earlier statement made to the SDM and the defence was able to show that there were material improvements on all aspects.As per the statement on the basis of which FIR was registered demand of dowry was before marriage and subsequent to the marriage the deceased was living peacefully with her husband and occasionally beating was given as she was living under pressure for doing job.Besides there being material improvements in the Crl.A.No.532/2010 Page 5 of 9 testimony of this witness a perusal of the testimonies of PW-6 Arvind Meena the brother of the deceased, PW-10 Foranti Devi and PW-11 Badami Devi the sisters-in-law of the deceased shows that the deceased had never communicated to her father because he was suffering from heart ailments and thus this witness had no direct conversation with regard to harassment on account of dowry from the deceased.A.No.532/2010 Page 5 of 99. PW-6 Arvind Meena the brother of the deceased in his testimony has also reiterated the version of Giriraj Prasad except that in February 2005 he had gone to Ram Dayal Meena Jodhpur and during his stay with his sister, she disclosed that Ram Dayal was harassing her to bring remaining dowry or else to take a job somewhere else.He also stated that in May 2005 his sister came to the native place and she narrated the incident to sisters-in-law.10. PW-10 and PW-11 Foranti Devi and Badami Dev Sisters-in-law of the deceased stated that 3 or 4 months prior to the incident Vidya had come to attend a marriage at their village and she stated that her husband Ram Dayal were demanding `3 lakhs more as dowry but she could not disclose these facts to her father as he was heart patient.From the testimony of these witnesses it is clear that the deceased never spoke to her father and after the marriage when she talked to her brother Arvind Meena she stated that accused was harassing for the remaining dowry or to take up a job.It is thus apparent that in view of the financial constraints Ram Dayal wanted the deceased to take up employment and for an additional earning which could not be termed as harassment much less harassment for demand of dowry.The final blow to the case of the prosecution was given by the testimony of PW-15 Jagwanti and PW-16 Hari Mohan.PW-15 Jagwanti Crl.A.No.532/2010 Page 6 of 9 lived in the house adjoining that of Ram Dayal and deceased.She deposed that on July 26, 2005 Ram Dayal Meena left for his office in the morning.At about 11.00 AM she was cooking food and when Pappu @ Hari Mohan came to his house and asked her what she was doing.He further told her that Vidya had strangulated herself and was found hanging with an iron jangla.She went there and made a call to the Police as well as Ram Dayal.In cross-examination this witness admitted that the deceased used to talk to a boy namely Raj Kumar who was residing in Bombay and deceased told her that she intended to get engaged to Raj Kumar prior to engagement with Ram Dayal.Jagwanti further deposed that on that day Vidya was under depression and had told her that Raj Kumar had threatened her that he will make a complaint to Ram Dayal regarding the affair between deceased and Raj Kumar.She further stated that she never noticed a quarrel between the deceased and Ram Dayal.A.No.532/2010 Page 6 of 9Similarly, Hari Ram who was the first to notice that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging with the help of chunni stated that deceased had discussed with her on several occasions that she was in love with Raj Kumar before her marriage and wanted to marry with him.But the deceased had requested not to disclose this fact to Ram Dayal.On the day of incident at 9.00 AM he found the deceased perplexed and she told him that Raj Kumar had given threats to disclose facts to Ram Dayal.He also admitted that a day prior to the incident the deceased was got admitted by Ram Dayal to B.Ed course in M.D.S. University and before that she had taken coaching classes at S.N. Dass Coaching Institute situated at Pusa Road and the deceased was learning driving for which she had taken a learner driving license.A.No.532/2010 Page 7 of 9In view of this testimony of the prosecution witnesses Jagwanti and Hari Mohan the learned Trial Court acquitted Ram Dayal and we find no perversity in the same.Moreover, besides the two prosecution witnesses telling the real cause for the deceased committing suicide, from the testimony of all the witnesses it is clear that Ram Dayal wanted the deceased to do a job for which he got her coaching from S.N. Dass Institute, admission in B.Ed and also ensured that she learns driving.This conduct of Ram Dayal wanting the deceased to do a job cannot be termed as harassment either for demand of dowry or a mental or physical cruelty driving a woman to commit the suicide.Regarding the second limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellant that even if there is no evidence that soon before death deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, since the deceased was meted with a continues cruel treatment and she committed suicide Ram Dayal be convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC by raising a presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. It is well settled that even for raising presumptions under Section 113A or 113B of the Evidence Act the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and prove the case against the accused for offence under Section 306 or 304B IPC as the case may be.Only after the initial burden is discharged by the prosecution the onus shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption.The prosecution has neither proved continuous course of harassment for demand of dowry nor soon before the death, an essential ingredient for offence under Section 304B IPC nor has it been able to prove abetment of suicide by an act of Ram Dayal which has a proximate and live link resulting in the deceased committing suicide.Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal.A.No.532/2010 Page 8 of 9The appeal is dismissed.T.C.R. be returned.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2014 'ga' Crl.A.No.532/2010 Page 9 of 9A.No.532/2010 Page 9 of 9 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
609,797 | RC DAI-2009-A- 0045 on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct against unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications, Govt. of India, unknown private persons/companies and others under Section 120-B IPC, 13(2) read with 13(a)(d) of P.C. Act, in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent, Unified Access Services (UAS) Licences and 2G spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 2 of 37Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that earlier to accused A.Raja taking over as Minister for Communications and Information Technology, the departmental policy of DOT regarding grant of Unified Access Services Licence (UASL) was first come first serve subject to eligibility and after the issue of Letter of Intent (LOI) to the successful applicant, he was given sufficient time to comply with the conditions of LOI and deposit of the licence fee.In order to achieve the end of conspiracy, accused R.K. Chandolia on 24th September 2007 inquired from the concerned officer of "Access Services Cell" of Department of Telecommunication if the applications of Unitech Group of Companies for grant of UAS Licences were received and instructed that after the receipt of their applications, no further applications be accepted.PW Avdesh Kumar Srivastava, DDG(AS-I) told R.K. Chandolia that it may not be proper/fair to abruptly refuse to receive the applications.A note dated 24th September, 2007 in this regard was initiated by the Department on instructions of R.K. Chandolia.Accused A.Raja approved the note and ordered issue of press note informing public about the cut off date 01.10.2007 for acceptance of the applications for UASL.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 3 of 37 Though hundreds of applications were received after 25th September, 2007, those applications were not considered for issue of UAS Licence.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 3 of 37Charge sheet also disclose that as per the existing policy, the allottees of Letters of Intent (LOI) were given sufficient time to comply with the conditions of LOI.The licences were issued on the basis of seniority of the date of applications and after the issue of UAS Licences, the licensee could apply for allocation of spectrum.On 2nd November, 2007, Director (AS-I) DOT initiated a note seeking for issue of Letters of Intent as per the existing policy of first come first served.The then Telecom Secretary returned the file with the noting, "action may be initiated after orders of MOC & IT are obtained on the issue.He had expressed his desire to discuss this further.A draft Letter of Intent was also put up along with the note for approval of the Minister.Issues regarding new LOIs are not before any court.What is proposed is fair and reasonable.The press release makes for transparency.This seems to be in order." However, after obtaining the advice of Solicitor General, accused A.Raja in conspiracy with accused Siddhartha Behura dishonestly deleted the last paragraphs of the approved press release shown to the Solicitor General which recorded, "However, if more than one applicant complies with LOI condition on the same date, the inter-se seniority would be decided by the date of application" and approved the amended draft of press release.This was done to portray as if the amended draft had the approval of the Solicitor General.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 5 of 37The first charge sheet reveals that Reliance ADA Group of Companies was interested in obtaining UAS Licences for 13 circles which they were not eligible for in view of Clause 8 of UASL policy guidelines.The above referred accused persons has structured M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. in such a manner that its equity holding was shown as 90.1% with M/s Tiger Traders Pvt. Ltd. and 9.9% with M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd. The investigation into holding structures of M/s Tiger Traders Pvt. Ltd. revealed that aforesaid company was actually funded by the Group Companies of M/s Reliance ADA Group.It was revealed that `3 crores utilized by M/s Tiger Traders Pvt. Ltd. in January 2007 and `95.51 crores used by said company in March, 2007 to subscribe to majority equity shares of M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was arranged through Group Companies of Reliance ADA Group.Besides that, a sum of `992 crores which constituted the bulk of networth of M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. was also provided by Reliance Telecom Ltd. under the garb of subscribing to preferential Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 7 of 37 shares to M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Those preferential shares were purchased by Reliance Telecom Ltd. at abnormally high premium of `999/- per share of face value `1/- although M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. had no business history at that time.Aforesaid amount was immediately returned by M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd to M/s Reliance Communications Ltd. on the pretext of advance against a purchase order.These transactions were carried out on the instruction of Gautam Doshi and Hari Nair.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 7 of 37This interlocking was done in such a manner that 50% equity shares of M/s Zebra Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Parrot Consultants Pvt. were purchased by M/s Tiger Traders Pvt. Ltd., 50% equity shares of Parrot Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Tiger Traders Pvt. Ltd. were purchased by M/s Zebra Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and 50% equity shares of Zebra Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and Tiger Traders Pvt. Ltd. was purchased by M/s Parrot Consultants Pvt. Ltd. This arrangement ensured that neither of those three companies was absolute owner of any company and this Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 8 of 37 practically left the control of all the three companies in the hands of the Directors i.e. the petitioners.In order to achieve the end of conspiracy, Hari Nair in league with Gautam Doshi and Surendra Pipara falsified the records of Board Meetings of Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and Tiger Traders Pvt. Ltd to show that M/s. Tiger Traders Pvt. Ltd. was held by India Telecom Infrastructures Fund of Ashok Wadhwa Group and also to show the appointment of Ashok Wadhwa as Director of those companies and his presence during the meetings.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 8 of 37Before the LOI could be granted, M/s Reliance Communications Ltd., a group of Reliance ADA Group got GSM spectrum in those 13 circles pursuant to its applications under dual technology policy.Thus, the application dated 2nd March, 2007 moved through M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd was of no use to Reliance ADA Group.Accordingly, Reliance ADA Group withdrew its holding from M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and the accused Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair and Surendra Pipara transferred the control of M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. to the co-accused Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka in order to facilitate them to cheat DOT by getting UAS Licence in the name of M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. which company till 18th October, 2007 was ineligible for UAS Licence in view of Clause 8 of policy guideline.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 9 of 37It is alleged in the supplementary charge sheet that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, accused A.Raja, the then MOC&IT and accused petitioners Sharad Kumar and Kanimozhi Karunanithi were stake holders and/or directors of M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. accepted and received an illegal gratification of `200 crores in M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. from the co-accused Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka from the account of M/s. D.B. Group Companies in the year 2008-09 as a reward for undue favours shown by accused A.Raja in connivance of other public servants to M/s. Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. in the matter of allocation of UAS Licences and valuable scarce spectrum.It is further alleged that M/s. Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. received a sum of `3228 crores from M/s. Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. and `381 crores from M/s. Genex Exim Ventures Pvt. Ltd. on 17.12.2008 as a consideration of offloading the equity shares.Immediately, thereafter with effect from 23.12.2008 till 11.08.2008, accused Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka transferred a sum of `200 crores to M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. through a circuit route via M/s. Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. This was allegedly done with a view to conceal the transfer of money from D.B. Realty Group to M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. The fund transfer from M/s. Dynamix Realty, a Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 10 of 37 firm belonging to the D.B. Realty Group, took place in following manner:Accused Sharad Kumar (A-16) signed the same on behalf of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. and its promoters.Investigation has also revealed that accused Karim Morani, Asif Balwa and Rajiv B. Agarwal arranged these funds from M/s Dynamix Realty, a partnership firm of DB group companies managed and controlled by Shahid Balwa (A-4) & Vinod Goenka (A-5) and facilitated the transfer of these funds in a dubious manner to M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 11 of 37Investigation has revealed that for all the aforesaid transactions amounting to `200 Crores between M/s Dynamix Realty, M/s Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd., M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd.,and M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd., claimed to be in nature of loan, no valid agreement was signed between any of the parties and no collaterals/ securities were ensured to secure the alleged loan amounts.Later, after registration of the criminal case vide FIR no. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 dated 21.10.2009 by CBI, and on taking various steps in investigation of the case, M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd offered some securities to M/s Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 12 of 37 Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd against the above referred unsecured loan of ` 200 crores.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 12 of 37Investigation has also revealed that in terms of the Share Subscription and Shareholders' Agreement dated 19.12.2008, claimed by accused persons to have been signed between M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. and promoters, it was required that the funds transferred till 31.3.2009 be treated as loan if no agreement could be entered regarding the price of equity of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. However, investigation has revealed that though no such agreement could admittedly be reached between M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd., still the additional amounts of ` 175 crores were paid by M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. Sh.Sharad Kumar signed the agreement dated 19.12.2008, as Director of the company and for and behalf of the promoters of the company including present two petitioners.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 14 of 37Investigation has also revealed that when accused A Raja (A-1) was contacted by CBI for his examination scheduled on 24.12.2010, M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd started refunding the amount of ` 200 crores to M/s Dynamix Realty, through M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. A substantial part of the amount was refunded by it just before and after 02.02.2011, when accused A Raja (A-1) was arrested by CBI in this case.The details of such transfers by M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. are as under:-Investigation has revealed that M/s Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd, in turn, paid back ` 200 crores, with interest @ 7.5% per annum to M/s Dynamix Realty.The details are as under:-Investigation has revealed that in June 2007, accused Sharad Kumar (A-16), along with other promoters, incorporated M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. after they left Sun TV network.Accused Sharad Kumar (A-16) was a promoter & director or M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. and is a stakeholder of the company to the tune of 20%.He is a director and CEO of the company.Investigation has also revealed that accused Ms. Kanimozhi Karunanithi (A-17) was a stakeholder of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of 20% equity and was an active brain behind its operations.She was also widely covered by the Kalaignar Seithigal (News) channel.She also actively pursued with the intermediaries and DMK Hqrs.The moment their request was rejected, their physical custody automatically vested with the court.1. Accused Ms. Kanimozhi Karunanithi and Sharad Kumar vide above referred applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are seeking bail in case FIR No.RC-DAI-2009-A-0045 P.S. ACB, CBI New Delhi.Briefly stated, facts relevant for the above bail applications are that on 21.10.2009, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, New Delhi registered a case No.Accused A.Raja approved the note, but deliberately replaced Para 3 of the draft LOI with the following: "the date of payment of entry fee would be priority date for signing the licence agreement.If the date of payment of entry fee in more than one case is the same, then the licence will be first signed with the applicant whose application was received earlier." Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 4 of 37Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 4 of 37It is alleged that on 23rd November, 2007, the Licensing Finance Branch of DOT objected to change made in LOI by accused A.Raja and suggested that it appears logical to keep the date of applications as date of priority for issue of licence provided the applicant is able to establish that he is eligible on the date of application and is also eligible when the LOI is issued.This note was endorsed by Member(Finance), Telecom Commission and Secretary(Telecom) also suggesting the revision of entry fee for new licences in line with revision of fee for dual technology spectrum as suggested by Ministry of Finance in its letter.Accused A.Raja, however, ignored the advice to keep the date of application as date of priority for issue of licence or to review and enhance the licence fee and this resulted in a loss to the tune of almost of 30000 crores to the State exchequer.That while putting up a note dated 7th January, 2008 for processing UASL application received upto 25th September, 2007, Director (AS-I) reiterated the existing policy and noted, "sequence of granting of LOIs/UAS Licence has been maintained till now to the date of respective application for a particular service area." In his note DDG(AS-I) raised the issue of eligibility and clarified that the eligibility on the date of application needs to be considered.When the matter was put up before accused Siddhartha Behura, he attached a draft press release for the approval of the Minister.Accused A.Raja, MOC & IT asked Secretary (Telecom) to show the draft press release to the Solicitor General and seek his legal opinion.Accused Siddhartha Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 5 of 37 Behura personally took the file to the Solicitor General of India, who advised "I have seen the matter.On 10th January, 2008, the Press Release was put on the website of DOT calling upon the applicants to collect the LOIs from Siddhartha Behura at 3:30 pm.Four counters were created for collection of LOIs.The LOIs were, however, distributed in a disorderly manner and not as per the seniority of applicants.This resulted in shuffling of priority of the applicants as against the seniority of date of application and provided them opportunity to deposit entry fee prior to the applicants who had applied for licence before them.It is alleged that in aforesaid manner, the accused public servants managed to disturb the seniority of applicants as per the date of application and caused undue advantage to the accused Sanjay Chandra as also Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka as also their companies, namely, Unitech Group of Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 6 of 37 Companies (since merged in Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd. and M/s. Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. respectively, who managed to get UAS Licences which they otherwise would not have got, but for dishonest change of policy of first come first serve by the public servants.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 6 of 37Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 10 of 3723.12.08 10 Crore 12.01.09 2.5 Crores 14.01.09 0.25 Crores M/s. Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd.During investigation, accused persons took a plea that M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. transferred the said funds to M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. in order that M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. could acquire the equity shares of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of 32-35% of Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 11 of 37 total equity.Investigation has revealed this plea to be false, as no valid agreement to this effect was entered into by the said companies.Later, after registration of this criminal case by Central Bureau of Investigation vide FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045, this amount was shown as loan, having an interest @ 10% per annum, on the pretext of clause 2.2 of a Share Subscription and Shareholders' Agreement dated 19.12.2008 claimed by accused persons to have been signed between M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. and promoters.Later, after registration of the criminal case vide FIR no. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 dated 21.10.2009 by CBI, and on taking various steps in investigation of the case, entire equity holding of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. was pledged, vide an Agreement to Pledge dated 30.12.2009, to M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd as security for the due payment/repayment of the purported loan amount under the Loan agreement and as security for performance of the obligations of the company set out under Loan agreement.Accused Sharad Kumar (A-16) signed the said Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 13 of 37 agreement on behalf of the company and for and behalf of the promoters of the company including present two petitioners.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 13 of 37During investigation accused persons belonging to M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. have claimed that they got their company valued in June, 2009 by a consultant and it was valued at around ` 846 crore.Since, by this valuation the proposed stake to be given to M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. in lieu of ` 200 Crores fell below 20%, M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd purportedly decided to call back their investment in M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. It is also claimed by the accused persons and the companies concerned that till such time of repayment, an interest @ 10% per annum was decided to be charged on the amount paid so far.However, investigation has revealed that before this valuation was purportedly done in June, 2009, and any agreement regarding valuation of equity could be reached between the two parties, as claimed, an amount of ` 50 Crores had already been transferred to M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. Contrary to the claim of the accused persons that no agreement could be reached about the valuation of equity of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. to be subscribed by M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd., additional amount of ` 150 Crores was transferred in July-August, 2009, after such purported agreement failed.The aforesaid transactions related to purported investment by M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. in M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd., without any due diligence, or provision of any collateral, defies common sense and normal business practices.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 14 of 37Investigation has also revealed that, in order to conceal the dubious nature of the transaction, M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. transferred amounts shown as interest to M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. as per following details:-Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 15 of 37Investigation revealed that M/s Cineyug media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, also, in furtherance of the design to facilitate concealing the dubious nature of entire transactions, paid back the amount of ` 200 crores to M/s Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. as per following details:-Investigation has also revealed that, in order to cover up the dubious nature of the transaction of money transfer, M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. transferred amounts described as interest to M/s Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd. as per following details:-Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 16 of 37He has attended/ chaired all the board meetings of the company wherein the decisions regarding the aforesaid transactions were taken by the company.He has also signed all the agreements purportedly signed with M/s Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd., and other relevant documents in this regard, not only on behalf of the Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 17 of 37 company but also on behalf of himself and other directors/ shareholders of the company.He had also been visiting accused A Raja (A-1) in connection with pursuing various pending works relating to M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 17 of 37Investigation has revealed that in June 2007, accused Ms. Kanimozhi Karunanithi (A-17), along with other promoters, incorporated M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. after they left Sun TV Network.She had also been in regular touch with accused A Raja (A-1) regarding launching of Kalaignar TV channels and other pending works of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. Accused Ms. Kanimozhi Karunanithi (A-17) was also an initial director of the company and resigned only for the reason that her clearance from MHA was pending and could take time and delay the matter of launching the Kalaignar TV channels.Accused A. Raja (A-1) was further pursuing the cause of M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. not only for getting registration of the company from Ministry of Information & Broadcasting but also for getting it in the Tata Sky bouquet.PW-103, Sh.Ashirvadam Achary has stated the above facts showing association of Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 18 of 37 accused Sharad Kumar and Kanizmozhi with accused A. Raja regarding the issues of Kalaignar TV.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 18 of 37It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail".The legal position which emerges from the aforesaid judgments is that the important factors for consideration while deciding the applications for grant of bail, the court must take into account various factors, namely, nature and gravity of accusation; nature of evidence against the accused; severity of punishment in the event of conviction; danger of accused fleeing from justice; the danger of accused trying to Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 31 of 37 influence the witnesses or thwarting the course of justice and the character and antecedents of the accused etc. And the court will decide on refusal or grant of bail on cumulative consideration of the existence or non-existence of aforesaid factors.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 31 of 37On merits, it is contended that the petitioners are innocent and they have nothing to do with the alleged conspiracy between public servants and the private persons/companies in the matter of allotment of UAS Licence/Spectrum to M/s. Swan Telecom Private Limited.They have appeared pursuant to the summons.Therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioners interfering with the investigation process or influencing the Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 32 of 37 witnesses or absconding from law.Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly urged for admitting them on bail.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 32 of 37Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 33 of 37I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.Even in this reverse money trail, the dates of transfer of money from one company to other and to the other are either the same or in very close proximity; (l) that the investigation revealed that no contemporaneous documents pertaining to the transfer of money was prepared at the time of transfer of money from DB Realty Group Companies to M/s. Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. and from M/s. Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. and from M/s. Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted by learned Special PP that during investigation photocopies of shares subscription and shareholders agreement and agreement to pledge between M/s. Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. were produced by the accused persons but they have deliberately not produced the original agreements because the date of purchase of stamp papers used would have revealed that these agreements have been subsequently prepared to create evidence in defence.Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 34 of 37Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 35 of 37Above facts and circumstances, prima facie show the complicity of the petitioners in the conspiracy and their having received illegal gratification of `200 crores in the account of the company controlled by them, namely M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. The proximity of dates on which the money got transferred via circuitous route involving DB Realty Group Companies, M/s. Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. as also the reverse trail of money, Bail Applications No. 723/2011 & 724/2011 Page 36 of 37 prima facie, cannot be a coincidence and this gives rise to a prima facie involvement that aforesaid methodology was adopted by the petitioners and their co-accused persons with a view to conceal the trail of money from DB Realty Group which owns M/s. Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Unitech Group of Companies in the matter of grant of UAS Licences and spectrum have caused a loss of about `30,000 crores to the State exchequer.The petitioners are in control of M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd., as such they are in position of power to influence the witnesses, particularly the employees of their company.They have got strong political connections. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
60,983,223 | M.C. 2604/2019 Page 3 of 3She Crl.As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice".Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.Accordingly, FIR No. 99/2018, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of Crl.M.C. 2604/2019 Page 2 of 3 IPC, registered at Police Station Anand Parbat, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.M.C. 2604/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition is accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 15, 2019 r Crl.M.C. 2604/2019 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
60,986,389 | They also threatened her daughter that in case, she told about the incident to any person, she will be killed.The victim came back home and in the morning when first informant saw blood stained clothes of her daughter, then she enquired from her, whereupon, she told that Bhurdul @ Guddu had taken her away to bamboo-groove where he committed rape on her.When she tried to raise alarm, her mouth was gagged by the appellant and he threatened her not to tell anyone about the incident otherwise she will be killed.The first informant went to lodge the first information report at police station Gosaiganj on 27.10.2008 where the police personnel took blood stained clothes of her daughter and kept the same with them and told that they are going to get her daughter medically examined.In the evening informant's daughter was left back home.The first informant visited the police station time and again but neither first information report was lodged nor action taken.Compelled by circumstances, the first informant moved application before S.S.P. Faizabad, for registration of the first information report as the accused was threatening that in case any report is lodged then she will be killed.The blood is still oozing out from private part of her daughter.The first Informant's husband has gone out to Delhi for earning livelihood.The first informant resides in her house along with her children.Report be lodged and action be taken.This report was endorsed by Superintendent of Police Rural Areas (S.P.R.A.), Faizabad, whereupon the matter was looked into and S.O. concerned was directed for lodging of FIR, therefore, first information report was taken down at the police station Gosaiganj on 1.11.2008 at Crime No. Nil of 2008, under Sections 376, 377, 506 IPC.Later on, vide report no.14 of General Diary dated 2.11.2008, case crime number was allotted as 857 of 2008, under Sections 376, 377, 506 IPC at Police Station Gosaiganj.The victim was medically examined at District Women Hospital, Faizabad on 1.11.2008 at 6.25 p.m. On external examination:- no injury was seen on any part of body or genitalia externally.Faecal matter seen coming out through Anus.On internal examination:- Hymen intact.No vaginal smear taken.The victim was referred to Surgeon, District Hospital, Faizabad for rectal examination.In pursuance of the above reference, rectal examination of victim was done on 3.11.2008 by Dr. Hari Om Srivastava, District Hospital, Faizabad who reported that healed scar present at muco ceratium junction of anal carnal at 6.00 O' clock, 9.00 O' clock at 2.00 O' clock position.Anal sphincter is lax, admits two fingers easily, faecal matter is coming out spontaneously.Injury is grievous caused by hard and blunt object.Duration about one week.It is also gathered from record that during course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and took into possession blood stained clothes of victim and prepared memo of the same (Exhibit Ka-2).The aforesaid clothes were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Faizabad, for chemical examination, whereupon human blood and semen were found on the 'frock' of the victim.She has also detailed the manner in which rape was committed.She has stated that one person gagged her mouth while the other committed rape.After commission of the rape, the appellant took her half way down to her home and left her alone, from where she came to her house.She has also testified that her frock and underwear were soaked in blood.All these facts, as stated before trial court have been also stated by the victim to her mother when she came back home after the incident took place.Her mother (Smt. Itwari) P.W.1 took into her possession the blood stained frock and the underwear.It has been testified by P.W.1 that she went to lodge the report at the police station Gosaiganj and told about the incident to Daroga Ji and showed him her blood stained clothes.Heard Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned counsel and amicus curiae for the appellant and Sri S.A.M. Zaidi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant jail appeal has been preferred at the instance of the appellant Bhurdul @ Guddu from jail through Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Faizabad vide letter dated 18th January, 2012 against judgment and order of conviction dated 23.12.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.2, Faizabad in S.T. No.145 of 2010, State of U.P. Versus Vs.Bhurdul @ Guddu, under Sections 376, 377, 506 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.857 of 2008, P.S. Gosaiganj, District Faizabad, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 377 IPC, in case of default, the appellant will have to suffer one year additional rigorous imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 (II) IPC.All the sentences shall run concurrently.Factual matrix of the case, as discernible from the record appears to be; that the first informant Smt. Itwari wife of Buddhiram Vishkarma, resident of village Sherwa (Sujanpur), Police Station Gosaiganj, District Faizabad moved a written report dated 01.11.2008 addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad, for lodging of the first information stating therein that Bhurdul @ Guddu son of Chhangur Singh, resident of the same village, along with one person took away her daughter (victim) aged about 7 years in the night of 26.10.2008, outside of the village towards southern side bamboo-groove and committed gang rape on her.The report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Faizabad, dated 3.2.2009 is Exhibit Ka-5 on record.The Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the incident, which is Exhibit Ka-10 and made GD entry at Report No.21 on 08.11.2008 (Exhibit Ka-11) relating to details of blood stained clothes of the victim.Radiological report about age of the victim dated 5.11.2008 is Exhibit Ka-12, wherein the age of the victim has been assessed about 7 years.After completing formalities, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 377, 506 IPC at Case Crime No.857 of 2008, which is Exhibit Ka-4 on record.The case was committed to the court of Sessions from where the case was made over for trial to the concerned trial court.Appellant was heard on the point of charge and prima facie ground was found existing for framing charge under Section 376(g) IPC and 506 IPC.Charges were read over and explained to the accused, who denied the charges and opted for trial.In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses.The brief reference of the same is as follows:-Dr. Hari Om Srivastava is P.W.3 who has conducted rectal examination of the victim on reference being made by the lady doctor.S.I. Manager Yadav P.W.4 is Investigating Officer and has proved the various steps taken by him during investigation.He has proved original Check FIR Ka-7 and made relevant GD entry by which the case was registered which is Exhibit Ka-8 on record.He has proved relevant GD entry and allotment of Criminal Case No.857 of 2008 (Exhibit Ka-9).Thereafter evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that he is the only issue of his parents.Ashok Singh of the village is abhorrent towards his father.He used to threaten his father and his father is residing in the house of Inder Singh being scared of threat extended by Ashok Singh.Defence though wished to adduced testimony did not lead any testimony as such.The learned trial court after hearing the parties, appraisal of the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and imposed the aforesaid sentence upon the appellant.Consequently, this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, the appellant has been involved only on account of enmity with one villager Ashok Singh in whose house the first informant has been working as maid-servant and she at the instance of Ashok Singh has made false allegations against the appellant.No such incident has ever taken place.The prosecution witnesses are not worthy of credit.P.W.1 Smt. Itwari being mother of the victim is highly inimical towards the appellant.FIR is anti-timed and highly delayed.No proper explanation for delay has been given by the prosecution.The entire testimony on record creates doubt on the happening of the occurrence.There was no occasion for the appellant to commit the crime.The witnesses of fact have given contradictory description of incident.Learned AGA has replied to the aforesaid arguments by submitting that in this case, the allegations are very much corroborated by medical testimony and injury on the anus of the victim is self speaking.Even the opinion of the doctor on the point is clinching and corroborating version of the victim.The victim being girl of 7 years old has no motive to falsely implicate the appellant.The evidence of witnesses of fact corroborates each other in material particulars.The Investigating Officer has also collected credible evidence during investigation and has rightly filed charge-sheet against the appellant.The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court is consistent and based on reasonable finding.Considered the rival submissions also.After considering the above rival submissions and the allegations so made in the first information report and the evidence on record, the core consideration that arises for determination in this appeal relates to fact as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? Whether the testimony of prosecution witnesses of fact is contradictory to each other in material particulars and the same is not reliable?At the very outset, perusal of the written report, Exhibit Ka-1, reveals that allegations have been made against the appellant and one more person for committing crime of rape on the victim aged about 7 years in the night of 26.10.2008 by taking her away forcibly to the lonely place in the night committed rape on her and thereafter the victim was left alone at a short distance from her house.The victim was also threatened with dire consequences.The victim narrated the incident to her mother Smt. Itwari P.W.1 who went to the police station on 27.10.2008 but her report was not lodged.The written report is Exhibit Ka-1 and the same testimonial version has been given by Smt. Itwari- P.W.1 before the trial court.Till 1.11.2008 the first informant tried her level best that a report be lodged at the police station but police personnel at police station Gosaiganj showed laxity on their part and did not lodge the FIR and then only the mother of the victim had to move before the SSP, Faizabad for lodging FIR.Therefore, it is obvious that there is no inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR and the delay so caused cannot be said to be inordinate under the facts and circumstances as the same has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.Now meritorial aspect of this case can be considered on the strength of evidence of the prosecution witnesses and circumstances on record.It is admitted fact that the first informant Itwari P.W.1 is not an eye-witness of the occurrence.She was told about the incident by the victim P.W.2 when she came back home from the place of the occurrence after the incident had taken place.In this view of the matter, the Court has to be cautious about the testimony of victim regarding actual occurrence qua the medical testimony on record and its impact on prosecution case.On careful perusal of testimony of victim (P.W.-2), it is reflected that the appellant in the company of another co-accused took away the victim from her house between 12 mid night to 1.00 a.m. near bushes where there was bamboo-groove, in between bushes and bamboo-groove, they committed rape on her.Specific testimony has come forth that the appellant committed rape from front and back side of the victim and she stated that blood oozed out and kept on oozing.After commission of the crime, she was threatened by the appellant that in case, she told about the incident to anyone at home she and her parents, brothers and sisters will not be spared.At this Daroga Ji assured her that report will be lodged and her medical examination will be conducted but he took the victim on jeep and sent back home both of them.In the meanwhile, the appellant continued with threat of dire consequences.She has also testified that her husband, at that point of time, was away in Delhi for earning livelihood.P.W.1 also testified that after her report was not lodged, she moved typed report before S.S.P. Faizabad on 1.11.2008 and on whose intervention only the report was first lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana District Faizabad under Sections 376, 377, 506 IPC.After lodging of the first information report, medical examination of victim was done at District Women Hospital, Faizabad.Upon perusal of medial examination report facts emerge out to the extent that on external examination on 1.11.2008 at 6.25 p.m. by Dr. Arbind Kumar Srivasatava, no injury was seen on any part of body or genitalia externally.Faecal matter seen coming out through Anus.On internal examination:- Hymen intact.No vaginal smear taken.The victim was referred to Surgeon, District Hospital, Faizabad for rectal examination.She was also referred to C.M.O. Faizabad for determination of age.Obviously, the age of the victim was stated to be 7 years and in the medical examination report, it was reported that breast was not developed, auxiliary hair, pubic hair were not present.In pursuance of the aforesaid reference, for rectal examination and determination of age, the victim was further examined on 3.11.2008 by Dr. Hari Om Srivastava, District Hospital, Faizabad who reported that healed scar present at muco ceratium junction of anal carnal at 6.00 O' clock, 9.00 O' clock at 2.00 O' clock position.Anal sphincter is lax, admits two fingers easily, faecal matter is coming out spontaneously.Duration about one week.He has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that in case, penis is thrusted into anus then this sort of injury can be caused.In cross-examination, it has been clarified that this doctor witness carried out only rectal examination and nothing more.He has virtually confirmed and dittoed his testimony as given in examination-in-chief.There is nothing adverse appearing in his cross-examination that may create any doubt on this rectal medical examination.Pertinent to note that on all specific assertion regarding the nature of injury, number of injury and likelihood of causing the injury, as stated in the examination-in-chief by the doctor witness (P.W.3), the same has not been put to least challenge by the defence and this way the injuries so caused on the anus of the victim virtually corroborates the version of the victim that rape was committed on her and this fact is virtually established in so far as rectal cohabitation is concerned.The version of the prosecutrix is supported and corroborated by the innocuous testimony of the doctor witness P.W.3 based on medical examination carried out by him.Here in so far as the medical examination regarding assessment of age of the victim is concerned, it reflects that doctor Lal Mani P.W.9 has proved the age of the victim about 7 years on the basis of the Radiological Report Exhibit Ka-12 and the same is virtually admitted to the defence, as no challenge has been made to the claim of the prosecution that the victim was not of 7 years age.This report was based on radiological test of right wrist, right elbow and right shoulder.As per report, all epiphysis around wrist and elbow were found not fused.Auxiliary and pubic hair was not present.This report has no such relevance with the commission of offence so alleged because it pertains to only admitted fact of age of the victim.This report (Exhibit Ka-12), only relates to the claim of the prosecution that the victim is of tender age i.e. 7 years.This report shows presence of human blood and semen on frock of the victim.Thus medical testimony, (Exhibit Ka-3) gets further corroboration and there is no reason to disbelieve such factual aspect of this case.At this juncture, it has come in the testimony of Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh P.W.5 that he did not find any mark of injury on her private part (vagina) but all injuries were found on rectal part and faecal matter was coming out.The Investigating Officer S.I. Manager Yadav P.W.8 has filed charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 377, 506 IPC.The Investigating Officer has also proved various steps which he took for completing investigation.He has been cross-examined wherein, he has stated that initially this report was registered at Mahila Thana on 1.11.2008 at 18.15 hours.Thereafter when the territorial jurisdiction was found to be within police station Gosaiganj, the case was transferred.In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the things have taken consistent shape and developed gradually, therefore, it cannot be said that someone is manufacturing or controlling the various situations of this case.It has been vehemently contended that one Ashok Kumar Singh of the same village was on inimical terms with the appellant because Ashok Kumar Singh had forcibly possessed his land and the appellant insisted for obtaining his property from Ashok Kumar Singh.Now, it is up to the appellant to establish that fact by evidence or by circumstances but in the absence of any such effort by the appellant, this Court, on carefully perusal of testimony on record viz-a-viz circumstances of the case, does not find either any testimony or any circumstance in support of above suggestion made by the appellant to the Investigating Officer (P.W.4).It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in the matter of offence concerning rape or sexual assault, testimony of prosecutrix, if appears to be clinching, consistent and inspiring confidence, then the same can be the sole basis of conviction of the offender.Let a copy of this order be certified to the learned trial court for its intimation and necessary follow-up action.Dt: 10.05.2016 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
60,992,638 | The deceased in this case was one Muneeswaran.The first accused Mrs.Sathya is his wife.It is alleged that the second accused had developed illicit intimacy with the first accused.This came to the knowledge of the deceased.He reprimanded both of them.Then, he took a cloth and with that, he closed the mouth and nose and suffocated him.The third accused held the legs of the deceased facilitating the second accused to kill the deceased.The first accused, bite the deceased on his leg and stabbed on the testicles of the deceased with a scissor.The accused 1 and 3 then strangulated the deceased with a rope.The deceased died on the spot.Then the second accused hanged the dead body by using a ligature to make it appear as though the deceased has committed suicide.The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone.2.3. P.W.1 was the then Village Administrative Officer of Marravanatham village.According to him on 30.06.2010 at around 06.00 a.m. his Village Assistant informed him that the deceased the owner of the medical shop had died and the body was about to be transported in a car.Immediately, P.W.1 went to the place of occurrence and found the car bearing Registration No.TN 30 D 5239 in front of the house of the deceased.P19 is the postmortem certificate.P21 is the Hyoid bone report.The examination of the internal organs revealed that the deceased had taken ethyl alcohol.She gave opinion that the deceased had died due to asphyxia due to strangulation.P.W.18, collected the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same also to the Court.On the same day at around 05.00 p.m. he arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.2 and another witness.Then, he recovered a cell phone from the first accused.On 01.07.2010, he arrested the second accused in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession.Out of which a cell phone bearing No.9442734001 was recovered.He also recovered a iron pipe from him.Then he forwarded him to Court for judicial remand.The third accused had surrendered before the Court.On 16.07.2010, P.W.18 took police custody of the third accused and while in custody, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden a motorcycle.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnessed to the said place of hide out and produced the same.P.W.18 recovered the same in the presence of witnesses.2.11. P.W.5 has stated that he heard that the deceased was no more.When he went to the place of occurrence and he found the dead body of the deceased in the car.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellants are accused 2 and 3 in S.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, Villupuram district.The first accused was one Mrs.Sathya wife of Mr.Muneeswaran.Thus the deceased was a hindrance for the accused 1 and 2 to continue their illicit intimacy.Therefore, the accused 1 and 2 decided to do away with the deceased.It is further alleged that on 29.06.2010 at 09.00 p.m. on information given by the first accused, the accused 2 and 3 came in the motorcycle belonging to the third accused to the farm house of the first accused.At that time, the deceased was in the same house and he was sleeping on a coir cot.As per the earlier plot, the second accused attacked the deceased with iron pipe on the neck of the deceased.The dead body of the deceased was in the car.It was covered with a white cloth and the face alone was kept open.But there were bloodstains on the cloth.When he closely watched, he found the blood was bleeding still and there were bleeding from his testicles.P.W.18, the then Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.387 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. against the first accused and two other unknown persons.P.W.18 the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation.He went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at 08.30 a.m. in the presence of P.W.12 and another witness.He recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He recovered the bloodstained scissors found at the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 11.00 am to 12.30 p.m. on the same day and forwarded the body for postmortem.2.6. P.W.15 Dr.Vijayakumari conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.On 30.06.2010 at 01.00 p.m. she found the following injuries:Injuries: (1) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm over right knee (2) semi circular human bite mark 6x0.5 cm present superficially over upper right lateral thigh (3) 8 lacerated injuries of various sizes 3x1x0.5 to 2x0.5x0.5 in scrotum.(4) one lacerated injury 3x0.5x1 cm in the base of penis (5) 2 small abrasions in the dorsal aspect of left wrist 2x0.5cm (6) Brownish discolouration of lower half of face (7) Black coloured ligature mark running horizontally in the middle of neck extending 3 cm from midline of right side to 5 cm from medline of left side with irregular interruptions 35 cms longx1cmdeepx3 cm wide.(8) contusion 3x3 cm upper anterior midline abdomen and dissection of it showed a haematoma 3 x5cm under the skin.Internal Examination: (1) Lungs right-450 gms, left-400 gms.Congested, dark.(9) Skull: about 100 gm of clotted blood seen under the scalp in left parietal area.(10) brain: 1500 gms, congested.Dissection of neck: (a) Tissues under the ligature mark congested and dark brown in colour (b) Hyoid bone: fractured at the left lesser horn with surrounding tissues, congested and dark brown in colour (c) Epiglottis, Larynx, trachea congested and dark brown in colour.Ex.Then, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand.He forwarded all the material objects to the Court.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.On completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment, which the accused denied.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 18 witnesses were examined, 23 documents and 8 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 the Village Administrative Officer has stated that on receipt of intimation from the Village Assistant at 06.00 a.m. on 30.06.2010, he went to the house of the deceased and he found the dead body of the deceased covered by a white cloth with bloodstains and the body was lying in the car.He has further spoken about the complaint made by him.P.W.2 is the Village Assistant who has informed P.W.1 that the dead body of the deceased was lying in a car.2.10. P.W.3 is a resident of Murarpalayam village.He said that he knew the first accused and the deceased.The deceased was running a medical shop and a tea shop.He was working in the said tea shop and he used to come for work in the tea shop every day at around 3.30 a.m. and return around 08.00 p.m. He has stated that on 30.06.2010, as usual, he went to the tea shop and when he opened the tea shop, he found the deceased hanging.He believed that he had committed suicide by hanging inside the shop.Then, he informed the father of the first accused.Thereafter, he was not present at the place of occurrence.Thus, he has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.P.W.6 has stated that on hearing about the death of the deceased, when he went to the place of occurrence, he was told that the deceased had committed suicide, but he found the dead body was in the car.But there were bloodstains in the white cloth covering the dead body.Therefore, they did not allow the vehicle to be taken.P.W.8 is the daughter of the deceased.At the time of occurrence, she was hardly aged seven years.She has stated that at the time of the demise of her father, she was doing second standard.On the day of occurrence, according to her, she was sleeping in a room along with her mother and her father was sleeping on the cot.The fan was running.On the next day morning, she found her father dead.On the day of occurrence she did not saw the accused 2 and 3 at all.Thus, her evidence is of no use for the prosecution.P.W.9 is a villager, he has stated that on hearing about the death of the deceased, he went to the place of occurrence.P.W.10 has spoken about the arrest of the second accused and the disclosure statement made by him and also the recovery of M.O.2 (silver iron pipe).P.W.12 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and a rough sketch and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.13 has stated that she handed over the material objects to the forensic lab as directed by the learned Magistrate.P.W.14 a constable has stated that he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the doctor for postmortem.P.W.15 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.16 the then learned Magistrate has stated that she recorded the statements of P.Ws.6 and 7 and one Poomalai under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as requested by the investigating officer.P.W.17 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.18 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document.Their defence was a total denial.According to the daughter of the deceased (P.W.8), on 29.06.2010, she lastly found the deceased sleeping in the house.The first accused and P.W.8 were sleeping in a room separately.On the next day morning the deceased was found dead.According to the opinion of the doctor who conducted autopsy the deceased had died of homicidal violence and not by suicide.In order to prove that the death of the deceased was caused by these accused, there is no other evidence at all available on record.P.W.8 has not even stated that she found these two accused at the place of occurrence.There is no other evidence to connect these two accused with the crime.Because the motorcycle and cellphone were recovered from these accused, we cannot rush to the conclusion that these two accused had a role in the death of the deceased.The said procedure denotes a fair procedure where the proof of guilt is made beyond reasonable doubts.In other words, the Court cannot afford to convict an individual on mere surmises or suspicion.In the instant case, the prosecution has not even succeeded in establishing a mere suspicion against these two accused.Thus, we hold that the trial Court had convicted the appellants / accused 2 and 3 only on mere surmise and therefore the same should not be allowed to sustain.We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants / accused 2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubts and therefore the appellants / accused 2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal.In the result, | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
60,993,852 | (VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) JUDGE JUNE 22, 2020 N.Khanna W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 34 of 34W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 34 of 34VIPIN SANGHI, J.This petition has been preferred by the petitioner Aqil Hussain to seek a writ of habeas corpus for production of his sister - Ms. Gulfisha Fatima.The petitioner states that the his sister Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on 09.04.2020 in connection with FIR No. 48/2020 registered under W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 1 of 34 Sections 147/186/188/283/353/109/34 IPC, 1860 at P.S. Jafrabad.The bail application filed by the petitioner's sister under Section 437 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 48/2020 was dismissed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate/Duty M.M., Shahdara District, vide order dated 03.05.2020 on various grounds, including on the ground that she was involved in another case, being FIR No. 59/2020, registered under Sections 13/16/17/18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) - Section 120B read with Sections302/307/353/186/212/395/427/435/436/452/454/109/114/147/148/1 24A/153A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, and which is being investigated by the Crime Branch.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 1 of 34The petitioner submits that despite Gulfisha Fatima being granted bail in FIR 48/2020, she was illegally continued to be kept in custody on account of the registered FIR No. 59/2020, as aforesaid, by the Crime Branch.The petitioner submits that Special Courts constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) - empowered to extend the judicial custody of persons charged under any provisions of the UAPA, (including sections 13/16/17/18 which have been invoked against Gulfisha Fatima), have not been holding sittings since 23.03.2020 - owing to the suspended functioning of courts subordinate to this Court due to the W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 2 of 34 COVID-19 pandemic, and the consequent lockdown measures imposed by the Union Government.The petitioner submits that as the Special Courts empowered to extend the judicial remand custody have not been sitting, the continued detention of Gulfisha Fatima in FIR No. 59/2020 is without any authority of law.Consequently, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for production and release of Gulfisha Fatima, his sister.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 2 of 34On 19.05.2020, Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal) of the GNCTD, along with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate appeared for the respondents.However, he sought time to take instructions - whether she had been produced before the Special Court.On 20.05.2020, the matter was listed before our Bench.We issued notice in the writ petition to the respondents.Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned ASG, along with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSSC appeared for the respondents, and Mr. Mahajan accepted notice.At the same time, Mr. Mehra, Standing counsel for the GNCTD also appeared along with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate, and Mr. Mehra also accepted notice."Issue notice.Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondents.We may state that both Mr. Amit Mahajan, Standing Counsel for Central Govt. and Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for GNCTD accept notice.It appears that there is lack of clarity as to who should represent the respondents.In any event, we W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 3 of 34 permit both Mr. Mahajan and Mr. Mehra to file their respective replies, which should be filed positively within one week.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 3 of 34On the next date, we shall, apart from dealing with the merits of the case, also call upon Mr. Mahajan and Mr. Mehra to address their submissions with regard to their respective authority to represent the respondents in the matter.List on 29.05.2020."He also stated that Delhi Police had accepted the said position, and had applied for appointment of Special P.P./ Special Counsel to the Ministry of Home, GNCTD, and that the Home Minister in the GNCTD had issued appropriate orders in that regard.Mr. Mehra forwarded the communication dated 28.05.2020 addressed to Mr. Satyendra Jain, Hon'ble Minister of Home, GNCTD by Mr. Rajesh Deo, DCP (Legal Cell), PHQ, Delhi, which also contained the endorsement made by the Hon'ble Minister, approving the appointment of Special P.P./ Special Counsel to represent the respondents in the present case.He also forwarded the communication dated 29.05.2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Home), GNCTD to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Legal Cell), whereby it was informed that Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General; Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned ASG; Mr. Aman Lekhi, W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 4 of 34 learned ASG; Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel; and Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate were appointed as Special P.P./ Special Counsel to represent Delhi Police in the present case.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 4 of 34The respondents have filed their response through Mr. Amit Mahajan, Senior standing Counsel, to which Mr. Pracha has filed his reply/ rejoinder.Mr. Mahajan has filed compilations of judgments relied upon by the respondents.We have heard the submissions of Mr. Pracha on behalf of the petitioner, and of Mr. Aman Lekhi, the learned ASG on behalf of the respondents.Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned APP has supported the submissions of Mr. Lekhi and she has also made her own submissions as well.The High Court is not a Special Court designated by the Central Government under Section 11 of the NIA Act and, in the present case, the Central Government has not, in terms of Section 6(4) of the NIA Act, directed the NIA to investigate the offences alleged against Gulfisha Fatima.Therefore, in our view, advertence to Section 2(e) and Section 15 of the NIA Act is completely misplaced.Accordingly, we reject this submission of Mr. Pracha.This order has been placed on record by the petitioner himself along with his written submissions.This order reads as follows:" Present: Sh.Irfan Ahmed, Addl.PP for the State Accused Gulfisha Khatoon produced through video conferencing.Mahmood Pracha, Ld. Counsel for the accused Gulfisha Khatoon.IO/ ACP D.D. Negi alongwith Inspector Sanjay.An application for extension of J/C remand of accused Gulfisha Khatoon has been moved.Counsel Sh.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 7 of 34Mr. Pracha submits that Shri Dharmendra Rana, learned ASJ-02 purported to act on the basis of an administrative order issued by the District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge fixed the Roster of learned Judges to hear urgent matters.He submits that the said administrative order issued by the learned ASJ could not vest jurisdiction upon the learned ASJ-02 to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Special Court, which jurisdiction could only be vested by the Central Government under Section 11 of the NIA Act. In this regard, Mr. Pracha has drawn our attention to the order dated 22.05.2020 issued by the learned District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.The said order, insofar as it is relevant, is extracted herein below:W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 10 of 34NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW DELHI ORDER In pursuance to High Court order No. R-305/RG/DHC/2020 dated 21.05.2020 and in continuation of this Office earlier order No. 6364-6454/D&SJ/ NDD/2020 dated 16.05.2020, the roster of the following Judicial Officers shall remain effective from 23.05.2020 to 30.05.2020 for exercise of various jurisdictions in the New Delhi District.In exercise of powers vested with the District & Sessions Judge (New Delhi District) inter alia under Section 10(3) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, as in force in Delhi, I hereby authorize the following Additional District & Sessions Judges of New Delhi District to hear and dispose of fresh bail applications and pending bail applications pertaining to the New Delhi District Sessions Division.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 11 of 34Dharmender Rana, ASJ-02, New Delhi district shall deal with the entire remand work pertaining to Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP) Act, 1989, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act), The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act), Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Official Secrets Act, 1923." (emphasis supplied)The respondents, in their reply/ response have disclosed that on 09.04.2020, Gulfisha Fatima was arrested by the local police of PS Jafrabad in FIR No. 48/2020 under Sections u/s 186, 188, 353, 283, 341, 109, 147, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Jafrabad , District North East, Delhi.The detenue was remanded to 2 days police custody and after the expiry of the police custody remand, she was produced before the learned Duty MM, Mandoli Jail, who was holding the Court in the Jail premises itself.The learned Duty MM, Mondoli Jail sent Gulfisha Fatima to Judicial Custody at Mandoli Jail itself.The respondents have further disclosed that on 11.04.2020, Gulfisha Fatima was arrested in case FIR No. 59/2020 P.S. Crime Branch under section 120B r/w 124A, 153A, 302, 307, 353, 186, 212, 395, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 109, 114, 147, 148, 149, 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act 1984, 25/27 Arms Act after filling an application for permission for interrogation/ arrest before the learned Duty MM, Mandoli Jail.After formal arrest, she was produced before the learned Duty MM, Mandoli Jail and an application for 10 days police custody remand was W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 12 of 34 moved.An intimation with regard to invocation of the said provisions of the UAPA was given in writing on 20.04.2020 to Shri Dharmender Rana, Learned Additional Session Judge, Designated Court for UAPA, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi by the I.O. On 20.04.2020, an intimation with respect to invocation of the provisions of the UAPA against the accused Gulfisha Fatima was also given to the Superintendent, Mandoli Jail, Delhi with a request that the provisions of the said Act be added in the warrant.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 12 of 34The respondents have thereafter proceeded to refer to the various Administrative Orders passed by this Court, inter alia, with regard to the manner in which the remand of the under - trials would be dealt with in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic.The respondents state that in the light of the order W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 13 of 34 dated 22.05.2020 issued by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, District, New Delhi - relevant extract whereof has been set out hereinabove, the remand application dated 26.05.2020 was moved by the respondent before the concerned designated Court under UAPA for extension of judicial remand of Gulfisha Fatima.On 26.05.2020, the learned designated Court issued notice to the accused Gulfisha Fatima, as well as her counsel.As aforesaid, on 28.05.2020, the learned ASJ-02 passed the order of extending the judicial custody remand of Gulfisha Fatima till 25.06.2020 after hearing the submissions of the parties and after due application of mind.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 13 of 34He had been entrusted by the District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, New Delhi with the task of hearing and disposing of fresh bail applications and pending bail applications, and also authorised to deal with the entire remand work pertaining to, inter alia, UAPA.The learned District and Sessions Judge acted completely within the scope of the authority vested in him under Section 10(3) of the Code, to assign work to the Additional District and Session Judges serving in the W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 32 of 34 New Delhi District, and this position has been squarely settled by the decision in Rambeer Shokeen (supra), which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.W.P.(CRL).824/2020 Page 32 of 34Pertinently, the respondents have stated in their response that Shri Dharmender Rana, ASJ-02, New Delhi, was designated to deal with cases under the UAPA.Even if, for the sake of argument, it were to be assumed that for some reason, Shri Dharmender Rana was not the competent Court to deal with the aspect of grant of bail/ extension of remand of Gulfisha Fatima, it is clear to us that the de facto doctrine would save his order dated 28.05.2020, since he is an Additional District and Sessions Judge, and he acted under the colour of authority while exercising the jurisdiction vested in him by the order dated 22.05.2020 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court under Section 10(3) of the Code.To hold otherwise would cause public disorder, confusion and mischief.We are, therefore, of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable since the detenue Gulfisha Fatima is in judicial custody under orders passed by the learned ASJ-02, Shri Dharmender Rana who was competent to do so.For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
