id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,791,456 | The first wife named Deepa Bai was married to him about 20 to 25 years back.Chandrika Prasad (P.W. 1) has 3 children from her, appellant being the eldest of them.After 7 to 8 years of the marriage, Deepa Bai is said to have gone insane and is living away from her husband in village Rasni.About 13 to 14 years back, Chandrika Prasad took a second wife namely deceased Dulari Bai, from whom he has 4 children.Deceased Dulari Bai with her children was living with her husband Chandrika Prasad in village Belsoda, Police Station Mahasamund, District Raipur.So far as appellant Kumar Prasad is concerned, he was living for the past 6 to 7 months prior to the present incident in village Rasni with his mother.The prosecution alleged that on 20-11-1984 at about 10 a.m. the appellant came on a hired cycle to his father's house in village Belsoda, when there was none in the house except the appellant's step-mother deceased Dulari Bai.The appellant Killed her by first inflicting injuries on her and then by burning her.When the appellant was leaving the house, Ahilya Bai (P.W. 2), aged about 11 years, his step-sister, chanced to come back to the house.She saw the appellant leaving the house on a cycle.It is said that the appellant also left his chappals in the house.During investigation, he is said to have got bush-shirt and a full pant recovered on his information and at his instances, which on the report of Chemical Examiner Ex.P-18, were found to be blood stained.The report of serologist was not filed by the prosecution.It is, therefore, not known whether the blood stains on the clothes were of human origin.Nail parings of the feet of the appellant were also found to be stained with blood vide the aforesaid report of the Chemical Examiner.So far as the neighbouring lady Shanti Bai (P.W. 3) is concerned, it was natural for Ahilya Bai at the time of shouting to her to only tell that her mother was burning.Ahilya Bai was not expected to shout at that time all that she had seen because the welfare of the motor was bound to be her first concern.Ahilya Bai was also not expected to tell anything else than the fact that she was going for urgent work to her father, when Dilip (not examined) met her on way.In conclusion, we hold that it is clearly established that appellant was seen leaving the house of the occurrence and going away on a cycle, when the incident took place.This was also the information conveyed by Ahilya Bai to her father.The learned trial Judge for good reasons rejected the oral evidence of alibi set up by the appellant.Coming to next circumstance, there is no doubt that appellant did not have good relations with his step-mother, deceased Dulari Bai.In this regard, there was documentary evidence Exs.It is amply established that about 7 months prior to the present incident, to be exact on 24-4-84, deceased Dulari Bai had made a complaint Ex.It would appear from these documents that even after partition between Chandrika Prasad and his brother as also the appellant, the brothers of Durga Prasad and the appellant were not satisfied with the partition.They had on 24-4-84 gone to the house of the occurrence to forcibly get a stamp relating to partition signed by Durga Prasad.JUDGMENT S.K. Chawla, J.Appellant's father Chandrika Prasad (P5.W. 1) has two wives.The appellant had a property dispute with his father Chandrika Prasad.He wanted more property in partition from his father and in that connection had earlier belaboured both his father Chandrika Prasad (P.W. 1) and his step-mother Dulari Bai and had even wrongfully shut them inside a room of their house in Belsoda where the present occurrence had taken place.Dulari Bai had reported about the previous incident vide FIR Ex.On these allegations, it was the prosecution case that the appellant had murdered his step-mother.The appellant abjured his guilt and denied that be even visited the house of the occurrence in village Belsoda at the alleged time of the incident.According to him, he had gone on the hired cycle from his own village Rasni to village Gullu where his uncle-in-law Shobhit Ram (D.W. 2) lived.He had gone there in the company of his cousin Santosh Kumar (D.W. 1) who proceeded on his own cycle.The appellant and Santosh had returned from that village only in the evening.The learned trial Judge held the following circumstances to be established:(i) The appellant was seen running away from the house of the occurrence,(ii) Blood stained bush-shirt and full pant were recovered at the instance of the appellant;(iii) Nail parings of the feet of the appellant taken at the time of his arrest were on chemical examination found to be bloodstained,(iv) The appellant had taken a cycle on hire in the morning on the date of the occurrence.He had kept that hired cycle with him through out the day and had returned it only in the evening.The appellant had failed to properly explain his where abouts throughout the day,(v) The appellant had strained relations with his step-mother deceased Dulari Bai and his own father Chandrika Prasad.Deceased Dulari Bai had earlier reported against the appellant and hence, there was sufficient motive for the murder to be committed by the appellant.Shri Datt, learned counsel for the appellant, urged in his arguments that the case rested against the appellant mainly on the evidence of child witness Ahilya Bai (P.W. 2).The evidence of the child witness itself was discrepant and untrustworthy.It was also argued that the alleged circumstance that appellant was seen leaving the house of the occurrence was not sufficiently incriminating in character.On internal examination it was found that there was haemorrhage underneath subcutaneous tissue on right parietal region and there was intra-cranial haemorrhage in the right cerebral hemisphere.There were also burns on the face and right half of the head with charring of hairs, on abdomen and chest, right and left thighs, left leg and on parineum with charring of pubic hairs.The burns were approximately 50% and varied from 2nd to 4th degree at various places.This is evident from postmortem report Ex.P-11 and the evidence of Dr. K. Vinaya Kumar (P.W. 15).It is also the evidence of the said doctor that the cause of death was due to shock resulting from head injury and burns.The head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and so also were the burn injuries.There is no doubt that somebody had first assaulted deceased Dulari -Bai and then attempted to burn her before she died.The more important question for consideration is whether the appellant was the person responsible for the crime.The most important circumstance in this connection was deposed to by Ahilyabai (P.W. 2), stepsister of the appellant.Ahilya Bai was a girl of 11 years.It is her evidence that in the morning on the date of the occurrence she had gone with her grandfather Jhumaklal (P.W. 5) to work in a paddy field.Then at about 10 a.m., her grandfather told her to go back to the house because her mother would be required to leave the house to take bath in village tank.It is further the evidence of Ahilya Bai that when she was going back and reached home, she saw her brother i.e. the appellant emerging from house and holding, a cycle, she saw the appellant reaching the gate of the house with the cycle and then riding away on it.She went as usual inside the house but to her great horror she found that her mother was lying sprawled inside the house and was actually burning.She shouted to a neighbouring lady Shanti Bai (P.W. 3) that her mother was burning.Shanti bai thereupon told her to immediately rush to her father and grandfather and bring them to the house.Ahilya Bai further stated that she then went rushing to her father who was working in a field, different from the field in which her grandfather was working.On way she met one Dilip.Dilip asked her where she was going.She replied to him that she was going for an urgent work of her father.It is also the evidence of Ahilya Bai that when she reached her father, she told him that her mother was burning in the house.She also told him that she had seen brother Kumar Prasad leaving the house on a cycle.Ahilya Bai admitted that Jethu (P.W. 7), their servant, was present at the field, where she had gone to tell her father.She deposed that her father soon rushed with her to the house, where the whole thing was then witnessed.The girl's father Chandrika Prasad (P.W. 1), who was working at a paddy field at the material time, lent full corroboration to the evidence of the girl.He deposed that his daughter Ahilya Bai (P.W. 2) had stated to him that her mother was burning in the house and also that she had seen brother Kumar Prasad (appellant) leaving the house on a cycle.The only discrepancy which has appeared in the evidence of these two witnesses related to the question whether Ahilya Bai gave information in parts, namely, the most important information that her mother was burning, which was of most immediate concern to her, and the rest of the information that she had seen brother Kumar Prasad leaving the house with a cycle, at one place or at different places.The evidence of Chandrika Prasad (P.W. 1) was that the entire information was given by Ahilya Bai to him at the field itself.The evidence of Ahilya Bai (P.W. 2) on the other hand was that she had given the first part of the information to her father at the field and the second part of the information on their way to home.Such kind of discrepancies are bound to occur when witnesses were recalling matters of detail.The most important thing to note is that Chandrika Prasad (P.W. 1) had got information given by his daughter recorded in the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by him soon after the occurrence.The FIR inter alia says :My daughter Ahilya Bai came to the field of me at about 12 O'Clock and told me that when she went home on account of work, she saw brother Kumar Prasad emerging out of the house and running away on a hired cycle.She went inside the house and found that her mother was lying burning inside the kitchen.The FIR cannot of course be used in corroboration to the testimony of the girl Ahilya Bai about the kind of information she gave.The FIR can be used in corroboration of only the maker.The maker of the FIR was Chandrika Prasad.The point, however, about the FIR is that it makes the evidence of Chandrika Prasad (P.W. 1) credible and makes it safe to rely on him as to the kind of information his daughter gave to him.The information given was not only that the girl's mother was burning, but also that the girl had seen the appellant leaving the house and going away on a cycle.It is judicially recognised that a child witness is often times a dangerous witness.Any mistakes and discrepancies in the statement of a child witness are ascribed to innocence or failure to understand by the child and undue weight is given to what may merely be a well taught lesson.See Manni v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Oudh 406 : (1931 (32) Cri LJ 48).In the present case, there was no scope for tutoring Ahilya Bai (P.W. 2) on the question as to what information she had given to her father, because of the check furnished by the FIR (Ex.P-1).The appellant was Ahilyabai's brother, albeit step-brother.The appellant might be having property disputes with Ahilya Bai's parents.Children are generally unconcerned about disputes between their elders.Ahilya Bai had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate her brother.Ahilya Bai also exhibited lot of understanding and maturity in her evidence.She was doing a woman's job already i.e. working in the field and running errands etc. Her evidence does not suffer from the infirmity usually attaching to the evidence of a child witness.The learned counsel for the appellant laid much store by the evidence of Jethu (P.W. 7).Jethu is a servant of Chandrika Prasad (P.W. 1) and was working with him at the field when Ahilya Bai came running there.It is the evidence of Jethu that Ahilya Bai loudly wailed to her father that mother had been burnt.Jethu did not depose to the further information said to have been given by Ahilya Bai that she had seen appellant leaving the house and going away on a cycle.The evidence of Jethu for that matter would not establish that Ahilya Bai had not given that part of the information.The possibility that Jethu did not listen intently to what, after all, was being told by a girl to her father because he was just a servant or that he might be away at some distance when that part of the information was given, cannot be ruled out.P-3 and had also lodged a report Ex.P-13 against the appellant.When Durga Prasad had refused to lend his signature to the stamp, they had beaten Durga Prasad and so also deceased Dulari Bai.They had also shut Durga Prasad, Dulari Bai and their children into a room and had left.The police had registered a case against the appellant and Durga Prasad's brothers for offences under Sections 342, 323/34, I.P.C.The trial Judge held the circumstance about recovery of blood stained clothes on the information arid at the instance of the appellant to be also established.We are not inclined to attach much weight to this circumstance because of failure on the part of the prosecution to prove that those clothes belonged to the appellant.To sum up, the appellant was living in village Rasni for the last 6 or 7 months prior to the incident.He was seen departing from the house of the occurrence at village Belsoda and going away on a cycle.He had absolutely no business to come to that house of his father and step-mother with whom he had strained relations.Deceased Dulari Bai was alone in the house at the material time.The incident, which took place inside the house, could not be the handiwork of any person except the appellant who visited the house and disappeared soon after the commission of the crime.The decisions of Pratap Singh and Haran Kalita (1971 Cri LJ 172) (supra) relied on by learned Counsel for the appellant have no application to the present case.Those decisions would apply when the only circumstance disclosed against the accused may be that he was seen running away at some distance from the house of the occurrence.In the present case, the appellant was seen emerging from the house of the occurrence and leaving on a cycle, at a time when murder must have taken place in the house.There was none in the house who could have committed the crime.The appellant had absolutely no legitimate business to visit the house.On the other hand, the appellant falsely pleaded alibi.His visit to the house at the material time would show that the crime was his handiwork.The appellant also entertained motive to kill the deceased.All these circumstances when cumulatively considered lead to one and the only conclusion that it was the appellant and none else who committed the murder in question.The above circumstances are not only consistent with the guilt of the appellant but are also inconsistent with his innocence.The appellant was the murderer.In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no force in this appeal.The appeal is dismissed.He shall serve out his sentence. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,146,239 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in FIR No.813 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, T7, Tank Factory Police Station, Avadi and quash the same in so far as this petitioner is concerned.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.813 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Ms.R.Meenakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.27.04.2019 Speaking/Non speaking order Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No ssr To1.The Inspector of Police, Avadi T7, Tank Factory Police Station, Chennai.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,262,366 | C.R.R. No.817 of 2016 November 30, 2017 Bpg.In the matter of : M/s. Unnayan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another.Versus State of West Bengal and another.Mr. Ajoy Debnath, Mr. Debranjan Das, Mr. Sujit Saha....for the petitioners.Ms. Anusua Sinha....for the State.The specific case of the petitioners is that the property under dispute was purchased by the present petitioner no.2 against the payment of valid consideration from one Rahim Molla.Admittedly, the property belongs to one Bantul Chandra Naskar, who executed a power of attorney in favour of one Rajib Gazi.Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the present petitioner no.2 being the bona fide purchaser cannot be roped in a false case that has been set in motion at the instance of Bantul Chandra Naskar with some frivolous and false allegations.In support of his contention, learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court in respect of the Title Suit that was filed by Bantul Chandra Naskar against the present petitioner no.2 that too without impleading Rajib Gazi and Rahim Molla.Admittedly, the Title Suit no.340 of 2013 was filed by Bantul Chandra Naskar against the present petitioner no.2 and the said suit was withdrawn on July 3, 2 2017 without having any liberty to file afresh. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,267,290 | Matter be listed in the next week.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2019.05.17 10:03:35 +05'30'1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.20179 OF 2019 Indore, Dated 16.05.2019 Parties through their respective counsel.Antecedents pertaining to past criminal cases registered against the applicant was perused. | ['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,267,388 | DATE OF DECISION : 16.02.2018 ORAL JUDGMENT :Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 2.11.2006, rendered by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge - 3 Nagpur, in::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 ::: 2 apeal676of06 Sessions Trial 200 of 2006, by and under which, the appellants - accused are convicted for offence punishable under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs 500/- each.2 Heard Shri R.M. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused and Shri N.R. Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 :::The accused Rahul Neware and Sachin Waghmare can at the most be convicted for offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC, is the submission.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri N.R. Patil supports the judgment and order impugned.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 :::light of the submissions of the learned counsel, and having done so, I am not persuaded to hold that the prosecution has established that the accused Rahul and Sachin assaulted the deceased.5 PW 4 Dr. Gawande who conducted the autopsy has ruled out death due to assault.PW 4 - Dr. Gawande categorically admits that the death may be natural.No external injury evidencing assault is detected in the post mortem.6 In the light of the medical evidence on record, if evidence of PW 1 Bablu Bhalavi and PW 2 Gopalkrushna Kulmethe, who are the only material witnesses from the perspective of the prosecution since PW 3 Robbin Judawan who was examined as an eye witness did not support the prosecution, is analyzed, it is difficult to hold with any degree of certainty, that the complicity of the accused Rahul and Sachin in the assault is established beyond reasonable doubt.PW 2 Gopalkrishna who is the uncle of the deceased is the informant.The First Information Report (Exh 23) which is lodged with promptitude does not name accused 2 Rahul and accused 3 Sachin as the assailants.Be it noted, that even according to the First Information Report, PW 2::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 ::: 4 apeal676of06 Gopalkrishna received the information from PW 1 Bablu.The learned APP Shri N.R. Patil invites my attention to the deposition of PW 1 Bablu and contends that PW 1 Bablu has categorically stated in the examination in chief that the deceased was assaulted by accused 1 Vishal Tiwari (deceased appellant 1) and accused Rahul and Sachin.The defence has extracted an admission in the cross-examination that the evidence that accused Rahul and Sachin demanded money is an omission.That apart, the evidence of PW 1 that he witnessed accused Rahul and Sachin assaulting the deceased is not free from doubt since PW 2 Gopalkrishna who lodged the First Information Report on the basis of information received from PW 1 Bablu has not named accused Rahul and Sachin in the First Information Report.7 The evidence on record brings to the fore that the deceased was habituated to consumption of liquor.It is not necessary for this court to venture in surmises or conjunctures or speculations as regards the death of the deceased.Suffice it to say, in the teeth of the evidence on record, in so far as accused Rahul and Sachin are concerned, their role in the assault, if at all the deceased was assaulted, is not established beyond reasonable doubt.The doubt as regards the prosecution story is only fortified by the medical evidence which rules::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 ::: 5 apeal676of06 out assault.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 :::8 On a holistic appreciation of evidence on record, I am not inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence.(i) The judgment and order impugned is set aside.Fine paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded.::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/02/2018 01:42:15 ::: | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,269,229 | This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.183/2020 registered at Police Station Ambah, District Morena for offence under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506-B and 326 of the IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant Saguna Bai that the applicant is a lady aged around 41 years.She has falsely been implicated.She has not committed any offence.Earlier, case was registered under Sections 323, 324, 294 and 506-B of the IPC but later on, Section 326 of the IPC has been enhanced.It is further submitted that present applicant is not the main accused of this case.Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application and prayed for rejection of anticipatory bail.Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the rival parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rs. Sixty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.She shall further abide by other conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of CrPC.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
202,705 | Dr. Bhanchandra is a respectable citizen of that place.He is also a medical practitioner and was having good practice.He has a good residence there in the outer hall of which he was having his clinic.There was also a sub-post office in that very hall and Dr. Bhan Chandra was himself the sub-postmaster.Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1) was the station master of the railway station Maitha.The daughter of his real uncle was married to Dr. Bhan Chandra.When he was released on bail he went to Dr. Bhan Chandra about 25-30 days after that incident and had threatened him with dire consequences.Chandra Bhan appellant was an associate of Ram Sajiwan.He retired from the military where he was a sepoy.Chandrabhan then struck him with the barrel of his gun on his head.At that very time Ram Sajiwan fired another shot with his country-made pistol causing grazing injury on the cheek of Dr. Bhanchandra.All the miscreants then went away.They also fired in the air while they were going away.An amount of Rs. 296/- was kept on the table where Dr. Bhanchandra was sitting.That money was of the post office.Many persons of the town then arrived there.Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P. W, 1) also received information that Dr. Bhanchandra and Ashok Kumar had received gun-shot injuries.At that very time 8 Dn.Toofan Express was to arrive.Maitha railway station was not the halting station for that train.The Station Master managed to detain that train.S.O. Lallan Ram (P. W. 6) of P. S. Sheoli took up the investigation of the case after the papers were sent to P. S. Sheoli, The case was registered there on 11-5-1978 at 10.40 p.m. He went to the site, inspected the site and prepared the site-plan (Ext. Ka-15).Earlier he had interrogated Suryabhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1), Mehngoo (P. W. 2) and Bhikha (P. W, 3) along with Rampal and some other witnesses.He found two empty cartridges at the site which he took into his possession.He also found two wads and one pellet.All these articles were handed over to him by Vijai Kumar another son of Dr. Bhanchandra.He also saw a lamp which was said to be burning in the hall at the time of the occurrence, although it was time of sunset.He prepared a memo in respect of the same.He then made a search for the accused persons but they were not available.On 13-5-1978 he came to the hospital.Ashok Kumar was not in a position to speak.He, therefore, did not interrogate him.He also found that Dr. Bhanchandra was sleeping and so he did not interrogate him also.The doctor-in-charge did not allow the patient to be interrogated as he was sleeping.He again made a search for the accused persons but they were not available.JUDGMENT H.N. KapoorThe appeal has been filed by Chandrabhan and Ram Sajiwan against the order and judgment dated 3-2-1979 of the Addl.Sessions Judge, Kanpur in sessions trial No. 406 of 1978 convicting them under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment for committing the murder of Ashok.They have further been convicted under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R. I. each for making the murderous assault on Dr. Bhanchandra, They have also been convicted under Sections 452 and 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years: R. I. and one year's R. I. respectively.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The revision has been filed by Dr. Bhanchandra, the injured against both the accused persons for enhancement of their sentences.The prosecution story, as revealed in the first information report and by the prosecution evidence briefly stated, is as follows, There is a small town of Maitha within the police circle, P. S. Sheoli, District Kanpur, It has a railway station.His residence was at the railway station which was at a distance of about one hundred paces from the residence of Dr. Bhanchandra.Ram Sajiwan appellant was a constable there.About two and a half months prior to the occurrence, Ram Sajiwan had treated Sri Bhagwan Din Khushwaha an M. L. A. of that locality very badly at Maitha railway station.He had dragged him out of the train and had beaten him.Dr. Bhan Chandra had then gone to the railway station on getting that information and had reprimanded Ram Sajiwan.He being a public man had also publicly abused Ram Sajiwan strongly and a case was then brought against Ram Sajiwan with regard to that incident.He then became a contractor of country-made liquor.He had good relations with the local police and under their protection he used to commit crimes.Dr. Bhanchandra being a public worker used to abuse him openly.Chandra Bhan's brother Amritlal was also a doctor.But he was not proving successful while Dr. Bhan Chandra had a very good practice.There was thus professional rivalry between the two families.Chandrabhan's residence was at a distance of about 60 paces from that of Dr. Bhanchandra.Once there was a quarrel between Chandrabhan appellant and Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1), who was related to Dr. Bhanchandra, Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1) as Station Master had detained at the station four bags of manure which Chunnilal, real brother of Chandrabhan appellant had brought there without paying freight.Chandrabhan appellant then arrived there and abused the Station Master and also threatened to beat him.The Station Master had then lodged a report with the G. R. P. to the effect that Chandrabhan appellant was a bully and he had apprehensions to his life and property from him.This happening was elicited in the cross-examination of Surya Bhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1).It is thus clear that the relations between Chandrabhan Yadav on one side and Dr. Bhanchandra on the other side were much strained.On 10-5-1978 at about 7 p. m. when Dr. Bhan Chandra was sitting in his hall in which there was a sub-post office as well as his clinic and some patients including Mahngoo (P. W. 2) and Bhikha Ram (P. W. 3) were also sitting on a bench in that hall, Chandrabhan appellant armed with a gun and Ram Sajiwan armed with a country-made pistol along with three strangers, two of whom were armed with country-made pistols and one of whom had a hockey stick in his hand arrived there.On seeing them, Dr. Bhanchandra all of a sudden got up and raised an alarm.Ashok Kumar deceased who was in the adjoining room also arrived there, on hearing the alarm.Both the appellants then fired with their weapons.Ashok Kumar received gun-shot injuries as a result of firing by Chandrabhan and Dr. Bhanchandra received injuries as a result of firing by Ram Sajiwan.He also received an injury with the hockey stick which one of the miscreants had with him.Mehngoo (P. W. 2), Bhikha Ram (P. W. 3) and Khiali (not examined) who were inside the hall, went out raising alarm.Dr. Bhan Chandra grappled with the appellants.In the meantime, both the injured were brought to the railway station on cots.He took both the injured to Kanpur by that train.In the way he learnt some facts about the occurrence and also the names of the two appellants from Dr. Bhanchandra whenever he was in a state of consciousness and could speak, as both the injured had become unconscious.At Maitha railway station he had no time to enquire about the details of the occurrence.The doctor found the following injuries on the person of Ashok Kumar:Abrasion 3/4 cm x 1/2 cm near right angle of mouth.2. gun-shot wound of entry 1 cm x 3/4 cm x depth under observation, 10 cm below right nipple,3. 5 abrasions in an area of 13 cm x| 9 cm of right abdomen (upper).Gun-shot wound of entry - 3 in an area of 9 cm x 5.5 cm each (1) size 3 cm x 1 cm x depth under ob.(2) size 3 cm.x l/2cm x depth under observation.(3) size 2 cm x 1/2 cm x depth under observation side abdomen and mid line.Abrasion (9) in an area of 13 cm x 6 cm in front of right arm, 3 cm above elbow joint.Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3/4 cm x muscle deep in front of right arm, just above elbow.According to the doctor the injuries were fresh and injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were caused by friction against hard object; injuries Nos. 2 & 4 by firearm and injury No. 6 by blunt object.According to the doctor injuries Nos. 2 and 4 were kept under observation and others were simple in nature.On that very day at about 9.50 p.m. he examined the injuries of Dr. Bhanchandra and found the following injuries.Lacerated wound 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm x bone deep in front of head, 13 cm above soft bridge of nose.Lacerated wound 3/4 cm x l/4 cm x muscle deep on right side of face, 4.5 cm in front of right ear.Linear abrasion 4 cm long on back of right forearm 10.5 cm below elbow joint.Bleeding from both nostrils.Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on back of head (occipital region).According to the doctor the duration of the injuries was fresh, and injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were caused by blunt object and No. 3 by friction against hard object.According to him, injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were kept under observation.According to him, injury No. 2 could be caused by friction with the pellet, injury No. 1 could be caused by the gun-barrel, injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 5 of the injuries could be caused by friction against hard substance or by fall or by friction with the wall.Suryabhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1) then went to P. S. Kotwali and lodged the first information report at 1.20 a. m. The report was taken down and a case under Section 307, I.P.C. against both the appellants and under Sections 148, 149 and 452 against three unknown persons was registered.It may be stated here that in this F. I. R. there was no mention of any dacoity having been committed.It was a case of simple murder.Suryabhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1) then left for Maitha railway station by early morning passenger train.An entry was made in the G.D. at 10.35 p. m. Investigation of the case was entrusted to S.O. Lallan Ram (P. W. 6).In the meantime information was sent from the hospital to P.S. Kotwali about two persons having been admitted in the hospital with gun-shot injuries.Sri Nand Kumar Misra, Magistrate (P. W. 10) was deputed to record the dying declarations of both the injured persons.Dr. N. Hasan (P. W. 11) gave a certificate of fitness that he was in a fit mental condition to give a statement.It is a simple statement to the effect that on the previous evening, he was shot at by Chandrabhan son of Bhura Singh, Maitha station and that five persons had arrived there to commit dacoity at the post office and Maitha railway station.The post office and his residence are in the same building.His father was in the post-office.Those persons tried to grapple with his father.On hearing his voice, he came out.The miscreants then fired at him striking him.In reply to another question, whether he knew those miscreants, he replied that he knew only two of them, namely, Chandrabhan Yadav and Ram Sajiwan, that Chandrabhan was a resident of Maitha railway station while Ram Sajiwan was resident of Etampur.With regard to the remaining miscreants he said that he could identify them on seeing them.Dr. Hasan also proved his bed-head ticket which is to the effect that it was a case of gunshot injury.Dr. Girish Chandra Gupta also stated that 100 milligram of pethidrin was administered to Ashok Kumar in the night and its effect generally lasted for 5-6 hours.The same Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of Dr. Bhanchandra as well on 11-5-1978 at 10.05 a. m. It cannot now be treated as a substantive piece of evidence as he had survived.It could be used only as the previous statement.The defence has made use of this statement for proving that he had stated in the dying declaration that the miscreants had made plans to loot him.He stated that he had made this statement as cash of Rs. 296/- was lying on the table.On 19-5-1978 he learned that Ashok Kumar had died.Investigation was then continued by his successor S.O. Randhir Singh Chauhan (P. W. 7).After completing the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against both the appellants.Ashok Kumar died in the hospital on 16-5-1978 at 9.15 p. m. The usual inquest was prepared on the dead body.The post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by Dr. R. Prakash (P. W. 9) on 17-5-1978 at about 3 p. m. He found the following ante-mortem external injuries on the dead body.Abrasion 2/5" x 1" near the right angle of mouth.Stitched wound 2/5" in length on lower part of chest right side 4" below right nipple.On removing the stitches, the wound was abdominal cavity deep,Multiple abrasions in an area of 41/2"x31/4" on right side of abdomen at upper part.Stitched wound 2/5" in length on left side of abdomen l1/2" to the left and above umbilicus.On removing stitches the wound was abdominal cavity deep.Multiple abrasions in an area of 6" x 2/5" on front of right arm 11/4" above right elbow.Lacerated wound 11/4" x 1/2" muscle deep at front of right arm just above right elbow.Surgical wound with corrugated tube 3/4" x 1/2" abdominal cavity at right tank of abdomen.Surgical stitched wound 7" in length on right side of abdomen at right para-medial region,Two abrasions 3/4" x l/2" and 1/2" x 1/2" situated 1/2" apart on left side of abdomen just left of umbilicus.According to the doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of gunshot injuries.On internal examination, below injury No. 2 and injury No. 4 the Jhilli was torn and there was 500 c.c clotted blood.There was one stitched wound on anterior and posterior side of stomach 1" x 3/4" respectively with 100 ml.clotted blood.According to the doctor the gunshot injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Both the appellants were duly tried having been committed to the Court of Session.They denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity.Both the accused persons stated that the Station Master got them falsely implicated in this case as he was inimical to them.Ram Sajiwan further stated that the Station Master and Sri Kushwaha, M.L.A. were on friendly terms and they got him implicated in this case.He also stated that it was, in fact, a dacoity case.They did not examine any witness in defence.The learned Sessions Judge held them guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.Feeling aggrieved they have filed the appeal.