61,000,531 | 3.K.Palpandi ... 3rd Respondent /De-facto Complainant5.M.Marimuth ... 4th and 5th Respondents /Witnesses 2 & 3 Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code ofCriminal Procedure, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.39 of 2013 on thefile of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District andquash the same.!For Petitioners :Mr.K.Chengizkhan^For R-1 & R-2 :Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side) For R-3 to R-5 :Mr.K.Manikandan Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10837 of 2017:-3.Balu @ Balamurugan11.Ramasamy ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 11the State represented by its The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant3.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11305 of 2017, are accused Nos.1to 11 in Crime No.479 of 2012, registered for the offences punishable underSections 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x)of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and a charge sheet was filedand the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.39 of 2013 on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.Therespondents 4 and 5 are the injured witnesses in the criminal proceedings.The third respondent is the de-facto complainant in Crl.4.The petitioners in Crl.5.It appears that, after filing of the charge sheets, in both cases,the parties, namely, the petitioners in both cases and the respondents 3 to 5in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11305 of 2017 and the second respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10837 of 2017 have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and theyalso entered into a compromise.The parties have also signed in the JointCompromise Memo, in both cases.The Joint Compromise memos, dated 11.08.2017 and 25.04.2017, respectively, are produced before this Court, by the partiesconcerned.The Joint Compromise Memo have been signed by the parties in the presence of their respective counsels.O.P.(MD) No.11305 of 2017 and the second respondent inCrl.O.P.(MD) No.10837 of 2017 appear before this Court and expressed inunequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on theirown will and volition.The identities of the parties are verified withreference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before thisCourt.The identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learnedGovernment Advocate(Criminal side) through the first respondent police.Accordingly, these Criminal Original petition are allowed.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai Sub Division, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District.The Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul.2.Seeniyammal ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto ComplainantPrayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code ofCriminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the P.R.C.No.19 of2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai, DindigulDistrict and quash the same.The Criminal Original petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11305 of 2017 has beenfiled to quash the records in P.R.C.No.39 of 2013 on the file of the JudicialMagistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.2.The Criminal Original petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10837 of 2017 hasbeen filed to quash the records in P.R.C.No.19 of 2013 on the file of theJudicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.7.Since the parties have entered into compromise and agreed that theP.R.C.Nos.19 and 39 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Nilakottai, may be quashed, this Court is of the view that no useful purposewill be served by keeping these matters pending.Hence, on the basis of thecompromise memos signed by the parties, the P.R.C.Nos.19 and 39 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, are quashed in totoand the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties and produced in both cases shall form part of theorder. | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,787,208 | The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 316/2017 registered at Police-Station-Jhabua and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 608/2017 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC pending against the applicant.It is further mentioned in the complaint that when she enquired with her neighbours and relatives, she came to know that the applicant took her daughter with intend to marry her.A baby girl is also born out from their wedlock.Now the respondent No.2 has no grievance with the applicant and she does not want to prosecute the applicant.The parties parties have amicably settled their dispute and they have entered into compromise.During investigation, police recovered the prosecutrix on 01/06/2017 and she was sent to the hospital for medical examination.Thereafter, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhabua, in which she deposed that nobody has committed rape upon her and she went to Vadnagar (Gujrat) on her free will.After that police recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she levelled allegation against the applicant for commission of rape.After completion of investigation, police has filed the charge-sheet for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of M.Cr.C. No.381962019 2 the IPC against the applicant.C. No.381962019 2In this regard, the parties have filed IA No. 9005/2019, an application for cormpromise.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that from the perusal of the medical report and statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. goes to show that there is no offence as mentioned in the FIR or in the final report made out against the applicant, thus, the criminal prosecution is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law.Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 316/2017 registered at Police-Station-Jhabua and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 608/2017 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC pending against the applicant.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 accepted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they have entered into the compromise and presently, they are living happily as husband and wife, therefore, the respondent No.2 does not want to further prosecute the applicant.Hence, she has no objection in allowing the petition.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 opposed the application by contending that from the allegation made in the charge-sheet, it appears that there is sufficient material M.Cr.C. No.381962019 3 available on record to prosecute the applicant for the above mentioned offence.Hence, there is no ground available on record to quash the FIR registered against the applicant for the alleged offence as well as other consequential proceedings relating thereto.Under these circumstances, he prayed for rejection of the petition.M.Cr.C. No.381962019 3I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.From the perusal of the record, it reveals that though the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhabua stated that on the date of alleged incident, she went to Bhagoriya fare with her younger sister and thereafter, at 4:00 p.m., she went to Vadnagar (Gujrat), where, her cousin brother (the present applicant) met her and she remained with the applicant for a period of two months.She worked there for her livelihood and on 31/05/2017, she returned back to her house.In the aforesaid statement, she stated that nobody has committed rape upon her.However, when police recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., she made allegation against the applicant that he enticed her on the pretext of marriage and took her to Vadnagar (Gujrat), where he keep her in house and continuously committed rape upon her.From the entry made in the scholar register of the school, date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded 13/06/1998, therefore, on the date of alleged incident i.e. on 12/03/2017, she was 17 years and 9 months, thus, she was minor at the time of alleged incident.If it is accepted that she had gone with the applicant out of her own will, even then her consent is immaterial.Accordingly, only the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Jhabua, it cannot be said that the applicant has not committed any offence.So far as the compromise, which has been taken place between M.Cr. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,278,808 | In the aforesaid circumstances, this application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed as not pressed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,791,687 | 4 The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 would submit that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case, due to the enmity.He would submit that there was a matrimonial dispute between A1 and his wife is the deceased and that he has compromised with his wife and she had come back and started living with him during which time, the murder had been committed.He would further submit that de-facto complainant who was antognised against the petitioner for having married her daughter has falsely implicated him in the matter and would submit that the appellant/A1 was arrested on 01.03.2019 and that the investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and the case is taken on file and posted for framing of charges and would submit that some of the co-accused have been enlarged on bail and that they have been regularly appearing before the Court and if only the petitioner is enlarged on bail he would not be able to engage a counsel to defend this case.He would further submit that the offence had not been committed on the ground that the deceased belong to the Scheduled Caste Community.4/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.673 & 686 of 2019 5 The learned counsel for the appellant/ A3 would submit that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case, and would submit that the petitioner has been implicated in this case based on the alleged confession stated to have been recorded from A1 that suspecting the fidelity of his wife he had engaged hirelings through the petitioner to do away with his wife.He would submit that the respondent police had initiated action against him under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., and that they have falsely implicated him in this case and that the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed and the case is posted for framing of charges on 14.11.2019 and would submit that the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail for seeking legal assistance to defend the case and that the co-accused in this case have been enlarged on bail by this Court dated 30.09.2019 in Crl.b) The appellants/A1 & A3 and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bonds and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar Cards or 6/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.673 & 686 of 2019 Bank Pass Books to ensure their identities.c) The appellant/A1 shall appear before the Trial Court every day at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.d) The appellant/ A3 shall appear before the Orleanpet Police Station every day at 5.30 p.m., until further orders.e) The appellants/A1 & A3 shall not enter Nettappakkam Police Station limits until further orders.f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].The Superintendent of Police (West), Nettappakkam Police Station, Puducherry.3.The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.The Central Prison, Kalapet.7/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.673 & 686 of 2019 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J, ssi Crl.A.Nos.673 & 686 of 2019 21.10.2019 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in2. Padmavathy ...2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant PRAYER: The Criminal Appeal has been filed, under Section14(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989, seeking to set aside the order dated 17.09.2019, made in Crl.M.P.No.161/2019, by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry cum Special Judge under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and consequently enlarged on bail in Crime No.8/2019 on the file of the 1st respondent police.PRAYER: The Criminal Appeal has been filed, under Section 378 of Cr.P.C, seeking to set aside the order dated 04.10.2019, made in Crl.M.P.No.172/2019, by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Puducherry and to enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Crime No.8/2019 on the file of the respondent.Puducherry cum Special Judge under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Criminal Appeal No.686/2019 has been filed by the appellant/A3, seeking to set aside the order dated 04.10.2019, made in Crl.M.P.No.172/2019, by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Puducherry.2/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.673 & 686 of 2019 2 The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant Padmavathy, is that her daughter was married to one Rajasekar and the marriage was a love marriage and thereafter, dispute arose between them and matrimonial proceedings were pending before the Family Court, Villupuram.While so, some body had murdered her daughter.The de-facto complainant, suspecting that the murder has been committed, at the instance of her son in law, had given a complaint on 01.03.2019, based on which, a case in Crime No.8/2019 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.During the course of the investigation, it came to light that the husband of the deceased, Rajasekar/A1, suspecting her fidelity of his wife, had engaged hirelings and committed the murder of his wife who belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community and thereby, the case was altered for the offences under sections 109, 120-B, 341, 302 of IPC and Section 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with 149 of IPC.The applications for bail filed before the Trial Court had been dismissed.Against which the present criminal appeals have been filed.6 The de-facto complainant was directed to be implicated and private notice was ordered and the 1st respondent police was also directed to intimate the de-facto complainant despite notice an intimation there is o representation for the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant.7 The Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), would submit that appellant/A1 is the husband of the deceased and he suspecting the fidelity of his wife had conspired with the other accused and by engaging hirelings through appellant/A3 had committed the murder of his wife by slitting her 5/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.673 & 686 of 2019 throat when she had gone to purchase milk and would submit that the investigation is over and the case has been taken on file and posted the case for framing of charges on 14.11.2019 and that if the appellants/A1 & A3 enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of the appellants/A1 & A3 threatening the case and they may not be available for framing of charges derailing the progress of trial. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,792,543 | This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of externment bearing No.136/C/43 dated 16th ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: 2 wp1938.11 May, 2011 under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') passed against the petitioner by respondent No.1, whereby, the petitioner has been directed not to enter or return to the specified areas for a period of one year from the date of which he removes himself or is removed outside the limits of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban District without the prior written permission from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Chembur, Brhian Mumbai or the Government of Maharashtra.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 19th February, 2011 issued under Section 59 of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chembur Division, Mumbai proposing the externment of petitioner for one year from Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban Districts.The show-cause notice refers to around 22 criminal cases registered against the petitioner.Reference is also made to in-camera statements of witnesses `A', `B' and `C'.On the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: 3 wp1938.11 basis of the said material, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why proposed order of externment should not be passed against him.The petitioner resisted the said show-cause notice by filing reply.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::The Appropriate Authority besides considering the reply also heard the Advocate for the petitioner before passing of the impugned order.The Appropriate Authority after referring to the material on record adverted to in the show-cause notice as well as the reply, proceeded to pass the impugned order against the petitioner to extern him from the specified areas for a period of one year being satisfied that the petitioner's acts are causing and are calculated to cause harm, alarm, criminal intimidation and danger to the shop-keepers and hawkers of the localities of Chembur Camp, Indira Nagar and the areas adjoining thereto in the jurisdiction of Chembur Police Station, Mumbai.The Appropriate Authority was also satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in the commission of offence like assault, threats, criminal intimidation and in running illegal Matka gambling activities along with his associates.The Appropriate Authority also noticed that in spite of externment proceedings held against the petitioner, he committed offence under Section 12(A)-4-87 of Mumbai Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 as well as criminal intimidation.On that basis, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: 4 wp1938.11 Appropriate Authority formed opinion that the petitioner continued his criminal activities and is dangerous person to the society.He is engaged in commission of offence like assault, threats, criminal intimidation, running illegal Matka gambling activities and also offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. and that the witnesses are unwilling to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the petitioner because of the several threats given by the petitioner.The victims and witnesses apprehend danger to their life and property from activities of the petitioner.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::Those cases would be of no avail for initiating action under Section 56(1)(a) or for that matter, 56(1)(b), not being cases falling under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. For appreciating this argument, we may straightaway advert to Section 56 of the Act. It provides that whenever it appears to the specified authority of the concerned area that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or that, there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or any offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the I.P.C. or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, the said Officer by an order in writing duly served on the externee or by beat of drum or otherwise as he deems fit, direct the externee to remove himself outside the specified area within such time as may be specified and not to enter or return to the area or areas specified from which the externee is directed to remove himself.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::According to the petitioner, going by the purport of Section 56 clauses (a) and (b), in particular, order of externment can be passed, if and only if, the criminal cases registered against the proposed externee are in respect of offences under I.P.C. In the present case, however, the Appropriate Authority considered even 22 cases registered against the petitioner under provisions of Prevention of Gambling Act, a list whereof was appended to the show-cause notice.To buttress this submission, reliance was placed on the recital in the order of externment in Clause-I which refers to the activities of the petitioner.The same reads thus:"AND WHEREAS, evidence has been placed before me against the person known as Bharat Aaratmal Ramtara @ Kara, aged 51 years to the following fact:-I) That since 2004 (except when he was in Police/jail custody) in the localities of Chembur camp, Indira Nagar, and the areas adjoining there to in the jurisdiction of Chembur Police Station, Mumbai and surrounding areas, his acts and movements are causing and are calculated to cause harm, alarm, criminal intimidation and danger to the shop-keepers, hawkers, residents and businessmen of the aforesaid localities and the areas in that(a) That the P.E. Is continuously engaged in running Matka gambling with his associates and his activities causing and are calculated to cause harm, alarm, criminal intimidation and danger to the residents, shopkeepers, hawkers and businessmen of the aforesaid localities. ,(b) That he abused and assaulted the residents, hawkers, shopkeepers and businessmen of the aforesaid localities and areas when they opposed to P.E. In his illegal gambling activities, which are offences ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: 7 wp1938.11 punishable under Chapter No.XVI of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::(c) That he committed assaults, extortion and ran illegal Matka- Gambling and criminal intimidation at the point of lethal weapons which are the offences punishable under Chapter No.The argument though attractive at the first blush, will have to be stated to be rejected."There are 22 cases registered against the P.E. Under Prevention of Gambling Act. However, to decide this proposal, I have considered only one case i.e. 59/2011 U/s.506(II), 504 IPC."Suffice it to observe that in the facts of the present case, the Appropriate Authority did not consider the 22 cases registered against the petitioner under provisions of Prevention of Gambling Act while examining the proposal for externment of the petitioner.Instead, he confined the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: 8 wp1938.11 consideration with reference to only one criminal case i.e. 59/2011 under Section 506 (II) and 504 of the I.P.C. Thus understood, the ground under consideration will have to be negated.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::According to the petitioner, this opinion has been reached without reference to any material in support thereof in the impugned order of externment.We may straightaway accept the argument of the petitioner that even on fair reading of the impugned order of externment, there is no indication as to on what basis the above opinion is formed by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: 9 wp1938.11 Appropriate Authority.However, the externment order will have to be read along with the show-cause notice and material accompanying thereto served on the petitioner.Indubitably, the impugned order of externment is based on the show-cause notice served upon the petitioner on 24th December, 2011 and the material accompanying thereto.In the show-cause notice, the gist of the in-camera statements of the three witnesses `A', `B' and `C' have been reproduced.The said in-camera statements were therefore part of the proposal for externment considered by the Appropriate Authority.It is in the context of that material, the Appropriate Authority has formed opinion mentioned hitherto.In other words, the opinion of the Appropriate Authority is founded on the material referred to in the show-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::cause notice and contained in the proposal for proposed externment of the petitioner.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::To get over this position, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appropriate Authority in the impugned order has in clear terms noted that he was deciding the proposal only on the basis of one criminal case.In that event, it was not open to infer that Appropriate Authority had also considered the three in-camera statements to form the opinion referred to above.This argument clearly overlooks that the factual position regarding consideration of material in the form of only one criminal case and with regard to opinion that the victims and witnesses were unwilling to come forward to lodge complaint against the petitioner has been noted separately.Both these aspects are independent and mutually exclusive.The three in-camera statements are of the victims and witnesses.They have spoken about the unwillingness of victims and witnesses to come forward openly to lodge complaint against the petitioner for the stated reasons.In the case of Ram Narayan Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.- 1987 (1) Bom C.R. 471, relied upon by the petitioner, it was found as of fact that the externing authority has not shown as to how the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give testimony against the petitioner which is essential requirement for passing externment order under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. In that case, the Court found that in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: 11 wp1938.11 criminal case registered against the externee, as many as eight witnesses were cited in support of the prosecution case.The disputes were between specified persons of the village and the externee wherein he was the only accused.The witnesses in the said case had specifically named the externee and there was no grievance that those witnesses were not coming forward to give testimony against the petitioner.The criminal cases were pending in the Criminal Courts.On this finding of fact, the Court interfered with the externment order.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::Notably, the impugned order records that the Appropriate Authority had considered all the evidence and explanation given by the petitioner before forming his opinion which include the three in-camera statements.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::In view of the finding recorded by us in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: 13 wp1938.11 present case that there was not only material to form opinion that witnesses were unwilling to come in open to depose against the petitioner due to fear but even the Appropriate Authority has duly considered the same to form his opinion in that behalf, the argument of the petitioner under consideration cannot be taken forward.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::At least three cases have been registered against him during this time on 28th July, 2011, 20th August, 2011 and 31st August, 2011 respectively.As a matter of fact, if the said allegation is correct, that itself can be a good ground to dismiss the Writ Petition.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 :::The same deserves to be dismissed.Hence, dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:02:54 ::: | ['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. |
19,279,590 | This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused A-2 against the concurrent finding of conviction awarded by the Lower Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their own ranking before the trial Court.The case of the petitioner is that on 17.09.2008 at about 3:00 p.m., P.W.1 visited the memorial place of his parents at Balamadam.A case was registered against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 323 & 325 of IPC by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nithiravillai Police Station and also filed the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Kuzhithurai.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked 5 exhibits viz., Exs.On the side of the defence, D.W.1 alone 2/13http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2015 was examined and exhibits D.1 to D.7 were marked.After hearing the rival submissions, the trial Court found the accused A1 guilty for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment and A2 being found guilty for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo three months of Rigourous Imprisonment.The Lower Appellate Court modified the sentence ordered by the trial Court.Therefore, as in the case of A1, the sentence already imposed by the trial Court was confirmed and in the case of A2, for offence under Section 325 of IPC, the previous sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial Court was modified from one year Rigourous Imprisonment to one month Rigourous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.Against the concurrent findings, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed.3/13http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2015M.Subash Babu, learned counsel appearing for the accused, on instructions, would submit that though the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have concurrently held against the petitioner, however, lost sight of the property dispute between the petitioner and P.W.1/defacto complainant.In order to have an amicable settlement in the property dispute, P.W.1 has made a false complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency, which culminated in the complaint.In fact, P.W.2 who is alleged to have admitted P.W.1 in hospital, and projected as eye witness to the occurrence, denied the same even in chief examination, which led to him being treated as hostile.The courts below have not considered the materials on record in proper perspective and have erroneously convicted and sentenced the petitioner, which requires to be interfered.However, this only shows that in view of the lesser sentence, A-1 had refrained from preferring any appeal.The learned Government Advocate further relied on the evidence of P.W.7, the Doctor who had given treatment to P.W.1 and had deposed that P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital by P.W.2 and his name has been entered in the accident register, Ex.P-3 is a contemporaneous document, which clearly shows that P.W.2 was present at the time of occurrence, had seen the occurrence and had taken P.W.1 to the hospital.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] submits that the courts below, on proper appreciation of the materials available on record has convicted and sentenced the petitioner herein, which warrants no interfernce at the hands of this Court.5/13http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2015P.W.1, in his evidence has deposed that A1 and A2 had attacked him due to some property dispute.Moreover, the relationship of the petitioner and P.W.1 is now cordial and, hence, prays that the offence may be compounded by imposing any payment on the petitioner, to be paid as compensation.It is informed by the learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] that pursuant to the conviction, the petitioner was under incarceration for a period of fifteen [15] days before grant of bail.Hence, the judgment made in C.A.No.1 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil dated 19.08.2015 is modified as under:-(i) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of C.A.No.1/2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil;http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2015(ii) The P.W.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of one [1] week from the date of deposit, by producing necessary identification; and(iii) Failing to deposit the above said amount within the stipulated period by the accused will lead to restoration of the earlier order passed by the Lower Appellate Court made in C.A.No.1 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil dated 19.08.2015, confirming the sentence of the accused (A1) to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and in respect of A2, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.The respondent Police shall be directed to secure the petitioner/A2 to undergo the remaining period of sentence as ordered by the Lower Appellate Court, stated supra.15.With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 &2 of 2015 is closed. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
192,798,876 | Heard Sri Narendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 13/2019, Under Section 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bankata, District- Deoria.As per F.I.R. version, victim(deceased) was harassed and tortured by the accused persons for the demand of dowry.In the intervening night of 12/13 January 2019, all the named accused have killed the victim/deceased and done the cremation of her dead body without informing to her family members.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that cremation was conducted in the presence of both family members.Applicant had informed to the family members of his wife through telephone who were present on the spot with their own consent and cremation was conducted without any inquest or Post-mortem.He has filed the part of the case diary (Annexure No. 5), which shows that concern Investigating Officer has mentioned the several mobile numbers which belong to the family members and relatives of the deceased.It is further submitted that initially there was no dispute between the two family members but, subsequently dispute arose because of the property and, consequently in revenge, family members of the deceased had lodged belated F.I.R. after 15 days of the alleged incident.It is submitted that after lodging the F.I.R. the informant had not appeared before the Investigating Officer for his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Under the pressing circumstances, I.O. has issued notices to the family members of the deceased calling him upon for making their statement with respect to the commission of crime as mentioned in the F.I.R. .Learned counsel for the applicant has filed copy of all the notices, which were issued to the family members of the deceased collectively filed as Annexure No. 2 to the supplementary affidavit.Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the notary affidavit of several villagers, collectively filed as Annexure No. S.A.-I to the supplementary affidavit, who were stated that there was no dispute in family and the deceased had died natural death.Applicant has also field the call details, as Annexure No. S.A. - 4 to the supplementary affidavit, to prove that he has informed all the family members of the deceased regarding the death of his wife.He has further submits that F.I.R. has filed afterthought for some ulterior motive.Applicant has been falsely implicated in a forged and fictitious F.I.R. and he was never involved in any such crime as mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that only one child was born out of wedlock with his wife and he has to take care of his son.Informant has portraited a false story with respect to the demand of dowry, whereas there was no such demand made by any of the family members of the present applicant.It is also submitted that with respect to the harassment and cruelty for the demand of dowry no complaint has ever been filed by the family members of the deceased.On the basis of false and fictitious story, entire family members have been roped in the present matter.It is further submitted that no charge-sheet has been filed against the accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 and they have been exonerated during the investigation.It is next submitted that co-accused in the same case namely Komal Yadav and Komali Devi @ Kamala Devi have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11.06.2020 and vide order dated 16.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 11888 of 2020 and in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 49687 of 2019 respectively. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
1,927,996 | The appellant Albert Mossses was thePrincipal incharge of the Rehabilitation Centre, MalviyaNagar and Kalkaji 211under the Ministry of Rehabilitation.Appeal by special leave- from the judgment and order datedMay 1958, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhiin, Criminal Appeals Nos. 3-D and I -T) of 1958.A.S.R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh andS. C. Agarwal, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 196/60).N. S. Bindra.I. Ill. Lal and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for theappellant (in Cr. A. No. 1 97/60).H. R. Khanna, R. H. Dhebar and P. D. Menon, for therespondents.The Judgment of the Court was deliveredbyKAPUR, J.-These two appeals are directed against thejudgment and order of the Punjab High Court confirming theconviction of the appellants under ss.120 B and 420; IndianPenal Code, and s.5(1 ) (d) read with s. 5(2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1917; And sentencing each ofthem to an aggregate sentence of six months' rigorousimprisonment.It is unnecessary to set out the facts in detail but to putthem .Appeal allowed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,490,891 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.48786/2019 (Deepak @ Miththu s/o Galluram Bhabhar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 25.11.2019 Mr. R.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.Now, the prosecutrix and her husband have been examined before the trial Court on 13.11.2019; and they have not stated anything against the applicant; and turn hostile.In these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.11.25 16:32:47 +05'30' | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,424,946 | Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 342/2000, dated 28-2-2002, directing the prosecution to take cognizance and investigate the case against the applicants/prosecution witnesses Shyamlal (P.W. 4) and Bihari (P.W. 17).The prosecution case before the Trial Court, in brief was that the deceased Suwabai had advanced loan to the acquitted accused persons named Ramchandra, Ramesh and Sagar.On demand, instead of returning the loan amount, she was abused and ill-treated by the accused persons resulting into commission of suicide on 30-5-2000 by Suwabai after ablazing herself.This revision has been filed by the applicants against the judgment and order passed by the Fourth Addl.The matter was reported to the concerned police and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Ramchandra, Ramesh and Sagar.The applicants were cited as witnesses in the case.The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 306/34 and 406, 201, 202, 418 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.The applicant No. 1 Bihari was the father-in-law of deceased Suwabai and applicant No. 2 Shyam was her husband.This dying declaration has not been relied upon by the Trial Court for the reasons mentioned in paras 16, 17 and 18 of its judgment.The prosecution has also examined Dalibai (P.W. 1) daughter of the deceased and the applicant No. 2 Shyam.According to her Court statement, her mother was set on fire by the applicants (after pouring kerosene oil).She has given contradictory statement in Court to her case-diary-statement (Ex. P-1).She was declared hostile and was confronted with her case-diary-statement (Ex. P-1).Another prosecution witness Toufan (P.W. 13), who is also the son of the applicant No. 2 Shyamlal and deceased Suwabai.In para 23 of the judgment, the learned Trial Court has discussed the statement of this witness and came to the conclusion that the applicants were trying to tutor and influence Dalibai (P.W. 1).This witness has also testified in para 3 of her statement that her father applicant No. 2 Shyam had taught him about answering the questions put by anybody that Daiibai was telling a lie.This witness has also stated that Dalibai was saying that she will speak the truth and she was threatened by the applicants (grand-father and father respectively), that if she will speak the truth, she will face the same consequence like her mother.In para 19, the learned Trial Court has also considered the demeanour of the applicant No. 2 Shyamlal while giving the statement in the Court.The applicant No. 2, at the time of administering oath to him, voluntarily stated that he will speak the truth even if he is punished.The Trial Court suggested him for giving evidence without any fear and he should not fold his hands in the Court.The witness was extremely perplexed and unstable.The learned Trial Court, after over-all evaluation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences against the acquitted co-accused persons Ramchandra, Ramesh and Sagar beyond all reasonable doubt that because of their ill-treatment for demand of loan by the deceased, the deceased committed suicide.The deceased was not in any way related to them.At the same time in para 30, the learned Trial Court has directed the prosecution for taking cognizance in accordance with law against the applicants who appeared as prosecution witnesses before the Court and investigate the matter.Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass such direction for taking cognizance and to investigate the matter against the applicants who appeared as witnesses. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,495,973 | The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Goghat Police Station Case No. 438 of 2011 dated 20.11.2011 under sections 341/325/323/326/34/302 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioners shall surrender before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,497,983 | Shri S. B. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.Today, the case is listed for consideration of the compromise arrived at between the appellants and the de facto complainant. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,425,166 | A complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. was filed by Selvaraja, the first respondent herein, against Chellappa, the Chief Manager M/s.SPIC Ltd, Chennai, the petitioner herein, and another.The petitioner (A2), on receipt of summons, filed an application for discharge.After enquiry in the said application, the trial Court discharged the petitioner (A2).Challenging the same, the first respondent filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which, in turn, allowed the same.Hence, this Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner (A2).Since the complainant in his saving bank account had overdrawn to the extent of Rs.2,322/-, Suresh Kumar (A1), the Chief Manager, Bank of India, the second respondent herein, wrote a letter on 15.11.1995 addressed to the General Manager of SPIC Ltd informing him about the dues of the complainant and requesting the company to help them in recovering the said amount.The General Manager, SPIC Ltd, forwarded the same to the Chief Manager, SPIC Ltd, the petitioner herein.(b) On 18.11.1995, the petitioner (A2) sent a copy of the said letter to the complainant with a covering letter in a closed cover informing the complainant that the letter sent by the Bank of India, which is self-explanatory, for his information and necessary action.On receipt of the said letter, the first respondent/complainant filed a complaint against both the Chief Manager, Bank of India, the second respondent herein, for having sent the letter to SPIC Ltd and the Chief Manager, SPIC Ltd, the petitioner herein for having forwarded the said letter to the complainant for the offence under Section 500 r/s.SPIC Ltd to the complainant intimating about the overdrawn dues to be paid by him.The reading of the entire complaint would indicate that there are allegations only against the Bank Manager for having sent the letter to the company about the dues, even though the dues had already been cleared.SPIC Ltd was merely forwarded by the petitioner to the complainant with a covering letter.The said covering letter was only addressed to the complainant and it was not intended for others.Therefore, the main ingredient, namely, publication is absent for constituting the offence under Section 500 I.P.C.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.Consequently, Crl. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,524,125 | Manjit Kaur was offered tea by Jasbir Kaur and thereafter, she pushed her into the room where Ranjit Singh committed rape upon her in the presence of other persons as a result of which she became unconscious.These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1009-SB of 2000, 1031-SB of 2000 and 1080-SB of 2010, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.09.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab in Sessions Case No. 15T/98/22.12.95, by way of which the learned trial court has convicted the appellants along with others, namely, Ranjit Singh and Smt. Jasbir Kaur for the offences punishable under Section(s) 376(2)(g) and 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and awarded sentence of 10 years to each of them and fine of Rs.2000/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year and six months ?respectively.The facts and circumstances leading to filing of these appeals are that, one Manjit Kaur (PW-1), who was a student of class X had gone along with 15-16 other girls from her school to attend sport meet at Fatehgarh Sahib.All those 15-16 girls had been walking to reach Fatehgarh Sahib.In the meanwhile, Balbir Singh, the Director of Physical Education, asked Manjit Kaur, prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as ‘Prosecutrix’) that she should sit on the scooter of Mohan Lal Verma, one of the appellants herein.She was not initially willing to go along with Mohan Lal Verma on his scooter, but she was threatened by Balbir Singh-appellant, and thus under the pressure and force, she sat on the scooter of Mohan Lal Verma.When Mohan Lal Verma reached near petrol pump of Machlian, he stopped the scooter and pretended to repair it.Ranjit Singh, also a teacher in the same school and who had also been convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court, and whose SLP has been dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2011, arrived there on cycle and Mohan Lal Verma-appellant forced Manjit Kaur to sit on his cycle.As she had no other option, she sat on the cycle of Ranjit Singh who, after reaching Gurdwara Jyoti Sarup told her that he had to give some message to his sister, and that she should accompany him.Manjit Kaur was not willing and resisted to a certain extent but she was persuaded/forced to accompany Ranjit Singh.Both went to the house of Jasbir Kaur.By this time, Mohan Lal Verma, Amarjit Singh and Balbir Singh had already reached the place.Darbara Singh (PW-3), father of the prosecutrix lodged the FIR, though at a later stage, i.e. after one week, in the police station.The matter was investigated, charge sheet was filed against all these persons and after conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted all the aforesaid appellants as well as Ranjit Singh and Jasbir Kaur, and awarded sentence referred to hereinabove.The High Court, while hearing their appeals, acquitted only Jasbir Kaur and maintained the conviction and sentence of other persons, hence these appeals.Smt. Jaswant Kaur (PW-2) had to send a telegram to her husband and it is only after he reached their place, that FIR was lodged.The victim was examined on several dates within the period of two years and she had been consistent throughout, that rape had been committed upon her.However, her father died during the trial and it may be because of his death that both the prosecutrix and her mother had resiled to a certain extent from the prosecution case.Naturally, when the protective shield of their family had withered away, the victim and her mother could have come under immense pressure from the appellants.The only real moral (and legal) obligation is that if they agree to testify to what they witnessed, it must be the truth as they saw it.But the community has a legal and moral responsibility to respond to criminal victimization in order to preserve order and protect the community.Victims and witnesses of crime are essential partners in this community effort.Date: 11/04/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,533,155 | Kanganan @ Palanimuthu, residing at No.6/262, Malayappanagar Colony, Oorakkarai Post, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Namakkal as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in C.M.P.No.04/Bootlegger/2017/M1 dated 31.05.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Saravanan, aged 37 years, S/o.Villupuram Prohibition Enforcement Wing Crime No.149/2017 registered under Sections 4[1][aaa] and 4[1-A] of TNPNamakkal Prohibition Enforcement Wing Crime No.270/2017 registered under Sections 4[1][aa] and 4[1-A] of TNPNamakkal Prohibition Enforcement Wing Crime No.319/2017 registered under Sections 4[1][aaa] and 4[1-A] of TNP Act r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 11.05.2017, on the basis of the direction given by the Additional Superintendent of Police [PEW], Namakkal, the concerned Inspector of Police and other officials have watched vehicles and during their watch, they found one TVS Scooty Pep and the same has been intercepted and ultimately, found the detenu in possession of illicit arrack and after observing due formalities, a case has been registered in Crime No.349/2017 under Sections 4[1][aaa] and 4[1-A] of TNP Act and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived to a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as bootlegger by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the nephew of the detenu as petitioner. | ['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,581,278 | The prosecution case in brief is as follows :(i) One Savariyar Adimai residing at Mylode had four sons, namely, Rajamani, Verghese alias Anthonimuthu (P.W. 1), Selvaraj (A-1) and the deceased Dasan.The properties (a house and site of 12 1/2 cents with the trees therein) belonging to the family were not divided and they were being possessed and enjoyed by Savariyar Adimai and one of his sons, namely, Rajamani.(ii) Savariyar Adimai himself was plucking the tamarind fruits from the tree standing in the land and did not give any share to P.W. 1 and the deceased Dasan.Since Savariyar Adimai was not inclined to give any share to P.W. 1 and the deceased Dasan in spite of their demands, there was enmity between both sides for about two years prior to the occurrence.On 11-4-1982, at about 6-30 p.m. a quarrel broke out between the deceased Dasan and P.W. 1 on one side and Savariyar Adimai and Rajamani and others on the other over the division of the family properties.Deceased Dasan had gone to Thuckalay where he was running a cloth shop, after he gave evidence.Sometime thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the house of his younger brother deceased Dasan which is 300 feet south of the ration shop mentioned above on Monday Market - Alagiyamandapam Road.The house of deceased Dasan with the compound is situate just west of the road.P.W. 1 was talking to Thangabai, wife of Dasan for sometime till about 8-00 p.m. when Dasan returned home.P.W. 1 reported to deceased Dasan what all happened in the evening in front of the ration shop of Chelladurai.They, at about 9-30 p.m. P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan wanted to go to the house of Annapushpam, their sister, situate at Alangode.At that time, Everster (P.W. 5) and Arumugham Asari (P.W. 6) were talking between themselves near the gate of deceased Dasan's house.When they left the house, the tubelight in the portico of the deceased Dasan's house was burning and it was spreading light even outside.At that time, A-1 and A-2 came from the south and questioned P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan whether P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan were there only, but that the accused were making a search for them elsewhere.So saying, A-1 stabbed the deceased Dasan on his left chest with a katari knife (M.O. 1) and pulled it towards the lower side with the result the intestines came out of the abdomen with bleeding.Deceased Dasan fell down.P.W. 1 tried to lift the deceased Dasan, but A-2 the friend of A-I, was standing behind P.W. 1 and prevented P.W. 1 from lifting the deceased.Then, A-1 tried to stab P.W. 1 saying that there would be solace to the family only if P.W. 1 is killed.The stab dealt by A-1 fell on the right upper arm of P.W. 1 at first.Again, when A-1 tried to stab P.W. 1 at his neck, the stab fell below the left iliac fossa.P.W. 1 fell down pressing the injury on the iliac fossa with his hands and raising alarm.P.Ws. 5 and 6 who were witnessing the occurrence also raised alarm.A-2, and A-1 with his weapon ran away from the scene.Thangabai, wife of Dasan Rushed to the scene and bandaged the injury on her husband deceased Dasan on the left chest.(iv) Everst (P.W. 8), son of P.W. 1 who came to the scene, proceeded to Thiruvithangode and brought a taxi bearing registration number TNK 3241 driven by P.W. 11, Ratnamani.P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan were taken in the taxi to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil at about 10-30 p.m. P.W. 8 and Thangabai also accompanied them to the hospital.P.W. 11 has entered the trip in his tripsheet (Ex. P-19)(v) On 28-1-1984, at about 10-40 p.m. Dr. Rajapandian (P.W. 3) found Dasan to be brought dead to the Hospital.He examined P.W. 1 for injuries said to have been caused due to assault with katari knife at Mylode at about 9-00 p.m. on the same day and found on him following injuries :(1) Incised wound 2" x 1" depth not probed over left illiac fossa.Loops of intestines coming out of the wound over the abdomen.Fresh bleeding present from the wound.(2) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the upper 1/3rd of right arm.(vi) On receipt of Exs.P-4 and P-5 from the Hospital, Barnabas (P.W. 12), Head Constable of Kottar Police Station proceeded to the Hospital and recorded a statement (Ex. P-1) from P.W. 1 at 11-15 p.m. and obtained his thumb impression thereon as he was unable to sign due to injuries on his right hand.P.W. 12 returned to the police station and registered a case in Crime No. 95 of 1984 under sections 302 and 307, IPC, prepared the printed first information report (Ex. P-20) and sent Exs. P-1, P-4, P-5 and P-20 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagercoil who received them at 1-15 a.m. on 29-1-1984 and forwarded the same to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Eranial.P.W. 12 sent copies of Ex. P-20 to higher officials.He also sent a copy of Ex. P-20 to Eranial police station as the occurrence had taken place within its jurisdiction.On receipt of Ex. P-20, Selvam (P.W. 13), Sub-Inspector of Police, Eranial police station, registered a case in Crime No. 23 of 1984 under sections 302 and 307, IPC, prepared the printed first information report (Ex. P-21) and sent Ex. P-21 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Eranial through police constable Bhaskaran (P.W. 14).After delivering the copy of Ex. P-21 to the Inspector of Police, Eranial, P.W. 14 proceeded to the Magistrate's Court at Eranial and found that the Magistrate was on leave and that the Magistrate at Nagercoil was in charge.Thereon, P.W. 14 proceeded to Nagercoil and delivered Ex. P-21 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate at 10-15 a.m. Manoharan (P.W. 17) Inspector of Police, Eranial Circle, took up investigation of the case on receipt of copy of Ex. P-21 at 6-35 a.m. he went to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil and conducted inquest on the dead body of Dasan between 8-00 a.m. and 10-30 a.m. and examined P.Ws. 5, 6 and one Vijayakumar at that time.He examined P.W. 1 and seized his bloodstained dhoti (M.O. 2) under a mahazar (Ex. P-23).He gave a requisition (Ex. P-2) to conduct post-mortem examination on the dead body of Dasan.On dissection it was found that the abdomen cavity was completely filled with bloodstained fluid about 2 1/2 litres with blood clots about 400 grams around posterior wall of abdomen and internal organs.There was through and through injury on the descending colon with size of 1" in length and another injury on the left lobe of liver and a small niche on the abdominal aorta at the level of T 12 L 1 vertebrae.Heart : Chambers empty.The stomach contained 150 ml. of digested food.The injury was fatal.P.W. 15 seized the bloodstained dhoti (M.O. 3), bloodstained shirt (M.O. 4) and towel (M.O. 5) from the dead body and delivered them at the police station.He handed over the dead body to the relations of the deceased.(viii) Meanwhile, P.W. 17, Inspector of Police, inspected the scene of occurrence at 1-20 p.m. on 29-1-1984, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex. P-15) in the presence of Chidambaradoss (P.W. 9) and drew a rough sketch of the scene (Ex. P-24).He also seized the blood stained earth (M.O. 6) and sample earth (M.O. 7) under a mahazar (Ex. P-16).On 2-2-1984 he gave a requisition (Ex. P-7) to the Magistrate to send the bloodstained articles for chemical analysis.JUDGMENT Maruthamuthu, J.The appeal and the revision had been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1984 dated 30-8-1985 in acquitting both the accused.There were two accused against whom four charges were being framed, all relating to one and the same transaction that took place on 28-1-1984 at about 9-30 p.m. at Mylode, within the limits of Eranial police station.The first charge was against A-1 under section 302, IPC on the allegation that he committed the murder of Dasan by stabbing him with a kattari knife.The second charge was against A-2 under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC on the allegation that he and A-1 had the common intention of committing the murder of Dasan and that in furtherance of the same, A-1 committed the murder of Dasan.The third charge was against A-1 under S. 307, IPC on the allegation that he attempted to commit the murder of Verghese by stabbing him with katari knife.The fourth and the last charge was against A-1 under S. 307 read with S. 109, IPC on the allegation that A-2 committed the offence of abetment to murder by A-1 who stabbed Verghese with a katari knife.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.(Accused-1 and 2 who figure as respondents in the appeal and in the revision may be referred to A-1 and A-2 as arrayed in the Sessions Case).During that incident, P.W. 1 was attacked by Savariyar Adimai, Rajamani, his son Kalisthar and wife Marianesam and Vasantha, wife of A-1, with stick, aruval and stone.Thereupon, P.W. 1 proceeded to Eranial police station with the deceased Dasan and gave a complaint to Sasidharan (P.W. 16), Sub-Inspector of Police who registered a case in Crime No. 160 of 1982 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 336, IPC Ex. P-25 is the copy of the printed first information report in that case.Rajamani, son of Savariyar Adimai, Savariyar Adimai, Kalisthar, Murianesam and Vacantha were accused therein.P.W. 1 returned to his house in Mylode.(iii) When P.W. 1 was proceeding in front of the ration shop of Chelladurai at about 5-00 p.m., A-1 came from the opposite direction and shouted, P.W. 1 became afraid of and ran into the ration shop of Chelladurai.However, A-1 challenged and threatened that he would see P.W. 1 and went away.Police Constable Michael (P.W. 15) was in charge of the dead body.(vii) Dr. Nagarajan (P.W. 2) commenced autopsy on the corpse of Dasan at 12-30 p.m. on 29-1-1984 and found rigor mortis present in all the four limbs.He found the following injuries :One injury was found on the abdomen.On the left hypochondrium 2 1/2" left to the midline injury extended 1 1/2" below the costal margin down.Length is 4" and ended 3" left and lateral to umblicus.Omentum along with 2 feet of large intestines and 3-4 feet of small intestines seen outside through the injury.Accordingly, Yesuvadiyan Thangamani (P.W. 4), the Head Clerk of the Magistrate's Court sent the articles with the covering letter (Ex. P-8) of the Magistrate to the Chemical Examiner.After analysis, the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. P-9) and the report of the Serologist (Ex. P-10) were received in Court.On 15-2-1984, P.W. 17 got A-1 to police custody as he had already surrendered himself before Court and was in Palayamcottai prison.On 16-2-1984 P.W. 17 examined A-1 at about 9-00 a.m. in the presence of Chelliyan (P.W. 10).A-1 voluntarily gave a confession statement of which the admissible portion is Ex. P-17 offering to take P.W. 17 and his party and produce the katari knife (M.O. 1) which was kept buried in the earth.Accordingly, A-1 took P.W. 17 and his party to a place south of his house and produced the katari knife (M.O. 1.).On 9-3-1984, P.W. 17 gave a requisition (Ex. P-11) to the Magistrate to send M.O. 1 for chemical examination.Accordingly, P.W. 4 forwarded M.O. 1 to the Forensic Laboratory with the covering letter (Ex. P-12) of the Magistrate.After analysis, the report of the Serologist (Ex. P-14) were received in Court.P.W. 17 laid the final report in the committal Court on 15-3-1984 on completion of investigation.3A. When the accused were examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the Crime.He pleaded that there was enmity between one side and P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 on the other and that their evidence is false. A-2 denied that he held P.W. 1 as stated by P.W. 1 and alleged that he has been falsely implicated.No defence witness was examined on their side.After trial, considering the evidence and documents, the learned Sessions Judge found both the accused as not guilty of the offences and acquitted them.The State has preferred the present appeal C.A. No. 302 of 1986 while P.W. 1 who was injured during the occurrence has preferred Crl.R.C. No. 764 of 1985 challenging the verdict of acquittal of the accused made by the Sessions Judge.Mr. G. M. Syed Fasiuddin, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant in C.A. No. 302 of 1986 and the third respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 764 of 1985 and Mr. V. Gopinath appearing for the petitioner (P.W. 1) in Crl.R.C. No. 764 of 1985 would raise almost the same contentions as both would challenge the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Sessions Judge.They contended that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have accepted the evidence of P.W. 1 who has been injured during the occurrence, and P.Ws. 5 and 6 who are eye-witnesses who have deposed to the occurrence consistently and based a conviction on the accused.They also submitted that the eye-witness account of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 has been corroborated by the medical evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and that deceased Dasan and P.W. 1 were attacked with katari knife (M.O. 1).They added that the first information report given by P.W. 1 contains all the material facts and the circumstances leading to the occurrence and the death of Dasan and the causing of injury on P.W. 1 and that the learned Sessions Judge should not have expected the first information report as an encyclopedia so as to contain everything.They further pointed out that there is no discrepancy between the first information report (Ex. P-1) and the dying declaration of P.W. 1 (Ex. D-1) as Ex. D-1 would corroborate Ex. P-1 and that the learned Sessions Judge is not correct in holding that Ex. P-1 was prepared by P.W. 12 after Ex. D-1 so as to implicate A-1 with the murder of deceased Dasan.They submitted that Ex. P-1 was the first information report which came into existence at the earliest point of time and that it contains all the relevant facts relating to the role of A-1 and A-2 in the occurrence in Which deceased Dasan and P.W. 1 were attacked by A-1 with the katari knife (M.O. 1) and as the result deceased Dasan died on his way to hospital.Another argument is that M.O. 1, the weapon used by A-1 to attack the deceased and P.W. 1 had been recovered by P.W. 17 during investigation in pursuance of the confession made by A-1 under S. 27 of the Evidence Act and that it would also connect A-1 with the crime.They pointed out that there was enmity between the deceased and P.W. 1 on one side and A-1 on the other prior to the occurrence and that therefore A-1 along with A-2, his friend, had sufficient motive to attack deceased Dasan and P.W. 1 on the fateful day and cause and death of Dasan and that there was no reason at all to make false implication of A-1 by P.W. 1 as they are brothers.In this context, the learned counsel for the State and P.W. 1 stated that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 who have spoken to the incident that took place at about 5-00 p.m. a few hours prior to the occurrence proper.The learned counsel in both the matters submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious mistake in confusing between P.Ws. 5 and 8 who bore almost similar names and holding that P.W. 5 was not an eye-witness.They stated that the name of P.W. 5 is Everester, not related to P.W. 1 and the deceased and that the name of P.W. 8 is Everest, son of P.W. 1 himself and that these details have been clearly set forth in the first information report itself apart from the evidence and that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the difference in names and relationship and misread the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 8 and got confused.Mr. K. V. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for A-1 and Mr. Kulandaivadivelu for A-2 resisted all the contentions raised on behalf of the State and P.W. 1 and contended that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and has found the accused not guilty and acquitted them both and there is no reason to interfere with this judgment.In substance, they would adopt what all reasonings that have been made by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment, as their arguments.We heard the submissions of both side on their respective claims and contentions.It is common ground that Savariyar Adimai had four sons, namely, Rajamani, P.W. 1, deceased Dasan and A-1 and that a house property with a side said to belong to the family was in the possession of Savariyar Adimai and that P.W. 1 and the deceased Dasan were making claim for their shares in the said property, but that it was not given to them by Savariyar Adimai.It is stated that a tamarind tree situate in the vacant site is yielding fruits and that when the fruits were plucked, no share of the produce was given to P.W. 1 and the deceased Dasan in spite of their demands and that as the result, there was enmity between P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan on one side and Savariyar Adimai on the other.It is also stated that Rajamani and A-1, two other sons of Savariyar Adimai, were being favoured by him to the exclusion of P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan.According to P.W. 1, the dispute relating to the property existed for about two years prior to the occurrence.Here, we are not concerned with the question whether the said property is the family property belonging to Savariyar Adimai and his sons or whether it is the absolute property of Savariyar Adimai.We are concerned with the question what was the relationship between the parties prior to the occurrence.The prosecution has proved by the examination of P.Ws. 1 and 16 and the production of Ex. P.25 that the relationship between Savariyar Adimai, Rajamani and A-1 on one side and P.W. 1 and the deceased on the other was not cordial and that even P.W. 1 was assaulted by Savariyar Adimai and his sons Rajamani and A-1 and Rajamani's son and wife on 11-4-1982, P.W. 1 has deposed in his evidence that the occurrence in which he was assaulted by Savariyar Adimai and four others on 11-4-1982, took place over the dispute in respect of the family property.He would state that he was assaulted by Savariyar Adimai and others when he demanded a share in the produce of the tamarind tree and that he had to give a complaint at Eranial Police Station on the same day against Savariyar Adimai, Rajamani, A-1 and two others.P.W. 16, the Sub-Inspector of Police who received the complaint and prepared the printed first information report (Ex. P.25) has also subscribed his evidence in this regard and stated that he laid the charge-sheet against Savariyar Adimai and four others.P.W. 1 would further state that on 28-1-1984, the date on which the present occurrence took place the trial of the criminal case against Savariyar Adimai and others was conducted in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thuckalay and that P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan gave evidence.He would also state that A-1 was present in that Court and was watching the proceedings on that day, though he was not actually an accused in that criminal case.Of course, he happened to go there, because his wife Vasantha was one of the accused therein and he was on the side of his father Savariyar Adimai.The categorical evidence of P.W. 1 is that at about 5.00 p.m. when he alighted from the bus at Mylode near the ration shop of Challadurai, A-1 had tried to assault P.W. 1 saying that he was giving trouble to A-1 and the family by starting litigation and that the trouble would be over only if P.W. 1 was done away with.P.W. 1 is said to have taken asylum by entering into the ration shop of Chelladurai at that time.The criminal case launched by P.W. 1 in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thuckalay and the giving of evidence by P.W. 1 and the deceased Dasan in the forenoon of the date of occurrence are said to have caused irritation to A-1 and that as the result, A-1 had tried to attack P.W. 1 at about 5 p.m. near the ration shop of Chelladurai.If P.W. 1 would state in his evidence that there was no enmity between him and A-1 and that they were on talking terms till the date of occurrence, it is liable to be ignored as we clearly find that there was enmity between the parties till prior to the occurrence.It is immaterial if Chelladurai, the owner of the ration shop and who was said to be one of the persons who prevented A-1 from attacking P.W. 1 at about 5-00 p.m. preceding the occurrence is not examined as a witness.P.W. 7 who was one of the persons present on that occasion has come forward and given evidence stating that A-1 had tried to attack P.W. 1 at about 5-00 p.m. on 28-1-1984 near the ration shop of Chelladurai saying that P.W. 1 was troubling A-1 and his family by launching criminal litigation in Court and that he should be finished off if the trouble is to end.It is also stated by P.W. 7 that A-1 did not simply go away after he was separated but that he even challenged to see P.W. 1 later.The learned Sessions Judge is not correct in finding fault with the prosecution for not adducing the evidence of Chelladurai or for not mentioning the names of Chelladurai or for not mentioning the names of Chelladurai, Ramalingam and P.W. 7 in Ex. P.1, the first information report.Failure to mention the names of P.W. 7 and others in Ex. P.1 itself cannot be said to be a fatal omission.After all the incident that is said to have taken place at 5-00 p.m. has been stated by P.W. 1 as the prelude to the occurrence and one in continuity of the inimical relationship between the parties.If we consider the fact that P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan gave evidence in the Magistrate's Court at Thuckalay in the forenoon of the date of occurrence and A.1 was witnessing the proceedings by being present there, it will be quite possible and probable to hold that the incident said to have taken place at 5-00 p.m. near the ration shop of Chelladurai must be true.The prosecution case is that at about 9-30 p.m., P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan came out of the house of the deceased, that P.Ws. 5 and 6 were talking between themselves near the gate of the deceased Dasan's house compound and that at that time both the accused came from the south, that A.1 remarked on seeing both P.W. 1 and deceased Dasan that he was surprised to see them both there as he was making a search for them elsewhere, that A-1 remarked at deceased Dasan whether he was a supporter of P.W. 1, that A-1 stabbed the deceased Dasan below the left side chest and pulled the knife downwards and that as the result deceased Dasan sustained bleeding injury and his intestines came out and he fell down.It is also stated that when P.W. 1 tried to lift the deceased Dasan, he was prevented by A-2 from doing so.At that time, A-1 is said to have proclaimed that there would be peace and solace in the family only if P.W. 1 was killed and stabbed P.W. 1 on his right upper arm and left iliac fossa.Loops of intestines were said to be coming out of the wound over the abdomen with bleeding.P.Ws. 5 and 6 are said to have been present there and to have witnessed the occurrence.At about 10-30 p.m. when both the victims were brought to the Hospital, deceased Dasan was already found dead and P.W. 1 was examined by P.W. 3, the Medical Officer, and was treated for his injuries.He would consistently state how A-1 attacked the deceased Dasan at first and then P.W. 1 with a knife.His evidence is that deceased Dasan had gone to Thuckalay to attend to his business in the cloth shop and returned after 8-00 p.m. to his residence at Mylode and that it was only thereafter at about 9-30 p.m. when he and P.W. 1 came out of the house of Dasan, A-1 attacked both the deceased Dasan and P.W. 1 with knife.The occurrence has taken place at 9-30 p.m. and P.W. 1 has given Ex. P.1 to P.W. 12 at about 11-15 p.m. after P.W. 3 had sent an intimation (Ex. P.4) to Kottar police station and P.W. 12, the Head Constable of that station has visited the Hospital, P.W. 12 who recorded Ex. P.1 at 11-15 p.m. from P.W. 1, has returned to Kottar police station and registered a case in Crime No. 95 of 1984 and prepared the printed first information report (Ex. P.20) and has forwarded a copy of Ex. P.20 to Eranial police station within the jurisdiction of which the occurrence in question has taken place.Copy of Ex. P.20 has been received by P.W. 13, Sub-Inspector of Police, Eranial police station at 6-00 a.m. on the following morning (29-1-1984).He in turn has registered a case in Crime No. 23 of 1984 and prepared the first information report (Ex. P.21) and sent a copy of (Ex. P.21) to P.W. 17, Inspector of Police, for taking up investigation.P.1, P.W. 4, P.5 and P.20 have been sent by P.W. 12 from Kottar Police Station to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagercoil and the same have been received by the Magistrate at 1-15 a.m. (29-1-1984).The observation of the learned Sessions Judge that Ex. P.1 cannot be construed as the statement given by P.W. 1 is not warranted at all in this case in view of the facts stated above.We have already seen when and how Ex. P.1 came to be recorded and the printed first information report (Ex. P-20) came to be prepared and it reached the concerned Eranial police station.Because the date "28" in Ex. P.20 has been corrected into "29" as the date of despatch of the first information report to the Court and other superior officers and there is correction in the mention of Crime No. 95 of 1984 in Ex. P.20, it is not possible to attribute any design for the prosecution since the case has been registered at 11-55 p.m. at night and Ex. P.20 has been forwarded by P.W. 12 from Kottar police station to Eranial Police station thereafter.There were only five minutes to go after the registration of the case at Kotta police station and it is therefore but natural that the date 29-1-1984 was mentioned in Ex. P.20 as the date of despatch of the first Information Report.The testimony of P.W. 12 is also to the same effect and the first information report is said to have been sent to Eranial police station in the following morning.If P.W. 12 did not inform Eranial police station through phone or V.H.F. after 11-55 p.m. on 28-1-1984, no motive can be attributed therefore.Since it was midnight, P.W. 12 might have thought that no useful purpose could be served immediately even if the information was sent through those sources and therefore he had sent a copy of Ex. P.20 through a police constable to Eranial police station.It implies that even about 1 hour 40 minutes prior to recording of dying declaration (Ex. D-1) by the Magistrate, Ex. P.1 has come into existence and action has been taken by the police officers concerned thereon and it has reached the concerned Eranial police station at 6-00 a.m. itself.Ex. P.1 along with Exs. P-4, P-5 and P-20 has reached the hands of the Magistrate at Nagercoil at 1-15 a.m. (29-1-1984) itself, that is, on the same night and within about two hours after the recording of Ex. P.1 given by P.W. 1 to P.W. 12 and within about 20 minutes after the recording of the dying declaration (Ex. D.1) by the Magistrate at the hospital.Therefore, the questions whether the statement in Ex. P.1 is lengthier than Ex. D.1 and whether P.W. 1 could have been conscious to make such a lengthy statement in Ex. P.1 and whether Ex. P.1 should be taken as true, do not arise.If Ex. P.1 has not been certified by the Medical Officer, it is not a ground of view it with suspicion.P.W. 12 would state that he proceeded to record Ex. P.1 from P.W. 1 after P.W. 1 was pointed out by the Medical Officer concerned.P.W. 3 might have sent Ex. P.5 to the Magistrate for recording a dying declaration from P.W. 1 from the point of view of safety and not for the reason that the condition of P.W. 1 was serious, Evidently, P.W. 3 had certified in Ex. D.1 that P.W. 1 was conscious during he making of the statement (Ex. D.1).This would only mean and imply that P.W. 1 was conscious even at the time of his making of Ex. P.1 to P.W. 12 at 11-15 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge has gone wrong in holding that the condition of P.W. 1 must have been serious and that he would not have been conscious to make the statement in Ex. P.1 and that Ex. P.1 should not be accepted as true.Of course, P.W. 1 has not stated in Ex. D.1 about the attack made by A-1 on the deceased Dasan and the causing of injury on the abdomen below the left side chest.But, it does not mean that P.W. 1 did not see the occurrence relating to the attack made by A-1 on the deceased Dasan, as earlier to Ex. D.1, P.W. 1 has clearly stated in Ex. P.1 that A-1 stabbed the deceased Dasan on his abdomen below the left side chest with a katari knife.The explanation offered by P.W. 1 for his not mentioning the role of A-1 in relation to the attack on the deceased Dasan must be taken into consideration.This explanation offered by P.W. 1 has to be taken into consideration in a right spirit considering the circumstance in which he was being placed.P.Ws. 5 and 6 are consistent in their evidence that A-1 stabbed the deceased Dasan on his abdomen with a katari knife and that thereafter he stabbed P.W. 1 also who was seen with the deceased Dasan in front of the house of the deceased Dasan.They would claim to have witnessed the occurrence as they were talking in front of the house of the deceased.Evidently, both the witnesses belong to the locality, and the house of P.W. 2 is just north of the house of the deceased Dasan at some distance.The location of the house of P.W. 6 has also been indicated in the sketch (Ex. P.24) and observation mahazar (Ex. P.15).Nothing has been proved on the side of the accused to show that these witnesses are interested in the deceased and P.W. 1 or biased against the accused.They have clearly denied all the suggestions made to them on the side of the accused attributing motive to depose in this case.P.W. 6 would assert that he had come forward to give evidence as he had actually seen the occurrence.He seems to have been impelled by his conscience to depose.Normally, the eye witness account would require a careful and independent assessment and evaluation for the credibility.The evidence must be tested for inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story.The evidence of the eyewitness, if accepted, is sufficient to warrant conviction, though in appropriate cases, the Court may seek some confirming circumstances from other sources as measure of caution.It is also well settled that it is the duty of the Court to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff instead of taking an easy course of rejecting the prosecution case in its entirety merely on the basis of a few infirmities.The testimony of P.Ws. 5 and 6, if scrutinised along with that of P.W. 1, clearly leaves an impression that it is true and reliable.The definite evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 is that an electric tubelight was burning in the portico of the house of the deceased Dasan spreading light even at the place of occurrence.P.W. 17 has noted in Ex. P.15 that the tubelight was being fixed in the eastern border of the portico and that the distance between the portico and the scene of occurrence was only 38 feet.The compound wall of the house of the deceased Dasan is just 4 feet high and so there was no obstruction of the electric light from the portico of 9 1/2 feet high to the scene of occurrence.Further, the place of occurrence is nothing else except the mud portion of the road and 4 feet from the gate of house of the deceased Dasan.P.Ws. 5 and 6 are said to have remained at a distance of about 15 feet from the scene of occurrence.In the circumstance, it has to be held that P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the ocular witnesses and their evidence is credible.The learned Sessions Judge has committed the serious error in branding P.Ws. 5 and 6 as not eye-witnesses, he has not properly scrutinised the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 and the documentary evidence in Ex. P.1 which forms the first information report in this case.The name of P.W. 8 is Everest and he is the son of the deceased Dasan.He was not an eye-witness.The only role played by him is that he arrived at the scene after occurrence and arranged to take the deceased Dasan and P.W. 1 is a taxi driven by P.W. 11 to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil.But, the learned Sessions Judge has grossly confused himself between P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and has held that P.W. 5 is not an eye-witness.Of course, Ex. P.1 mentions that 'Everest' was one of the eye-witnesses.It also mentions that one Everest was the person who came to the scene after occurrence and who took the deceased and P.W. 1 in a taxi to Government Hospital, Nagercoil.But, the description of Everest in both the contexts should be noted.P.W. 1 says that he (Everest) belongs to his village (vernacular matter omitted) and that he was the person who was talking with P.W. 6 in front of the house of the deceased Dasan.If only the learned trial Judge had just bestowed his attention for a while as to why two persons of the same name appear in Ex. P.1, but in different context and with different roles to play, he could have seen that P.W. 5 is Everester who was an eye-witness with P.W. 6 and that P.W. 8 is the person who came to the scene after occurrence and who took the deceased and P.W. 1 to the Hospital at Nagercoil.Because the learned Judge has not distinguished between P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 with regard to their roles played in this case, he has been misled to think that P.W. 5 is not an eye-witness.Even if the names of both P.Ws. 5 and 8 are mentioned to be the same in Ex. P.1, a perusal of their depositions will make it clear that they are two different persons and that P.W. 5 actually bearing the name Everester, not Everest, is the eye-witness.The names of the fathers of P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 are also mentioned differently in their depositions.Another reason stated by the learned Sessions Judge for rejecting the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is also not sound.He states that P.W. 17 who conducted inquest on the dead body of Dasan on 29-1-1984, has not recorded the statements of P.Ws. 5 and 6 as witnesses who had seen the occurrence.This is also obviously wrong.Mention has been made in column IV of the inquest report (Ex. P-22) that P.Ws.5 and 6 are persons who were found with the deceased Dasan and P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence when the deceased Dasan was alive.P.W. 17 states that he examined P.Ws. 5 and 6 also during inquest and the same is confirmed by P.Ws. 5 and 6 also.That apart, the names of P.Ws. 5 and 6 would figure as eye-witnesses even in Exs.P.1 and D.1 at the earliest.Probably, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to take note of this aspect of the evidence.P.W. 17 had to examine P.W. 1 only on the next day (29-1-1984) of the occurrence as he had received the first information report (Ex. P.20) in this case from Kottar Police station only at 6-35 a.m. However, P.W. 1 has already made a statement (Ex. P.1) to P.W. 12 and a dying declaration (Ex. D.1) to the Magistrate.The medical evidence is also in corroboration of the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 who have stated that A.1 stabbed the deceased Dasan with a katari knife on his abdomen below left chest and that he also stabbed P.W. 1 on his abdomen below the left loin and right upper arm with the same weapon.So far as the attack on A.1 is concerned, the uniform evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 is that A-1 stabbed the deceased on his abdomen below left chest and pulled downward and that as the result, the intestines came out.M.O. 1. is called as katari knife.The Serologist would describe it as a clasp knife.It has got sharpness in one side of the blade while it is blunt on the other.Its blade portion alone is 12 cm.P.Ws. 1 and 2 would state that when deceased Dasan fell down after the infliction of the stab on his abdomen by A.1, P.W. 1 tried to lift the deceased Dasan, but that A-2 had prevented P.W. 1 from doing so and that is all.Appeal partly allowed. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 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. |