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Suryabhushan Sri-vastava (P. W. 1) who lodged the first information report.He himself was not an eye-witness.But he got information through Bhan Chand.The prosecution also examined Mehgoo (P. W. 2), Bhikha (P. W. 3) and Dr. Bhanchandra (P. W, 4) as eve-witnesses of the occurrence.Dr. Bhanchandra himself is an injured witness.His presence therefore cannot be doubted.It was, however, argued that he himself had not received gun-shot injuries as alleged by him and as such the occurrence did not take place in the manner as stated by him.Dr. Girish Chandra Gupta (P. W. 5) stated that injury No. 2 could have been caused as a result of the gun-shot and injury No. 3 too could have been caused as a result of grazing with the pellet.It is significant that the bed-head ticket too shows that this was treated as a case of gun-shot injury.The evidence of Mehngoo (P. W. 2) and Bhikha Ram (P. W. 3) has been criticised on the ground that admittedly they were residents of a place which was at a distance of about four furlongs from the place of occurrence and so they could not be present at the time of the occurrence.Both of them were residing on the other side of the station close to the station while the station was at a distance of one hundred paces from the residence of Dr. Bhanchandra.It was also argued that Bhikha (P. W. 3) was admittedly a marginal witness in the sale deed which was executed in favour of the deceased Ashok Kumar and his brother Vijai Kumar and as such he must have been very close to Dr. Bhan Chandra.P.C. along with Dr. Bhanchandra and others while on the other side there were Chandra-bhan accused and others.But these proceedings were brought after this incident and as such it has no bearing.No other enmity against the accused persons was suggested to him.The only suggestion was that he was friendly with Dr. Bhanchandra and that Dr. Bhanchandra was given a lease of the land when he was the Pradhan.Dr. Bhanchandra got a school also constructed on that land.As regards Mehngoo (P. W. 2), it was argued that he was a member of the land management committee and the land was given to Dr. Bhanchandra for constructing his house and the school by that land management committee.It was not suggested to him that he had any enmity with the accused persons.There is no doubt that Dr. Bhanchandra was an influential person of that locality.He even got a school built for the public.Obviously he had a roaring practice.Mehngoo (P. W. 2) and Bhikha Ram (P. W. 3) could have been present there at the time of the occurrence as they had gone to take medicine.They had no reason to implicate the accused persons falsely simply because they knew Dr, Bhanchandra well.Learned counsel for the appellants laid great stress on the fact.According to Suryabhushan Srivastava (P.W. 1), nobody had given the names of the assailants to him at the station and he learnt their names only from Dr. Bhanchandra in the way.It was argued that in case the witnesses had seen the accused persons they would certainly have given him their names also while giving him information about Dr. Bhanchandra and his son Ashok Kumar being shot at.He did not remember the name of the person who had actually given him the information.At that time it was the time for the parcel Express to arrive.He obviously rang the control room for detaining the parcel train.He himself could not have left the station at that time even though his relations had received gun-shot injuries.He had obviously no time to make detailed enquiries about the occurrence.It was elicited in the cross-examination of Bhikha Ram (P. W. 3) that on that day 8 Dn.Express had come at the station at quarter to eight and they had reached the station along with the injured persons only one and a half or two minutes before.He also stated that after the occurrence he and others had remained at the house of Dr. Bhanchandra for about half an hour and that during this period about 20-25 persons had collected there.Obviously he had no time to talk to the Station Master.Mehngoo (P. W. 2) also stated that he had gone to the station with the injured persons.He did not know if any body had gone there from the station to take the injured persons.Obviously, these two witnesses were not the persons who had gone and informed the Station Master.Some other persons who were there might have informed the Station Master.No adverse inference can, therefore, be drawn against these witnesses that they had not given the names of the assailants to the Station Master who learnt their names for the first time from Dr. Bhanchandra.It was also argued that these witnesses stated that they had no talk with Dr. Bhanchandra after that incident which would mean that the doctor had also not given the names of the assailants.So far as these witnesses are concerned, there was no question of asking Dr. Bhanchandra about the names of the assailants when they themselves were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.Suryabhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1) stated that Dr. Bhanchandra too had become unconscious and could speak only when he gained consciousness.It was argued that the injuries were not such that he should have become unconscious.There can be no doubt that he must have been in a state of extreme shock when the occurrence took place all of a sudden in such a manner and his son had received such serious injuries.He too had a feeling that he had also received gun-shot injuries.The dying declaration of Ashok Kumar has been challenged on the ground that it was a tutored statement as Suryabhushan Srivastava (P.W. 1) and Dr. Bhanchandra both were near him throughout the journey and also throughout the night and so they had ample opportunity for tutoring Ashok Kumar who had given the names of their enemies on being tutored.We find that the witnesses and Dr. Bhanchandra were not at all cross-examined on the point as to what was the condition of Ashok Kumar throughout the night and whether he was allowed to be surrounded by his relations and friends throughout the night.The evidence is that he was unconscious.The bed-head ticket -also shows that his condition was serious.Dr. Girish Chandra Gupta (P. W. 5) stated that he was given 100 ml.pethidrin which had its effect for 5-6 hours.Obviously, he must be in a drowsy condition and no one could have been allowed to talk to him during this period.Suryabhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1) left for Maitha station early in the morning.There is thus nothing to show that Ashok Kumar made the dying declaration on being tutored by his father or Suryabhushan Srivastava (P.W. 1).Moreover in the first information report which was lodged at 1.20 a. m. a simple case of murder was given out, while in his dying declaration Ashok Kumar also gave his impression that the miscreants had come to commit dacoity.Even Dr. Bhanchandra got the impression that the miscreants had made a plan to commit dacoity at his place, as was elicited in his cross-examination.Learned counsel for the appellants had argued that, in fact, it was a case of dacoity which was changed into a case of murder; and Suryabhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1) in collusion with Kushwaha M. L. A. was responsible for naming the two accused persons and giving the shape, to be a case of simple murder.If it was really so, the argument of the learned Counsel that the dying declaration was a tutored statement falls to the ground.In case Suryabhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1) was interested in converting the case into a simple case of murder and he had deliberately lodged the first information report, having this point in view, Ashok Kumar would not have made any mention of dacoity in his dying declaration nor Dr. Bhanchandra would have made any mention of dacoity in his statement, if all these statements were actually made after deliberations and consultations and on being tutored by Suryabhushan Srivastava (P. W. 1).This circumstance itself shows that all the three statements were made wholly independently.Dr. Bhanchandra has given a good explanation as to why he considered this to be a case of dacoity as the amount of Rs. 296/- was found missing.Ashok Kumar who was a boy of 16-18 years' of age and who was studying outside might not have been fully aware of the local politics and might have just thought that the object of the miscreants could be only to commit dacoity.But there can be no doubt that the real intention of the miscreants was to wreak vengeance on Dr. Bhanchandra.It was for this reason that they at once started shooting at Dr. Bhanchandra and his son.They would have tried to ransack the entire post-office and the house of Dr. Bhanchandra.It if also in evidence that Dr. Bhanchandra had a licenced gun.They might have tried to take away that gun after shooting both of them.It has also come in evidence that Dr. Bhanchandra was a man of some means.The miscreants, therefore, would have made some attempt to enter the residence and ransack the same when they were so well-armed.It depends on the temperament of a person.There can be hardened criminals.That shot proved fatal.He had come along with Chandrabhan and other associates with the common intention of committing the murder of Dr. Bhanchandra. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,273,436 | After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available in the case diary, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of bail is made out to the applicants.Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,281 | The learned Sessions Judge is, however, directed to proceed with the Sessions Trial in respect of other charges framed against the petitioners and other accused. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,281,111 | Considering the above facts and circumstances and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 15.05.2020, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousandhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/5 Crl.O.P. No. 8166 of 2020 only), before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined on his release;The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 399 ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/5 Crl.O.P. No. 8166 of 2020 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act in Crime No.1803 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.200, the petitioner along with 4 others, was preparing to commit dacoity armed with machetes.Hence, the complaint.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case.Hence he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner along with 4 others, was preparing to commit dacoity and they were found in possession of machetes.Hence, he opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.(b) Thereafter, the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, out of which, one shall be a blood surety, before the concerned Magistrate on or before 05.07.2020, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;http://www.judis.nic.in 3/5 Crl.O.P. No. 8166 of 2020(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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];(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.05.06.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ksa-2 ToThe Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram.The Inspector of Police, B-2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Superintendent Sub Jai, Kanchipuram.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/5 Crl.O.P. No. 8166 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.Ksa-2/smv Crl.O.P. No. 8166 of 2020 05.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 5/5 | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,286,398 | PW.8 Sushil Kadam, proceeded to the scene of incident and prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit-75).After doing the inquest panchanama (Exhibit-52), the dead body of Arun Namdeo Sonwale was sent for postmortem examination to the Shirur Hospital.PW.8-PSI Kadam, thereafter recorded the statement of witnesses, including that of PW.2-Rupali V. Dhumal, PW.3-Anil N. Sonwale, PW.4-Keshav Gadage, PW.5-Babasaheb Kolpe and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 ::: 8 appeal.1187.2002.doc others.The appellants along with the other accused came to be arrested.On 6th May, 1997 the appellant no.1-Satish, while in police custody disclosed that he wanted to produce the knife used in the commission of the offence.Accordingly, the statement was recorded as per Exhibit-62, memorandum statement.Thereafter, PSI Kadam along with the panchas accompanied the appellant no.1-Satish to Village Tandali behind the Gram Panchayat and in their presence, the appellant no.1-Satish produced the knife seized under a panchanama (Exhibit-64).PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has deposed that he saw Pintu (orig.accused no.3), Nandu, (orig.accused no.2), Satish, (orig.accused no.1), Anil, (orig.accused no.8), Deepak, (orig.accused no.9), Bhausaheb, (orig.accused no.5), Dattatraya, (orig.accused no.6) and Ashok (orig.accused no.7) assaulting his elder brother Arun Sonwale.He has further stated, that when all of them rushed towards Arun to rescue him, the accused ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 ::: 11 appeal.1187.2002.doc persons also assaulted them and ran away.deceased (orig.accused no.5) holding a knife in his hand and Pintu (orig.accused no.3) holding a sword.However, he could not identify as to what was held by the other accused at the time of the assault.He has stated that in the said incident he sustained injuries on his head and his elder brother Anil Sonwale, PW-3 sustained an injury near the arm pit on the left hand.The doctor on examination, informed that Arun had succumbed to the injury and therefore Arun's body was brought to the village.The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19th February, 2013 in Criminal Appeal no.787 of 2008 was pleased to set aside the Judgment dated 20th December, 2006 passed by this Court and while remitting the matter back requested this Court to appoint an amicus curiae to argue the aforesaid appeal on behalf of the appellants and to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be useful to place on record the manner in which the said case has travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now back to this Court for re-hearing of the aforesaid Appeal, preferred by the appellants.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:36 :::The aforesaid appellants-Satish and Nandu along with seven co-accused were arrested in connection with an alleged incident of assault on 28/29 th April, 1997 at 12.30 a.m. According to the prosecution, deceased Arun, Sanju (PW.1), Anil (PW.3) and Kailash were assaulted by all the 9 accused.All the accused, including the appellants-Satish and Nandu came to be charged for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative for the offence punishable under Section 302 simplicitor or Section 302 r/w 34 for causing the death of Arun and for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative Section 323 simplicitor or Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting Sanju, Anil and Kailash.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:36 :::The said substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by the same Judgment and Order acquitted orig.accused no.4-Vasant, orig.accused no.8-Anil and orig.accused no.9-Deepak of all the charges levelled against them and as far as accused no.5-Bhausaheb and orig.accused no.6-Dattatraya, the case stood abated as they died during the pendancy of the trial.The aforesaid appellants along with accused nos.Pintu and 7-Ashok preferred the aforesaid appeal, being Criminal Appeal no.1187 of 2002, in this Court against the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2002, passed in Sessions Case no.299 of 1997 convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences.This Court vide its Judgment dated 20th December, 2006 was pleased ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:36 ::: 5 appeal.1187.2002.doc to partly allow the aforesaid appeal, in as much as the conviction and sentence imposed upon accused no.7-Ashok came to be set aside and he was acquitted of all the charges.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:36 :::As far as aforesaid appellants- Satish and Nandu and accused no.3-Pintu, their conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be maintained.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, was thus pleased to remit the matter back to the High Court with a request that this Court appoint an amicus curiae to argue the appeal on their behalf ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:36 ::: 6 appeal.1187.2002.doc and to rehear the appeal and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law.As far as appellant no.3-Pintu was concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal qua him as being infructuous, as in the meantime this Court had released him, as he was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:36 :::It is pertinent to note that after the aforesaid appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal no.1187 of 2002 came to be dismissed by this Court, the Appellant no.3-Pintu, preferred an application, being Criminal Application no.568 of 2008 in the aforesaid appeal, praying therein for benefit under Section 7(a) of the Juvenile Justice Act, in view of the fact that he was a juvenile in conflict with law at the time of the alleged incident.This Court vide its order dated 17th October, 2008 was pleased to allow the said application preferred by the appellant no.3-Pintu and extended the benefit of Section 7(a) of the Juvenile Justice Act to the appellant no.3-Pintu, as he was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law and he was directed to be released forthwith.We are therefore now concerned only with the two ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 ::: 7 appeal.1187.2002.doc appellants-Satish and Nandu i.e. original accused nos.1 and 2 in the present appeal.We have appointed Ms. Nasreen Ayubi for the appellants as amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the appellants in the aforesaid appeal and have taken up this appeal for final disposal.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 :::On 13th June, 1997 the seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination vide letter dated 13th June, 1997 (Exhibit-72).Satish and Nandu and seven other accused under various Sections.All the accused, including the appellants, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case examined 8 witnesses.The defence of all accused was ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 ::: 9 appeal.1187.2002.doc that of denial and false implication.The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants-Satish and Nandu, accused no.3-Pintu and accused no.7-Ashok and was pleased to acquit the others co-accused, as afore-stated.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 :::In order to effectively deal with the submissions canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.PW-1, Sanju Sonwale, the brother of the deceased-Arun Sonwale was examined by the prosecution as a complainant and injured witness.PW-1 Sanju has stated that although he was living with his brother at Hadapsar, he would often visit Village Tandali where his parents and deceased brother Arun Sonwale were living.PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has stated that on 28 th April, 1997 when he visited the house of his mother's sister Subhadra and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 ::: 10 appeal.1187.2002.doc was dancing on music outside the house with others, one Pintu Vasant Holkar (orig.accused no.3) came there and started dancing alongwith them.He has further stated, that Pintu, (orig.accused no.3) started whistling and winking at his cousins Ujwala and Deepali who were sitting at some distance.When he informed Pintu not to dance there, there was an exchange of words between them and the family members of Pintu, (orig.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 :::accused no.3).He has further stated that the Sarpanch of the village Keshav Gadage (PW.4) came there and settled the dispute and all returned back to their respective houses.PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has further stated that at around 12.30 midnight ie.on 29th April, 1997, he heard some shouts near the house of his maternal aunt Subhadra.He stated that on hearing the same he along with Kailash, Anil and Sunil ran towards the said spot.PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has stated that at the time of assault he saw Bhausaheb-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 :::He identified all the accused in the Court except Bhausaheb (original accused no.5) and Dattatraya (original accused no.6) who died during the pendency of the trial.The said witness in his cross examination has specifically admitted that he had not seen any specific scuffle between the accused Bhausaheb and Arun.PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 ::: 12 appeal.1187.2002.doc specifically stated in his cross examination that the portion marked 'A' was not stated by him to the police.The portion marked 'A' in the complaint reads thus "that it was Nandu who assaulted the deceased Arun with the gupti"::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 :::PW-1 Sanju Sonwale has stated that he realised the said portion marked 'A' only at the time of recording of his examination-in-chief.He has in his cross examination, further admitted that he had not seen who had caused the injury on this head.He also stated that he was unable to tell as to when he had sustained injury on his head and that whether the injury of Arun was caused by a sharp weapon like knife.The prosecution also examined PW.3-Anil Sonwale, who is the brother of the deceased Arun Sonwale and also an eyewitness to the said incident and an injured witness.PW.3-Anil has deposed, that at the time of the incident he was living with his brother and wife at Hadapsar and the deceased Arun was living at village Tandali along with his wife.He has stated that one day prior to the incident, he had been to village Tandali for a yatra along with his wife and brother.He has stated that his ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 ::: 13 appeal.1187.2002.doc sister along with her daughter Deepali had also come to the village Tandali from Kolhapur.PW.3-Anil has further stated, that on 24th February, 1997 at about 8.00 or 8.15 p.m. when they were dancing on music outside the house of his maternal aunt Subhadrabai, accused Pintu, (orig.accused no.3) came there and started whistling and winking.He has stated that he asked Pintu not to dance there and slapped him on account of the same.It was stated that there was exchange of words between the family members of Pintu, (orig.accused no.3) and them and later it was Village Sarpanch PW.4-Keshav who came there and settled the dispute, after which all returned to their respective houses.According to PW.3-Anil, when he was sitting along with Sanju (PW-1) and Shashikant (PW-6) on the otta outside the house of Subhadrabai, at about 11.30 p.m. they heard some one shouting from the eastern side.On hearing the shouts he alongwith others reached the spot.He has stated that Nandu (orig. accused no.2), Pintu, (orig.accused no.3), Satish (orig.accused no.1), Dattatraya (orig,accused no.6-deceased), Ashok, (orig.accused no.7), Anil (orig.accused no.8), Deepak (orig.accused no.9-deceased), Vasant (orig.accused no.4) and some others attacked them.He has stated that appellant no.1-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:37 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::appeal.1187.2002.doc Satish assaulted him with a knife near the arm pit of his left hand.He has further stated that appellant no.2-Nandu had held a weapon like gupti, appellant no.1-Satish a knife, Pintu (orig.accused no.3) an iron patti and other accused were holding wooden pattis.He has further stated that accused Anil (orig.accused no.8) and Deepak (orig.accused no.9) were shouting "Hanamara".He has further stated that during the assault his brother Sanju sustained an injury on his head, Kailash Sonwale also sustained an injury and his brother Arun (deceased) sustained a blow with a knife on his stomach.He has further stated that as a result of the assault on his hand, he became unconscious and therefore was unable to tell as to what happened thereafter and that he regained consciousness only on reaching the Sassoon Hospital.The said witness was cross examined at length.The tenor of the cross examination was to suggest that he reached the spot after the incident of assault on deceased Arun.The prosecution in support of its case had also examined two other eye witnesses, PW-2 Rupali Dhumal, the niece of deceased-Arun and PW-6 Shashikant Sonwale, cousin of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 ::: 15 appeal.1187.2002.doc deceased-Arun as eye witnesses to the incident, however both were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case with regard to the assault by the appellants and others on Arun(deceased) and other injured witnesses.However, with regard to the incident of assault on Arun(deceased) and others has stated that on hearing the cries, she woke up from her sleep and went to the spot, where she saw Arun being carried to the hospital.As far as PW.6-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::Shashikant is concerned, he too did not support the prosecution case with regard to the incident of assault on deceased Arun.Prosecution has examined PW-4 Keshav Gadage, Sarpanch of village Tandali with regard to the earlier dispute that had taken place between them.He has stated that he had settled the dispute between the accused and the Holkar family and that the dispute was minor in nature.The said memorandum is at Exhibit-62 and the panchanama is at Exhibit-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::The panchanama shows that the knife was recovered at the instance of appellant no.1-Satish from a heep of grass and that the wooden handle and the blade of the knife was stained with blood.Dr. Anil Kumar Reddy has been examined by the prosecution as PW-7 to prove the post mortem (Exhibit-66).He has stated in his evidence that at the relevant time he was attached to Rural Hospital, Shirur and that he conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Arun on 29 th April, 1997 and found the following injuries:-Incised injury 4 inch X 2 inch X 1 inch, triangular shaped on right epigastrium 5 inches from right nipple at 6 'o clock position.It was fresh and due to sharp weapon.Fracture right 12th rib.injuries were anti mortem.Internal injuries.Incised injury 3 ½ inches on middle of liver on right lobe.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::appeal.1187.2002.doc PW.7 has stated that the cause of death was due to severe heamorahage and due to rupture of liver caused by stab injury.The prosecution has not brought on record any Medical Certificates with regard to the injuries sustained by PW.3-Anil or Kailash nor has examined any Medical Officer in this behalf.The learned counsel, Ms. Nasreen Ayubi, for the appellant nos. 1 and 2 (Satish and Nandu) canvassed before us that the eye witnesses to the said incident were doubtful and untrustworthy in as much as there evidence did not inspire confidence with regard to their presence at the spot at the time of assault on deceased Arun.It was further contended that, two of the eye witnesses PW.2-Rupali and PW.6-Shashikant who were related to the deceased had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and therefore it was doubtful whether PW-1 and PW.3 were present at the scene of the offence at the time of the alleged incident of assault and also that being related to deceased Arun, they were interested witnesses.It was further contended that four of the co-accused had been acquitted by the trial court, one by the Hon'ble High Court and one was given the benefit of Section 7(a) of the Juvenile Justice Act, as he was ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 ::: 18 appeal.1187.2002.doc a juvenile in conflict with law and considering that the alleged role of the appellants was no different from that of the acquitted co-accused, they also ought to have been given the benefit of doubt.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::The learned APP has contended that the Judgment rendered by the trial court is legal and proper and ought not to be interfered with and supported the conviction of the appellants.In the light of the submissions advanced before us, we are required to consider, whether the presence of the two eye-witnesses, PW.1-Sanju and PW.3-Anil at the time of the alleged incident of assault on deceased Arun has been established by the prosecution ; whether the appellants had any motive to assault Arun and cause his death; and whether the appellants conviction can be sustained in view of the acquittal of the appellants and the co-accused by the Trial Court from the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149, 323 r/w. 149 and 504 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the acquittal of some of the co-accused of all the charges.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP and after going through the entire prosecution evidence, we find that the evidence of the eye witnesses, PW-1.Sanju Namdeo Sonwale and PW.3-Anil Sonwale does not inspire confidence, in as much as the ocular evidence is contrary to the medical evidence on record.It is pertinent to note that all the accused including the appellants-Satish and Nandu have been acquitted for the offences under Section 143, 148, 149, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 r/w. 149 and Section 504 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The State of Maharashtra has not challenged the said acquittal of the respondents and therefore we are required to consider the role played by the appellants and their conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.A perusal of the evidence of PW.1-Sanju reveals that although in the F.I.R, he had disclosed that Nandu assaulted the deceased Arun with gupti, he had in his deposition clearly ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 ::: 20 appeal.1187.2002.doc denied stating the same to the police.PW.1-Sanju has in his deposition stated that he had seen all the 9 accused, including the appellants assaulting deceased-Arun.He has stated that he had seen Bhausaheb (orig.accused no.5) and Pintu (orig.accused no.3) holding a knife respectively but could not identify as to what was held by the other accused.Similarly, the other eye-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::witness, PW.3-Anil has stated that all the 9 accused and some others attacked them.He has further stated that Nandu (appellant no.2) had a weapon like gupti, Satish (appellant no.1) a knife, Pintu (accused no.3) an iron patti and all other accused wooden pattis.He has further stated that Anil (orig.accused no.8) and Deepak (orig.accused no.9) were shouting 'Hanamara' The medical evidence that has come on record through the evidence of P.W.7-Dr.Anilkumar Reddy shows that the deceased had sustained two injuries (i) Incised injury near the chest and(ii) Fracture of the 12th rib.In the light of the afore-stated evidence, we are of the opinion that the medical evidence is contrary to the ocular evidence and as such the presence of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW.1-Sanju and PW.3-Anil at the time of the assault on the deceased becomes doubtful.Considering the evidence on record, it appears that the alleged eye-witnesses ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 ::: 21 appeal.1187.2002.doc have reached the spot soon after the incident of assault on deceased Arun.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::As far as the evidence of motive is concerned, the same appears to be minor one in as much as even according to the prosecution, the dispute was settled by PW.4-Keshav Gadage, Sarpanch of the Village.The prosecution has not been able to bring forth any evidence to show that the deceased Arun was involved in the earlier dispute which was settled or that the appellants had any motive to assault him and cause his death.We cannot be oblivious to the fact, that several of the accused i.e. 7 out of the 9 accused have been acquitted by the Trial Court and the High Court, of all the offences with which they were charged and that the State of Maharashtra has not preferred any Appeal against their acquittal under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 and 323 r.w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants are the only accused who stand convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 and under Section 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::Section 34 of the Penal Code reads as under :-Section 34 : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention" - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has not been able to bring on record any evidence to show which of the accused including the appellants assaulted the deceased Arun.It is an omnibus statement.Since we have found that the ocular evidence is contrary to the medical evidence and that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the time of the assault on deceased-Arun is doubtful and the fact that all other co-accused have been acquitted, we cannot sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that any of the appellants caused the fatal injury sustained by the deceased-Arun, in order to convict them for the offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 ::: 23 appeal.1187.2002.doc Indian Penal Code.As the Trial Court and the High Court had given the benefit of doubt to all the other co-accused and acquitted them, it follows that the appellants conviction also cannot be sustained as it cannot be held that they acted co-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::jointly with the other accused in the commission of the assault on deceased-Arun.Resultantly, the appellants also ought to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by extending the benefit of doubt to them.In respect of the assault on PW.1-Sanju, PW.3-Anil and Kailash i.e. injured witnesses by the appellants is concerned, the prosecution has failed to produce the injury certificates of the injured witnesses nor have they examined any Doctor in support of the same.The evidence of PW.1-Sanju reveals that he has also not been able to identify as to who assaulted him.Kailash another injured eye-witness has not been examined by the prosecution.It is pertinent to note that as far as the injury of PW.3-Anil is concerned i.e. with regard to assault by appellant no.1 with a knife on his left hand near the arm pit, the same has not been challenged by the appellant.In the light of the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 ::: 24 appeal.1187.2002.doc evidence of PW.3-Anil, that it was the appellant no.1-Satish who assaulted him with a knife on his left hand near his arm pit corroborated by the recovery of knife, we acquit the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34, however, convict the appellant no.1-Satish of the offence under Section 323 simplicitor and maintain the conviction awarded to him.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::In the premises, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence of Appellant No.2/original accused No.2 is hereby quashed and set-aside and he is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted.Fine, if paid, by original accused No.2 Nandu Vasant Holkar be refunded to him.Since Appellant No.2 Nandu is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appellant No.1/original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Fine, if paid, by original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be refunded to him.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 :::Since original accused No.1 Satish Vasant Holkar is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, as he has already undergone the sentence for an offfence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the Appellants is quantified at Rs.3,000/-.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:04:38 ::: | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,286,656 | sh This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant e of bail.ad The applicant has been arrested on 09/03/2018 in connection Pr with Crime No.160/2017 registered at Police Station Vishwavidyalaya, District Gwalior for offence under Section 392 a of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.It is submitted that the applicant was already arrested by Police Station Vishwavidyalaya, District Gwalior on two earlier occasions and if the applicant was wanted in a previous case, then he should have been arrested at that time only.Whenever the applicant has been released on bail, the police has arrested him in another case.It is directed that the C applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in h ig the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with one H surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ committal Court, to appear before the Court concerned on the dates given by the concerned Court.CC as per rules.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.03.28 18:28:19 +05'30' sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