158,128,352 | Heard on point of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition record of the lower court.Heard on I.A. No.8580/2015, which is first application under section 397 r/w section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant- Mukesh S/o Tejram Bhil.The present applicant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :The present applicant is reported to be under custody.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already completed three months of imprisonment out of one year R.I. awarded on him.He also submits that he remained on bail during trial. | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,131,096 | CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 2 of 40When goods are transported from one destination to another, the goods are insured for the period during which they are being transported and till they are delivered at the destination.The consignor is usually the person selling the goods and the consignee is the purchaser of the goods.The premium could be paid for, depending on the terms of purchase, by either the consignor or the consignee.The marine open policy covers internal transport of goods by road as well.A cover note is issued by a clerk in the insurance company who is authorised to do so.At that stage the insurer usually submits the proposal and requisite documents.After collection of the premium amount, the policy cover note is issued.When goods are either stolen during transit or damaged or failed to be delivered, a claim is lodged with the branch which CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 4 of 40 issued the policy.The insured gives intimation to the NIC and the Branch Manager appoints a Surveyor, from the approved list for that branch, to assess the loss.The Surveyor then submits a report along with photographs, the proposal certificate and the goods received.A clerk in the concerned NIC Branch then processes the claim and submits it to the Branch Manager for approval.After approval by the Branch Manger, the file goes to the Account Clerk for preparation of the cheque.After the cheque is prepared, it is signed by two authorised signatories one of whom is the Branch Manager.The cheque is then handed over to the insured/claimant.Usually the Surveyors fee is also paid at the same time as the claim is settled.During the relevant period, Pushpender Kumar (PW-4) was working as an Assistant in the Kapashera Branch in the underwriting department.He CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 5 of 40 was maintaining the premium register of four departments i.e. fire, marine, motor and miscellaneous.He disclosed in his evidence that between 1995 and 1998, L.K. Gupta was the only person in the Officer Grade in the Kapashera Branch.In other words, there was no Senior Assistant, Double Assistant Administrative Officer during this period.The Kapashera Branch was under the Divisional Office (DO) Gurgaon.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 5 of 40On a perusal of some of the files it appeared that certain claims were fictitious.The files of 5 to 6 such claims were seized.Mr. A.L. Gambhir (PW8), who was the Assistant Administrative Officer of NIC working in the Vigilance Department, was involved in the inquiry.In his evidence, he stated that after seizing the files, he submitted them to one Mr. A.K. Seth, in-charge of the Vigilance Department of NIC, Delhi Region.He stated that "the documents like Power of Attorney, Indemnity Bond, carrier receipts etc. were missing in those files which I had seized." However, he could not remember the details in the files which he had seized.Importantly, he stated that although he had prepared a seizure memo when he had seized the files, the said seizure memo was not on the record of the learned trial Court.Secondly, although he had submitted an inquiry report to Mr. A.K. Seth, the said report was also not on the trial Court record.A search was conducted on 22nd August 2001 in the residential premises of L.K. Gupta and Sanjay Raina.The claim files (Ex.P1 to P7) pertaining to the fictitious claims were seized from NIC under seizure memo (Ex.PW2/A).CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 6 of 40The chargesheet listed out seven claims which appeared to have been settled by the Kapashera branch, NIC in an illegal manner.The claims listed in the chargesheet were as under:(i) Claim No. 21/96-97-05 and the corresponding policy which was taken on 22nd April 1996 by Sanjay Raina (A2) in the name of M/s. Sonia & Co., 18, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi-92 by paying a premium of Rs. 2,220 for transportation of central chemicals from anywhere in India to Delhi.ZKC also submitted a bill of Rs. 1,664 towards survey fee.The survey report and the fee bill were accepted by L.K.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 7 of 40Gupta (A1) Branch Manager.The cheques dated 19th August 1996 for Rs. 27,300 and Rs. 1,664 respectively were issued by NIC.Both the cheques were encashed by A2 in his accounts at HDFC Bank and the Bank of India respectively.Later, it was found that the address given for Paras in Bombay was non- existent.There was no goods receipt, no letter of subrogation, no details of the correspondence between the insured and the transporter.The details of appointing ZKC as a surveyor were also not available on the file.Although the full claim was paid, no recovery agent was appointed.In the chargesheet it was stated that in claim filed, the insurance agent code was mentioned as 320/3, which pertained to one Rakesh Jain but had been registered in the name of his wife, Poonam Jain (PW-12).When he was questioned, he denied having introduced M/s. Sonia & Co. for obtaining the insurance policy.The claim contained the letter of subrogation and photocopy of the goods received.M.I. Thomas (PW1) deposed in Court that no such firm like M/s. L.A. Marketing Agency was a tenant at the address given for the said firm.PW12, Ms. Poonam Jain, also stated that her husband, Rakesh Jain, an insurance agent, had never dealt with a company by the name of Silk Screen.The cheque was credited to the account of M/s. Silk Screen.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 10 of 40(iv) The fourth claim was 97-98/01 and the corresponding policy taken by Sanjay Raina on 21st April 1997 in the name of M/s. Sarthak Enterprises, the address of which was no different from that of M/s. Silk Screen.This was for transporting cardboard papers from Bombay to Delhi.Both the amounts were passed together by L.K. Gupta for the payment of Rs. 46,300 and a cheque for that amount dated 13th June 1997 and another cheque of the same date for Rs. 2,594 were issued and encashed by Sanjay Raina.The account of M/s. Sarthak Enterprises was introduced by A4, a proprietor of Silk Screen.The Consignor was M/s. Topaz Card Manufacturing Co. and the carrier was shown as Bullet Road Carriers.The address was that of one Prem Gambhir (PW-6) who denied having issued any goods receipt.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 12 of 40The consignor was L.A. Marketing Agency, a fictitious firm.The transporter was shown as M/s. Narang Road Carriers, also a fictitious firm.The entire claim was lodged and a cheque for Rs. 28,180 was issued which was encashed by Sanjay Raina.The missing documents included the goods receipt, the letter of subrogation, the details of appointment of surveyor, the details of the recovery agent appointed, copy of the marine policy and the entry regarding the claim.And I hereby direct that you all be tried by this court on the said charge."It is seen that there are three main charges - the first concerns the offence of criminal conspiracy with which all the accused have been charged.It clubs all the seven transactions discussed hereinbefore and charges the accused for the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.The second charge pertains exclusively to A1, L.K. Gupta.He is charged with having abused his official position as a public servant during 1995-98 and passed fraudulently the bogus marine claims in respect of the seven transactions in order to obtain illegal gratification and allow NIC to be cheated by other accused persons, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) and Section 15 of the PC Act.The third does not pertain to A1, L.K. Gupta, at all.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 15 of 40PW4 stated that the cheque for Rs. 27,300 in favour of M/s. Sonia & Co. was signed by him at point A and by L.K. Gupta at point B. He highlighted that he had signed the cheque after LK Gupta had.The file of this claim was Ex.P1 and when it was shown to Geeta Sharma (PW5), she stated that it did not contain the goods receipt and the letter of subrogation.However, it contained the surveyors report.The details of appointment of surveyor were not available.For this claim, the insurance agent, who introduced the insured, was Poonam Jain, the wife of Rakesh Jain (PW13), who was working as an insurance agent in her name.She stated that her husband never dealt with M/s. Sonia & Co.. PW-13 deposed likewise.H.K. Sharma (DW-4) proved that ZKC was not in the list of approved surveyors.These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 3 rd March 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in CC No. 31/07 convicting:(i) All the Appellants under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act);(ii) Appellant L.K. Gupta for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act;(iii) Appellants Sanjay Raina, Rajeev Kumar Goyal and Deepak Handa (A-2 to A-4) for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 5 th March 2008 whereby:(i) Appellant L.K. Gupta was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year and RI for one year and a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with both the sentences being directed to run concurrently.(ii) Appellant Sanjay Raina was sentenced to RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000 and in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 420 IPC and an identical sentence for the offences under Sections 467 read with Section 471 IPC and 468 read with Section 471 and RI for one year for the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all sentences being directed to run concurrently.(iii) Appellant Rajeev Kumar Goyal was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and a fine of Rs.25,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for each of the offences under Section 420 IPC, Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC and Section 468 read with Section 471 IPC and RI for one year under Section 120 B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all the sentences being directed to run concurrently.(iv) Appellant Deepak Handa was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000 and in default to undergo SI for CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 3 of 40 three months for each of the offences under Section 420 IPC, Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC and Section 468 read with Section 471 IPC and RI for one year under Section 120 B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all the sentences directed to run concurrently.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 3 of 40At the time of admission of appeals on 31 st March 2008, this Court suspended the sentences awarded to each of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals subject to terms.The Court s informed that the fine amounts have already been paid by the Appellants.Procedure for processing marine claimsBefore discussing the particular facts of these cases it is necessary to understand how the marine open policy comes to be issued.If the right of recovery has been protected by issuance of notice to the carrier, the Branch Manager can, in his discretion, after settling the claim, appoint a recovery agent.Carriers typically pay 5 to 10% of the claim amount.In case the goods are not damaged but some part of it goes missing before reaching the destination, the insurance company appoints a tracer for tracing the goods.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 4 of 40Case of the prosecutionNIC issues various general insurance policies, fire policies, marine policies, medical policies and other miscellaneous policies.The address given in the account opening form of M/s. Sonia & Co. was 106B, DDA Commercial Complex, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, which was also the address of ZKC.A2, Sanjay Raina, was both the insured as well as the surveyor in the case.The account CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 8 of 40 opening form of ZKC mentioned the name of the proprietor as Vinod Kaul.The handwriting expert had established that Vinod Kaul and Sanjay Raina were one and the same person.The chargesheet alleged that the entire claim of M/s. Sonia & Co. was processed by L.K. Gupta himself without involving the other subordinate staff "in violation of established procedures."CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 8 of 40(ii) The second transaction, as per the chargesheet, involved claim No. 44/95-96/04 and the corresponding policy taken by Raj Kumar Goel (A3) in the name of Rajeev Kumar & Co. on 7th November 1994 for transporting chemicals again from Paras in Mumbai to Rajeev Kumar & Co. in New Delhi.The address of Rajeev Kumar & Co. was the same as that of M/s Sonia & Co. In the file, there was no survey report.No details of appointment of any recovery agent were available in the file.However, a bill for the fee of the recovery agent in the name of Vinod Kaul was found in the file.The address of Vinod Kaul is the residential address of Sanjay Raina (A2).The name of the transporter was shown as Narang Road Carriers with the address being that of Gali No.3, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 and no such carrier existed at that address.Sanjay Raina made the payment towards recovery by a cheque dated 26th March 1996, when, in fact, it had to be made by Narang Road Carrier.Paras was a fictitious firm.Again, it was alleged that L.K. Gupta had himself passed the claim without involving any subordinate staff.The signature of A3 in the account opening form of Rajeev Kumar & Co. was confirmed by the handwriting expert.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 9 of 40(iii) The third claim was claim No. 21/95-96/07 and the corresponding policy taken by Deepak Handa (A4) in the name of M/s. Silk Screen with the address 61F, Ber Sarai, New Delhi on 13th December 1995 for transporting chemicals bought from M/s. L.A. Marketing Agency, Mumbai.The surveyor was same ZKC, which was the same Surveyor used for that of M/s. Sonia & Co. A4 was the brother-in-law of A2, Sanjay Raina.Vinod Kaul was shown as a recovery agent but he was not in the list of approved recovery agents.ZKC was not a surveyor empanelled for the Kapashera Branch, NIC.The surveyor was again ZKC appointed by L.K. Gupta.ZKC submitted a report dated 20 th May 1997 assessing the loss as Rs. 46,300 and a bill for Rs. 2,594 towards the survey fee.The agent code pertained to Shalini Gupta (PW-26) who denied having introduced M/s. Sarthak Enterprises.Shalini Gupta was the wife of Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, the brother-in-law of L.K. Gupta.Although the full amount claimed was paid, no recovery agent was appointed.L.K. Gupta processed the claim without informing the subordinate staff.(v) The fifth claim was claim No. 97-98/10 and the corresponding policy which was taken by Sanjay Raina in the name of SKW & Co.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 11 of 40The address of SKW & Co. was the same as the fictitious firm, i.e., Narang Road Carriers and Goel Road Carrier.The policy was for covering transport of ball bearing from Bombay to Delhi.The name of the consignor is not available on the file.The transporter was shown as M/s. Bullet Road Carriers.ZKC was again appointed as the surveyor and submitted a bill for Rs. 1,500 towards the survey fee.L.K. Gupta passed the claim for Rs. 49,304, which included the survey fee and one consolidated cheque was issued for the said amount on 14 th July 1998, which was encashed by Sanjay Raina.The recovery agent was shown to be Rakesh Modgil and the amount to be deposited of Rs. 3,451 was arranged by A2 himself in the name of M/s. Webers India, which was a fictitious firm.Rakesh Modgil was not paid the recovery agents fee.He was not given anything to show that he has been appointed as a recovery agent or that he recovered any amount from the transporter.The agent code 310/20 belonged to Ashish Kumar Jain who was registered as an insurance agent in the name of Riti Arora.He denied having introduced SKW & Co. The address of SKW & Co. was also the same as that of ZKC.Here again, the claim was stated to have been processed and passed by L.K. Gupta without involving the subordinate staff.The consignor CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 12 of 40 was shown as L.A. Marketing Agency, a fictitious firm.The transporter was shown as M/s. Nishant Transporter, which was again a non-existent firm.The claim was recommended by Jagdish Kumar Meena (PW9).The charges framedBy an order dated 11th August 2003, the Special Judge framed the charges against the accused.Since there have been considerable arguments on the question of charge, it is important to set out the charges themselves in extenso.They read as under: "I, Prem Kumar, Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi, do hereby charge you accused L K Gupta, Branch Manager, NIC, Kapashera, New Delhi, 2) Sanjay Raina r/o 269-C, Dilshad CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 13 of 40 Garden, Delhi, 3) Deepak Handa r/o B-1/33-2, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi-29 and 4) Rajeev Kumar Goel r/o no.18, Radhey Shyam Park, New Delhi, as under:CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 13 of 40That during 1995-1998, LK Gupta Branch Manager, NIC, Kapashera, New Delhi entered into and executed criminal conspiracy with Sanjay Raina, Deepak Handa and Rajeev Kumar Goel and abused his official position as public servant and passed six fictitious marine claims in favour of those bogus claimants private firms/companies on the basis of forged, false claim documents, purported to be genuine by accused mentioned above which were received by accused persons fraudulently and cheated the NIC Ltd. in the garb of the following firm companies:1. M/s. Sonia & Co. Claim No. 21/11-0004/124/96M/s. Silk Screen Claim No. 21/95-96/07M/s. Sarthak Enterprises Claim No. 97-98/01M/s. SKW & Co. Claim No. 97-98/105. M/s. Abha International Claim No.96-97/08M/s. Abha International Claim No.98-99/12 and thus committed offences punishable u/s 120 B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and within my cognizance.Secondly, that you LK Gupta Branch Manager, NIC, Kapashera Branch, New Delhi, abused your official position as a public servant during 1995-98 and passed fraudulently all bogus marine claims in favour of the above mentioned 6 fictitious firms/companies in order to obtain illegal gratification and allowed NIC to be cheated by other accused persons and committed offence of criminal misconduct punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and 15 of P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.Thirdly, that you Sanjay Raina, Deepak Handa and Rajeev Kumar Goel submitted respective false marine claims after forging documents with intention to cheat NIC and received payments through cheques for your respective fictitious firms in CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 14 of 40 order to cheat NIC and thereby cheated NIC to the tune of Rs. 2.6 lacs as per details given in the charge sheet and thereby committed offences u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and within my cognizance.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 14 of 40The next contention advanced by the Appellants concern the seizure and preservation of files by the Vigilance Department of NIC and their subsequent entrustment to the CBI.It is stated that with there being a clear admission by PW8 that the seizure memo and the inquiry report prepared by the Vigilance Department not being in the judicial file at the time of trial, the burden was on the NIC to show what had happened to the documents found missing in the files seized.According to learned counsel for the Appellants, unless the seizure CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 22 of 40 memo prepared by the Vigilance Department of NIC was made available, it would not be possible to know what papers existed when such seizure took place and if the files were not preserved in a tamper proof environment, then the Appellants would have the benefit of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and would be able to contend that an adverse inference ought to be drawn that the documents were kept back by the Prosecution would have, in fact, enured to the benefit of the accused.He was part of the Vigilance Department which conducted the surprise check.He states that "I have prepared the seizure memo.I seized the files from National Insurance Company Limited, Kapashera Branch.I had seized the files from the Branch Manager but the seizure memos are not on record." He further states "these files which were seized by me remained in the custody of the Vigilance Department.There is no procedure in the Vigilance Department to prepare the handing over memo." He clarifies that the files "remained in the custody of the Vigilance Department." He adds that he had prepared the inquiry report which he submitted to Mr. A.K. Seth but that "my report is not on the judicial file." He states that I had not given the details of the missing documents in the seized files to the officials of NIC, Kapashera."In his examination-in-chief, PW-8 clarified that he found certain claims to be fictitious "because certain papers were not available in CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 23 of 40 the file." He later clarifies in the same examination-in-chief that "the documents like Power of Attorney, Indemnity Bond, carrier receipts etc. were missing in those files which I had seized." At this stage, it must also be noted that it is stated in the evidence of PW9 that he processed the claim in Ex.P6 of M/s. Abha International and that all the papers in the said filed were recommended by him to be in order.PW9 himself being involved in the process of claim in Ex.P6 was, however, not proceeded against by the CBI.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 23 of 40However, there is another aspect of the matter which involves claims being made on behalf of fictitious firms with fictitious consignors and road carriers.There, it does not matter much that some of the papers may have gone missing as long as there is enough evidence on record to show that the claims were made on behalf of fictitious firms with the transporter and consignor also being fictitious.Consequently, while it is true that there is nothing to indicate that CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 24 of 40 the files seized by the Vigilance Department remained with it in a tamper proof environment till they were handed over to CBI, no adverse inference is possible to be drawn against CBI qua all the accused, but at best, against L.K. Gupta, who is the person who is supposed to have checked all the papers in the file before approving the claims for payment.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 24 of 40The Court now proposes to consider the case concerning each of the claims in seriatim also proposed to adopt the same approach.The role of each of the accused will also be discussed.Claim of M/s. Sonia & Co.The facts of this claim have already been noticed earlier.Likewise, DWs 6 and 7 stated that they had not heard of ZKC.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 25 of 4033. DW-4 in his cross-examination produced the panel of surveyors for the Gurgaon Division for marine claims.He received this information by a letter dated 13th September 2007 from the Dy.GM of the Delhi Region office.It is not known how this witness was able to obtain a document, without permission of the learned trial Court, in between two hearings and even marked it as an exhibit." The enclosed panel itself simply gives the names under the title Marine, without specifying the year of empanelment.At best, it tells the reader what the empanelled surveyors for the year 1992 were.There is nothing to CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 26 of 40 indicate that for the relevant years 1995-98, ZKC was not an approved surveyor.There is evidence to show that ZKC was perhaps a licensed surveyor.This part of the evidence is significant as far as the role of LK Gupta is concerned, as it is not possible to show that he deliberately named ZKC as a surveyor knowing that it was not empanelled.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 26 of 40However, as regards accused No.2, Sanjay Raina, the situation is different.The evidence is clear that Sanjay Raina was the proprietor of M/s. Sonia & Co. and held himself out as Vinod Kaul, the proprietor of ZKC.In other words, the insured and the surveyor was the same person.The evidence of PW31, the postman from Mumbai, proved that there was no company at the given address for Paras.So, Paras was a fictitious firm.No address of the transporter, Rahul Road Lines, was available in the file.Sanjay Raina himself encashed the cheques in question.On behalf of Sanjay Raina it was submitted that, in the absence of examination of the Directors of ZKC, or the documents qua their identities or signatures, the mere report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) showing the similarity between the signatures of Vinod Kaul and Sanjay Raina, did not hold significance.Secondly, it was submitted that, in the absence of a money trail, it could not be said that there was any conspiracy amongst the accused persons.The evidence of the handwriting expert, Ramesh Chandra (PW-30) is significant in this regard.The detailed reasons for his opinion CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 27 of 40 (Ex.PW30/P) adequately proves that the writing of the so-called Vinod Kaul are identical to that of Sanjay Raina.The opinion is a detailed one.The cross-examination of this witness by the counsel for Sanjay Raina has not yielded much.The said evidence clearly corroborates the documentary evidence available on file which shows that it was Sanjay Raina who was the proprietor of M/s. Sonia & Co. and it is he who submitted the claims and encashed the payment.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 27 of 40On the aspect of the conspiracy between the accused persons qua this claim, the Prosecution seeks to show a conspiracy between L.K. Gupta and Sanjay Raina.There is no substantive evidence to show that there was an agreement between the two of them for performing an illegal act.As explained in John Pandian v. State (2010) 14 SCC 129, "there must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of the offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of crime between the two or more persons to commit an offence." It was held that "a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.....The circumstance relied for the purpose of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time then the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy."The evidence on record in the present case does not appear to be CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 28 of 40 sufficient to conclude that there was a criminal conspiracy between L.K. Gupta and Sanjay Raina as a result of which the payment was made of the entire claim amount to Sanjay Raina.However, what is certain is that Sanjay Raina submitted documents knowing fully well that they were fabricated and on the basis of fresh documents wrongfully obtained for himself the claim amount from NIC.Therefore, as far as A2 is concerned, qua this claim, the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 28 of 40As regards the role of LK Gupta, the Court is not satisfied from the evidence placed on record that he knowingly abused his office as a public servant to facilitate the settlement of the claim and making payment to Sanjay Raina.It is not shown that there was any pecuniary advantage to L.K. Gupta himself.While it is true that he was the branch manager and himself processed the claim, the evidence of PW4 itself shows that he was the only person at that point in time entrusted with the responsibility, with the other positions remaining vacant.He was possibly overworked and it is possible that he may not CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 29 of 40 have been in a position to realise that Vinod Kumar and Sanjay Raina were the same persons (the fact which has been established only during the investigation and with the help of forensic evidence) or that Paras was a fictitious firm.In the circumstances, the Court is prepared to give the benefit of doubt to L.K. Gupta in respect of this and other claims which would be discussed hereafter.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 29 of 40Claim of M/s. Silk ScreenThe facts of this case have also been discussed earlier.PW1 has demonstrated that the Consignor, M/s. L.A. Marketing Agency did not exist at the address at 164, Modi Street, Mumbai.Although learned counsel for the Appellants argued that during her deposition, PW-3 did not specifically refer to living at Gali No.3, Aruna Park, Delhi but only gave her address as A-143, Gali No.3, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi, the Court is of the view that nothing much turns on this aspect.There is nothing to show that the address A-143, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi is different from A-143, Gali No.3, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi.There is no cross-examination of this witness on that aspect.She clearly states that she does not know Sanjay Raina.The same address has been used for M/s. Abha International, M/s. Goyal Road Lines and M/s. SKW & Co. She did not know these firms.During her cross-examination, she denied that for some time, some portion of her premises was rented to M/s. Goyal CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 30 of 40 Road Lines and Sanjay Raina.Nothing has been elicited from her in her cross-examination by learned counsel for Sanjay Raina.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 30 of 40PW4 admits to having signed the claimed cheque along with L.K. Gupta.It has been proved that the consignor is ZKC, which is none other than Sanjay Raina who projected himself as Vinod Kaul.PWs 12 and 13 proved that neither of them introduced Silk Screen.The role of Sanjay Raina, as far as this claim is concerned, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.However, as far as Deepak Handa is concerned, the Prosecution has been able to show that he is, no doubt, the brother-in-law of Sanjay Raina and he did accept the cheque issued in his name by NIC and deposited it in his account.However, as far as the claim opening form and other related document is concerned, the signatures thereon are not shown to match his signatures.There is merit in the contention of Mr. Handoo, learned counsel for Deepak Handa that the Prosecution has not been able to prove his role in the making of the claim itself.On the documents submitted to the NIC, the writings of Deepak Handa are not shown to exist.What the Prosecution has, however, been able to prove is that he accepted the cheque of Rs. 20,080 drawn in favour of M/s. Silk Screen and deposited it in his account.This one act does make him a party to CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 31 of 40 the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC since he knew that he was not owing any money whatsoever by NIC.If, indeed, as he submits, he submitted no claim to NIC, there is no reason for him to accept such cheque and then proceed to deposit it in his account.His close relation to Sanjay Raina does make them both party to a conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC as well.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 31 of 40As regards L.K. Gupta, for the reasons already discussed in relation to Claim No.1, the Court is not satisfied that there was any meeting of minds of L.K. Gupta, Sanjay Raina and Deepak Handa, or that L.K. Gupta knowingly facilitated the commission of crime by Sanjay Raina and Deepak Handa.There is no evidence to show that either of them corresponded with L.K.Gupta at any point in time.The evidence is insufficient to return a finding of guilt against L.K. Gupta either for the offence under Section 120-B qua this claim or Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act.The resultant position is that the offences committed by Sanjay Raina qua this claim under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 420/467/468/471 have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.As far as A4, Deepak Handa is concerned, the offences under Section 120-B IPC and Section 420 have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.The offence qua this claim vis-a-vis L.K. Gupta has not been proved.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 32 of 40Claim of M/s. Sarthak EnterprisesPW-6 was the owner of Bullet Road Carriers.He neither transported the goods nor received any letter on the letter head of Sarthak Enterprises.He denied his signature on the letter showing the name of the Consignor as M/s. Topaz Card Manufacturing Co. PW-11 was the owner of M/s. Topaz Card Manufacturing Co. in Mumbai.The letter pad Ex.PW11/A did not pertain to his shop.He clearly stated that it was a forged bill and that the telephone number and the Sales Tax number were also incorrect.He had never dealt with a firm by that name.The proprietor of this firm is Sanjay Raina.It is clear that he accepted the cheque amount and deposited it in his account.The mere fact that the account opening form of this firm was introduced by Deepak Handa is not sufficient to make him part of the conspiracy.The consignor is ZKC and this is one other case where the insured is also the consignor.For the reasons already discussed, in this case again, there is no evidence to show any conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC between L.K. Gupta, Sanjay Raina and Deepak Handa.However, the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of Sanjay Raina for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.The evidence is insufficient to return a finding of guilt against L.K. Gupta for any of the offences he has been CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 33 of 40 charged with qua this claim.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 33 of 40Claim of M/s. Rajeev Kumar & Co.The consignor of this claim was Paras, a fictitious firm.ZKC was the consignor which shows the involvement of Sanjay Raina.The recovery agent was none other than Vinod Kaul @ Sanjay Raina.The recovery payment was also made by Sanjay Raina.A fee for effecting the recovery was paid by Sanjay Raina.The evidence of DW-8 shows that a person cannot be appointed as a recovery agent in his own claim.47. PW-30 has proved that Rajeev Kumar Goyal and Raj Kumar Goyal are not different persons.A-3 opened an account No.2510 in the name of Raj Kumar Goyal.Their roles in the offences under Section 120-B read with the substantive offences under Sections 467/468/471 IPC have been proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.However, the CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 34 of 40 evidence against LK Gupta is insufficient to find him guilty for the offences he has been charged with qua this claim.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 34 of 40Claim of M/s. SKW & Co.As far as this claim is concerned, PW-3 has proved that there was no such firm as SKW & Co. at A-143, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi.Sanjay Raina was the proprietor of this firm as well.Therefore, the firm itself was fictitious.Here again, the name of the transporter was shown as Bullet Road Carriers.PW-7 has proved that he never introduced Riti Arora as an agent.PW-10 has proved that Riti Arora was married in 1995 and has since then been living in Banaras.The fact that Sanjay Raina lodged a claim has been proved by PW-30, the handwriting expert.It is submitted that the fact that a consolidated cheque of Rs. 49,340, which included Rs. 1,500 for the surveyor fee was paid to Sanjay Raina, showed the involvement of L.K. Gupta.The evidence of PW-4 shows that the cheque was prepared by a clerk.It is not known whether L.K. Gupta gave any specific instructions qua this claim to the person preparing the cheque.That singular fact is not sufficient to rope him into the controversy.It appears that Rakesh Mudgil was a fictitious person and the recovery fee was arranged by Sanjay Raina in the name of Weber India, which was a fictitious firm.The evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of A2 for the offences with which he has been charged other than Section 120-B CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 35 of 40 IPC qua this claim.Claim of M/s. Abha InternationalThis claim pertains to file Ex.As far as L.K. Gupta is concerned, it is clear that this particular claim was also processed by PW-9 but, for some reason, CBI did not implicate him.He appears to have given the name of a fictitious consignor, LA Marketing Agency, CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 36 of 40 the fictitious transporter, Narang Road Carriers and the surveyor is ZKC, which is none other than himself.He had encashed the cheque in question.The evidence of PWs1, 3, 26 and DWs 4, 6 and 7 sufficiently prove the guilt of A2 as far as this claim is concerned for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.However, the evidence is insufficient to prove the offence for criminal conspiracy qua this claim under Section 120-B IPC involving the accused or L.K. Gupta for the offences with which he has been charged under the PC Act.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 37 of 40(iii) As far as A-3, Rajeev Kumar Goyal is concerned, the evidence is sufficient to prove the offences under Sections 420/464/468/471 and Section 120-B IPC read with the aforementioned offences qua the claim of M/s. Rajeev & Co. and M/s. Abha International (Claim No.6).(iv) The evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge against Deepak Handa qua the claim of M/s. Silk Screen for the offence under Section 420 IPC and the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,581,322 | JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J.Appellant Mohan Singh has been found guilty of causing four external injuries on his wife Mst.Subhiya Bai by means of a sickle in the noon of 22-11-89, in his field situated in village Karpa, Distt.Appellant's conviction is founded on the incriminating circumstances that deceased Subhiya Bai was last seen alive in the company of the appellant a few hours before her death; immediately after the incident the appellant came back to his house and left his minor daughter in the custody of his father; and body of Subhiya Bai was found next morning lying in the appellant's field.Though the prosecution also relied upon the alleged seizure of the weapon of offence 'sickle' at the instance of the appellant, but as no blood stains much less of human origin were detected on the sickle, the Trial Court did not rely upon this incriminating circumstance against the appellant.Shri Sanjeev Saxena, the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the cogent and reliable evidence of P.W. 2 Munshi Singh, P.W. 3 Shyama Bai and P.W, 4 Phuliya Bai, frankly and fairly conceded that the finding, recorded by the Trial Court, holding appellant Mohan Singh guilty of causing those four incised wounds on his wife Subhiya Bai which led to her death on account of excessive bleeding is beyond any possible challenge.The learned counsel, however, submitted that as none of the four injuries found on deceased Subhiya Bai resulted in either any corresponding fracture or damage to any internal organ and that deceased Subhiya Bai died on account of excessive bleeding, the offence against the appellant in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Kalinder Bharik v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3618, at the most would be punishable under Section 304 (Part-II), IPC.The facts that deceased Subhiya Bai had sustained as many as four incised wounds in the noon of 22-11 -89 and died a homicidal death on account of excessive bleeding as a result of those injuries were neither disputed by the accused at the trial nor are under challenge before us in this appeal.That apart, there is overwhelming evidence on record to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt.We, therefore, uphold the finding recorded by the Trial Court in that behalf.Though Shri Sanjeev Saxena, the learned counsel for the appellant, has not challenged the finding, recorded by the Trial Court, holding the appellant guilty of causing those incised wounds on his wife Subhiya Bai by means of a sickle which led to her death, even then with a view to satisfy ourselves about the correctness of the above finding we have perused the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, in general, and that of P.W. 2 Munshi Singh, P.W. 3 Shyama Bai and P.W. 4 Phuliya Bai, in particular.On a close scrutiny of their evidence, we are satisfied that the Trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that it was the appellant and appellant Mohan Singh alone who had caused four incised wounds on his wife Subhiya Bai by means of a sickle while cutting crop in their field.We, therefore, affirm the finding recorded by the Trial Court in that behalf.The next question which crops up for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of the offence proved against appellant Mohan Singh.The prosecution has not led any evidence to show that the relations between the husband and the wife were not cordial.To us, it appears that some quarrel must have taken place between the husband and the wife on account of some petty domestic matter which led to the unfortunate assault on the poor wife.It further appears that the appellant, after committing the foolish act of causing injuries on his wife Subhiya Bai by means of a sickle, got panicky and instead of providing timely medical aid to his injured wife fled away from the place of occurrence with his minor daughter.The medical evidence reveals that none of the four incised wounds resulted either in any corresponding fracture or damage to any internal organ.In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, Subhiya Bai died on account of excessive bleeding from the injuries sustained by her.In somewhat similar factual matrix, the Apex Court in the case of Kalinder Bharik v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3618, while considering the nature of the offence proved against the husband accused in that case who was alleged to have caused as many as nine external injuries, including four incised wounds, on his wife leading to her death on account of excessive bleeding, observed in paras 5 to 8:But, then the more important question is whether accused is liable to be convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.When the post-mortem examination was conducted on 7-11-95 P.W. 1 Doctor Jagdish Gupta has noted the following ante-mortem injuries:--(1) Contusion over right breast, 2 cm x 2 cm.(2) Contusion over middle of forehead, 3 cm x 2 cm.(3) Contusion over right scapular region, 3 cm x 3 cm.(4) Contusion just below left scapular, 3 cm x 2 cm.(5) Two contusions over lower back, 3 cm x 2 cm each.(6) Multiple small abrasions over both lips.(7) Five teeth from upper jaw missing with fracture alveolus.(8) Four clean incised wounds behind left ear over left parietal area.1", 2 -1/2", 1 -1/2" skull deep.(9) Lacerated wound over middle of skull, 1" in size skull bone -normal.All the internal organs were found normal.The skull was also found normal.As for the sentence, in our considered view rigorous imprisonment for seven years, in the facts and circumstances of the case would be the sufficient punishment for the offence found proved against appellant Mohan Singh under Section 304 (Part-II), IPC, and would meet the ends of justice.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal, filed by appellant Mohan Singh, against his conviction and sentence is allowed in part. | ['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. |
158,143,914 | This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the mother of the detenu, namely, Aruldass, S/o.Anthony, aged about 24 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1155/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 05.09.2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.J.Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail by the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.593/2009 in respect of Crime No.26/2009 on the file of R-1, Mambalam Police Station for the offence under section 379 IPC and by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364/2012 in Crime No.1062/2011 on the file of P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station for the offence under sections 457 and 380 IPC and also by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.Nos.2392/2012 in respect of Crime No.1960/2012 on the file of T1, Ambattur Police station for the offence under sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 r/w.506(ii) IPC. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,150,410 | (BHAGCHAND AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 Jabalpur, Dated : 17-08-2020 Heard through Video Conferencing.Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Balaghat (M.P.).The first application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after he completes six months in judicial custody.The present application has been filed and listed today as the applicant herein has already completed more than six months in judicial custody.The applicant is in judicial custody since 12.02.2020 in the aforementioned case.The allegation against the present applicant is that he assisted the main accused in causing injuries to the complainant on account of which the offence U/s.307 of I.P.C. was registered against him.The allegation against the present applicant is of having caught old of the injures, while the main accused is stated to have stabbed him.The Jail authorities shall have the applicant checked by the Jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the coronavirus and if is, he be sent to the nearest hospital designated b y t h e State for treatment.If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the Jail authorities.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,153,946 | Earlier M.Cr.C.No.5018/2019 was dismissed on 13.3.2019 by the detail order.No changed circumstance has been adverted at by the applicant except an order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.502/2019; whereby one Rakesh Kumar Jaat has been extended the benefit of bail.It is urged that the case of the applicant is similar to that of Rakesh Kumar Jaat, however, on a comparision made we do not perceive any similarity.As in the case at hand, the role ascribed to the applicant is that of beneficiary and the modus operandi as alleged was that he entered into criminal conspiracy with middlemen Sushil Shakya, Lalit Guleria (now dead) and impersonator Manoj Kumar 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.12901/2019 (Vivek Kumar Arya Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation ) Nishad and in connivance the applicant got filled offline application form of PMT 2009 in his personal details i.e. name, percentage, date of birth but with the false address i.e. C/o Rampal Singh Lodhi, FL430 (F-Sector), Deen Dayal Nagar, Gwalior.The Caste Certificate in the name of Vivek Kumar Arya was also attached with the offline application.In furtherance to the said criminal conspiracy, the impersonator Manoj Kumar Nishad appeared in the written exam of PMT-2009 Examination on 05/07/2009 at Government Padma Girls H.S. School, Kampoo, Gwalior in place of present applicant under Roll No.848591 and was caught during the first shift of exam.That Test Admit Card issued in the name of Vivek Kumar Arya S/o Kedar Lal, Roll No.848591 was seized from the possession of said impersonator Manoj Kumar Nishad.Further, the forensic examination of questioned handwriting/signature on photocopy of RASA established that the applicant-Vivek Kumar Arya did not appear in the examination on 05/07/2009 in his place against Roll No.848591 at Government Padma Girls School, Gwalior.The forensic examination of Photograph also established that the photograph on the OMR Application Form of PMT-2009 of Vivek Kumar Arya is similar with the admitted photograph of the impersonator Manoj Kumar Nishad 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr. | ['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,221,844 | The fatual matrix giving rise to this appeal in short is that on 06.02.2009, at 7 O'clock in the evening, Sanjay Dixit (PW-3) was going to his farm.When he reached.In front of appellant's house at that time Santu, the son of appellant aged about 4-5 years, told him that his father is beating her mother by babool stick and she has fallen down on the ground.Sanjay Dixit (PW-3) reached in side the house of the appellant and saw that appellant was beating deceased (Mamta) with babool stick.Sanjay Dixit (PW-3) tried to restrain the appellant but he did not.Sanjay Dixit (PW-3) came out the house of appellant and shouted to call some persons.Then Pappu @ Ramdeen (PW-9), Kalyan (PW-10) and Ramautar Yadav (PW-11) reached the spot while appellant poured kerosin oil over the body of the deceased and burnt her due to which she had died.(12 .07.2018) Per Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.02.2009 in Session Trial No. 121/2008 by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur.Whereby, the appellant was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of fine further six months R.I.Cr. A. No. 574/2009He issued notice Ex.13 under Section 175 of Cr.P.C. to 3 Cr.A. No. 574/2009 witnesses to remain present in Shav Panchanama Karyawahi.Statements of witnesses had been recorded, seized articles were sent to Forensic Sicence Laboratories vide memo Ex. P-2 and FSL report Ex. P-21 was received.After investigation challan had been filed under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant.The trial Court framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.Appellant abjured his guilt.According to him, he was falsely implicated in this case.He was not in the house at the time of incident.Thereafter appellant was tried and prosecution examined 13 witnesses.Defence did not produce any witness on its behalf.After hearing both the parties, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 4 Cr.A. No. 574/2009 of the IPC for which it convicted and sentenced him.We have heard both the parties and gone through the entire record carefully.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the witnesses turned hostile.Cr. A. No. 574/2009Appellant did not challenge this facts in cross examination.Raja Yadav (PW-5) who is father of the appellant deposed the same fact and the said fact has also been narrated by Pappu @ Ramdeen (PW-9), Kalyan (PW-11), Bhairam Arakh (PW-8).Raja Yadav (PW-5) deposed that when he reached the house of appellant, he saw, that deceased was lying dead in the appellant's house.Pappu @ Ramdeen (PW-9) also deposed the same facts.These facts were not contradicted by appellant in his cross examination.Raja Yadav (PW-5) and Pappu @ Ramdeen (PW-9) also deposed that they saw that the appellant was tied in his house.Further, these facts were not contradicted in cross- examination by the appellant.So, it is proved that when witnesses reached the house of the appellant they saw, the appellant as also the dead body of deceased in the house.Cr. A. No. 574/2009According to prosecution, fourth circumstance was that at the time of incident, it is heard that the appellant was beating his wife.Pappu @ Ramdeen (PW-9) deposed that Sanjay shouted that appellant had been killing his wife.He deposed that Kalyan and Ramavtar reached the spot.So it is clear, that at the time of incident Pappu @ Ramdeen (PW-9) heard that appellant is beating his wife and when they reached on the spot they saw the deceased (Mamta) was burnt and lying dead.So, this circumstance is also proved.Satish Singh (PW-13) deposed in the Court that he took the custody of appellant .FSL report Ex. P-21 shows human 13 Cr.A. No. 574/2009 blood on trouser of appellant and on the seized bamboo wooden stick.Thus testimony of Satish Singh (PW-13) should not be believed.The fact that the two witnesses called from amongst the members of the public, namely, Raghunathsingh (P.W. 1) and Gambhirsingh Tomar (P.W. 2), had turned hostile was considered by the High Court and the Courts below.No reason was shown for their hostility to the appellant."Cr. A. No. 574/2009For the foregoing reason it is proved that deceased was the wife of the appellant.She died in the house of appellant.Witness also heard that appellant killed her wife, human blood was found on trouser of appellant and human blood was also found on bamboo stick, which was seized from appellant.Appellant did not set up any case that some other person entered his house and caused homicidal death of his wife and tied him.Although appellant stated in his accused statement that he was not present at the time of incident his house, but this fact is not proved.Thus, it is proved that at the time of incident, he was present in his house.Appellant also did not explain how human blood came on his trouser and babool sticks. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,228,170 | Shri Vinod Kumar Dhakar, counsel for the complainant.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge (under SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act) [hereinafter it would be referred to as "the Special Act''] Shivpuri, whereby the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant relating to Crime No.369/2016 registered at Police Station AJAK District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(s) and 3 (2)(v.a) of the SCST Act, was dismissed Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 19 years, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The offence under Section 307 of IPC is triable by the court of session and other offences registered under the Special Act but remaining IPC offences, are triable by the Magistrate and, therefore, they are not so grave.It is alleged against the appellant that he assaulted the victim on his head causing head injury, however, no fracture was found below the injury nor the treating doctor opined that the injury was fatal in nature.Hence, prima facie no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the appellant.It is not 2 CRA.1197/2016 Sunil Dhakar Vs.State of M.P.established that the victim was assaulted because of his caste and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 3 (2)(v.a) of Special Act is made out against the appellant.Offences under Section 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Special Act are punishable by five years imprisonment and therefore those are not so grave so that the appellant may not be released on bail.Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the order dt.11.11.2016 be set aside and the appellant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the appeal.Learned counsel for the complainant also opposes the appeal.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that order dt.11.11.2016 passed by the Special Court was not dependent upon the sound principles of law.It was for the trial court to examine as to whether prima facie offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out or not.Under these circumstances, it is a good case in which the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted.Consequently, the appeal is allowed.The order dt.11.11.2016 is reversed.This order shall remain in force till the disposal of the case.A copy of the order be sent to the court below for its information.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge SP | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,228,299 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Guddu Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 111 of 2019 u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC PS Mehnagar District Azamgarh during pendency of trial.(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,823,045 | ALLOWED Heard the learned Advocates of both the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) < (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.) | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,232,287 | (MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 11/03/2019 22:06:23Case diary perused.This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection with crime No.1/2019, registered at P. S. Chandla District Chhatarpur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 324, 326/34 and 506-II of IPC.At the outset learned counsel for the applicants wants to withdraw this application on behalf of the applicant No.1 Dwarka Prasad.This application is dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of the applicant No.1 Dwarka Prasad.Prosecution story in short is that on 1.1.2019 at about 11.50 a.m. when Indrajeet Rajput was returning back towards his house and when he was reached near the house of the applicant and other co-accused persons then applicant No.1 Dwarka Rajput co-accused Chunni Lal Rajput have beaten him by wooden sticks.It is also alleged that the applicant and other co- accused persons have also beaten Heera, Sheetal, Raghuvir and Bhawani by sticks.Father of Indrajeet Rajput has lodged the report.On that basis aforesaid crime has been registered against the applicant and other co- accused persons.Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, application is allowed in respect of applicant No.2 Sudiya.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.2 Sudiya, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr. P. C. The applicant shall remain present before the Investigation Officer as and when he is directed and so also appear before the trial Court.C. C. as per rules. | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,245,540 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the repeat bail application of the applicant, whereas his previous bail application was dismissed on 1.4.2014 being withdrawn.The applicant is in custody since 6.2.2014 relating to crime No.109/2013 registered at Police Station Gadhi Malhara, District Chhatarpur for offence punishable under Sections 307, 341 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that at present, the prosecution evidence has been advanced before the trial Court and no eye witness could identify the applicant.According to them, the incident was caused by unknown persons.No robbed property has been recovered from the applicant.No test identification parade has been arranged to identify the applicant.A memo under Section 27 of Evidence Act is recorded and in consequence to that memo, a fire arm has been recovered from the applicant.However, a very little portion of that memo is admissible and therefore, no offence under Section 27 of Arms Act is made out against the M.Cr.C.No.13275/2014 applicant.Consequently, no offence under Section 307 or 341 of IPC may constitute against the applicant.Under such changed circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,248 | Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA and perused theimpugned judgement passed in Sessions Trial No. 1448 of 2009 arising out ofCase Crime No. 686 of 2009 under sections 308/34, 323/34, 504 and506(Part-II)/34 IPC, P.S. Loni Katra, District Barabanki.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the co-accused Gama andSubhash have already been enlarged on bail.The injuries sustained by theinjured were simple in nature and not in any way dangerous to life.It was alsosubmitted that the eye witnesses were not examined during the trial.On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shalltransmit photo state copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the recordof this appeal.List the appeal for hearing in due course.Order Date :- | ['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,251,151 | SC48/2018; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellants Jodharam Tanwar, Sunil Tanwar and Braj Tanwar, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.81/2018 registered at P.S. Najeerabad, Distt.As per prosecution case, on 5/4/2018 at about 10 p.m., appellants abused complainant Chhitarlal and when complainant denied, the appellants also assaulted him by stick and also threatened to kill him.Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 27/6/2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Spl.Case no.On the incident, the complainant sustained injury on his head.On the report of the complainant, police registered Crime no.81/2018 registered at P.S. Najeerabad, Distt.Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Section 294, 323 and 506-B/34 of I.P.C.and also under Section 3(1)(r(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the matter.During investigation on 12/6/2018 police arrested the appellants.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellants filed this Criminal Appeal.It is directed that appellants namely Jodharam Tanwar, Sunil Tanwar and Braj Tanwar be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants :The appellants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;The appellants will cooperate in the trial;The appellants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2018.07.24 17:04:10 +05'30' | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,265,916 | The background facts of the case taken note of in the impugned CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 1 of 6 judgment read as follows:CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 1 of 6" On 09.06.2011, accused Mohd. Saleem came to Police Station Ambekar Nagar and disclosed that he has consumed insecticide because he has committed murder of a girl at Rose Garden.On the basis of facts disclosed by accused Mohd. Saleem, DD No. 11-A dated 09.06.2011 (Ex.PW-12/A) was recorded at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar and Sub-Inspector Gurjeet Singh was deputed to take accused Mohd. Saleem to All India Institute of Medical Science (hereinafter referred to as "AIIMS") for treatment with constable Shiv Dhani and for conveying the information to Police Station Safdarjung Enclave.Sub- Inspector Gurjeet Singh along with Constable Shiv Dhani took accused Mohd. Saleem to AIIMS and got accused Mohd. Saleem admitted in AIIMS vide MLC No. 41034/11 (Ex. PW-6/A).On the way, on being inquired by Sub-Inspector Gurjeet Singh, accused Mohd. Saleem disclosed that he returned to Delhi after working for sometime in Dubai, he developed relations with one girl named Nikki and he started spending money on Nikki.Accused Mohd. Saleem further disclosed that after sometime, he came to know that Nikki was having relations with other persons which he did not like, accused Mohd. Saleem asked Nikki not to roam around with other persons as he was spending so much on her, Nikki was pressurizing accused Mohd. Saleem.Accordingly, accused Mohd. Saleem decided to eliminate Nikki.On 08.06.2011, accused Mohd. Saleem took Nikki to Rose Garden near IIT for outing and took her inside the bushes in the jungle, strangulated her and slit her throat with rajor (ustra), thereafter, accused went to his house and developed a sense of guilt, next morning, accused consumed insecticide and to repent for his mistake, went to Police Station Ambedkar Nagar and informed the police about the entire incident.Accused Mohd. Saleem told Sub-Inspector Gurjeet Singh that he can get body of deceased as well as weapon of offence CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 2 of 6 recovered from Rose Garden. "CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 2 of 6The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302IPC on the basis of his extra judicial confession made by him before PW21 and thereafter before PW22, who are both doctors at AIIMS, New Delhi.PW22 was working as Sr.Resident Psychiatry at AIIMS.At the instance of the appellant the dead body of the deceased was recovered.The weapon of offence, namely, the razor was also recovered at his instance.The extra judicial confession made by the appellant, as per the deposition of PW21 is to the effect that the deceased was the girlfriend of the accused for the last 10-12 months.On the evening previous to the date of the incident, the two had an argument in a park following her demand for Rs. 2 lakhs from him for buying a room.The appellant stated that he had previously given her Rs. 2-2.5 lakhs for supporting her children, as she was separated from her husband.The appellant claims that the deceased was involved with other men and he did not like this, and the quarrel between the two had started soon after they met some men known to her.The appellant stated that the deceased asked him to kill her, or she would get him killed.She also abused the appellant's mother, as the mother of the appellant was CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 3 of 6 not agreeable to their relationship.The appellant stated that he strangled her with her duppatta and also slit her throat with a blade.Thereafter, he stated that he consumed insecticide and then surrendered before the police.In the statement made before PW22, the appellant alleged that the deceased was a call girl by profession and had illicit relationship with many persons but he still loved her and wanted to marry her, although the deceased was yet to take divorce from her husband.The appellant disclosed that on the previous afternoon, the two had gone to a cinema from where they went for a drive towards Maneswar where they were followed by a few people.Subsequently, there was an altercation between the two on the issue of money that was demanded by the deceased and during the said altercation, the deceased asked the accused to kill her if he could not arrange the money.He states that the incident took place during the altercation which took place.CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 3 of 6The post-mortem report Ex.The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant convict to assail his conviction by the learned ASJ-3, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.87/2014, arising out of FIR No. 157/2011, registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, under Sections 302/309IPC.By the impugned judgement dated 26.02.2016, the appellant stands convicted of the offence under Section 302IPC while he has been acquitted under Section 309IPC.Vide order dated 04.03.2016, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.PW2/A records the cause of death as: "Hemorrhagic shock due to cut throat injury coupled with asphyxia due to strangulation".Both the said injuries were sufficient, individually or collectively, to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.These injuries appear to have been inflicted more or less simultaneously since they were both ante mortem.Considering the aforesaid aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC since the culpable homicide of the deceased was committed by the appellant without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 4 of 6 advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 4 of 6As noticed hereinabove, the appellant and the deceased were in a relationship for 10-12 months.The deceased also abused the mother of the accused and, as per the confessional statement of the appellant- which has to be read as a whole, she told the appellant to either kill her, or that she would get the appellant killed.The appellant does not appear to have taken any undue advantage, or to have acted in a cruel manner in as much, as, the nature of injuries show that he strangulated, and simultaneously used the blade, to slit her throat.Thereafter, the appellant went home and after consuming insecticide, he himself went to the police to report his crime.Thus, in our view, the intention to commit the culpable homicide amounting to murder of the deceased is clearly missing in the facts of the case.The appellant is thus, entitled to benefit of Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC.At the same time, the conduct of the appellant shows that the act was done with the intention of causing death and thus his offence falls under the first part of Section 304 IPC.The conviction of the appellant is thus, substituted from one under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 part 1 IPC.Looking to the circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 5 of 6 the appellant is reduced to 8 years of substantive/ actual rigorous imprisonment.The fine imposed upon the appellant is, however, maintained and, in case, he does not pay the fine, he shall undergo the default sentence as awarded by the Trial Court.CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 5 of 6The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.VIPIN SANGHI, J I.S.MEHTA, J AUGUST 27, 2018 N.Khanna CRL.A. 447/2016 Page 6 of 6 | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
258,159 | After commission of the incident, detenu was at large.On 4-7-94 an information was received that the detenu would be visiting Bhiku Building, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi.Accordingly a trap was arranged and the detenu was arrested at 00.50 hrs.He did not avail of the bail facility.JUDGMENT Sahai, J.The basis of the petitioner's detention in the aforesaid grounds appear to be three incidents in each of which the petitioner was involved.(i) The first is alleged to have taken place on 9th January 1994, on the basis of which C.R. No. 16/94 at police station Kurla under section 302/34 IPC read with section 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act read with section 37(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act was registered;(ii) The second incident is alleged to have taken place on 6th May, 1994 and on the basis of the same, C.R. No. 203/94 under section 387, read with 34 IPC was registered next day (on 7th May, 1994) at 3 p.m. at police station, Dadar; andOn its basis, a case under section, 3, 25 of the Arms Act was registered at police station, Dadar against the petitioner.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The main submission canvassed by Mr. Raja Thakare learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the inordinate delay in the issuance of the detention order has snapped the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity and the proposed preventive detention.The substance of the aforesaid ground and of the contention of Mr. Thakare is that in between the third incident which took place on 6th July, 1994 and the date of the issuance of the detention order which was 6th May, 1995, a delay of full ten months had occasioned and this inordinate delay of ten months which is unexplained snaps the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity of the petitioner and the proposed detention order.It would be useful to reproduce that paragraph in entirety.It reads thus :-Paragraph 11 :In the meantime.On 17-9-94, the Sponsoring Authority collected necessary documents and submitted the proposal to me through proper channel.The proposal was first scrutinized by Senior Police Inspector of Dadar Police Station, Bombay.It was then placed before the ACP Mahim Division, on the same day i.e. 17-9-94 who cleared it and placed the proposal before the DCP Zone IV, on the same day.The DCP Zone IV, recommended the proposal and further submitted it to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Region on 19-9-94, who also recommended it on the same day.It was then sent to the Senior Police Inspector, PCB CID Mumbai who scrutinised the proposal and the documents and then forwarded it to the Selection Grade Police Prosecutor on 17-11-1994 for his opinion.The proposal was then placed before the ACP CB(P) on 28-11-94, who recommended it on the same day.It was then placed before the DCP CB(P) on 6-12-94 who recommended it on the same day.It was then submitted to me on 19-12-94 and on the same day, I began scrutiny of the proposal and made certain queries and returned the file.I then forwarded the proposal to the Senior Police Inspector PCB, CID on the same day for further process.On 28-4-95 I raised a further query and sent the proposal to DCP CB(P) who with his noting and the directions sent the proposal to Sr.On 6-5-95 the matter was again placed on my table.In paragraph 11, the respondent no. 1 at one place has urged that the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) on 27-1-1995 after scrutinising the proposal forwarded it to the DCP CB(P) with certain directions.In the aforesaid paras, it has not been mentioned as to when the Senior Inspector of Police, PCB received the file and what all and on what dates he did after receiving the same.No details as to what the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) did, in the aforesaid period of one month have been furnished in the return.Again we find that in this para, it has been mentioned that before the respondent no. 1, the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) placed the proposal on 4-4-1995 and on the same day, he forwarded the same for further processing.Petition allowed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,817,158 | Part-II of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 17.03.2015, when the prosecutrix was working in the agriculture field of respondent No.2, at about 6:00 p.m. respondent No.2 came there caught hold her hand and committed rape upon her.On hearing her cry Kamlesh brother of the prosecutrix came at the place of occurrence to whom she narrated the whole incident.On the basis of the aforesaid FIR has been lodged against the respondents.Investigation Officer, after investigating the matter filed the charge sheet against the non- applicant/respondents under Sections 366, 376(2)(D), 506 Part-II of the IPC.At the time of occurrence, prosecutrix was above 18 years of age.On due consideration, the findings recorded by the trial Court so also the Court statement of the prosecutrix, we are of the view that the trial Court 2 MCRC-44752-2018 has not committed any legal error in acquitting the respondents from the alleged offence.On perusing the findings recorded by the trial Court, no case is made out to interfere in the application.The application for grant of leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,819,275 | The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14(A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').The short facts of the case for deciding this appeal are that on 10.9.2016 complainant Balwant, respondent No.2 herein, lodged the oral report at Police Station Gulabganj Vidisha stating that on the night of 8.9.2016 his grand daughter Kusum has been missing from his house at village Chatoli.Thereupon, he and his family members searched her but in vain.He doubts that Deepak Lodhi of Cr.A. No.4747/2017 Deepak Lodhi vs. State of M.P.his village, the appellant herein, has enticed away from the keeping of him giving her allurements.Upon his report, the police registered a case at Crime No.162/2016 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC.Later, the police booked the appellant for committing offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(i)(n) of the IPC, 3 r.w. 4 of the POCSO Act and 3(2)(va) of the Act.The appellant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities) Vidisha.The learned Special Judge (Atrocities) disallowed the bail application vide the impugned bail order dated 11.10.2017 on the ground that the appellant committed offences of very serious nature.Hence, this appeal.After referring to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., he submits that said Kusum has not supported the prosecution case at all.He submits that she has also stated her age above 18 years in her statements.In view of her statements, no offence whatsoever is made out against the appellant.He submits that the appellant is a permanent resident of the place of occurrence of the offence.He submits that the appellant is aged about 20 Cr.A. No.4747/2017 Deepak Lodhi vs. State of M.P.years and that if he remains in custody for a long time, then he may come into contact with hardened jail inmates, which may impact adversely upon his future life.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order of rejection for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon the perusal of the statements of said Kusum recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant deserves to be admitted on bail.Therefore, I allow this appeal setting aside the impugned order of rejection for grant of bail.The learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Vidisha is directed to release the appellant on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount to his satisfaction for securing his presence in the course of trial of the case.The appellant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. In case of bail jump, the Court concerned will have power to cancel his bail.Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge van VANDANA Digitally signed by VANDANA VERMA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P.S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, VERMA 2.5.4.20=28633918296af0b3fa82b31b23b08 479728746dc68b10fd53e8bb396b58dcf57, cn=VANDANA VERMA Date: 2017.11.21 17:05:03 +05'30' | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,840,067 | This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.220/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali Seoni, District Seoni for the office under Section 409, 120-B of I.P.C..According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is working on the post of District Account Manager under the National Health Mission.He submits that earlier on the allegation, a departmental enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry as per the report dated 09.01.2014, the then Chief Medical and Health Officer was found to be guilty and the present applicant was not found to be involved in any manner.He submits that thereafter Writ Petition No. 7989/2012, in the nature of P.I.L. was filed, in which vide order dated 19.03.2014 following observation was made by the Division Bench of this Court."The relief claimed in this petition is to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to hold a high level enquiry into the misuse of consolidated funds of the State of Madhya Pradesh and to take suitable action against the erring persons.Further relief claimed is to direct the respondent No.7 to adjudicate case No.93/2011 expeditiously.As regards the latter relief, the Lokayukt completed the enquiry and submitted its recommendation to the State Government.On receipt of the said recommendation, the State Government constituted Commission of Enquiry to enquire into the allegations of misuse of consolidated funds.In the said enquiry the Chief Medical and Health Officer was found responsible and the Department has taken suitable action against him as per law.Considering the above, the reliefs claimed in this petition have worked out.If the petitioner or any other person is aggrieved by the outcome of the enquiry conducted by the Commission of Enquiry appointed by the State Government, is free to challenge the same before appropriate forum which challenge can be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.Petition disposed of accordingly."Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant was respondent No.6 in the said writ petition and as recorded in the said order also in the enquiry the Chief Medical and Health Officer was found responsible and as such the department has taken action against the then Chief Medical and Health Officer by imposing punishment of withholding of three increments.Thus, according to learned counsel for the applicant in the enquiry the applicant has been exonerated and now thereafter on the basis of false complaint the crime has been registered against the present applicant.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State opposed this application.Accordingly, the application is allowed.On applicant's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, applicant Devendra Kumar Pandey be released on bail. | ['Section 438 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. |
25,845,163 | As per prosecution case on 25.02.2014, at 11:00 pm an accident occurred between two tracks bearing registration Nos. MP-09-HF-9622 and MP-09-GF-4679 near Bhandari Garden bye pass road Indore.On receiving the information, constable Vijendra Singh (PW-7) and constable Vikas Singh (PW-9) of Police Station Kanadia reached on the spot.Besides constable Sandeep Singh also reached their in civil dress.They have seen that both the drivers quarreling and constable Sandeep assaulted Vinod Chouhan, driver of one of the truck, due to which he fell down.At that time accused/respondents came there.Respondent/Accused Devendra told other respondents who had came with him that Sandeep assaulted Vinod.Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the complainant.Per Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey:This application has been filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.09.2014 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No.408/2014, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused/respondents from the charge under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC.Constable Vijendra Singh and Vikas brought injured Vinod to the hospital.On 26.02.2014 Police received an information that the dead body of constable Sandeep Singh was lying near Hanuman Mandir, by pass road.On which merg No.09/2014 was registered.During inquiry, it was found that respondents murdered constable Sandeep.On which Crime No.111/2014 was registered and charge-sheet was filed against respondents.On that charge-sheet S.T. No. 408/14 was registered.The learned VII ASJ Indore framed charge U/s.302 and 201 IPC against respondents and recorded evidence but after trial learned A.S.J. acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges.Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that constable Vijendra Singh (PW-7) and constable Vikas Singh (PW-9) in their statements clearly supported the prosecution case and they also identified the accused/respondents.The learned trial Court has committed mistake in acquitting the respondents from the aforesaid charges.Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no legal evidence against the respondents to prove them guilty and learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge.Vijendrasingh (PW-7) and constable Vikas Singh (PW-9) only stated that on 25.02.14 at 11:00 pm when they reached the spot of accident near Bhandari Garden, bye-pass, respondents came there.Only on the basis of the statements of Vijendra Singh (PW-7) and constable Vikas Singh (PW-9), it cannot be said that respondents had murdered constable Sandeep.Although apart from that police also recovered three Iron Tommy from the possession of accused Sajjansingh, Devendra Singh and Manmohan Singh and lathi from Mahavir Singh and a Nokia Moblie from Ravindra Singh.But in the F.S.L. report Ex.P/33, there is no mentioned about any blood stain found on the iron tommy and lathi.So that recovery also has no value and no other evidence has been produced by the prosecution against the respondents to prove them guilty.We have no hesitation in concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court.Consequently, the application for leave to file appeal is dismissed as being without merit. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