202,914 | The facts emerging from the records of the case are as under:The appellant/sole accused is a resident of Kumaranapalli village.The deceased Anitha is his wife.On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 20.1.2003 morning, when the accused went to his farm for cutting grass for his cattle, the deceased came there along with cattle and informed him that she wanted to go to her native.As appendicitis operation was to be performed to his mother and his father was also not doing well, the accused asked her not to go to her native.Despite the same, the deceased wanted to go to her native and she tried to forcibly take money from his shirt pocket for going to her parents place.Aggrieved over the same, the accused took a wooden stick (M.O.1) lying nearby and attacked her on her right forehead with the result she fainted and fell down.Again he attacked her with the same stick.Finding that his wife died on the spot and fearing over the same, the accused left the place.He threw M.O.1 stick in a nearby bush and left for Hosur where he spent time till evening and returned to his village by 6 p.m. Then, the accused narrated the incident to P.Ws.2 and 3 who took him to P.W.1, the then Village Administrative Officer at about 7.30 p.m. The accused gave Ex.P.W.1, along with others, visited the scene of occurrence by 9 p.m. where they found the dead body of the deceased lying.Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and handed over the accused along with his report and Ex.P.1, statement of the accused.P.Ws.2 and 3 who brought the accused to P.W.1; P.W.4 cousin of the accused; P.Ws.5 and 6, parents of the deceased; and P.Ws.7 and 8 who were examined to say that they saw the accused attiring bloodstained clothes, all turned hostile.3.3. P.W.13 the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2003 for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P.12 First Information Report and sent copies of the same to the higher ups.On receipt of Ex.P.12, P.W.14 Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation, arrested the accused, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.He conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P.14 inquest report.He sent the body for post-mortem through P.W.11 along with requisition, Ex.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.P.4 mahazar.He further recovered M.Os.3 to 5, clothing of the deceased and M.O.6 series to M.O.9 series and M.O.12 series, gold and silver articles belonging to the deceased from P.W.11 and sent the same under Ex.P1 that as appendicitis operation was to be performed to his mother and his father was also not doing well, the accused asked the deceased not to go to her native at that point of time, but despite the same, the deceased was determined to go to her native and forcibly attempted to take money from his shirt pocket.(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J) The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.09.2006 in S.C.No.229 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, convicting and sentencing the appellant herein, to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The charge against the accused is that on 20.1.2003 at about 10.30 am., in the wordy quarrel following his refusal to permit his wife to visit her parents, when the wife tried to take money from his shirt pocket, the accused with the intention to cause death of his wife and also with the knowledge of the same, attacked his wife Anitha with stick on her right eye-brow and head with the result, the wife Anitha died and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC.On receipt of Ex.P.5 requisition, P.W.10 Dr.Navaneethan, attached to Government Hospital, Hosur, conducted post-mortem and found the following injuries:06cm x 03cm x bone deep laceration from right lateral orbital wall obliquely extends towards right temporal aspect.2. 03cm x 03cm x bone deep laceration parallel to right upper eye brow.3. 03cm x 03cm x bone deep laceration left front temporal aspect 5cm above the upper aspect of external pinna fracture of temporal bone seen at the lacerated area (horizontally lacerated)."The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to intra-cranial injury and bleeding and issued Ex.P.6 Post-mortem Certificate.He has further opined that the injuries could have been caused by M.O.1 stick.P.W.14 seized M.O.9 bloodstained earth and M.O.10 sample earth from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P.3 mahazar.He also seized M.O.1 bloodstained stick and M.O.2 bloodstained shirt on being produced by the accused under Ex.P7 Form 95 for subjecting the same to chemical analysis.P.W.12 is the Magisterial Clerk, who despatched the material objects to the Chemical Analyst under Ex.P.9 Court's letter and received Ex.P.10 Chemical Examiner's Report and Ex.P.11 Serologist's Report.As the offence punishable under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri for trial.After recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Judge explained to the accused the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused denied the same.The accused did not examine any witness in his defence.On appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned giving rise to the above appeal.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the occurrence took place in the agricultural land of the accused, there was no direct witness to substantiate the case of the prosecution.The extra judicial confession cannot be accepted since prima facie it appears the same has been concocted at the instruction of the Investigating Officer.In the extra judicial confession, it has been admitted by the accused that the conduct of the deceased provoked him and hence, he attacked the deceased on her forehead and the deceased fainted and fell down.Even thereafter, he attacked the deceased on her head and the same is substantiated through the medical evidence.The act of the accused in attacking the deceased even after her falling down shows that he had intention to do away with the deceased and hence, the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is made out.We have perused the materials available on record and the oral submissions made by both sides.The fact that the deceased died a homicidal death is not in dispute.The medical officer who had performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has mentioned the injuries noticed by him in his substantive evidence before the Court.It is nobody's case that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were self-inflicted.Therefore, the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death stands proved beyond pale of doubt.Whether the injuries found on the deceased had been inflicted by the accused is the question that has to be seen next.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution would depend on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer as the witnesses lined up by the prosecution to prove and link the circumstances against the accused, have turned hostile.In Ex.P.1 statement, the accused stated that on the fateful day, when he went to his farm for cutting grass for his cattle, the deceased came there along with cattle and informed him that she wanted to go to her native, and as appendicitis operation was to be performed to his mother and his father was also not doing well, the accused asked her not to go to her native, but despite the same, the deceased wanted to go to her native and she tried to forcibly take money from his shirt pocket for going to her parents place and aggrieved by such conduct of his wife, he got wild and took the stick lying there and attacked on her forehead.P.1 further proceeds that the deceased fainted and fell down and again he beat her and left the place and threw the stick in a nearby bush and left for Hosur.As already observed, though the prosecution has examined many witnesses to show the circumstances that followed immediately after the occurrence, viz., the accused was seen throwing the stick in a bush and he was seen wearing bloodstained clothes, those witnesses turned hostile.According to P.W.1, on receipt of Ex.P.1, he went to the police station and handed over the accused and the statement along with his report.Though P.W.2 has turned hostile, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he accompanied the Village Administrative Officer P.W.1 to the police station and he signed the statement.It is trite that in the event of a portion of evidence not being consistent with the statements given under Section 161 and the witness stands declared hostile, that does not, however, mean and imply total rejection of the evidence and the portion which stands in favour of the prosecution or the accused may be accepted, but the same shall be subjected to close scrutiny.Applying the same, we are of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.2 can be accepted to the extent that he went to the police station with P.W.1 and he signed the statement.Further, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that on the basis of Ex.P.1 statement given by the accused, P.W.1 went to the field and found the dead body of the deceased lying.A perusal of the evidence of investigating officer shows that he seized M.O.1 stick as identified by the accused, which was corroborated by P.W.1 From the above circumstances as found in the prosecution witnesses coupled with the statement Ex.P.1, the prosecution has established that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased in the field in which the accused got angry and suddenly picked up a stick lying there and attacked the deceased resulting in her death.It is only after verbal duel, the accused picked up a stick lying on the ground and delivered a blow on her forehead.It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had acted cruelly in the sense that he had delivered successive blows on the deceased and the accused took sufficient time to give the second blow.Considering all the aspects, we are of the considered opinion that Exception 4 to section 300 IPC would apply to the facts of the case and the offence committed by the appellant would be one punishable under section 304 IPC.There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant had committed culpable homicide amounting to murder by causing death of the deceased with the intention of causing death of the deceased.Therefore, the provisions of Part II of section 304 IPC would apply to the facts of the case on hand.Thus, the appeal will have to be allowed by converting the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC to one punishable under section 304 Part II IPC.Having regard to the circumstances in which the incident had taken place, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for commission of offence under section 304 Part II, IPC.In the result, the judgment of conviction and sentence by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri rendered in S.C.No.229 of 2003 dated 29.9.2006 is set aside and instead, the accused is convicted under section 304, Part II, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two years.The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellant and to commit him to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The Principal Sessions Judge Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.The Inspector of Police Mathirigi Police Station Hosur, Krishnagiri Taluk (Crime No.11/2003).The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,725,175 | as (Rejected) C.R.M. 8554 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09.09.2019 in connection with Hemtabad P. S. Case No.97 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018 under Sections 143/448/323/325/427/506/332/333/353/307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of PDPP Act and Section 4 of West Bengal Madicare Service Persons and Madicare Service Institutions Prevention of Violence and Damaged to Property Act. In the matter of : Selim Reza alias Md. Reza.... Petitioner.Mr. Kazi Mokhlasur Rahman....for the Petitioner......for the State.(Jay Sengupta,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,256,335 | M.(Bail)1440/2018 (seeking interim anticipatory bail)Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.391/2018 under Sections 354/354-B/506/34 IPC, Police Station Neb Sarai.The complainant as well as the petitioner are known to each other for the last several years.As per the allegations of the complainant, the petitioner owed money to the complainant and issued a cheque which got dishonoured.It is alleged that the petitioner had come to the shop of the bother of the complainant and started fighting BAIL APPLN.2114/2018 Page 1 of 3 with regard to the bouncing of the cheque.Subsequent thereto, he is alleged to have misbehaved with the complainant.He submits that in fact the complainant along with her family had assaulted the petitioner which was captured by a CCTV camera.By order dated 12.09.2018, the petitioner was directed to provide copy of the CCTV footage to the Investigating Officer and the petitioner was granted interim protection subject to joining investigation.5. Learned APP for the State, under instructions, submits that the petitioner did join investigation.Further, it is stated in the status report that a CD of the footage was provided which shows that the petitioner was beaten and dragged by the complainant and the other persons, which, however, is a part of an entire incident.Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view of the nature of allegations an on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of BAIL APPLN.2114/2018 Page 2 of 3 the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice either the investigation or the prosecution witnesses.BAIL APPLN.2114/2018 Page 2 of 3The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.9. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 14, 2018 st BAIL APPLN.2114/2018 Page 3 of 3BAIL APPLN.2114/2018 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,257,504 | Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant Brahma, involved in Case Crime No. 225 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, P.s.Khadda, district Kushinagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,269,311 | The applicant No.2 and the applicant No. 3 are father-in-law and brother- in-law of the deceased Nazma respectively.-( 2 )-R.No.915/2015 23.11.2014 the applicant No.2 has lodged missing report at Police Station Panihar stated that his daughter-in-law Nazma went to toilet at 7:00 PM today.When she did not come back, applicants searched at their level best but when she was not found, the applicant No.2 has lodged the report.(03.04.2017) The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.178/2015, whereby the charges for commission of offences punishable under Section 498A, 304-B and in alternative 306 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the applicants.On 29.11.2014 Police Station Pichhore has found one dead body in Chiruli canal, then Merg No.17/2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station Pichhore and during the inquiry of merg, the dead body of Nazma was identified.During the investigation, the Police recorded the statements of the parents and the relatives of the deceased and other witnesses and it was found that the applicants were persistently making demand of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and when the deceased did not fulfill their demands, she was continuously being harassed by the applicants for fulfillment of their demands, therefore, she committed suicide.On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, a criminal case under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered.After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Competent Court.In order to initiate the trial, the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, on the material brought on record proceeded to frame the charges against the-( 3 )-R.No.915/2015 present applicants.Being aggrieved by framing of the aforesaid charges, this revision petition has been filed by the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the marriage of the deceased Nazma with the applicant No.1 Nizam Shah was solemnized in Mass Marriage Conference organized by Raja Garib Nawaz Ala Hazrat Shadi Sammelan.The respondent No.2 could not disclose any fact with regard to demand of dowry made by the applicants prior to the death of the deceased Nazma, but after death with malafide intention and only to drag the applicants into the criminal case the respondent No.2 had made false and fabricated statement against the applicants.There is no specific allegation made against the applicants with regard to demand of dowry.Learned trial Court should have examined the charge-sheet deeply, while framing the charges, but learned Trial Judge in mechanical manner framed the aforesaid charges against the applicants.I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the charge-sheet.Normally, it is observed that where married women die under the circumstances otherwise than normal, usually an inquiry is conducted by the Police to find out whether death is natural or under shady conditions.If there is material on record to conclude that prima-facie there was material to support allegation made against the accused persons, then the trial court can indeed frame a charge of dowry demand punishable under Section 304-B of IPC..In the present matter, it was alleged that after marriage, the applicants were persistently making demand of dowry of Rs.200000/- from the deceased Nazma and they were ill-treating her which prompted her to commit suicide.On perusal of the statements of mother of the deceased Smt. Anisha Shah and brothers namely, Mehtab Shah, Ibrahim, Prabhulal Atka-( 5 )-Cr.R.No.915/2015 and other relatives of the deceased, I found that there is a specific allegation made against the applicants regarding demand of dowry and harassment.Although no specific year, month, date and time is mentioned in their statements but the neighbours of the applicants also supported the version of the mother of the deceased Nazma regarding demand of dowry and harassment.When the applicants came to the house of mother of the deceased, then they assaulted deceased Nazma with intention to take her away by force.The independent witnesses stated in their statements that the applicants harassed Nazma for fulfillment of demand of dowry, therefore, she was forced to live with her mother and after compromise, Nazma came to her matrimonial house and thus supported the prosecution case. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,727,690 | (2).The prosecution case as unfolded at the trial, in nut- shell, is as under :(1).On the night of 22.10.2001 at about 02.25 hours Nirmala Bai (PW8) lodged an oral report at Police outpost Padam Nagar of Police Station Moghat Road of Khandawa city stating that her daughter Jyoti (since deceased) aged about seven years has gone missing since the night of 21.10.2001 from Jabran colony (for short "the colony"), where she resides with her family members.Constable Abdul Hafiz (PW11) recorded the missing person report in Rojnamcha No.618, a true copy of which being Ex.P/18A, with the descriptions of her physical appearance, wearing clothes and articles.Upon the report, Missing Persons Case No.13 of 2001 was registered at P.S Moghat Road.(2).On 22.10.2001 at about 7 AM, Manohar (PW9), the Tau of deceased Jyoti, informed Sub Inspector Harishankar (PW15), the In-charge of said Police outpost, that the dead body of Jyoti with injuries on her person is lying in an open plot which is by the side of the house of one Chanda Bai in the Colony.Thereupon, Harishnakar CRA NO.267/2004recorded a Merg intimation Report under Section 174 Cr.Thereafter, he proceeded to the said place.There, in the presence of Ravindra (PW12), Vasant (PW14), Saligram (PW20) and other witnesses he prepared inquest report Ex.Thereafter, he sent the dead body of deceased Jyoti for postmortem examination.According to P.M report Ex.P/4, deceased Jyoti died of asphyxia due to smothering and she was subjected to rape before her death.On the basis of the P.M report, on 22.10.2001 Harishankar lodged FIR being Ex.P/22 at police outpost Padam Nagar and registered a crime against an unknown offender under Section 376 and 302 IPC.(3).Inspector J.N.Deewan (PW21), the SHO of P.S Moghat Road, took up the investigation.On 22.10.2001, upon inputs, he searched one room kuccha rented house of appellant Vinod situated in the Colony in the presence of Raju (PW7) and Saligram (PW20), wherefrom he seized one child bracelet made of steel, blood-stained articles such as CRA NO.267/2004Thereafter, he arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.He also interrogated him in the presence of said witnesses and prepared a disclosure statement Ex.P/9 in which he stated that deceased Jyoti's underwear was hidden by appellant Deepak.Whereupon, he took appellant Deepak in custody and interrogated him.Upon his disclosure statement Ex.P/8, he seized one underwear of deceased Jyoti in a heap of garbage lying in Padamnagar an adjoining colony vide seizure memo Ex.Thereafter, he arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.P/7 and also seized his blood stained pants vide seizure memo Ex.P/13 from his house situated in the colony.He sent both the appellants for medico-legal examinations.Dr. Narendra Kumar Jain (PW5) medically examined them and opined that both the appellants are physically capable of doing sexual intercourse and gave reports Ex.On various dates, he recorded the case diary statements of the witnesses who were conversant with the facts of the case.(4).On 3.11.2001, Smt. Usha Singh (PW4) held identification parade of articles namely one child bracelet and one underwear.In the course of identification, Nirmala Bai and his daughter Chhaya (PW2) identified the said articles as those of deceased Jyoti.(5).The daughter of her Jeth Manohar (PW9) dressed them up in her house which is a few houses away from her own house in the colony.On the fateful night, deceased Jyoti had worn a white frock, a red underwear, a bracelet and a pair of anklets.Chhaya came all alone after performing Garba dances.Thereupon, she inquired from her about Jyoti.She told her that she wore a Saree for playing Garba dances taking her frock off and asked Jyoti to go the house to keep it.Thereupon, she and her family members searched her but in vain.Later, she went to police outpost Padam Nagar and lodged a missing report of deceased Jyoti.In the following morning, the residents of her colony told them that the deceased's dead body was lying in an open plot by the side of the house of one Chanda Bai.Thereupon, they went to the place and saw the deceased Jyoti's dead body.They noticed that blood had oozed out in a large quantity from her vagina and nose.Thereupon, her Jeth Manohar went to CRA NO.267/2004(11).I.O. J.N. Deewan (PW21) has testified that in the course of investigation of the case, he got some inputs upon which he took appellant Vinod in custody and got his house unlocked by himself and searched his one room rented house situated in the colony in the presence of witnesses Raju and Saligram.In the course of search, he found blood stained articles namely one mattress, one pants and one shirt as also a small wisp of long hair on one pillow and another pillow, whitish substance in which a few long shreds of hair got stuck.Under a cot, he found one child bracelet and some human faeces with soil and outside of his house, one underwear being dried upon which he also noticed blood stains.Thereafter, he interrogated appellant Vinod.He told him before the aforesaid witnesses that appellant Deepak had hidden CRA NO.267/2004deceased Jyoti's underwear in the heap of garbage lying in the Padamnagar, an adjoining colony.Upon his said information, he prepared disclosure statement Ex.Later, he arrested him vide seizure memo Ex.He has further deposed that on the basis of the said information given by appellant Vinod, he took appellant Deepak in custody and interrogated him in the presence of aforesaid witnesses.He told that he had hidden deceased Jyoti's underwear underneath a heap of garbage lying in Padamnagar.(Pronounced on the th day of July, 2017) Per: RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, J.The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge Khandwa in Sessions Trial No.84 of 2002, whereby and CRA NO.267/2004whereunder they have been convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) and 302 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years in the former count and RI for life in the latter count "each" with the direction that the sentences awarded in the aforesaid Sections shall run concurrently.Upon completion of the investigation, the police charge-sheeted both the appellants for their prosecution under Sections 363, 376, 302 and 201 IPC.(3).Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against both the appellants under Sections 376 (2) (g) and 302 in alternative 302 r.w.34 IPC.They denied the charges and prayed for trial.Thereupon, they were put to trial.In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied all the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case.They took the defence simplicitor that they were falsely implicated in the case.However, they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their defence.(4).Learned Sessions Judge, upon analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record, has held that the prosecution has proved following circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.On the basis thereof, learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under Sections 376 (2)(g) and 302 r.w.34 IPC and sentenced them thereunder as noted in para 1 of this judgment;(1).Disappearance of deceased Jyoti in the night of 21.10.2001 and recovery of her dead body in the following morning;(2).Seizure of incriminating articles from the house of appellant Vinod;(3).Seizure of deceased Jyoti's underwear at the instance of appellant Deepak;(4).Presence of stains of human blood and shreds of human pubic hair on the articles seized from the possession of appellants namely blanket, pillows, underwear, pants and deceased Jyoti's underwear and her wearing frock as per FSL reports;(5).Medical evidence regarding homicidal death of deceased Jyoti, and before her death she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse;(5).Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the investigating officer J.N.Deewan has cooked up circumstantial evidence to implicate the appellants in the case.(6).Learned Government Advocate justified the correctness of impugned judgment.(7).We have carefully considered the rival submissions CRA NO.267/2004made at the Bar and perused the entire material on record and the impugned judgment.the police outpost Padam Nagar and informed the police.The aforesaid evidence of Nirmala Bai was fully corroborated by the evidence of Chhaya (PW2) and Manohar (PW9).Thereupon, he prepared his disclosure statement Ex.He also seized one pants from his house situated in the colony vide seizure memo Ex.P/13 as he had noticed stains of semen on it.(12).The aforesaid evidence of I.O. J.N. Deewan has been fully corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses Raju and Saligram in their examinations-in-chief in material particulars.We have carefully perused their cross- examinations, and we find that there is nothing adverse in their cross-examinations to disbelieve their evidence.Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that in addition to other articles, I.O. J.N. Deewan seized from the possession of appellant Vinod one child bracelet and that of appellant Deepak one underwear.(13).Smt. Uma Singh (PW4) has deposed that upon the CRA NO.267/2004written request of the police, she held the identification parade of the articles sent by the police in the premises of Tehsil office Khandwa as per procedure.In the identification, Nirmala Bai and Chhaya have identified one child bracelet and one underwear as those belonging to deceased Jyoti.Thereupon, she prepared identification memo Ex.In para 7, Nirmala Bai has deposed that in the identification parade of articles she identified the said articles.She has also identified the said articles while recording her evidence before the trial court.Upon a perusal of the cross-examinations of both the witnesses, we find that the defence has failed to shake the veracity of their evidence.Thus, we hold that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that I.O. J.N. Deewan seized one child bracelet from the possession of appellant Vinod and one underwear from the possession of appellant Deepak, which belonged to deceased Jyoti.(14).As per FSL report Ex.P/26, stains of human blood were found on the articles namely deceased Jyoti's wearing frock, one blanket, one pillow, appellant Vinod's underwear and pants, and deceased Jyoti's underwear.As per the report, `B' group of human blood was detected on the pillow.However, the blood group on remaining aforestated articles could not be detected due to disintegration of blood and inconclusive tests results.As per FSL report Ex.P-27, a few pubic hair of human origin were found on both the CRA NO.267/2004seized pillows, on deceased Jyoti's wearing frock.However, they were not adequate for comparison whether they were of the appellants.We find that there is no reason to disbelieve the FSL reports.Thus, on the basis of FSL reports, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the articles seized from the possession of both the appellants were stained with human blood and some articles were having human pubic hair.It be noted that both the appellants have not given any explanation as to why stains of human blood and pubic hair were found on the articles seized from their possession, which in turn connect them conclusively to the crime.(15).Dr. Dilip (PW6) and Dr. Hemlata (PW10) have stated in their evidence that on 22.10.2001 they had jointly conducted postmortam examination on the dead body of deceased Jyoti in the Mortuary of district hospital Khandwa.They have noticed following injuries on her person.External Injuries :(1).Blood was oozing out from the nose;(2).Two ante-mortem contusions of size near about half inch long on the right cheek and mandible;(3).Dry blood on both the thighs and vagina; (4).1/3rd lower part of vagina was lacerated, the size of which was 2.5 CMX1.5 CM and 1 CM;(5).Labia minora and hymen were also torn;Internal Injuries :They have opined that the deceased's mouth and nose were pressed with force as a result she died due to asphyxia by smothering.She died about 24 hours prior to the commencement of the postmortem examination by them.They have also opined that the injuries over and inside deceased Jyoti's vagina prove that she was subjected to forcible intercourse before her death.They have proved deceased Jyoti's postmortem report Ex.Upon the perusal of their cross-examinations, we find that the defence has not challenged seriously that deceased Jyoti died of asphyxia due to smothering and she was subjected to rape before her death.Therefore, placing implicit reliance upon their evidence, we hold that it is proved beyond doubt that deceased Jyoti suffered a homicidal death and she was subjected to rape before her death.(16).Dr. Narendra Jain (PW5) has deposed that upon the requisition of the police, on 23.10.2001, he medico-legally examined appellants namely Vinod and Pradeep and found that they were capable of performing sexual intercourse.He has proved their medico-legal reports Ex.P/2 and P/3 respectively.The defence has not cross-examined this witness.Thus, there is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of this witness.P.C that a few days before the incident, he had come to reside in the house (please see reply to question no.19).There is ample evidence on record to hold that appellant Deepak was also a resident of the colony and he has friendship with appellant Vinod.Nirmala Bai in para 8 of her evidence has stated that at the time of the incident, street lights of the colony were not burning.We have already held that it has been proved that I.O. J.N. Deewan seized from the house of appellant Vinod one child bracelet, blood-stained articles namely one blanket, one mattress, one pillow out of the two, one underwear and some human faeces and seized deceased Jyoti's underwear at the instance of appellant Deepak from the heap of garbage as stated herein-above.Upon combining the aforesaid pieces of circumstantial evidence, we hold that it is conclusively proved that both the appellants lifted the 7 year old Jyoti taking advantage of darkness prevailing in the colony when the street lights CRA NO.267/2004were off.Thereafter, they brought her in appellant Vinod's house, committed rape and murdered her by smothering in order to cause the disappearance of evidence of rape and threw her dead body on the open plot.(18).After combining of the aforesaid proved circumstances, we are of the opinion that a complete chain is formed, which leads only to conclusion that none other than the appellants had committed the crime.(19).From the aforesaid close scrutiny of circumstantial evidence on record, reasons and discussions, we find no infirmity or defect on facts or law in the impugned judgment. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,531,723 | 2 Brief facts leading to the institution of present appeals can be summarized thus :(a) The appellant / accused no.2 Raju Shyamlal Nishad is neighbour of the minor female child, who is reported to be a minor girl aged about 3 years.Appellant / accused no.1 Ramkesh Kewat also resides in the neighbourhood of the victim minor girl.According to the prosecution case, they all were residing at avk 2/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc Kajupada locality of Sakinaka, Mumbai.On 14 th April 2010, according to the prosecution case, both the appellants / accused took the victim minor girl to the room of appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad and there they committed rape on her.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::(b) According to the prosecution case, PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi - a worker in the garment factory came out of the garment factory to have a cup of tea.On not getting response, he peeped inside the said house from the cement grill of the wall to see the appellant / accused no.1 Ramkesh Kewat committing rape on the victim minor girl and the appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad sitting near head of the victim minor girl.People from the locality gathered there and ultimately door of the house came to be opened.The victim came out of the house and was taken by her mother to her house.People from the locality confined both the appellants / accused inside the room.avk 3/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::(c) Shortly thereafter, PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi - father of the prosecutrix, returned to his house.He took his minor daughter to the hospital of Dr.He was advised to take her to Rajawadi hospital, Mumbai.Accordingly, after lodging the First Information Report (FIR), PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi along with mother of the victim minor girl and PW6 Ragini Waghmare, A.P.I. Sakinaka Police Station, went to Rajawadi hospital, where PW5 Dr.Shreeram Ayyar examined the victim minor girl and treated her.(d) On the basis of the FIR lodged by PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi, Crime No.175 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 376(f) read with 34 of the IPC came to be registered against the appellants / accused.During the course of investigation, the spot came to be inspected in presence of PW2 Ajijur Rehman Khan by the Investigating Officer.She is PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::respectively are challenging the judgment and order dated 10 th February 2012 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.489 of 2010 thereby convicting both of them of the offence punishable under Section 376(f) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, apart from directing payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, by each of them.The blood stained towel came to be seized while drawing spot panchnama.Similarly, frock and nicker produced by the father of the prosecutrix also came to be seized.Statement of witnesses came avk 4/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc to be recorded and on completion of routine investigation, the appellants / accused came to be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::(e) The learned trial Judge framed and explained the charge for the offence punishable under Section 376(f) read with 34 of the IPC to both the appellants / accused.They abjured their guilt and claimed trial.(f) For proving the charge against the appellants / accused, the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses.PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi is the father of the victim minor girl.PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi is the neighbour of the victim minor girl and appellants / accused persons.PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi is also a neighbour, who had actually witnessed the incident in question.PW5 Dr.Shreeram Ayyar is a gynecologist working with Rajawadi hospital.He had examined the victim minor girl and also proved papers of medical avk 5/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc treatment.PW6 Ragini Waghmare, A.P.I., Sakinaka Police Station, had conducted part of investigation.PW7 Sanjay Pradhan, A.P.I., Sakinaka Police Station has also partly conducted the investigation of the crime in question.Ultimately charge-sheet against the appellants / accused came to be filed by PW8 A.P.I. Nanasaheb Gawali.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::(g) After hearing the parties, the learned trial court by the impugned judgment and order came to the conclusion that both appellants / accused in furtherance of their common intention, had committed rape on the victim minor girl, who was less than 12 years of age, and accordingly, they came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376(f) read with 34 of the IPC and were sentenced accordingly, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.3 I have heard Ms.She further argued that mother of the victim minor girl is not examined by the prosecution, and therefore, evidence of the prosecution is lacunic.It is further argued that the prosecution has not examined any disinterested witnesses to prove its case, as even according to the prosecution, lot of people had gathered in front of the house of the appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad at the time of the incident in question.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::4 As against this, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order by contending that the defence has not established that because of mentioning incorrect section while convicting both appellants / accused, there was failure of justice.The learned APP relied on provisions of Section 215 as well as 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for contending that as there is avk 7/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc no failure of justice, appellants / accused cannot be heard to say that the trial itself is vitiated.The learned APP placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dalbir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 for contending that appellants / accused were aware about basic ingredients of the offence and facts constituting the offence were clearly explained to them.The learned APP further argued that as the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to infer guilt, non-examination of other witnesses which may be available, cannot cause any prejudice to the case of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::Keeping in mind these principles, let us examine evidence of the prosecution in order to infer whether appellants / accused in furtherance of their common intention, had committed rape on the victim minor girl, who at the relevant time, according to the prosecution case, was aged about 3 years.6 It is the case of the prosecution that PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi is an eye witness to the incident of sexual assault on the victim minor girl.The prosecution has not examined the minor girl victim of the crime in question, probably because, according to its case, she was just 3 years old, when the incident in question took place.Section 118 of the Evidence Act recognizes infancy and consequent inability to understand the question and give rational answers.The victim minor female, because of her tender age, may not be having sufficient intelligence and capacity to understand the questions and to give rational answers.Non- examination of such infant victim by the prosecution is of no consequence, if ultimately by other trustworthy evidence the prosecution is successful in establishing the offence.The avk 9/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc prosecution is mainly relying on the eye witness account of the incident given by its witness.It is worthwhile to note that evidence of her father - PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi, so also evidence of other witnesses namely PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi - neighbour of the victim minor girl and PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi, who claimed to be acquainted with family of the victim minor girl, is conspicuously silent about age of the victim minor girl.As the incident in question is allegedly witnessed by PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi, let us examine his evidence first.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::7 Evidence of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi shows that at the time of the incident i.e. on 14 th April 2010, he was working as a tailor in a garment factory of Shoeb Qureshi.He came out of the said garment factory at about 7 p.m. of that day, for having a cup of tea.As seen from his evidence, he heard noise of children from the locality that the victim minor girl was taken inside the house.PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi deposed that when he reached near the house of the appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad, he heard avk 10/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc noise of a girl child and therefore, knocked the door of the house of the appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad.Nobody responded and therefore, as per version of this witness, he peeped inside the house from the cement grill window.PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi testified that then he noticed that appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad was sitting by the side of head of the victim minor girl and appellant /accused no.1 Ramkesh Kewat was committing sexual intercourse with the victim minor girl.Subsequently, the door was opened.The victim minor girl came out and mother of the victim minor girl picked her up.PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi was very specific in stating that he had noticed oozing of blood from private part of the victim female girl.As per evidence of this witness, both the appellants / accused were then confined inside the room by people of the locality by locking the door from outside.8 It needs to be noted that from cross-examination of this witness also, it is brought on record by the defence that PW4 avk 11/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc Masihuljama Qureshi had actually seen the appellant / accused no.1 Ramkesh Kewat thrusting his penis inside vagina of the victim minor girl.From cross-examination of this witness, it is further brought on record that this witness himself had seen blood oozing from the private part of the victim minor girl.Apart from this, from the searching cross-examination of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi, nothing is brought on record to disbelieve his version about the incident or his presence on the scene of the occurrence at the time of the incident.On the contrary, the defence has got confirmed presence of this witness on the spot of the incident by eliciting from this witness that he had actually seen the incident of commission of rape on the victim minor girl.As such, I see no reason to disbelieve version of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi about the incident in question.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::9 One may argue that being an acquaintance of the family of the victim minor girl, this witness is a partisan witness, and therefore, his testimony cannot be relied unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other evidence on record.avk 12/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc Let us, therefore, examine what another prosecution witness, who is resident of the said locality, deposed about the incident.Her evidence shows that at the relevant time she was residing in front of room of PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi - father of the victim minor girl.Her evidence further shows that appellant /accused no.2 Raju Nishad was residing by the side of the room of PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi and appellant /accused no.2 Raju Nishad is his friend, who used to visit the house of the appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad, frequently.As per evidence of PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi, at about 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. of 14th April 2010, she heard noise of public and saw PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi as well as wife of PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi standing in front of house of appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad.PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi testified that they were knocking the door of the house of appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad, and three to four persons were also present there.As seen from evidence of PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi, then the door came to be opened and daughter of PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi came out weeping.At that avk 13/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc time, as stated by PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi, both appellants / accused persons were present inside the house.This witness further deposed that she had seen blood oozing from the private part of the victim minor girl.In cross-examination of this witness, it is again reaffirmed that PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi was present on the spot at the time of the incident.It is further brought on record that after hearing the noise, mother of the victim minor girl, went to the house of the appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad and knocked the door and subsequently, the victim minor girl came out and at that time, she was weeping.Thus, presence of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi on the scene of occurrence at the time of the incident is again confirmed in the cross-examination of PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi.Thus, I see no reason to disbelieve version of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi that upon hearing noise of a girl, he firstly knocked the door of appellant / accused no.2 and subsequently, peeped inside to see that the minor girl - victim of the crime in question, was being raped by appellant / accused no.1 Ramkesh Kewat, while appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad sitting nearby.Evidence of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi is avk 14/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc gaining full corroboration from the testimony of PW3 Momina Khatun Qureshi.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::10 PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi has stated in his evidence that at about 7.45 p.m. of 14th April 2010, he returned to his home and saw his daughter lying on the floor while blood oozing from her private part.As per his evidence, he took her to the hospital of Dr.Rehman, who told him to take her to Rajawadi hospital, Mumbai.Evidence of PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi further shows that while returning from Rajawadi hospital, PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi told him about the incident of sexual assault on his daughter by appellants / accused persons.PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi has proved former statement of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi made to him soon after the incident and precisely while returning from Rajawadi hospital.This duly proved former statement of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi is to the effect that after hearing noise of a girl emanating from the house of appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad, PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi peeped inside the house after knocking the door and saw avk 15/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc appellant / accused no.1 Ramkesh Kewat committing rape on the victim minor girl while appellant /accused no.2 Raju Nishad sitting nearby.This duly proved former statement of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi corroborates the version of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi and is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::The same came to be lodged in the night intervening 14th April 2010 and 15th April 2010 and precisely at 00.10 hours.Shreeram Ayyar, a gynecologist working with Rajawadi hospital, Mumbai, at about 11.50 p.m. of 14th April 2010 avk 16/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc i.e. soon after the incident.Version of this witness, to the effect that victim minor girl is a 3 years old child, is not challenged in the cross-examination.As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of this witness, who is an expert to conclude that the victim of the crime in question is a minor girl.Thus, the void in evidence of other witnesses regarding age of the minor female victim is cured and it is seen that the minor female victim at the time of the incident was below 12 years of age.13 Upon examination of the victim minor girl, PW5 Dr.Shreeram Ayyar has noticed following injuries on her private part :::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::i) Laceration present bilaterally, labia majora and labia minora.Linear laceration present.ii) Fourchette and intreoitus min.bleeding present from fourchette, laceration present about 1 c.m. and one small blood clot on fourchette at intreoitus.iii)Anus and rectum perianal regions stains present.Contemporaneous record i.e. medical case papers maintained by avk 17/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc Rajawadi hospital (Exhibit 27) duly corroborates version of PW5 Dr.Shreeram Ayyar regarding signs of sexual violence on person of the victim minor girl.Evidence of PW5 Dr.Shreeram Ayyar is duly corroborated by contemporaneous medical record which shows that there was laceration of labia majora and labia minora of the victim minor daughter of PW1 Abu Hasan Ali Hasan Qureshi and she was bleeding from fourchette and intreoitus.Stains were seen on her anus and rectum region.This evidence fully corroborates version of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi to the effect that he had seen appellant / accused no.1 Ramkesh Kewat committing sexual intercourse with the victim minor girl at the house of appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad, making his eye witness account trustworthy and reliable.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::14 As seen from the evidence of Investigating Officer, seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.Nicker of the victim minor girl was found to be stained with human blood, as seen from the Chemical Analyser's Report placed on record by the prosecution.This evidence further corroborates the version of the avk 18/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc prosecution regarding the offence of rape on the victim minor female child.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::15 Evidence adduced by the prosecution and discussed in foregoing paragraphs is sufficient to conclude that the minor girl victim of the crime in question was subjected to sexual violence and rape by appellants / accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.Common intention of appellants / accused can be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances as has come on record from evidence of PW4 Masihuljama Qureshi.This witness had seen appellant / accused no.1 actually committing rape on the victim minor girl while the appellant / accused no.2 Raju Nishad sitting by the side of head of the victim minor girl.The place of offence was the room of appellant /accused no.2 Raju Nishad.Hence the appellant /accused no.2 Raju Nishad cannot escape the liability under Section 34 of the IPC.16 It is sought to be made out that the offence was actually that of gang rape, but charge for the offence punishable avk 19/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc under Section 376(2)(g) was not framed and charge for the offence punishable under Section 376(f) read with Section 34 of the IPC was erroneously framed and therefore, the trial vitiates.This submission cannot be said to be having any merit.Liability in terms of Section 376(2)(g) is existence of common intention of accused persons.In the case in hand, instead of applying Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, the learned trial court had framed and explained the charge to both appellants / accused persons under Section 376(f) read with 34 of the IPC as the minor girl victim of the crime in question was less than 12 years of age.The charge framed against appellants / accused clearly indicates that they were aware about basic ingredients of the offence alleged against them and that the main acts which were sought to be established against both of them were properly explained to them with an averment that on 14th April 2010 at about 19.00 hours at Room No.3 Kajupada Pipe avk 20/21::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: 202-APPEALS-426-2012-449-2012-J.doc line, they both in furtherance of their common intention committed rape on the victim minor girl aged about 3 years.This charge at Exhibit 7 by no stretch of imagination can be said to have misled appellants / accused persons of the acts sought to be established against them.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 :::17 In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that error of charge framed against appellants / accused persons has occasioned in failure of justice.The same is inconsequential.18 In the result, both appeals fail and as such, the order :ORDER Criminal Appeal Nos.426 of 2012 and 449 of 2012 are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:42:34 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,538,001 | Thereafter 2 M.Cr.C. No.3052 of 2007 they started assaulting the complainant.It is alleged that Lakhan Kurmi also assaulted the victim by barrel of a gun causing him injury on left side of his head.Thereafter, on the instigation of accused No.1 to 4, remaining accused had assaulted the victim by fists and sticks.Thereafter, they entered into the house and took a sum of Rs.10,000/- from a box.When witnesses Swami Prasad, Vishnu Ram, Murli Chamar, Darbari and Kallu Thakur came to save the victim, then accused persons broken the irrigation motor and pipes of the victim.Witness Halle was threatened not to work with the complainant in future.Some of the accused persons took the witness Halle in the house of Ramgopal and broken the tiles of the roof of the house.Some firing from firearms was also made and thereafter Ramgopal was taken to the Police Station and kept behind the bars.A fake case under Section 151 of IPC was prepared.Due to injuries, he could not lodge the FIR.However, he sent an FIR to the higher police authorities by registered post.(Passed on 1st day of March, 2012) By the instant application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants have challenged the order 28.2.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No.32/2006 by which the order dated 20.12.2005 passed by the JMFC Damoh (Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) in Complaint Case No.316/2004 was reversed and it was directed to frame the charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 429 read with Section 149 of IPC.Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant had lodged a complaint before the JMFC Damoh with the pleading that on 23.12.1995 all accused persons, out of them four were police officials, came to the field of the complainant and asked about Chandu and Raghvendra.On 26.12.1995 Hakle had also sent a complaint whereas Mannulal and Sarju had also sent a complaint to the Collector.Thereafter a complaint was filed on 1.2.1996 before the Court below.After considering the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C, the trial Court has registered the complaint for commission of offence punishable under Sections 324 and 429 of IPC.The accused persons were summoned.After registration of the complaint and evidence before charge was led by the complainant.After completion of evidence before charge, the trial Court heard both the parties on the point of framing of charges.Vide order dated 3 M.Cr.C. No.3052 of 2007 20.12.2005, learned JMFC Damoh found that no offence under Section 324 or 429 of IPC is made out against the accused persons, and therefore all the accused persons were discharged from such offences.The complainant preferred a revision before the Revisionary Court and vide order dated 28.2.2007 the Revisionary Court reversed the order passed by the Magistrate and directed to frame the charges of offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 429 read with Section 149 of IPC with the pretext that no meticulous appreciation of evidence was required by the Magistrate at this stage.3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since Chandu was son of Ramgopal, who was harden criminal and required by the police, therefore some of the accused persons went to the house of Ramgopal, which was situated in his field, but no such assault or any mischief was done by any one.The complainant has implicated not only the police officials but other enemies of the village in the matter without any basis with the help of some pattent witnesses.He prepared a cooked case.If the entire matter is seen carefully, then it would be apparent that from very beginning the case was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 429 of IPC, whereas prima facie there was no evidence that the victim was assaulted by any deadly weapon or any sharp cutting weapon.It could be registered for 6 M.Cr.C. No.3052 of 2007 commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.C. No.3052 of 2007 that incident took place where he was lying in the field whereas his motor and pipes were one kilometer away from the spot and when such property was damaged he was not present to that spot.It was alleged in the complaint and statement of complainant that more than 11 persons assaulted him in a very bad manner, then he must have sustained severe injuries and therefore when he was released from the custody, he should have got treated himself, and therefore he could produce the treatment papers before the trial Court, but no such treatment paper was produced.However, the complainant has produced his documents before the trial Court.He has admitted in his cross examination that accused Lakhan was a Head Constable and person, who was assaulted him was Head Constable whereas in the complaint it is clearly mentioned that Lakhan Kurmi Constable.It means that a person who assaulted victim Ramgopal was a different Lakhan, who was a Constable, whereas the accused who was brought before the Magisterial Court being Lakhan was Head Constable.C. No.3052 of 2007 constitute.A copy of this order sent to JMFC concerned for information and compliance. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,540,293 | was pregnant, she was forcibly taken out of her matrimonial home at Ranchi and brought to her parental home at Gaya.It was for the harassment and torture meted out to her by her in-laws for demand of additional amount of dowry.The appellant wife had lodged an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya.The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the charge sheet and transferred the case to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya for trial.An objection was raised stating that the Court at Gaya had no jurisdiction. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,541,392 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.105 of 2016 on the file of the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406 and 506(ii) of IPC , as against the petitioner.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 105 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406 and 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Ananth C. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl OP(MD) No.19260 of 2016http://www.judis.nic.in Crl OP(MD) No.19260 of 2016 ......................9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the yearhttp://www.judis.nic.in Crl OP(MD) No.19260 of 2016 2016, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.105 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.09.10.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ksahttp://www.judis.nic.in Crl OP(MD) No.19260 of 2016The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl OP(MD) No.19260 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ksa Crl.O.P(MD) No. 19352 of 2016 09.10.2020http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,547,053 | It isclaimed that police authorities therein have tampered the saidrecord and shown that the same was released in February 2018.According to him, in pursuant to the complaint lodged by thecomplainant and threat of hunger strike, the Superintendent ofPolice was prompted to suspend the police officials in the said issue.As such he submits that there is no need of custodial interrogationas the applicant is very much available for the investigation.4 The learned APP would strenuously oppose the prayer for grantof pre-arrest bail.The learned APP submits that the victim'sstatement recorded under section 164 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 in categorical terms implicate the applicant in aserious offence of rape.She would then urge that there are in all sixoffences registered against the applicant, details of which are asunder:::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::(i) Crime no. 32/2012 registered with Phaltan Rural Police Station for offence punishable under sections 188 ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 ::: 4 914.128.19 aba.doc of the Indian Penal Code and under section 37 (1)(3) r/w section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::(ii) Crime no. 71/2015 registered with Phaltan Rural Police Station for offence punishable under sections 188, 447 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal CodeApart from above, according to her,investigation papers till date reflects prima facie involvement of theapplicant in the crime in question.She would also rely upon thestatement of other witnesses in addition to the statement of thevictim.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::After the said incident, victim girl continued to attendthe office of the applicant alongwith other staff members and shehad not complained anything about the said incident to the police,fellow employees or other directors of the firm.It is claimed thatapplicant called the victim girl in the office from her native place i.e.Solapur i.e. about more than 150 Kms under the pretext of meeting.She reached office in the evening, present applicant misguided her ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 ::: 6 914.128.19 aba.docby calling her for official meeting at Panvel.In Crime No. 577 of 2018 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth City Police Station, Pune for offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 376(2)(f), 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(25) of Arms Act and under section 37(1) r/w 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail.2 The prosecution case against the present applicant is the victim aged 23 years old girl alleged that she started working in a company of which the applicant is one of the director.According to him, applicant is having political identityand deep roots in the society.So as to malign his image, he has beenroped in.The learned counsel would also submits that there is afalse acquisition in some other crime against the applicantparticularly on the issue of release of licenced revolver in favour ofthe applicant.(iii) Crime no. 146/2017 registered with Phaltan Rural Police Station for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 37 (1)(3) r/w section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act(iv) Crime no. 267/2016 registered with Lonand Police Station for offence punishable under sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 39 & 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act.(v) Crime no. 458/2017 registered with Phaltan City Police Station for offence punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.(vi) Crime no. 457/2018 registered with Phaltan Rural Police Station for offence punishable under sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 143, 147, 148, 149, 109, 120(B), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 37 (1)(3) r/w section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 ::: 5 914.128.19 aba.doc5 She would then urge that of these total 6 offences, in twooffences i.e. at serial nos. 5 & 6, applicant was already released onAd-interim bail by this Court.According to her, sheattended the call of the applicant at Panvel and the applicantrepeated the act of rape in a hotel.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::8 Perusal of the documents which are seized from the hotelraised a serious dispute about the presence of the applicant in thehotel but for a photocopy of the driving licence of the applicant onthe record of the said hotel.Neither the CCTV footage are seized northe reception register is signed by the applicant to conclude thatapplicant stayed in the said hotel.9 As far as the contention of the learned APP as regards thependency of 6 offences against the applicant are concerned, perusalof the same prima facie reflects either the said offences are of non-cognizable nature being chapter proceedings or are non serious.As such, pendencyof the prosecution or registration of offence against the applicant willnot preclude this Court from exercising discretion in favour of theapplicant.Rather the conduct of the victim girl, particularly in the ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 ::: 7 914.128.19 aba.docbackdrop in the events narrated in the complaint takes this Court tothe only conclusion that in a calculated manner, she hasintentionally lodged the complaint at a belated stage afterunexplained delay of 8 months so that the relevant evidence viz.medical evidence, CCTV footage etc cannot be traced and consideredagainst the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::10 Apart from above, statement of fellow lady employee also doesnot repose any faith in the theory of the prosecution, particularlywhen the complainant for almost 8 months has not narrated thesaid incident to said employee though she was very much availableand was working with her and was in deep friendship with her.Afterthe alleged incident of rape, complainant regularly attended theoffice of the applicant, so also stayed with her family members inSolapur.The aforesaid conduct of the complainant of lodgingdelayed F.I.R. without any explanation, narration of imaginaryallegation in the complaint which are not substantiated by theevidence till date, in my opinion, prima facie warrants this Court togrant protection in favour of the applicant.Hence, following order: ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::(II) In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No. 577 of 2018 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth City Police Station, Pune, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with sureties in the like amount.(IV) Applicant shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.11 The learned counsel for the applicant on instructionsvolunteers to give all co-operation in the investigation including thatof medical examination etc.12 Application stands disposed of.[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2019 23:33:52 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,562,921 | -: 1 :- Misc.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Misc.(Mohd. Ayaz @ Lalla s/o Mohd. Sazid Ji Teli v/s State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated : 29.04.2019:-Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Nilesh Patel, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non- applicant/State.Shri Ayush Agrawal, learned counsel for the objector.Perused the case-diary.This is second application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is facing trial for committing offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC in the Court of XVIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.The facts of the case in short are that initially an unknown dead body of one Rehan was found and during the investigation, it was revealed that the applicant along with two other accused persons caught hold the deceased and one Rajkamal inflicted knife blows on the deceased resulting in his death.The co- accused Rajkamal in his memorandum has made statements against the present applicant.The statement of the witnesses are also on record.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a time lag of number of hours between the last seen and time when the dead body was recovered and there is nothing to implicate the applicant in the crime.Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that two witnesses of last seen theory Sonu Thakur (PW-1) and Mahesh (PW-2) have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story.Learned counsel has filed depositions of both these witnesses.This Court vide order dated 26.11.2018 had found that apart from the last seen theory, there was recovery of blood stained clothes from possession of the applicant also and,-: 2 :- Misc.therefore, bail application was rejected.While considering the second application for bail, vide order dated 02.04.2019 had called for the FSL report.Learned counsel for the State has submitted the FSL report.As per this report, the clothes worn by the applicant and seized from him i.e. C-1 and C-2 have not been found to contain blood stains.Learned counsel for the objector submits that this is a serious offence and that threat has been meted out by the father of the applicant to the complainant and other witnesses.This objection has been submitted in writing and seeks rejection of this application looking to the seriousness of the offence.Learned counsel for the objector, however, fairly admits that no FIR has been lodged regarding threat meted out by the father of the applicant.Learned counsel for the State was heard who opposed the bail application.The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000-00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Cc as per rules.[ Shailendra Shukla ] JUDGE (AKS) Digitally signed by Anil Kumar Sharma Date: 2019.04.30 10:02:26 +05'30' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,563,922 | It is further submitted that as per agreement he had to convert the paddy into rice after milling and had to deposit it in Government godown.It is further submitted that applicant has already deposited 19 lots of rice into godown and only 6 lots remain to be deposited.He does not intend to retain remaining rice.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;Heard with the aid of case dairy.This is first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Samarkanti Vishwas was arrested on 12.04.2019 in Crime No. 29/2019 registered at Police Station Ari, District Seoni for the offence punishable under Section 409 / 34of IPC.As per prosecution story, applicant runs a rice mill in District Seoni and his mill is registered under Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Seoni.In the year 2017-18 his mill received about 1007.50 metric tonnes of paddy for milling and up to 15/01/2009, 657.025 metric tonnes of rice had to be supplied to the Corporation after milling that paddy.It is further alleged that applicant could not mill the entire lot of paddy in stipulated time as per agreement terms and supplied only 512.95 metric tonnes of rice to the Corporation in place of 675.025 metric tonnes and 162.07 metric tonnes of rice still remain to be deposited.On that, inquiry was conducted and it was found that remaining paddy was not with the applicant in his mill and he had misappropriated that paddy.So police registered Crime No. 29/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.The remaining lot is still kept in the premises of his rice mill and workers are continuously doing their job of milling but unfortunately due to uncertain and heavy THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 22497/2019 (Samarkanti Vishwas Vs.State of M.P.) 2 unseasonal rain and interruption in electricity supply, the work of milling could not be completed within stipulated time.Police wrongly registered FIR against the applicant for criminal breach of trust for not completing the milling work within stipulated period.The applicant is ready to return the remaining paddy.Head office had directed that millers who did not deposit the rice up to 15.01.2019 will deposit the amount of rice in lieu of rice along with penalty.In this regard applicant is also ready to give solvency of Rs. 53,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Three Lakhs) to the effect that if M.P. Civil Supply Corporation allows the applicant to sell the deposited paddy/rice, the applicant will deposit Rs 53,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Three Lakhs) under protest.So, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that earlier wife of the applicant was granted bail by this court on the condition that she will return the remaining paddy or rice after milling as agreed by the District Manager Civil Supply Corporation, Seoni within two months from the date of her release, but she did not deposit that rice.Applicant embezzled the rice amounting Rs. 53,24,940/-.so he should not be released on bail.Although it is alleged that applicant embezzled 162.07 metric tonnes of rice amounting to Rs.53,24,940/-.But applicant is in custody since 12.04.2019 ,the charge sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial will take time.Applicant is ready to give solvency of Rs. 53,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Three Lakhs) under protest.So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.The applicant will also give the undertaking before trial court that he will deposit the remaining paddy / rice at MP Civil Supply Corporation if the concerned officer of MP Civil Supply Corporation is ready to receive the remaining paddy/rice.Otherwise paddy/ rice is a perishable thing which can not be kept safe for a long time so if MP Civil Supply Corporation permits the applicant to sell the remaining paddy/rice then applicant will deposit Rs.53,24,940/- before concerning officer of MP Civil Supply Corporation within 6 month from the date of the permission.If applicant fails to comply with the condition, this order will be automatically cancelled and I.O/court concerned is entitled to take applicant into custody.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 22497/2019 (Samarkanti Vishwas Vs.State of M.P.) 4 It is made clear that MP Civil Supply Sorporation is free to recover the remaining amount of rice/paddy if any and penalty amount from the applicant if law permits.C.C. on payment of usual charges. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,979,385 | (Vishal Mishra) Judge neetu SMT NEETU SHASHANK 2020.03.05 15:51:35 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,980,860 | Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 2 of 32 short DS) as peon at the material time in the building department of South Zone of MCD, Delhi.