25,851,209 | V.P.S. Mann, the then Head Assistant (Estate)/NDMC, New Delhi, M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg and unknown officials of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd and others alleging therein that Mr.V.P.S. Mann while working as Head Assistant (Estate) in NDMC, New Delhi during the year 1991-1994 entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Prominent Hotels and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, Mr.V.P.S. Mann falsified the books of accounts by making false/forged and bogus entries dated 23rd January, 1991, 14th February, 1991 and on 22nd February, 1991 amounting to Rs 4 lakh and Rs 3 lakh two times with the intent to cause undue pecuniary benefit to the said Prominent Hotels Ltd.After finalization of the agreement between the company and NDMC the concerned file was to be sent to the account section of Estate Branch for making necessary entries in the demand and collection register with respect to the licence fee and other terms and conditions mentioned in agreement for the purpose of recovery of payment.The said file was not sent to the account section after finalization of the agreement and even after the finalization of supplementary agreement made afterwards.Hence, the mode of payments and the amount of installments, as agreed upon by both the parties, were not recorded in the Demand and Collection Register maintained in the account section, due to which the entries of amount received from M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd were not entered under proper head and all the amount was shown to have been received under head EXCESS.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 5 of 236.4 R. Venkatesh, petitioner No.2/Company Secretary, M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd, Ramesh Kakkar, Managing Director, M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd and Mr.V.P.S. Mann agreed to do an illegal act of obtaining credit of Rs.10 lac in this account of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd maintained in the account section of Estt.Sh Ramesh Kakkar is the ultimate beneficiary.The current status of trial that many witnesses have already been examined.Admitted position is that the petitioners have been named in the FIR/Challan as conspirators alongwith Mr. V.P.S. Mann.It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner and deceased as per the case of CBI are jointly in connivance and conspiracy with each other by attempting to cause wrongful loss to NDMC, but even no case was also at all made out against Mr. V.P.S. Mann, hence the Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 23 of 23MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 23 of 23By this judgment, I shall decide the above mentioned three petitions.a) The petition, being Crl.M.C. No.225/2011, is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 18th May, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, CBI in the FIR bearing no.RC- DA1-1998-A-0025 dated 15th April, 1998 registered under Sections 477-A I.P.C. read with Section 13(1)(d)/15 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is pending adjudication before the court of Special Judge, CBI whereby the applications of the petitioners for transfer of the matter to the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, was dismissed.b) The second petition, being Crl.M.C. No.1068/2014, is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 21st February, 2014 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking the similar prayer was dismissed despite of Supreme Court judgment.c) The third petition, being Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 2 of 23 petitioners application rather the issue raised by the petitioners was postponed at the stage of final arguments.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 2 of 23At the time when the incident in question is alleged to have taken place, the petitioner No.1 was the Company Secretary of M/s. Prominent Hotels Limited and the status of the Petitioner No.2 was the same i.e. M.D. of Prominent Hotels Pvt. Ltd.It was alleged in the FIR that Mr.V.P.S. Mann also did an illegal act of calculating the incorrect arrears of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 3 of 23 with the intention to give undue pecuniary advantage to the company and corresponding loss to NDMC but the same was detected.As per respondent, the investigation revealed that M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd and NDMC entered into an agreement dated 16th July, 1982 for construction, furnishing, providing facilities and commissioning/management of Youth Hostel by 30th April, 1984 in full and in all respect for the purpose of running the Youth Hostel to cater to low income group student community both within and outside India.MC No.4153/2014 Page 3 of 23MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 4 of 236.1 Mr. V.P.S. Mann in criminal conspiracy with R. Venketesh, Company Secretary to M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd obtained letter dated 28th February, 1994 from him in which the company secretary made the request that a statement showing the payment made by M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd to NDMC for the period from 1988-89 to 1991-1992 be supplied upto 18th March, 1994 as the same is required for the purpose of filing an appeal in the Income Tax Department.This letter was sent to the account section with the signature of Asst Director.During cross checking with D&C register and Daily Cash register, General Allocation register, the accountant observed that all these three entries were false and bogus and he confirmed from the record that no such payment was made by M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd to NDMC.M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd produced the original statement dated 18th March, 1994 which shows that this statement was not used for the purpose of filing an appeal in the Income Tax Department as requested by the party.6.3 Mr.It is also established that V.P.S. Mann and R. Venkatesh were known to each other and Mr. Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 5 of 23 Mann used to deposit the payments of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd in the cash branch.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.CBI re-filed the challan where after notices were issued to the petitioners as also Mr. V.P.S. Mann who all were summoned by the Court of the Special Judge, CBI.On appearing before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, the petitioners were admitted on bail whereafter the petitioners were supplied with the copies of the Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 6 of 23 challan.The Challan as filed by the CBI.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 6 of 23The petitioners submit that a perusal of the aforesaid statements read with the documents filed on record the following points are clear:a. That in the year 1990-91, as per the books of accounts of the CBI nothing was payable by the applicants towards interest;b. That the statement of payments made only, was asked in the year 1994, so as to file the same with the IT department, which fact is substantiated by the own statement of PW-12, as also from the perusal of the documents filed and relied upon by the CBI, which includes a copy of the Appeal filed by the hotel, with the IT department;c. That the entries were pertaining to the year 1990-91, whereas the request was made in the year 1994 and after receipt of the statement no claim at all was lodged by the hotel with the NDMC, claiming the credit of Rs.10 lakhs;d. That the very clause under which the hotel was liable to pay the amount of the license fees, had already been represented/challenged against by the hotel in the year 1988 itself;e. That the register was not under any lock and key and was always kept in open, thus any person trying to malign the Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 7 of 23 name of the hotel or frame the hotel in any allegation could have done so easily;MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 7 of 23f. The allegation of the applicants working in connivance with Mr. Mann, is solely based on assumptions and presumptions, which presumptions are totally without any basis;g. The hotel never made any payment in cash, the payments were always made by the hotel by cheque, which cheque was always with a covering letter and which payments were made to whomsoever who was available in the department and not only to Mr. Mann.Before the charge was framed, the accused (Al) V.P.S. Mann expired on 24th September, 2010 as the Court of Spl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 8 of 23 petitioners could not be named in the challan for having connived and conspired with the deceased to commit the alleged offences.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 8 of 23The aforesaid order dated 18th May, 2011 was challenged by the petitioners by way of Criminal Misc.(Main) being numbered as 2254/2011 titled as ''Prominent Hotels and Anr.CBI".After the pleadings in the aforesaid matter were complete, the aforesaid matter came up for hearing before this Court on 24th October, 2013 when this Court was pleased to pass the following order:The Crl.(Main) Petition No.2254/2011 was listed before this Court on 24th October, 2013 along with the Criminal Writ petition No.1018/2011 titled as "Prominent Hotels Ltd. & Anr.State through CBI" which was filed by the petitioners on the grounds of the Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.State through CBI", wherein the petitioners had challenged the order dated 17th July, 2012, whereby the charges against the petitioner had been framed.The Criminal Writ Petition No. 1617/2012 had been filed by the petitioners against the order of charge framed by the Trial Court.The aforesaid writ petition No.1617 of 2012 on 24th October, 2013 was adjourned to 19th December, 2013, when the same was dismissed by the following orders:Liberty is granted to petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the appropriate stage.This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.The petitioners did not take any step for restoration even when the matter came up before court from the Regular Matters, list was not checked up by the petitioner.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.The contention of the petitioners is that once Supreme Court having pronounced the judgment on 5th February, 2014 and the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 8th February, 2014 the order dated 30th January, 2014 passed by this Court dismissing the Criminal Misc.The petitioner thereafter filed a Crl.M.A No.2726/2014 for setting aside the order dated 30th January, 2014 and which criminal Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 13 of 23The petitioner in the meanwhile also filed two applications before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI.The First application was moved by the petitioner on 18th February, 2014 when the court of the Special Judge CBI had listed the application on 21st February, 2014 when the matter was already listed for recording of evidence of the witnesses.On 21st February, 2014 the petitioners moved another application in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 5th February, 2014 inter alia praying that in terms of the judgment dated 5th February, 2014 the matter be remanded to the Court of CMM for marking it to the court of the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate.The following reliefs were prayed for by the Petitioners in the said two applications are as under :1st Application :Appeal No. 161/2011 as the only public servant Mr.V.P.S. Mann had expired on 18th September, 2010, but the trial court after hearing the parties passed Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 14 of 23 the order on 21st February, 2014 that the question as sought to be raised in the application for trial of the case by the court of CMM to be considered at the time of final disposal.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.Aggrieved by the order dated 21st February, 2014 passed by the Trial court petitioners preferred Crl.M.C. No 1068/2014 before this court.The petitioners had also filed Crl.The competent Court to which the Special Case No.88 of 2001 is forwarded, is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months.The prayer made in the applications of the petitioners for transfer of the present Crl.It is directed that the FIR bearing No. RC-DA1-1998-A-0025 dated 15th April, 1998 are remanded back/transferred to the Court of CMM for onward forwarding the same to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE JUNE 5, 2015 Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl. | ['Section 120B 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. |
150,036,396 | C.R.M. 11095 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 22, 2010 And In re.: Ram Narayan Sahani & 2 Ors Mr. Debasis Kar ...For the petitioners Mr. Sanat Chowdhury ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Ghola Police Station Case No. 242 of 2010 dated 16.7.2010 under Sections 498A/406/494/307/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and the State.Perused the petition as well as the petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on their surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
150,041,861 | Bare facts giving rise to the present case are that eight months prior to the incident Manoj, brother of appellant Jamna had died by falling in the well.At that point of time, the said deceased Manoj was seen with Preetam (deceased in the instant case).The appellant Jamna and one Dayaram had ill 3 Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011 desire of taking undue possession of the property of deceased Preetam who had received the ancestral property of his maternal Grandfather.This gave rise to animus between the appellant Jamna and the deceased Preetam coupled with the fact that Jamna had injured (Kamlesh, brother of the deceased Preetam) PW1 with knife blow.On the day of the incident i.e. 11.11.1999,deceased Preetam at about 7:00 p.m. came to the house of Rajkumar alias Pappu PW-3 and asked PW3 to get ready and in the meantime deceased Preetam went to market to buy some medicines.Rajkumar PW-3 was waiting in front of his house for deceased to return, when he saw the deceased Preetam coming on cycle towards him.When Preetam reached the electric pole, he was stopped by appellants Jamna, Dayaram, Pappu alias Amar Singh and Raju who were sitting on the chabutra in front of the house of Mishrilal.Appellant Jamna fired a gun shot which hit the deceased Preetam in the head whereafter all the appellants ran away from the spot.Deceased Preetam died on the spot.The incident was reported to the police by Kamlesh, brother of the deceased.Offence was registered by police station Ganjbasoda Distt.Panchnama was prepared of the dead body which was sent for post-mortem.Post-mortem opined death to have occurred due to fire-arm injury on the head.Spot Map was prepared.The plain and blood stained soil was seized from the spot alongwith the blood and pieces of flesh stuck on the wall near which gun shot was fired at the deceased.The statement of witnesses u/S 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded.The appellants 4 Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011 were apprehended.On the disclosure of appellant Jamna, empty cartridge was recovered from the spot while on the disclosure of appellant Dayaram, the offending weapon i.e. country made pistol with a cartridge stuck was recovered.The clothes of Dayaram were also seized.All the articles were sent for forensic analysis.The chemical report from FSL opined the cartridge found from the spot to be used by 0.315 bore fire-arm.All the three criminal appeals filed u/S 374(2) of IPC assail the judgments dated 20.09.2001 and 11.11.2011 passed in S.T. No. 54/2000 by appellants in all the three appeals have been convicted for offences and sentence as detailed in the following table:Conviction Appellants Sentence Awarded u/S1.Pappu alias Amar Singh2.Rajju alias 302/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.300 default Raju Singh stipulatio Both in Cr.A. n No. 576/20013.Dayaram 302/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.300 default Cr.A. No. 25(1-B)(a) of 1 year R.I. Rs.200 stipulati 592/2001 Arms Act on4.Jamna 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 500 With Prajapti default Cr.A. No. stipulatio 976/2011 nThe fire-arm seized from the appellant Dayaram was of 0.315 bore country made pistol.The ballistic expert's report found the empty cartridge and the broken bullet to be used from the said seized fire-arm.After taking sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act and completion of investigation chargsheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where appellant Jamna being absconding was declared as an absconder and the trial proceeded against the other appellants i.e. Pappu alias Amar Singh, Rajju alias Raju Singh and Dayaram.The appellants raises the plea of innocence and false implication and abjured guilt and sought trial.The appellants did 5 Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011 not produce any evidence in support of their defence.Out of the above said prosecution witnesses PW-2 Madan, PW-3 Rajkumar alias Pappu and PW4 Kadhore were claimed to be eye-witnesses.However, PW2 and PW4 were declared hostile as they did not support the story of prosecution.Thus, the prosecution case so far as substantive evidence is concerned is based solely on the ocular evidence in shape of PW-3 Rajkumar alias Pappu.Thus, a comparative assessment of diary statement and testimony of PW-3 deserves to be undertaken.In the statement recorded u/S 161 Cr.P.C. PW-3 Rajkumar alias Pappu states that the deceased came to his house at 7 p.m. on the day of incident and asked him to get ready and in the mean time, the deceased went to fetch some medicines from the market.PW3 thereafter states that after getting ready, he was standing in front of his house when he saw the deceased coming towards him on cycle.PW-3 thereafter saw that when deceased reach the electric pole, his cycle was stopped by the appellant Jamna, Dayaram, Rajju and Pappu who were sitting on the chabutra under the electric pole.The appellant Jamna is said to have taken out his pistol and fired gun shot injuring the deceased in the head.Immediately thereafter all the four appellants ran away from the spot.PW-3 6 Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011 Rajkumar alias Pappu saw that blood was oozing out from the head of the deceased.PW3 then asked PW2 Madan to immediately go and inform about the incident to the relatives of the deceased and to call them over to the spot.PW-3 further reveals in the statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. that when all the four appellants restrained the movement of the deceased, the appellant Dayaram, Pappu and Rajju caught hold of the deceased and appellant Jamna fired at the deceased leading to the deceased sustaining the fatal injury in the head.PW-3 states that soon thereafter Madan, Kamlesh and Prem Narayan also came running to the spot.PW3 thereafter took the deceased Preetam in auto to the hospital where the doctor informed PW-3 that Preetam had been brought dead to the hospital.Whereafter he alongwith Kamlesh PW1 went to police to report the matter.11.1 Whereas, in his testimony PW-3 describes the incident in more or less the same lines as in statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has further denied the fact that there was any electric failure in the colony where the incident took place.PW-3 further denied the suggestion that the deceased Preetam did not come to his home to call him and that he has falsely implicated the appellants.PW3 further denied the suggestion that gun shot was fired after the deceased had fallen on the ground.PW3 also disclosed that the appellant Jamna had fired at the head of the deceased from very close range.PW3 has also supported his earlier stand that immediately after the incident, Prem Narayan and Kamlesh had come to the spot.Thus, in sum and substance, the testimony of PW3 , the eye-Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011 witness supports his earlier stand u/S 161 Cr.P.C. and thus the basic revelation made by PW3 in examination-in-chief could not shaken in the cross-examination by the defence.12.2 That no common intention on the part of the appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram of committing murder could be inferred since the said three were not armed and it was only appellant Jamna who all of sudden whipped out a fire-arm and shot the deceased.In this background, it was submitted that there was no prior meeting of minds between the appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram on one hand and appellant Jamna on the other for murder with the aid of Sec 34 IPC.Further for the purpose of Sec 34, the decision of Mehboob Shah Vs.Taking up the first issue framed supra as regards the insufficiency of light, it is not disputed that the incident occurred at about 7:00-7:30 p.m. in the middle of the month of November when there is no natural light.It has further come on record that there was an electric pole right above the place of incident though on the other side of the street which had a tubelight.The record further demonstrates especially the statement of Investigating Officer PW-9 Sharad Chandra Dubey in para 17 that though the tubelight installed on the electric pole was on, but the light was deficient.13.1 The trial Court while dealing with this issue found that the assailants and PW3 were well known to each other as they were residents of the same place and even if due to deficiency in light, PW3 could not see the actual clothes worn by the assailants, but on account of his past acquaintance with the assailants and the fact of PW3 having witnessed the incident from a distance of only about 20-25 steps(50-60 ft), it can easily be inferred that PW3 was able to recognize assailants.This inferential finding recorded by the trial Court is based on the evidence on record as testimony of various witnesses and the same cannot be found fault with as it is based on sound principles of common knowledge and reasoning.Thus the defense raised by the appellants of PW3 not having recognized the appellants due to deficient light does not appeal to this Court.13.2 Coming to the other question where common intention of killing the deceased was shared by the appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram with the assailant Jamna or not,it is seen from the 9 Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011 record, especially the testimony of PW-3 Rajkumar that Rajkumar, the sole eye-witness that while standing in front of his house which was about 20-25 steps (50-60ft)away from the scene of crime he saw all the four appellants Jamna Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram stopping the deceased who was coming on a cycle which was followed by a scuffle between them when the three appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Jamna caused the firearm injury on the head of the deceased.PW-3 further denies the suggestion that the deceased was fired at after the deceased had fallen down, which raises the necessary assumption that the assailant fired at the deceased while he was standing.It has further come on record by way of corroborative evidence that recovery was made of blood stained soil and pieces of flesh from the wall of house Jamna Prajapati very close to which the crime was committed.This further raises the necessary inference that when the gun-shot was fired at the deceased and the bullet entered and exited, his head was very close to the wall of the house of Jamna.It is quite possible that the appellant Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram had caught hold of the deceased and pinned him against the said wall to enable the appellant Jamna to inflict the fatal injury.However, there is nothing on record to establish that factum of appellant Jamna carrying a fire-arm was known to the other three appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram.The evidence and material on record though points out that the said four appellants were sitting together on the chabutra in front of the house of Mishrilal immediately prior to the incident and therefore an inference can be drawn that all the four appellants were waiting for the deceased to pass that way 10 Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011 so that they could perpetrate the offence.There may have been meeting of minds between all the four appellants of restraining the movement of the deceased and thereafter beating him, but whether the appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram who were not armed shared the intention of killing the deceased alongwith the appellant Jamna is not decipherable from the available evidence and material.It can at best be inferred that the appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram were in concert with the appellants Jamna to commit some crime against the deceased, but in the absence of evidence that the appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram knew that appellant Jamna was carrying firearm with him, which can be used to inflict fatal injury, it would not be safe to infer that the appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram knew that the appellant had intention of killing the deceased and therefore the said appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram actively assisted appellants Jamna in furtherance of the said intention.Thus, the all important element of common intention of killing the deceased was not shared by the other appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram.There is past animosity was between Jamna and the deceased and not between the three appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram and the deceased.13.3 Moreso, it is pertinent to observe that none of the witnesses stated that the appellants Pappu, Rajju and Dayaram were armed and therefore it can safely be presumed that the said three appellants participated in the crime bare handed.13.4 As regards appellant Jamna, the sole eye-witness PW-3 has clearly stated that it was Jamna who inflicted the fatal injury with a firearm upon the deceased.This ocular evidence which could not be shaken by the defence in the cross-examination of 11 Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011 PW3 stands corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. the testimony of Dr. D.K. Jain PW-8 who found an entry wound and an exit wound caused by a single gun shot with further opinion that the gun shot was fired from a close range since blackening marks around the wound and singing of hair was found around the fatal injury.This opinion of the medical expert corroborates the ocular evidence of PW3 that appellant Jamna fired at the deceased with firearm from very close range.13.5 Moreso, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory further establishes that bullet and the empty cartridge found at the spot were fired from the firearm recovered from the appellant Dayaram to whom the appellant Jamna had given the same for keeping in hiding.Certainly, the appellant Vinod caught hold the deceased Sonelal and restrained him to go to any side.Consequently, he committed offence to wrongfully confined of deceased Sonelal, it is punishable under Sec 342 of the IPC.15.1 Consequent upon the above discussion, appeals of the appellants stand decided in the following manner:Cr.A. No. 576/2001, Cr.A. No.592/2001, Cr.A. No.976/2011(a) Cr.A. No. 576/2001(Pappu alias Amar Singh and Rajju alias Raju Singh Vs.State of M.P.) is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2001 in S.T. No. 54/2000 so far as it convicts the said two appellants for the offence of murder u/S 302 read with Sec 34 IPC stands set aside.Bail bonds of appellants Pappu and Rajju stand discharged.They be released forthwith if not required in any other case.(b) Cr.A. No. 592/2001 (Dayaram Vs.State of M.P.) is partly allowed and the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2001 so far as it convicts the appellant Dayaram u/S 302 read with Sec 34 IPC is set aside.However, conviction and sentence of appellant Dayaram u/S 25(1-b) (A) of Arms Act sentencing the appellant to 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- is upheld.If the appellant Dayaram has already undergone the said sentence, he be released immediately and if he is on bail, he be arrested and made to suffer the remaining part of sentence upheld by this Court.(c) Cr.A. No. 976/2011(Jamna Vs. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,500,437 | The first three appellants are brothers while the fourth is their servant.The prosecution version is that about twenty days before the incident Janki's wife Shrimati Jai Devi was molested by Shankar Lal and Tulshi while she was in the 'Har'.She complained to her husband in the evening.The latter, accompanied by his brother Mewa Lal, went to Shankar Lal and Tulshi to protest against their misbehaviour towards his wife.A report was lodged by Mewa Lal in police station Sikandra which is situate at a distance of five miles from the place of occurrence at 7 P. M. At that time the Station Officer Dhanpal Singh was absent from the police station.Ranjit Singh, the Second Officer, reached the place of occurrence at 9.30 P. M. and started investigation.Dhanpal Singh reached the village next day, i. e., on.8-3-1952 at 8 P. M. and took up investigation himself.JUDGMENT Brij Mohan Lal, J.This is an appeal by four persons, viz., Shankar Lal, Narain, Ram Sarup and Tulshi, who have been convicted by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge of Kanpur under Section 302, Penal Code.They have been sentenced to undergo transportation, for life and to pay a fine of rupees one hundred each.Both Shankar Lal and Tulshi denied the charge.Narain and Ram Sarup, the other two appellants, also arrived and an altercation took place between the appellants on the one hand and Janki and Mewa on the other.Nothing serious happened at that time although the appellants are said to have held out a threat to Janki and Mewa Lal to deal with them in near future.The prosecution story goes on to say that on the 7-3-1952 Janki was returning home from his field with a bundle of Matar on his head and Mewa Lal was following him at a distance of 15 to 20 paces.It is alleged that the appellants were lying in ambush and as soon as Janki reached Raghubar's field they came out of their place of hiding and attacked him, Shankar Lal is said to have been armed with a 'Kanta' and the remaining three appellants with axes.Janki died on the spot.The incident is said to have taken place at about 5.30 in the evening.On 30-3-1952 he submitted a charge-sheet.The appellants have denied having made the assault.Their learned counsel has argued not only that the prosecution has failed to establish its case on merits but has also raised a point of law, viz., that copies of statements recorded by Mr. Bhatnagar under Section 164, Cr. P. C., were not delivered to his clients and they were thus deprived of the very valuable right of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses with reference to their previous statements and of contradicting them, if possible.It appears that on two different occasions petitions were made by the accused for being supplied with copies of those statements but the statements could not be found.Dhanpal Singh S. O. made a petition through S. M. Singh, Assistant Public Prosecutor, to the learned Magistrate (Mr. Bhatnagar) for copies of the statements made by the witnesses under Section 164, Cr. P. C. The Magistrate replied that copies would be given if found.As a matter of fact, they have not been traced to this day.Nobody knows what has happened to them. | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,500,461 | Prosecution case in brief is that in the night of 20.5.1992 at about 1 a.m. the informant Nazrul Molla, son of the victim, Nekehar Bibi heard the shouts of the victim and immediately he along with Golamnabi Molla, Motiar Rahman Molla and others of the village rushed to the room of the victim and found the door of her room closed from outside.They also found fire through the gaps of the window while her mother was shouting saying Nazima, wife of Karim set her on fire.The informant and others opened the door and brought out the victim on the verandah in burning condition when the victim gave out that Nazima and poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire and thereafter gone outside the room bolting the door from outside.The wearing sari, the mat and the pillow of the victim were burnt.Nazima's husband Karim was not present in the house on that day.The victim was immediately taken to the hospital and ultimately on the following morning she expired.A written complaint was lodged with the police station and the same was treated as FIR.After investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused.The PW. 1 further stated in his cross-examination, "The accused Nazima is now living in her father's house along with her two children".Fazrul Haque Molla is the PW. 2, His house is at a distance of about 100 yards from the house of Karim Molla, husband of the appellant.He stated in his evidence that on the fateful night hearing the shouts from the house of Nazrul (PW. 1) he woke up at about 1 a.m. and rushed there.He found many other persons there.He also found flame of fire inside the room through the window of the victim.The door of the room was closed from outside by putting up shakle.The PW. 2 claims that he along with others opened the door and found the victim burning and shouting saying Karim's wife set her on fire.The victim was brought out of the room and thereafter shifted to the hospital in the cycle van of Golamnabi.Thereafter the PW. 2 and the other villagers started searching Nazima and ultimately found her sitting inside her room closing the same from inside.She was asked to open the door but she declined.The PW. 2 further stated that after some time Nazima came out and admitted her guilt saying that out of anguish she poured kerosene oil in the body of her mother-in-law and set her in flames.JUDGMENT Narayan Chandra Sil, J.Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Howrah and he on his turn, transferred the case to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal.The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC.After examination of the witnesses the learned Judge examined the accused under Section 313 Cr. PC.The defence case as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and that of the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC is of denial of the occurrence and that on the fateful night both the appellant and the victim were sleeping in the victim's room.After hearing both sides the learned Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her in the terms as stated above.It appears from the record that as many as 17 witnesses were produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Judge.It appears from his evidence that at the material point of time the victim was living with her husband and child in separate mess, although the prosecution party and the appellant used the same kitchen.He further stated that Karim, the husband of the appellant had gone to his father-in-law's house on the fateful night.He had supported the prosecution case in his evidence that on hearing the cries of his mother he had gone to the room of his mother and found the same was closed by shakle from outside and his mother was burning ipside the room.It is also stated that many of his villagers like Mostakin, Golamnabi, Noor Islam Molla assembled there.The PW. 1 opened the door when his mother gave out that Nazima poured kerosene oil and set her on fire.The PW. 1 found Nazima lying on the next room closing the door from inside.The PW. 1 further stated that his mother was removed to the hospital and admitted there and in the early morning the victim expired.The PW. 1 further stated that after coming back from the hospital he found Nazima admitting her guilt in presence of many people saying that she set fire.The PW. 1 stood the test of cross-examination without being shaken.The PW. 2 wrote the complaint at the dictation of Nazrul.He has proved the complaint (Ext. 1).The PW. 2 also proved his signature as scribe (Ext. 1/2).The PW. 2 took the complaint to the police station in the afternoon on the following day of incident.The PW. 2 is also a witness of the seizure list as regards the articles seized by the police from the place of occurrence (Ext. 3).The evidence of the PW. 2 was confronted with his statement before the police and it is admitted by the PW. 2 that he did not state to the police that on the previous night at about 1 a.m. he heard the shouts and went to the house of Nazrul and found Nazrul trying to remove his burnt mother to the hospital.The PW. 2 further stated in his cross-examination that on the following morning of the incident Nazima admitted her guilt of her own accord before many persons.He also assembled at the place of occurrence on the fateful night hearing the noise.He found flames inside the room when the door of the room was closed from outside by putting up shakle.The PW. 3 and others opened the door by removing the shakle and the victim came out with flames.The victim gave out that wife of Karim poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire.The victim was removed to the hospital and thereafter the PW. 3 and other villagers found Nazima through the window of the next room.After some time Nazima came out and admitted her guilt saying that out of quarrel she had burnt her mother-in-law by pouring kerosene oil.The PW. 3 is also one of the signatories of the seizure list.The PW. 3 stood the test of cross-examination without being shaken.He had also assembled at the place of occurrence on the fateful night.He supported the evidence of his predecessors.Nothing came out from his cross-examination to help the defence.His evidence also stands to support the evidence of other witnesses.He was tendered by the prosecution and declined to be cross-examined by the defence.He took the victim to the hospital in his cycle van.It appears from his evidence that he was asked to remove the victim to the hospital and he did it with the help of his cycle van.He was tendered by the prosecution and declined to be cross-examined.His evidence stands to support the evidence of his predecessors.Dr. Tapas Ranjan Maity is the PW. 10 who held the post-mortem examination over the corpse of Nekehar Bibi.He found burn injury all over the corpse except the backside and in feet.He further opined that such types of injuries were expected if kerosene oil is poured on a person who lay on his back facing upside and set on fire.He was also specific to state that the injuries found by him on the body of the victim were sufficient to cause her death.He further stated that it was not possible for him to state if the patient was in a stage to disclose the history of her receiving the injuries.He examined some materials placed before him and he submitted his report (Ext. 6).This witness was declined to be cross-examined by the defence.He accompanied S.I. Asish Chatterjee to the place of occurrence where the inquest report was prepared.This witness carried the deadbody to Uluberia Hospital and identified the same to the doctor.He received the complaint and started Panchla Police Case No. 28/92 dated 21.5.1992 under Section 302 IPC against the appellant/accused.Ashish Banerjee, the other police officer is the PW. 14 who prepared the inquest report.Sushil Kr.Kar, the other police officer (PW. 15) is the I.O. of this case.S.I. Jaydeb Senapati, the other police officer is the PW. 16 who was declined to be cross-examined by the defence as he was a formal witness.Kamal Dey, the Judicial Magistrate is the PW. 17 who recorded the statement of the appellant/accused under Section 164 Cr. PC.He proved the statement recorded by him under Section 164 Cr. PC.(Ext. 10).It appears from Exhibit 10 that in the fateful night the appellant/accused was lying in the room of her mother-in-law along with her child when an altercation started with them as the victim expressed her absolute disapproval for sending Karim to his father-in-law's house everyday.The appellant also found that the victim then kept a sharp cutting instrument (banti) and threatened her to murder by pouring kerosene oil.Thereafter the lamp was put off and after they had gone to bed a lamp was put on and the victim came to pour kerosene oil on the body of the appellant for which a scuffle ensued and the kerosene oil sprinkled in the bodies of both the appellant and the victim.The scuffle continued and in course of such scuffle the victim caught fire when the appellant pushed the victim down on the ground and the victim was burnt.She also confessed that the kerosene oil was sprinkled all over the body of the victim as the victim was dashed down by her.It is also in Exhibit 10 that many person assembled there and the victim was taken to the hospital.The appellant also stated that it was not her intention to kill the victim.In the said case the accused-husband alleged to have poured petrol on the body of his wife and lit fire.There was extensive burn injuries on the body of the deceased-wife.It was claimed that the victim made oral dying declaration to her mother.The facts of this case are altogether different from the facts of the cases referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellant.In the instant case the extra-judicial confession of the appellant/convict was made by herself before many villagers which finds indirect support from her judicial confession made before the learned Judicial Magistrate, The dying declaration of the victim was also made in presence of the members of the village including the de facto complainant and the facts and circumstances of this case suggest that the victim was alive for a considerable period after the occurrence.(Emphasis ours) and then went on to direct:In the said case Pradeep Kumar, the appellant was aged about 15 years at the time of occurrence.At the time of granting special leave, the other appellant Jagdish produced High School Certificate, according to which he was about 15 years of age at the time of occurrence.The other appellant Krishan Kant produced horoscope with showed that he was 13 years of age at the time of occurrence."It is thus proved to the satisfaction of this Court that on the date of occurrence, the appellants had not completed 16 years of age and as such they should have been dealt with under the U.P. Children Act instead of being sentenced to imprisonment on conviction under Section 302/34 of the Act.Since the appellants are now aged more than 30 years, there is no question of sending them to an approved school under the U. P. Children Act for detention.Accordingly, while sustaining the conviction of the appellants under all charges framed against them, we quash the sentences awarded to them and direct their release forthwith".Mr. Kazi Safiullah, the learned P. P. and Mr. Sengupta, the learned Advocate for the appellant/convict both have argued much as regards the acceptability of the statement recorded in the formal portion of the form meant for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr. PC.1 to 16 was brought to her notice and then almost after about one year on 3.4.1998 the evidence of the PW.17 was brought to her notice again.It appears that on both the occasions she got her age recorded as 20 in the formal portion of the form meant for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr. PC.Thus for the purpose of determination of age of the convict-appellant at the time of commission of offence, we asked Smt. N. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Howrah to hold an enquiry in order to determine the present age of the appellant.In fact 4th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah was the Trial Court.Smt. Chakraborty sent her report.We have gone through the report.She examined the father of the appellant.He stated that his wife is not alive and his daughter, Nazima Bibi was married at the age of 14-15 years and four years thereafter the occurrence took place.So according to her father she was about 18-19 years at the time of occurrence.Smt. Chakraborty also sent the appellant to Medical Board.In such backdrop the conclusion of Smt. Chakraborty is as follows :"There is no other clear evidence about the present age of the appellant Nazima Bibi save and except the statement of her father.In view of our observations as mentioned above the convict/appellant be released at once.G.C. De, J.I agree. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,049,581 | Heard learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the applicant that he committed rape upon the prosecutrix who is 26 years old married woman.No internal or external injury was found in the medico legal examination.Under these circumstances it is apparent that the applicant is falsely implicated and no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 16.12.2015 without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail 2 M.Cr.C. No. 655/ 2016 (Kok Singh Vs.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Shalini | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,052,948 | O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by notice dated 24.10.2016 issued by the Tehsildar, Ujjain to all the three petitioners.[2] In the notice it is alleged that the petitioners are in possession of Survey Nos.1548 area 6.063 hectares by way of encroachment.It was the plaintiff's suit.[1] The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court.[2] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the same issue has already been decided by order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2745/2009 (Madhukant Yadu V/s State of M.P.).The S.L.P. No. 6092/93 preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.He also submitted that similar writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court by issuing directions in favour of the writ petitioners.[3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned Respondent be directed to decide the petitioner's claim within a time bound period.[4] Learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents has no objection to the same.[5] In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation to the concerned respondent raising the grievance in respect of the non grant of regular pay-scale/increments from the date of initial appointment.If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the concerned respondent will consider and decide it within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt keeping in view the judgment in the matter of Madhukant Yadu (supra) noted above and any other binding judgment on the point and if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the said benefit, the concerned respondent would extend such benefit to him without any delay.Any adverse order will be a reasoned speaking order.[6] The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.Cc as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Writ Petition No.2235 of 2017 (S) 07.04.2017 :-Shri K.L.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance notice.This writ petition is heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.ORDER [1] The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court.[2] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the same issue has already been decided by order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2745/2009 (Madhukant Yadu V/s State of M.P.).The S.L.P. No. 6092/93 preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.He also submitted that similar writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court by issuing directions in favour of the writ petitioners.[3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned Respondent be directed to decide the petitioner's claim within a time bound period.[4] Learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents has no objection to the same.[5] In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation to the concerned respondent raising the grievance in respect of the non grant of regular pay-scale/increments from the date of initial appointment.If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the concerned respondent will consider and decide it within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt keeping in view the judgment in the matter of Madhukant Yadu (supra) noted above and any other binding judgment on the point and if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the said benefit, the concerned respondent would extend such benefit to him without any delay.Any adverse order will be a reasoned speaking order.[6] The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.Cc as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Writ Petition No.2235 of 2017 (S) 07.04.2017 :-Shri K.L.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance notice.This writ petition is heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.ORDER [1] The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court.[2] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the same issue has already been decided by order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2745/2009 (Madhukant Yadu V/s State of M.P.).The S.L.P. No. 6092/93 preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.He also submitted that similar writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court by issuing directions in favour of the writ petitioners.[3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned Respondent be directed to decide the petitioner's claim within a time bound period.[4] Learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents has no objection to the same.[5] In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation to the concerned respondent raising the grievance in respect of the non grant of regular pay-scale/increments from the date of initial appointment.If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the concerned respondent will consider and decide it within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt keeping in view the judgment in the matter of Madhukant Yadu (supra) noted above and any other binding judgment on the point and if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the said benefit, the concerned respondent would extend such benefit to him without any delay.Any adverse order will be a reasoned speaking order.[6] The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.Cc as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Non-applicant No.1/State.O R D E R Father of the deceased Kalpana has filed the present application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [in brief "the Code"] for cancellation of the bail granted by this Court vide order dated 26.12.2016 in Misc.[2] The husband Rahul along with 2 others were made accused in a FIR registered as Crime No.713/2016 under Section 306/34 of IPC.Thereafter he filed the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code before this Court in which vide order dated 26.12.2016 bail was granted.Thereafter Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur vide letter dated 06.12.2016 has informed the JMFC that there are allegations of demand of dowry against the accused persons.Therefore, the charge under Section 304-B of IPC has also been added in the FIR.Thereafter challan was filed on 06.01.2017 under Sections 304-B and 34 of IPC.When the bail application under Section 439 of the Code came up before this Court on 26.12.2016 it was the duty of the prosecution to inform about the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code and the letter of Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur dated 06.12.2016 and there are charges under Section 304-B of IPC also against the accused persons, because of suppression of this material, this Court has granted the bail.[4] Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate and Shri Saraswat has opposed the present application for cancellation of bail.[5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties.Thereafter he filed the bail application before this Court under the same offence as he was not aware about the communication dated 06.12.2016 and the statement of brother of the deceased recorded under Section 164 of the Code by JMFC because he was in custody.The trial has reached to the stage of evidence and there is no allegations of misuse of the bail by the Non-applicant.[7] Considering the aforesaid, no case for cancellation of bail is made out.Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed.Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for the Respondents, on advance copy.Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the Respondents to make payment of annual increment and consider his case for confirmation to the post of Lecturer (Assistant Professor).Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition has already been decided in Writ Petition No.4959 of 2015 vide order dated 07.02.2017 [Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh v/s Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya].The operative part of the said order is reproduced below :-"This Court has carefully gone through the reply of the University.In absence of the interim order passed by this Court, the confirmation of the petitioner cannot be deferred on account of pendency of a writ petition.The executive council is the appointing authority of the petitioner and the appointing authority of the petitioner has held the petitioner to be entitled for confirmation in its meeting held on 30.07.2011 and therefore, once the executive council has held the petitioner entitled for confirmation, he is certainly entitled to be confirmed w.e.f. 30.07.2011 and the pendency of the writ petition will not come in the way.Resultantly, writ petition is allowed.Respondents are directed to pass a consequential order in light of the decision taken by the executive council w.e.f. 30.07.2011 and the consequential confirmation order, keeping in view the appointment order be issued within a period of 30 days from today.Petitioner shall be entitled for all other consequential benefits arising out of confirmation order.With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed."[3] In the light of the above, present petition is also allowed.Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits arising out of his confirmation.[4] With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed.Cc as per rules.Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days, failing which this petition shall be liable to be dismissed without reference to the Court.In the meanwhile, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises in question, till the next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Rushil Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply copy of the writ petition to Shri V.P.Khare.List in the next week.Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri V.P.Khare in the cause-list.Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.Shri Yash Pal Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.The petitioner has submitted a representation on 03.10.2016 to the Conservator of Forest.The same has not been decided so far.[2] The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 60 days (sixty days) from production of certified copy of this order.Cc as per rules.Shri Yougendra Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days, returnable within six weeks.Meanwhile, recovery in pursuance to the order/letter (Annexures P/1 & P/2) shall remain stayed.Cc as per rules.Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.As prayed by Shri Sharma list after a week to enable him to file an affidavit regarding HUMDAST service.Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Shashank Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State again prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.List thereafter.Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Shri Pourush, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt.Advocate for the Respondent No.8/State.Shri Abhishek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondents- Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore.The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition alleging that he is being forcibly evicted from the shop in question.A prayer has been made in the Writ Petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question forcibly, except by following the procedure prescribed under the law.Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondents has fairly stated before this Court that the petitioner shall not be evicted without following the due process of law/procedure provided under the law.Resultantly, in the light of the categoric undertaking given by the learned counsel for the Respondents - Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Respondents not to evict the present petitioner without following the due process of law.Cc as per rules.Parties through their counsel.At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is adjourned.List after two weeks.IR, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.None for the appellant.Perused the appeal.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.Record of the Tribunal be requisitioned.List thereafter.Shri Rahul Laad, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, further prays for and is granted 15 days' time to comply the order dated 20.02.2017 from Collector.List after fifteen days.Shri Jitendra Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Return be filed within four weeks.List thereafter.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Conc.Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice to the Respondent on payment of process fee within seven days.Shri Pranay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice to the Respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within seven days.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the Tribunal be requisitioned.List thereafter.Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition.Prayer is allowed.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.None for the appellant.Perused the appeal.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.Record of the Tribunal be requisitioned.List thereafter.Ms. Kashu Mahant, learned counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply a copy of the writ petition to Shri S.V.Dandvate, Advocate who normally represent the Oriental Insurance Company.List in the next week.None for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.List thereafter.Shri Juhi Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Considering the averments made in the application [IA No.1893/2017], the same is allowed.Necessary amendment be incorporated in the petition within three working days.List after a week.Shri Nilesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition.Prayer is allowed.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamakherkar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Heard on the question of admission.O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition only for the purpose of direction to the Tehsildar, Mandsaur to decide his application filed under Sections 109 and 110 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code for mutation.After this affirmation of the decree in his favour, he filed an application for mutation on 08.09.2016 which is pending before the Tehsildar, Mandsaur.Vide order dated 24.09.2016 the Tehsildar has called the report of Patwari which is still awaited.[3] Without commenting on merits of the matter, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tehsildar, Mandsaur to conclude the proceedings preferably within a period of 60 days (sixty days) from production of certified copy of this order.Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission as well as on IA No.1522/2017, an application for stay.Issue notice to the Respondents against admission as well as on IA No.1522/2017 on payment of process fee within 3 working days.Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file the copy of issues which has already been framed by the Court.List in the next week.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the Non- applicant.Heard on the question of admission.O R D E R THE applicant has filed the present Misc.Civil Case under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure [in brief "the Code"].[2] The present applicant had filed a Civil Suit No.9-A/2007 against the Non-applicant claiming 1/2 share in the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.1284 and 1288 with a house situated at Village Jahangirpur, Tehsil Badnagar, District Ujjain along with relief of partition, possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction.Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the applicant filed an application under Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Code seeking permission to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person.The said application was allowed and First Appeal No.774 of 2010 was registered.Notices were issued and the Respondent represented through his counsel.In the said application, it is alleged that the Non-applicant Radheyshyam has agreed to sell a piece of land of suit property to one Pyarsingh.It is alleged in the present application that despite order dated 01.12.2010, the Non- applicant filed an application under Sections 109 and 110 of the M. P. Land Revenue for getting his name recorded on 1/2 share of Survey Nos.1284 and 1288 which belongs to Smt. Ramibai.It is alleged that the said application for mutation, he has pleaded that the civil suit has been dismissed, therefore, his name be mutated in place of Smt. Ramibai.Therefore, he has violated the order of temporary injunction and liable to be punished.[5] After notice, the Non-applicant filed the reply submitting that the order dated 01.12.2010 was not communicated to him by the counsel engaged by him.The said land was jointly recorded in his name along with Smt. Ramibai in the revenue record.Since Smt. Ramibai has died, therefore, Non-applicant has applied before the Naib Tehsildar for deleting her name from the revenue record.The Naib Tehsildar has followed the due process of law and despite publication of the notice, no objection was received, hence he passed the order by deleting the name of Ramibai.Therefore, he has not made any willful disobedience of the Court order dated 01.12.2010 and also submitted unconditional apology before this Court.He has further pleaded that the applicant has filed the present application only to harass him.[6] I have heard learned counsel for the parties.[7] It is true that the order of status-quo was passed in presence of the counsel for the Non-applicant.The counsel for the Non-applicant also sought time to file reply of the application for temporary injunction.On 15.03.2011 the counsel has pleaded no instructions in the matter and the interim order was directed to continue until further orders.Even the applicant has also not informed him about the said status-quo order.The name of Non-applicant was jointly recorded with Smt. Ramibai on death of Smt. Ramibai he filed an application for deleting her name from the revenue record along with death certificate.The Naib Tehsildar has ordered for publication of the notice on 10.05.2011 and after publication no one has appeared hence vide order dated 06.06.2011 he has directed to delete the name of Ramibai.The right of the applicant over the 1/2 share of Smt. Ramibai is yet to be adjudicated in the first appeal and if first appeal is allowed, his name would be mutated in the revenue record along with the Non-applicant.At present only the name of Ramibai has been deleted on account of her death.Therefore, there is no deliberate disobedience by the Non-applicant when he specifically stated that he had no knowledge about the order dated 01.12.2010 and later on he changed his counsel also who did not inform him.He has also not alienate the property.Therefore, in view of the above, I do not find any reason to punish the Non-applicant.Since the order of status-quo has now came to his knowledge, therefore, he is directed not to take any further steps in violation of the order of status-quo.The unconditional apology is also accepted.[8] Misc.Civil Case stands dismissed.Shri Sanjay Jamindar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Heard on the question of admission.The petitioners submitted detailed representation stating that they are not in possession of land of Survey No.1548 but are in possession over the land of Survey Nos.1551 and 1553 since last 38 years.Therefore, notices have wrongly been issued to them.[3] The Respondents have filed the return and it is submitted that the Tehsildar has registered the case and proceedings are pending before him.The petitioners were only directed to appear before the Tehsildar and satisfy him by filing reply about their possession.[4] Since the Tehsildar has already registered a Revenue case on 06.02.2017 against all the petitioners and issued notices, let the petitioners approach before the Tehsildar, Ujjain and by submitting their reply to justify their possession.The petitioners are free to take all defence before the Tehsildar which has been taken before this Court.The Tehsildar is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of sixty days from production of certified copy of this order, if already not concluded so far.The interim order granted on 25.11.2016 shall continue for the period of sixty days.[5] The petition stands disposed of.Cc as per rules.Parties through their counsel.At the request of learned counsel for the Respondents, the case is adjourned.The interim order granted on 20.01.2017 shall continue.Cc as per rules.Parties through their counsel.Reply is awaited.List after four weeks.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.List after two weeks.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that today he has filed the reply and the copy has been supplied Shri Vivek Dalal.Shri Dalal prays for time to go through the same.List in the next week.Parties through their counsel.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.None for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.List thereafter.Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.None for the parties.List after four weeks.Shri M.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list after four weeks.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri J.B.Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri P.Patvardhan, learned counsel for the Respondents.Heard on I.A.No.347/2016, an application for condonation of delay.As per the office objection, the appeal is barred by 26 days.This is an appeal under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act by which the claim of the appellant has been rejected by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation.The appeal is barred by limitation, hence an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed.He is an illiterate person and was not aware about the procedural law and the delay is caused.The application is supported by an affidavit.Considering the averments made in the application [IA No.347/2016], the application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.List the appeal for admission after a week.IA No.347/2017 stands disposed of.Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners.Service to the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are awaited.Let fresh process fee be paid for service to Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 on their current and present address by Regd.Mode within ten days.List after service is effected.None for the appellants.Shri Mahant prays for and is granted ten days' time to file reply of the application for condonation of delay.List thereafter.Shri Jitendra Panwar, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A.No.1466/2017, an application for condonation of delay.Issue notice of this application to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.Record of Courts below be requisitioned.List thereafter.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicants.This application is filed for restoration of Misc.Appeal No.1182 of 2016 by not removing the defects within the time granted by the Court.This Misc.Civil Case is barred by 8 days, hence application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed.Considering the averments made in the application, which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant, the delay in filing Misc.Civil Case is condoned.The appellants filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation payable by the Insurance Company.Since there were so many defects in Misc.Since the appellants could not arrange the Court-fees, therefore, they could not paid the same.Considering the averments made in the application, this Misc.The order dated 26.08.2016 is set- aside and the appeal is restored to its original number.List the appeal for admission after removing the defects within two weeks.Civil Case stands disposed of.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Ms. Manisha Parsai, learned counsel for the appellants.He also prays for two weeks' time to argue on this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that vide order dated 20.03.2017 learned 4th ADJ has granted time till 06.04.2017 for payment of court-fees.Till the next date of hearing, the Court is directed not to dismiss the suit for want of court-fees.Cc as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Conc.Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioners.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Ms. Nisha Tanwar, learned counsel for the appellant.Parties are directed to file docket.Parties through their counsel.Shri Mangarl, learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.List thereafter.Shri Viraj Godha, learned counsel for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that till now no action has been taken in pursuance to the show cause notice and the Respondents will duly consider the reply of petitioner and will pass a reasoned order before taking any action.It will also be open to the petitioner to file additional reply within ten days from today.In view of the aforesaid, no case for entertaining the writ petition is made out.as per rules.Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.1/State, on advance copy.Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, on Caveat.Heard on the question of admission.Issue show-cause notice to the Respondents.Since the Respondent No.2 has already appeared on Caveat, therefore, no notice is necessary.Also heard for grant of interim relief.The petitioner was Chairman of Marketing Committee constituted under Section 11 of Mandi Adhiniyam.For 9 shops under reserved category, the up-set price of Rs.1,83,400-00 and the bids were received from 22.26 lakhs to 33.51 lakhs.It has been alleged that by accepting such bid the petitioner has caused the huge financial losses to the Mandi by not obtaining the directions from the Competent Authority.It is not disputed that the said auction was not finalized and later on the said allotment was cancelled by the Mandi and such cancellation is under challenge in the writ petition is pending before this Court filed by the successful bidders in whose favour the agreement has been executed.The petitioner, who was holding the post of Chairman in the year 2011 and the said period has came to an end after completing 5 years terms.Thereafter again the petitioner has been elected as a Chairman and at present holding the post of the Chairman in the same Krishi Upaj Mandi.Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the authority of the Managing Director that no action can be taken under Section 55 against him in respect of the period which has already been over.The operation of the order dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure-P/1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.The Respondents are directed to file the reply.List thereafter.Cc as per rules.Shri Yash Pal Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.None for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, though served.O R D E R THE petitioner being a decree-holder has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 20.11.2015 passed in Execution Case No.5/2015 by Iind Civil Judge, Class-II, Jawad, District Neemuch.[2] Facts of the case are as under :-(a) The petitioner filed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of land bearing Survey No.240 area 0.04 hectare and two rooms constructed therein.According to the plaintiff he gave the land and the two rooms on rent to the defendant Nos.3 and 4 on 01.05.1997 and at present the tenancy has been come to an end.The defendants/Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were directed to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff within a period of two months.Thereafter the petitioner filed the execution proceedings before the Executing Court.On 19.06.2015, the Respondent No.4 appeared before the Executing Court and stated that he has abandoned the suit property.The possession has been handed over to the petitioner/decree-holder.It has also been mentioned that the Respondent No.2 was found in possession and when the contents of Kabja Warrant was read over before him, he left the area and the possession was given to the plaintiff/decree- holder.(b) The Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [in brief "the Code"] before the Executing Court stating that he is owner of the suit property which he purchased from one Iqbal Hussain vide registered sale-deed dated 30.01.2014 and he is in possession.Therefore, the possession warrant has wrongly been issued against him and the same is liable to be cancelled.(c) The said application was opposed by the present petitioner.Hence, the present petition before this Court.Hence, he filed the petition before this Court.[8] The petition stands allowed.Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.O R D E R THE plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants on the ground that she is the owner of land bearing Survey No.449/3 and in possession.It is alleged that the defendants are trying to create way from her land, which give to her cause of action to file the suit.Plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure [in brief "the Code"].The Tehsildar passed the order and the way was provided.The said order was assailed before the Board of Revenue and vide order dated 08.09.2015 the order of Tehsildar was maintained and at present the said disputed land is being used as a way.[2] Since the order of Competent Authority under Section 131 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code has attained finality and the way has been provided, therefore, no case is made out for grant of temporary injunction.Both the Courts below have rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction and no interference is called for by this Court in this writ petition.The petition is, therefore, dismissed.However, it is made clear that while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code, any observations made in this order would not come in the way of the Trial Court.The Trial Court shall decide the suit on the basis of evidence.Cc as per rules.Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, on advance notice.Petitioner, who is present in person submits that Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, Advocate has withdrawn Vakalatnama on behalf of him and in future he will appear in person.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.Record of the Tribunal be requisitioned.None for the petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State, on advance copy.The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the notice dated 27.02.2017 by which the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 were directed to remove the illegal construction.Counsel for the Respondents was directed to seek instructions and vide order dated 10.03.2017 the counsel for the Respondents was directed to file an affidavit disclosing the current status.Counsel for the petitioner sought time on 20.03.2017 to file rejoinder.No rejoinder has been fined.Even today in second round no one is appeared on behalf of the petitioner.The petition is dismissed in default of appearance.Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondents- Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore.The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition alleging that he is being forcibly evicted from the shop in question.A prayer has been made in the Writ Petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question forcibly, except by following the procedure prescribed under the law.Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondents has fairly stated before this Court that the petitioner shall not be evicted without following the due process of law/procedure provided under the law.Resultantly, in the light of the categoric undertaking given by the learned counsel for the Respondents - Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Respondents not to evict the present petitioner without following the due process of law.Cc as per rules.Parties through their counsel.As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 to 3/State.As prayed by Shri Verma, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4, further four weeks' time is granted to file the reply.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.Parties through their counsel.Parties through their counsel.As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, list after eight weeks.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.Shri Shashank Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays for two weeks' time to file rejoinder.As a last indulgence, four weeks' time is granted.Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri M.S.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.As prayed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondents- Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore.The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition alleging that he is being forcibly evicted from the shop in question.A prayer has been made in the Writ Petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question forcibly, except by following the procedure prescribed under the law.Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondents has fairly stated before this Court that the petitioner shall not be evicted without following the due process of law/procedure provided under the law.Resultantly, in the light of the categoric undertaking given by the learned counsel for the Respondents - Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Respondents not to evict the present petitioner without following the due process of law.Cc as per rules.Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.Shri D.D.Vyas, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.2/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel is requested to accept notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 and submit short reply.Till the next date of hearing, status-quo be maintained.Cc as per rules.Shri Dilip Singh Panwar, learned counsel for petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State on advance notice.He submits that in the identical writ petition being WP No.1547/2013 in the matter of Trilok Singh Devda v/s State of MP & others the co- ordinate bench has passed the order dated 9/3/2015 granting permission to file the representation in view of the judgment in the case of Smt.Madhubala Verma Vs.On the perusal of the record, it is noticed that in the matter of Trilok Singh (supra), the following order was passed by the co-ordinate bench:-"Shri Prasanna R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondents - State.With the consent of parties, heard finally.The prayer in this petition is for quashment of order of termination dated 16.10.2001 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as E.G.S. Guruji with all consequential benefits.2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working as Guruji and was terminated by oral order.It is submitted that an inquiry was conducted in which the report is dated 13.11.2010 wherein it was found that petitioner was wrongly terminated, however, no further orders has been passed till so far.It is submitted that case of the petitioner is covered by order dated 16.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.12273/2010 (Smt. Madhubalqa Verma Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh).It is submitted that necessary directions be issued.3] Learned counsel for the respondents submit that case of the petitioner is not covered by order dated 16.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.1173/2010 (Smt. Madhubala Verma Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh) as in the present case inquiry has already been conducted.4] After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submission of petitioner that inquiry report is in favour of petitioner, petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with short direction that petitioner shall submit an appropriate application along with copy of the order passed by this Court and also the copy of report dated 13.11.2010 and also with the copy of order dated 16.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.12273/2010 (Smt. Madhubala Verma Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh) before the Competent Authority with a request to reinstate the petitioner on the post of EGS Guruji.If such application is filed, then the competent authority shall decide the application by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months.5] With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of."Since the petitioner stands on the same footing, therefore, the petitioner's writ petition is also disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter by permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate application along with the copy of the order passed in the matter of Smt. Madhubala (supra).Cc.c as per rules.Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.By way of interim relief, any subsequent action would be subject to the out come of this writ petition.as per rules.Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment or process fee within seven days.Shri Aniket Abhay Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri P.R.Bhatnagar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/State.Shri Bhatnagar submits that on his instructions, the Head Quarters of the petitioner is not going to change.Let an affidavit be filed to that effect.Petitioner present in person.Shri S.C.Sinhal, learned counsel for the Respondents.The petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer from Ratlam to Dewas, but he has not challenged the said order in the writ petition.He prays for time to file an amendment application.Prayer is allowed.List after three days.Shri Ramesh Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.With the consent of parties, heard finally.Order passed separately, signed and dated.Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel with Shri M.A.Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioners.No settlement has arrived between the parties.Arguments heard.Order passed separately, signed and dated.Shri Amit Kumar Pardeshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Medha Patkar for the intervenors.[2] The counsel for both the parties jointly submit that the issue involved in this petition has been decided in Writ Petition No.2168 of 2016 vide order dated 21.03.2017 which is reproduced below :-"Learned counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 has pointed out that the issue in regard to the allotment of alternate land has now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court by order dated 8/2/2017 passed in WP No.328/2002 in the matter of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs.Union of India and others.He has pointed out that in the said order, the concerned project affected families has been found entitled to the monetary compensation to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs.It has also been pointed out that a list of 681 project affected families has already been considered by Hon'ble Supreme court and in case if any other affected family is similarly situated and not included in the list then they have the option to approach the GRA and establish their credentials.Shri Vivek Patwa learned counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 has fairly stated before this court that prompt action in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme court will now be taken and proper remedy at this stage available to the petitioner is to approach the GRA and get the relief in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme court.Ms. Medha Pakar appearing on behalf of the intervenors has raised a grievance submitting that list of 681 project affected families has not yet been supplied to the concerned parties inspite of the request made to GRA and NVDA.Since the relief in terms of the aforesaid order of the Supreme court infavour of 681 families has already been crystallized therefore, it is the bounded duty of the concerned authority to disclose the list of 681 persons expeditiously.Hence it is directed that if any affected family approaches the competent authority then the list will be duly disclosed to such affected party without any delay.The concerned authorities are directed to take expeditious action in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme court.Writ petition is accordingly disposed off."[3] In the light of the above, the petition is also disposed of with the direction that if the affected family approaches the competent authority, then the list will be duly supplied to said affected party and the concerned authorities take expeditious action in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble apex Court.[4] Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.Cc as per rules.Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days, failing which this petition shall be liable to be dismissed without reference to the Court.In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question, till the next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days, failing which this petition shall be liable to be dismissed without reference to the Court.In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question, till the next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days, failing which this petition shall be liable to be dismissed without reference to the Court.In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question, till the next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2013 by which allotment in his favour has been cancelled in respect of House No.419 C.M.2 Sukhliya, Indore.Now the petitioner has filed an application [I.A. No.1878/2017] for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file fresh petition if occasion so arises.The application [I.A.No.1878/2017] is allowed.In the result, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Arguments heard.Reserved for orders.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (Adarsh)Shri Shashank Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.1/State.Shri N.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.Later on she gave an affidavit that at the instance of his uncle Kanwarlal, she lodged false report and no such incident of rape has taken place with her.Therefore, a direction may be issued to the police that before registering a FIR against him, proper investigation be made.[2] Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, if police received any complaint of committing cognizable offence, they are bound to register FIR.Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2017 by which the Board of Revenue has refused to extend the interim stay order.The petitioner was granted a mining lease by the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 05.08.2010 in respect of Survey No.993/1 situated at Village Bapaiya, Tehsil Mahidpur, District Ujjain for the period of 10 years.A report was submitted by the S.D.O. (Revenue) that the petitioner is carrying out the mining operations on some other land.Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain in which the stay was granted to the petitioner.Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue along with an application for stay.By order dated 23.11.2016 record of the lower authorities were summoned and the recovery of penalty was stayed by the Board of Revenue.The stay order was continued and the appeal was fixed by the Board of Revenue at Ujjain Camp.For want of record, the argument could not take place.Thereafter the same was listed on 16.02.2017 on application for urgent hearing and extension of stay order but vide order dated 16.02.2017 without any reason the President of Board of Revenue has refused to extend the stay order, hence the present petition before this Court.[3] Shri Sethi, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Board of Revenue in an arbitrary manner by non- speaking and unreasoned order has refused to extend the stay order which was granted in his favour.When appeal is pending for final hearing and stay was granted, then it ought to have been continued till the final disposal of appeal.[4] Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State submits that the Board of Revenue may be directed to decide the appeal finally itself on merit.[5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties.[6] The Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.11.2016 has granted the stay in favour of the petitioner.There is no application for vacating of stay order by Mining Department.The appeal is yet to be heard finally on its merit.Once the stay has been granted, in normal course it ought to have been continued till the final disposal of the appeal if there is no application for vacating the stay order.[7] The Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order has not assigned any reason for not extending the stay order.The impugned order is set-aside.The Board of Revenue is directed to decide the pending Appeal Case No.3962/PBR/2016 within a period of two months from today and till then the interim order granted on 23.11.2016 shall continue.[8] With the aforesaid, the petition is finally disposed of.As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.Shri R.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to file reply List after two weeks.Shri R.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.9 and 10/State.List after fifteen days.Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.Meanwhile reply may be filed.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Conc.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply/compliance report.List after four weeks.Shri R.Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.1/State.As prayed, list in the next week.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.Shri G.Panchal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Meanwhile State may file the reply.Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.List after four weeks.Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the appellants.Requisition the record of the Courts below and thereafter list for admission.Shri Ajay Bagadiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 16.08.2001 passed by the Collector, Dhar and further sought direction that the name of the petitioner be restored in the Revenue Record.[2] According to the petitioner he purchased certain piece of land by registered sale-deed dated 11.10.1993 and his name was mutated in the Revenue Record and Rin Pustika was prepared but in the Khasra entries from 1999 onwards the same property has been recorded in the name of Wakf.[4] The present property has already been declared as Wakf property by way of Gazette Notification dated 10.01.1995 and later on the Collector vide order dated 16.08.2001 has directed the Tehsildar, Dhar to make correction in the revenue entries.Once the property has been notified as Wakf property, therefore, under Section 6 of the Waqf Act, 1995 the petitioner is required to raise the dispute before the Wakf Tribunal.The Wakf Tribunal is competent to decide the issue relating to the Wakf properties under the Waqf Act, 1995..[5] Therefore, the petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal in accordance with law.Shri Pravin Alune, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3/State.Heard on the question of admission.O R D E R THE petitioner was initially appointed as Accountant on contract basis in NRHM Programme vide order dated 05.01.2008 on a fixed honorarium of Rs.8,000/- per month.She was posted at Community Health Centre, Silawad, District Badwani.Since the post of Accountant at Badwani has been abolished, therefore, the petitioner was given an offer to accept the appointment in Community Health Centre, Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, Bhabra as per new agreement dated 31.03.2017 in a fixed honorarium of Rs.15,000/- per month.The petitioner has given a written undertaking by Annexure-A/7 accepting the said appointment but later on filed the present petition on the ground that the present place of posting is 100 kms away and there is reduction in the honorarium from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month.She can be accommodated in any other places nearby District Badwani.The petitioner has filed an affidavit on 24.11.2017 stating that she has joined the post at Community Health Centre, Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, Bhabra.Since the petitioner has given the joining, therefore, the present writ petition has rendered infructuous.However, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit representation to the Director of NRHM for posting at another suitable vacant place and if such representation is filed, the learned authority shall consider looking to the experience of the petitioner and the family problem.With the above liberty, writ petition stands disposed of.Shri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by RAD mode.Return be filed within four weeks.Interim relief would be considered after filing of the return.None present.List after two weeks.Shri Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellants.As prayed, list after two weeks.None for the appellants.List after two weeks.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.None for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3/State.Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have filed the return.Return from Respondent No.4 is awaited.Let the return be filed within four weeks.List after four weeks.Shri Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejoinder has been filed.List after a week.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue.Cc as per rules.Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Instructions are awaited.List after four weeks.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5/State.Let the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 file a return of the writ petition.Shri Mangal undertakes to file return on behalf of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 within four weeks.List after four weeks.Ms. Sangeeta Bourasi, learned counsel for the appellant.Requisition the record of the Courts below and thereafter list for admission.Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.As prayed, list in the next week.None for the appellant.Requisition the record of the Courts below and thereafter list for admission.Shri M.I.Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file duly constituted fresh writ petition.The aforesaid writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.All pending I.As.Are also disposed of.Shri Sarver Ashraf, learned counsel for the petitioner.At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.Ms. Sumanlata, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.Shri Mangal has produced the letter of Station House Officer, Police Station Kali Devi, District Jhabua before whom the petitioner herself has stated that she is living with her husband along with son.Counsel for the petitioner is disputing the said fact and stated that at present the petitioner is living with her father.The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit to that effect and the Respondents is also directed to file the reply.List after two weeks.Shri Manohar Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.O R D E R THE present petition is filed against the order dated 22.12.2016 by which appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [in short "the Code"] has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain.[2] The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit against his own father claiming declaration that the property is an ancestral property and he is having share in the property.[3] Vide order dated 10.04.2014 the learned Civil Judge has upheld the objection and rejected the plaint.[4] The plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code.Hence, the present writ petition is filed.[5] Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the decree has not been drawn by the appellate Court, therefore, second appeal would not lie.Hence, the writ petition is filed.[6] That the "decree" is defined under Section 2 (2) of the Code and according to which a formal expression of an adjudication which so far as regards the Court expresses between the parties."(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final.It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include -(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or(b) any order of dismissal for default.Hence, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to file second appeal.Certified copy of the impugned order dated 22.12.2016 be returned to the petitioner after substituting by photo-copy.Shri K.C.Raikwar, learned counsel for the petitioners.Respondent No.6 - Shri Shyam Kumar Singh, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ratlam is also present in person.This Court vide order dated 08.07.2013 disposed of the Writ Petition No.10782 of 2012 and another writ petition of similar nature i.e. Writ Petition No.10783 of 2012 in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.1570 of 2001 [Sayyed Imtiaz Ali v/s State of M.P.].When the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner, therefore, they filed the present contempt petition.[3] After notice, the Respondents filed the return contending that the petitioners were appointed vide order dated 05.03.1999 in the Madarsa run under the Rajeev Gandhi Primary Education Mission, Ratlam on fixed honorarium of Rs.1,000-00 per month.Therefore, they are not entitled for the pay scale of Shiksha Karmi or Assistant Teacher.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ratlam has written a letter to the Collector for grant of necessary sanction for giving the pay scale of Rs.800-1200 but no sanction was granted by Government.[4] The District Project Officer, Jila Shiksha Kendra also filed reply to the contempt petition submitting that the appointing authority of the petitioners is Municipal Corporation, therefore, even if the order is required to be complied, the same is to be complied by the Municipal Corporation not by the State Government.It is further submitted that along with the writ petition of the petitioners, another Writ Petition No.10783 of 2012 was decided which was filed by the employees of Municipal Council, Jaora and in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 08.07.2013 passed in the writ petition, the Municipal Council, Jaora vide order dated 08.11.2014 has rejected the representation of the petitioner and against which contempt petition has been dismissed and now the writ petitioner has challenged the said rejection order in the writ petition.Therefore, the present contempt petition is also liable to be dismissed.The petitioners who were also appointed in the Madarsa are also entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.800-1200 and the Respondents have committed contempt by not complying the directions given by this Court.[7] I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.[8] That the petitioners were appointed vide order dated 05.09.1999 issued by Municipal Corporation, Ratlam.In the order it is specifically mentioned that they are being appointed on the fixed honorarium of Rs.1,000-00 per month.The designation is mentioned as "Ustad" not the 'Shiksha Karmi'.Vide order dated 12.01.1999 issued by Block Education Officer, the post of Shiksha Karmi has been changed and it has been ordered that now they would be designated as "Ustad" and they will be entitled to get the fixed honorarium of Rs.1,000-00 per month.In that factual background, this Court while allowing the writ petition vide order dated 22nd March, 2006 has held that the petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III Madarsa on the pay scale of Rs.800-1200, therefore, they are entitled for the said pay scale.[9] In the present case, the petitioners were appointed as Ustad in the fixed honorarium of Rs.1,000-00 per month.[10] Along with the writ petition of the petitioner, another writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.10783 of 2012 was also disposed of.After the High Court order dated 08.07.2013, the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Jaora has rejected the representation of the petitioners and the said order has been challenged by Shri Gopal Panchal and others by way of writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition is still pending.The contempt petition filed by Gopal Panchal has also been disposed of with liberty to file writ petition to challenge the rejection order.Since the Writ Petition No.10782 of 2012 and Writ Petition No.10783 of 2012 were decided by common order and in one petition the representation has been rejected and the petitioners therein have already filed the writ petition, therefore, in the present case also the writ petitioners are also liable to file the writ petition to challenge the action of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam.The order is reproduced below :-"10.11.2014 Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before this Court that in pursuance to the direction of this Court, the representation has been decided, therefore, the petitioner be granted liberty to file fresh petition challenging the order of rejection.In view of the aforesaid, contempt petition is dismissed with the liberty as prayed above."Thereafter Gopal Panchal and others have filed Writ Petition No.59 of 2012 before this Court, which is still pending.[11] In view of the above, the contempt petition is dismissed.The contemnors are dis-charged.Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel with Shri M.A.Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioners.The appellate Court has refused injunction looking to the public cause behind the construction of water tank.Admittedly the land was given to the plaintiffs' trust by the State Government measuring 162000 sq.ft.and the Municipal Council going to make construction of water tank over the land approximately measuring 1500 sq.ft.Without commenting on merit, looking to the public cause involved in this petition, let the main Trustee of the petitioners as well as the Chief Municipal Officer, Dhar; President and In-charge of this project remain present before this Court on 28.03.2017 for amicable settlement of the issue between them.Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the Respondents to arrest the accused in connection with Crime No.764/2014 dated 25.09.2014 and further sought direction to conduct fair investigation in the matter at the earliest.[2] After notice, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State have filed the return in which they submitted that the investigation was completed and thumb impression of mother of the petitioner was examined through handwriting expert and it was found that the mother of the petitioner executed 4 sale-deeds of the property in the year 1990 which she received from her father and at present the arrest is not necessary.[3] The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed the return denying all the allegations.It has been informed that the police has submitted closure report before the concerned Magistrate but the same has been rejected.The mother of the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and opposed the closure report submitted by the police and the Magistrate has recorded her statement.Since the concerned Magistrate has rejected the closure report submitted by the police, therefore, how the trial shall be proceed against the accused persons.Since the FIR has been registered and the concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter, therefore, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty to mother of the petitioner to appear before the concerned Magistrate and she assist the prosecution.The petition is disposed of accordingly.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.List immediately after filing of the reply.Shri Brajendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the Respondents.Heard on I.A.No.1037/2017, an application for withdrawal of the writ petition.Considering the averments made in the application [IA No.1037/2017], the same is allowed.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Shri A.S.Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri M.K.Jain, learned counsel for the Respondent.There is a decree of eviction against the appellant under Sections 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. Both the Courts below have concurrently granted the decree of eviction.The apex Court in the case of Hero Vinoth v/s Seshammal [(2006) 5 SCC 545] and Sheel Chand v/s Prakash Chand [(1998) 6 SCC 683] held that concurrent finding should not be interfered by the High Court.Shri Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel submits that appellant be granted period of six months time to vacate the premises.He undertakes to vacate the premises within a period of six months.Shri Jain opposes the prayer and submitted that the appellant has already vacated the premises.The appellant shall file an undertaking before the Executing Court that he shall vacate the premises within a period of six months from today.He is also directed to deposit rent of 6 months before the Executing Court along with undertaking.If undertaking is not filed and rent is not deposited in 15 days from today, the Respondent shall be free to get the decree executed.The appeal stands disposed of.Cc as per rules.Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.[2] The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 29.02.1996 by the Director of Kalidas Sanskrit Academny, Ujjain.Thereafter the petitioner was posted in Kalidas Sanskrit Academy, Ujjain.[3] The State Government has framed the policy regarding Time Bound Promotion Scheme for granting the benefit of Higher Pay Scale to those employees who had completed 8/10 years of service from the date of initial appointment but could not get promotion due to some reasons.[4] The Departmental Promotion Committee of the Respondents met on 28.08.2012 for considering the case of eligible employee for granting the benefit of 1 st Kramonnati/ up-gradation.The name of the petitioner was also considered along with 39 employees.Since the petitioner's ACRs were adverse during aforesaid period, and show-cause notice was also issued for awarding punishment of stoppage of 2 increments, the DPC did not recommend the name of the petitioner for grant of 1 st Kramonnati.[5] The petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondents mainly on the two grounds that the Respondents have wrongly considered the ACRs of the years 2009 to 2012 of the petitioner and even though those adverse ACRs has never been communicated to him, therefore, they cannot be considered for denying the benefit of the up-gradation to the petitioner.[6] The Respondents filed the return in which it is submitted that the DPC is liable to be considered the ACRs of the preceding 5 years and since the petitioner's ACRs were not up to the mark, therefore, his name was not recommended.It is submitted that the ACRs of the petitioner were communicated to him vide letter dated 27.06.2011 and received by the petitioner on 10.10.2011 hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.[7] I have heard learned counsel for the parties.[8] The State Government has framed the policy dated 24.01.2008 for granting benefit of Higher Pay Scale to their employees of Category A, B and C after completing 8 years and 10 years of service respectively.The criteria for grant of the said benefit was same as the criteria for promotion.In Clauses 9 and 10, it has been mentioned that the employees whose service of 8 years completed as on 01.04.2006 would be considered for grant of benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2006 and those employees who had completed more than 8 years service than the said extra period would be counted for granting 2nd Kramonnati.Clause 9 and 10 are reproduced below :-" 9. fnukad 1&4&2006 dks ;fn mPprj osrueku dh ik=rk ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr lsok vof/k vFkok mlls vf/kd lsok vof/k iw.kZ gks pqdh gS rks izFke mPPkrj osrueku dh ik=rk fnukad 1&4&2006 ls gksxhA fnukad 1&4&2006 dks ;fn f}rh; mPPkrj osrueku ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr lsok vof/k iw.kZ dj yh xbZ gS rks mls lh/ks f}rh; mPPkrj osrueku dh ik=rk gksxhA 10- ;fn fdlh 'kkldh; lsod dh fnukad 1&4&2006 dks izFke mPprj osrueku ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr lsok vof/k ls vf/kd lsok vof/k gS rks vf/kd lsok vof/k f}rh; mPPkrj osrueku dh ik=rk ds fy;s x.kuk esa yh tk;sxhA mnkgj.kkFkZ] ;fn izFke mPPkrj osrueku ds fy;s 8 o"kZ dh lsok vof/k fu/kkZfjr gS vkSj fnukad 1&4&2006 dks mldh dqy lsok vof/k 12 o"kZ iw.kZ gks pqdh gS rks 'ks"k 4 o"kZ dh vof/k f}rh; mPprj osrueku gsrq x.kuk esa yh tk;sxh vFkkZr~ ftl Hkh fnukad dks mldh lsok vof/k 16 o"kZ gks tkrh gS ml fnukad ls mls f}rh; mPPkrj osrueku dh ik=rk gksxhA"[9] It is clear from the two clauses the benefit of Kramonnati is to be granted to those employees who had completed 8/10 years service on 01.04.2006, therefore, their service record/ACRs were liable to be considered up to 01.04.2006 not beyond that.Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 1st Kramonnati considering his service record up to 01.04.2006 from the date of initial appointment.The entire exercise be completed within six weeks from production of certified copy of this order.[10] The petition is stands allowed.Cc as per rules.Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Romesh Dave, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.4/State.Heard on I.A.No.1765/2017, an application for deleting the name of appellant No.1 on account of death.of appellant No.1 are already on record.Considering the averments made in the application [IA No.1765/2017], the same is allowed.Necessary amendment be incorporated within seven days.IA No.1765/2017 stands disposed of.Shri Brajesh Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondents.During pendency of this petition, Respondent No.1 has expired on 01.04.2016 leaving behind two L.Rs.Notices were issued.Shri Rishi Agrawal on behalf of the L.Rs.Has not opposed the date of death and submitted that correct name of wife is "Vatsla w/o Dinesh Kumar Kathuriya" and son Devansh is minor aged 17 years, therefore, he should be represented through his mother Vatsla.In view of the above, the application [IA No.3867/2016] is allowed.Necessary amendment be carried out in the Memo of Petition.No notice is necessary as Shri Agrawal has already marked his present.IA No.3867/2016 stands disposed of.List after two weeks.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after two weeks.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri S.R.Kochatta, learned counsel for the appellants.As prayed by Shri Agrawal, list after two weeks.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.Cc as per rules.Shri S.C.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on I.A.No.407/2017, an application for condonation of delay.Issue notice of this application to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri Rajendra Samdani, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on I.A.No.1841/2017, an application for condonation of delay.Issue notice of this application to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days.Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants.List thereafter.None for the petitioner.List in the next week.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Record of the Tribunal be requisitioned.List thereafter.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by RAD mode.Also heard on I.A.No.1368/2017, an application for stay.Issue notice of this application also to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by RAD mode.Subject to the compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the execution of Award dated 13.05.2016 shall remain stayed.Record of the Labour Court be requisitioned.as per rules.Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by RAD mode.Also heard on I.A.No.1373/2017, an application for stay.Issue notice of this application also to the Respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by RAD mode.Subject to the compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the execution of Award dated 13.05.2016 shall remain stayed.Record of the Labour Court be requisitioned.as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Writ Petition No.412 of 2015 (S).Shri Brajendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the charge-sheet dated 09.06.2014 and the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner.[2] This petition was filed in the year 2015 and no stay was granted.Now more than 2 years have been passed and the Departmental Enquiry must have been completed.Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is having no information from the petitioner about the status of Departmental Enquiry.[3] As the case may be, if the Departmental Enquiry has not been completed, let it be completed within 60 days from production of certified copy of this Order and if it has been completed, then the petitioner is free to challenge the final out come of the enquiry.[4] With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after two weeks.Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the Respondents to arrest the accused in connection with Crime No.764/2014 dated 25.09.2014 and further sought direction to conduct fair investigation in the matter at the earliest.[2] After notice, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State have filed the return in which they submitted that the investigation was completed and thumb impression of mother of the petitioner was examined through handwriting expert and it was found that the mother of the petitioner executed 4 sale-deeds of the property in the year 1990 which she received from her father and at present the arrest is not necessary.[3] The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed the return denying all the allegations.It has been informed that the police has submitted closure report before the concerned Magistrate but the same has been rejected.The mother of the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and opposed the closure report submitted by the police and the Magistrate has recorded her statement.Since the concerned Magistrate has rejected the closure report submitted by the police, therefore, how the trial shall be proceed against the accused persons.Since the FIR has been registered and the concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter, therefore, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty to mother of the petitioner to appear before the concerned Magistrate and she assist the prosecution.The petition is disposed of accordingly.Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the petitioner.Considering the averments made in the application [IA No.1394/2017], the same is allowed.Necessary amendment be incorporated in the Memo of Writ Petition within seven days.IA No.1394/2017 stands disposed of.Issue notice to the Respondents.Shri Dave accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.Issue notice to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within two weeks.By way of interim relief, it is directed that any subsequent action on the part of the Respondents would be subject to the out come of this writ petition.as per rules.Shri Shashank Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.List thereafter.Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Romesh Dave, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Barmandal.Vide Sessions Trial No.240/2016 judgment dated 09.01.2017 the petitioner has been acquitted.After acquittal the petitioner submitted representation for revocation of suspension order.Vide letter dated 18.01.2017 and 17.02.2017, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sardarpur has forwarded letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dhar for revocation of the suspension order and notifying the petitioner as Secretary.The said matter is still pending before the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dhar.The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Dhar to take final decision in the matter within a period of 15 days from production of copy of this order in accordance with law.as per rules.Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/State.Arguing counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 comes from Ujjain.List on any Wednesday.In the meanwhile, reply be filed also.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the Respondents.As prayed by learned Govt. Advocate, list after two weeks.Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.As prayed, list after a week.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Conc.Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list in the next week.None present.Shri Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant is seeking time for arguments on admission since 10.05.2016 and due to non appearance this appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.Later on it was restored.The Executing Court is free to proceed in accordance with law.List after two weeks.Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the P.P.O. has been prepared by the Respondents.Let the payment be made to the petitioner within 30 days from today.The present contempt petition is disposed of.The contemnors are discharged.Parties through their counsel.Counsel for the petitioner submits that today he is filing rejoinder.List the contempt petition after two weeks.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Conc.Parties through their counsel.As prayed by Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Respondent, four weeks' time is granted to file compliance report.List after four weeks.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Conc.Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the Respondent/contemnors.By order dated 21.03.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.6436 of 2015, a direction was given to the Respondents to pay the benefit of 5th as well as 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners.Shri Patwa submits that the benefit of 6 th Pay Commission has been granted to the petitioners and the arrears has also been paid.So far as benefit of 5 th Pay Commission is concerned, the matter is under consideration as detailed calculation is required to be done.We undertake that the same shall be released to the petitioners within three months from today.With the aforesaid undertaking, the present contempt petition is disposed of.The contemnors are discharged.Shri Shashank Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for the Respondents/Contemnors.Writ Petition No.6040 of 2015 (S) filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2015 by directing the Respondents to consider the case of regularization.The Respondents has considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same.Now the order of consideration has been complied with and the petitioner is required to challenge the rejection order.With the liberty to challenge the rejection order, the present contempt petition is disposed of.The contemnors are discharged.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Conc.Parties through their counsel.As prayed, four weeks' time is granted to file compliance report.List thereafter.Parties through their counsel.As prayed, four weeks' time is granted to file reply/ compliance report.List thereafter.Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the Respondents to release the salary and permit him to work at present place of post.[2] Vide order dated 10.07.2012 the petitioner was transferred from Government College, Agar-Malwa to Mata Jijabai Government P.G. Girls College, Indore at his own request and by the same order one Bhanupratap Tiwari was transferred from Indore to Agar-Malwa in place of the petitioner on administrative grounds.In pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner gave joining at Indore and started work.Vide order dated 23.09.2013 transfer order of Bhanupratap Tiwari has been cancelled.Because of the cancellation of the transfer of Bhanupratap Tiwari, the petitioner was declared as surplus.The Principal of Mata Jijabai Government P.G. Girls College has sought permission from the Commissioner, Higher Secondary Education to draw the salary of the petitioner from a vacant post.The petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondents that he has wrongly been declared surplus and the Respondents be directed to pay the salary to him.[3] After notice, the Respondents has filed the return in which it is stated that due to cancellation of transfer of Respondent No.4 - Bhanupratap Tiwari, the petitioner has become surplus at Indore, therefore, vide order dated 15.06.2016 his salary is being drawn from the vacant post of Assistant Grade-III from Government College, Badnawar.The petitioner has been paid salary and he is at present working in Mata Jijabai Government Girls P.G. College, Indore.Therefore, nothing survives in this petition and the petition is rendered infructuous.[4] Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is getting regular salary but salary of 5 months is not released so far and he has wrongly been declared surplus at Indore.[5] The petitioner has not challenged the cancellation order dated 23.09.2013 in this petition.So far as the salary of 5 months is concerned, let the representation of the petitioner be decided by the Competent Authority within four weeks from production of the certified copy of this order.[6] The petition is disposed of accordingly.Shri Mohd. Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4/State.Service report of newly added Respondent No.5 is awaited.List after service is effected.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.List after three weeks.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.List thereafter.Parties through their counsel.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.List thereafter.Parties through their counsel.As prayed by learned counsel for the Respondents, four weeks' time is granted to file the reply.List thereafter.Shri L.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Romesh Dave, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.O R D E R THE petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2016 by which his contract appointment to the post of District Manager (Public Services) has been cancelled.[2] Facts of the case are as under :-Under Clause 5.10 if the appointed officer/employee was found involving in a criminal activities or mis-conduct, the appointing authority may terminate the services.Thereafter an agreement was executed on 21.03.2013 for the period of one year in which also there is a Clause 11 pertains to the termination of service after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing.Thereafter, the Collector vide order dated 24.04.2015 again extended the contract appointment for the period of one year.According to the petitioner she issued many show-cause notices to the Director of Public Service Centers which has annoyed them.One Jagdish Bais has made a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she is involving in extortion of money from the In-charge of Public Service Centers.He has produced one CD in which the conversation between the petitioner and Mr.Rituraj Singh, In-charge of Public Service Center, Tirla was recorded.On the basis of the said complaint, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and she was asked to appear before the Collector.The Collector has also called Rituraj Singh who recorded his statement before the Collector in which he has admitted his conversation with the petitioner about illegal demand of money.On the same day, the statement of the petitioner was also recorded in which she has also admitted the conversation with Rituraj Singh on telephone but denied the demand of money.She has stated that she has only put pressure on him for taking the charge of Public Utility Center, Nalchha.On the basis of the aforesaid brief inquiry, vide order dated 07.01.2016 the contract of the petitioner has been terminated under Clause 5.10 of the appointment order.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.[3] After notice, the Respondents filed the return justifying the action of the Collector.Along with the return, copy of the transcription of conversation between the petitioner and Rituraj Singh has also been filed.As per the terms and conditions of the contract, a reasonable opportunity of hearing has been granted to her and thereafter services has been terminated.Therefore, no relief of reinstatement can be granted to the petitioner.In Clause 11 of the agreement, it is specifically provide that the services of contract appointment are liable to be terminated after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing if he/she found involved in the mis-conduct or in criminal activities."11- lafonk ij fu;qDr o;fDr ds dnkpkj ;k fdlh vkijkf/kd fdz;kdyki es lafyIr ik;s tkus ij fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh mls lquokbZ dk ;qfDr;qDr volj nsus ds i'pkr~ ,slh lafonk fu;qfDr lekIr dj ldsxk A"[7] The terms of appointment only provides reasonable opportunity of hearing.Since the petitioner was not regular government employee, therefore, the protection of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules would not apply.The petitioner was issued a show- cause notice by Collector and the petitioner has appeared before the Collector and recorded her statement.She has categorically admitted her conversation with Rituraj Singh but she tried to justify her conduct by giving an explanation that she was trying to put pressure on the Director so that the charge of Public Utility Center, Nalchha can be taken.While passing the impugned order, the Collector has given the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.[8] The only grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is casting stigma on her career and after this stigmatic order she cannot get appointment in any government department.The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence.He can do so only when he is told what the charges against him are.The statements were taken on 07.01.2016 and on the same day order has been passed.The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2016 by which his right of evidence has been closed.The petitioner has filed the suit against the State Government for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.After notice, the Respondent has filed the written statement and issues has been framed.The plaintiff examined himself and one witness Chhaganlal on 04.02.2006 but his other two witnesses were not present and the Court has closed the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence.Shri Dave opposes the prayer and submits that 11 opportunities has already been granted to the plaintiff.During pendency of this writ petition, the sole plaintiff expired and his L.Rs.were brought on record.Though the learned Trial Court passed a detailed order therein each and every date has been mentioned on which the plaintiff's witnesses were not present.Though the suit is of the year 2012 but the records were summoned in the appeal and till 2015 due to pendency of appeal as well as writ petition, the proceedings of the suit were held-up.On that date or next date of hearing the Court shall permit the defendant to cross- examine them.It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiff.By way of costs, petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,000-00 [One Thousand Rupees] in the District Bar Association, Narayangarh, District Mandsaur.With the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of.as per rules.Parties through their counsel.Reply be filed within four weeks.Parties through their counsel.Reply be filed within four weeks.Parties through their counsel.As prayed by Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.None for the petitioner.Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the Respondents/State.List after four weeks.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.List thereafter.Parties through their counsel.Further four weeks' time is granted to file para-wise reply.Parties through their counsel.As prayed by Shri Saraf, learned counsel for the Respondents, list after two weeks.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Misc.Shri M.A.Bohra, learned counsel for the appellants.As per the office report, notice to the Respondents could not be served as they were received after the date fixed by the office.Let fresh process fee by RAD mode be paid within 3 days for service of notice on the Respondents.Heard on I.A.No.7853/2016, an application for stay.The Insurance Company has initiated the execution proceedings against the present appellants after depositing the amount under the award.Till the next date of hearing, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed.as per rules.Shri Abhishek tugnawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice to the Respondents.Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4/State.By way of interim relief, it is directed that the petitioner be permitted to submit the Form of line.as per rules.Shri M.A.Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3/State.None for the Respondent No.4, though served.The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order of Civil Judge as well as District Judge by which the relief of temporary injunction has been denied.The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration; permanent injunction and partition against his two brothers claiming 1/3rd share in the property.Along with the plaint, he has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.The defendants after notice appeared and filed reply to the application.Vide order dated 05.01.2015 learned Civil Judge, Class-II has dismissed the application holding that the defendants are in possession of the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any temporary injunction.Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2015, the plaintiff preferred Misc.Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.Vide order dated 07.07.2015 the said appeal was also dismissed and affirmed the order of learned Civil Judge.Being aggrieved by the order of appellate Court, the present petition was filed.Vide order dated 11.09.2015 notices were issued to the Respondents and by way of interim relief status-quo was granted only in respect of possession be directed to be maintained.The order of status-quo is still in force in this writ petition.The suit is only for partition between the brothers which is pending since last more than 5 years.Therefore, instead of entering into the merits of the case for the purpose of temporary injunction it would be better to direct the Civil Court to decide the suit finally on merit preferably within a period of six months from today and till then the order of status-quo shall remain in force.This order would not be treated that this Court has interfere with the impugned order rejecting relief of temporary injunction.This Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of.Parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the suit.C.c.as per rules.Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this writ petition.Accordingly this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the Respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.List thereafter.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondents/State.Learned counsel for the Respondents/State prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.List thereafter.Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondents/State.Let the additional return be filed by the Respondents in respect of Circular dated 09.01.2012 within four weeks.List thereafter.Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.List after fifteen days.Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder.List thereafter.Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the Respondents/State prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.List thereafter.Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondents/State.List thereafter.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondents/State.The contention of the petitioner is that he made the representation to the Chief Executive Officer.Even the said representation was filed on 10.01.2017 and immediately thereafter present petition has been filed.Once the services of the petitioner has been terminated, no representation would lie to the same authority.The petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law.Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondents/State.The petitioner was appointed on 09.08.1973 in the establishment of Public Works Department, Indore.It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Teju Lal Yadav v/s State of M.P. [ILR (MP) 2009, pg. 1326] which was upheld by the Division Bench as well as the Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled for two upgradations after completion of 24 years of service which has not been granted to the petitioner.The petitioner has submitted a representation to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Indore dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure-P/7).Without commenting on merits, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the Respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down in the case of Teju Lal Yadav (Supra).The entire exercise be concluded within 30 days from production of the certified copy of this order.Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Dalal submits that the impugned plot has not been leased out by the AKVN and the cause still survives.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Shri Akshay Bhonde, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within 3 days, returnable within three weeks.Parties through their counsel.Return from the Respondents are awaited.Let the return be filed within four weeks.IR dated 28.02.2017 shall continue.as per rules.Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel on behalf of Shri Ravindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.As prayed, list in the next week.The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2017 by which application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the Respondent/wife has been allowed.The Respondent/wife filed an application under Section 12 (1) (A) and 12 (2) (A) and (B) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Shajapur seeking declaration that the marriage dated 28.11.2011 be declared void.The petitioner filed the reply to the said application denying the allegations.Thereafter issues were framed and both the parties have recorded their evidence on the basis of averments made in the application and written statement.At the time of final hearing of the case, an application has been filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.That application has been wrongly filed under Section 12 (1) (A) and ought to have been filed under Section 12 (1) (C) of the Hindu Marriage Act and it was only typing mistake and in place of word 'void' it should be treated "voidable".Such application was vehemently opposed by the petitioner/husband on the ground that by the said amendment entire nature of the case would be changed.Learned Family Court, Shajapur vide impugned order dated 25.01.2017 has allowed the application.Hence, the present petition.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.He has rightly exercised its discretion.Looking to the averments made in the application and the nature of the case, I do not find any illegality in the order.The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Shri L.N.Soni, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner.Reserved for orders.Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.None for the Respondent No.1 despite Caveat No.82 of 2017 filed.Shri Romesh Dave, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.2/State.Despite the bank is insisting for sale of the property by way of auction and trying to dispossess the petitioner.Let the petitioner file undertaking before the Respondent No.1 on or before 10.03.2017 that he is going to deposit Rs.15,00,000-00 [Fifteen Lakhs Rupees] within ten days from today in compliance of the Court order.List after four weeks.as per rules.Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Smt. Anjali Jamkherkar, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the Respondent No.1 police to register the FIR against the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 under Sections 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC in the light of the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v/s State of U.P. [2013 (5) MPHT 336].We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions.The Division Bench has dismissed the writ appeal, affirmed the order of writ Court dismissing the writ petition.The operative part is reproduced below :-A civil suit in respect of property in question is very much pending between the parties and relinquishment deed and will is the subject-matter and an application which was preferred under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. for search and the same has been dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class.Criminal Revision (Cri.Let the return be filed within four weeks.List thereafter.Smt. Rachana Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.K.Chourasia, learned counsel for the Respondent.Heard on the question of admission.List the petition for final hearing in due course.Parties through their counsel.Shri Khare on behalf of the Respondents further prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.List thereafter.The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner dated 29.09.2016 by which the application for interim relief has been rejected.Thereafter the appeal ought to have been decided by the Commissioner on merit.Sufficient time has been elapsed.If the appeal is not decided as yet, the same shall be decided within 45 days from production of certified copy of this order.The petition is disposed of accordingly.Parties through their counsel.Pleadings are complete.Heard on the question of admission.The petition is admitted for final hearing.No notices to the Respondents are necessary.List this petition for final hearing in due course.Parties through their counsel.Four weeks' time is granted to file reply.List thereafter.Parties through their counsel.Four weeks' time is granted to file reply.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.Parties through their counsel.Shri Amit Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Romesh Dave, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State.Shri Lokesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.None for the Respondents, though served.List in the week commencing 20th March, 2017 for arguments on admission.Parties through their counsel.Four weeks' time is granted to file reply.List thereafter.IR to continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.Parties through their counsel.Four weeks' time is granted to file reply.List thereafter.Parties through their counsel.Four weeks' time is granted to file reply.List thereafter.Shri Ashish Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 prays for two weeks' time to file reply.Let the reply be filed within two weeks.Any appointment in place of petitioner would be subject to the out come of this writ petition.List after two weeks.as per rules.Smt. Rachana Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Romesh Dave, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.None for the Respondent No.3, though served.Shri V.Puranik, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 prays for two weeks' time to file reply of the writ petition.Parties through their counsel.Four weeks' time is granted to file reply.List thereafter.None for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, though served.Shri Romesh Dave, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.4/State.List after service is effected.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Conc.None for the petitioner.List after service is effected.Parties through their counsel.As prayed by Shri Dhanodkar, list after two weeks.Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.The petitioner has filed present petition being aggrieved by order dated 04.02.2017 by which her services as "Aganwadi Worker" has been terminated alleging that she was absent on duty and her work is not satisfactory.The petitioner is working since 2002, therefore, her services cannot be terminated without giving show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing.The matter is remitted back to the authority with a direction to issue show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass the order in accordance with law.Certified copy as per rules.By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 20th June, 2016 (Annexure P/9).Counsel for the petitioner submits that reply to the show cause notice has already been filed on 29/06/2016 and has sought liberty to file additional reply alone.Learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that till today no action has been taken in pursuance to the show cause notice and the Respondents will duly consider the reply of petitioner and will pass a reasoned order before taking any action.The petitioner is free to file additional reply.In view of the aforesaid, no case for entertaining the writ petition is made out at this stage.Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the Respondents, on advance notice.By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 20th June, 2016 (Annexure P/9).Counsel for the petitioner submits that reply to the show cause notice has already been filed on 29/06/2016 and has sought liberty to file additional reply alone.Learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that till today no action has been taken in pursuance to the show cause notice and the Respondents will duly consider the reply of petitioner and will pass a reasoned order before taking any action.The petitioner is free to file additional reply.In view of the aforesaid, no case for entertaining the writ petition is made out at this stage.Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the Respondents, on advance notice.By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 20th June, 2016 (Annexure P/9).Counsel for the petitioner submits that reply to the show cause notice has already been filed on 29/06/2016 and has sought liberty to file additional reply alone.Learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that till today no action has been taken in pursuance to the show cause notice and the Respondents will duly consider the reply of petitioner and will pass a reasoned order before taking any action.The petitioner is free to file additional reply.In view of the aforesaid, no case for entertaining the writ petition is made out at this stage.The writ petition is disposed off in view of the stand of Respondents.as per rules.Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the Respondents, on advance notice.By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 20th June, 2016 (Annexure P/9).Counsel for the petitioner submits that reply to the show cause notice has already been filed on 29/06/2016 and has sought liberty to file additional reply alone.Learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that till today no action has been taken in pursuance to the show cause notice and the Respondents will duly consider the reply of petitioner and will pass a reasoned order before taking any action.The petitioner is free to file additional reply.In view of the aforesaid, no case for entertaining the writ petition is made out at this stage.The writ petition is disposed off in view of the stand of Respondents.as per rules.Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the Respondents, on advance notice.By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 20th June, 2016 (Annexure P/10).Counsel for the petitioner submits that reply to the show cause notice has already been filed on 29/06/2016 and has sought liberty to file additional reply alone.Learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that till today no action has been taken in pursuance to the show cause notice and the Respondents will duly consider the reply of petitioner and will pass a reasoned order before taking any action.The petitioner is free to file additional reply.In view of the aforesaid, no case for entertaining the writ petition is made out at this stage.The writ petition is disposed off in view of the stand of Respondents.as per rules.Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the Respondents, on advance notice.By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 20th June, 2016 (Annexure P/10).Counsel for the petitioner submits that reply to the show cause notice has already been filed on 29/06/2016 and has sought liberty to file additional reply alone.Learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that till today no action has been taken in pursuance to the show cause notice and the Respondents will duly consider the reply of petitioner and will pass a reasoned order before taking any action.The petitioner is free to file additional reply.In view of the aforesaid, no case for entertaining the writ petition is made out at this stage.The writ petition is disposed off in view of the stand of Respondents.as per rules.Shri Yash Pal Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent Nos.1 to 6, on advance copy.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No.12/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents.At this stage Shri Chelawat accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Shri Mangal accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.12/State.Process fee be paid for notice to Respondent Nos.7 to 11 within a week, returnable within six weeks.Till the next date of hearing, the suit of the plaintiff be not dismissed for want of Court-fees.Office is directed to reflect the name of AG and ASG in the cause-list.Certified copy as per rules.Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, on advance copy.The petitioner has approached this Court again seeking direction to the Respondents to continue working on the post of Stringer in Indore as no formal order has been received by the petitioner regarding termination of service.The relief itself shows that there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner.By virtue of earlier selection, she is still in panel of Stringer.The process of selection is still going on and final out come is awaited.The petitioner has unnecessarily filed this petition.The petitioner herself participated in subsequent selection and continuing in the panel by virtue of her earlier selection.There is no question of termination.The petitioner should wait the decision of interview.The petition is pre-mature, therefore, it is hereby dismissed.Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within six weeks.Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within six weeks.Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate counsel for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.The petitioner has filed present petition seeking police protection on the ground that her husband and in-laws are torturing her and at the time of her marriage, she was minor, therefore, marriage is void.If so called husband and in-laws are torturing the petitioner, the petitioner is free to report against them in concerned police station.No writ can be issued in this writ petition.The petition is, therefore, dismissed.Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents.At this stage, Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.(i) to (v).Process fee be paid for notice to Respondent Nos.2 to 9 within a week, returnable within three weeks Till the next date of hearing, further proceedings of Civil Suit No.1-A/2016 shall remain stayed.Certified copy as per rules.Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the Respondents on payment of process fee within a week by RAD mode, returnable within six weeks.Till the next date of hearing, the Court shall not dismissed the suit for want of court-fees.Certified copy as per rules.Shri Vinod Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of this petition on the ground that certain documents and the pleadings has been left in this petition.Permission granted.With the liberty to file duly constituted petition, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Writ Petition No. of 2017 (S) 07.04.2017 :-Shri V.K. Patwari learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice.This writ petition is heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.ORDER 1/ The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court.2/ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the same issue has already been decided by order dated 24.08.1992 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2745/2009 (Madhukant Yadu V/s State of M.P.).The S.L.P. No. 6092/93 preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.He also submitted that similar writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court by issuing directions in favour of the writ petitioners.3/ Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned respondent be directed to decide the petitioner's claim within a time bound period.4/ Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.5/ In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation to the concerned respondent raising the grievance in respect of the non grant of regular pay-scale/increments from the date of initial appointment.If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the concerned respondent will consider and decide it within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt keeping in view the judgment in the matter of Madhukant Yadu (supra) noted above and any other binding judgment on the point and if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the said benefit, the concerned respondent would extend such benefit to him without any delay.Any adverse order will be a reasoned speaking order.6/ The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.C.C. as per rules.Shri , learned counsel for the appellant.Shri , learned counsel for the Respondent.Heard on I.A.No. /2006 for stay of execution of impugned decree.Issue notice of IA No. to the respondents.PF within three days.Notice be made returnable within 15 days.Until further orders it is directed that the execution of impugned decree in so far as it related to appellant's eviction from the suit accommodation shall remain stayed subject to the following conditions :-(a) The appellant shall deposit in court the entire arrears of rent up to date as also the cost of two courts (if awarded) within two weeks, if not so far deposited.(b) The respondent on such deposit being made, will be entitled to withdraw the amount.(c) Failure to comply with the direction to deposit the arrears of rent and cost shall automatically result in vacating of the interim stay without reference to the Court.Let the record of the case out of which this appeal arises be requisitioned by the Registry from the concerned court within two weeks and list the appeal for admission along with the record immediately on receipt of the record.In case if appellant fails to pay PF within time, as directed by this Court in accordance with the rules, the stay granted by this Court i.e. today shall stand automatically vacated on expiry of three days.It shall however, be the responsibility of the appellant to produce the acknowledgment before the learned trial Judge showing filing/paying the PF in the High Court/Registry in accordance with Rules, within three days so as to enable the trial court to know that the stay granted by this court is to continue even after expiry of three days.Shri , learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents/State, on advance copy.Heard on the question of admission. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,580,419 | A. 174/2017 Page 1 of 30In December 2008, Jyoti w/o Sujeet went with appellant Amit and left her son Kunal with Sujeet.Complainant Barjeet, his elder brother Sujeet and appellant Amit, were residing at Moti Lal Camp, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi.When Jyoti came back, a panchayat was held in the area and as per the decision of the panchayat, marriage between Sujeet and Jyoti was dissolved and therefore Jyoti started living with Amit in slums.Appellant Amit used to taunt and abuse Sujeet on this issue.On 10.11.09 at about 10.30 pm Barjeet (brother of the deceased) and his elder brother Sujeet, were plucking leaves from tree for their goat on the boundary wall of Health Society.Sujeet was standing at a distance of 10-15 steps from complainant Barjeet.At that time, appellant Amit came on a grey colour scooter and hit against Sujeet, as a result of which Sujeet fell down, thereafter, appellant Amit shouted that he will not spare Sujeet, as Sujeet Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 2 of 30 was intending to snatch Jyoti from him.Appellant Amit caught Sujeet by collar with his left hand and assaulted on his neck repeatedly with a meat cutting knife.Sujeet after receiving first knife blow from Amit asked Amit to leave him but Amit did not leave Sujeet.Appellant Amit hit Sujeet on his face with the heal of his shoes when complainant Barjeet came down from the wall and rushed to save his brother, appellant Amit rushed towards Barjeet with the knife to hit him.Barjeet ran away to his house and called his family members to the spot.By that time, appellant Amit had fled away from the spot with the scooter.Barjeet categorically stated that appellant Amit has killed his brother on account of previous enmity regarding Jyoti.A. 174/2017 Page 2 of 30The manner in which the crime was detected and investigated stands detailed in Police report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Thereafter, information regarding this incident was received in Police Station Vasant Vihar vide DD no. 21-A and thereupon PW-13 SI Sujit along with Ct.Mahesh reached cremation ground in front of Moti Lal Nehru Camp, DDA Flats, Munirka and found one person lying in pool of blood in front of the gate of cremation ground.Injury no.1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Investigating Officer also obtained subsequent opinion of the Doctor on the knife and the Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 4 of 30 concerned Doctor opined that injury no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are possible by submitted weapon.Thereafter, Inquiry was conducted about the ownership of scooter no. DL3SK 1719 and it was found that the said scooter was registered in the name of Sunil Kumar.Inquiry further revealed that the appellant Amit had purchased this scooter from one Kabadi.(i) Appellant Amit was married to Jyoti who was earlier the wife of the deceased (Sujeet) as per the decision of the Panchayat marriage between Sujeet and Jyoti was dissolved and Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 7 of 30 therefore, Jyoti had started living with Amit.Amit used to taunt and abuse Sujeet on this issue.A. 174/2017 Page 7 of 30(ii) On 10.11.09 at about 10.30 pm Barjeet and his elder brother Sujeet were plucking leaves from a tree for their goat on the boundary wall of Health Society.(iii) Thereafter, the appellant Amit came at the above-said place on a grey colour scooter and hit against Sujeet, as a result of which Sujeet fell down and appellant Amit assaulted on the neck of Sujeet with a meat cutting knife and hit Sujeet on his face with the heal of his shoes and killed Sujeet.(iv) Dead body of the deceased was recovered and was sent to Safdarjung Hospital where the concerned doctor declared Sujeet as brought dead.(v) Thereafter, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered.(vi) Knife and scooter used in the commission of crime got recovered at the instance of the appellant Amit and the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the same.A. 174/2017 Page 8 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 8 of 30(vii) Biological and Seriological evidence established that the blood detected was found to be of human origin blood group being O which matched the deceased's blood group.Suresh Kumar, PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar, PW-19 Ms.Seema Nain, which were strongly relied by the trial Court to convict the appellant.12. PW-3 Barjeet, brother of deceased testified as an eye witness of the incident, who also deposed that in the year 2009, he was residing at S-99/207, Moti Lal Nehru Camp, Munirka, New Delhi, deceased Sujit was Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 9 of 30 his elder brother, deceased Sujit got married in the year 2004 with Jyoti, in the year 2006, a son was born out of the said wedlock, in the year 2008, Jyoti went away with Amit, there was quarrel between deceased Sujit and Amit on this ground every day, a panchayat was convened where a divorce was effected between the deceased and Jyoti, thereafter Jyoti continued to live with Amit.Even after, the divorce between deceased and Jyoti, appellant Amit kept on abusing and taunting the deceased.PW-3 Barjeet further deposed that he and his deceased brother Sujit came to the boundary wall of Health Centre near the cremation ground, PW-3 Barjeet was plucking leaves for his goat and his brother Sujit was standing at a distance of 10-15 steps.In the meantime, appellant Amit came on a grey colour two wheeler scooter and hit against deceased Sujit from behind, deceased fell down, appellant Amit drove the scooter over deceased and took out a meat cutting knife and stabbed deceased Sujit.PW-3 Barjeet got down from the wall and rushed to save his brother's life, the appellant ran towards him with a meat cutting knife to hit him and PW-3 Barjeet started running away to his house due to fear, at the time of being stabbed deceased Sujit asked Amit to spare him but appellant Amit said that he will not leave him on that day, appellant Amit also hit on the face of deceased with the heal of his Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 10 of 30 shoes, PW-3, returned to spot with his family members, by that time appellant Amit had ran away from the spot with his scooter.PW-3 Barjeet further deposed that he had made a call to police on 100 number, police came at the spot and carried out the proceedings and took photographs, police also collected blood stained earth control in plastic container with the help of cotton and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B, police also collected blood stained soil which was sealed in plastic container and was seized vide memo Ex.PW-3/C, police also seized sleepers of deceased Sujit vide memo Ex. PW-3/D. PW-3 Barjeet further deposed that the dead body of his brother was sent to Safdarjung hospital and his statement Ex.PW-3/E was recorded by police at the spot.Thereafter, appellant Amit was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-3/F which bears signature of PW-3 Barjeet, thereafter, appellant Amit got recovered the knife from the roof of his house, Appellant Amit also got recovered the scooter which was used in the crime.According to PW-3 Barjeet, the Investigating Officer also recovered one pair of shoes of appellant Amit which he was wearing at the time of arrest, Investigating Officer also seized blood stained jacket of Amit which was sealed in pulinda, seized vide memo Ex.PW-3/K. PW-3 Barjeet further deposed that the Investigating Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 11 of 30 Officer also seized blue colour jacket, blood stained jeans of appellant which he was wearing at the time of commission of the offence as described by PW-3 Barjeet.PW-3 Barjeet identified blood stained gauze in the Court as Ex.P-I and Ex.As per the direction of Investigating Officer, PW-5 HC Rajbir Singh collected back sealed knife from the doctor along with his opinion and handed over the same to Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW-5/B.14. PW-6 Chandi Prasad and PW-7 Smt. Murti testified about the Panchayat which had taken place to effect the divorce between Jyoti and the deceased.PW-7 Smt. Murti deposed that it was decided in the Panchayat Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 12 of 30 that Jyoti will not be kept by her husband and other family members and she was sent out of her matrimonial home.A. 174/2017 Page 12 of 30PW-8 HC Vinod Kumar testified that he along with the investigating Officer took the scooter no.DL3SK 1719 vide RC No.118/21/09 to FSL, Rohini, blood stains were lifted from the scooter and memo Ex.PW-8/A was prepared to the effect.PW-10 W/ASI Sunita is the Duty Officer who registered FIR as well as DD No.21-A and proved the same in the Court.PW-11 SI Randhir Singh (Retd) testified that appellant Amit along with one more person was arrested by him for the offence 107/151 Cr.PC when he after receiving DD No. 44-A reached the spot where appellant Amit was quarrelling with his neighbour Sanjay.Copy of kalandra u/s. 107/151 Cr.P.C. was proved by PW-11 as Ex. PW-11/A.PW-13 SI (Rtd.) Surjit Singh deposed that DD No. 21-A was assigned to him and after receiving the same, he along with Ct.Mahesh reached the spot i.e, Moti Lal Nehru Campus Munirka in front of cremation ground, where a dead body was lying.PW-13 SI (Rtd.) Surjit Singh informed senior officials, SHO P.S. Vasant Vihar reached the spot, Crime Team was called and spot was inspected, dead body was sent to Safdarjung Hospital, MLC of deceased was obtained.PW-13 SI (Rtd.) Crl.PW-14 Dr. Abhishek Yadav, Asstt.Professor, Deptt.of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital, conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Sujit and gave his report Ex. PW-14/A. He in post-mortem report opined that cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injury to right common carotid artery produced by sharp edged weapon.Injury no. 1, 2, and 3 were produced by sharp edged weapon.Injury no. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.He also deposed that dead body was wrapped in body bag, wearing yellow shirt, jeans, blue underwear and chappal.Clothes were blood stained at places, which were sealed and handed over to Investigating Officer with sample seal.PW-14 Dr. Abhishek Yadav further deposed that on 12.11.09, he had received an application with sealed pulinda regarding opinion for injury and weapon examination.PW-14 Dr. Abhishek Yadav after going through the postmortem report and thoroughly examining the Crl.PW-15 Ct.Suresh Kumar was posted as Constable in PS Vasant Vihar, on that day, he deposed that he along with Ct.PW-15 Ct.Suresh Kumar deposed that he along with Ct.Surender reached Moti Lal Nehru Camp where ASI Surjeet Singh and Ct.Manoj met them and they found that a dead body was lying at the gate of samshan ghat.PW-15 Ct.Suresh Kumar further deposed that they came to know the name of deceased as Sujit @ Kalu, brother of Sujit met police officials at the spot and Investigating Officer recorded his statement.20. PW-16 HC Girdhar Singh, the photographer, took five photographs of dead body as per the direction of Investigating Officer and proved same as Ex. PW-16/1, 2 and 4 and negatives were proved as Ex. PW-16/5 (colly).PW-17 Dr. Jashanpreet Singh, examined the deceased and deposed that Sujit was brought dead.PW-17 Dr. Jashanpreet Singh prepared the MLC Ex. PW-17/A and prepared the report Ex. PW-17/C.A. 174/2017 Page 15 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 15 of 30PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this case.PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar deposed that on 10.11.09 he was posted as Inspector in Police Station Vasant Vihar, investigation of this case was marked to him after registration of case, PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar reached the spot i.e, Moti Lal Nehru Camp.DDA Flats, Munirka, ASI Surjeet Singh along with his staff met PW-18 there, complainant also met PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar, ASI Surjeet Singh handed over sealed pulindas to PW-18, PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar prepared site plan Ex. PW-18/A on the pointing out of complainant Barjeet.PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar searched the appellant and at about 6 pm, appellant Amit Kumar was arrested from near Aggarwal Sweet, Nelson Mandela Road, at the time of arrest of appellant, complainant Barjeet and Ct.Mahesh were with Investigating Officer and complainant identified the appellant before his arrest, disclosure statement Ex. PW-18/C of appellant was recorded and he disclosed that he could get the scooter recovered by which he struck against deceased and the knife i.e, weapon of offence.Appellant further disclosed that he was wearing same clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident.PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar further deposed that thereafter, appellant took PW-18 and other persons to jhuggi Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 16 of 30 no. S99/34, Moti Lal Nehru Camp, Munirka and got recovered the scooter no. DL3SK 1719, grey colour make Classic Bajaj which was parked outside his jhuggi which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/I, there were some blood stains on the front side of scooter, as well as on the dicky of the scooter.Appellant got recovered the knife which was used as weapon of offence from the roof of his jhuggi, the knife was blood stained, sketch of knife was prepared and it was seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/H, wearing pant of appellant i.e, blue colour jeans, wearing jacket of appellant which was blood stained and wearing shoes of dark brown colour make Panasonic of appellant were also sealed and seized by PW-18. PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar further deposed that on 11.11.09, he moved an application Ex. PW- 18/D to CMO, Safdarjung Hospital for conducting postmortem on the dead body of deceased, PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar conducted inquest proceedings Ex. PW-18/E, the dead body was identified by complainant vide his statement Ex. PW-3/N. After conducting post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to complainant.PW-19 Ms. Seema Nain who is a Sr.Scientific Officer - Biology, FSL, Rohini, deposed that on 23.11.09, 11 sealed parcels were received in the office of Director FSL, vide letter no. 2005/SHO/Vasant Vihar dt. 10.11.09 in connection with the present case, same were marked to PW-19 for biological and seriological examination.PW-19 Ms. Seema Nain, Sr.It has also come in the deposition of PW-19 Ms. Seema Nain that on seriological examination, blood detected on Ex. 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, is found to be of human in origin and blood group on Ex. 1, 2a, 2b, 2c and 7 is of O group.PW-19 Crl. A. 174/2017 Page 18 of 30 Ms. Seema Nain, Sr. Scientific Officer, further deposed that blood group on Ex. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 could not be ascertained due to no reaction on these exhibits.PW-19 Ms. Seema Nain, Sr. Scientific Officer, proved her biological report as Ex.PW-19/A and seriological report as Ex. PW19/B. PW-19 Ms. Seema Nain, Sr.Scientific Officer further deposed that she could identify the signature of Mr. Naresh, Sr.Scientific Assistant, Biology, FSL, Rohini, as she had seen him while he was writing and signing during the course of her duty hours.She further deposed that Mr. Naresh Kumar had examined scooter no. DL3SK 1719 at FSL premises on 19.11.09 between 2 pm to 2.45 pm and lifted blood stains from the left side dicky of the scooter and from front side seat cover (sitting place of driver) and proved the said report as Ex. PW-19/C.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar has deposed that at the time of the arrest of the appellant, complainant Barjeet and Constable Mahesh were present with the Investigating Officer and the complainant identified the appellant before his arrest, disclosure statement Ex. PW-18/C of appellant was recorded and he disclosed that he could get recovered the scooter by which he struck against deceased and the knife i.e. weapon of offence recovered.PW-18 further deposed that the appellant took PW-18 and other persons to jhuggi No. S-99/34, Moti Lal Nehru Camp, Munirka and got recovered the scooter No.The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.), against the impugned judgment, dated 10.02.2015, and order of sentence, dated 12.02.2015, respectively passed by Sh.Sandeep Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge-5, South District Court, Saket, New Delhi in case FIR No.359/2009, P.S.- Vasant Vihar, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and sentenced to undergo simple Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 1 of 30 imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for one year.Police officials found deep wound with sharp edged weapon on the neck of the injured.Inquiry revealed the name of the injured as Sujeet, s/o.Naubat Ram, after recording Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 3 of 30 the statement of Barjeet, dead body was sent to Safdarjung Hospital where the concerned doctor declared Sujeet as brought dead.Thereafter, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered.ASI Surjit lifted blood sample of deceased and earth control from the spot.Blood stained mat of scooter was lifted from near the dead body and one sleeper was also lifted and seized.Thereafter, the investigation of this case was transferred to Inspector Kishore Kumar and appellant Amit was arrested from Nelson Mandela Road Near Aggarwal Sweets Munirka based on the identification of Barjeet.Disclosure statement of appellant Amit was recorded.Appellant got recovered the knife and scooter used in the crime, blood stained pant, jacket, shoes of appellant which he was wearing at the time of commission of crime, and he was wearing the same clothes at the time of his arrest, were also seized.Post-mortem of the dead body was conducted, clothes of dead body and blood in gauze was preserved.In the post-mortem, the Doctor opined the cause of death as "hemorrhagic shock due to anti mortem injury to (Rt) common carotid artery produced by sharp edged weapon.Injury no. 1-3 are produced by sharp edged weapon.On 19.11.09, scooter no. DL3SK 1719 was sent to FSL, Rohini for inspection, blood stains from front side of scooter and left side of dicky were lifted, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. 174/2017 Page 3 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 4 of 30To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all.Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded false implication.During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, appellant admitted that Jyoti was deserted by Sujeet and appellant was married with Jyoti.Appellant also admitted that a panchayat was held wherein a divorce was effected between Jyoti and Sujeet and thereafter, appellant Amit got married with Jyoti.However, appellant denied having ever fought with Sujeet regarding his marriage with Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 5 of 30 Jyoti.Appellant stated that on 10.01.09, he had gone to drop his grandmother (maternal) namely Shakuntala at JNU where she was working.Appellant further stated that he does not know how to drive a scooter.One defence witness namely Shakuntala was also examined on behalf of appellant.A. 174/2017 Page 5 of 30Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strongly urged before this court that the learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment as the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the facts and passed the judgment and the order of sentence contrary to law.He also contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.It has been strongly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant before this court that the deposition of PW-3 Barjeet (Brother of the deceased) who is stated to be an eye witness in the present case, is highly doubtful since the incident did not take place in his presence, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the recovery of the scooter has been planted in order to falsely implicate the appellant.Per contra, Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.A. 174/2017 Page 6 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 6 of 30Learned counsel for the State submits that there was ample evidence available on record to bring home the charges against the appellant warranting him conviction.He submitted that the prosecution witness PW- 3 Barjeet had duly identified the appellant Amit.PW-3 Barjeet, PW-11 SI Randhir Kumar, PW-13 SI Surjeet Singh, PW-14 Dr. Abhishek Yadav, PW-15 Ct.Suresh Kumar, Pw-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar, PW-19 Ms. Seema Nain, are the material witnesses in this case.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, examined the trial Court record and the testimonies of witnesses and considered the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court.In this case, on consideration of evidence and material placed on record and after considering the arguments advanced, we have found that the following circumstances were relied upon by the trial Court to convict the appellant:-(viii) Recovery of blood stained pant, jacket, shoes; of appellant Amit which was worn by the appellant at the time of commission of crime, was also wearing the same clothes at the time of his arrest.In order to deal with the contentions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the testimonies as recorded and noticed by the trial Court of the material witnesses including PW-3 Barjeet (brother of the deceased), PW-5 HC Rajbir, PW-6 Chandi Prasad, PW-7 Smt. Murti, PW-8 HC Vinod Kumar, PW-11 SI Randhir Kumar, PW-13 SI Surjeet Singh, PW-14 Dr. Abhishek Yadav, PW-15 Ct.P-I-A, the knife as Ex.P-3, blue colour jeans which appellant was wearing at the time of committing the crime as Ex.P-4, jacket of blue colour which appellant was wearing at the time of committing the crime as Ex.P-5, pair of brown coloured shoes which appellant was wearing at the time of committing the crime as Ex.P-6, piece of blood gauze as Ex.P-1-B, another blood in gauze as Ex.A. 174/2017 Page 9 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 10 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 11 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 13 of 30 Surjit Singh prepared detailed ruqqa Ex. PW-13/A and got the case registered through Ct.PW-13 SI (Rtd.) Surjit Singh further deposed that he lifted the blood, blood stained control, etc. from the spot vide memo Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-3/B, Ex. PW-3/C. PW-13 SI (Rtd.) Surjit Singh also seized chappal from the spot vide memo Ex. PW-13/D.A. 174/2017 Page 13 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 14 of 30 weapon, was of the opinion that injury no, 1, 2, 3, and 5 were possible by the submitted weapon.A. 174/2017 Page 14 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 16 of 30PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar also testified that on 11.11.09, he had sent sealed pulinda containing the knife i.e. weapon of offence to Autopsy Surgeon for subsequent opinion vide application Ex.PW-18/G, Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 17 of 30 PW18 Inspector Kishore Kumar received subsequent opinion from the doctor Ex. PW-14/B. PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar further deposed that on 19.11.09, he had sent scooter no. DL3SK 1719 make Bajaj Chetak to FSL, Rohini for inspection and examination vide application Ex. PW-18/H. PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar correctly identified all the parcels and case properties in the Court viz. knife, jeans/pant of appellant, jacket of appellant, pair of shoes of appellant, scooter,etc.A. 174/2017 Page 17 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 18 of 30Appellant in his defence examined one defence witness i.e, DW-1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi, who is the maternal grandmother of appellant she deposed that she is working in Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU), she had reached her office at about 8.30 am and remained in the office till 3 pm.DW-1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi, further deposed that on 10.11.09, she had gone to her aforesaid office at JNU at about 8.30 pm, she came to know that appellant Amit was involved in a murder case.DW-1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 19 of 30 further deposed that on that day from 8.30 am to 12 noon, Amit was with her in the office, she had taken him to drop her, to her office as she was unwell on that day and Amit could assist her in her office work.She further deposed that she got procured two tablets from Amit on 10.11.09 from Health Centre within JNU campus and resultantly her health improved and Amit left at 12 noon.DW-1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi further deposed that she was not aware as to where Amit went after he left her office.DW-1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi further deposed that when she came to know about the implication of Amit in this case, she went to the Police Station at 8-9 p.m. to tell them the real truth but she was not allowed to enter the Police Station, DW-1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi asked the police officials in the Police Station to record her statement but police officials chased her out of the Police Station.During cross examination, DW-1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi deposed that she did not make any complaint to any senior police official when she was not allowed to enter the Police Station on 10.11.09, as she is an illiterate person.In response to Court's question as to whether Amit was with her continuously from 8 to 12 noon on 10.11.09, DW-1 Smt.Shakuntala Devi first replied that on 10.11.09 he was with her from 8 am to 12 noon throughout.In the next line, she deposed that Amit went to Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 20 of 30 take medicines for her at 11 a.m. and he returned with the medicines within 10 minutes.A. 174/2017 Page 19 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 20 of 30Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the, recovery of the knife is also doubtful.He has also submitted that it has not been proved that the scooter or the rubber mat of the scooter was having any blood stain.On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that based on a careful reading of evidence of PW-3 Barjeet (brother of deceased), PW-11 SI Randhir Singh (Retd.), PW-13 SI (Retd.), PW-14 Dr. Abhishek Yadav (Astt.Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine), PW-15 Ct.Suresh Kumar, PW-17 Dr. Jashanpreet Singh, PW- 18 Inspector Kishore Kumar, PW-19 Ms. Seema Nain (Sr. Scientific Officer-Biology), clearly rebuts the contention's of the learned counsel for the appellant that PW-3 was not an eye witness or that he was not present at the time of the incident or that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case, or that scooter No. No.DL3SK 1719 was planted or that the trial court has passed the order of sentence in contrary of law.We have carefully examined the testimony of PW-3 as mentioned hereinabove.A. 174/2017 Page 21 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 21 of 30We have also carefully examined the testimony of PW-6 and PW-7, both deposed the fact about the panchayat which took place to effect the divorce between Jyoti and deceased.These two witnesses also prove the motive of the crime.During the cross examination of PW-3 as well as PW-6 and PW-7, there was nothing to discredit their testimonies.It has specifically come on record that, it stands proved on record that PW-3 was an eye witness of the incident.We have found no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of the complainant is highly doubtful rather we find the evidence of PW-3 to be truthful and reliable.PW-3 has given a complete account of the incident.There is nothing in the deposition of the PW-3 which may discard his testimony in any manner.Similarly PW-6 and PW-7 as discussed hereinabove, proved the motive of the crime.A. 174/2017 Page 22 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 22 of 30DL3SK 1719, grey colour make Classic Bajaj which was parked outside his jhuggi, was seized vide memo Ex.PW-3/I. There were some blood stains on the front side of the scooter as well as on the dicky of the scooter.It was also deposed that appellant got recovered the knife which was used as weapon of offence from the roof of his jhuggi, the knife was blood stained, sketch of knife was prepared and it was seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/H, the appellant's clothes which he was wearing i.e. blue colour jeans, jacket which was blood stained and shoes of dark brown colour make Panasonic were also sealed and seized by PW-18. PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar further deposed that on 11.11.09, he had Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 23 of 30 moved an application Ex. PW-18/D to CMO, Safdarjung Hospital to conduct the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased and the dead body was identified by the complainant vide Ex.PW-3/N. PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar received subsequent opinion from the doctor as Ex. PW- 14/B. PW-18 further deposed that on 19.11.2009, he sent scooter No.DL3SK1719 make Bajaj Chetak to FSL, Rohini for inspection and examination vide application Ex.PW-18/H.A. 174/2017 Page 23 of 30There is nothing in the cross examination of PW-18, which would cast a shadow of doubt, he submitted that he had reached the spot on 10.11.2009 where the alleged offence was committed and he found some public person at the spot, however, no public witness were made witnesses at time of recovery of the scooter and knife, except for the complainant.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that there is nothing in the cross examination of PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar, which may cast a shadow of doubt about the recovery of the scooter and knife.He submitted that the deposition of PW-18 Inspector Kishore Kumar has been fully supported and corroborated by the other witnesses including complainant and constable Mahesh.We have also noticed that Crl. A. 174/2017 Page 24 of 30 PW-3 Barjeet has clearly deposed that he signed all the relevant documents viz. seizure memo of blood stained earth control, seizure memo of blood stained soil, seizure memo of sleeper of deceased, arrest memo of appellant, seizure memo of knife, seizure memo of scooter and seizure memo of shoes, jacket and jeans of appellant.There is scientific evidence which cannot be ignored rebutting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding lack of scientific investigation supporting the case of the prosecution.The biological and seriological report i.e. PW-19/A and PW-19/B proved that the blood gauze was found to be human in origin and blood group was of O Group which matched with the blood group of the deceased.Blood stains lifted from the left side dicky of the scooter and from front side seat cover had been proved and report was exhibited as Ex. PW-19/C.A. 174/2017 Page 24 of 30However, the prosecution has proved the case beyond any shadow of doubt that scooter No. DL3SK1719 Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 25 of 30 was in possession of the appellant and was recovered from his jhuggi at his instance in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused.A. 174/2017 Page 25 of 30Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that there was no blood stain found from the scooter No. DL3SK1719 or on the rubber mat of the scooter.However, in this regard, it is found that the blood stain were found and lifted from the dickey of the scooter No. DL3SK1719 and also from the rubber mat of the scooter stood proved through biological and seriological examination and according to it these blood stain was found to be of human origin and moreover, the scooter No. DL3SK1719 was found in the possession of the appellant.We would like to mention here that the recovery of the scooter and knife pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant were covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872 which reads as under:-How much of information received from appellant may be proved.--Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.A. 174/2017 Page 26 of 30Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW-3 and other witnesses but he has failed to point any major contradiction.A careful analysis of the testimonies of PW-3 establishes that while he along with deceased Sujeet were plucking leaves for their goat, the appellant came to the spot and the incident took place, the deceased did try to pacify the matter.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 27 of 30 of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.The appellant while he was arrested was wearing the same clothes i.e. blood stained pant, jacket, shoes, which he was wearing at the time of commission of crime.Copy of this judgment be sent to the Jail Superintendant Central, Tihar Jail, Delhi for updating the jail record.Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this judgement.(CHANDER SHEKHAR) JUDGE (G. S. SISTANI) JUDGE JULY 31 st , 2017 b Crl.A. 174/2017 Page 30 of 30A. 174/2017 Page 30 of 30 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,583,505 | Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.115/2019 registered at P.S. Birsa, District Balaghat (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 436, 506/34 of the IPC.The facts of the case are that on 01/082019 at about 10.30 p.m., when complainant went to see the courtyard of old house where the agriculture products i.e. Dhan etc. was kept, at that time, he saw applicants Aswan, Bharat and Krishna trying to put fire on 'Dhan ka paira'.When he makes noise, they fled away from the spot.Due to said incidence, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.29,000/-.Report of the incidence has been lodged on the next day of incidence, on that basis, above mentioned crime has been registered against the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have not committed any crime and have falsely been implicated in the case.It is also submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submitted that the applicants are in jail since 02/08/2019 and Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 30/08/2019 05:03:49 2 MCRC-35491-2019 trial will take long time for its decision.In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicants be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer of the applicants and prays for dismissal of the application.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants and the period of custody of the applicants (since 02/08/2019), in the opinion of this Court, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants is allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 30/08/2019 05:03:49 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,602,731 | 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;It appears from the record that Crime No.599/2015 was registered against the applicant at Police Station Mandideep, District Raisen for the offence under Sections 341, 294, 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and after investigation of the crime, police filed charge-sheet against the applicant.On that charge sheet, S.T.No.25/2016 was registered against the applicant.The applicant will cooperate in the trial;A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 18/03/2019 13:06:35 | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,610,055 | Page 3 of 4Page 4 of 4This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.400 of 2017 u/s.143 & 188 IPC on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Dharmapuri, in Crime No.537 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same.2.The petitioner is one of the accused and has been arrayed as accused No.22 in a case in Crime No.537 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 & 188 IPC.The prosecution is that on 22.12.2016 at 05.00 p.m., the petitioner along with other 29 accused has gathered near Nallampalli bus stop in unlawful manner and attempted to make a demonstration and thereby violated Section 32 (ii) of Police Act. It appears that after investigation a charge sheet was also laid before the concerned Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner and others under Sections 143 & 188 IPC.According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has charged with for the offences under Section 143 and 188 IPC and taking cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC, there is a bar under Cr.P.C without complaint has contemplated under Section 195(1)(a)(i), there shall be no proceeding initiated and thereby the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.Page 2 of 44.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the issue involved in the present petition has already been covered by order of this Court in the decision cited supra, and no ingredients were made out to constitute under Section 143 and 188 IPC.This Court is inclined to allow the petition as prayed for.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.400 of 2017 u/s.143 & 188 IPC on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Dharmapuri, in Crime No.537 of 2016 on the file of the 1 st respondent Police is hereby quashed.Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,610,738 | sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 905 of 2020 In Re.: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.01.2020 in connection with Hura Police Station Case No. 09 of 2020 dated 19.01.2020 under Sections 341/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Parbati Kumar Mahato ......... petitioner Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee Mr. Ashim Debnath ...for the petitioner Mr. S. Bhattacharyay Mr. Arindam Sen ... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of nine days and there is long standing family dispute between the parties.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and 2 also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,612,034 | posed the prayer and prays for its rejection.C. c. as per rules.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2018.05.10 15:35:31 +05'30' | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,616,222 | Page 2 of 33The brief facts of the case registered by the respondent/CBI on 3.5.2013, are that it had received information that Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused No.1), Member (Staff), Railway Board, was in regular contact with Mr. N.R. Manjunath (accused No.2), Managing Director of M/s. G.G. Tronics India Pvt. Ltd., and was trying to get a posting as Member (Electrical), Railway Board by illegal and wrongful means.As per the charge-sheet, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. N.R. Manjunath were in contact with a private businessman/industrialist by the name of Mr. Sandeep Goyal (accused No.3), a resident of Panchkula, Haryana, who had given an assurance that he was in a position to get the aforesaid work done for them through his contacts with Mr. Vijay Singla (accused No.4), also a resident of Chandigarh, who happened to be the nephew of Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, the then Railway Minister, Central Government, by using his personal influence for pecuniary gratification.It has been alleged that for making efforts to get the posting of choice for Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Mr. Sandeep Goyal Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 3 of 33 had demanded an illegal gratification to the tune of `10.00 crores from Mr. Mahesh Kumar, through Mr. N.R. Manjunath.The aforesaid demand raised by Mr. Sandeep Goyal was accepted by Mr. Mahesh Kumar and it was agreed that `5.00 crores would be paid in cash before the appointment and the balance amount of `5.00 crores after his appointment as Member (Electrical), Railway Board.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 3 of 33As per the respondent/CBI, Mr. N.R. Manjunath and two other accused, namely, Mr. Rahul Yadav (accused No.6) and Mr. Sameer Sandhir (accused No.7), both businessmen/industrialists, who were having dealings with the Railways, thought that if they would manage to get Mr. Mahesh Kumar posted as Member (Electrical), Railway Board, they would stand to gain in their business.In fact, the charge- sheet states that Mr. Mahesh Kumar had promised Mr. N.R. Manjunath, Mr. Rahul Yadav and Mr. Sameer Sandhir that if appointed to the aforesaid post, he would oblige them by extending official favours to them.Based on the aforesaid assurance given by Mr.Mahesh Kumar, Mr. N.R. Manjunath had agreed to arrange a sum of `2.00 crores for paying the illegal gratification to Mr. Sandeep Goyal, by approaching other businessmen/industrialists who had dealings with the Railways for garnering the said funds.It is alleged that for executing this plan, Mr. Sandeep Goyal had demanded an illegal gratification of `2.00 crores to be paid immediately and he had Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 4 of 33 agreed that the balance amount could be paid after Mr. Mahesh Kumar was appointed to the post of Member (Electrical), Railway Board.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 4 of 33According to the charge-sheet, the aforesaid offer was being vigorously pursued by Mr. N.R. Manjunath, Mr. Sandeep Goyal and Mr. Vijay Singla.When Mr.N.R. Manjunath, Mr. Sandeep Goyal and Mr. Vijay Singla realized that they could not manage the desired appointment for Mr. Mahesh Kumar, the latter asked Mr. N.R. Manjunath and Mr. Sandeep Goyal to explore another option and manage for him the additional charge of S&T Directorate from the portfolio of Member (Electrical), Railway Board alongwith the additional charge of General Manager, Western Railways.Finally, on 30.4.2013, Mr. N.R. Manjunath had allegedly informed Mr. Sandeep Goyal that 25% of the illegal gratification would be paid to him if the second option referred to hereinabove was executed and on the same day, Mr. N.R. Manjunath conveyed the said instructions to Mr. Sandeep Goyal and informed him that he was arranging a sum of `1.00 crore immediately.Page 5 of 33Just to complete the chain, there are two other persons against whom the charge-sheet has been filed by the respondent/CBI, though they were not named in the FIR, namely Mr. C.V. Venugopal (accused No.9) and Mr. M.V. Murali Krishnan (accused No.10).Mr. C.V. Venugopal is stated to be working as a Manager (Marketing and Planning) in G.G. Tronics India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore (a company of which Mr. Mr. N.R. Manjunath is the Managing Director).He is also stated to be the Managing Director of M/s. Venkateshwara Nirman Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi (a company from whose account, an amount of `10.00 lacs was withdrawn for purposes of payment of the illegal gratification to Mr. Vijay Singla).The allegation leveled against Mr. C.V. Venugopal is that not only was he aware of the efforts being made by Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. N.R. Manjunath for ensuring the former's posting as Member (Electrical), Railway Board, he was also actively involved in making arrangements for forwarding the illegal gratification to Mr. Vijay Singla and Mr. N.R. Manjunath.As regards Mr. M.V. Murali Krishnan (accused No.10), he is stated to be a Director of a company by the name of M/s. Efftronics Systems Pvt. Ltd, Vijayawada, which had contributed a sum of `25.00 lacs for the very same purpose.Apart from the aforesaid accused, the respondent/CBI has named one Mr. Ajay Garg (accused No.5), a partner in M/s Industrial Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 6 of 33 Equipment Company, Chandigarh, who is stated to be a close friend of Mr. Vijay Singla and Mr. Sandeep Goyal, and was allegedly playing an active role for fixing and finalizing the bribe amount between Mr. N.R. Manjunath and Mr. Vijay Singla for the appointment of Mr. Mahesh Kumar as Member (Electrical), Railway Board.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 6 of 33The accused No.6 named in the charge-sheet is Mr. Rahul Yadav, a Director of M/s. Venkateshwara Nirman Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, who was allegedly acting on the directions of Mr. N.R. Manjunath and was actively involved in arranging the money, which was delivered on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Kumar to Mr. Vijay Singla.Mr. Sushil Daga (accused No.8), had allegedly connived and actively associated with Mr. Rahul Yadav and one Mr. Sameer Sandhir(accused No.7) and as per the prosecution, there were several calls between him and Mr. N.R. Manjunath and Mr. Manoj Garg for funding the posting of Mr. Mahesh Kumar and he had allegedly contributed `4.68 lacs to the bribe money.It was further submitted that Mr. Manjunath has clean antecedents and he has neither been convicted in any criminal case, nor is any case pending against him in a criminal court.The health condition of Mr. Manjunath is also stated to be delicate.In this regard, the report of the Medical Board, constituted at AIIMS in compliance of the orders passed by the Special Judge, CBI, was referred to wherein, his medical history was taken note of.As per the report, in the year 2007, he had been operated for lumbar disc and complaint of recurrent lumbar spine pain.Page 19 of 33Coming to Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Mr. R.V. Sinha had argued that the said accused is a close friend of the main accused, Mr. Vijay Singla and was known to Mr. N.R. Manjunath.He submitted that Mr.Sandeep Goyal had an active role in arranging and conducting the meetings between the parties and he was actually caught by the raiding team of the CBI at the office premises of Mr. Vijay Singla at the time of the delivery of the bribe money.Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned Advocate for the CBI had strenuously urged that Mr. Vijay Singla is not entitled to grant of bail as there is great likelihood that being highly placed in the society, he can influence the witnesses to the detriment of the prosecution.The gravamen of the charges levelled against the petitioners is that Mr.Mahesh Kumar(accused No.1), in concert with the other accused had entered into a conspiracy to achieve a common object which was to mobilize bribe money and ensure his appointment as Member(Electrical), Railway Board, and later on when he came to be appointed as Member(Staff) Railway Board, to manage to carve out for him the additional charge of S&T Directorate from the portfolio of Member (Electrical), and of G.M. Western Railways.As a part of the said conspiracy, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr.N.R.Manjunath had roped in Mr.Sandeep Goyal, who was a close friend of Mr.Vijay Singla, nephew of the then Railway Minister, Mr.Pawan Kumar Bansal, and Mr.Singla had agreed to use his personal influence in exchange of pecuniary gratification for achieving the said object.The present common order shall decide the bail applications of Mr. Mahesh Kumar (petitioner in Bail Application No.1268/2013), Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 5 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 7 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 7 of 33It is the case of the respondent/CBI that in the aforesaid manner, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. N.R. Manjunath had mobilized a sum of `90.00 lacs out of which, a sum of `50.00 lacs was contributed by Mr. N.R. Manjunath, `25.00 lacs by Mr. M.V. Murali Krishnan, `5.00 lacs by Mr. Sushil Daga and `10.00 lacs was withdrawn from the account of M/s. Venkateshwara Nirman Pvt. Ltd. for being paid to Mr.Vijay Singla at Chandigarh.A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that on 2.5.2013, Mr.Sandeep Goyal had telephoned Mr. N.R. Manjunath enquiring about the money and the latter had agreed to deliver a sum of `90.00 lacs at Chandigarh on the very next day.On 3.5.2013, the sum of `90.00 lacs was dispatched through two persons arranged by Mr. Rahul Yadav and Mr. Sameer Sandhir on the directions of Mr. N.R. Manjunath, who was acting for and on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Kumar.When the said amount was being delivered in the official premises of Mr. Vijay Singla at Chandigarh, a team of officers from the respondent/CBI had raided the said premises and recovered a sum of `89,68,000/- in the presence of Mr. Vijay Singla and Mr. Sandeep Goyal.Thereafter, Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused No.1) was arrested on 3.5.2013, and Mr. N.R. Manjunath (accused No.2), Mr. Sandeep Goyal (accused No.3), Mr. Vijay Singla (accused No.4), Mr. Rahul Yadav Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 8 of 33 and Mr. Sameer Sandhir, were arrested on 4.5.2013, Mr. Ajay Garg (accused No.5) was arrested on 7.5.2013 and Mr. Sushil Daga was arrested on 19.5.2013, and all of them were remanded to judicial custody.The petitioners and the other co-accused had filed applications for grant of bail before the Special Judge, CBI, but vide order dated 12.07.2013, the applications of the petitioners were rejected.Thereafter the petitioners have approached this Court for being enlarged on bail.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 8 of 33As the arguments addressed by the counsels for the petitioners have overlapped to a large extent, to avoid repetition, they are being summarized hereinafter.U.U. Lalit, Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Mr.Arvind Nigam, Mr.They had argued that the prosecution has set up an extremely convoluted case against the accused which was not substantiated by the statements of Mr. Vijay Mittal, Chairman, Railway Board and of Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, the Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 9 of 33 then Railway Minister, as recorded by the CBI, copies whereof have been placed on record.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 9 of 33Reference was particularly made to the statement of the Chairman, Railway Board who had stated that though he knew that Mr. Vijay Singla is the nephew of Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal and he was a frequent visitor to the Ministry of Railways, personally he had never interacted with him and nor had Mr.Singla met him.The Chairman of the Railway Board had also stated that as per his recollection, the issue of posting of Mr. Mahesh Kumar as Member (Electrical), Railway Board was discussed with the Railway Minister several times, but as the said post was not vacant at the relevant time, not much emphasis was laid thereon.Similarly, reference was made by learned counsels to the statement of Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, the then Railway Minister, who had stated that proper procedure had been followed for the appointment of Mr. Mahesh Kumar as Member (Staff), as he had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and upon discussion with the Chairman, Railway Board as to the appointment of Mr. Mahesh Kumar (General Manager, Western Railway) for the post of Member (Electrical), Railway Board, the Minister had informed the former that there was no vacancy for Member (Electrical), and the decision for selection to the posts of Chairman Railway Board, Member (Staff), Member (Traffic), Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 10 of 33 Member (Mechanical), that were going to fall vacant on 30.4.2013, would be taken only when the time would be ripe.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 10 of 33They had referred to the order dated 12.8.2013 passed by the Special Judge Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 11 of 33 whereunder, three other accused, namely, Mr. Rahul Yadav (accused No.6), Mr. Sameer Sandhir (accused No.7) and Mr. Sushil Daga (accused No.8) had been granted bail and submitted that no distinction can be drawn between the aforesaid persons and the petitioners in the present cases for denying them similar relief.Additionally, it was submitted that there was no likelihood of any of the petitioners tampering with the evidence more so when the tape- recorded evidence had already been forwarded to the CFSL and simply because the respondent/CBI had approached the Special Judge on 12.8.2013 and sought two months' time to verify the voices recorded in the tapes, can hardly be a ground to further detain the petitioners in judicial custody.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 11 of 33It was submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners had already been undertaken by the CBI and it had taken into custody the suspected documents and articles and now there is no justification for keeping any of the petitioners in judicial custody.Lastly, it was urged that the maximum period of sentence contemplated for the offence under the provisions invoked in the charge-sheet may extend upto five years and there have been instances where the accused have been charged with graver offences and where the sentence was upto seven years and yet they were Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 12 of 33 granted regular bail.Therefore, the petitioners herein being on a better footing, ought not to be treated any differently.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 12 of 33Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate had adverted to the statement of the Chairman, Railway Board and the then Railway Minister that the appointment of Mr. Mahesh Kumar as Member (Staff), Railway Board, was approved as early as on 18.4.2013 and he had argued that assuming, without admitting that there was a conspiracy hatched by the co-accused as alleged by the prosecution, the same had been abandoned on the date of the appointment of Mr.Mahesh Kumar as Member (Staff).He contended that the observations of the learned Special Judge, CBI while rejecting the applications of the petitioners for seeking regular bail that they are influential persons who can tamper with the evidence and can influence the witnesses, is based on mere ipse dixit and simply because charges have not yet been framed in the case cannot be a ground to deny them bail.It was further submitted that a person on bail is in a better position to defend himself during the trial and this consideration ought to weigh with the Court while deciding the present applications.Page 13 of 33 treated as primary evidence for purposes of conviction, but only as corroborative evidence and therefore, there is least possibility of convicting the petitioners for the offences charged.To buttress the said submission, Mr.Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate had referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs.State of Gujarat reported as (1984) 1 SCC 284 and Ram Singh and others Vs.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 13 of 33The individual background and special circumstances of each of the petitioners were separately highlighted by their respective counsels to urge that they are entitled to be enlarged on bail.In the case of Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Mr.Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate had stated that he is 58 years old and a public servant and there is no allegation that there is any likelihood of his absconding during the trial.Mr. Mahesh Kumar is stated to be a permanent resident of Delhi and his family includes his wife, mother, mother-in- law and two children, both working abroad, and being the only child, he has the sole responsibility of caring for his 82 years old mother.Further, there is no other criminal case pending against the said petitioner, except for the present case.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 14 of 33Based on his MRI, the Board had observed in the report that there were degenerative changes at multiple levels in the lumbar spine of Mr.Manjunath.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 15 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 15 of 33On behalf of Mr. Vijay Singla, Mr. U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate had submitted that his client is 46 years of age and is the Managing Director of a Public Limited Company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange.He is a married man and has one child of 15 years and is residing with his family at Chandigarh, Haryana.He has clean antecedents, is not involved in any other criminal case and has deep roots in the society and therefore, is unlikely to flee from justice.Appearing on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate had submitted that his client is 44 years of age and is a businessman working for gain and residing at Chandigarh, Haryana, with his wife and a minor son, who are solely dependent on him.It was submitted that he has clean antecedent and no criminal case is pending against him and nor is he a previous convict.Lastly, learned Senior Advocates appearing for all the four petitioners had stated that the prosecution has cited ninety witnesses and has filed a number of documents that shall take a very long time for examination during the trial.It was also pointed out that the report of the CFSL in respect of the voice samples sent for comparison by the respondent/CBI has yet to be received and therefore, it was unlikely that the trial could commence in the near future and in such circumstances, the petitioners' continued custody is no longer Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 16 of 33 required.To substantiate the submissions made hereinabove, reliance was placed on the following decisions:Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 16 of 33Per contra, Ms. Rajdipa Behura and Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsels for the respondent/CBI had vehemently contested the grounds urged by the petitioners for grant of bail and contended that Mr. Mahesh Kumar, who is a public servant, is the pilot of the conspiracy hatched by him in connivance with private persons and some of them were suppliers of equipment to the Railways and he had taken money from them on an assurance that he would be in a position to extend them official favours in return of his being appointed to the post of Member (Electrical), Railway Board.It was stated that in expectation of being appointed as a Member (Electrical), Railway Board, Mr. Mahesh Kumar & Mr.Manjunath had arranged for illegal gratification to be passed on to Mr. Vijay Singla and in furtherance to Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 17 of 33 the said conspiracy, all the four accused had arranged a meeting with Mr. Vijay Singla on 7.4.2013 at the official residence of the then Railway Minister, Mr. Pawan Kumar Bansal.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 17 of 33Later on, when Mr. Mahesh Kumar had gathered the impression that the post of Member (Electrical), Railway Board was not coming his way, he had approached Mr. N.R. Manjunath to see that he be assigned the additional charge of S&T Directorate and General Manager, Western Railway and in exchange, he had lured Mr. N.R. Manjunath and Mr. Sandeep Goyal with a promise to award lucrative Railway tenders to them.The Court was informed that there is sufficient evidence available against all the petitioners herein which includes their telephonic conversations that had been intercepted, and the said conspiracy had culminated on 3.5.2013 when the CBI had raided the office of Mr. Vijay Singla at Chandigarh where he was found present on the spot and was caught red-handed accepting bribe money from Mr. Sandeep Goyal.It was urged on behalf of the respondent/CBI that in the present case, the conspiracy was a continuous one and even after his appointment as Member (Electrical), Railway Board, Mr. Mahesh Kumar had made continuous efforts to get the additional charge of Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 18 of 33 S&T and General Manager, Western Railways.It was contended that once the Special Judge, CBI had taken cognizance of the offences, this was not the stage to go into the merits of the case.Learned counsels had urged that the petitioners cannot claim parity with two other co- accused, namely, Mr.Dharmender Kumar and Mr. Vivek Kumar, who had been granted bail by the Special Judge as their role was that of couriers who had carried the bribe amount on the directions of Mr. Rahul Yadav, as against the role of the petitioners herein who are the main accused and were actively involved in the conspiracy.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 18 of 33It was argued on behalf of the respondent/CBI that if the court enlarges the petitioners on bail, then there is a reasonable apprehension that they may influence the witnesses as they have high contacts in the society, particularly, Mr. Mahesh Kumar (accused No.1).Page 19 of 33 examined by the Medical Board, AIIMS, they had recommended that he did not require any surgical intervention and would only need physiotherapy for treating his back.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.It was contended that merely because the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, cannot give any advantage to the petitioners because charges have yet to be framed and if so inclined, the trial court can direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and looking at the magnitude and the gravity of the offence, the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 20 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 20 of 33The Court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties and examined the records and the case law cited by them.The only point for consideration in the present petitions is whether the petitioners herein have been able to make out a case for being enlarged on regular bail, in a matter where they have allegedly committed the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 21 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 23 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 28 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 28 of 33Coming to the next factor to be taken into consideration, which is whether the petitioners being influential persons can tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses, as was noticed by the learned Special Judge, CBI at the time of rejecting their bail applications on 12.07.2013, the background and credentials of each of the four petitioners has to be taken into consideration.In the present case, it has been contended by the learned counsels for the respondent/CBI that all the petitioners, particularly, Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Mr. N. R. Manjunath and Mr. Vijay Singla are persons enjoying immense power and position and they are capable of influencing the witnesses.The flipside of the aforesaid argument is that the very same fact that the petitioners are holding high positions/status in the society in itself acts as a safeguard and guarantee for them that they would stand their trial and not attempt to flee from the process of law.At the end of the day, the guiding factor for enlarging an accused on bail is to secure his presence to take the judgment and serve the sentence if indicted by the court.The vocation, family background, antecedents and social circumstances of the petitioners are not found to be unfavourable and they show that the petitioners have roots in the society and they are unlikely to evade the legal process or fail to turn up during the trial.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 29 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 29 of 33(Ref: Vivek Kumar Vs.State of U.P. reported as 2000 (9) SCC 443, Babba @ Shankar Raghuman Rohda Vs.Page 31 of 33 admittedly take about two months' time, there does not appear any possibility of the trial commencing in the near future.This Court is therefore of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by detaining the petitioners in jail for an indefinite period as that would be an antithesis of the principles of personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and would amount to punishing them on the assumption of their guilt.Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 5 lacs each, with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any authority.(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or make any attempt to thwart the trial of the case.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 32 of 33Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 32 of 33(iii) The petitioners shall surrender their passports before the Special Judge, CBI, if not already surrendered.(iv) The petitioners shall remain present before the trial court on the dates fixed before it unless they have been exempted by the Special Judge, CBI with prior permission.If any of the petitioners violate any of the conditions of bail, then the respondent/CBI shall be at liberty to approach the Court for seeking cancellation of the bail order.The petitions are disposed of.DASTI to the parties.Bail Applications No.1273/2013 & connected matters.Page 33 of 33 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,620,845 | The Prosecution story in brief is that the deceased Ramkumar was living adjacent to Shankarlal, who is the elder brother of the deceased.At around 10 O'clock Shankarlal returned back from the house of his daughter Saroj Bai and because she was not sent 3 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 along with Shankar in the night, Ramkumar all the ladies of the family and Dindayal were talking to each other.At that time the accused persons Shankar, Naresh, Lekhram, Ramdas, Bhagga came there.They were armed with Gadasi, Farsa, Ballam and Lathi.They entered the house of Shankar and abused him.They told him that why he had not performed marriage of Saroj with Naresh.Thereafter they had tied Ramkumar by a nylon cord and had taken him near a tree of Kanji.They had beaten the deceased Ramkumar.The family members tried to save him, they had also inflicted injuries on the family members.In that incident Shankar elder brother of the deceased, Hemlata, Sheela Bai, Gulab Bai received injuries.The report of the incident was lodged at the police station.PW/1 is the elder brother of the deceased.Dehati Nalishi was recorded on his information, which is Ex.8. PW/1 in his evidence deposed that on the 6 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 date of incident I had gone to the resident of my daughter Saroj Bai, village Bhadon, district Raisen.I returned back at around 10-10.30 in the night.Saroj Bai was not sent by her in-laws.I, Ramkumar, my children Sheela bai, Chanda bai and Dindayal my brother-in-law were talking to each other while siting in courtyard (angan) of the house.At that time, Dharamdas, Shankarlal, Lekhram, Naresh, Ghanshyam, Bhagga and Hari Singh armed with Lathi, Farsa and cord entered the house, they were abusing in filthy language and told me that why I had not done relation of Saroj Bai with Naresh and tied the deceased Ramkumar by a cord and they had taken him to Tankar road.They had also beaten him badly, when I tried to save him they had also beaten me.At the time of incident my wife Gulab Bai, daughter Sheela bai, Chanda bai, Hemlata and brother-in-law Dindayal also received injuries.The Kotwar reached on the spot thereafter I told him about the incident.He is the brother-in-law of Shankar.He also deposed that he was talking along with other family members at that time accused persons have entered the house.P/3 and I signed the same.18. PW/7 is another Kotwar.He deposed that both the daughters of Shankar told him that there was a quarrel and I had reached on the spot.Thereafter I went to the police station to inform the police.19. PW/8 is the doctor, who performed autopsy of the deceased.In para 12 of his deposition he deposed that injuries No.1 to 10 were caused by sharp and hard edged weapon, it could be Farsa and Gadasi.Injuries No.11 to 14 could be caused by Lathi and back side of Ballam, some part of the wooden stick.In para 14 of 16 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 his cross-examination he admitted the fact that he did not notice any piercing injury on the person of the deceased.16 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,PW/11 deposed that on 02.07.2004, I was posted as Head Constable and on the aforesaid date constable produced the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) and on the basis of the aforesaid Dehati Nalishi, I recorded FIR, which is Ex.P/38 and signed the same.The carbon copy of the FIR has been sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara.PW/12 is the Investigating Officer, he deposed that on 01.07.2004, I was posted as Station House Officer in Gadarwara.On 02.07.2004 when I was on patrolling in the night at around 2 o'clock I received information on wireless that a serious incident had taken place at village Amgaon.As per the report of Kotwar I recorded the information in the Sanha No.76 (Ex.P/42).Thereafter I enquired about the same from Raghuveer and Chhotelal, who were the Kotwar and I reached at the place of incident at around 3 O'clock in the night.I enquired about the incident from Shankarlal.& Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 Thereafter I registered Marg No. 0/04, which is (Ex.P/2).Thereafter on the basis of the report of Shankarlal, I recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) and signed the same.The dead body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard (angan), his both legs were tied by a nylon cord and other parts of the body were also tied by nylon cord.I sent the dead body for postmortem.On 02.07.2004 I seized blood stained earth and plain earth vide seizure memo (Ex.P/16) from the spot and prepared spot map of the incident which is Ex.P/3 and signed the same.On the same date, I recorded statements of Shankarlal S/o Jairam, Chanda Bai, Sheela Bai, Hemlata and Gulabi Bai.On 03.07.2004 on the memorandum of Shankarlal (Ex.P/4), Farsa was seized on his information from the house.The seizure memo is (Ex.P/5) and I signed the same.Accused Shankarlal was arrested by arrest memo (Ex.P/48).On the memorandum of Naresh S/o Shankarlal (Ex.P/6) Ballam was seized on his instruction from his house vide seizure memo (Ex.P/7) and I signed the same.On 05.07.2004, on the memorandum of accused/appellant Lekhram which is (Ex.P/12), a Gadasa was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/13) from his residence on his instruction.The accused was arrested.Both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,The appellants were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 148, 450 and 323/149 of the IPC and have been sentenced for life with fine of Rs.100/-, R.I. for one year, R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 100/- and R.I. for nine months respectively with default stipulations.The police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused persons.The appellants/accused abjured their guilt during trial.The trial Court after trial held the appellants guilty for commission of offences mentioned above in the judgment.3 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of law in holding the appellants 4 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 guilty for the commission of offence.It is further submitted by the learned counsel that at the time of incident Ramkumar @ Munna had entered in the house of accused appellant No.1 Shankar and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife Kerabai.She was also assaulted and thereafter villagers gathered there and they had beaten the deceased.It is further submitted by the learned counsel that it is alleged by the prosecution that two accused persons namely Naresh and Ghanshyam were armed with Ballam, and as per the evidence of Dr. V.K. Patel PW/8, who performed autopsy of the deceased, there was no injury noticed by him caused by Ballam.Hence, the ocular evidence of the witnesses against two accused persons is not reliable.4 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,It is further submitted by the learned counsel that accused Dharamdas was present at the time of occurrence at Sankheda, district Hoshangabad.He was working as Gangman in the Railways.Hence, he has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted by the learned counsel that names of two persons Ghanshyam and Hari Singh has not been 5 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 mentioned in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1), Marg intimation (Ex.P/2) and requisition of postmortem (Ex.P/17-A), hence, they have been falsely implicated by the prosecution.5 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there are four injured eye witnesses of the incident.They have deposed that the appellants had caused injuries to the deceased and other family members.The deceased was beaten brutally, it has been proved by the doctor who performed postmortem.The FIR was lodged promptly and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded promptly.The trial Court has considered all the evidence properly, hence there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court.7. PW/1 Shankarlal, PW/2 Sheela Bai, PW/3 Chanda Bai and PW/4 Hemlata are the injured eye- witnesses.At around 2 O'clock in the night police came on the spot and they have enquired about the incident.The report of the incident was lodged by me, which is Ex.P/1 and I signed the same.The deceased was died on the spot.7 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,6 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,7 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that some accused persons have inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased by Ballam.However, he deposed that he could not see that who had inflicted injury by Ballam.The accused persons have taken the deceased near a tree of Kanji.He further deposed that I was admitted in the hospital for seven days.9. PW/2 Sheela Bai deposed the same facts that we were taking to each other in the courtyard (angan) of the house, at that time the accused persons armed with Lathi, cord and Farsa entered the house and they have tied the deceased Ramkumar by a cord.They had taken the deceased near Kanji tree and had beaten him.When the deceased cried to save, the accused persons inflicted injuries on us.Ramkumar was died on the spot.10. PW/3 Chanda bai deposed the same facts that I and other family members were taking to each other in the courtyard (angan) at that time all the seven accused persons entered the house.They were armed with Lathi, Ballam, Farsa and Gadasi and 8 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 dragged the deceased Ramkumar near a tree of Kanji and beaten him.When we tried to save the deceased, my father Shankar, mother Gulab Bai, Sheela Bai and Hemlata were also beaten by the deceased.Deceased was died.I and Shila Bai had gone to call Kotwar.Thereafter he came there and he had gone to inform police because accused persons had threatened my father not to inform the police.In her cross- examination, she deposed that she could not see which of the accused persons was armed with Ballam.8 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,They have tied the deceased and dragged him near Kanji tree and beaten him.Other persons were also beaten.PW/9 Dr. M.K. Vajpai deposed that on 9 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 02.07.2004, I was posted at Civil Hospital, Gadarwara as Medical Officer.On the aforesaid date, I had examined Shankar S/o Jairam and noticed following injuries on his person :9 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,"1. one bluish abrasion 60x3 cm on the back side of the body.2. one bluish abrasion 23x3 cm on right side of the back.3. one bluish abrasion 30x 3 cm on left side of the back.one bluish abrasion 15x2x1/2 cm on left shoulder.one bluish abrasion 4x2 cm on left shoulder.one bluish abrasion 5x3 cm on left side of the back.one bluish abrasion 14x5cm on the sub specular region.one bluish abrasion 10x3 cm on right shoulder.9. one yellowish abrasion 12x3 cm on the right shoulder.one yellowish abrasion 20x3 cm on right thigh.swelling on the left elbow for which x-ray was advised.12. swelling on left forearms."All the injuries were caused by hard and 10 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 blunt object within 24 hours.10 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,He further deposed that on the aforesaid date, I examined Gulab Bai W/o Shankar Lodhi, aged about 40 years and noticed following injuries on her person.One bluish abrasion 10x3cm on left scapula region.2.One bluish abrasion 12x3 cm on right scapula region."All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.Injuries were simple in nature.He further deposed that on the aforesaid date, I also examined Chanda Bai W/o Harnam Lodhi and noticed following injuries on her person.1. one bluish abrasion 12 x 3 cm on right scapula region.Injuries were simple in nature.I examined Sheela Bai and noticed following injuries on her person."1. one bluish abrasion 8 x 2 cm on the left side of the back.All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.Injuries were simple in nature.I examined Hemlata D/o Shankarlal Lodhi and noticed following injuries on her person.11 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,11 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,& Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 "1. one superficial abrasion 9 x 1/2 cm on the right cheek and temple.One contusion 2 x 2 cm over occipital region."All the Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.From the evidence of doctor, this fact has been established that PW/1, PW/2, PW/3 and PW/4 received injuries during the incident and they are the injured eye-witnesses.Although they are the interested witnesses because they are the relatives of the deceased.However, their evidence cannot be discarded only because they are the interested eye- witnesses.The Apex Court in Abdul Sayeed Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2010 (10) SCC 259 has held as under in regard to placing reliance on injured witnesses.The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court.Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and 12 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone."Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".(Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors.v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr.12 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,In the Dehati Nalishi, on the upper side, names of all the seven persons have been mentioned.However, in the body names of five persons have been mentioned and names of 13 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 Ghanshyam and Hari Singh have not been mentioned.He also signed the same.13 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,PW/6 is the Kotwar, he deposed that both the daughters of Shankar had come to my residence at around 12 O'clock and they told me that there was a quarrel and the accused persons have beaten my father and uncle.They did not told me the names of the accused persons.Thereafter I had gone to another Kotwar where Sarpanch was present and along with him, we reached to the place of incident where we found the dead body of the deceased.Police came on the spot and prepared spot map, which is Ex.He deposed that on 02.07.2004, I was 14 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 posted as Health Officer at Civil Hospital, Gadarwara and I performed postmortem of deceased Ramkumar S/o Munna and noticed following injuries :14 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,-5 ls-eh- xpe<+h dh xgjkbZ rd FkkA 8- dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 9x3 ls-eh- xisV dh xqgk ds vanj rd ihB ij nkafguh rjQ e/; Hkkx esa ckgj dh vksj FkkA 9- dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 4x1 ls-eh- xekalis'kh dh xgjkbZ rd ihB ij pksV dzekad 8 ls ckgj dh vksj FkhA 15 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 10- dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 10x3 ls-eh- xpe<+h dh xgjkbZ rd nkfgus LdSiwyk Hkkx ij FkkA 4%& mijksDr lHkh dVs gq, ?kkoks ds fdukj fu;fer ,ao DyhudV Fks ,ao ckgj dh vksj FksA 11- czwtuhy xw ftldk vkdkj 8x5 ls-eh- cka;s vxz Hkqtk ij ihNs dh vksj FkhA 12- uhy xw fu'kku ftldk vkdkj 24x3 ls-eh- tks ckbZ tka?k ij ckgj dh vksj FkkA 13- uhy xw fu'kku ftldk vkdkj 5x2 ls-eh-] nkfguk tka?k ij ckgj dh vksj FkkA 14- uhy xw fu'kku ftldk vkdkj 2x1 ls-eh- tks nkfguh dej ij lkeus dh vksj FkkA 15- uhy xw fu'kku ftldk vkdkj 8x6 ls-eh- tks nkfguh mijh Hkqtk ij lkeus dh vksj Fkk ftldh nkfguh g;wejl gM~Mh dk vfLFk Hkax ik;k x;k FkkA uksV%& bl fLFkfr esa lk{kh us Li"V fd;k fd 'ko ijh{k.k izfrosnu esa pksV dzekad 14 dh nks ckj fy[kk x;k] tcfd pksV dzekad 14 ds ckn tkWp 14 fy[kk x;k gS] mls 15 uEcj gksuk pkfg;s FkkA vr% vkxs pksV dzekad esa lq/kkj djds fy[kk tk jgk gSA 16- [kjksap cka;s ?kqVus ij lkeus dh vksj ftldk vkdkj 4x5ls-eh- FkkA 17- e`rd dh iwjh ihB ij cgqr la[;k esa [kjksap ds fu'kku Fks tks vyx&vyx lkbZt esa Fks vksj -5x-5ls-eh- vkdkj ls ysdj 16x16ls-eh- vkdj esa15 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,He informed me about the death.17 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,17 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,He was arrested vide arrest 18 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 memo (Ex.P/49).On the same date on the memorandum of accused Hari Singh, which is (Ex.P/8) a Lathi was seized from his instruction from his house, which is (Ex.P/9) and I signed the same.Hari Singh was arrested by arrest memo (Ex.P/50).On 05.07.2004 on the memorandum of Ghanshyam S/o Shankarlal Lodhi a Ballam, which is Ex.P/10 was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11) from his house on his instruction.18 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,On 26.07.2004, on the memorandum of Bhagga (Ex.P/54) a Lathi was seized from his residence on his instruction vide seizure memo Ex.P/55 and the accused was arrested on the same date.On 22.08.2004, on the memorandum of accused Dharamdas, which is (Ex.P/14) a Lathi was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/15, I signed both the documents.He was arrested on the same date.On 01.09.2004 all 19 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 the seized articles were sent to Forensic Laboratory.19 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,The appellants examined defence witnesses in support of their defence.DW/1 deposed that Bhaggu had come to see me 8 to 10 days before the death of Munna.DW/2 issued a certificate (Ex.D/5) in the capacity of Sarpanch.She deposed that the accused Dharamdas was singing Bhajan at her residence upto 9 O'clock in the night.He was working as Gangman.DW/3 deposed that I was working in the Railway Department and accused Dharamdas was working as Gangman.The appellant Dharamdas was working as Gangman and he was on duty upto 6 O'clock and was performing certain work.DW/4 Kes Bai deposed that at around 10-11 O' clock in the night on the date of incident accused Ram kumar entered my house and he tried to outrage my modesty, in that event I received some injuries.Dr. V.K. Patel, deposed that on 02.07.2004, I was posted as doctor and I examined Kera Bai D/o Shankarlal Lodhi and noticed one lacerated wound on the right hand 1.5 x 1/2 cm muscle deep.The injury was simple in nature.It was caused by hard and blunt 20 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 object.20 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that names of Ghanshyam and Hari Singh were not mentioned in the middle of the Dehati Nalishi and the Marg intimation and requisition of postmortem, hence, they have been falsely implicated could not be accepted because the names of these two persons have been mentioned at the top of Dehati Nalishi and Marg.It was registered by the Investigating Officer when he reached on the spot.The injured eye- witnesses deposed about the appellants.The next plank of submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Vutukuru Lakshmaiah, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2047 of 2008, pertains to non-21 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,22 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,24 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,25 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,26 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,26 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,27 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,It proves that 28 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more.29 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,However, the doctor PW/8, who performed autopsy specifically deposed that he did not notice any piercing injury on the person of the body of the deceased.In this arena, the ocular evidence could not be relied on in view of the medical evidence.Hence, the accused appellants Naresh and Ghanshyam 30 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 are entitled to the benefit of doubt.30 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006,All the witnesses have deposed that they were talking to each other in the courtyard (angan) and as per the spot map Ex.P/3, which was prepared by PW/6, courtyard is at the back side of the house.It was surrounded by the walls.It was not an open place.Hence, the trial Court has rightly held that the appellants had entered the house of the deceased.The trial Court has also held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 149 of the IPC.The injured witnesses received injuries, hence, in our opinion, the conviction of the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 323/149 of IPC is as per law because even two accused persons be acquitted then the appellants were five in 31 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, & Cr.A. No. 2135/2006 number, hence, their conviction under Section 149 of the IPC is upheld.Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed.The appeal of appellant No. 2 Naresh and appellant No. 5 Ghanshyam is allowed.They have been acquitted from the charges.31 Cr. A. No. 2034/2006, | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,621,805 | A young poet, Amrita Pritam, who fled to this country with her two little children from Lahore was witness to the manifold tragedies during that perilous journey.She was moved to pen an Ode to Waris Shah in which she spoke of the fertile land of Punjab having "sprouted poisonous weeds far and near" and where "Seeds of hatred have grown high, bloodshed is everywhere / Poisoned breeze in forest turned bamboo flutes into snakes / Their venom has turned the bright and rosy Punjab all blue".The killings would continue in the streets of Delhi.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 203Thirty-seven years later, the country was again witness to another enormous human tragedy.Following the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, on the morning of 31st October 1984 by two of her Sikh bodyguards, a communal frenzy was unleashed.For four days between 1st and 4th November of that year, all over Delhi, 2,733 Sikhs were brutally murdered.Their houses were destroyed.In the rest of the country too thousands of Sikhs were killed.They will continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come.It is important to assure those countless victims waiting patiently that despite the challenges, truth will prevail and justice will be done.* * * * *These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30th April 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (trial Court) in SC No.26/2010 arising out of FIR No.RC- SI-1/2005/S0024 registered at PS Delhi Cantonment acquitting Sajjan Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 203 Kumar (Accused No.1: A-1) of the offences of criminal conspiracy and abetment while, at the same time, convicting Balwan Khokar (A-2), Mahender Yadav (A-3), Captain Bhagmal (Retd.) (A-4), Girdhari Lal (A-5), and Krishan Khokar (A-6).The trial Court convicted A-2, A-4, and A-5 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 IPC. A-3 and A-6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 IPC.By the order on sentence dated 9th May 2013, they have been sentenced in the following manner:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 203(i) For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, A-2, A-4, and A-5 were sentenced to imprisonment for life along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for six months;(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, all five convicted accused were sentenced to two years' RI along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months;A.851/2013 by A-4, Crl.A.710/2014 by A-5, and Crl.First, he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 302, 395, 427, 436, 449, 153A, 295, and 505 IPC on account of entering into an agreement, on or about 31st October 1984, with A-2 to A-6 as well as Maha Singh, Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh Solanki, Balidan Singh, Raj Kumar @ Rajaram (all since deceased), and other known and unknown persons including police personnel to commit the following acts:(viii) Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 203Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 203(ix) Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of Sikh community, and(x) Making statements conducing to public mischief.Secondly, A-1 was charged with being a principal offender who abetted and instigated the aforementioned co-accused persons in the wake of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi to commit, in pursuance of the aforementioned conspiracy, offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 395, 427, 436, 449, 153A, 295, and 505 IPC and thereby having committed the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC read with the aforementioned provisions of the IPC.Thirdly, A-1 was charged with having delivered fiery/provocative speeches to the mob gathered at Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantonment on 1st/2nd November 1984 and having instigated and promoted violent enmity against the Sikh community and disturbed harmony between the two religious groups/communities of the locality in retaliation of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, giving rise to feelings of enmity, hatred, and ill will between members of the non-Sikh and Sikh communities which was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and disturbed public tranquillity and was thereby guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 153A IPC.Fourthly, A-1 was charged with having publicly made a statement on 1st/2nd November 1984, to wit, by asking members of the Jat community to not leave any Sikh or any other person who had given shelter to Sikhs alive, inciting the mob gathered there by delivering fiery/provocative speeches Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 203 and was thereby guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 505 IPC.