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 2 of 32The prosecution case as gathered from the records is that one house in Tughlakabad falling in South Zone and owned by Smt.Hardev Batra (the mother-in-law of the complainant PW1 and also the mother of PW2), was under some construction/repairs.On one visit, accused DS came along with labourers and took away the tools of the plumber from there.While leaving he also left a word for the owner of the family to meet accused VKC in the MCD office at Green Park.Both, complainant PW1 and his brother-in-law, Naveen Kumar (PW2) called on the accused in their office where both demanded a sum of `10,000/- for allowing construction/repairs in the said property.The demand was later reduced to `7,000/-on PW1 and PW2 expressing inability to arrange `10,000/-.Complainant PW1, instead, approached CBI office and made a complaint (Ex.PW1/A) seeking necessary action.The matter was registered and directed to be investigated by S.K. Peshin (PW9), who was also the Trap Laying Officer.As instructed, PW1 came along with the bribe money worth `5,000/- which he brought in Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 3 of 32 the shape of 100 currency notes of `50 denomination.Trap party was constituted, in which Mahesh Chand Pathak (PW4), a parcel Clerk of Northern Railway and Jagdeesh Prasad (PW5), Head Postman, Lodhi Road, were requisitioned for the purpose.They were introduced to the complainant (PW1) and other members of the trap party.The numbers of currency notes brought by complainant (PW1) were noted down.The notes were given usual phenolphthalein powder treatment.The practical demonstration about the manner in which powder was used and to react was given.Tainted currency notes were returned back to the complainant with a direction to pass it to the accused only on specific demand.PW4 Mr.Pathak was directed to be shadow witness and to remain nearby to see the transaction and overhear the conversation and give signal by scratching over his head.The pre-trap proceedings were reduced into writing in the handing over memo (Ex.PW1/B).Trap party reached the MCD office.Accused VKC came at about 12.05 PM.At this, PW1 assured accused VKC that he would arrange the balance amount by the following day, on which VKC asked DS to receive the amount brought by him.Accused DS accepted the tainted notes worth `5,000/- from PW1 with his right hand, counted them with the help of left hand and kept them in the right side pocket of his pant.At this stage, PW4 gave the pre- determined signal, whereupon other members of raiding party arrived and caught hold of both the accused by their wrists.The tainted notes were recovered from the right side pocket of pant of accused DS PW5 counted and compared the numbers of notes with the numbers noted in the handing over memo Ex.PW1/B and found them tallying.Thereafter, the wash of fingers of both the hands of accused DS and right side pocket of his pant were taken separately which in the process turned pink in the sodium carbonate solution.Three washes were separately sealed in different bottles.The amount of `5,000/- and the trouser of accused DS were taken into possession.All these proceedings were reduced into writing in recovery memo, Ex.PW2/C. Both the Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 5 of 32 accused were arrested.On interrogation, it was revealed that plumbing tools seized by them on the previous day from the house under construction were lying in a hired truck standing in front of the MCD office.The three wash bottles were sent for analysis to CFSL.The matter may not end here.On the other hand, going through the testimony of complainant (PW1), it gives an impression about the trust-worthiness of his deposition.He has described in detail about the exterior and interior of the office of MCD and that of VKC.All the suggestions Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 15 of 32 given to him by learned defence counsel for VKC in this regard have been rightly answered by him.He even answered rightly about the sitting plan, number of chairs and almirah etc. in the office of VKC.He categorically stated and maintained about the complaint having been made by him.He denied the suggestions that the complaint was recorded subsequently after the arrest of the accused persons.He also denied that accused VKC was falsely implicated to get rid of action in respect of illegal construction.Complainant (PW1) has throughout maintained about the demand of `10,000/- made by accused VKC for allowing unauthorized construction and subsequently his having agreed to reduce the same to `7,000/-.He stated that on 17th November, 1992 he along with PW2 visited the office of VKC where he was not present, and they met accused DS there.DS inquired about the money that was to be paid, to which PW1 stated that he has arranged `5,000/- only.On this accused DS stated either to pay the settled amount of `7,000/- or wait to talk with VKC.Thereafter, he and PW2 waited near the gate of MCD office, whereas other members of the raiding party stood nearby around.When VKC came, he and PW2 followed to his office, where DS also arrived.VKC inquired from PW1 about the money he had brought.On his telling that he (PW1) could arrange only `5,000/- and will pay balance on the Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 16 of 32 following day, VKC directed him to pay `5,000/- to DS and balance to him by tomorrow.He also directed DS to take the money and report him if he had paid the balance on the following day.Thereupon, he gave tainted notes of `5,000/- to accused DS who accepted the same by one hand, counted the same and kept the bribe money in the left side pocket of pant, which he was wearing.On this, CBI persons arrived and caught hold of both the accused.Recovery of the tainted money was effected from the pocket of the pant of DS.In his cross-examination, the complainant also maintained that at the time of taking bribe, both the accused were present.He also maintained that he did not offer money to DS as he was not prepared to accept `5,000/- and on the advice of DS they waited for accused VKC.There is no doubt that accused DS did not demand money at this stage, but it stood maintained by PW1 that he was present when bribe money was demanded by VKC and that he (DS) had accepted the same.With regard to the recovery of tainted money from accused DS, there is no dispute.The defence of accused DS is that he had accepted money for and on behalf of VKC.However, on behalf of DS a suggestion was put to PW1 that tainted money had fallen on the ground, from the hand of PW1, and it was picked up by accused DS.On the other hand, in the cross-examination on behalf of accused VKC, it was Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 17 of 32 put to him that DS was brought in the office of VKC and the money had been already recovered from him (DS).Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 16 of 32PW2 also deposed about the implements of plumber having been taken away by the officials of MCD.PW2 has categorically stated and maintained about the visit of DS at the premises on 16.11.1992 and his leaving the message there to meet VKC in the office in connection with unauthorized construction in the premises.He stated and maintained that he along with PW1 went to the office of MCD to meet VKC, where they met both the accused.VKC demanded a sum of `10,000/- from them to escape demolition of the unauthorized construction.He denied all the suggestions made on behalf of both the accused persons that they did not make any demand, nor any amount was paid by PW1, nor any money was received by accused DS.He was also confronted with the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on very minor aspects which were neither relevant nor material.PW4 narrated the entire version related to the trap proceedings.He deposed about complaint Ex.PW1/A, handing over memo Ex.PW1/B, his joining the trap as a shadow witness and also to a large extent about the minute details about the proceedings and conversation.There was some inconsistency in his deposition as he used the word Saheb uttered by DS as referring to VKC.In his cross-examination by the prosecutor, he was put the verbal conversation that took place between PW1 and VKC, to which he denied as having taken place in his presence.This conversation cannot be attributed much importance in as much as he was admittedly at a little distance from PW1 and VKC.However, when he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that DS had informed that Saheb (VKC) had gone to site and shall return within 1-1 hour and advised him (PW1) to wait for him.Though, he denied the suggestion that accused VKC asked PW1 to give money to DS, but when confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was found recorded that on asking of VKC, PW1 gave `5,000/- to accused DS.He also admitted that DS accepted money and he Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 19 of 32 (PW4) gave signal to the raiding party.He also stated that PW5/Jagdish Prasad had taken search of right pocket of the accused DS and recovered `5000/- in the shape of 100 notes of denomination of `50/-.He stated that these notes were the same which were given by PW1 to DS and that the number of these notes tallied with the numbers noted in Ex.He is a signatory to the recovery memo Ex.PW1/C, prepared in his presence at the spot.Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 4th February, 2002 and the order dated 5th February, 2002 of learned Special Judge, Sh.Both the appellants/accused were convicted vide impugned judgment under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, for short IPC) read with Section 7 & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter, for short the Act).They both were sentenced to RI of four years with fine of `500/- each under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 & 13 (2) of the Act. The substantive sentences awarded were to run concurrently.In default of payment of fine, the accused were to undergo further RI of three months on each count.Both these appeals were heard analogously and are being disposed by common judgment.Both the accused were employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).Accused Vijay Kumar Chadha (for short VKC) was posted as Junior Engineer whereas accused Daljeet Singh (for Crl.PW1 accompanied by PW4 went to the office room of the accused VKC where they met accused DS, who allegedly demanded the settled amount, but on PW1s explaining that he has brought only `5,000/-, accused DS asked him to wait for the accused VKC, who was not available at that time.Both PW1 and PW4 waited for him near the office gate while other members of the trap team waited Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 4 of 32 nearby.The analysis report confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein powder in sodium carbonate.After obtaining the required sanction of the competent authority [Shri Pradeep Singh, (PW3)], the accused were sent for prosecution.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 3 of 32Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 4 of 32Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 5 of 32The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses.Incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to them in their statements recorded separately under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused VKC admitted that he was posted as JE, Building Department, South Zone during the relevant period and the ward where the property in question situated, was being looked after by him.They both denied knowledge of any construction/repair work in the property in question.They also denied having ever visited the house in question or demanding any bribe or having settled the bribe of `7,000/- or having received Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 6 of 32 `5,000/-.The accused DS denied having ever worked with accused VKC.He stated that he has been working as office peon and not beldar in MCD.VKC also denied the entire evidence relating to trap.He stated that DS was brought to his room from outside by CBI officials.With regard to CFSL report, they both showed ignorance.They also questioned the validity of the sanction for the prosecution.VKC also stated that the complainant was an accomplice who got him involved falsely in order to get rid of demolition of the premises in question by MCD.Likewise, DS also claimed having been falsely implicated at the instance of officials of CBI.No evidence in defence was led by VKC whereas one Rakesh Kumar (DW1) from the office of South Zone, MCD was examined by DS as his only witness.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 6 of 32Sandeep Sethi, senior counsel and Mr.Randhir Jain, learned counsel for VKC and DS, respectively, have assailed the impugned judgment and order mainly on the ground of lack of sufficient and reliable evidence against the accused persons.They alleged various infirmities in the prosecution case as also discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses.They also alleged the complainant to be an accomplice and interested witness.Learned Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 7 of 32 counsel for VKC specifically submitted that there was no evidence qua this accused regarding demand and also no recovery was effected from him and that the complainant has made various improvements in his statement made in the Court.The learned defence counsel of accused DS submitted that this accused was not attached with VKC, but was posted as peon and that he had no authority to take any action against unauthorized construction/repairs.He also submitted that there was no evidence of demand against him and that the amount which was recovered from him was in fact received by him for and on behalf of VKC.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 7 of 32Before adverting to the submissions of learned defence counsel, some of the facts which are admitted or undisputed may be noted.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 8 of 32 who had undertaken unauthorized construction.PW1 had attributed to PW2 about the information of visit of accused DS, who according to PW1 was present at the site.Since PW2 on his part clarified to be not present there and stated having come to know from some plumber Satish, the testimony of both PW1 and PW2 with regard to visit of DS would be taken as hearsay and not admissible.PW2 had also deposed about the visit of this official 3-4 times earlier also.To the same effect was the testimony of PW1 regarding the earlier visit of accused persons at site.About DSs earlier visits, PW2 stated that he had started visiting from the time the construction commenced.Though, according to PW11, DS was not posted as beldar, but as peon in the office, admittedly, he was attached with the building department where VKC was positioned as JE.To the same effect is the office order Ex.PW10/F, application Ex.PW10/E and also the sanction order Ex.PW3/A which prove that DS was posted as peon in the building department.Though, DW1 stated about DS having been posted as a peon in building department, PW11 Kishori Lal, posted in the same department at that time deposed about certain Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 9 of 32 acts performed by him when attached with VKC.This witness was also attached with VKC as beldar and was on demolition duty.He stated that on 16.11.1992, he accompanied with other beldars including DS went to a site in Tughlakabad (premises in question) for demolition of unauthorized construction, on the instructions of VKC and seized some implements of plumber.He stated that the seized articles remained lying in the truck.His testimony remained unassailed.From all that is noted in this regard, it comes out to be that DS was posted as peon in the building department where VKC was JE, but he (DS) was also being assigned some related works by the JE, may be that of beldar.In fact, there was no dispute that during the relevant period DS was posted in the building department where VKC was posted as JE.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 8 of 32Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 9 of 32From Ex.Office order Ex. PW10/B to PW10/D would also indicate that the Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 10 of 32 municipal staff of building department were obliged to inspect the properties in the area, detect the cases of unauthorized constructions and take suitable action as per law and rules relevant thereto.Inspector S.K.Peshin (PW9) was resident of CBI quarters, Kalkaji, New Delhi which happened to be near the locality of DDA flats where complainant PW1 happened to be residing.Having examined the testimony of PW1 and PW9 in this regard, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by learned Special Judge in this regard.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 10 of 32In fact such statements are taken in a haphazard manner.These statements are, usually a summary of what a witness says and very often perfunctory.Sometimes, it so happens that the witness gives the details to the police official in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but the latter records only what appears to him to be relevant and material parts thereof.Such witness may unnecessarily face hard time in the cross-examination when confronted with different aspects not found recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 13 of 32He also stood a lengthy cross-examination and fully supported the prosecution case.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 18 of 32Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 18 of 32Though, PW4 and PW5 became hostile, but on reading their testimonies as a whole it would be seen that they have corroborated PW1 and have supported the prosecution case on material aspects.He also corroborated regarding the procedure followed in taking washes of fingers and pocket of pant of accused DS separately and the solutions turning pink in the process.He deposed in favour of the prosecution by denying the suggestion that no talks took place between PW1 and DS in his presence and that no money was given to DS.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 19 of 32Likewise, PW5 who was declared hostile.When Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 20 of 32 he started giving different version regarding entering MCD office and the conversation, he was cross-examined by the learned prosecutor.He stated that when PW1 and PW4 along with PW2 were in the process of climbing stairs, PW4 gave signals to the CBI officials and the accused DS was apprehended from the gallery.He denied having seen accused VKC coming around 12:05 p.m. and talking to PW1 or having seen PW1 and PW4 accompanying VKC upstairs, followed by DS.He admitted that he had taken search of accused DS and recovered tainted money Ex.P-1 to P-Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 20 of 32He also confirmed that the seal which was used for sealing various exhibits was handed over to him after use.He produced the brass seal used in the proceedings, at the time of his deposition.Reading his statement in one go would simply demonstrate him supportive of prosecution, though somewhat confused and shaky.The testimony of PW9 is almost identical to that of PW1 and is supportive of the prosecution case.There is Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 21 of 32 nothing on record to indicate that accused VKC had, at any stage, been tortured or manhandled as alleged.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 21 of 32PW6, who was the engineer in the building department of MCD and was on duty at the time of trap, was summoned by the CBI officials after apprehension of accused persons.He deposed about the recovery of `5,000/- from the right pocket of the accused DS in his presence.He also stated about the number of notes tallying with the numbers as noted down in the handing over memo.He also denied the suggestion that notes Ex. P-1 to P-100 were not recovered from accused DS in his presence.PW7 analysed the washes vide report Ex.PW7/A and found the presence of phenolphthalein powder in sodium carbonate, thereby confirming that the tainted money was handled by accused DS, accepted with his hands and kept in his pocket.From the evidence, as noted above, it is clear that accused VKC had demanded `10,000/- from PW1; that a sum of `5,000/- was paid by PW1 to DS, as directed by VKC, and that the same was Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 22 of 32Counsel then referred to the fact that the complaint had alleged initial demand to be for Rs.10,000/- and later settled at Rs.7,000/-.They argued that there is no reason why raid would be arranged with only Rs.5,000/-.This argument is devoid of any substance in that PW1 has clearly shown in his statement that he was able to arrange only such amount of money, and since the amount was less than the settled amount, A-2 had haggled with him while PW1 had insisted on meeting PW1 for attempting get the bribe amount reduced by using some reference.Next contradiction which the counsel alleged was material is in the context of source of trap money.She was getting the house Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 23 of 32It has to be appreciated in the over all facts and circumstances, with the earlier demand directly made by A-1 in presence of A-2, as the back drop, and what followed after this conversation involving A-1 & A-2, and PW1 later in the afternoon.I am not prepared to condemn the evidence of PW1 as suffering from improvements on such count.A reading of Section 13 and 7 of the P.C. Act makes it clear that if a person has knowledge that money being accepted by him was bribe money for someone else, the offence is complete."Coming back to the role of accused DS in the entire episode, as discussed above, it is true that no direct demand of bribe money is attributed to DS by any witness, particularly complainant PW1 and PW2, but the fact remains that it stands proved on record that he was present on all material times in the company of VKC, Crl.It is also established that he had also gone along with others to the premises in question and had taken away the implements from there and had also left a message for the owner to meet VKC on the following day.Then, he was also available outside the office of VKC, when PW1 and PW2 had gone to meet the latter.When PW1 informed him about having brought a sum of `5,000/- against the settled amount of `7,000/-, he asked them to wait for VKC.The conversation which took place and the involvement of DS, as stated above, significantly pointed towards complicity of accused DS with VKC.His plea that the money fell down from the hands of PW1 and was picked up by him, being improbable has already been disbelieved.Since he was associated with VKC as his peon, further presumption would also be raised that he was looking towards sharing the booty with VKC.Assuming that the bribe money was taken by him at the instance and on the direction of and on behalf of VKC, as submitted by the learned defence counsel, in the facts and circumstances, still all the acts of omission and commission of accused DS surely will be covered within the ingredients of Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 120B IPC.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 27 of 32It has been proved from the direct evidence of testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for helping the complainant in respect of the unauthorized construction/repairs.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 30 of 32 order of the learned Special Judge and therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the same.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 30 of 32However, keeping in view the position and role of accused DS in the entire set of circumstances, his case persuades me to impose the minimum prescribed sentences.Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of both the accused persons under Section 7 and 13(2) Crl.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 31 of 32 of the Act read with Section 120B IPC, accused VKC is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of `500/- each on both counts.The substantial sentences awarded shall run concurrently.The period of custody already undergone by the accused shall be set off.The accused shall surrender and be taken into custody to undergo remaining part of imprisonment.Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 31 of 32Appeals No.100/2002 & 102/2002 Page 32 of 32 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,983 | 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate representing the respondent-State.2. Perused the record.The petitioner has prayed for a direction requiring the respondent to release him from the jail custody complying with the order issued by the State Government dated 10-8-1998, as he satisfied the requisite condition which entitled to the emission of the sentence and his unconditional release.The record indicates that the petitioner had been convicted under Sections 395/397 and 396, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment vide the judgment and order dated 31-5-1979 passed by the Sessions Judge and his appeal to this Court was dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 29-4-1980, confirming his conviction and the sentence awarded to him.It may be noticed that the Stale Government had issued an order on 10-8-1998 exercising its jurisdiction contemplated under Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, providing inter alia that the prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life after 18th December, 1978 who had undergone 14 years of sentence inclusive of under-trial period and completed 20 years of sentence including the remission on 15-8-1998, and have continuously good conduct after admission till the time of release from prison, be released unconditionally.The grant of the benefit as indicated above provided in Paragraph 1 sub-para (2) of the aforesaid order to which a reference has been made hereinabove was however made subject to the conditions as indicated in Paragraph 2 of the said order.It was provided that the remission as specified in sub-para (2) of Para 1 of the order with which we are concerned in the present case shall not be granted to the offenders convicted under Sections 120B, 224, 304B. Dowry Death, 376, 377, 395 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 besides various other categories which had been enumerated in the aforesaid paragraph with which we are not concerned in the present case. | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,983,928 | Certified copy as per rules.Appeal No. 423/2017 Rajesh Jatav vs. State of MP 1 Gwalior, 20.01.2020 Shri Lokendra Shrivastaca, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri M.S.Rawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.Heard on I.A.No.8672/2019, fifth application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of custodial sentence imposed against the appellant-Rajesh Jatav.The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under:-Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of fine 363 IPC 4 years RI 1000/- One Year RI 366 IPC 5 years RI 1000/- One Year RI 376(D) IPC 20 years 10000/- Three Years RI Learned counsel for the appellant submits that co-accused Tilak Singh (appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No. 314/2017) was main accused, whose jail sentence has already been suspended and he has been released on bail, considering that his name was not taken in statements recorded under Sections, but the case of the present appellant Rajesh Jatav is on better footing as the allegations are levied against co-appellant Tilak Singh.Prima facie there is no evidence available against the appellant.In these circumstances, the charge against the appellants for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC is not made out.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.He has served the jail Cri.Appeal No. 423/2017 Rajesh Jatav vs. State of MP 2 sentence of more than three years.There are fair chances of success of his appeal.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the application and prayed for dismissal of the same.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits, this application (I.A.No.8672/2019) is allowed.It is directed that execution of jail sentence of appellant Rajesh Jatav shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousands only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 2nd March, 2020 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Registry of this Court in that regard. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,986,368 | Shri M.L. Yadav, counsel for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 23.12.2015 relating to Crime No. 142/2015 registered at Police Station Rithorakala District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149, 307, 147, 148, 294 of IPC, Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 146/196, 3/181, 5/180, 22/177 of Motor Vehicle Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against co- accused Akash that he fired with the gun on the chest of deceased Manoj and that was a fatal injury.It was alleged against co-accused Ballu that he assaulted the deceased on his head with heavy sharp cutting weapon.There is no allegation against the applicant that he assaulted the deceased with any weapon.Prima facie no common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused Akash or Ballu.No offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.It is alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the victim Raju with an axe on his head, however, that injury was neither found grave nor fatal.It was a simple injury.Amongst the victims Raju and Manchitra, none has sustained any grave 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2348/2016 or fatal injury.Prima facie no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No. 2348/2016 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,989,048 | On 12th July, 2010, Master Amit Kumar aged about 13 years was playing in Shiv Park at Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat near his residence when he received electric shock from the metallic fencing erected around high mast pole which resulted in his death.The police registered F.I.R. No.47/2010 under Section 304A/337 IPC at P.S. Anand Parbat in which charge sheet has been filed against Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, JE (Electric), Karol Bagh Zone, MCD.W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 1 of 10The Electrical Inspector conducted an inspection of the site on 16 th August, 2010 and submitted his report dated 20th September, 2010 to the police.According to the report, the accident occurred because the joints in the electric supply leads were found naked and they had not been found insulated with any insulating material/tape and the metallic frame of the high mast light pole and fencing erected around the pole had not been earthed.The relevant portion of the report of the Electrical Inspector is reproduced hereunder:The electric supply connected to the said high mast light was of 2X4 sq. mm.Cable & it has been extended by connecting another cable of 2X25 sq.mm.size.On physical examination of the said electric supply leads, it was observed that there were naked joints W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 2 of 10 thereby exposing the live conductor.From the above, it is revealed that the exposed naked portion of the conductor might have come in contract with the metallic body of the said high mast light pole and thus making the said pole as well as the metallic fencing which was in contact with this pole, electrically charged.It was also observed that the metallic body of the said pole and metallic fencing had not been earthed.W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 2 of 10At the time of inspection, the following provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 had not been found complied with:-Adequate precautions had not been taken to ensure that no live parts are so exposed as to cause danger, in contravention of the provisions of the Rule 50(1) (f)O of the said rules in the following respect:a) The joints in the electric supply leads were found naked and they had not been found insulated with any insulating material/tape.b) The metallic framed of the high mast light pole and the fencing erected around the said pole had not been earthed in contravention of the provisions of the rule 51(1)(b) of the said rules."(Emphasis Supplied)Respondent no.1, North Delhi Municipal Corporation filed the counter affidavit dated 11th December, 2012 in which respondent no.1 admitted having installed the high mast pole.Respondent no.1 pleaded that the wires in the park were maintained by respondent no.2, BSES.Respondent no.1 further pleaded that the petitioners were negligent in not stopping their child from going to park.Chiranji Lal v. DDA, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9674 relates to the death of a minor child aged 11 years due to the falling of an iron gate of a DDA park on him.Vide order dated 21st July, 2016, this Court constituted a Committee presided by Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG to consider formulating a policy guidelines for payment of a fixed ex-gratia compensation in such cases.The Committee appointed by this Court recommended the payment of compensation of Rs.10 lakh in death cases and Rs.5 lakh in case of permanent disability in pursuant to which DDA approved the payment of ex-gratia compensation of Rs.10 lakh to the petitioners on no fault liability and the said amount has been disbursed to the parents of the deceased.Sohan Lal v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12027 relates to the death of a 6 year old child and injury to a 4 year old child playing in the street by electrocution.This Court awarded compensation of Rs.10 lakh in respect of the death of a 6 year old child and Rs.1,50,000/- to the injured child."Subject : Accident case of Master Amit & Master Naveen occurred on 12/07/2010 at Shiv Mandir Park, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi.Reference: Case F.I.R. No.47/10 dated 12/07/2010 u/s 304A/337 IPC, Police Station - Anand Parbat, New Delhi Sir, With reference to your letter no.1081/R-SHO, P.S. Anand Parbat, Delhi dated 09/08/2010 received in this office on 12/08/2010, the undersigned was directed to inspect the place of accident.On 16/08/2010, the place of accident was inspected by the undersigned in the presence of Sh.Dharm Pal, Sub-Inspector, Police Station - Anand Parbat, New Delhi.During the course of investigation, it was reported that on 12/07/2010, Master Amit & Master Naveen while playing in Shiv Mandir Park, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, received electric shock from the metallic fencing erected around the high mast light pole, which proved fatal for Master Amit whereas Master Naveen survived.At the time of inspection on 16/08/2010, a high mast light pole fitted with four nos. Halogen lamps of 250 watt each was found installed at Shiv Mandir Park, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi.A metallic fencing was also found erected around the said high mast light police.Respondent no.2, BSES has filed the counter affidavit.According to respondent no.2, BSES is only providing the electricity to NDMC for street W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 3 of 10 light and high mast poles and LV mains and the maintenance of service lines and semi-high mast poles in the park are maintained by NDMC.W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 3 of 10Respondent no.2 has placed on record the copy of the minutes of meeting dated 28th June, 2016 under the chairmanship of the Deputy Chief Minister according to which the semi-high mast lights and park lights are maintained by Municipal Corporations of Delhi.According to the affidavit, Slum and JJ Department of the MCD was converted to Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) w.e.f. 1st July, 2010 and DUSIB was responsible for the maintenance of the pole on the date of the accident.DUSIB filed the reply to the affidavit dated 5th April, 2018 filed by Respondent no.1 according to which the land underneath the said park and the adjoining land belongs to the DDA upon which the aforesaid big JJ Cluster namely Punjab Basti, Baljeet Nagar has come up.The pole in the park in question was installed by General Wing of Municipal Corporation without any consent, concurrence, permission or any intimation to the then Slum and JJ Wing.According to W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 4 of 10 DUSIB, it came into being w.e.f. 1st July, 2010 and thus, on 12th July, 2010, Slum and JJ Wing was not responsible for the said park though the DUSIB Act was made enforceable w.e.f. 1st July, 2010 but, the assets of the Slum and JJ Department of the MCD were taken over by DUSIB vide notification dated 30th August, 2010 only.Thus, as on 12th July, 2010 i.e. on the date of an unfortunate incident, the Slum and JJ Wing of the respondent No.1 was very much in existence and DUSIB cannot be made responsible for the said accident.According to respondent No.5, respondent No.1 is solely and exclusively liable to compensate the petitioners.W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 4 of 10Respondent No.1 filed an affidavit dated 10th August, 2018 replying to the response filed by respondent No.5 according to which NDMC does not maintain high mast lights, semi-high mast lights and park lights of PWD, DDA, I&FC, DSIIDC, DUSIB etc. It is further stated that the content of DUSIB's website itself admits that providing civic amenities in its area is the role of DUSIB.NDMC claimed that the Horticulture Department is the owner and custodian department of any particular park in respective government agencies area, whether it is EDMC, NDMC, SDMC, DDA, PWD or any other government department.DUSIB cannot disown the responsibility because assets as well as the liabilities have been transferred to DUSIB by virtue of DUSIB Act, w.e.f. 01st July, 2010 and DUSIB became the owner of the park.However, since the Horticulture Department of DUSIB was the custodian of the pole, the pole was to be maintained by the Electrical Department of DUSIB on the date of occurrence of the accident by virtue of the DUSIB Act. At the time of an accident i.e. on 12th July, 2010, the responsibility of maintaining the pole as well as ownership was of DUSIB and M/s BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. was responsible for W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 5 of 10 electricity supply.W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 5 of 10The petitioners filed rejoinder against the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 pleading that respondent No.1 was responsible for maintaining the park in question and was liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.This Court is of the prima facie view that primary liability to pay the compensation in the first instance to the petitioners is of respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the other authorities in accordance with law.Vide order dated 09 th February, 2018, this Court directed the matter to be considered by the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation.The respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit dated 10th October, 2018 in which North Delhi Municipal Corporation has agreed to pay the compensation to the petitioners without prejudice to its rights and contentions with liberty to recover the same from Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, BSES Yamuna Power Limited and/or any other authority in accordance with the law.Next question arises as to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners for the death of their son.But in such a case it is improper to assume admittedly without any basis, that every person who visits a cinema theatre and purchases a balcony ticket should be of a high income group person.In the year 1997, Rs. 15,000 per month was rather a high income.The movie was a new movie with patriotic undertones.The reliance upon Neelabati Behera (AIR 1993 SC 1960) in this behalf is of no assistance as that case related to a single individual and there was specific evidence available in regard to the income.Therefore, the proper course would be to award a uniform amount keeping in view the principles relating to award of compensation in public law remedy cases reserving liberty to the legal heirs of deceased victims to claim additional amount wherever they were not satisfied with the amount awarded.Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded in public law remedy cases, and the need to provide a deterrent, we are of the view that award of Rs. 10 lakhs in the case of persons aged above 20 years and Rs. 7.5 lakhs in regard to those who were 20 years or below as on the date of the incident, would be appropriate.We do not propose to disturb the award of Rs. 1 lakh each in the case of injured.The amount awarded as compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of writ petition as ordered by the High Court, reserve liberty to the victims or the LRs.of the victims as the case may be to seek higher remedy wherever W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 7 of 10 they are not satisfied with the compensation.Any increase shall be borne by the Licensee (theatre owner) exclusively."W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 6 of 10W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 7 of 10The Division Bench referred to and relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Uphaar Tragedy (supra), R.K. Sachdeva (supra), Chiranji Lal (supra), Sohan Lal (supra).W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 8 of 10Respondent No.1 is held primary liable to pay the compensation in the first instance to the petitioners.The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.After depositing the compensation amount, respondent No.1 would be at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against DUSIB, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd and/or any other agency, in accordance with law.If any such proceedings are initiated by respondent No.1, the contentions of respondent No.1 raised in this petition as well as those of DUSIB and BSES shall be considered by the concerned Court and the findings of this Court holding respondent No.1 liable in the first instance shall not be an impediment to their adjudication.at 2.30 P.M.The petitioners, Radhey Shyam and his wife, Shrimata Devi undertake W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 9 of 10 that upon deposit of the entire compensation amount by respondent No.1, they shall give no objection to the quashing of FIR No. 47/2010, P.S. Anand Parbat under Section 304A/337 IPC.W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 9 of 10The petitioners are directed to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing along with the passbook of his savings bank account near the place of his residence as well as PAN card and Aadhaar card.The concerned bank of petitioners is directed not to issue any cheque book or debit card to petitioners and if the same have already been issued, the bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on his passbook to this effect.Petitioners shall produce the copy of this order to his concerned bank, whereupon the bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of petitioners that no cheque book and/or debit card shall be issued to petitioners without the permission of this Court.However, the concerned bank shall permit petitioners to withdraw money from his savings bank account by means of a withdrawal form.Petitioners shall produce the original passbook of their individual savings bank account with the necessary endorsement on the next date of hearing.W.P.(C) 5437/2012 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,994,693 | This is the first bail application of the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.T h e applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.183/2019 registered at Police Station M.P.Nagar District Bhopal(M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148,294,323,326,307 and 177 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that other co-accused facing similar allegation have been granted bail by this Court by order dated 23/11/2020 in M.Cr.On these grounds, the present applicant deserve grant of anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State opposed the bail application. | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,995,841 | Achanna Setty, M/s. Akshaya Textiles Ltd., Ganapathy Post, Coimbatore-6 before the District Crime Branch, Coimbatore.In paragraph 3(ii) of the grounds of detention, the gist of the complaint of the said Narahari Setty has been stated, which reads as under:-(ii) In that complaint Thiru.Narahari Setty has stated that he has owned a mill by name Akshaya Textiles which was functioning in loss; that Thiru.Narahari Setty has approached Thiru.Martin for financial loan; that after perusing all documents Thiru.(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY MR. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM,J) The petitioner in the above H.C.P. is the wife of the detenu, who has been detained as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned order of detention, dated 29.10.2011 passed by the first respondent.The detenu came to the adverse notice of the first respondent in the following three adverse cases, namely, (1) Central Crime Branch, Salem City Crime No.38 of 2011, dated 12.8.2011 for the offences under Sections 120-B, r/w 147, 148, 427, 307, 506(ii), 409, 420 I.P.C., 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and loss Act 1994), (2) Central Crime Branch Tiruppur Crime No.01/2011, dated 28.1.2011 for the offences under Sections 406, 418, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and (3) City Crime Branch Coimbatore City Cr.No.108/2011 dated 22.9.2011 for the offences under Sections 420 & 506(ii)The detenu also came to the adverse notice of the authorities in respect of various acts said to have been committed by the detenu and in respect of a complaint, dated 5.9.2011 lodged by one Thiru.Narahari Setty, s/o.Martin has decided to give loan by pledging shares and documents of the company; that Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.11.2005 and an agreement dated 19.11.2005 have been prepared by Thiru.Martin and they were signed and executed, that due to hike in price of lands Thiru.Martin has inserted Rs.44.11 per equity share in the MOU,.The original was kept with Thiru.Martin and created fake agreement with a view to obtain illegal gain and to create loss to complainant and his mill and thereby to grab Rs.125 crores of properties; similarly in the agreement of sale dated 19.11.2005 were in the consideration was left blank at the time of execution, Thiru.Martin filled up the figure as 15 crores with the intention to cheat the complainant by forgery; that the complainant as the chairman of Akshaya Textiles has given some documents and blank documents to Thiru.Martin in order to obtain loan from him and to save his mill from loss; but with the intention of grabbing the mill and lands worth Rs.125 crores Thiru.Martin and his associates have given disturbance to the complainant; that on 4.7.2011 at about 12.30 hours the complainant was at his office and on the instigation of Thiru.Martin, one Thiru.Durai a Retired Police Officer, Mr. Kiran Kumar and his uncle Mr. Anjaneyelu have trespassed into his office, criminally intimidated him to sign in some important documents with anti-date and to hand over the possession of the properties; that father on 11.7.2011 at 11.00 hours at Sathi to Coimbatore road, near Kurumbapalayam privu when the complainant was proceeding in his car, the said Mr.Martin, Mr.Durai, Mr. Kiran Kumar, Charles and Benjamin have waylaid him with deadly weapons and kidnapped him to Akshaya Textiles, threatened him to sign necessary documents; that they have torn the documents in the office, damaged the window glasses, computers and attempt to murder him with a view to grab his properties.In paragraph 4(i) of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction as follows: -4(i) On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that Thiru.S.Martin aged 49, S/o.Santiago, residing at Door No.135, Thiruvalluvar Street, Vellakinar Privu, G.N.Mills (P.O.), Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a Goonda as contemplated under section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 by committing the above said offence.S.Martin creates panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of people of that area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.Considering the materials placed before the detaining authority and considering the various acts committed by the detenu, the detaining authority has come to his subjective satisfaction that the detenu should be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and accordingly, passed the order of detention.Challenging the same, the above H.C.P. has been filed.8. Heard both.a. The detaining authority ought to have considered the same on his own and failure to consider and take the same into account before making the order of detention has vitiated his subjective satisfaction.If the detaining authority had perused and considered the documents and the failure to supply the same to the detenu would amount to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.b. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority have not been furnished to the detenu with the grounds of detention.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has heavily relied upon the insertions or interpolations made in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.11.2005 and the agreement dated 19.11.2005 between the detenu and M/s. Akshaya Textiles Ltd., which are as follows:-that Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.11.2005 and an agreement dated 19.11.2005 have been prepared by Thiru.Martin and they were signed and executed; that due to hike in price of lands Thiru.Martin has inserted Rs.44.11 per equity share in the MOU,.The original was kept with Thiru.Martin and created fake agreement with a view to obtain illegal gain and to create loss to complainant and his mill and thereby to grab Rs.125 crores of properties; similarly in the agreement of sale dated 19.11.2005 were in the consideration was left blank at the time of execution, Thiru.Martin filled up the figure as 15 crores with the intention to cheat the complainant by forgery;c. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the aforesaid alleged insertions said to have been made by the detenu amounts to forgery and in Cr.No.27 of 2011, a case has been registered for the offences under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. in respect of the aforesaid insertions.The rejoinder representation has been referred to in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority by stating as follows:-Again Thiru.Martin presented a petition before Collector enclosing the documents in support of his claim.The documents were perused.On 9.11.2011 the said representation was rejected.On 1.11.11 itself, the second respondent had approved the order of detention.On 7.12.2011 the meeting to the Advisory Board was held and its report was sent.On 22.12.2011, the second respondent Government confirmed the order of detention.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that admittedly, at the time of occurrence on 11.7.2011 inside the mill premises except the accused, the complainant, his driver and his manager, nobodyelse was present.The documents were perused.When the complainant questioned the detenu and his associates, the detenu slapped him on his face. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,996,938 | The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-P.W.2, aged about 17 was born to one Mr.Sivakumar and Mrs.Sharmila (P.W.1).On account of a misunderstanding with Sivakumar, Mrs.Sharmila came out of the matrimonial home and started living with the first accused herein accepting him as her husband. P.W.3, aged about 12 years was born to the appellant/first accused and Mrs.Sharmila out of the said relationship.In due course of time, the first accused developed illicit relationship with another woman viz., Revathi.He started to take liquor and quarreled with P.W.1 in an inebriated condition.Hence, P.W.1 went to her parental home.The first accused refused to send P.Ws.2 and 3 along with her.It is further alleged that in a drunken state, on few occasions, the first accused used to drive the said Revathi and P.W.3 out of the house and keeping himself alone with P.W.2 used to undress her and then to have sexual intercourse with her, against her consent.This sexual harassment, according to P.W.2 went on for five years.P.W.2 was bearing this torture finding no option to escape from the house.When she was doing 10th standard, on account of the above relationship, she became pregnant.The first accused gave her some tablets and as a result, P.W.2 suffered abortion.P.W.2 as a result of the above tortures could not concentrate in her studies.Later on, on one day, the second accused, who is a relative of the first accused came to her house.P.W.2. informed him about the above sexual tortures suffered by her.In an attempt to save her from the torture, he took her to Madurai and from there to Somanur.He made her to stay at the house of one Rajesh.On 24.12.2013, in a temple at Somanur, he tied thali around her neck indicating that there was marriage.P.W.2 became emboldened this time.She questioned the first accused.But the first accused attacked her and pushed her out of the house.P15 is the First Information Report.He forwarded both the documents to the Court, which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 27.12.2013 at 10.00 a.m.P.W.10, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation.She went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses.She examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements.C.C.No.37 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Court (Fast Track), Coimbatore.He stood charged for offences under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 3(a) r/w Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act) (2 counts).The second accused is one Mr.Saravanan, who stood charged for offences under Sections 366, 376 IPC r/w Section 3(a) r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act. By judgment dated 10.04.2015, the Trial Court acquitted the second accused, however, convicted the first accused/appellant herein under Section 376 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act (2 counts) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each count (no default sentenced was imposed).The Trial Court directed that the sentences should run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.On returning to Somanur, she informed the sexual assault made on P.W.3 by the first accused to Saravanan.P.W.9, the then Sub-Inspector of Police on receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.2064 of 2013 for girl missing.P14 is the complaint and Ex.She forwarded P.Ws.2 and 3 as well as the first accused for medical examination.The report revealed that P.Ws.2 and 3 had been sexually exploited.The medical report further revealed that the first accused was sexually matured to perform penal sexual intercourse with women.Then, she forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand.At her request, the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She handed over the case diary to P.W.11, her successor.P.W.11 made a request to the Court to send material objects including dress materials of the victims for examination.On completing the investigation, she laid charge sheet against both the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited.She has stated that P.Ws.2 and 3 told her about the penetrative sexual assault committed by the first accused.P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated about the entire occurrence that the first accused on several occasions had sexual intercourse with them.P.W.4 - Dr.Murugalakshmi has stated that on 30.12.2013, she examined P.W.2. P.W.2 told her that she was subjected to sexual intercourse for about five years and twice she became pregnant.P.W.4 on examination found that there were no external injuries.But hymen in her vagina was found ruptured and allowed one finger to move freely.From these symptoms, she gave opinion that she would have undergone sexual intercourse with a man.She told that for about one month, she was sexually assaulted by the accused.On examination, she found that there were no external injuries.But her hymen was found ruptured and vagina allowed one finger to move freely.From these symptoms, she gave opinion that P.W.3 had also undergone sexual intercourse with a man.P.W.5 - Dr.On examination, he found that the first accused was capable of having sexual intercourse with women.P.W.6 was the Headmistress of the School, where P.W.2 was studying.P5 and P6 are the certificates showing her date of birth.P.W.7 was the Headmistress of the Government High School at Puravipalayam where P.W.3 was studying.P7 and P8 are the certificates showing her date of birth.P.W.8 has spoken about the arrest of the first accused.P.W.9 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.Ws.10 and 11 have spoken about the investigation done and 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 marked any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the first accused/appellant herein alone as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was some misunderstanding between P.W.1 and the first accused and at the instigation of P.W.1, P.Ws.2 and 3 have made false allegation against the appellant.Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 should be rejected. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,999,912 | JUDGMENT A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.This appeal arises out of the Judgment in S.C. No. 116 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge,Chenglepet.The short facts of the prosecution case relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:On 28.3.1996 at about 8.15.a.m., A1 to A4, due to previous enmity with an intention to cause the death of one Arasappan, have assaulted him with a stick causing the grievous injuries all over his body which resulted in his death on the same day in the hospital.3. P.W.1 is the complainant.According to P.W.1, the deceased is his brother and there was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased.On 28.3.1996 at about 8.15 a.m., when he was proceeding to Mahabalipuram to pay the electricity consumption charges, via., Kadumpadi Tank Bund, all the four accused wrongly restrained him, acacia stick and immediately accusing him and his brother Arasappan who was also accompanied him at the time of occurrence and A1 assaulted Arasappan on the left side of the head with stick and also on the left hand ; A2 also assaulted the deceased Arasappan on the left leg;A3 assaulted Arasappan on the left leg and nose and A4 assaulted Arasappan on the right side of the head ,left shoulder, and both hands causing bleeding injuries.The police have admitted them in the Government Hospital, Chenglepet for treatement but Arasappan died on the same day at about 1.30p.m., without responding to the treatment.3b) P.W.3 who is the occurrence witnesss would depose that on the date of occurrence at about 8.15 a.m., while she was proceeding on the bund, she saw P.Ws1,2 and deceased were going along the Bund towards Mahabalipuram and suddenly, the accused came from behind each of them had assaulted with acacia stick on the head and nose.According to her, A1 had assaulted on the head and both hands of Arasappan , A2 had assaulted Arasappan on the right side of the ear, A3 had assaulted Arasappan on the left eye brow and on the nose and on the right ear and that the abovesaid four accused assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.2 causing injuries and that she had raised distress call.3c) P.W.4 is also an eye witness to the occurrence.According to her, while she was proceeding on the bund of the tank on the date of occurrence at about 8.15 a.m., she saw the deceased Arasappan, P.Ws 1 and 2 proceeding towards Mahabalipuram on the bund of the tank were chased by the accused, and all the four accused have assaulted Arasappan and A1 had assaulted Arasappan on the head, lelft hand and left leg, A2 had assaulted right side ear; A3 had assaulted left side of the eye brow and nose; and A4 had assaulted on the left eye of Arasappan who fell unconscious due to the attack.Thereafter, the accused have also assaulted P.Ws 1 and 2 causing simple injuries with stick and that the injured were taken to bus stand where the police were informed through phone from the house of the Village Administrative Officer.Hence the Addittional Public Prosecutor has treated them as hostile witnesses.3e) P.W.7 is the Doctor who had admitted and treated the deceased Arasappan on 28.3.1996 at about 1.15p.m., while he was on duty in Chengleput Government Hospital.He would depose that Arasappan died on 1.30p.m., without responding to the treatment.Ex P3 is the wound certificate relating to P.W.1 issued by P.W.7, the Doctor.3f) P.W.8 is the Doctor who had conducted an autopsy on the corpse of Arasappan.Ex P5 is the postmortem report which contain the following injuries on the corpse of the deceased.1.Abrasion on the upper part of left shoulder joint 1 = x = cms reddish brown in colour.O/D contusion of soft tissues underneth the abrasion 2 x = cms reddish in colour.An obliquely placed reddish abrasion on the posterior surface of left side chest close to medial order of left scapular spine 2 x = cm.O/D subcutaneous soft tissues contused 3 x 3 cms.Reddish abrasion on the middle 3rd of right scapular spine 2 x 1 cm O/D subcutaneous tissues found contused 3 x 2 cms.Reddish abrasion with loss of cuticle on the posterior midline of back of chest at the level of T.5 vertebral spine.O/D underlying structures intact.5.Sutured wound on the peripheral part of curvature of right ear pinna 7 cms above the right ear lobe.Tow sutures in tact.On removal of sutures, the wound-gaping reddish.Margins-irregular.Deep to cartilage 0.75 x = cm cartilage, deep obliquely placed.Sutured wound seen on left side forhead close to the lateral part of the left eye brow,vertically placed in which two sutures in tact.On removal of sutures, the wound-gaping, margins irregular 1 x = cm bone deep.Sutured wound on the peripherall margin of (torn) pinna 6 cms above the left ear lobe in which two sutures in tract.On removal of sutures the wound-gaping 1 x = x = cm deep to cartilage.Margins irregular with abradedness.(Lacerated wound).Sutured wound on the left parietal region 9 cms above the upper part of left ear pinna in which 2 sutures in tact, on removal of sutures, the wound gaping 1 x = cm muscle deep.Subcutaneous tissues contused.Dark red in colour.Both eyelids of left eye-contused.Transversely placed dark brown abrasion on the lateral surface of left side face extending from left ala of the nose towards the lateral surface of left maxillary region 10 x 11 cms at its centre a sutured wound on the left maxillary region along the middle 3rd of abrasion with a single suture.On removal of suture, the wound-gaping , reddish, Margins-irregular = x = cms subcutaneous deepContusion on the anterior wall of upper part of abdomen across the midline transversely placed 10 cms above the umbilcus 4 x 2 cms muscle deep, reddish.Peritoneal cavity contained 170 ml of fluid blood.Contusion on the left side posterior surface of the lumbar region, reddish, 10 x8 cms muscle deep.On further exam, fracture of left 12th x 11th ribs as well as fracture of 6 to 10 ribs at its posterior part.Contusion of Peripheric pad opf fact of left kidney seen.O/D transversly placed laceration at the level of Uretro-pelvic junction 1 = x = cm deep to the uretro-pelvic junction.Multiple subscapular lacerations on the posterosuperior surface of right lobe of liver 6 x 5 cms subscapular deep.O/D Scalp:Calvarium-intact.Dura Intact.Brain: Oedematous.Multiple petechial haemorrhage seen on the campus colossum of the brain c/s CSF-stained with blood.Base: intact.3g) P.W.9 is the doctor who had treated P.W.1 on 28.3.1996 at about 11.50a.m., in the Government Hospital, Chengleput.The injured had informed him that he was assaulted by four known persons on the same date at about 7.30 a.m.,.Ex P6 is the wound certificate issued by P.W.9 to P.W1 which contain the following injuries.Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm left front of the abdomen.A lacerated wound = cm x = cm left parietal regioon of the scalp." He has also treated Arasappan before his death at about 12.00 noon on the same date and issued Ex P7 copy of the accident Register .The following injuries were noted.A cut injury 1" near left ear.Fresh bleeding present.Abrasion =" x =" left shoulder.3.A lacerated wound 1" x 1 =" left side of the forehead.Contusion over the left eye.A lacerated wound 1" x 1" x = left parietal region of the scalp.Abrasion =" x =" right side of the back.7.Bleeding from both nostrils.Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm with cut injury left eyebrow.Diffuse contusion over the right side of the face 8 cm x 5 cm.A small cut injury 1 cm right side of the face.Abrasion = x = cm right parietal region of the scalp.Abrasion = cm x = cm left occupital region of the scalp.Contusion 4 cm x 4 cm right supra scapular region.7.Contusion 4 cm x 4 cm lelft supra scapular8.Contusion 3 cm x 3 cm left lower end of upper arm.Contusion 7 cm x 5 cm proximal = of the right forearm.3h) P.W.10, the Doctor working in Orthopaedic Department, Government Hospital, Chengalput.He would depose that he knows the signature of Dr. Muthiah who was working in the same department previously and that Dr. Muthiah had examined the injured Murugesan(P.W.2) on 8.3.1996 and Ex P9 is the wound certificate.Ex P10 is the report given by Dr. Muthiah in respect of the injuries sustained by P,.W.2 on the left elbow which reveal that he had sustained grievous injuries and fracture below the left elbow.P.W.11 has not supported the case of the prosecution hence he was treated as a hostile witness.3i) P.W.12 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabalipuram Police Station who has deposed that after receiving the complaint Ex P1 from P.W.1, he registered a case in Mahabalipuram Police station in Crime No. 316/1996 under Sections 341, 323, 506(ii) IPC.Ex P11 is the First Information Report and he sent the injured to the Government Hospital, Chengleput for treatment and proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex P12 Observation mahazar and had drawn a rough sketch Ex P13 and examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.3j) P.W.13 is the Inspector of Police who took up the investigation in this case On 28.3.1996 at 7.00p.m., after receiving Exs P11 and P14 First information reports, on the next day ie., 29.3.1996 at about 8.00a.m., he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Chengalput and conducted an inquest to the corpse of Arasappan in the presence of Panchayatars between 8.oo a.m., and 10.00 a.m., Ex P15 is the inquest report.He has received the material objects M.O 1, and M.O.2 under Form 95 which were produced by the postmortem constable after postmortem.He had arrested A1 to A3 on 4.4.1996 at about 1.15p.m.The material objects were sent to forensic science laboratory for chemical analysis.EX P17 is the requisition letter addressed to the Judicial Magistrate for the said purpose.The Judicial Magistrate along with this requisition letter has forwarded the material objects connected with this case to the forensic science laboratory.Ex P19 is the analyst's report and Ex P20 is the seriologist's report.He had arrested A4 on 4.4.1996 at about 2.30.p.m., in the presence of witness.3g) P.W. 14 is the Inspector of Police who had succeeded P.W.13, had took up investigation and after completing the investigation, has filed the chargesheet against the accused on 12.12.1996 under Sections 341, 302, 307 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.The learned Judicial Magistrate, furnished copieis to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and since the case is trible by Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. After the appearance of the accused, the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Chenglepet has framed charges under Sections 341, 302, 307 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, they were denied their complicity with the crime.Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 14 were examined.Exs P1 to P20 were marked .On the side of the accused D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked on the side of the accused and M.Os 1 and 2 were also marked.After going through the evidence, both oral and documentary, after getting satisfied, that the guilt against the accused have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and that the accused are liable to be convicted under Section 304(ii) IPC the learned trial judge accordingly convicted each of the accused to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and also slapped with a fine.Aggrieved against the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused have preferred this appeal.Now the point for consideration in this appeals is, is there any inordinate delay in preferring the first information report which warrants interference from this Court in the finding of the trial Judge?I heard Mr. K. Veera Raghavan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and carefully considered their rival submissions.The point:Mr. K. Veera Raghavan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants mainly focused the attention of this Court to an inordinate delay of 27 days in preferring the first information report.Ex P11 is the earliest first information report which was registered on 28.3.1996 at about 10.30a.m., by P.W.12 and the case was registered in crime No. 316 of 1996 under Sections 34, 323, 506(ii) IPC; Ex p14 is the altered first information report which was registered on 28.3.1996 at abaout 4.30p.m., after the death of the victim Arasappan on 28.3.1996 at about 1.30p.m.But both the first information report have reached the Court only on 29.3.1996 at 1.05 p.m. Neither the Court clerk nor the Magistrate, who can speak about the receipt of information report was not examined in this case.Further the postmortem constable was also not examined.There is no explanation forthcoming from the Investigating Officer to this inordinate delay in sending the Express first information report to the Court.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would rely on series of ratio-decidenties to show that non explanation of in ordinate delay in sending the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case.He would rely on a decision reported in 1974 Law Weekly(crl.,) 147 one of the earliest dictum on this point available in Kolandaivelu.The exact observation by the learned Judge at page 150 para 18 runs as follows:I have given my anxious consideration to this case bearing in mind the effects of an unjustified acquittal, but I find it not possible to accept the prosecution evidence with safety.Indeed , I feel that the witnesses P.Ws 1,2,3 and 5 did not witness the occurrence at all, as they claim, and that the evidence of P.W.4 is also false.The most important reason for my conclusion is that, though the evidence as put forth purports to be cast-iron.Ex D-42, which is in copy of the village Headman's cooking reports of the occurrence, reached the Sub Magistrate at Tiruthuraipundi only at 2.15 p.m., on 16th November 1972 and Ex D-43 which is a copy of the first information report which the Sub Inspector sent to the Sub Magistrate, reached the Sub Magistrate only at 4.10p.m., The delay has not been explained which suggests that Ex P1 did not come into existence at 8.a.m., as it purports, but only later, that it was not registered at the police station at 9.01 a.m., as alleged and that the first information report(ExP1) came into existence only much later.It was contended on behalf of the appellant in the above said dictum that the first information report in question was lodged at about 7.30 p.m., on 15.8.1981 since the said day happened to be a holiday on account of it being the Independence Day and the next Sunday, the Court being closed, the first information report could reach the Court only on Monday i.e., on 17.8.1981 hence there was nothing unusual about the delay in sending FIR to the Court.But rejecteing this argument, the learned Judge of the Apex Court have held as follows:We have examined three eye witnesses as also that of Iqbal Singh(P.W.10), the Investigating Officer.We do not find any reason to differ with the finding of the High Court which sitting as the first Court of appeal on facts, had every right to reappreciate the evidence.For the same point, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants rely on a decision reported in Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar 2003 Supreme Court Cases(cri) 801 1 = days delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate after the registration of complaint was considered to be an inordinate delay and in the absence of any explanation which was held the said delay contributed to the doubtful circumstances surrounding the prosecution case.The short facts of the said case is that in an altercation that took place between Kunjumuhammed, P.W.3,Kochunni, P.W.4, Khadarkunju, P.W.5 on one side and Moosakutty,A-2,Ummer,A-3,Ali ,A-4,kochunni,A-5, Ashraf,A-6 and Subair,A-7 on the other, on 3.11.1991 at about 8.15 am.At this point of time, Kunju Muhammed A1 came to the scene with a fishing sword, M.O.2 and stabbed on the back of Majeed with the same.The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police,P.W.18 attached to the said police station recorded Ex P1 and registered Crime No. 408 of 1991 he then sent the file to the Circle Inspector of Police,P.W.19 who initiated the investigation of the case and proceeded to the scene of incident at about 9 a.m., and prepared an inquest panchnama as per Ex P6 which was attested by P.W.10 Azeez.The trial Court acquitted the accused.The State preferred an appeal t the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam which reverse the finding and found that A1 and A2 guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.On appeal the appellants mainly placed their arguments on the delay of 27 hours in preferring the first information report.While reversing the findings of the High Court, the learned Apex Court have observed as follows:P.W.1 was treated as hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.If this was the sole piece of evidence on which the trial Court relied upon to come to the conclusion that the incident in question might not have taken place at 8.15 a.m., on 3.11.1991, we would have definitely disagreed with the trial Court but then the trial Court also relies on the fact that Ext P1 did not reach the Magistrate's Court at least till the evening of 4.11.1991 as could be seen from the endorsment in the FIR.This omission on the part of the prosecution to explain why the FIR did not reach the Jurisdictional Magistrate till the evening of 4.11.1991 even though the incidient in question had taken place at 8.15 a.m., and reported to the police at 8.45a.m.It should be borne in mind that the distance between the Magistrate's Court and the police station being in the same town was very close.The facts of the case have been fully detailed in the Judgment of the Sessions Court and the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.The trial Court appears to have acquitted the appellant on the ground that there were certain infirmities in the investigation conducted by the police Officer.The manner in which the FIR was lodged, the delay in despatch of the F.I.R. And the delay on the part of P.W.1 in getting the injuries examined by the Doctor, were features which according to the Sessions Judge, were so gravely suspicious that they went to the root of the matter.3)Inquest reports and statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest4) Memo sent by the Station House Officers to doctors for treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and the history of the case treatment.5) Memo sent by the doctor to the police when a person with injuries is brought to the hospital, or the death-memo sent by the doctor to the police on the death of the person admitted into the hospital with injuries.Apart from this, there are also discrepancies in the evidcence of P.W.9 and P.W.10, the doctors who have examined the injured witness P.W1 and P.W.2 respectively. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,451,685 | I cannot tell the name of the hospital where I was taken.I had put up my thumb impression on the MLC at point A which is now Ex.It is correct that when accused met me he offered me to drop me home saying that he was going to meet his fiance whose house was situated near my residence.It is correct that accused had also snatched my phone and switched in off in order to prevent me to raise alarm.My house was at a distance of 20 minutes walk where I was picked up by the accused.Accused had taken the same way as the way to my house but he had not stopped the vehicle.It is correct that the accused had abused my husband on phone after 4 - 5 days.Accused had threatened my husband that he will kill my family Crl.It is incorrect to suggest that accused had taken me to Mehrauli and got me a suit.It is incorrect to suggest that I was having a love affair with the accused and it is further incorrect to suggest that because of this I used to meet the accused at Bhatnagar Public School and it is incorrect to suggest that because of it I used to have long telephonic conversation with the accused.Accused had asked me to accompany him to the village but I had refused to go with him.I never had conversation with the accused regarding as to where we would sleep in the village.It is incorrect to suggest that I had lodged this false case against the accused due to pressure of my husband or relatives or the police.LP 708/2015 Page 10 of 21LP 708/2015 Page 11 of 21Objected to by Ld. APP for the State.Request not allowed as the CD pertains to electronic records and the same is required to be proceeded in accordance with law."It is the case of the prosecutrix that she was known to the respondent and she had agreed to accompany him after she finished her duty as a security guard at DLF Prominade, Vasant Kunj Mall at D-II, Parking Lift No. 5 on 19.08.2013, the respondent had agreed to drop her at Crl.LP 708/2015 Page 12 of 21 Masoodpur Dairy at her house as the respondent was going to meet his fiancee whose house was situated near the house of the prosecutrix.Instead of driving to Masoodpur Dairy, the respondent drove to a guest house in the Kothi where he repeatedly raped the prosecutrix in the night and threatened to kill her in case she narrated this incident to anybody.On the next day i.e. 20.08.2013 in the morning, it was raining heavily and the respondent came to drop the prosecutrix at Anand Vihar, Bus Terminal and he made her board a bus to Hardoi and she reached the house of her mausi in Malihabad, Uttar Pradesh from where she made a call to her husband and she had also narrated the entire incident to him.LP 708/2015 Page 12 of 21Reading of his evidence would show that his daughter and the prosecutrix were both working as security guards in DLF Prominade, Vasant Kunj Mall.The prosecutrix used to visit the room whenever the respondent used to visit them and his daughter had cautioned the prosecutrix not to visit the house of the respondent.The witness also goes on to testify that the prosecutrix used to make phone calls to the respondent, his daughter had cautioned her as well but she did not listen and this witness has also testified that he had received a call from the father of the respondent at about 11 p.m. this witness did not specify the date informing him that the prosecutrix was sitting Crl.LP 708/2015 Page 13 of 21 with the respondent outside Khel Gaon, the official residence of the employer of the respondent.He testified that he reached there at about 9:00 a.m. on the next day and found that the prosecutrix was sitting on a bench and besides the respondent and one male person who used to prepare food was also present.He had reasoned with the prosecutrix who was insisting that he should marry the respondent.He had advised the prosecutrix to go to her house but she refused to do so and instead she had gone to her mausi's house and thereafter the respondent had taken the prosecutrix to Anand Vihar.M. A. 16054/2015By the present application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 64 days delay in filing the present leave petition.2. Heard.3. Delay in filing the present leave petition is condoned.Application stands disposed of.State seeks leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the trial court by which the accused (respondent herein) stands acquitted under Section 376 (2) (n) and Section 502 (2) of the Indian Penal code.LP 708/2015 Page 1 of 21The case of the prosecution can be summed up as under :(i) On 19.08.2013 the prosecutrix was on duty as security guard at DLF Prominade, Vasant Kunj Mall at D-II, Parking Lift No. 5 and 6 from 2 p.m. till 10 p.m.(ii) After completing her shift she changed her clothes and came out of Mall.When she reached at bus stop the respondent came there in his Innova and offered to drop the prosecutrix at her residence in Masoodpur Dairy.(iii) The respondent was known to the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix was the neighbour of the fiance of the respondent.The prosecutrix sat in the car of the respondent but the respondent instead of dropping her to her home took her to Khel Gaon where he used to reside at Servant Quarter No. 576, Khel Gaon, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and the accused repeatedly and forcibly committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will.He also criminally intimidated her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone.(iv) On the next day on 20.08.2013 the respondent took the prosecutrix to Anand Vihar ISBT and made her to board a bus to Hardoi.The prosecutrix from there reached the house of her mausi in Malihabad.(v) On 29.08.2013 the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her husband and thereafter a complaint was lodged with PS Vasant Kunj, North and upon complaint FIR under Section 376 Crl.LP 708/2015 Page 2 of 21 (2) (n) / 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code was registered.The prosecutrix was also got medically examined.Counsel also submits that the delay of one week in registration of the FIR is not fatal to the facts of the present case as the delay stands properly explained as the prosecutrix has deposed that she was being continuously threatened by the respondent which prevented her from registering the FIR.Counsel also contends that the statement of the prosecutrix was consistent and trustworthy and thus the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent.We have heard the learned counsel for the State and also carefully examined the judgment of the trial court and examined the testimonies of the witnesses, copies of testimonies were provided by the counsel which are seen and returned.In the present case, PW-1 i.e. the prosecutrix is the material witness.Since her testimony is of utmost importance, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same :"In the month of August, 2013 I was employed as a guard at DLF Prominade, Vasant Kunj Mall and I was employed with SLV Company which was providing these jobs, presently I am unemployed.LP 708/2015 Page 4 of 21On 19.08.2013, I was on duty at D-II, Parking lift No. 5 & 6 and I was on duty from 02:00 PM to 10:00 PM.After completing my duty I changed my clothes and I came out of the mall.When I had reached the bus stop accused present in the court today met me and he was present in Innova car.The accused told me "Mami"I should sit in the car and he would drop me at Masoodpur Dairy at also used to call me mami.I sat in the vehicle of the accused and the accused took his vehicle to Khel Gaon where he was residing.The no. of the vehicle was UP 32 and the other numbers I do not remember.I asked the accused as to why he had brought me to Khel Gaon and that he should drop to me to my house.Accused did not drop me at my house.Accused took me to guest house in the kothi and the accused raped me in the night.Accused also threatened me that I should do whatever he wanted me to do otherwise he would kill me.Accused also told me that I should not narrate this incident to anybody.On the next day in the morning of 20.08.2013 it was raining heavily and the accused came to drop me at Anand Vihar, Bus terminal and he made me board a bus to Hardoi.I reached the house of my mausi in Malihabad which is in Uttar Pradesh.I made a call to my husband.I did not narrate the incident to my husband and the accused made a call to my husband and told him that I was at the village and that if he would do any proceedings the accused would get me picked up Crl.LP 708/2015 Page 5 of 21 from the village "Uthwa Loonga".On 23.08.2013, I came back to Delhi with my husband.On 29.08.2013, I narrated the incident to my husband and then a complaint was lodged which is Ex.PW1/A and which has been signed by me at point A. I had shown the place of incident to the IO on which the site plan was prepared which is Ex.PW1/B signed by me at point A.At this stage, a sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of Court placed on the judicial file is taken out and the same is opened.PW1/C. I was also taken to the hospital for my medical checkup.PW1/D. I have also put my thumb impression at point A on the arrest memo of the accused on Ex.PW1/E. I have also put my signature at point A on the disclosure statement of the accused at point A on Ex.PW1/F. One enrolment form on record is also shown to the witness and she identifies the same to be hers and the same is Ex.PW1/G. The witness correctly identifies the accused present in the Court.At this stage ld.APP for the State seeks permission to cross examine the witness on some material points.XXXXX by ld. APP for the State.LP 708/2015 Page 6 of 21It is correct that the accused had taken me to servant quarter in khel gaon where no one was presnt as the employer of the accused had gone somewhere.It is correct that during the night accused had sexual relations with me at least 4 to 5 times.It is correct that on reaching my mausis house at Malihabad my mausi had informed my husband who had brought me to Delhi subsequently.I was taken to AIIMS for my medical examination.XXXXX by Ms. Santosh Mishra, ld.Counsel for the accused.The vehicle for dropping the employees home was not provided for employees working till 10:00 PM shift but it was provided to female employee who was working in shift from 04:00 PM to 01:00 AM Question : I put it to you that Vibha Singh your colleague met you and asked you that the staff vehicle is waiting outside the mall, why you are not going home with that office vehicle.What do you have to say?Answer : The vehicle was not provided till 10:00 PM shift.Question : I put it to you that you told Vibha Singh that your father has come to take you outside the mall and that you would go with him?LP 708/2015 Page 7 of 21Answer : I never stated so to Vibha but I told her that my father will come and I will go with him.It is incorrect to suggest that Rampal and Kamini had met me and asked me the same question.In fact Rampal and Kamini never met me.I had walked about a distance of 10 minutes when the accused met me.Normally when I was working from 02:00 PM to 10:00 PM shift I used to walk to my house.My house is at a distance of about 30 minutes walk from the mall.I used to carry a mobile phone but I do not remember its number now.I have never called the accused from my mobile phone but the fiance of the accused had called him from my mobile phone number once earlier.I have stated to the police in my statement that accused had told me "Mami, I will drop you home" confronted with the statement Ex.I had raised hue and cry when the accused had not stopped the vehicle but since the vehicle was locked my voice could not have come out.It is correct once I had travelled in the car of the accused previously when then the fiance of the accused was also accompanying me.I had not told anybody in the bus or on the way Anand Vihar or that I had not made any call to anybody as my SIM was broken by the accused.I have not told my mausi at Malihabad about the incident as I had been threatened by the accused not to disclose about the Crl.LP 708/2015 Page 8 of 21 incident.I have not made my complaint at Malihabad to the police or panchayat about the incident due to the same reason.It is correct that my husband had lodged a missing report with the PS Vasant Kunj (N) and my husband had taken me to the police station.I have given statement to the police Ex.PW- 1/DA which bears my signature at point A. I have read over the statement 23.08.2013 the same has also been signed by the husband.LP 708/2015 Page 8 of 21It is correct that I used to make telephone calls to the accused and used to have conversation with him.I have not made calls to the accused on call details at point A on document mark PW-1/D. From the mall till Khel Gaon could have taken about 10 - 15 minutes by car.It takes about 20 - 25 minutes walk to reach my house from the mall.I had screamed and raised hue and cry in the car.I had asked the accused that he should drop me at my house but did not do so.There was no guard at the gate to Khel Gaon.I had raised hue and cry [Shor machaya] when I was made to get down from the car.The distance where the accused had stopped the car and the place where he had taken me was about 7 - 10 yards.Question : I put it to you when you got down from the car with the accused, at that point of time did you tried to run away or to call anybody for your safety?Answer : Where could I run in the night and I would not even get an auto rickshaw and the accused had threatened me not to raise hue and cry.LP 708/2015 Page 9 of 21Accused did not sleep the whole night and I also did not sleep.It is incorrect to suggest that one friend of the accused was also accompanying him in the vehicle in which he had taken me to Khel Gaon.I had gone once to Bhatnagar Public School and at that time the fiance of the accused was also with me.I have knowledge that the accused used to go to meet his fiance at her house.It is incorrect to suggest that I had met the accused for the first time at the house of the fiance.For the first time I had met the accused when he was standing outside my house and he had seen me as he had come to meet his fiance it is incorrect to suggest that on the another day when the accused was passing by my house then I had called out to the accused that "Umesh Ji you are not recognizing me" and that "I had called you the previous night".On the day of incident accused had made calls to me two three times and I had also called him once.I do not remember the time of the calls.There was nobody by the name of tuntun (servant) in the room of the accused at Khel Gaon.I did not have meals that night.The accused also did not have his meals that time.I had been threatened by the accused at that is why I did not tell him that I wanted to go to my house instead of the bus terminal.The accused was accompanied by his prospective father in law when he had taken me to ISBT.I had disclosed about the incident to the prospective father in law of the accused.The father in law of the accused boarded the vehicle on the way towards ISBT but I do not know the name of the Crl.LP 708/2015 Page 10 of 21 place from where he boarded.I have not disclosed this fact to the police.I had not raised hue and cry even after reaching ISBT.Accused Umesh had called for his father in law on phone but I do not know the contents of the conversation.The prospective father in law of the accused knew everything about me as he was my neighbour in Delhi and the ticket to Malihabad (UP) was brought by father in law.My daughter aged about 1 year was with my mother at that time.It is incorrect to suggest that accused had gone to the airport for one hour to see off somebody while I was in his house at Khel Gaon.The accused and his father in law had left ISBT after the bus in which I was travelling had departed from ISBT.I had not disclosed about the incident to the driver, conductor or any other passenger of the bus after the accused had left.I do not remember whether the accused had gone in the morning to repair the tyre of the vehicle before he dropped me to ISBT.I had not disclosed about the incident to my mausi or to any other relative in Malihabad but I had only disclosed to my husband.I had disclosed about the incident to my husband after he had reached Malihabad.I had returned back to Delhi on the next day.It is correct that I had not made complaint to the Police Station regarding the incident on the next day or next day of the day after and I had given in writing that nothing had happened to me.LP 708/2015 Page 13 of 21DW-2, respondent herein has also testified with regard to his mobile number and the mobile number of the prosecutrix.He testified that the prosecutrix was forcing him to marry her despite she being a married woman and mother of a child.The trial court has acquitted the respondent based on the evidence on record after carefully analysing the same.We find that there is unexplained delay of 10 days in recording of the FIR.We also find the testimony of the prosecutrix to be highly unreliable and unsafe to convict the respondent herein.The evidence would reveal that the husband of the prosecutrix had made a complaint Ex.PW-1/A when his wife, the prosecutrix did not reach home.On 23.08.2013, the prosecutrix had made a statement to the police vide Ex.PW-1/DA which was signed by her at Point A and by her husband at Point B wherein she had stated that she was alright and nothing wrong happened to her.Thereafter, on 29.08.2013 after a gap of one week, the FIR was registered which creates a serious doubt on the testimony of the victim.Further the victim has failed to explain the Crl.LP 708/2015 Page 14 of 21 delay in registering the FIR; this gains further importance as after the complaint made by her husband she made a statement to the police on her return and did not talk after the rape and does not explain the delay.The trial court has noticed that the prosecutrix had given contradictory statements at different places.Prosecutrix in her statement Ex.PW-1/DA had stated to the police that she went to her Mausi's house on her own without telling her husband and no one had taken her anywhere on any pretext.She also stated that she was safe and healthy and no untoward incident was happened against her.LP 708/2015 Page 14 of 21In The State of Karnataka Vs.Mapilla P. P. Soopi reported in AIR 2004 SC 85, the Apex Court while considering an order of acquittal in a case of rape held as under:"1. ... The High Court did not accept the evidence of the parents of the victim on the ground that though they came to know of the incident on 23.9.1981 itself the Police complaint was lodged only on the next day evening and the explanation given by the prosecution for the delay was unacceptable.Undue delay in lodging the complaint without acceptable evidence has also contributed to the doubt in the prosecution case.Hence the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal.For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and the same is dismissed."In Surajpal Singh and Ors. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,486,044 | (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 the records relating to detention order, dated 18.2.2016, passed in No.144/BCDFGISSV/2016 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Kottaisamy, son of Ramaiah Devar, and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:(1) Central Crime Branch Crime No.146 of 2015, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal CodeFurther, it is averred in the affidavit that one Sadharam Ammal, wife of Alagarsamy, as defacto complainant, has lodged a complaint against the detenu and others in Central Crime Branch and the same has been registered in Crime No.147 of 2015 under sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. | ['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,595,463 | M.C. 1974/2014 Page 1 of 16 Act, 1988 and all the proceedings subsequent thereto.M.C. 1974/2014 Page 1 of 16The facts culled out from the record are that the CBI had filed a charge sheet against the accused/petitioner Kunal Singh and co-accused persons Ratan Singh, Uma Kant, Harish Dhondiyal, S.K. Garg and Anil Kumar Jaiswal.At the relevant time, accused Kunal Singh was posted as Director (Investigation), Income Tax, Kanpur; accused Ratan Singh was posted as Addl.Director (Investigation), Income Tax, Noida, accused Uma Kant was posted as Asstt.Director (Investigation), Income Tax, Noida; accused Harish Dhondiyal was posted as Inspector, Income Tax, Noida; accused S.K. Garg was the Chairman, accused Pankaj Bajaj (now approver) was Managing Director of M/s Eldeco Group; accused Anil Kumar Dhanda was CFO of M/s Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties and accused Anil Kumar Jaiswal was Advocate & Tax Consultant.It was alleged that a raid was conduted by the Income Tax Department at different premises of M/s Eldeco Group of Companies in March, 2012 in which various documents were seized and bank lockers were sealed.Accused Pankaj Bajaj and S.K. Garg contacted accused Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Chartered Accountant to settle the matter with the Income Tax Department who had contacted accused Ratan Singh, Umakant and Harish Dhondiyal.Investigation revealed that accused Kunal Singh was in touch with accused Pankaj Bajaj and he was called by accused Kunal Singh at his residence on 03.06.2012 at 8 p.m. A trap was laid during which accused Pankaj Bajaj had delivered Rs.30 lacs to Crl.M.C. 1974/2014 Page 2 of 16 accused Kunal Singh and the said amount was recovered from his residence.It was further alleged that accused Ratan Singh had received bribe from accused Pankaj Bajaj, but the said money was not recovered.It was further alleged that accused Uma Kant had received bribe amount of Rs.12 lacs from accused Pankaj Bajaj and a sum of Rs.9.7 lacs being part of the bribe money was recovered from his residence.Accused Harish Dhondiyal had received bribe amount of Rs.1 lac from accused Pankaj Bajaj out of which Rs.70,000/- was recovered from his residence.Investigation also revealed that accused S.K. Garg was also involved in the payment of bribe to the officials of Income Tax Department.It was further alleged that accused Anil Kumar Jaiswal played a role in fixing meeting of officers of M/s Eldeco Group with the officers of Income Tax Department.M.C. 1974/2014 Page 2 of 16On 31.05.2012, a sum of Rs.30 lacs was paid to co-accused Ratan Singh by accused Pankaj Bajaj but no raid was affected on the said date nor any recovery was affected.On 03.06.2012, the CBI conducted raid at 14 premises at different locations and at the premises of the accused persons.The raid was conducted in a pre-planned manner and not on the basis of source information as indicated in the FIR in question.The finger prints on the bag were taken and were sent to CFSL, but no report was filed.On 15.04.2012, Pankaj Bajaj and Anil Jaiswal paid bribe of Rs.10 lacs to Umakant at his residence and Crl.M.C. 1974/2014 Page 7 of 16 bribe of Rs.2 lacs at his office.During search, illegal gratification of Rs.9.7 lacs was recovered from his residence.Accused Ratan Singh had asked Pankaj Bajaj to settle the matter with Kunal Singh.Prior information was received by CBI that Pankaj Bajaj would come at the residence of Kunal Singh on 03.06.2012 to deliver bribe.A trap was laid and CBI team recovered bribe amount of Rs.30 lacs from the residence of Kunal Singh.The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order on charge dated 21.09.2013 passed by the learned Special judge (PC Act) CBI and framing of charge dated 07.10.2013 in RC No.2172012/A0005 under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Crl.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.On 07.10.2013, charge under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against accused Kunal Singh, Ratan Singh, Uma Kant, Harish Dhondiyal, S.K. Garg and Anil Kumar Jaiswal.Accused Kunal Singh was also charged for substantive offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.Arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Crl.Further argument advanced is that the petitioner was having telephonic conversation and meetings with accused Pankaj Bajaj as the petitioner was instructed by his seniors not to harass him due to medical condition of his wife.M.C. 1974/2014 Page 4 of 16Next argument advanced is that it is alleged that accused Ratan Singh demanded money on behalf of the petitioner, but there is no conversation between accused Pankaj Bajaj and Ratan Singh in this regard.The conversation dated 27.05.2012 shows that the petitioner was avoiding meeting Pankaj Bajaj.The conversation dated 28.05.2012 between Pankaj Bajaj and Dhirendra Khare further shows that there was no demand of money by the petitioner as Pankaj Bajaj told Dhirendra Khare that the petitioner was not meeting him and was not cooperating with him.Further it is argued that Pankaj Bajaj is the main culprit and CBI in order to shield and protect him, made him an approver in an illegal manner.Confession of Pankaj Bajaj has not been recorded in accordance with Section 164(4) of Cr.P.C. On this point, judgment in the case of Dhananjay Reddy v. State of Karnataka 2001 (4) SCC 9 has Crl.M.C. 1974/2014 Page 5 of 16 been relied upon in which it was observed that an alleged judicial confession proved to have not been legally recorded cannot be used as extrajudicial confession.In view of the above discussion, contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner regarding protection of the petitioner as per Section 6-A of the DSPE Act; contention regarding non-holding of preliminary enquiry by the CBI before registration of FIR; contention regarding the manner in which the raid was conducted; contention regarding absence of demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner; contention regarding the fact that the alleged conversation attributed no role to the petitioner; contention regarding statement of approver Pankaj Bajaj cannot be used against the petitioner; contention regarding missing chain of circumstances in the present case and the contention regarding the fact that despite having no evidence against the petitioner, the charges have been framed against him by the Trial Court culminates into non-interference in the order passed by the Trial Court as the disputed facts cannot be made the basis for quashing, Crl.M.C. 1974/2014 Page 15 of 16 the order on charge and the charge framed, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same are subject matter of the Trial Court to be determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties.M.C. 1974/2014 Page 15 of 16 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,643,454 | The men folk were having weapons like crowbar, knife and ripperetc.They demanded Rs. 30 lakhs towards maintenance.One of thepersons in the group exhorted them not to talk but to kill.Hemant Gupta, J.The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 28.08.2018 whereby an order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate 1 on 27.02.2015 dismissing an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 was set aside and the appellants were ordered to beSignature Not Verified impleaded as accused and to be proceeded against in accordanceDigitally signed bySANJAY KUMAR with law.Date: 2019.03.1412:46:03 ISTReason:1 Magistrate 2 Code 1A First Information Report for the offences under Sections 147,448, 294(b) and 506 of IPC was registered on 29.05.2011 inpursuance of an order passed by the High Court of Judicature atMadras on 26.05.2011 in a writ petition filed by S. Nallasamy 3 givingdirection to register the First Information Report.It isalleged that the wife of the Complainant would remain in her father’shouse generally and occasionally she would come to Saanarpalayam.They have a daughter named Loganithya.It is also mentioned thathis wife filed a partition suit which was dismissed in view ofcompromise when his wife and daughter came to his house.But still,his wife used to pick up quarrel every day.The daughter wasadmitted in P.K.P. Swamy Matriculation School, Kalanipuram but thewife did not permit the daughter to write examination and left forEllapayalayam.His mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-lawthreatened that their daughter will not live with him and demandedRs.30 lakhs towards maintenance otherwise they will lodge a dowrycase against him and his mother.On 05.05.2011 at about 11.00 AM, when he was in the house atNanjappangoundanur, his father-in-law Ramalingam, mother-in-lawLakshmi, brother-in-law Senthilkumar, wife Thangamani and otherrelatives (15 women and 35 men) came by vehicles namely MarutiVan bearing Registration No. TN-33-AS-5695, TATA ACE TN-33-AT-4640and TATA 407 TAE-9996 and forcibly entered his house and scolded3 Complainant 2 him.Thepersons came running towards them with sickles and sticks.All theaccused shouted to lock the house and took away turmeric bundles inthe tempo van.But none of the appellantsin the present appeal were referred to in the said statement.Even inthe statements of other witnesses associated during the course ofinvestigation, names of the appellants were not disclosed as thepersons who were part of the group, said to have assaulted theComplainant and trespassed into his house.The Complainant filed application before the learned trial courtfor further investigations under Section 173(8) of the Code.Suchrequest was resisted by the accused inter alia on the ground that thefuture investigations can be sought only by the Investigating Officerand not by the Complainant.Thereafter, the Complainant appeared as PW1 on26.12.2013 disclosing the names of the appellants as part of thegroup who barged into his house and also attacked him.Theprosecution also examined PW2 Loganayagi (mother of the 3 Complainant), PW3 Murugaiyan and PW4 Jagadeesan (neighbours ofthe Complainant).It is thereafter, an application was filed under Section 319 ofthe Code to summon the 20 accused persons named in theapplication as additional accused.It is also pointed out that names of the proposed accusedwere not disclosed in the First Information Report nor came to lightduring investigation.It is on the said basis the learned Magistratepassed an order on 27.02.2015 declining to summon the appellantsas additional accused.The learned trial court found that the proposed accused arefrom different villages and that how the public prosecutor has giventhe fathers’ name and addresses of the 20 proposed accused has notbeen disclosed.It was held as under:Also in the complaint itself the 11 members whose name was in the final order and other 15 ladies and 35 men and 3 vehicles and two wheelers have been mentioned.Based on that under Section 147, 448, 294(b), 506(2) the final order has been produced.Also under Section 319 of Cr.PC when the case is under progress and a person is accused with proper evidence or witness the court can order to add the person to the accused list and order to arrest the person and enquiry.But in order to add a person as an accused in a case just stating the name and details of the person is not enough, but what crime he has committed has to be mentioned definitely.Based on doubt the court cannot add the person in the accused list.”The said order was challenged by the Complainant by way of aRevision Petition before the High Court.The High Court accepted theRevision Petition, inter-alia, holding as under:During trial, the defacto complainant /P.W.1, categorically stated that apart from the 11 named accused persons shown in C.C. No. 123 of 2011, 20 other persons also involved in the offence and he clearly named all the 20 more persons.P.W.2 has stated that along with 11 named persons, 20 more persons also came to the scene of occurrence however, she did not mention their names.P.W.3 has stated that other than the accused persons, 5 other persons also came to the scene of occurrence however, he has not stated their names.P.W.4 has mentioned some of the names of the persons who committed offence.Mere disclosing the namesof the appellants cannot be said to be strong and cogent evidence tomake them to stand trial for the offence under Section 319 of theCode, especially when the Complainant is a husband and has initiatedcriminal proceedings against family of his in-laws and when theirnames or other identity were not disclosed at the first opportunity. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,691,783 | A. No. 544/1998 Page 1 of 49The prosecution case in brief, as made out from the police report sent under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is that on 3.8.1990 on receipt of DD No. 18-A, SI Joginder Singh along with SI Gian Singh, Constable Jai Singh and Constable Narender Pal reached at Sukhdev Market near street which goes to Qumayun Restaurant, where in a street near H.No.H-801 a crowd was gathered and they came to know that injured had been removed to AIIMS in a PCR vehicle.Leaving Constable Narender Pal at the spot, SI Joginder Singh along with other police officials reached at AIIMS, where he came to know that injured Devinder Singh @ Ladi was declared as "brought dead".Parminder Singh and Amar Singh, brother of the deceased were found present in the hospital.Parminder Singh gave his statement to SI Joginder Singh to the effect that he has six brothers and his three Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 2 of 49 brothers, namely, Harinder Singh, Ravinder Singh and Rajinder Singh reside with his mother Smt. Prakash Wati at H.No.826/5 Arjun Nagar.His eldest brother Amar Singh resides at H.No.15/88, Geeta Colony along with his family and he along with his family resides at 53/F D12 Area, Sector 4, Bangla Sahib Marg, New Delhi.His sister Saroj resides at 98-A Baba Kharak Singh Marg along with her family.About three years ago, one Gujjar namely Khazan Singh had been murdered and his brother Devinder Singh @ Ladi has been arrested for his murder and a case was pending against Devinder Singh in the Court.Devinder Singh was released on interim bail from the Court and he used to reside with his sister Saroj.On 3.8.1990 Devinder Singh came to his house at 826/5, Arjun Nagar to meet his family and his brother Amar Singh also reached there and they had their meal together.At about 10:00 PM, he along with his brothers Devinder Singh and Amar Singh left the house for going to their respective houses and they were going on foot towards Taxi Stand, Sukhdev Market.He and Amar Singh were little ahead of Devinder Singh.At about 10:10 PM, when they reached near the corner of Sukhdev Market, Devinder Singh raised an alarm "Bachao-Bachao" and when Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 3 of 49 they turned back, they saw that Amar Singh, S/o Likhi Chand and Shiv Charan, S/o Pooran Chand were giving hockey blows to Devinder Singh and Inder, S/o Khazan Singh was giving knife blow to Devinder Singh.His brother Devinder Singh fell on the ground and Inder gave him many knife blows.When they tried to rescue their brother, all the above said three persons brandished their knife and hockeys and said that whosoever will come to save Devinder Singh, they will also kill him and all of them ran towards Bhisham Pitamah Marg.His brother Devinder Singh became unconscious.Many persons including Sujan Singh, S/o Ram Singh collected there.After sometime, PCR van came and removed Devinder Singh at AIIMS, where he was declared dead by the Doctor.On this statement, a case was got registered and the investigation was conducted by Inspector Richpal Singh.During investigation, Inspector got the spot photographed, prepared site plan, seized one broken piece of hockey, one pair of dirty white shoes, one steel strip, sample blood, blood stained earth, sample earth from the spot.Inspector also seized the blood stained clothes of Amar Singh and Parminder Singh, got conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased, recorded Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 4 of 49 the statement of witnesses and collected the post mortem report.After post mortem, dead body was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased.Even, in regard to the identity, he simply deposed that he could not say if his brother was killed by the accused or not.He has not denied their presence or assaulting his brother.On receipt of DD No. 18A, Ex. PW6/A SI Joginder Singh along with other police officials reached the spot where he came to know that injured has already been taken by PCR Van to hospital.Thereafter, SI Joginder Singh went to AIIMS hospital where he met the brothers of the deceased, namely, Parminder Singh and Amar Singh and recorded the statement of Parminder Singh, Ex.Presence of this witness has been challenged on the ground that had he been present at the spot and witnessed the incident, he being brother of the deceased would have come forward to save him.Moreover, the clinic of Dr. Bhardwaj was nearby the place of incident and the first endeavour of the witness would have been to take his brother to the clinic of Dr. Bhardwaj which was not done.Moreover, the police machinery swung into action on the basis of DD No. 493 given by some unknown person regarding a person lying injured in front of Qumayun Hotel, Defence Colony.Had he been present at the spot, he would have intimated the police about the incident.Further, he did not accompany the injured to hospital which is reflected from the MLC where in the column of "brought by" name of Head Constable "Dharam Singh PCR" has been mentioned and in the column of name of injured, "unknown" was mentioned and it was only subsequently that the name of the injured and in the column of Crl.His brother Parminder Singh asked him to wait and he ran after culprits who were running.Though it was dark but since many workshops for repairing cars were there and headlight of one of the car was on, he could see the back of the culprits and they were three.Two of them were carrying hockey sticks with them.As regards the actual incident, removing the injured to hospital and in that process, his clothes and that of his brother Parminder got stained with blood, recording of statement of Parminder by police in hospital goes unchallenged in the absence of any cross-examination in these regards.As such, the testimony of PW 1 Parminder Singh finds substantial corroboration from Amar Singh, PW11 regarding the actual incident, number of assailants being three and that the injured was removed to hospital by them in PCR Van.Blood stained clothes of PW1 and PW 11 namely Parminder Singh and Amar Singh were also seized.After the post mortem, the clothes of the deceased were handed over to the police.The appellant Inderjeet Singh got recovered the knife as well as his clothes.All these articles were sent to FSL.A perusal of the FSL report goes to show that on most of the articles, blood was found which was of human origin.Although the blood group "O" was opined on the clothes of the deceased, however, as regards remaining articles, the blood group could not be opined by observing "no reaction.The fact remains that on the clothes of PW1 Parminder Singh and Amar Singh, human blood was found.The same lend corroboration to the fact that while removing the injured to hospital their clothes were stained with blood.Even the knife recovered at the instance of Inderjeet Singh was found to contain human blood.