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 203Charges framed against A-2 to A-6Firstly, they were charged in a manner similar to A-1 with commission, on or about 31st October 1984, of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 302, 395, 427, 436, 449, 153A, 295, and 505 IPC.Secondly, they were charged with having been members of an unlawful assembly on 1st/2nd November 1984 in Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantonment using force and violence in pursuance of the common object to loot, damage, and burn the properties of the Sikh community as well as to kill members of the Sikh community residing in the area in retaliation to the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC.Thirdly, they were charged with commission of the aforementioned acts while being members of an unlawful assembly armed with guns, jellies, iron rods/pipes, lathis, kerosene oil, etc. and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC.Fourthly, they were charged with having committed, while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly, the murders of Kehar Singh son of Dhyan Singh, Gurpreet Singh son of Kehar Singh, Raghuvinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, Narender Pal Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, and Kuldeep Singh son of Hardev Singh and were Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 203 thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Fifthly, they were charged with committing mischief and causing loss and damage amounting to approximately Rs.3,30,000/- while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 203Sixthly, they were charged with committing mischief while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly by setting fire to a place of worship, viz. the Raj Nagar Gurudwara, as well as the dwelling houses H.No.RZ-1/129 & RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi and were thereby guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC.Seventhly, they were charged with having committed house trespass while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly by entering H.No.RZ-1/129 & RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar, Delhi Cantonment, which were the dwelling house of the five deceased persons, in order to commit the offence of murder which is punishable with death, and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 449 read with Section 149 IPC.The prosecution caseThe version of events put forth by the prosecution flows mainly from the depositions of three witnesses, viz. Jagdish Kaur (PW-1), Jagsher Singh (PW-6), and Nirpreet Kaur (PW-10).14. PW-1, at the time of the incident, was a resident of H.No.RZ-1/129, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar along with her husband, three daughters, and two sons.Her husband, Kehar Singh, was a gun-fitter in the EME Workshop No.505 in Delhi Cantonment.Her elder son, Gurpreet Singh, was 18 years old at the time and was completing his B.Sc.Jagsher Singh (PW-6) lived with his brothers, Narender Pal Singh and Raghuvinder Singh, at H.No.RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantonment.His cousin, Kuldeep Singh, also resided with them.Narender Pal Singh and Raghuvinder Singh were MES contractors working with the Air Force and the Airports Authority of India, mainly dealing in electric wiring, cable laying, water supply, etc. Kuldeep Singh assisted them in their business from time to time.Harbhajan Kaur was the wife of Narender Pal Singh and Daljit Kaur was the wife of Raghuvinder Singh.Luckdeep Singh and Sandeep Singh were the sons of Raghuvinder Singh and were both toddlers at the time.PW-1 is the cousin of PW-6, Crl.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 203PW-10 was the daughter of Nirmal Singh and Sampuran Kaur.She was around 16 years old at the time of the incident.Her family comprised her parents, herself, and her two younger brothers, Nirpal Singh and Nirmolak Singh.They all lived at RZ/WZ-241 Raj Nagar, Palam Colony which was located near the Raj Nagar Gurudwara.Raj Nagar Gurudwara incident and killing of Nirmal SinghAs already noted, in the forenoon of 31st October 1984, Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards.According to PW-10, on that date, there were no untoward incidents in Raj Nagar except for a few stray ones here and there.She went on to depose that at around 6:30 pm, A-2 and A-6, who introduced themselves as the nephews of A-1, came to her residence to meet her father Nirmal Singh who ran a taxi stand at Anand Niketan and operated a transportation business.They asked that A-6 be employed as a driver by him.Nirmal Singh informed them that he had no vacancies at present but would inform them should any such vacancy arise.18. PW-10 then stated that at around 2:30 to 3 am on 1st November 1984, the Granthi of the Raj Nagar Gurudwara came to their residence and informed her father, who was the President of the Gurudwara, that police personnel had come to the Gurudwara.When Nirmal Singh and his wife Sampuran Kaur went to the Gurudwara, the police personnel there informed them that they had been deployed to safeguard the Gurudwara as the situation at the time was not congenial to Sikhs.PW-10 deposed that she Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 203 herself went to the Gurudwara for morning prayers at around 5 to 5:30 am on 1st November 1984, at which time the police personnel were present there.She stated that during the prayers, the police personnel disappeared without any intimation.Thereafter, at around 7:30 to 8 am, a mob led by A-2, A-3, and the owner of one Mamta Bakery attacked the Gurudwara whilst armed with sariyas, rods, subbal, jellies, etc. and raising slogans such as "Indira Gandhi amar rahe" and "In sardaron ko maro, inhone hamari maa ko mara hai".Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 203Apprehensive that the mob would dishonour the Guru Granth Saheb, PW-10 and her brother Nirmolak Singh rushed to the Gurudwara so as to pick up the Guru Granth Saheb.They were set upon by the mob but were able to escape its clutches.PW-10 stated that, as she and her brother were going towards their residence, A-3 and the owner of Mamta Bakery pointed to her and her brother and said to the mob, "Isse maron, ye saap ka bachha hai".The mob followed them to their residence and caused damage to the walls and the gate of their house.Nirmal Singh and his wife came to the aid of their children.Thereafter, PW-10 stated that some members of the mob set fire to a truck belonging to Harbans Singh.Nirmal Singh raised an alarm and upon hearing this, Harbans Singh came out of his house and put out the fire.She went on to state that the Sikh residents of the area defended themselves for 2 to 3 hours with the mob attacking from three sides before the police personnel reached there.However, Nirmal Singh and the other members of the Sikh community did not agree to do so.The police personnel present asked both groups to reach a compromise and left the spot after taking away the kirpans from the Sikhs who had assembled there to defend their Gurudwara.Thereafter, Nirmal Singh went with A-2 and A-3 on a scooter.PW-10 stated that, apprehending danger, she ran behind the scooter and saw that they had stopped near the shop of one Dhanraj where a mob had gathered.There, A-2 purportedly said that he had brought with him the last remaining Sikh from the area, i.e. Nirmal Singh.The mob doused him in kerosene oil but they were unable to find any match sticks to set him on fire.At this time, one of the police personnel present there, Inspector Kaushik, allegedly shouted at the mob: "Doob maro, tumse ek sardar bhi nahin jalta".He then gave a match box to A-6 who set fire to Nirmal Singh.When the mob started moving along, Nirmal Singh jumped in a nearby nala.Noticing that he was still alive, the mob returned and A-4 tied him to a telephone pole and he was again set on fire.He again managed to jump in the nala.According to PW-10, the mob returned once again upon being told of this and A-2 began hitting Nirmal Singh with a rod while A-3 sprinkled some white powder (phosphorus) on him, causing burns.When someone shouted that Nirmal Singhs family should be killed as well, PW- 10 rushed back to her house where she found her mother lying unconscious.The house itself was burning and, according to her, the police personnel standing nearby did not help.With the help of one Santok Singh Sandhu who was serving in the Air Force, PW-10 and her family fled to the Air Force Station, Palam in an Air Force vehicle.Joginder Singh (PW-7) was also a resident of the area and has also deposed about the burning of the Raj Nagar Gurudwara.He stated that at around 7:30 am on 1st November 1984, he and his wife were exiting the Gurudwara when they saw a mob coming from the Mehrauli Road side.He identified A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, one Raja Ram, and one Gulati as being members of the mob which was armed with lathis, rods, jellies, pipes, etc. He stated that he along with some other men from the Sikh community assembled in front of the Gurudwara armed with their kirpans when they heard that it was under attack.He then stated that the house of one Jasbir Singh was looted and the truck of Harbans Singh was burned.He deposed that the police came two hours later and took the swords of the Sikhs away.The mob led by A-2, A-3, and A-6 again came to the spot.He stated that A-2 and A-3, who were on a scooter, caught hold of Nirmal Singh and told him that they wanted to talk to him so as to settle the matter.Thereafter, PW-7 stated, they took Nirmal Singh away while he went back home.Therefore, as regards the incident at and near the Raj Nagar Gurudwara, PWs 7 and 10 have identified A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 as being part of the mob which attacked and burned the Gurudwara.Murders at Shiv Mandir Marg Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 203Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 20325. PW-1, the wife of Kehar Singh and mother of Gurpreet Singh, deposed that on the morning of 1st November 1984, she had been told not to permit her husband or sons to leave the house as the atmosphere outside was unsafe and Sikhs were being attacked.On the advice of Gurpreet Singh, she took her three daughters and younger son Gurdeep Singh to the house of one of her neighbours, Ram Avtar Sharma (PW-3), where she found her cousin PW-6 also taking shelter.26. PW-1 stated that at around 1:30 to 2 pm, a mob entered her house from all sides armed with sariyas, gaintis, and other lethal weapons.She stated that they pounced upon her son Gurpreet Singh and dragged her husband, effectively crushing his head, till he dropped dead.Her son, who had sustained injuries, ran some distance down the street before he was attacked again and set on fire.PW-1 has identified, from among the accused in the present case, A-2 as being part of that mob along with some others.After shifting her sons body which was lying on the street back into her house with the help of PWs 3 and 6, PW-1 went to the nearby Police Post (PP) where the Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) present allegedly said, "Bhag yahan se, abhi to aur marenge, jab sab mar jaenge jo kuch hoga sabka ekattha hoga".She returned home at around 6 pm.Shortly thereafter, PW-3 turned her children out of his house due to his fear of being targeted by the mob.She hid her children under a blanket on the roof of her house and kept saying her prayers.She went on to depose that a mob kept banging on the doors of the house of Rajni Bala (DW-2) throughout the night, asking for the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 203 "thekedars".PW-1 apprehended that this was in reference to her cousin brothers - PW-6, Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and Kuldeep Singh.She stated that at around 7:30 am on 2nd November 1984, Narender Pal Singh jumped onto the street adjoining her house and was followed by Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh.This was seen by one Dharamvir (a member of the mob which attacked her house) who raised an alarm that the "thekedars" were running away.Upon hearing this, A-4, A-5, and one Subedar Balidan Singh (Retd.) came along with a mob armed with lathis.PW-1 states that she saw that Narender Pal Singh was injured with lathi blows and then burned.This, she stated, happened near her house.She also stated that she saw her other two cousin brothers, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh, being attacked and taken away by the mob.Fearing for the safety of herself and her children, she closed the door and stated that she did not see anything thereafter.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 203At around 9 am on 2nd November 1984, when she went to lodge a report at the PP, she saw that a public meeting was taking place which was attended by A-1 who was the local Member of Parliament (MP).She heard him declare, "Sikh sala ek nahin bachna chahiye, jo Hindu bhai unko sharan deta hai, uska ghar bhi jala do aur unko bhi maro".She stated that she also heard the officer-in-charge of the PP ask members of the mob "kitne murge bhun diye".She stated that at this point, she lost faith in humanity.30. PW-6 had also deposed as to both these incidents of murders at Shiv Mandir Marg.He stated that on the morning of 1st November 1984, he and Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 203 his brothers were informed by DW-2 and others not to leave the house.He stated that DW-2 asked them to come to her house till such time as normalcy returned.Therefore, he and his family members went to her house.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 203He then stated that, at some stage, he returned to his house to park his motorcycle inside the house.He then claimed that, when returning to DW-2s house, he saw a mob coming from the direction of Palam Village heading towards Shiv Mandir Marg.He further claimed that the mob was raising slogans such as "In Sikhon ko maro; in gaddaron ko maro; Hindustan mein ek sikh bhi jinda nahi bachna chahiyen".Ten minutes later, he heard shrieks and loud voices from outside.He saw the mob drag Kehar Singh and Gurpreet Singh.He stated that Kehar Singh, who fell down inside the house itself, was being hit with iron rods.He further claimed that Gurpreet Singh, in a bid to rescue himself, ran towards a small street in front of the house.However, some members of the mob caught hold of him and beat him with iron rods and killed him.He stated that he helped his cousin PW-1 move the body of Gurpreet Singh back into their house using a cot.He claimed that he thereafter remained in the house of PW-3 till 10 pm.33. PW-6 further deposes that in the evening of 1 st November 1984, the mob again came to his house, broke the gate, peeked inside, and thereafter Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 203 left having found the house empty.When he left the house of PW-3 at around 10 pm, he saw an Ambassador car which stopped at the turning onto Shiv Mandir Marg.He stated that 30-40 persons gathered around the car from which emerged A-1 who enquired as to whether "they have done the work".Thereafter, it is stated, A-1 approached the house of PW-6 to inspect it and came back and told the assembled mob that they had "only broken the gate of the thekedars house".One of the members of the mob then allegedly informed him that "the thekedars are being saved by the Hindus only".Upon hearing this, A-1 is stated to have instructed the mob to burn the houses of the Hindus who were sheltering the Sikhs.He then left in his car.35. PW-6 then stated that at around 5 am on 2nd November 1984, PW-3 brought a car in order to rescue the three cousins of PW-1 under the cover of darkness but was unable to do so due to the mobs presence in the area.At around 6 am, PW-3 turned PW-6 out of his house, fearing for his own safety.PW-6 then stated that he went towards the gali where Gurpreet Singh was killed.There he saw a Sikh man wrapped in a woollen shawl Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 203 being chased by a group of people.The mob caught up with that man and started beating him with rods and then set him on fire.After the crowd dispersed, PW-6 was able to identify the man who had been killed as his brother Narender Pal Singh.He was able to do so by recognising his wristwatch.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 20336. PW-6 deposed that in a bid to save his other two brothers, he went through various streets till he reached Palam Colony Railway Gate.From there, he took a lift to Gopinath Bazar where he went to the house of Major Dhanraj Yadav, Garrison Engineer (East) (DW-1) who he knew, having worked under him as an MES contractor.He stated that DW-1 agreed to accompany him in his search for the other two deceased.They took a vehicle from the Parade Ground with 7-8 jawans from the Sikh Regiment and reached near PW-6s house in Raj Nagar around 10 am.PW- 6 stated that he enquired from PW-3 as to the whereabouts of his other two brothers.He was told that they too were killed at Dada Chatriwala Marg.PW-6 and DW-1 reached there and found the bodies of his two brothers, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh.He was able to identify them by their clothing.He also retrieved PW-1, her younger son, and three daughters and made them sit in the vehicle.Thereafter, they all went to the Parade Ground.DW-1 took them to his house where they stayed for two nights.PW-1, however, decided to return Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 203 to Raj Nagar on the same evening, leaving her children with PW-6 at DW-1s house.She went to her house and saw that 1000-watt bulbs had been installed in the neighbourhood, making it impossible for anyone to hide.Feeling unsafe, she started to walk down Mehrauli Road where she found a group of people sitting around a bonfire.She asked for Om Prakash, an employee of her husband.When he identified himself, she asked him if she could stay at his house to which he reluctantly agreed.Thereafter, with the help of some people, she cremated the bodies of her deceased husband and son.She then narrates that she was taken away from the area hidden in a police vehicle to PP Palam Colony where the in-charge, in the presence of Air Force personnel, recorded her report in a few lines and obtained her signatures on blank papers as he claimed he was short of time and would prepare the report later.PW-1 then went to Gurudwara Sadar, Delhi Cantonment.From there she went to the house of DW-1 where she spent the night with her bhabhis and children.The next morning, she returned to Gurudwara Sadar, Delhi Cantonment with her children.At 4 pm on 4th November 1984, PW-6 shifted PW-1 and her children to the Air Force Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 203 Gurudwara.She stayed there and then in Moti Bagh Gurudwara till 12th December 1984 when she left Delhi and went to Punjab.Nothing appears to have come of the report lodged by PW-1 at PP Palam Colony.PW-6 also stated that his father, the late Gurcharan Singh, had filed a complaint with the police but no statement was recorded.FIR No. 416/1984 was registered at PS Delhi Cantonment on 4th November 1984 on the complaint of one Daljit Kaur who spoke about a mob of 400-500 people attacking her house on 1st November 1984 which resulted in injuries to her parents.There was another attack on her house on 2nd November 1984 in which her father was set on fire by the mob on the instigation of her neighbour, Mahender Sharabi.However, it appears that the investigation into the said FIR remained inconclusive.On 25th March 1985, five charge sheets were filed by the Delhi Police based on the statement of Daljit Kaur.Thereafter, a series of Committees and Commissions were set up for the purpose of conducting inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the violence that took place in the aftermath of the assassination of the then Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi.The Marwaha Committee headed by Mr. Ved Marwaha began recording the statements of victims as well as the police officers involved.At this stage it is pertinent to note that, according to the defence in the present case, PW-1 also allegedly gave a statement to the Special Riots Cell, Malviya Nagar on 31st December 1992 under Section 161 Cr PC.This too, however, is disputed by the CBI.The Justice Nanavati Commission and subsequent investigation by CBIIn May 2000, the Justice Nanavati Commission was constituted.PW-1, PW-10, and Sampuran Kaur (wife of the deceased Nirmal Singh) were among those who made statements before the Justice Nanavati Commission.The following excerpt from the report of the Justice Nanavati Commission speaks of the role of A-1 as under:The Commission therefore recommends to the Government to examine only those cases where the witnesses have accused Shri Sajjan Kumar specifically and yet no charge sheets were filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced and if there is justification for the same take further action as is permitted by law.Those cases which were closed as untraced and which still deserve to be reexamined are those which would arise from FIR Nos. 250/84, 307/94 and 347/91 of police station Sultanpuri, FIR Nos. 325/93, 329/93, 178/84 of police station Mangolpuri and FIR No. 416/84 of police station Delhi Cantt."Similar observations were made in respect of two other leaders of the Congress.On 24th October 2005, a letter was sent by the Secretary (H) in the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Director, CBI as under:"In reply to the discussion held in the Lok Sabha on 10 th August 2005 and the Rajya Sabha on 11th August 2005 on the Report of Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry into 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister had given an assurance that wherever the Commission has named any specific individuals as needing further examination or re- opening of case the Government will take all possible steps to do so within the ambit of law.The matter has accordingly been examined and it is observed that the Report of Justice Nanavati Commission, inter Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 203 alia, contains recommendations regarding investigation/ reinvestigation of the cases against (a) Shri Dharam Das Shastri, (b) Shri Jagdish Tytler, and (c) Shri Sajjan Kumar.Additional records/information required in connection with investigations might be obtained from Delhi Police."Inspector Rakesh (DW-17), who was a part of the Special Riots Cell, Delhi Police, deposed that he attempted to join PW-1 in the investigation and even issued a notice to her under Section 160 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/DY).Thereunder, an endorsement was supposedly made on behalf of PW-1 by her son Gurdeep Singh to whom she dictated her refusal to join the investigation.Eventually, an untraced report was filed by Inspector Sunil Kumar Vashisht (DW-15) and thereafter, a closure report (Ex.The letter dated 24th October 2005 extracted hereinabove was issued in pursuance of the discussions held in both Houses of Parliament on 10 th and 11th August 2005 wherein demands were made for further action to be taken on the recommendations of the Justice Nanavati Commission.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 27 of 203Consequently, the investigation of the matter was entrusted to the CBI and, on 22nd November 2005, RC No.SI-1/2005/S0024 was registered at PS Delhi Cantonment.The charge sheetOn 13th January 2010, the CBI filed the charge sheet in which it set out the details of the earlier cases which had ended in acquittals as under:The charge sheet summarised the recommendations of the Justice Nanavati Commission as under:"16.6 During the proceedings, the Commission took note of the depositions/affidavits of Smt. Jagdish Kaur, Sh.Sudarshan Singh & Sh.Jasbir Singh and observed that many witnesses have stated about the involvement of Sajjan Kumar.Smt. Jagdish Kaur, Sudarshan Singh and many persons from Raj Nagar, Palam Colony have spoken about the participation of Shri Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokhar in the riots in that area.Jagdish Kaur of Raj Nagar has stated that she had heard Sajjan Kumar telling the persons "Sardar sala koi nahin bachna chahiye".' Jasbir Singh of Raj Nagar had also spoken about the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 203 involvement of Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokhar and further stated that even though he had gone with a written complaint naming the assailants, the police did not take down his complaint and Sajjan Kumar was not put up for trial.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 20316.7 The Commission concluded that there is credible material against Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokhar for recording a finding that he and Balwan Khokhar were probably involved as alleged by the witnesses.Thus, the Commission recommended to the Government to examine only those cases and take further action in them as permitted by the Law, in which the witnesses had accused Sajjan Kumar specifically and yet no chargesheets were filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced.16.8 After considering the findings of the Nanavati Commission, the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 24.10.2005 directed the CBI to investigate/re- investigate the cases against Sajjan Kumar including FIR No.416/84 dated 4.11.1984 of PS Delhi Cantt., Delhi.Accordingly, case FIR No.416/84 of PS Delhi Cantt.Was re- registered by CBI as case RC-24(S)/2005-SCU.I/SCR.I on 22.11.2005 and investigation was taken up."The details of the investigation undertaken by the CBI pursuant to the registration of the case were then set out in the charge sheet.Reference was made to the statement of PW-7 who spoke of an unlawful assembly of around 2000 persons in Raj Nagar, Palam Colony at around 7 am on 1st November 1984 with the intention to loot, damage, and burn the properties of the Sikh community and to kill Sikhs and burn their bodies.It was stated that, pursuant to this common object, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, and one Raja Ram (since deceased) were part of a mob armed with guns, jellies, iron rods, lathis, etc. which attacked the Raj Nagar Gurudwara and set it on fire.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 29 of 203The charge sheet then narrated how the mob went on to burn the houses and vehicles belonging to the Sikh community.Referring to the killing of Nirmal Singh, the charge sheet stated that he was caught hold of by A-2, A- 3, and A-6 and taken near the shop of Dhanraj where he was assaulted by a mob which included A-4 and then burnt alive after being doused in kerosene oil.The charge sheet then described the killing of Kehar Singh and his son Gurdeep Singh on 1st November 1984 by an unlawful assembly led by A-2, Maha Singh, Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand @ Chand Sarabi (since deceased), and Dharamveer Singh (since deceased).The charge sheet then stated, as spoken to by PW-6, that A-1 arrived at Raj Nagar, in pursuance of the aforementioned common object, at around 10- 11 pm on 1st November 1984 and instigated the mob by exhorting them to not allow any Sikh to go alive and to not spare even Hindus who were providing shelter to Sikhs.The charge sheet also stated that after A-1 left, the mob looted household articles from the house of PW-6 and set it on fire.It also mentioned the subsequent attack on the house of DW-2 where the three deceased, Raghuvinder Singh, Narender Pal Singh, and Kuldeep Singh, had taken shelter.The charge sheet then referred to their murders on 2nd November 1984 by a mob comprising A-4, A-5, Dharamveer (since deceased), and Balidan Singh (since deceased).Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 30 of 203She also was a witness to A-1 addressing a meeting of his followers at around 10 am on 2nd November 1984 near police post (PP) Manglapuri Mandir, exhorting them to not leave any Sikh alive and to kill even those who had given shelter to them.SP) Manoj Pangarkar (PW-Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 31 of 203Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 32 of 203(iv) Although the mandate of the law was that each incident of crime has to be separately registered by the police and then investigated, it appears that all complaints were clubbed in FIR No.416/1984 registered on 4th November 1984 at PS Delhi Cantonment.(v) The intention of the police was clear from the cyclostyled report (Ex.PW-1/D) which was submitted to the SHO by PW-1 in which the claim on account of the assessed damage to the house was stated as Rs.45,000/- and to the household articles was stated as Rs.1,25,000/-.It appeared as though the police had convinced victims that the killing of their family members was merely an opportunity to bargain for monetary relief.This was another reflection of the polices total inaction.He pointed out that the case had to be appreciated in the overall context of the number of killings that took place in the capital city when riots broke out on 31st October 1984 in the aftermath of Smt. Indira Gandhis assassination and continued till at least 4th November 1984 in which thousands of Sikhs were murdered and their properties, and places of worship, destroyed.Just in Delhi Cantonment area alone, a total of 21 FIRs were registered.In FIR No.416/1984 itself, 22 other complaints were Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 38 of 203 tagged and these pertained to 30 murders.Of the 341 people killed in the Delhi Cantonment area which resulted in the registration of 21 FIRs, four of them related to Raj Nagar.Only five dead bodies were recovered and this was primarily due to the intervention of the Army.Therefore, post-mortem examinations were conducted only in those five instances.Despite a searching cross-examination, she consistently maintained having made that Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 40 of 203 statement.The fact of her giving a complaint dated 3rd November 2004 was spoken to by her before the Justice Nanavati Commission.This was acknowledged by even the counsel for Delhi Police present at the time her statement was being recorded before the Justice Nanavati Commission.According to Mr. Phoolka, in such circumstances, it was unfair to place the entire onus on the witnesses and victims to come forward to speak against A-1 without affording them any protection.He further pointed out that at the time of the aforementioned incident, the party to which A-1 belonged was not in power and yet, he was so influential that no one could dare to take him into custody for questioning.The earliest statement of PW-6 on the record is the one made under Section 161 Cr PC dated 7th November 2007 (Ex.PW-6/DA).Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 66 of 203In a case where a victim lodges a report regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, Rule 22.49(n) requires an entry in respect thereof to be recorded in the DDR.The copy of the DDR entry is thereafter forwarded to the PS with an endorsement for the purposes of recording a formal FIR in the FIR register.It states that at that time, a curfew was in operation and a voice had come from inside H. No. R-2/110, Raj Nagar stating "if any sardars had survived, they should also not be left alive today".It was recorded that they were saying this loudly by creating a nuisance.Despite the SI going close to the said house and addressing them in a loud voice, the voice from inside the house continued to be raised and they "continued to use provocative expressions".The searching cross-examination of PW-17, who was not present in the PS Delhi Cantonment area at that time, did not elicit any answer that could help the defence.He could answer only with regard to FIR No.416/1984 and that was not unnatural.Even the answers given by PW-15 in this regard do not help the accused.When asked as to how many complaints were clubbed in FIR No.416/1984, he stated that "there were about 15/20 such complaints clubbed in this FIR".He stated that the death of every victim was separately investigated but admitted that "all were not sent for trial".When asked whether, on the complaint of PW-1, separate action was taken regarding the killing of her husband, son and three cousins, he answered: "No. Practically no substantial action or investigation was done by Delhi Police with regard to the aforesaid death".Thus, it is clear that there was an utter failure to register separate FIRs with respect to each of the five deaths that form the subject matter of the present appeals.In her examination-in-chief dated 2nd July 2010 about what she did on 3rd November 1984, she stated as under:"...When I reached the Police Post, the Incharge was present there.At that time, Air Force Personnel were also present nearby with vehicle.The Incharge of the Police Post recorded my report on a plain paper after writing a few lines and made me sign the same.He also obtained my signatures on two blank papers and stated that he was short of time and would prepare the report later.I had disclosed to the police all that had happened." (emphasis in original)The following suggestion given by the defence to her was acknowledgment of her having made such a statement:"... It is incorrect to suggest that on 03.11.1984 police officials were concerned about my safety and they took precautions that I should reach the police post safely.The law and order machinery had clearly broken down and it was literally a free for all situation which persisted.The aftershocks of those atrocities are still being felt.This mob was being led by A-1 who was instigating them, saying that all Sikh males be burnt to death and their property be looted.Under that instigation, her husband was dragged out and attacked with a sharp-edged weapon and burnt to death after being doused in kerosene oil.Thereafter, her house was also burnt.She took refuge in the house of her daughter Film Kaur, who was residing in D-Block, Sultanpuri.Late at Crl."The assassination of late Prime Minister India Gandhi on 31.10.84, was an unfortunate incident, but still more unfortunate were the events, which took place thereafter, as a result of which a large number of anti-social elements came out of their house in anger and indulged in incidents of rioting, looting, arson, assault and killing of innocent persons and burning their property throughout India.On first of November, 1984 such like 'incidents also took place in the locality of Sultanpuri, Delhi.Information of this incident was received at the Police station at about 2.10 p.m. It was recorded in the DD.Register at serial no. 11-A.-and the same was handed over to SI Sukhbir Singh for immediate action.The gloom that had spread and affected the Congressmen in particular would not have permitted any such organisation to be handled.The reaction appears to have come as flutter and sparked everywhere in a similar pattern."In fact, the anti-social elements had taken the lead".It was observed that the Commission had come to the conclusion that despite wide spread publicity to the cause, many persons had not come forward to depose as to the actual happenings between 1st and 7th November 1984 and, therefore, it recommended that a new committee be appointed "to go through the individual cases of omission or non-registration of cases by the local police".The Jain-Banerjee Committee comprising Justice M. L. Jain, a former Judge of this Court, and Mr. A. K. Banerjee, a retired officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS) came to be constituted.This Committee went Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 77 of 203 through the affidavit of Anwar Kaur and wrote to the Delhi Administration for an FIR to be registered.At that point, one B. N. Gupta filed a writ petition before this Court which, by the aforementioned judgment in Brahma Nand Gupta (supra), restrained the registration of cases pursuant to directions of the Jain-Banerjee Committee.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 77 of 203By the time the search was concluded, the mob outside the house inflamed and was raising slogans against the CBI and in favour of the petitioner.The mob in fact had barred the exit gate which made difficult for them to leave the premises.With the lapse of time, the mob continued to swell and provocative slogans were chanted through a loudspeaker system installed by the mob.In her very first affidavit before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission dated 7th September 1985 (Ex.PW-1/A), she referred to the attack on 1st November 1984 and stated that it was "perfectly organized".She noted that "the mob had the names, addresses and particulars, about every Sikh living in our locality".She stated that many Congress leaders were leading the mob and she named A-2, Maha Singh, and Santosh Rani (also known as Janta Hawaldarni).Her pleas for their help were rebuffed by them.She then referred to the attack on her husband and son.She also mentioned the attack at around 6 am on 2nd November 1984 on her three brothers, viz. Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and Kuldeep Singh who she states were "hiding on top of their house in front of our building".PW-1 mentioned Balram, a local youth Congress leader supplying kerosene oil to the mob and that he had a depot in Palam Colony.She mentioned about being taken on 3rd November 1984 to PS Palam Nagar at 2 pm in the police van where they registered her report.She then states that she was taken to the Sadar Gurudwara camp in Delhi Cantonment in an Air Force van.However, in her original affidavit before the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 96 of 203 Justice Nanavati Commission (Ex.PW-1/B), her statement in para 4 was that "MP Sajjan Kumar was leading the mob".She further narrates how she went to the PS on that date to file a report but no one listened to her and that on 3rd November 1984, when she went to the PS, they entered the report "but after that no action was taken by the police".In para 7, she again mentioned:In November 1988, PW-1 moved to the Dangapeedit Colony in Amritsar.The Court then turns to the evidence of PW-4 who is the brother of PW-6 and two of the deceased, i.e. Raghuvinder Singh and Narender Pal Singh.He came into the scene on 8th November 1984 after he was helped Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 119 of 203 by the Air Force to reach his house.He was already serving in the army as a Corporal in Chakeri, Kanpur.The Court would next like to discuss the evidence of PW-7 who was a witness to the initial attack on the Raj Nagar Gurudwara on 1st November 1984 at around 7:30 am.He was living in the vicinity of the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 125 of 203 Gurudwara in Raj Nagar, Part-II.At 7:30 am, when alarm calls were heard, he and 20-25 other Sikhs armed with kirpans managed to repel a mob seeking to cause damage to the Gurudwara.However, the police came there and took away the kirpans of the Sikhs.When the mob again came, they managed to cause extensive damage to the Gurudwara besides setting fire to a truck, looting the house of one Jasbir Singh, and committing the murder of Nirmal Singh while taking him away on the pretext of involving him in negotiations for peace.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 125 of 203PW-7 also took active part in the funeral of the dead bodies of the Sikhs with the initiative of Wing Commander L. S. Pannu.Among the dead bodies, he could identify those of Kirpal Singh, Ajit Singh and his son, and one Avtar Singh.He also spoke of the complicity of the police.On 2nd November 1984, hiding in the house of his father-in-law, he could see from the window how a police van would come and stop and upon seeing them, Sikhs would come out hoping to be protected.The police would then leave without offering any help or protection and soon thereafter, a mob would come there and burn those very houses.PW-7 is an important witness as regards the culpability of A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 who have been identified by him as members of the rioting mob.He could speak of how cremations were taking place at the very place where the bodies were lying there and this was done with furniture, clothes etc. He was asked in the context of the killing of Avtar Singh as under:"Q. Why did you leave a helpless lady who had lost her Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 126 of 203 husband and son in the riots and house was burnt whereas you claim that you had particularly gone along with Wg.Pannu to help the remaining riot victims?Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 126 of 203A. Our attention was only to cremate the killed persons and therefore, we did not pay any attention to bring the wife of Avtar Singh and therefore we did not pay attention to living persons in the colony to shift to gurudwara as there were too many persons.We thought it first to cremate the killed persons.Last rites were performed at the places where the dead bodies were lying in the colony.What have you to say?It is correct.159.Q. It is further in evidence against you that on 05.11.1984, you Balwan Khokhar came to Air Force Gurdwara with milk and biscuits and inquired about Nirpreet Kaur and her family members.What have you to say?Six families of Sikhs had taken shelter in my house.Thereafter, I arrange for shifting them to Gurdwara, in order to provide milk and biscuits, I had gone to Gurdwara where I met them as well as Wing Cdr.What has emerged in her cross-examination is that she, at one stage, had joined the Sikh Students Federation.He is supposed to have recorded that statement at Gurudwara, Moti Bagh.He admitted in his cross-examination that there was nothing in the statement which showed the place where it was recorded.He has also not denied that there was no entry in the case diary about the recording of such statement.Her house was damaged entirely.Since she was hiding in the neighbouring house with the children, she could not see the attackers herself.The targeting of Sikh male members was spoken to by many witnesses.The attacks were brutal and targeted.There could be no doubt at all that these were cold-blooded murders of members belonging to one community.(iii) There was reference of some incidents and the police visiting local Gurdwara.The police personnel have simply avoided mentioning as to what had happened there and who were involved.The criminals got an opportunity to show their might and increase their hold.I could identify Balwan Khokhar, Kishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav, Capt.Bhagmal, Raja Ram and Gulati from amongst the mob.The mob was armed with lathis, rods, pipes, jellies etc. The mob comprised of people from nearby villages and colonies.Some persons of my colony were also there.Thereafter we went to our house.After sometime some sikhs shouted that gurudwara has been attacked and it should be saved.About 20-25 of sikhs including me, with their kirpans assembled together in front of the gurudwara.All sentences shall run concurrently.The bail and surety bonds furnished by A-1 stand cancelled and he Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 201 of 203 shall surrender not later than 31st December 2018, failing which he shall forthwith be taken into custody to serve out the sentences awarded to him. A-1 shall not from this moment till his surrender leave the NCT of Delhi in the meanwhile and shall immediately provide to the CBI the address and mobile number(s) where he can be contacted.A-3 and A-6 shall surrender not later than 31st December 2018, failing which they shall forthwith be taken into custody to serve out the sentences awarded to each of them.The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by A-3 and A-6 stand cancelled forthwith.373. A-3 and A-6 shall not, from this moment till their surrender, leave the NCT of Delhi in the meanwhile and each of them shall immediately Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 202 of 203 provide to the CBI the addresses and mobile number(s) where each of them can be contacted.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 202 of 203By a common judgment passed today in Crl.A.1099/2013 (State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar & Ors.) (certified copy placed below) and Connected Appeals, including the present one, this Court has partly allowed the CBI's appeal and dismissed the present appeal.The impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013 and order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts in SC No.26/2010 is affirmed.Additionally, in the connected appeal Crl.A.1099/2013 preferred by the CBI, the Appellant is further convicted and sentenced for the offence of Crl.A. 753/2013 Page 1 of 2 criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read withA. 753/2013 Page 1 of 2(i) Section 436 IPC, to RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 year;(ii) Section 153A (1) (a) and (b) IPC, to RI for three years; and(iii) Section 295 IPC, to RI for two years.He shall not, from this moment till his surrender, leave the NCT of Delhi in the meanwhile and he shall immediately provide to the CBI the address and mobile number where he can be contacted.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.A majority of the perpetrators of these horrific mass crimes, enjoyed political patronage and were aided by an indifferent law enforcement agency.The criminals escaped prosecution and punishment for over two decades.It took as many as ten Committees and Commissions for the investigation into the role of some of them to be entrusted in 2005 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 21 years after the occurrence.The present appeals arise as a result of the investigation by the CBI into the killing of five Sikhs in the Raj Nagar Part I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on 1st and 2nd November 1984 and the burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar Part II.Three years later, the trial court convicted five of the accused: three of them for the offences of armed rioting and murder and two of them for the offence of armed rioting.The convicted accused as well as the CBI appealed to this Court.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 203In the judgment that follows this Court has partly allowed CBIs appeal and reversed the acquittal of Sajjan Kumar.This Court has convicted him for the offences of criminal conspiracy and abetment in the commission of the crimes of murder, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of communal harmony, defiling and destruction of the Gurudwara by burning.Further while affirming the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court to the other five accused, this Court has additionally convicted and sentenced them for the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit the aforementioned crimes.The accused in this case have been brought to justice primarily on account of the courage and perseverance of three eyewitnesses.Jagdish Kaur whose husband, son and three cousins were the five killed; Jagsher Singh, another cousin of Jagdish Kaur, and Nirpreet Kaur who saw the Gurudwara being burnt down and her father being burnt alive by the raging mobs.It is only after the CBI entered the scene, that they were able to be assured and they spoke up.Admirably, they stuck firm to their truth at the trial.(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, all five convicted accused were sentenced to three years' RI along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed Crl.A.1099/2013 challenging the complete acquittal of A-1 and the acquittal of the other accused for the other charges framed against them.The complainant, Jagdish Kaur (PW-1), had also preferred Crl.A.850/2013 against the acquittal of A-1 which was subsequently withdrawn, with this Court Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 203 granting her liberty to address arguments in Crl.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 203The convicted accused, have filed separate appeals.A.861/2013 has been preferred by A-2, Crl.A.715/2013 by A-3, Crl.Charges framed against A-1Eighthly, they were charged with having committed dacoity while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly in H.No.RZ-1/129 & RZ-15, which belonged to the deceased persons, and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 149 IPC.Lastly, they were charged with destroying/damaging/ Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 203 defiling a place of worship, i.e. the Raj Nagar Gurudwara held sacred by the Sikh community, while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly with the common intention of insulting the Sikh religion and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 295 read with Section 149 IPC.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 203A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 203 being the daughter of his fathers sister (bua).According to her, A-2, A-3, and A-6 then came to the spot and sought a Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 203 compromise.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 203Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 203Therefore, from the deposition of PW-10, two incidents emerge.The first is the attack on the Raj Nagar Gurudwara in the morning of 1st November 1984 and the second, the killing of Nirmal Singh.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 203After A-1s departure, the mob proceeded to loot and ransack the house of PW-6 and his brothers.They set fire to a motorcycle and a scooter and, ultimately, the house itself.The fire caused damage to the electric cables running above the house, causing the electricity to shut down.Thereafter, the mob went to the house of DW-2 and then to the house of PW-3, accusing them of sheltering Sikhs.The mob ultimately retreated but kept roaming in the area.However, before the said Committee could complete the exercise, the Central Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 203 Government set up a one-man Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 (CoI Act) comprising Justice Ranganath Misra.The statements recorded by the Marwaha Committee were to be handed over and examined by the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission.But, for unexplained reasons, this was not done.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 20344. PW-1 submitted an affidavit dated 7th September 1985 before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (Ex.She described the mob as being well organised and named A-2 as being involved in the murders of her husband and son.She also named A-4 and A-5 as being part of the mob involved in the murders of her three cousin brothers.According to the prosecution, although the above charge sheets ended in acquittals in 1986 itself, this was a mere eyewash as a result of manipulation, both by the Delhi Police and the prosecution.In 1992, the Jain-Aggarwal Committee in its report recommended, inter alia, further investigations into the cases concerning the attack on the house of Jasbir Singh and the incident involving the deaths of Kehar Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and Kuldeep Singh.In the matter of the attack on the house of Jasbir Singh, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 26th February 1993 against four accused, viz. Sunil Tiwari @ Raju, Hukum Chand, Mangat Ram, and Balwan Khokar.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 24 of 203This statement was originally recorded in Urdu and therein she states that her son and husband were killed by a mob of 250-300 men but she could not identify any of the people who were part of the mob.She stated that she could identify them if they were brought before her.This statement has been denied by the CBI."Many witnesses have stated about the involvement of S/Shri Sajjan Kumar, Balwan Khokar, Pratap Singh, Maha Singh and Mohinder Singh in the riots in areas like Palam Colony, Tilak Vihar, Raj Nagar etc. It was alleged that the mobs indulging in riots were led by Shri Sajjan Kumar and Shri Balwan Khokhar and other Congress leaders.Police did not even record the complaints of the victims/witnesses against them.Instead complaints of losses were recorded by the Police.Other local persons who have been named by the witnesses as the persons who had taken a leading part in the attacks on Sikhs are Rohtas, Ram Kumar and Ved Prakash.Thereafter, the following conclusions were recorded in the chargesheet:"16.14 The investigation further established that provocative speeches, with common object as aforesaid, made by Sajjan Kumar (A-1) to the mob gathered in Raj Nagar area, promoted immediate and violent enmity amongst the public against Sikhs and disturbed the harmony between the two religious groups/communities of the locality resulting into killing of Sikhs and burning/looting of their houses/properties.Thus, Sajjan Kumar (A-1) instigated the mob and other accused persons including Balwan Khokhar (A-2), Mahender Yadav (A-3), Maha Singh (A-4), Baghmal (A-5), Santosh Rani Janta Hawaldarni (A-6), Girdhari Lal (A-7), Krishan Khokhar (A-8), lshwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi (since expired), Balidan Singh (since expired), Dharamveer Singh (since expired), Raja Ram (since expired) and other unknown persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, lathis, kerosene oil, etc. for the purpose of committing various criminal acts of murder, dacoity and destruction of the property of Sikh Community.The said unlawful assembly also defiled the Gurudwara in Raj Nagar area with intention to insult the religion of Sikh community."Subsequently, charges were framed by the trial Court on 24th May 2010 in the manner referred to hereinabove.Among the 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution were Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl.15) of the CBI and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. SP) Anil Kumar Yadav (PW-17) of the CBI who prepared the charge sheet.The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr PC were recorded and reference to these shall be made subsequently when this Court considers each of the appeals of the accused independently.In all, 17 defence witnesses were examined.Their depositions will be discussed along with the individual cases of the accused on behalf of whom they were examined.In the impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013, the trial Court came to the following conclusions:(i) Judicial notice could be taken from the Justice Nanavati Commission report of the fact that there were as many as 341 killings in the Delhi Cantonment area and five of those killings form the subject matter of the present case.(ii) From the Daily Diary Register (DDR) (Ex. PW-16/A) maintained at Police Post (PP) Palam Colony, it appeared that "not a single incident of any killing or any property destroyed was recorded by the police".The police appeared to be privy to the incident of rioting and remained a silent spectator.(iii) The police arrived at the Raj Nagar Gurudwara and disarmed the Sikhs of their kirpans and soon thereafter the mob again arrived there.There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-7 on Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 32 of 203 this point, which reflects a serious lapse on the part of the police entrusted with the law enforcement duty.(vi) Balwinder Singh (PW-4) had submitted two reports dated 12th November 1984 (Ex.PW-4/A & B) to the SHO of PS Delhi Cantonment about the killing of his two brothers Raghuvinder Singh and Narender Pal Singh as well as the killing of Kuldeep Singh.Specific mention was made in these reports of A-4, A-5, Balidan Singh, Dharamveer Singh, Ashok, and Chand.However, no FIR was registered in this regard.(vii) The evidence of PWs 1, 6, and 10 had to be appreciated in the peculiar background of no action being taken by the police in FIR No.416/1984 or in respect of the numerous complaints that had been clubbed with it.(viii) The evidence of PW-1 was most natural and without exaggeration or Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 33 of 203 falsehood.There was no inconsistency in the narration of facts by PW-1 in her affidavit before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission as well as what she had deposed in the Court.PW-1 identified A-2 along with others as being members of the mob which killed her husband and son.There was no reason why she would substitute the assailants names which also appear in Ex.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 33 of 203(ix) There was also no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 that she herself performed the cremation of her husband and son on 3rd November 1984 by preparing the funeral pyre using furniture and household articles available in the house.Her evidence proved that A-2 was part of the rioting mob and had committed the murder of her husband Kehar Singh and son Gurpreet Singh.PW-1 was also believable with regard to her eye witness account of murder of her cousins Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and Kuldeep Singh.She named A-4 and A-5 along with others as being members of the mob which killed them.(x) The charges of rioting against the accused stood proved when examined in light of the testimonies of PWs 7 and 10 as well as Manjit Singh (PW-12).It was concluded:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 34 of 203"It is a matter of fact that Sardar Nirmal Singh taken away by accused persons from that place was later on found murdered but then that criminal offence of murder of Nirmal Singh stood tried separately as FIR 416/84 wherein present case witness PW10 Nirpreet Kaur daughter of Nirmal Singh and Smt. Sampuran Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh had been cited as eyewitness and that trial ended by an order of acquittal and admittedly Nirpreet Kaur and Sampuran Kaur shad not been examined in that trial and that acquittal judgement had been passed in 1986 itself.Testimony of PW7 is acceptable to the extent and effect of the rioting mob appeared near Gurudwara on 02.11.1984 and accused of the present case namely Bhagmal, Balwan Khokar, Krishan Khokar and Mahender Yadav were part of that rioting mob and mob was armed with weapons, lathis, and sarias."(xi) However, there were reservations in accepting and believing the testimony of PW-7 with respect to the attack on the Raj Nagar Gurudwara since no evidence was available as to "what extent that burning damage to the Gurudwara had occurred".There was also no further evidence as to whether the truck of Harbans Singh was "set on fire by the mob on that occasion".The evidence of PW-7 was held to have been corroborated by PW-10.It was concluded that:"there was a rioting mob and it was armed with weapons like lathis and rods and they did indulge in violence.Accordingly I find these accused persons namely Balwan Khokar, Krishan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and Captain Bhagmal are liable to be convicted for offences of rioting and the unlawful assembly of those rioters armed with deadly weapons and this offence committed by accused on 01.11.1984 at around 7.30 pm near Gurudwara Rajnagar stands duly proved and these four accused persons are liable to be convicted u/S 147 and 148 IPC."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 35 of 203(xii) As regards the specific role of A-1, the contention of the defence that the averment in the second page of the affidavit of PW-1 (Ex.PW-1/B) attributing specific words spoken by A-1 at Mandir Manglapuri on the morning of 2nd November 1984 appeared to be manipulated when seen in the context of her statement (Ex.PW-1/C) made on 8th January 2002 was "not to be brushed aside".Her statement suggested that the information concerning A-1 was based on hearsay.(xiii) If indeed PW-1 witnessed A-1 speaking those words, then in the first instance before the Justice Nanavati Commission, she would have disclosed it.If A-1 was involved in the incident, then in the report submitted by PW-4 to the police on 12th November 1984, his role ought to have been mentioned.Therefore, there was a serious doubt as to the veracity of PW-6 as regards A-1s role.When her statement initially was recorded in 1985, she had not named A-1 at all.In her affidavit before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission, PW-1 did not mention A-1 in any manner, although the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 36 of 203 other accused had been named.In the circumstances, the testimony of PW-1 that she had heard and seen A-1 addressing a gathering with provocative and instigating utterances was not acceptable and believable.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 36 of 203After recording the aforementioned findings in its judgment, the trial Court proceeded to acquit A-1 of all charges while convicting the other accused, i.e. A-2 to A-6, in the manner indicated hereinbefore.The convicted accused were sentenced in terms of the order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 in the manner indicated hereinbefore.Appeals against the acquittal of A-1"Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in case the appellants are permitted to address arguments in the appeal filed by the State and also permitted to raise the grounds of appeal as mentioned in the present appeal.It may be noticed that by a separate order passed in Criminal Leave to Appeal No.385/2013 filed by the State, this court has granted leave to appeal to the appellant / State.Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with the following agreed directions:(i) Appellants would be entitled to be represented before this court at the time of hearing of the appeal filed by the State and would be entitled to raise all grounds which have been raised in the present appeal.(ii) A copy of the grounds of appeal will be tagged with Criminal Appeal filed by the State, which is yet to be registered.(iii) All grounds urged in the instant appeal bearing Crl.Prosecution's submissions as regards A-1Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 38 of 203Although 341 Sikhs were killed in the Delhi Cantonment area, in the 21 FIRs registered at PS Delhi Cantonment, only 15 pertained to deaths and murders.He pointed out that, in the first phase, Delhi Police had hardly investigated these cases.Mr. Cheema then discussed the statements of PW-1 made at various stages.According to him, she was a woman of extraordinary courage who made repeated attempts to report the matter to the appropriate authorities even while exposing herself to palpable risk.She had no faith in the Delhi Police and, from her point of view, there was no purpose in her pursuing or asking for justice from a police force which had connived with the accused.Mr. Cheema submitted that she was a woman with an extraordinary memory.She was subjected to a long cross-examination running into 78 pages.According to Mr. Cheema, an objective evaluation of her testimony showed that, despite the traumatising events and the long shadow of post- riots existence, she could still recall the events with precision and this made her a wholly reliable witness.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 40 of 203Mr. Cheema referred to the deposition of Head Constable (HC) Rajender Singh (PW-16), one of the two officials at the PP Palam Colony who was responsible for maintenance of the DDR.He proved the contents of the DDR for the period between 24th/25th September 1984 and 6th/7th November 1984 exhibited as Ex.PW-16/A. In this entire register pertaining to said period, not a single report of any untoward incident had been recorded.When at least 30 persons were killed in the area and their killings formed the subject matter of FIR No.416/1984, the silence of the DDR on these details was "shockingly revealing".Therefore, there was no question of PW-1s statement being incorporated in the said register.The prosecution proved each of the entries in Ex.PW-16/A. Mr. Cheema invited attention to entry Ex.PW-16/F-18 dated 3rd November 1984 which showed that a Sub Inspector (SI), the author of the entry, had returned from Safdarjung Hospital on his official motorcycle having recorded the statements of Sardar Singh and Sarjit Singh in the said hospital.It was recorded that, on 1st November 1984, some persons had injured them in a quarrel.He referred to another Entry No.24 (Ex.PW- 16/G-24) dated 4th November 1984, recorded at 10:30 pm which gave Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 41 of 203 details as to what transpired in the house of PW-3, as noted by SI Ram Niwas.According to him, the DDR showed that the police personnel were regularly going to the affected area, but intentionally did not report any untoward incident.A meaningful look at the entries, according to him, would show that in view of the disturbed condition, apart from the local police, other forces, including the RAC, had been requisitioned.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 41 of 203Mr. Cheema further pointed out that PW-1 had denied having made the statement dated 20th January 1985 (Ex.DW-4/B) which was purportedly recorded by SI Arjun Singh and proved through ACP Ashok Kumar Saxena (Retd.) (DW-4).Mr. Cheema pointed out that even PW-15 took a forthright stand that the said statement was not proved and the veracity thereof was doubtful.According to him, a reading of the Hindi version showed that it had been tailor-made to screen the offenders.The evidence of PW-17 showed that the notice to PW-1 for recording her statement was received by the SSP, Amritsar on 31st December 1992, but could not be Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 42 of 203 served upon her for want of an address.Therefore, there was no question of her suddenly appearing voluntarily before the Riot Cell officer.Even SI Man Chand (DW-16) knew nothing as to when the said statement came into existence.DW-16 also admitted that the statements of female witnesses are not recorded at the PS but, as a matter of practice, at their places of residence.Mr. Cheema also referred to numerous infirmities in the said document, which will be discussed hereinafter in this judgment.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 42 of 203Mr. Cheema further pointed out that, as regards the writings on the two summonses (Ex.PW-1/DX & DY) under Section 160 Cr PC, PW-1 denied the genuineness of the writings above her signatures on each document.She denied having given any dictation and also asserted that the Hindi writing was not that of her daughter (in Ex.PW-1/DX) or her son (in Ex.She clarified that her signatures were obtained only on the summonses without any endorsements being made thereon.Mr. Cheema also referred to the cross-examination of Inspector Sushil Kumar (DW-15) to buttress the above submissions that the entire document was manipulated.Mr. Cheema pointed out that, as regards the statement before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission, PW-1 had explained that she made her statement in Punjabi and the contents thereof were also recorded in Punjabi but that the person again came with the purported English translation of the same which she signed, believing that the contents were the same.In other Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 43 of 203 words, the English translation was not read over and explained to her and she signed it in good faith.She claimed that she had named A-1 in the said affidavit.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 43 of 203However, in relation to her testimony on the role of A-1, the learned trial Court Judge had given a rather stray finding and had arbitrarily rejected her testimony.Complainant's submissions as regards A-1He next pointed out that in the investigation in FIR No.67/1987 registered at PS Nangloi, the statement of one Gurbachan Singh was recorded in which A-1 had been named.However, the police recommended the filing of the closure report.The prosecution branch disagreed and recommended the filing of the charge sheet.Subsequently, the police dropped the name of A-1 and filed the charge sheet naming the other accused persons.The charge sheet in FIR No.67/1987 was tagged with this and A-1 was never made an accused.Nevertheless, till date, the said challan had not been filed in Court.The case ultimately was decided by the D&SJ by a judgment dated 20th September 2014, acquitting the accused.An appeal thereagainst, being Crl.The functioning of both Houses of Parliament got stalled for about three days due to protests by members of the Opposition.Only thereafter did the Central Government agree to register the case.Mr. Phoolka stressed that given the influence of A-1 and the impunity with which he has conducted himself since 1984, witnesses or victims could not be reasonably expected to risk their lives and those of their loved ones unless assured of their safety and of action taken on their complaints in accordance with law.He also pointed out that Baldev Khanna (DW-8) was a saviour but then appeared for the accused as a witness.In subsequently filing an application (Ex.The other category mentioned was the cases that were terminated as untraced.While referring to the Action Taken Report (Ex.DW-14/A), Mr. Sibal classified the accused persons into two categories: those who had been Crl.Mr. Sibal then pointed out that an application was filed on 2nd December 2015 (Ex.PW-15/DA) for grant of permission to conduct "further investigation".Mr. Sibal further pointed out that the case was then re-opened on the basis of a letter dated 25th January 2002 from the Delhi Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (DGPC) to the then Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (LG of Delhi) as PW-1 was available and wanted the case to be investigated.Pursuant thereto, Inspector Sunil Kumar Vashisht (DW-15) was entrusted with further investigation.He summoned PW-1 on several dates but she did not respond.DW-15 then personally went to Amristar on 13th January 2003 for recording of her statement but she refused to join the investigation and gave in writing through her daughter Gurjeet Kaur in Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 53 of 203 Hindi that she did not wish to join the investigation and that she could not identify anyone.PW-1 had voluntarily signed the statement that she was not making any statement under pressure.Mr. Sibal submitted that Inspector Rakesh (DW-17) also made efforts to get PW-1 to join the investigation but she again gave in writing through her son Gurdeep Singh that she was ill and could not appear before the Court.He submitted that, as per the endorsement in Hindi, she had stated that she could not identify any person involved after 20-21 years nor could she join investigation.Information of the filing of the closure report was sent to her but she did not file any protest petition.It was his submission that the CBI did not ask the Riot Cell not to proceed with the closure report.He also referred to a letter dated 28th July 2008 from the Riot Cell to the CBI.On the question of registration of FIR in the Delhi Cantonment area, it is submitted that FIRs are normally registered at the Police Station (PS) and not at the Police Post (PP).Mr. Sibal then focused on the charges framed against A-1 and pointed out that two of those charges, i.e. the first and second articles of charge, refer to the date of entering into the alleged conspiracy as 31st October 1984 but no evidence had been adduced in that regard.There was no such allegation in the charge sheet and no evidence was led before the trial Court.Specifically, his submission was as under:This charge was framed in continuation of the first charge and again, there was no evidence led in respect thereof.With the fourth article of charge under Section 505 IPC not being pressed for want of sanction, only the third article of charge was left, i.e. on 1st/2nd November 1984, A-1 delivered fiery and provocative speeches to the mob gathered in that area and instigated and promoted violent enmity against the Sikh community and created feelings of enmity and disturbed harmony thereby committing an offence under Section 153A IPC.In fact, prior to her filing the affidavit (Ex.PW-1/B) before the Commission, nobody had named A-1 in relation to the present case.The first was the complaint given by her on 3 rd November 1984 at PP Palam Colony which was not traceable.Mr. Sibal pointed out the references made by her to said complaint in various statements made by her under Sections 161 and 164 Cr PC and submitted that she was constantly changing her statement.Further, no notice was given to any authority with regard to said complaint having gone missing.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 56 of 203Making reference to various portions of the evidence in this regard, Mr. Sibal maintained that said statements were genuine and were indeed made by PW-1 in the course of investigations carried out by the Delhi Police and the Riot Cell.The third category of statements were those made before the CoIs constituted in the wake of the riots.This order, it seems, has attained finality with no appeal being filed against it.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 57 of 203The fourth category of statements referred to were those recorded by during investigation of the present case.Under this category there were four statements that were recorded, i.e. the statement dated 23rd May 2006 recorded by the CBI under Section 161 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/DA), the statement dated 10th December 2008 recorded by the MM under Section 164 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/E), the supplementary statement dated 4 th September 2009 (Ex.PW-1/DB), and the supplementary statement dated 11th April 2009 (Ex.PW-17/DB) both recorded by the CBI.It is argued that these statements elicited no response from PW-1 as to the contents of earlier statements made by her with regard to this case to the police or to the affidavits and statements submitted by her before the Justice Ranganath Misra and Justice Nanavati Commissions.PW-1/D) she did not name any accused.Mr. Sibal then went on to discuss the affidavit sworn by PW-1 before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (Ex.PW-1/A).Furthermore, he drew attention to the fact that the name of A-1 was not mentioned in any manner whatsoever nor any role, direct or indirect, attributed to him.It is his submission that she gave this statement at a time when the situation in Punjab was under control and she was employed at that time at the stitching/sewing centre run by the Government.She had also stated that she was not scared or under any threat or pressure from any corner whatsoever.PW-1/B) that PW-1 named A-1 for the first time, 15 years after the alleged incident.He submitted that, in this statement, she described the same events with a completely different story.He argued that even regarding the killing of her three cousins, PW-1 had given different versions of the events.His name had been introduced for the first time Crl.He also made a statement under Section 164 Cr PC dated 10th December 2008 (Ex.PW-6/A).Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 60 of 203According to Gurcharan Singh, the only two persons who witnessed the death of his sons were his daughters-in-law Daljeet Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur.These two were arrayed as prosecution witnesses but were subsequently dropped.There was a gap of 1 years between statements of PWs 1 and 6 under Section 161 Cr PC to the CBI.Mr. Sibal submitted that PW-6 contradicted himself while deposing in the trial and was confronted with his previous statement under Section 161 Cr PC where he had stated that when A-1 came he did not emerge from the house of PW-3 nor did he join the people gathered there whereas in his statement under Section 164 Cr PC, he mentioned that A-1 came in his Ambassador car and after he left, the rioters attacked their house.It is Mr. Sibals contention that there was a material change in the deposition of PW-6 in the Court when compared to his previous statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr PC.If indeed this had happened, PW-1 would have spoken about this, since her house was situated nearby.At no point did PW-6 Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 61 of 203 mention seeing either PW-1 or her children in the house of PW-3, where he was supposedly taking shelter.If PW-1 had come to the house of PW-3 to drop her children off for safekeeping, it is odd that PW-6 made no mention of this.Reference is also made to the deposition of PW-3 who nowhere admitted to giving shelter to PW-6 in his house.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 61 of 203The further submission is that the factum of PW-6 being mona and therefore not identifiable as a Sikh found no mention in the statements of PW-6 under Sections 161 and 164 Cr PC.Reference to this was made for the first time while deposing in the trial.This too made him an unreliable witness.Likewise, his role in bringing DW-1 to rescue PW-1, his bhabhis, and their children was also highly doubtful and improbable.Turning to the deposition of PW-10, Mr. Sibal submitted that she maintained her silence on the matter for 24 years before speaking up when her statement under Section 161 Cr PC dated 5th December 2008 (Ex.PW-10/DA) was recorded by the CBI.It is argued that, thereafter, in her statement under Section 164 Cr PC dated 21st January 2009 (Ex.PW-1/A), her version was changed to support that of PW-1 so that it may suit the prosecution case.There was no question of clubbing several complaints pertaining to several deaths in one FIR.There were extensive arguments advanced as regards the roznamcha of PP Palam Colony.Entry No.18 dated 3rd November 1984 (Ex.PW-16/F-18) shows that the SI made the entry after he returned from Safdarjung Hospital on his motorcycle and recorded the statements of Sardar Singh and Sarjit Singh.Those two persons had stated that on 1 st November 1984, some persons had injured them in a quarrel.Entry No.24 dated 4th November 1984 (Ex.PW-16/G-24) was recorded at 10:30 pm which states that the SI accompanied by two Constables returned after patrolling PP area and had brought with them six persons, including PW-3, having arrested them under Sections 101 and 151 Cr PC.The door of the house was opened and the SI went inside but Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 67 of 203 even on being advised, the six persons present there, continued raising those slogans and finding no alternative, the SI arrested those persons and detained them in the lockup of PS Delhi Cantonment.It is clear, therefore, that in those chaotic conditions, the local police force was inadequate for the task at hand.There are two other entries at Entry No.22 entered by Constable Nafe Singh (Ex.PW-16/E-22) at 3:30 am on 3rd November 1984 that he along with "fellow outer-post RAC returned to the PP after patrolling the area".Entry Nos. 9, 10, 22, and 32 from 8 am onwards on 3rd November 1984 shows the presence of the RAC in the area.HC Rajender Singh (PW-16) proved the above DDR and deposed that it was "maintained in the normal course of official functioning of the police station".He was posted at PP Palam Colony at the relevant time.He proved each of the aforementioned entries.He admitted during his cross- examination that "it is correct that during this period, force from outside was also requisitioned".The fact remained that this DDR is completely silent about the commission of any cognizable offence although as many as 30 murders occurred in the Raj Nagar area itself.There is a lot of emphasis placed by Mr. Sibal on the factum of registration of the FIRs.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 69 of 203 was my report incorporated in a register though I had asked for the copy of the same.When I was making my report, the Incharge of the Police Post had threatened me saying "hosh me to ho, jin admiyon ke naam likha rahi ho jitney shakti shali hain, aap apna baki pariwar kahan le jain gi."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 69 of 203In her affidavit filed before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (Ex.PW-1/A), PW-1 made a reference to the above statement.She again made such reference in her affidavit and statement before the Justice Nanavati Commission (Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C).The relevant extract of the portion of her statement before the Justice Nanavati Commission reads as under:"...I had spent the night there and then next day in the morning i.e. on 3rd November, 1984, I again went to my house.I saw that the mob was looting our house and had taken out the dead bodies of my husband and son.I then collected partly burnt chairs etc. And with such material cremated my husband and son at that place.I had again gone to Shri Om Parkashs house and from there I had gone to Palam Nagar Police Station where I gave my complaint.[Learned counsel from Delhi Police Shri S.S Gandhi stated that as a general complaint was already recorded by Palam Nagar Police Station as FIR No. 416, her complaint was made a part of it].Though police officials Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 70 of 203 had taken me to police post only on the asking of those good persons, I cannot say if on 3.11.1984 police officials were not against me.Behaviour of the police who took me in the vehicle to the police post was not bad."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 70 of 203It is a fact that the said statement made by her on 3 rd November 1984 was not available before the trial Court.If she had gone to the PP and given that statement, it should have found mention in the FIR.Although the DDR exhibited in the present case is for the period from 24th/25th September 1984 to 6th/7th November 1984, there is not a single entry which mentions her visit to the PP.This too was rejected.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 75 of 203 night, some people came there and removed the burnt dead body of her husband, which was never traced.Sukhbir Singh went to the, spot and made preliminary enquiries.Later on, he sent a ruqqa to the police station for the registration of a case u/s 147; 148, 149, 395, 196 IPC.Then, he recorded the statements of various witnesses who were the target of looting, arson and assault.The SI collected the MLCs from the hospital and in view of the medical reports, further recommended the inclusion of Sections 307, 324 and 302 IPC."The judgment also noted the dissatisfaction with the progress of the investigation and the public clamour surrounding it which resulted in the constitution of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission under the CoI Act on 26th April 1985, inter alia, to find out whether "there was any organized mob violence at the behest of Congress workers and if there was, then suggest ways and means to punish the guilty".Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 76 of 203This Court went on to note that despite acknowledging that rioting in a proper sense had started in a very big way in several parts of Delhi on 31st October 1984 with the murders of Sikhs commencing on 1st November 1984, the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission gave the Congress Party a clean chit by observing:This Court, in its judgment deciding the anticipatory bail application of A-1, noted that on 22nd March 1990, another Committee comprising of Justice P. S. Poti, a former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, and Mr. P. A. Rosha, a retired officer of the Delhi Police, was constituted.This committee recommended that a case be registered and investigated by the CBI in relation to the omission to register a case and investigate the offences alleged in the affidavit of Anwar Kaur.The CBI then registered FIR No.On 11th September 1990, it organized a raiding party to search A-1s house and arrest him.That very night, the learned Single Judge of this Court granted A-1 anticipatory bail in light of certain extraordinary circumstances which were noted as under:"When the officer of the CBI went to the house of the petitioner at A-713, Janta Flats, Paschimpuri, at 6:45 A.M. in order to conduct search of the house and to arrest him, according to the affidavit of Shri G.S. Kapila, Dy.I have gone through all the documents annexed with this charge sheet.The second one was sent in the court of ld.MM, Patiala House Courts.From the Delhi Police records forwarded to CBI by Ministry of Home Affairs, I came to know about the aforesaid investigations."There was a further questioning of PW-17 on the third investigation which was ordered in the year 2002 and which was conducted by the Riot Cell.According to him there was "nothing like third investigation by the riot cell and they had simply continued their investigation as per the reference made by the Jain Aggarwal Committee.The same was ultimately filed as untraced report in 2005".PW-17 also admitted having gone through the judicial records of FIR No.416/1984 in the learned MMs Court and stated as under:I had gone through this entire closure report.I had seen the letter dated 10.01.2002 on judicial file of FIR no.416/84 PS Delhi Cantt.it is a letter from Sh.Kulmohan Singh, General Secretary, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee requesting for reopening of the case in view of the availability of Smt. Jagdish Kaur.The argument that the charge sheet filed in the present case should have made reference to the allegations of mishandling of the investigations undertaken by the Delhi Police and the Riot Cell is without basis.This became abundantly clear in the trial and through the documents brought on record as well as the statement of the witnesses.Consequently, the Court is not impressed with the argument that the CBI targeted A-1 and the other accused and deliberately misrepresented the records to secure their convictions.Delhi Police has made this case a part of FIR No. 416 of 1984 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt.In this FIR, 24 complaints were investigated pertaining to more than 60 deaths in the area.As many as 5 charge- sheets were filed by Delhi Police relating to 5 deaths which resulted in acquittals.After filing of the closure report in the present case, on 31-7- 2008, a status report was filed by Delhi Police before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.The closure report was filed by Delhi Police on 15-12-2005/22-12-2005, when a case had already been registered by CBI on 22-11-2005 and the documents had already been transferred to the respondent CBI.At the same time, the appellant has also filed a petition for discharge raising various grounds in support of his claim.The Supreme Court made a note of the conclusion reached by the Delhi Police in its status report dated 31st July 2008 as under:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 86 of 203"From the investigation and verification made so far it was revealed that:(b) The complaints and affidavits made by Smt Jagdish Kaur are having huge contradictions:(i) In her first statement recorded by local police during the investigation, she did not name any person specifically and also stated that she could not identify anyone among the mob.(iii) She suspected the involvement of one congress leader Balwan Khokar in these riots but she had not seen him personally.She was told by one Om Prakash who was the colleague of her husband, about the killing of her husband and son.In the statement recorded on 22-1-2993 under Section 161 Cr PC during the course of further investigation, the witness Om Prakash stated that he had seen nothing about the riots.Jagdish Kaur stayed at his house from 1-11-1984 to 3-11-1984 but she did not mention the name of any person who was indulged in the killing of her husband and son."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 87 of 203The Supreme Court, therefore, considered it necessary to observe that since the learned MM had declined to give any definite opinion about the closure report, as the same was under investigation by the CBI, "no further probe/enquiry on this aspect is required".Question framed in this order is accordingly answered to the effect that bar under section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act will be attracted so far as witness Smt. Jagdish Kaur has been confronted or sought to be contradicted with her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B and her statement Ex.The implication would be that the affidavits Ex.PW1/A & B and statement PW1/C and the deposition to this effect will not be read in favour of prosecution and against the accused."This Court accordingly set aside the order dated 2nd June 2012 of the trial Court and directed that whole of the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of PW-1 with respect to Ex.PW-1/A to C will be read in evidence.These circumstances have been adverted to earlier.As far as statement dated 7th and 13th March 2002 of the prosecutrix are concerned, these cannot be scrutinized properly unless we advert to the most important aspect of the case, i.e., the investigation.The investigation remained with Limkheda Police and thereafter with Gujarat CID."That I can identify the leader of the mob Mr. Sajjan Kumar M.P. because few days back he visited our mohalla regarding sewerage water problem.Local congress worker Sh.Mann Singh Chand & Capt.Bhag Mal were also accompanying this mob."The third mention of A-1 in the affidavit is in para 9 which is as under:"That on 2.11.1984 in the morning when I approached the police station in the way near mandir Manglapuri abovesaid M.P. Sajjan Kumar was organising a meeting and addressing that "Sardar Sala Koi Nahi Bachna Chahida" & any Hindu if found giving shelter to them should also be burned."The documents placed on record about her loss claim made on 13th November 1984, no doubt only indicates the loss of property but this, given the circumstances spoken to above, can hardly be said to discredit her Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 97 of 203 testimony.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 97 of 203Her statement as recorded by SI Arjun Singh on 20th January 1985 (Ex. DW-4/B) does not inspire much confidence.The documents show that she perhaps was not in Delhi at that time.The two IOs from the CBI, viz. PWs 15 and 17, have verified these details to be correct.Although ACP Ashok Kumar Saxena (DW-4) sought to prove the said statement, he himself admitted that he was not conversant in the Urdu language.On the other hand, PW-15 was clear that the veracity of that statement was doubtful.Likewise, PW-17 deposed that despite his best efforts, SI Arjun Singh who purportedly recorded that statement could not be traced.The Hindi version of the statement shows that it appears to have been tailor-made to screen the offenders.It states how the assailants came from the rear side of the house by breaking the rear wall.This was obviously inserted so that she could not have possibly seen who had murdered her husband and son.Also, this statement is completely silent about the murder of her three brothers.On the document (Ex.DW-16/A), however, her address is given as 1713, Nanakpura, Amritsar, which appears to be lifted from the affidavit filed by her before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission.PW-17 explained that on 28th December 1992, a notice was sent to her for her presence at Delhi.This notice was sought to be served through the SSP, Amritsar.It could not be served for want of address.In the circumstances, it is highly doubtful that she, of her own accord, simply appeared before the Riot Cell.Constable Mohan Singh (DW-13) could not help in proving the handwriting of Inspector B. D. Tyagi.Inspector Man Chand (DW-16), who purportedly identified the handwriting of Inspector B. D. Tyagi, admitted that he knew nothing about the document.He also admitted that a statement of a female witness was ordinarily recorded at her residence and not in the PS.There is no entry in Ex.There is merit in the contention of Mr. Cheema about the said document actually being a forged one.He has pointed out the following factors which bear it out:(i) It shifts the occurrence on 1st November 1984 to 6 am in the morning;(ii) The maker of the statement maintains that she did not identify any member of the mob;(iii) The statement describes Om Parkash as a neighbor; he is proved to have lived at some distance;Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 99 of 203(iv) It is further recorded that she stayed at her house with her children on the night of 2nd November 1984;This statement further records that her cousin brothers were killed on 2nd November 1984 but she knew nothing about that occurrence.It was specifically recorded that she did not know English, obviously to destroy the affidavit marked as Ex.PW-1/A.The endorsements on the summonses under Section 160 Cr PC purportedly made by the daughter and son of PW-1 on the basis of her dictation have also been heavily relied upon by the defence.Therein she is supposed to have stated that she does not want to make any further statement and that she would accept any decision taken by the Government.Inspector Sushil Kumar (DW-15) who was examined for proving Ex.PW- 1/DX claimed that he had made a DDR entry at the PP Sultan Cantonment (District Amritsar), but admitted that he never obtained a copy of the said DDR.He admitted that neither he nor Constable Bhoop Singh, who had accompanied him from Delhi, nor Constable Mangal Dass of the local PP had been made a witness on the reports recorded on the summonses.It might be that she had unwittingly formed such a wrong impression earlier at the first instance or that she herself is Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 102 of 203 innocent of that part of the affidavit.Even in the court she was not able to vouchsafe to the truth of what all things inscribed in the affidavit because apart from the fact that she affixed her signature in the affidavit she did not know what all were written therein.Neither the person who drafted the affidavit nor the typist who typed it has been examined as witness.We are therefore not persuaded to reject the testimony of PW-1 mother merely on the strength of the aforesaid wrong information crept in the affidavit."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 102 of 203Her statements in the cross-examination have been carefully examined by this Court.What she appears to be clear about is that she indeed gave a complaint to the police on 3rd November 1984 and that she did not give any statement either on 20th January 1985 when she was in Amritsar or on 31st December 1992 before the Riot Cell in Delhi.She denied these suggestions categorically.According to PW-1, she did not receive any summons in 2004 stating that she had to make a statement before a Magistrate.As far as the endorsement made on the summons (Ex.PW-1/DC) is concerned, she is clear that only the signature was hers and that the writing was not.When grilled about her naming A-4 and A-5, PW-1 denied the suggestion that she had named them at the instance of the CBI and volunteered that "many persons were residing in the mohalla but I gave the names of only those persons who were the mobsters and not of the entire mohalla".She denied the suggestion that A-4 and A-5 "are nowhere connected with the riots or that they have been made scapegoats".210. PW-1 denied the suggestion put to her that CBI officials showed her and her affidavit before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (Ex.PW- 1/A) on 11th April 2009 when they recorded her supplementary statement Crl.In her repeated cross-examination by counsel for A-1, she volunteered, "I do not like to speak about Delhi Police because they were the culprits/murderers and killers".PW1/DX and my signature on this summons are at point A and, B Name of my daughter is Gurjeet Kaur.Endorsement on the summons from portion X to X has been read over to the witness and she states that this portion was not dictated by her nor was written at her instance and this endorsement is not in the handwriting of my daughter Gurjeet Kaur.Endorsement from point Y to Y on Ex. PW1/DX is also read over the witness and she states that it was neither written by her daughter nor at her instance.I cannot identify signatures of my daughter.I cannot say if at point C is the signature of my daughter Gurjeet Kaur.This summons was brought at my house at Amritsar.I had simply signed the summons as I was told by them to sign the summons irrespective of the fact whether I wanted to appear before the court at Delhi or not as his senior officer do not believe that the summons have been handed over to me.No such endorsement was made on the summons when I signed the same.PW-1 was also able to denounce the endorsement on the summons (Ex.PW-1/DY) as under:"I have seen summons Ex.PW1/DY, it bears my signature at point A. It is correct that name of my son is Gurdeep Singh.He has come with me today in the court.Q. In your statement Ex.PW1/DA you have stated that" before going to the police post, I learnt that Sajjan Kumar a Member Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 111 of 203 of Parliament was conducting a meeting in that area and whereas in your statement Ex.He also, referred to statement Ex. PW1/DA, where it is recorded "I felt that MP Sajan Kumar would help me in saving the lives of my children and for cremating the dead bodies of my husband and son".I have been stating in all my statements and affidavits that MP Sajjan Kumar came out of the meeting after about 5 minutes and while standing on a jeep he declared.Confronted with statements Ex. PWI/A, Ex. PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex. PW1/E, Mark A, B, C and Ex. PW1/DA, where it is not recorded as such.I do not remember if I made any reference to the meeting addressed by Sajjan Kumar in any of my 'affidavits or statements before giving my affidavit in Nanavati Commission.It is incorrect to suggest that the introduction of Sajjan Kumar and his presence in the meeting was introduced for the first time by the political opponents of Sajjan Kumar and Gurudwara Persons (Akali Dai)."PWl/D that victims of these crimes were to console themselves to bargain a monetary compensation and State machinery was a complete failure and at halt to check those crimes and to listen the victims."In fact, the trial Court on reading Ex.PW-1/B) which she had by and large reiterated in her deposition in the trial without any serious contradiction by the counsel for the accused.She disputed the correctness of the translation of what she had stated before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission particularly on the aspect of her not having named A-1 therein.It also demonstrated the power and influence of the accused and how witnesses could easily be won over.The atmosphere of distrust created as a result of these developments would have dissuaded the victims from coming forward to speak about what they knew.In the context of these cases, the factum of delay cannot be used to the advantage of the accused but would, in fact, explain the minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the key eye- witnesses in the present case.Nothing in the deposition of PW-1 points to either untruthfulness or unreliability.Her evidence deserves acceptance.Analysis of the evidence of PW-3The Court next turns to the evidence of PW-3 who turned hostile during the trial.No doubt PW-3 went back on what he told the police Crl.He was clearly a witness who had been won over and this was most unfortunate because it is not even disputed by the defence that PW-3 was a person who helped some of the victims by giving them shelter and having given them safe passage.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 117 of 203He described the locations of the houses of PW-1, PW-6, DW-3, as well as his own.He states how, when he came back home at 9-11 pm on 1st November 1984, he learnt of the murders of Kehar Singh and his son Gurpreet Singh.There was some confusion created by PW-3 as regards the time when the brothers came out from hiding.Importantly, he acknowledges that PW-6 was a resident of the neighbourhood and that he knew him by his nickname Golu."Testimony of PW3 provides a support and corroboration when witness deposed that Kehar Singh and his son were killed by mob on 01.11.1984 and this fact witness came to know when he returned home on that day.Though witness was got declared hostile but even otherwise according to prosecution case he was not an eyewitness of killings of Kehar Singh and his son."However, the trial Court erred in also relying on that portion of his testimony where he turned hostile.He filed two complaints (Ex.PW-4/A and B) concerning the killing of Raghuvinder Singh, Narender Pal Singh, and Kuldeep Singh.PW-4 also proved that PW-6 was in fact a clean shaven Sikh, i.e. a mona Sikh.The following are the material aspects of his deposition:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 119 of 203(i) That PW-6 was a clean shaven person since his school days.(ii) That PW-6 had been residing with his two other brothers and Kuldeep Singh at H.No.RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg and the three brothers were working as MES contractors.(iii) That PW-6 was in Delhi at the relevant time and had met PW-4 in the Gurudwara upon his visit after the occurrence.The trial Court in this regard observed as under:"Documents Ex.PW4/A and B show that a report dated 12.11.1984 was submitted to SHO Delhi Cantt.by PW4 Balvinder Singh and this informant Balvinder is the real brother of two deceased of this case namely Raghuvinder Singh and Narender Pal Singh.These two reports specifically mentioned killings of Raghuvinder Singh and Narender pal Singh and Kuldeep Singh in the incidents of 02.11.1984 at around 06.30 hours and names of culprits were mentioned in these two reports and those were no. 1) Bhagmal Singh, 2) Ex Subedar Baldan Singh, 3) Ashok C/o Ex Subedar Baldan Singh, 4) Dharamvir Singh, 5) Girdhari Lal, 6) Chand.Admittedly no first information report was registered concerning these deaths.Though local police claimed that such kind of complaints being received were being kept with FIR 416/84 no action appeared to have been taken on these reports except the claim of Delhi police to have recorded statement of Jagdish Kaur on 20.01.1985 and her statement again recorded by Riot cell in 1992 and both these statements have been Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 120 of 203 strongly refuted by PW1 to have been given by her to the police.No investigation appeared to have been taken up for those killings of persons despite some of the culprits had been named.I do agree with the arguments and contentions of ld.public prosecutor that evidence of the star witness PW1 Smt. Jagdish Kaur and other two material witnesses PW6 Jagsher and PW10 Nirpreet Kaur and other relevant witnesses is to be appreciated in this peculiar background of the case."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 120 of 203The above analysis appears to be correct.Therefore, PW-4 is also definitely a witness in support of the case of the prosecution.The following suggestion in fact brings this out clearly:"It is incorrect to suggest that I was not in Raj Nagar Area from 31.10.1984 till 03.11.1984 and that I came to Delhi along with my father after the alleged incident.It is also incorrect to suggest that I came to know the facts of this case when I reached Delhi sometime either on 3rd or 4th of November, Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 121 of 203 1984."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 121 of 203If one peruses the statement given by PW-6 under Section 161 Cr PC (Ex.PW-6/DA), it does appear that he spoke clearly.The submission of Mr. Cheema that the defence has split the entire cross-examination of PW-6 into "small disjointed sentences for the purpose of confrontation" is indeed correct.The confrontation portion does not bring out any major contradictions as can be seen below:"I had probably stated before the Magistrate that as soon as I entered that gali I saw one Sikh wrapped in a woollen shawl was running forward by number of persons.I stopped there.The mob called that Sikh gentlemen near the house of one Manjeet Singh Kavi where one electric pole was installed.The mob started beating him with rods and set him on fire when the crowd disturbed a little I went over there and I saw that he was my brother.I identified him as my brother Narender Pal Singh.I identified him by his watch.Confronted with Ex. PW6/a where it was no recorded.However, it is mentioned there that "then I saw that rioters were following one man and I also saw half burned body of Sardar lying there, who was my brother Narender".I do not remember if I stated in my statement before the magistrate that Major Yadav agreed to accompany me in order to save my two other brothers and children.He took one vehicle along with 7-8 jawans from Sikh regiment.However, it is recorded in the statement that "Major Yadav had gone along with this witness".Thereafter, I went to the house of Jagdish Kaur, Jagdish Kaur, her younger son and three daughters were inside the house.I also made them sit in that big vehicle.He firmly denied the suggestion that he had been advised by the CBI to falsely implicate persons.He stated, "I was only speaking the truth that whosoever helped us even that person was arrested".The following question-answer exchange makes his deposition even more trustworthy:"Is it correct that you have deposed before the court on 25.10.2010 that I was working in MES whereas in you statement u/s 161 Cr PC you have stated that my brothers Narender Pal and Raghuvinder Pal were MES contractor and I used to assist them in their work whereas in your examination in chief you have said that I was in MES contractor along with my brothers.All the three versions are correct."That PW-6 was a mona Sikh throughout came across in the following manner:My family were Sikhs by religion.My brothers namely Narender pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh were keshdhari and they were also having beard.I got my haircut from the school time itself.In the year 1984, I was not having any beard as I was 17/18 years old.On the crucial part of him being an eye-witness, he stated as under:"I had stated in my statement to CBI that there was a window above the bed, I stood on the bed and watched from the glass on the upper part of the window, I saw that mob armed with Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 123 of 203 lathies and sariyas had entered into the house of my sister Jagdish Kaur and the side window was completely demolished.The iron gate was also dismantled.However, it is recorded "I stood on the charpai and from the upper part of the window saw number of people (whom I cannot identify) attacking the house of my sister Smt. Jagdish Kaur w/o Kehar Singh".Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 123 of 203Probably I had stated in my statement before the CBI that Kehar Singh fell inside the house itself.However, it is record "from that window pane, I could see that Kehar Singh and his son Gurpreet Singh were dragged out of their house by the mob and attacked them with iron rods.Both of them were crying like hell and mob was then shouting.Kehar Singh fell down there only."It is, therefore seen that a concerted attempt at breaking down PW-6 also failed.The actions of the mob were also spoken to by him at the very first instance as under:"I had stated in my statement that after locking the house when I was going to the house of Rajni and reached Shiv Mandir Marg, I saw mob coming from Palam village side leading to Shiv Mandir Marg and raising slogans.Again said the mob was coming from the road connecting Palam colony with Palam village at the point where a road bifurcates into Shiv Mandir Marg "jo Palam colony se Palam gaon ko road ja rahi hai, uske upar se Shiv Mandir Marg ko ander ko road nikalti hai" I saw the door of the house of Rajni closed, the mob was raising slogans "in sikho ko maro; in gadharo ko maro; Hindustan me ek sikh bhi zinda nahi bachna chahiye".Confronted with statement Ex. PW 6/DA where it is not so recorded.However, it is recorded that "then in order to park our motorcycle inside the house, I came back to our house, park the motorcycle inside the house and was going back to the house of Smt. Rajni when I heard lot of commotion and saw Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 124 of 203 people coming running from the main road side immediately I could make out that rioters have started troubles in our area also, by that time due to that commotion Rajni had locked her house from inside."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 124 of 203The most harrowing moment was him taking the younger son of PW-1 to get his hair cut which is spoken about as under:"I had stated in my statement to CBI that I came out of the house and I was about to enter the house of Ram Avtar Sharma, then I noticed Gurdeep, younger son of Jagdish Kaur, I took him inside the house.I thought he would also be killed, however, I cut his hair with a scissor lying in the house of Ram Avtar Sharma.However, it is recorded "then sensing further trouble I took young Gurdeep s/o Kehar Singh to the residence of Ram Avtar Sharma and cut his hair."These are persons who had suffered tragedies and had no reason to falsely implicate anyone.It is also not as if they were naming all of the accused in a blanket manner.These witnesses have named only the accused to whom they can attribute a discernible role.Whatever material was found lying in the houses with the help of those furniture/ clothes, cremation was done."PW-7 too, in his cross-examination, when asked why he did not prefer to lodge a report to ensure that the culprits were booked as per law, stated "we were very much scared of the police and therefore, I did not go to the police station to lodge report".Analysis of the evidence of PW-12PW-12 was a resident of Raj Nagar, Part-II.His father was plying a taxi.It is significant to note that at the time of riots he was a keshdhari and, by the time of his deposition on 14th February 2011, he was not.He spoke of the attack on the Gurudwara and about the Sikhs initially resisting it and later the mob returning and demolishing it.He spoke also of the slogan shouting in the morning of 2nd November 1984 by a mob which announced that if any Hindu had given shelter to any Sikh, then he should also be finished off.His statement was never recorded by the police but only by the CBI.PW-12 stated that he knew her Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 127 of 203 mother Sampuran Kaur.He comes across as a natural witness who again had no reason to speak falsely.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 127 of 203The presence of PW-7 is affirmed by A-2 himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC where he stated as under:What have you to say?It is correct.158.Q. It is further evidence against you that in the morning of 04.11.1984, Joginder Singh went to the Air Force Gurdwara Camp, where he met his wife, mother-in-law, sister-in-law besides many other Sikhs of Palam Colony, he also met Wing Commander Mr. L.S. Pannu and stayed there for about 10 days.Pannu."The criticism of PW-7 that he kept quiet for a long time and did not Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 128 of 203 come forward requires to be rejected for the reasons already discussed hereinbefore.The Delhi Police did not inspire the confidence of the victims to come forward and it is understandable that they waited till the CBI took over to speak.PW-7 explained these circumstances when he stated that "during the riots we had lost everything and had even no food to eat.After this incident we had gone to Amritsar, therefore, my main priority was to earn my livelihood and not to pay attention to other things."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 128 of 203Even when he subsequently gave an affidavit (Ex.PW-7/A), students of Khalsa College, Amritsar had helped.He also pointed out how there was a language problem between him and PW-15 as he was not conversant in the Hindi language.But he had no occasion to go through that affidavit and there was a huge rush and he was made to sign it quickly.Nevertheless, he is indeed an important witness for the prosecution and has corroborated the other witnesses on the material aspect of there being rioting mobs targeting Sikh households and the Gurudwara in the locality.The Court concurs with the analysis of the evidence of PW-7 by the trial Court holding it to be acceptable as far as the attack on the Gurudwara is concerned and the role of A-2, A-3, A-4, and A- 6 being members of that mob.Indeed, PW-7 is a truthful and reliable witness.Analysis of the evidence of PW-10253. PW-10 is another important witness for the prosecution.She was a witness to the happenings at the Raj Nagar Gurudwara which have been Crl.However, she denied having been involved in any terrorist activities.She truthfully gave details of the three cases in which she was implicated.In two of them, she was discharged and in the third, she was acquitted.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 129 of 203The defence had put forth DW-4 who claimed to have recorded her previous statement (Ex.DW-4/A).In the said statement (Ex.DW-4/A), the address given was that of Raj Nagar.255. PW-10 was first examined on 6th January 2011 by way of examination-in-chief.She was an eye witness to the murder of her father Nirmal Singh and the attack on the Gurudwara.She also named A-6 as being part of that mob.She spoke about Nirmal Singh being taken away by A-2 and A-3 on a scooter on the pretext of involving him in the talks for compromise.She Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 130 of 203 saw one Inspector Kaushik giving a match box to A-6 who set her father on fire while the mob had caught hold of him and after Chand Sharabi doused him with kerosene oil.She also spoke about A-4 tying up her father with ropes to a telephone pole after he escaped and jumped into a nala.She stated that the wife of one Dua was contributing kerosene oil and her father was again set on fire.When her father again jumped into the nala, the pujari of the nearby temple called the mob again.This time, A-2 hit her father with a rod and A-3 sprinkled some white powder as a result of which he was burnt.Someone from the mob shouted that his entire family should be killed.PW-10 then rushed towards their house and found her mother lying unconscious and her house burning.The next morning, she got introduced to the Wing Commander L. S. Pannu who had told her that he could provide her with a vehicle and jawans.When she went alone in the vehicle with jawans to Palam Colony, on reaching Manglapuri, she noticed A-1 standing and addressing the mob saying "Ek bhi sardar jinda bachna nahi chahiye" and further "Jo bhi sardaro ko bacha raha hai usse bhi jala do.In Sardaro ko maro inhone hi hamari ma ko mara hai.Ye saap ke bacchhe hai".Summons were first issued on 14th April 1986 and when eye-witnesses, which included PW-10, her mother Sampuran Kaur, and one Constable Paramjeet Singh, did not appear, the case was adjourned to 20th April 1986 when again they were not served.Again, they were not served and the report said that they were untraceable.When they returned in January 1985 to Delhi, they started living in rented accommodation and kept changing houses because "some suspicious elements used to roam near houses and therefore being scared we used to change accommodation".In 1986, they were allotted accommodation with other riot victims at Tilak Vihar.In 1984, PW-10 was 16 years old.After she joined the Sikh Students Federation, she states that they were implicated in three false TADA cases and she remained in jail for many years.She was discharged in two and acquitted in the other.Her statement was first recorded before the learned MM in January 2009 (Ex.PW-10/A).She could correctly identify A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 in the trial.Her cross-examination commenced on Crl.Therefore, even PW-10 was grilled day after day by each of the counsel for the accused.If one carefully peruses the confrontations made, it cannot be said to be so serious as to discredit her testimony in its entirety.Relevant excerpts are reproduced as below:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 132 of 203"I had stated in my statement before CBI that on 31.10.1984 I came to know that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has been assassinated by her security guard except some stray incidents everything was normal.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA where it is not so recorded but it is recorded on 31.10.1984 Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister was assassinated.On that day no untoward incident took place in our area.I had stated before the CBI that on that day my father had come early to the house.Confronted with statement Ex.I had stated in my statement to the CBI that in the evening at about 6.30pm, Balwan Khokar who used to introduce himself as nephew of Sajjan Kumar alongwith his brother Krishan Khokar came to our house and asked my father to keep his brother Krishan Khokar as driver.My father told him that at present there is no vacancy and in case there will be any vacancy, he will inform him within 3-4 days.Confronted with Ex.PW10/DA where it is not so recorded.However it is recorded "in the evening at about 6.30 pm Balwan Khokar ( nephew of Sajjan Kumar ) came to our house for discussing employment for his nephew as driver". ....I had stated in my statement before the CBI that my father asked Balwan Khokar that Sikhs are being attacked thereupon Balwan Khokar told him that Sajjan Kumar is his maternal uncle and he has assured him that there shall be no attacks in our colony.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA where it is not so recorded.I had stated in my statement that on the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 133 of 203 intervening night of 31.10.1984 and 01.11.1984 at about 2.30- 3am, Granthi of our gurudwara came to our house and informed my father that police personnels have come in the gurudwara because my father was President of gurudwara.My father and my mother accompanied him to gurudwara.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA where it is not so recorded.However, it is recorded "on the intervening night of 31.10-1.11.1984 at about 4 am, on 01.11.1984 the granthi of gurudwara came to our home asking for tea and also told my father that there was a police man in the gurudwara.After that my parents went to the gurudwara for the morning prayer.Morning prayer start at 2:30am as gurudwara sahib opens at that time.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 133 of 203I had stated in my statement before CBI that we heard noise and of slogans at about 7.30/8 am, we rushed and saw that a huge mob was coming which was being led by Balwan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and owner of Mamta Bakery, they were with sariyas, rods, subals, jellies and etc. Time I have given by approximation.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA, where it is not so recorded but it is recorded "at about 8.30am, a mob led by Balwan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and owner of Mamta Bakery (whose name I do not remember attacked gurudwara".I had stated before CBI that Balwan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and Kishan Khokar came where all the Sikhs had gathered and they offered to pay compensation for the loss/damages.However it is recorded "seeing that mob could not defeat Sikhs, Balwan Khokar, Kishan Lal, Mahender Yadav, owner of Mamta bakery came near our house saying why we brothers should fight amongst each other and lets compromise and settle the issue.I had stated before the CBI that my father went with Balwan Khokar and Mahender Yadav on scooter.On hearing this, I. rushed in the same direction where my father had gone I saw that the scooter stopped near the shop of Dhanraj.I had stated in my statement before CBI that from his name plate I could gather that his name was Inspector Kaushik.Inspector Kaushik gave match box which was taken by Kishan Khokar and Kishan Khokar set on fire my father.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA where it is not so recorded.However it is recorded that then it was Kaushik who gave them match box and the mob poured kerosene on my father and set him on fire.I had stated in my statement that mob had gone a little ahead my father jumped in a nearby nala when the mob saw that my father is alive they returned back.My father who had sustained burn on chest managed to jump in a nearby nala however the mob returned and saw him alive".However it is recorded that "this time the mob hit my father with iron rod and poured kerosene and some white powder and set him on fire."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 135 of 203It is not possible for this Court, therefore, to agree with the criticism of the counsel for the accused that PW-10 is an untruthful and unreliable witness.The trial Court too considered PW-10 to be a truthful witness who provided support and corroboration to PW-7 as far as the attack on the Gurudwara and the killing of her father Nirmal Singh is concerned.She broadly corroborates the testimony of the other PWs discussed hereinbefore.These prosecution witnesses were themselves were sufficient to prove Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 136 of 203 the guilt of the accused.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 136 of 203Analysis of the defence witnessesAt this stage, the Court would also like to discuss the evidence of the defence witnesses.266. DW-1 was posted as Garrison Engineer (East) in Delhi Cantonment.Om Prakash (not examined) came to his residence at around 7 am on 2nd November 1984 and asked for help for the family of Kehar Singh, the friend of Om Prakash whom DW-1 knew from before.DW-1 then accompanied Om Prakash to Raj Nagar with a unit truck.Om Prakash fetched PW-1 and her four children - three daughters and a son.PW-1 requested DW-1 that they should be evacuated to a safer place.She also asked that her bhabhi and their children also be rescued.Om Prakash then went and brought two ladies and two children with them.DW-1 then brought all of them to the Parade Camp at the Parade Ground, Delhi Cantonment.According to DW-1, he brought them there at 8 am and they all stayed there till 11:30 am.This is where he departed from the case of the prosecution and helped the accused.In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not inform anyone that he had rescued PW-1 and others.He states that he did not notice that the house adjoining Ram Avtar was in a burnt condition.DW-1 denied the suggestion that Malhi & Co., in which PW-6 was a Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 137 of 203 partner, were working for him.At the same time, he admitted having written a letter dated 11th April 1995 (Ex.DW-1/P-1), which falsified this claim.He then tamely suggested that "Raghuvinder Singh might have obtained the contract and this letter may have been written pursuant thereto".However, with Raghuvinder Singh having been killed on 2nd November 1984, the question of his obtaining a contract at a date thereafter simply did not arise.The sudden appearance of DW-1 after 27 years, not mentioning these facts to anyone makes his testimony certainly suspicious.Mr. Cheema would argue that if the evidence of DW-1 is read carefully, it supports PW-1 on the broad particulars of her rescue along with her children.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 137 of 203DW-2 point blank denied having given shelter to any Sikh family in her house.She too was obviously won over, despite her having helped the Sikhs in the moment of crisis.She goes to the extent of stating that she did not even know the house where Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and PW-6 were residing with their families.This denial of knowledge about her neighbours makes her again a wholly unreliable witness.PW-15, the IO, mentioned how DWs 1 and 2 had given evasive replies and failed to cooperate with the investigation.DW-9 was posted at PP Palam Colony during the relevant time.His Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 138 of 203 statement that no crowd collected outside the PP in the morning of 2nd November 1984 seems palpably false given the mayhem and commotion in the area.He later sought to dilute his stand by suggesting that A-1 had not come to the PP on that day in his presence.In his cross- examination, his pathetic assertion that, in his presence, no untoward incident took place and that he did not notice any burnt houses, dead bodies, or ransacked houses exposes his brazen attempts in supporting the defence.He then states that "since riots were going on, therefore, there was a mob.I apprised the chowki in-charge about the same but no report was lodged separately by me regarding this fact".This actually points to the extent of police connivance with the rioters.He brazenly asserted that during the period of his duties from 31st October 1984 till 6th November 1984, "it never came to my notice that any Sikh person in the locality has been killed or their house looted and ransacked".This single sentence is enough to expose the utter falsehood of his testimony which deserves to be jettisoned in toto.S. A. Prasad (DW-11) was examined by the defence to prove that on the relevant dates, there was no electricity in the area.One Mukesh Sharma, MLA had, through an RTI, obtained information (Ex.DW-11/A).However, this witness was unable to confirm this fact.He in fact was shown the electricity bill mentioning a Raj Nagar address (Mark-X).He, however, was unable to produce the record.Subhash Chand (DW-12) was a registration clerk.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 139 of 203PW-17 confirmed that as many as 23 complaints were clubbed in the said FIR and only five murders were investigated.Five separate lists of witnesses were filed by way of five charge sheets.Later, a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed.Resultantly, as many as 25 murders were not prosecuted at all.Mr. Cheema pointed out how PW-9 who had lost her husband and in- laws and had filed a complaint (Ex.PW-9/A) was responded to with silence and no action was taken on her complaint.Likewise, one Kuldeep Singh had named HC Satbir Singh as an accused.Again, no action was taken and the murder was not investigated.It may be recalled that even as per the Justice Nanavati Commission, as many as 341 Sikhs were killed within the jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment.As regards the clubbing of all these complaints into one FIR, none of the records would show that any specific order was passed directing such clubbing.All six cases in which separate charge sheets were filed ended in acquittals.It was only after an Crl.On 22nd November 2005, the Riot Cell filed a cancellation report before the MM.Therefore, before the CBI could even embark on a meaningful investigation, the Riot Cell tried to bury the case.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 140 of 203Turning to Ex.However, when DW-15 appeared before the Committee on 27th December 1991, he denied all other allegations except naming A-2, Mangat Ram, Raju, and Hukum Chand.Then we have the police officers of the Riot Cell who were also examined.To begin with, DW-4 was produced to prove the statement supposedly made earlier by PW-10 (Ex.PW-4/A).From the side of the prosecution, they challenged the said statement.DW-4 did not even know where PW-10 was residing on 1st March 1985, or even earlier.DW-4 was extensively examined and cross-examined.The CBI summarises the following aspects of DW-4's testimony which point to the failure of the investigation:"(i) He did not remember whether he investigated FIR no.416/84 for a single day.He however admitted that the file remained with him till the final compliance.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 141 of 203(ii) He did not know whose killings were the subject matter of the instant case.He did not remember if he ever investigated the killings of the five deceased of this case.He refused to see the case diary.(iii) He did not remember whether PW 15 recorded his statement in the course of the investigation by the CBI.He did not remember if he was ever called for enquiry at any stage.He did not remember the number of murders which were the subject matter of FIR 416/84, Later he recalled that there were 3-4 killings.On further cross examination he stated that he did not remember if there were 23 complaints involving the killings of 30 persons.(iv) He did not remember if a composite report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by the SHO, to which he annexed five lists of witnesses.He refused to see the case diary on the point.He stated that it was possible that in 4 out of 5 challans, he might have been cited as a witness.He did not recall in how many cases he appeared as a witness.(v) He refused to say anything on the question that in three out of the five murders, sent for prosecution, the eyewitnesses were not even served and the cases ended in acquittal.Despite an affidavit being a part of the case diary, he could not state whether Narender Pal Singh and others ever contacted him.Thus, it was Crl.His expectation was to pursue PW-1 with some ulterior motive of a damage control exercise to nullify the contents of her affidavit.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 142 of 203PW-1 was justified in not joining such an investigation.Finding on A-1s involvement in criminal conspiracy(iv) Ironically there was a report alleging that Sikhs had unleashed violence against each other, who have collected in the house bearing number.4000 (Ex. PW16/E-5).As per the allegations he was openly abetting the riot but was arrested under security proceedings only.His arrest itself shall be a pointer to the ugly face of the scheme of things.(vi) Every day the roznamcha was closed with a specific report that no untoward incident had been reported or occurred."Three out of the five trials involving allegations of murder were never investigated.The witnesses who might have seen the murders were not questioned.The Justice Nanavati Commission itself had this to say:"The attacks were made in a systematic manner and without much fear of the police; almost suggesting that they were assured that they would not be harmed while committing those acts and thereafter. .................... There was a common pattern which followed by the big mobs which had played havoc in certain areas.The shops were identified, looted and then burnt.Thus what had initially started, as an angry outburst became an organized carnage........... There is also evidence to show that in systematic manner the Sikhs who were found to have collected either at Gurdwara or at some place in their localities for collectively defending themselves were either persuaded or forced to go inside of their houses.................... The systematic manner in which the Sikhs were thus killed indicate that the attacks on them were organized.311. A-3, meanwhile, was charge sheeted in two cases.He pointed out that neither the Justice Nanavati Commission nor the Government of India recommended further investigation to be carried out against A-3 and A-6 with respect to the incident of Nirmal Singhs murder.According to him, even the application moved by the CBI on 2nd December 2005 for further investigation before the Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was qua the incidents relating to the complaints of Jasbir Singh and Jagdish Kaur wherein the charge sheets against A-1 and A-2 were not filed.The participation of A-3 and A-6 in those incidents has Crl.They have been acquitted of the remaining charges.Even here, although Sampuran Kaur was initially cited as a witness, she was subsequently dropped.No appeal was filed against the said order.The challenge against this order is pending before the Supreme Court.The evidence of DW-4 has already been discussed.No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details.Perhaps Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 177 of 203 an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant.But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 177 of 203Keeping this in view, if one would examine the evidence of PW-1, it is seen that she has named A-4 in her affidavit filed before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission and has also referred to his being part of the rioting mob in her affidavit filed before the Justice Nanavati Commission.In her deposition in Court, in connection with the killing of Narender Pal Singh, she deposed thus:"At about 7.30am.Again said I was not having a watch, it may be 6:30-7am, when one of my brother Narender Pal, jumped into the street adjoining my house.Soon thereafter, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh followed him.When Narender Pal jumped down, Dharamvir noticed him and shouted that the Thekedars running away and called upon others to come.The house of Girdhari Lal was close by.He came running armed with lathi (dang); Baldan Singh Retd.Subedar also rushed; Retd.Captain Bhagmal also came alongwith mob that gathered there.My brother Narender Pal was caused some lathi injuries and burnt close to my house.I also saw my two other brothers Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh, being attacked and taken away by the mob to some distance.I closed the door and did not see thereafter as I was concerned about our own safety."A common counsel appeared for A-3, A-4, and A-5 in the trial Court and the cross-examination of PW-1 by him did not bring about any serious Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 178 of 203 contradictions as regards her naming A-4 and the acts attributed by her to him.I had signed my statement which was recorded before Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry.Whatever questions were asked by the Commission, I used to reply the same.The fact of the matter is that many of these witnesses were living in fear and had completely lost confidence in the Delhi Police and were therefore, unsure about coming forward to speak the truth.They could gather confidence only after the CBI took over the investigation.Turning now to the testimony of PW-7, he definitely names A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 as being part of the mob which came to attack the Raj Nagar Gurudwara.He stated as under:"On 01.11.1984 at about 7.30 am I along with my wife came out of gurudwara and saw that a huge mob was coming from Mehrauli road side.We saw that mob had burnt the gurudwara, looted the house of Jasbir Singh and burnt the truck of Harbans Singh.The mob again came which was led by Balwan Khokar, Kishan Khokar, Mahender Yadav.Mahender Yadav and Balwan Khokar were on scooter while Kishan Khokar was on foot.Balwan Khokhar and Mahender Yadav caught hold of hand of Sardar Nirmal Singh who was standing near gurudwara.They told him that they want to talk to him and want to make some settlement and he should accompany them.They took him with them thereafter we went to our house.Prior to that when we had gone along with our sword to gurudwara in order resist police officials came and took the swords with them the police had come after about two hours.Again said the police had come after two hours of our reaching to gurudwara and the mob came after one hour.Then, I remained at my house.There was huge noise outside the house "mar do mar do" and there was smoke Crl.He was able to correctly identify A-4 in the Court.He was extensively cross-examined by the counsel for A-3, A-4, and A-5, but on the crucial aspect of his actually having seen A-4 as part of the mob, he was not confronted with any inconsistent statement made by him earlier to the CBI.In his cross-examination, the confrontations read as under:"I had stated in my statement before the Magistrate that on 01.11.1984 at about 7.30am alongwith my wife came out of gurudwara and saw that a huge mob was coming from Mehrauli road side.I could identify Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav, Captain Bhagmal, Raja Ram and Gulati from amongst the mob.Confronted with statement Ex.However, it is recorded that "I alongwith my wife Harjeet Kaur were coming towards our house on 01.11.1984 at about 7.30am from Gurudwara and saw that a mob was coming from opposite side armed with sariya, lathies and jellies".I had stated in my statement before the Magistrate that mob comprised of the people from the nearby villages and, colonies, some persons of my colony were also there and thereafter we went to our house after some time some Sikhs shouted that Gurudwara has been attacked and it should be saved.However, it is been recorded that he and his wife had gone to their house after some time.I might have forgotten to state this fact before the Magistrate.I had stated before the Magistrate that the mob again came which was led by Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar and Mahender Yadav.Mahender Yadav and Balwan Khokhar were on scooter while Krishan Khokhar was on foot.I had stated in my statement to the Magistrate that the police had come after two hours of our reaching to Gurudwara and the mob came after one hour then I remained at my house.The further confrontations read as under:I had also stated in my statement to the CBI that the mob again came which was led by Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav.Mahender Yadav and Balwan Khokhar were on scooter and while Krishan Khokhar was on foot.Confronted with statement Ex.I had stated in my statement before the CBI that Balwan Khokhar and Mahender Yadav caught hold of hand of Sardar Nirmal Singh who was standing near the Gurudwara they told him that they want to talk to him and want to make certain settlement and he should accompany him.They took him with them thereafter we went to our house.As noticed above, the incidents took place in 1971 and the witnesses deposed before the tribunal in 2012 after about 41 years.The witnesses who saw the incidents dared to depose for fear of reprisal and due to such delay most of the material evidence have been destroyed by reason of death of some vital witnesses and the change of political atmosphere in the intervening period.Under such circumstances, the prosecution has collected best evidence available to prove the charges.The defence has not at all denied any of the incidents.It has merely denied the appellants complicity.The tribunal had to weigh the facts and circumstances, the materials placed before it and believed the version given by the prosecution as reliable.It should not be ignored that although huge number of persons were brutally killed and some girls were raped, the prosecution witnesses pointed fingers at one person, the appellant who, with his Behari cohorts perpetrated the incidents.If the prosecution was launched for political victimization, as suggested, it could have implicated other leaders of Jamat-e-Islami in the said incidents. ....On behalf of the defence it was submitted that in her book Shahid Kabi Meherunnessa ext-B, she did not state that Abdul Quader Molla killed them, rather she stated that the Non-Bangalees suddenly attacked Mehers house and killed her brothers, mother and Meher.She was confronted with this statement in course of cross-examination.She denied the suggestion.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 201 of 203As far as A-2 to A-6 are concerned, in addition to the sentences awarded to each of them for the offences for which they were found guilty by the trial Court, this Court sentences each of them as under:(i) For the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
112,622,045 | Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,126,886 | 20.9.2017 (CL 518) KC C.R.M. 8525 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In the matter of : Harish Chandra Roy........ petitioner. | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,129,944 | The appellant was a driver who was having sexual relationship with the wife of the deceased Jito.On the date of the occurrence he came to the house of the appellant while the appellant and his brother P.W. 9 were sitting on a cot and conversing and called Jito - Jito.The deceased opened the gate and questioned the appellant as to why he had come there to which the appellant replied that he had illicit relationship with Jito and therefore he would continue coming to their house.This led to an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the appellant.According to the prosecution the appellant stabbed the deceased on his left side near the chest.P.W. 9 also came out of the house and saw the deceased lying with a stab injury on his chest.P.Ws. 10 and 12 attempted to apprehend the appellant but the appellant ran away from the scene of the occurrence.P.W. 3 who was the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Control Room, received a telephone massage from one Kabul Singh (not examined) intimating that one person at Patel Nagar had been statbbed.He entered this information as Exhibit P.W. 3/A and passed on the information to the concerned police station.P.W. 1, the Head Constable of the concerned police station received the massage at about 8.15 p.m. from the Control Room and prepared a report exhibit P.W. 1/A and the said report was sent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 17 who received the same on his way to Hellington Hospital.On receipt of the said reports P.W 17 went to Patel Nagar along with a constable and recorded the statement of P.W. 9 Teja Singh under exhibit P. W. 1/B. P.W. 17 after holding inquest on the dead body, sent the same for post-mortem examination.Dr. Bharat Singh conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Inder Singh on 11-6-84 and from the following external injury:One incised stab wound over the left side front of the chest, 31/2" below the left nipple placed obliquely horzontal.Size of wound was 1 "x1/4" x? Wound was covered by blood.Tapering end of the wound was on the right side.Wound was elliptical in' shape.On opening the chest cavity it was seen that the track of the wound was directed on the right side and wound had entered the chest cavity through fifth intercostals space and then it had cut the left lung upper (?) lower part through and through and finally, it had cut the left ventricle of the heart in the same line.Size of the cut on the heart was 1/2" x 1/4 "x1/4".Total depth of the wound was 41/2".There was no disease in the heart and lung left side chest cavity was full of fluid and clotted blood.Stomach contained 2 ounces of semi-digested food.Small and large intestines contained gases and facies.Bladder cotained clear urine.Lever, spleen and kidneys were normal.This appeal is preferred by the accused challenging the correctness of the judgment made by the High Court of Delhi in Crl.Skull and brain were normal.Neck tissues were normal.Trachea and hyoidbone intact.After completing the investigation P.W. 17 laid the charge-sheet against the appellant.P.Ws. 9, 10 and 12 were the eye-witnesses of whom P.Ws. 10 and 12 resiled from their earliest statement and as such they have been treated as hostile witnesses.P.W. 9 who is the brother of the deceased speaks about the entire incident.According to P.W. 9 while he was conversing with the deceased sitting on a cot inside the house of the appellant heard the appellant calling Jito and his brother, the deceased Opening the gate.He further states that on hearing the distress cry of his brother he went to the spot and found his brother lying with injury on his chest and the appellant trying to escape from the place.P.Ws. 9, 10 and 12 attempted to apprehend the appellant but they could not do so.The trial Court relying on the evidence of P.W. 9 and the circumstance namely the recovery of Ex. P/1 (a driving licence of the appellant) which was recovered from the scene of the occurrence, found the appellant guilty of the offences charged.The High Court, on appeal by the appellant, affirmed the finding of the trial Court.Hence this appeal is preferred.Simply because P.W. 9 happens to be the brother of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded if his testimony is otherwise acceptable.The presence of P.W. 9 cannot be doubted since P.W. 9 was present at the scene at the time when the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 17 arrived at the spot.His report Ex. P.W. 1/B was recorded from P.W. 9 himself.In that report P.W. 9 has given a full version of the incident and has claimed to have been present at the time of the occurrence.On going through his evidence, we do not see any reason to discard his testimony.On the other hand, his evidence is believable and acceptable.Apart from the evidence the recovery of the driving licence Exh. P1 recovered by the police serves as a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence corroborating the testimony of P.W. 9 and implicating the appellant with offence in question.The only explanation given by the defence is that since the appellant had been visiting the house of the deceased very often, he might have left his driving licence in the house of the deceased which subsequently would have been produced before police by Jito.This explanation in our opinion is far-fetched and cannot be accepted because it is the positive assertion of P.W. 17 that Ex. P/1 was seized from the scene of occurrence.The medical evidence shows that the stab wound over the left side front of the chest had gone so deep through intercostal space coming from left lung through and through, and also to the left of the heart in the same line.The death was instantaneous.It is not the case of the defence that the appellant had not gone to the scene house prior to the occurrence but on the other hand it is an admitted case that the appellant used to come to the house of the deceased.Therefore, there cannot be any question of mistaken identity of the appellant.For all the reasons stated above, we are in full agreement with the finding of the High Court that it was the appellant and appellant alone who was responsible for causing the death of the deceased on the fateful night. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,130,126 | (S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE kkcThis is first application filed under Section 438 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Criminal Case No.375/2015 pending before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 323 and 506 of IPC.Allegation against the applicant is that he tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant.It is said that complainant was maid servant in the house of the applicant and there was a quarrel between wife of the applicant and the complainant.She threatened that she would lodge false complaint against the applicant.The wife of the applicant also lodged a complaint at the police station in this regard.It is directed that at the event of arrest of the applicant in respect of the aforesaid crime on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) by the applicant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, applicant Nirmal Singh Thakur be released on bail.The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency.He will further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr. P. C.C. C. as per rules. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,130,353 | The relevant facts which will require enumeration can be summed up asfollows.On 16th of November, 2003 in the Delhi Edition of the Indian Expressa news item under the caption “Caught on Tape : Union Minister Taking Cashsaying money is no less than God” had appeared showing visuals of one DalipSingh Ju Dev, (deceased first accused) (A-1), the then Union Minister ofState for Environment and Forest, receiving illegal gratification from oneRahul alias Bhupinder Singh Patel (third accused) (A-3) in the presence ofthe Additional Private Secretary to the Minister one Natwar Rateria (secondaccused) (A-2).From the chargesheet dated 05.12.2005 filed by the CBI before thecompetent court, the gravamen of the allegations against the accused-appellants appear to be that one Amit Jogi (accused No.5) (A-5) son of AjitJogi, who was then the Chief Minister of the State of Chhatisgarh, hadhatched a conspiracy alongwith A-3 to A-6 to execute a sting operationshowing receipt of bribe by the Union Minister of State for Environment andForest (A-1) so as to discredit him on the eve of the elections to theState Assembly of Chhatisgarh and thereby bring political advantage to ShriAjit Jogi who was a rival of the Union Minister.According to the prosecution, A-4 had arranged for installation ofhidden video recording equipment in the sitting room of the said suite inTaj Mahal Hotel, Man Singh Road, New Delhi through one Manoj Hora, a dealerin the electronic products.They wereentertained.Wide ranging discussions between A-3 and other two accused (A-1 and A-2) were held in different matters including matters relating tocertain mining projects in the States of Orissa and Chattisgarh which werepending in the Ministry.According to the prosecution, both A-1 and A-2had assured A-3 that necessary assistance in getting the pending proposalscleared will be offered.RANJAN GOGOI, J.The refusal of the Delhi High Court to exercise its inherentjurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal charges framedagainst the accused-appellants has been challenged in the present appeals.Specifically, the appellants, Rajat Prasad and Arvind Vijay Mohan who arethe sixth and fourth accused respectively in CC Case No. 28 of 2005(hereinafter referred to as A-6 and A-4) in the Court of the learnedSpecial Judge, CBI, Delhi had assailed the order dated 24/25.04.2007 passedby the learned Trial Court framing charges against them under Section 120-Bof the IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) before the High Court.The High Court byits order dated 30.05.2008 refused to interfere with the said order of thelearned Trial Judge.Hence, the present appeals by special leave.The aforesaid FIR was challenged in a proceeding before the DelhiHigh Court registered and numbered as Crl.Itappears that there was no interim restraint on the investigation pursuantto the FIR filed.While the investigation was in progress, Crl.As against the said order dated 10.11.2004, SLP (Crl.) No.6336 of 2004 was instituted by the 4th Accused as well as other accusedbefore this Court.However, as on completion of investigation chargesheethad been filed on 5.12.2005, the aforesaid SLP was closed by order dated23.11.2007 as having become infructuous.According to theprosecution, as per the conspiracy hatched, A-5 alongwith other co-conspirators had initially brought in one Manish Rachhoya (PW-23), a closefriend of A-5, as a representative of a Calcutta based mining company whichhad pending work in the Ministry of Environment and Forest as one of theconspirators.A-5 had requested one Shekhar Singh (PW-22) to introduce theaforesaid Manish Rachhoya to A-1, which was agreed to.The said meetingwas to be held in Hotel Taj Palace, New Delhi and to effectuate the saidpurpose A-6 had booked suite No. 151 in Hotel Taj Palace, New Delhiin the fictitious name of Manish Sarogi.According to the prosecution,Manish was introduced to Shekhar Singh.The further case of the prosecution, as alleged in the chargesheet,is that at this stage Rahul alias Bhupinder Singh Patel (A-3) was ropedinto the conspiracy.He stayed in suite No. 151 in Hotel Taj Palace, NewDelhi for a number of days and had meetings both with A-1 and A-2 onseveral occasions in the said hotel and had successfully be-friended them.According to the prosecution, on 5.11.2003, Rahul (A-3) had checked intoRoom No. 822 in Hotel Taj Mahal, Man Singh Road, New Delhi which was bookedunder the fictitious name of Raman Jadoja.It appears that on the same dayi.e.5.11.2003, A-3 requested A-1 and A-2 to visit him in the said hotelroom.The videorecording of the entire incident along with audio recording of theconversations exchanged was secretly done and the same was subsequentlyreleased to the media.The video and audio cassette recording of the eventwas sent for analysis and report thereof was received from the FSL,Hyderabad.It is on these facts that the prosecution had allegedcommission of the offence under Section 7 of the Act against A-1 andoffences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 of the Act against A-Insofar as the other accused including the present accused-appellantsare concerned, according to the prosecution, they had committed offencespunishable under Section 12 of the Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC.As already noticed, pursuant to the aforesaid chargesheet filed, thelearned Trial Court had framed charges against the accused-appellants underSection 120-B IPC read with Section 12 of the PC Act.We have heard Shri Uday U. Lalit and Shri P.S. Narsimha, learnedsenior counsels for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 747/2010 and748/2010 respectively and Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Addl.Accordingly, we dismiss the presentappeals and affirm the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the High Court....…………………………CJI. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,131,637 | No.1/State.This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of criminal case No.510/2012 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior for the offence under sections 323/34, 506-B and 452 IPC which has been registered on the basis of private complaint filed by the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare.The petitioners have asserted that earlier, petitioner No.2, Neeraj had lodged a complaint against the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare, Manoj Bohare and Pappu alias Dinesh which was registered at crime No.30 of 2012 for the offences under sections 294, 324/34, 323/34 and 506 IPC at Police Station, Dabra alleging that the aforesaid accused usually threw garbage whereby creating unhygienic conditions in front of the house of Neeraj.On resistance, they abused Neeraj and caused injury by luhangi, on head as a result sustained injury.When the petitioner No.4, Radheshyam Sharma intervened to rescue Neeraj, he (Radheshyam Sharma) was also assaulted with luhangi by Manoj and sustained injury, on his head.After investigation, police filed challan against the respondent No.2 and the other accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Dabra, District Gwalior.The trial Court vide judgment dated 15/05/2014 passed in criminal case No.159/2012 convicted the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare and the other companion accused.Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred appeal.The appeal has been dismissed upholding the conviction by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior vide 2 Mis.Case No.18/2016 (Nandu Sharma & others Vs.State of M.P., and another) judgment dated 29/06/2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.230/2014, however, set aside the jail sentence by enhancing the fine amount.It is further alleged that the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare faced with the aforesaid conviction and order of sentence has filed a private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior with an ulterior motive asserting that on 10/01/2010 at about 10.15 am an altercation had taken place between them wherein it is complained that petitioners have abused him due to flow of water from the drain and thereafter, the complainant returned back to his home.The petitioners/accused entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted him with lathis and threatened to kill him.Against that finding, the respondent No.2/complainant has filed criminal revision No.295/2015 before I Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior and the said Court by order dated 03/12/2015 directed the learned trial Court to frame charge under section 452 IPC as well.Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the cases, i.e., criminal case No.30/2012 (supra) and the present criminal case No.510/2012 are related to the same incident. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,791,380 | JUDGMENT V.G. Palshikar, J.Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2001 is filed by the original accused no.2 Laxmi Balkrishna Naidu against the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 20-02-2001 in Sessions case No.35 of 1998 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant under section 304B read with 34 of IPC to suffer seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and though the learned Judge found the accused guilty of offence under section 498 read with 34 of IPC, no separate sentence was recorded.Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2001 is filed by the original accused No.1 Navneet Balkrishna Naidu who, in the same Sessions case by the said order, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned trial Judge under section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife Anupama and son Varun.Though the learned Judge also convicted the accused no.1 under section 498A IPC, did not record any separate punishment as accused no.1 is being convicted to suffer imprisonment for life.Both these appeals, since arose out of the same Sessions trial and same evidence is required to be reappreciated, we heard both the appeals together as the learned counsel appearing for the accused in both the cases are same.We have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel on behalf of the accused and the learned A.P.P.The prosecution story stated briefly as disclosed by the evidence on record is that the accused no.1 Navneet Balkrishna Naidu was married to the victim Anupama and out of the wedlock was born the other victim Varun.Even after the birth of the child, the wife was ill-treated for dowry and for similar demands by the accused persons and on or about 18th August 1997 the wife Anupama and the child Varun were found dead in the house.A complaint was lodged, investigation was conducted, accused persons were arrested and they were ultimately charged by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune of having committed murder of the two persons i.e. Anupama and Varun, and also for having treated them with cruelty they were also charged for offence under section 498A of IPC.The learned Judge also framed charge under section 304B of IPC against both the accused persons.The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses to prove its case and the learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence as recorded by him, came to the conclusion of guilt of the accused persons and proceeded to convict them as mentioned above.Both the accused/appellants are represented before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, who contended that initially the police had recorded a case of suicide by the wife and therefore a crime was registered under section 306 of IPC against the accused persons.However, after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the accused were charged under section 302 IPC also.According to the learned Prosecutor, it is impossible for any individual to hang oneself and another individual by the same rope.The entire evidence regarding hanging of the victim Anupama and Varun by the same rope is a concoction of the evidence by the accused to conceal the evidence of murder, which we have reappreciated in the light of the evidence on record.He describes how the marriage took place and how soon thereafter started demands of dowry by the accused i.e. husband and mother-in-law of the victim.He tells the court that even after Varun was born on 29-05-1995 the dowry demands continue till he heard on 18th August 1997 about the death of his daughter and grandson.He then states that he immediately came to Pune, went to the spot, was shown the suicide note and therefore lodged a complaint that the death of his daughter, even if it is by suicide, was caused by the accused.Even if the entire evidence on record is accepted as what it is, it is very hard to believe that accused no.2 mother of the accused no.1, had at any time actively participated either for dowry demands or meted out cruelty to the victim.That she was residing with the accused is a fact which cannot be denied.But that fact by itself cannot be adequate to convict the mother for any of the offence.In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove any complicity of the accused no. 2 in the death of Anupama and Varun.There is no evidence to show that she actively participated in dowry demands and cruelty for fulfilling the same.In our opinion, therefore Criminal Appeal No.150/2001 is liable to be allowed.In so far as the accused no.1 husband is concerned, there is ample intrinsic evidence on record which corroborates the claim of the prosecution that the accused no.1 committed murder of the victims and they did not meet death by suicide or by hanging.The hanging was farceur created by the accused no.1 to escape from the punishment of murder.Those are the words supposed to be said in the suicidal note.It is pertinent to note that the suicidal note form part of a diary which was discovered at the instance of the father of the accused from the cupboard in the room where the bodies were hanging.That brings us to consider the evidence of P.w.7 Dr. Prakash who deposed that several injuries were found on the person of the victim wife.The injuries are as follows:1) Injury on the right thigh.2) Injury on the left thigh.However the injuries are consistent with a serious assault by the husband, causing injuries and then hanging her.The child obviously was there in the room, when this incident occurred and was therefore killed by the accused, as the child was the sole witness to the brutal murder of his own mother at the hands of his father.The medical evidence fully corroborates the evidence led by the prosecution.It describes the state of room in which the bodies were found.It describes how the bed was there in the room when one leg of the deceased was on the bed and the other was on the floor and both the legs of child were on the floor.If the wife has used the bed for putting the rope around the fan so that she could hang herself and has kicked the cot and hanged on the rope, then how her leg from knee downward continue on the bed, cannot be explained.How the wife tied the rope around the child's neck and killed the child and thereafter hanged herself in the fashion in which it is shown in the photograph cannot be explained.She has stated about the incident in the following words.Myself and my parents and a tenant came on the ground floor.On inquiry he said us that he was unable to see his wife and child for want of light in the bed room.We have seen through the window and found Anupama in a hanging condition to a fan.We could not noticed the son Varun."There is no reason why the evidence of this witness should be disbelieved.She says that she saw the accused no.1 standing near the window of the bed room where the body was hanged, crying and saying that he could not see his wife and child because there was no light.But in the same breath the witness says that she saw the deceased through window in a hanging condition.The evidence of this witness though brought by the defence to show that accused was not involved, is a clinching circumstance in the chain of circumstances to come to the conclusion that it was the accused who caused the death.He was found standing outside the window saying that he could not see the room because of paucity of light, but the witness said that people entered the room and found that son and mother hanged in the same rope.If the accused no.1 who according to the defence witness no.1 was standing outside the window and was crying that he could not see his wife and as to what was happened in the room and the only answer is he was so crying because he had full knowledge and therefore we have no doubt that he is the person who caused the death.This evidence clinches the entire issue.To summarise the evidence of P.ws. 2 and 3 it proves beyond doubt that there was torture for dowry by the accused.The accused was standing outside the room where the hanging had occurred, complaining that he could not see his wife and child when his sister came there and saw the wife hanging.The evidence of doctor that there were physical injuries on the person of the victim, which had no concern with her death, apart from the injuries which caused her death, these injuries are unexplained except by the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused who caused it.Moreover the photographs discloses that when the victim was hanged by rope, her blouse was out of her shoulder completely disclosing the brassiers inside.The learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons for coming to these conclusions for accepting the reasons and we have given above the additional reasons why we affirm the finding of death by murder by the accused.We have already quoted above that the evidence is grossly inadequate in so far as involvement of the mother is concerned.In the result therefore the Criminal Appeal No. 150/01 filed by the mother is allowed. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,142,182 | Heard on admission.This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant / complainant for enhancement of the sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna (MP) dated 30.1.2013 in criminal appeal no. 104/2010 converting the convictions of the respondents / accused from the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC into 323 and 323/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the appellant / complainant has submitted that the learned lower appellate court is not justified in converting the convictions of the respondents / accused from the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC into 323 and 323/34 of IPC because there is ample evidence that an axe blow was inflicted on the body of the complainant Rajbhan. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.