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order on sentence dated 28th November, 1998 and 30th November, 1998 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case Nos.42/91 and 48/91 arising out of FIR No.225/90, PS Kotla Mubarakpur whereby the appellants were convicted u/s 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and accused Inderjeet Singh was also held guilty and convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 1 of 49 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment, further to undergo SI for 3 months.Accused Inderjeet Singh @ Inder was also sentenced to RI for one year under Section 27 of Arms Act and this sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence already awarded to him u/s 302 IPC.Inspector arrested the accused persons and recorded the disclosure statement of accused Inderjeet Singh @ Inder, who in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered the knife, which was used to commit the murder of Devinder Singh.Inspector also recorded the disclosure statements of accused Amar Singh and Shiv Charan, who got recovered the hockeys, used in commission of offence.Inspector seized the knife and hockeys and sealed them separately in pulandas with the seal of JS.Exhibits were sent to CFSL.After completion of investigation, challan under section 302/506/34 IPC was filed in the Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, who committed this case to the Court of Sessions being exclusively triable by it as such.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under section 302/506/34 IPC and claimed trial.Accused Inderjeet Singh was separately charged for an offence under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act.A. No. 544/1998 Page 2 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 3 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 4 of 49In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined 27 witnesses in all.All the incriminating evidence was put to the Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 5 of 49 accused persons while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of prosecution.A. No. 544/1998 Page 5 of 49The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused persons and accordingly convicted them for murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.Aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court, the present appeal was filed by the appellants, namely, Inderjeet Singh, Amar Singh and Shiv Charan.However, during the pendency of the appeal, appellant Shiv Charan, expired on 12th April, 2008 as per the death certificate filed by the State along with the status report.As such, the appeal stands abated qua him.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length who have taken us though the evidence on record.Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Sheikh Israr Ahmad, Advocate submitted that there was unexplained delay not only in the lodging of the First Information Report but also in despatching a copy of the same to the jurisdictional magistrate.In the absence of any cogent and acceptable explanation for the delay, the prosecution case Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 6 of 49 was rendered doubtful.It is further contended that the conduct of Parminder Singh PW1 is highly unnatural because he made no efforts to take his brother to the clinic of Doctor Bhardwaj, which was just nearby.From the evidence of Amar Singh PW11, it is clear that there was darkness at the time of this incident and the accused persons have been falsely implicated.It is also contended that another eye witness Sujan Singh PW5 has not supported the prosecution case at all.Learned defence counsel has drawn our attention to the MLC of the deceased Ex.PW17/A to show that first the name of the injured is written as unknown and thereafter Devinder has been added and in the column of name of relation, the name of H.C. Dharam Singh of PCR is mentioned and later on "and brothers" is added, which shows that Parminder PW1 has not taken his brother Devinder to the hospital.It is contended that had Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 7 of 49 Parminder taken his brother to the hospital, the name of Parminder would have been mentioned in the column of relations, which shows that he was not present at the time of the incident.It was also submitted that the solitary eye witness is a close relation of deceased and it is not safe to rely upon his testimony as it is not corroborated.A. No. 544/1998 Page 6 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 7 of 49It was further submitted that father of the appellant Inderjeet Singh was murdered and Devinder (since deceased) was facing trial for the murder of father of the appellant.He had come on interim bail.As such, since the victim was accused of murdering the father of the appellant, as such, the brothers of the deceased had motive to falsely implicate the appellants in this case.Arrest of the accused persons and subsequent recovery at their instance has also been challenged on the ground that there is no independent witness to the recovery and police officials are giving different versions.Reliance was placed on Salim Akhtar @ Mota v. State of U.P, 2003(2) Crimes 789 and State of Punjab v. Gurnam Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 8 of 49Moreover, the knife was blunt from tip, as such, the injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report are not possible by the knife.Even, this knife was not shown to the doctor to seek his opinion whether injuries were possible by said type of knife or not.Recovery of hockey at the instance of remaining two appellants has not been believed by the learned Trial Court.As such, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.As such, appellants are entitled to be acquitted of offence alleged against them.Rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, Sh.PW1 Parminder Singh is the author of the First Information Report and has given the same version as given by him in the First Information Report.This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony.In fact, presence of the witness at the spot has not been challenged in cross-examination.The mere fact that DD No. Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 9 of 49 493 or DD No. 18A were recorded on the basis of information given by some unknown person regarding a person lying in the injured condition in front of Qumayun Hotel, Defence Colony does not mean that the brothers of the injured were not present at the spot.In fact both these witnesses accompanied the deceased to hospital in PCR Van and there is no challenge to the testimony of Head Constable Satpal, Head Constable Dharam Singh and SI Joginder Singh that the deceased was brought to the hospital in PCR van accompanied by brothers of the deceased.As regards MLC, it was submitted that it has come on record that the brothers of the deceased were in the other room and the injured was taken inside the hospital by the police official of PCR and, therefore, initially he could not give the name of the injured, however, when called upon to give the name of the injured, they gave his name, and thereafter, in the MLC name of the injured and in the column of brought by "and brothers" were mentioned.Although, it is alleged that in the MLC subsequent additions were made, however, even no such suggestion was given to the concerned doctor who prepared the MLC of the injured.Moreover, testimony of Parminder Singh finds substantial Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 10 of 49 corroboration from Amar Singh who has supported the case of prosecution as regards the actual incident.He only turned hostile on the point of identity of the accused.Furthermore, after the arrest of the accused on the same day, weapon of offence, i.e., knife as well as the hockey were recovered.Reference was also made to the FSL report for submitting that the clothes of the deceased were having cut marks and as per report the same could have been caused by the knife which was sent to FSL.Clothes of brothers of the deceased were stained with blood.Same were sent to FSL and human blood was found on the same.Clothes of the accused were also sent which were also found to be having human blood.No explanation has been furnished by the accused as to how their clothes were Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 11 of 49 stained with blood.As regards delay in lodging the First Information Report, it was submitted that there is no delay in lodging the First Information Report as the first endeavour of the brothers of the deceased was to provide him medical aid and, as such, he was taken to the hospital and thereafter when the police official reached the hospital, they recorded the statement of Parminder Singh and the First Information Report was recorded.Although there is a noting on the First Information Report that the copy of the First Information Report was received by the Metropolitan Magistrate at 12:35 PM, however, when she appeared in the witness box, no cross-examination was done to elicit as to how the First Information Report was received at 12:35 PM.Moreover, the mere fact of slight delay in receiving the report by Metropolitan Magistrate is not fatal to the case of prosecution, inasmuch as, at the very first available opportunity, the brother of the deceased had narrated the entire incident with specific role of each and every accused and he remained consistent in his deposition before the Court.As such, it was submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for interference, as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed.A. No. 544/1998 Page 12 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 9 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 10 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 11 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 12 of 49Firstly, dealing with the aspect of delay in despatching FIR to the Magistrate, the incident took place at about 10:10 PM.Vide DD No. 493, intimation was sent at 22:27 regarding one person lying in injured condition in front of Qumayun Hotel, Defence Colony.Information was received by Head Constable Dharam Singh, Incharge PCR Van at about 10:30 PM and thereafter, he reached the spot and took the injured to AIIMS.As per MLC, the injured was brought to hospital at about 11:00 PM.PW1/A. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW 16/A and sent the same through Constable Narender Pal Singh, PW14 for registration of the case at 1:05 AM and thereafter vide DD No.21A, First Information Report was registered at 1:30 AM.Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any delay in lodging the First Information Report.In cross-examination, he has stated that he had delivered the special report on 4 th August, 1990 at 3:00 AM.He has first delivered the report at the residence of DCP.The learned Metropolitan Magiatrate Ms. Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal, PW8 has stepped into the witness box.Even in her cross-examination, it has not been elicited at what time she received special report.A. No. 544/1998 Page 13 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 16 of 49 for compromise were on by respectable inhabitants of the village and therefore First Information Report was not lodged earlier.None of the respectables of the village have, however, been examined in support of such version.It was observed that this delay affects the credibility of the injured coupled with the fact that name of the assailants were not disclosed at the first opportunity, evidence of eye witness suffered from infirmities hence accused was given benefit of doubt and conviction was set aside.A. No. 544/1998 Page 16 of 49In the instant case, there was no delay in lodging the First Information Report and in the absence of any effective cross- examination of Constable Basanta Ram, PW3 who has deposed that he has delivered the special report at about 3:00 AM and no suggestion to the effect that in fact it was delivered to the Metropolitan Magistrate at about 12:45 PM or eliciting from the Metropolitan Magistrate as to the actual time when she received the special report, it cannot be said that there is any delay in dispatch of the First Information Report.The first limb of the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant has, therefore, failed and is hereby rejected.A. No. 544/1998 Page 17 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 17 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 18 of 49 "brought by" "and brothers" were added.None of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant has any force as it has come in the testimony of Parminder Singh (PW1) that on 3rd August, 1990, he had gone to the house of his mother at 826/5 Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur.His elder brother Amar Singh and another brother Ladi were also there.At about 10:00 PM, all the three brothers left the mothers house for their respective houses.He and his brother Amar Singh were walking ahead of Davinder Singh @ Ladi.When they reached Sukhdev market, they heard cries of Ladi "bachao bachao".They turned around and saw that Ladi who was at a distance of about 10 paces from them, was being attacked by the three accused.Inder Singh was armed with a knife while Amar Singh and Shiv Charan were armed with hockey sticks.They were attacking Ladi with these weapons.All the accused were well known to him from before as they lived in Kotla Mubarakpur where he lived for 30 years.When they tried to intervene to save their brother Devinder @ Ladi, all the three accused aimed their weapons on them and threatened that in case, they intervene, they would also be killed.In his presence and in presence of his other brother, the accused persons Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 19 of 49 inflicted knife and hockey blow on the person of Ladi.Due to the assault by the accused persons, Ladi fell down on the ground and almost became unconscious.The accused persons fled from the spot and while fleeing, they declared that they had avenged the death of Khazan.While they were taking care of their brother, the police Van arrived at the spot in which they removed Ladi to AIIMS.In the hospital, Ladi was declared dead.That being the reason, the witness and his brother could not come to the rescue of their brother Devinder @ Ladi.A. No. 544/1998 Page 18 of 49The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 10:00 pm and Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 20 of 49 possibility of the clinic being closed by that time cannot be ruled out.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was the residence- cum-clinic of Dr. Bhardwaj.In any case, in the absence of any cross-examination in this regard, no adverse inference can be drawn regarding the presence of the witness at the spot.The mere fact that some unknown person sent information regarding a person lying injured in front of Qumayun hotel on the basis of which DD No. 493 and thereafter DD No. 18A was recorded ipso facto is not sufficient to conclude that the witness was not present at the spot as it has come in the testimony of the witness that they were taking care of their brother and therefore, if somebody else had informed the police, again no adverse inference can be drawn.As regards the removal of injured to the hospital, the witness has deposed that the police van arrived at the spot in which they removed their injured brother to the hospital.A perusal of the MLC Ex.PW17/A goes to show that in the column of name first unknown is mentioned and thereafter Devinder @ Ladi is written and in the column of relative "Head Constable Dharam Singh, Incharge-PCR and brothers" is written.The MLC was prepared by Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 21 of 49 Dr. Romesh Lal, PW 17 and this witness has not been cross-examined by the appellants.He was the best person to explain under what circumstances, in the column of name the word "unknown" and then Devinder Singh and in the column of "brought by", "Head Constable Dharam Singh and brothers" was written.On the other hand, it has come in the statement of Parminder that he had informed the name of his brother Ladi to the doctor.Under the circumstances, there is unchallenged testimony of Dr. Romesh Lal PW17, Head Constable Dharam Singh, Incharge (PCR Van), PW 15 Head Constable Satpal, PW13 all of whom have deposed that Devinder @ Ladi was brought to the hospital by his brothers.In the absence of putting any question to these witnesses, the appellant cannot take any benefit.A. No. 544/1998 Page 20 of 49However, the doctor who conducted the post mortem deposed that there were 24 injuries on the body of deceased.Eye witness made improvements in Court by saying that after inflicting eight injuries on the deceased, accused inflicted many injuries.Under Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 24 of 49 these circumstances, presence of the eye witness at the spot was held to be doubtful.A. No. 544/1998 Page 24 of 49The witness has given a graphic account of the attack on his brother by the accused persons.When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored.These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other all urence or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers and muscle men or their associates.Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent."However, as regards actual incident, testimony of PW1 find corroboration from Amar Singh (PW11).This witness has deposed on Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 32 of 49 the same lines as that of Parminder and has unfolded that on 3rd August, 1990, he, his brothers Parminder and Devinder Singh had gone to see their mother at 826/5 Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur.At about 10:00 PM, they all were returning and when they reached the turning of Sukhdev Market, he and his brother Parminder were ahead of Devinder Singh.Suddenly they heard cries of Devinder Singh "Parminder mujhko bachao".They looked behind.His brother Parminder ran towards his brother, however, he was unable to run because of some problem in his spinal cord.When he reached there, he found his brother Devinder lying on the ground.However, he could not notice if third was carrying any weapon with him.The police arrived at the scene of occurrence at 10:45 PM.They removed their brother Devinder to AIIMS where he was admitted.While he was carrying the body of his brother for lifting in the vehicle, his clothes as well as Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 33 of 49 of his brother were stained with blood which were seized by the police later on.However, as regards the identity of the accused, the witness stated that since it was dark, therefore, he was not able to see the faces of the culprit and could not say if the accused persons were the same persons who had killed his brother.Under the circumstances, except for identification of the accused persons, this witness has corroborated the testimony of PW1 Parminder Singh regarding the incident.A. No. 544/1998 Page 32 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 33 of 49It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examine him.The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether.The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable upon a careful scrutiny thereof.In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to Sathya Narayanan v. State rep.by Inspector of Police, (2012) 12 SCC 627; Mrinal Das & Others vs. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479; Paramjit Singh @ Pamma vs. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200; Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli and Ors.State of Gujarat, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 34 of 49 102; Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai Vs.State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624; Prithi vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 536 and Ramesh Harijan Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777, Rohtash Kumar Vs.State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434, Veer Singh & Ors.A. No. 544/1998 Page 34 of 49Further testimony of PW1 also finds corroboration from the medical evidence.Post mortem on the dead body of Devinder @ Crl.On external examination following ante-mortem injuries were noticed:-A. No. 544/1998 Page 35 of 49Multiple contusions and abraded contusions over both forearms, both arms and dorsum of both hands.2. CLW on right periauricular region of size 3 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm.3. Contusions right mandibular region extending to neck of size 6 cm x 3 cm.Incised wound on the right side of forehead 1 cm below hairline of size 1.5 x 1 cm superficial.Incised wound left upper limb vertically placed of size 1.5 x 1 cm x muscle deep with clean cut inverted margins.Incised wound left knee of size 5 cm x .5 cm x bone deep with clean cut inverted margins.Incised wound left forearm round elbow of size 1 cm x 1 cm margins clean cut and everted.Incised wound left forearm placed 6 cm below elbow joint of size 2.5 x 1x bone deep, with clean cut inverted margins, with cut impressions present on the olecraenon.Incised wound left forearm anterio-medical aspect placed 5 cm below cubital fossa of size 1.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep with clean cut inverted margins underline subcutaneous tissue and muscle clean cut.Incised wound right side of abdomen placed 10 cm below coastal margins in mid axillary plane 3 cm x 1 cm into muscle deep obliquely placed, margins clean cut, not penetrating the abdominal cavity.Stab wound right side of chest anterior axillary plane obliquely placed of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm, 22 cm below cavicular with clean cut everted margins passing through 7th intercoastal plane entering into left lower lobe of lung going into pericardium with presence of hemo-pericardium and incised wound left pentricle around apex of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm x whole thickness of ventricle.A. No. 544/1998 Page 36 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 36 of 49Stab wound left side of abdomen in posterior axillary line placed 25 cm below clavicular margins of size 4 cm x 1 cm going into abdominal cavity producing multiple incised wound of small and large intestines.Internal examination of the deceased revealed:- There were homo-thorax on left side with about 500 cc of blood being present.There was stab wound of left lung lower lobe of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 4 cm.Hemo-cardium was also present with 400 cc of blood and blood clots.There was stab wound of heart over apex of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm x whole thickness of left ventricular wall with cutting of cordae-tendenae.In the abdominal cavity, there was hemo-periteneum about 400 cc of blood and blood clots with multiple incised wound of small and large intestines.It was opined that cause of death was shock as a result of multiple antemortem injuries produced by sharp edged weapon.Injury no.11 and 14 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively.Under the circumstances, testimony of PW1 that accused Inderjeet Singh assaulted the deceased with knife find corroboration from medical evidence, as according to Dr. M.S.Sagar, cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries produced by sharp edged weapon.Needless to say, knife is a sharp edged weapon.It is the case of prosecution that on the basis of secret information on 4th August, 1990, all the appellants were apprehended Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 37 of 49 from Seva Nagar Railway Station and were arrested.Appellant Inderjeet Singh made a disclosure statement Ex.PW9/D stating therein that the knife used by him in the murder was kept by him under the tin shed of the bathroom of the house of his uncle Mahender Singh in Village Kher Pur which he can get recovered and that the clothes which he was wearing at the time of murder which were stained with blood were washed by him and lying on the rassi in his house which he can get recovered.In pursuance to this disclosure statement, he led police party to the house of his uncle Mahender in Village Kher Pur and got recovered knife, Ex.P9 concealed in the bathroom which was seized after preparing its sketch and sealing in a pulanda vide memo Ex. PW9/H. He also got recovered one pant Ex. PW10 and shirt Ex. P11 hanging on the rope in the courtyard of his house situated in Village Kherpur which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/I after sealing in a pulanda.A. No. 544/1998 Page 37 of 49Accused Amarjeet Singh also made a disclosure statement Ex. PW9/E that he could get recovered the danda portion of the hockey used in the murder from the roof of his house and in pursuance to the disclosure statement, he got recovered the back portion of the hockey, Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 38 of 49 i.e. danda from his house which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW9/J.A. No. 544/1998 Page 38 of 49In pursuance to the disclosure statement Ex. PW9/F, accused Shiv Charan got recovered one hockey from the roof of his house in Nanak Chand Basti in village Kherpur, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW9/K.Seizure of knife at the instance of Inderjeet Singh and hockey/danda portion at the instance of remaining two appellants has been challenged by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that no independent witness was joined in the recovery and police officials have not corroborated each other.Reliance was placed on Salim Akhtar (supra) where no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery of pistol.Pistol was not sealed on the spot nor its number nor make etc to fix its identity was mentioned in the recovery memo or in the First Information Report.Under those circumstances, recovery was held to be doubtful.Reliance was also placed on Gurnam Singh(supra) which was an appeal against acquittal.The High Court had taken the view that it is unsafe to convict the appellant merely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 39 of 49 pertaining to the alleged recovery of weapon at the instance of accused.The accused was, therefore, entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt.The view taken by the High Court was plausible one, hence appeal was dismissed.A. No. 544/1998 Page 39 of 49Prosecution has examined PW9 SI Gian Singh, PW12 HC Chottu Ram, PW24 Const.Jai Singh, PW25 Insp.Richhpal Singh, all of whom have deposed regarding recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused person.PW 14 Constable Narender Pal Singh and Head Constable Kesh Ram are also witnesses to the recovery of knife at the instance of accused Inderjeet Singh.All these witnesses have deposed regarding recovery of knife at the instance of accused Inderjeet Singh.Therefore, unless irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored.The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of belief.A. No. 544/1998 Page 44 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 44 of 49Time and again it has been held by Honble Supreme Court as well as this Court that lapses on the part of Investigating Officer should not come in the way of accepting eye witness account, if it is otherwise truthful and reliable.Under the circumstances, the medical evidence corroborates the ocular version.A. No. 544/1998 Page 45 of 49Moreover, Ex. 13A and Ex. 13B were the pant and shirt of the deceased which had cut marks.As per the report given by Sh.Rajender Singh, Sr.Scientific Officer, the laboratory examination on Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 46 of 49Clothes of the accused Inderjeet Singh sent to FSL were also found to be having human blood for which no explanation has been given by him as to how human blood came on his clothes.Report of FSL is another clinching piece of evidence to connect appellants with the crime.The motive to commit crime is writ large as there is unchallenged evidence on record that Devinder Singh @ Ladi was facing trial in the murder of Khazan Singh, father of the accused Inderjeet Singh and at the time of this incident, the deceased was on interim bail.It has further come in the statement of Parminder that prior to this incident, on the day of Dussehra in the year 1989, accused Inderjeet Singh along with some other accused had given beatings to Ladi and he suffered injuries in that incident.It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that motive is a double edged weapon and since the deceased was facing trial for the murder Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 47 of 49 of father of the appellant Inderjeet Singh, as such, the complainant party had an axe to grind to falsely implicate the appellants, however, this motive also furnishes a ground for taking revenge by the appellants for the murder of father of Inderjeet Singh which is clear from the fact that while fleeing away the appellants declared that they have avenged the death of Khazan Singh.Moreover, the brother of the deceased would not have allowed the real culprits to go scot free and to implicate the appellants falsely in this case.A. No. 544/1998 Page 47 of 49The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the eye witness account narration of the incident given by PW1 Parminder Singh is cogent, reliable and inspired complete confidence.Moreover, his testimony finds corroboration from his own brother PW11 Amar Singh besides the medical and scientific evidence.The entire evidence was meticulously examined by the learned Trial Court in correct perspective and it was only thereafter, that the appellants were convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC besides holding appellant Inderjeet Singh also guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 48 of 49 perversity which calls for interference.As such, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.A. No. 544/1998 Page 48 of 49The bail bonds of the appellants (Inderjeet Singh and Amar Singh) are cancelled.Appellants are directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.Intimation be sent to the concerned Superintendent Jail.Trial Court record be sent back immediately.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE (KAILASH GAMBHIR) JUDGE MAY 09, 2014 rs Crl.A. No. 544/1998 Page 49 of 49A. No. 544/1998 Page 49 of 49 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
3,974,696 | A.753/2012 Page 1 of 7A.753/2012 Page 1 of 7Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 21.04.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. after kidnapping the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged around 8 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents, the appellant committed rape upon her and criminally intimidated her.On the fateful night 'X' had gone to see a marriage party procession in the neighbourhood where she was enticed by the appellant on the pretext that her mother was calling her.He took 'X' to an isolated place near cremation ground and sexually assaulted her.When PW-3 (Sanjeeta), 'X's mother did not find her in the house at night, she went to search her. 'X' met her on the way and she narrated the entire incident to her.Information conveyed by her to the police was recorded as Daily Diary (DD) No.6 at 7.00 a.m. at Police Post M.Vihar.The investigation was assigned to ASI Satbir singh who with Ct.B.K.Parthy went to the spot.After recording statement of victim's mother (Ex.PW- 3/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.PW-11/A).There were abrasions on mons pubis; hymen was ruptured.The alleged history records 'rape' by a neighbouring boy.Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.As per FSL report (Ex.PW- 15/C) human 'semen' was detected on exhibits 1a (T shirt) and Ex.7 (nikar).A.753/2012 Page 7 of 7Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.363/07 emanating from FIR No.217/07 registered at Police Station Narela by which the appellant-Vicky was held guilty for committing offence under Section 376(2)(f)/363/506 IPC.By an order dated 28.01.2011 he was awarded various prison terms with fine.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for commission of the aforesaid Crl.A.753/2012 Page 2 of 7 offences against the appellant in the court.The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to substantiate its case.In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication.He did not produce any evidence in defence.The trial resulted in his conviction as mentioned previously.Hence the appeal.A.753/2012 Page 2 of 7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. 'X' was aged around eight years on the day of incident; the accused has not challenged it.It being late hours, PW-3 (Sanjeeta) did not report the incident immediately to the police as her husband was far away at Kolkatta that time.However, in the morning at around 7.00 a.m., she put the police machinery into motion and DD No.6 (Ex.PW-4/A) came into existence.In her statement (Ex.PW-3/A) 'X's mother Sanjeeta gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances 'X' was sexually assaulted by the accused who lived in her neighbourhood.Since the FIR was lodged without inordinate delay, there was least possibility of Crl.A.753/2012 Page 3 of 7 the prosecutrix and her mother to concoct a false story to implicate the appellant by name in such a short interval.A.753/2012 Page 3 of 7Material testimony to infer the appellant's guilt is that of prosecutrix 'X'.She recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.She gave vivid description of the entire episode and implicated the appellant to be the author of the crime.When she appeared as PW-2 in the Court, the learned Presiding Officer conducted preliminary enquiry to ascertain if she was a competent witness and was able to give rational answers to the questions put to her.It also ensured that she was making her statement voluntarily without any fear or pressure.After recording his satisfaction, the learned Presiding Officer recorded her statement without oath.In her Court statement, 'X' fully supported the prosecution and proved the version given to the police and before the Metropolitan Magistrate without any variation.She disclosed that at around 9.30 p.m. she had gone to watch a marriage procession in the neighbourhood.From there she was taken by Vicky to a vacant place behind the cremation ground and there she was sexually assaulted.She further disclosed that on the way to her home after the occurrence, her mother met and she narrated the entire incident to her.In the cross- examination, she disclosed that the cremation ground was far away from Crl.A.753/2012 Page 4 of 7 marriage venue and she was tired after travelling to that place.She denied that the accused was falsely implicated at the behest of their landlord.Apparently, no material discrepancy or infirmity could be elicited in her cross-examination.Nothing was suggested to her as to how the landlord was interested in the false implication of the accused.Neeraj) medically examined 'X' who made endorsement on the MLC (Ex.It further confirms appellant's involvement in the crime.A.753/2012 Page 4 of 76. PW-3 (Sanjeeta), 'X's mother has corroborated her version in its entirety.No ulterior motive was assigned to her to falsely implicate the accused.She denied if the accused was arrested at the instance of her Crl.A.753/2012 Page 5 of 7 previous landlord.Again, name of the previous landlord was not disclosed and it was not suggested as to how and why he was interested to implicate the accused.Unless such an incident had really been taken place, parents of a little child would be highly reluctant to level such serious allegations of rape against their own unmarried minor daughter to have reflection on her chastity.Nothing has appeared to infer if 'X' was a tutored witness.There were no compelling reasons for PW-3 (Sanjeeta) to tutor 'X' without any extraneous consideration.The evidence must be evaluated carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring.A.753/2012 Page 5 of 7Learned counsel for the appellant in the alternative prayed for modification of the sentence order and to release the appellant for the period already undergone which has exceeded more than nine years.I Crl.A.753/2012 Page 6 of 7 find no adequate and sufficient reasons to award sentence less than the prescribed one under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC as the victim was a child, aged around eight years.The appellant who lived in her neighbourhood had a duty to protect her in case of need.Instead of performing his duty as a good neighbour, he ravished her after kidnapping from the lawful guardianship of her parents.A.753/2012 Page 6 of 7The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.Trial Court record (if any) along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith.A copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail for intimation.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2015 sa Crl.A.753/2012 Page 7 of 7 | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,866,083 | The prosecution story runs thus:The deceased Gopinath was the son of Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2).He was residing with his parents in Udaiyar Street, Alagapuri Village in Trichy District.He was an M.B.A., Graduate and was assisting his father Govindasamy (P.W.2) in farming.Gopinath belonged to Udayar Community.His close friend Ramachandran (P.W.14), who belonged to Vellalar Community, was in love with Brindha, who belonged to Udayar Community and was a resident of Alagapuri Village.Prathap (A-1) is the brother of Brindha and Chandru (A-2) is Brindha's uncle's son.Therefore, the parents and brother of Brindha wanted to give her in marriage to Chandru (A-2).After 2/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 Ramachandran (P.W.14) and Brindha got married, they went to the local Police Station and lodged complaints (Exs.P.4, P.5 and P.6) seeking police protection, since they feared their life.Therefore, Prathap (A-1) and Chandru (A-2), who were having grudge against Gopinath, for helping his friend Ramachandran (P.W.14) to elope with Brindha, conspired on 09.03.2016 around 08.00 p.m., with Thiruppathi (A-3) near Mariamman Temple to eliminate Gopinath, pursuant to which, on 22.03.2016 around 11.30 a.m., Prathap (A-1) and Chandru (A-2) barged into the house of Gopinath, Prathap (A-1) fell upon Gopinath and belaboured him with a billhook (M.O.1), while Chandru (A-2) held Gopinath by his legs and thus, caused his death in the very presence of his aged parents-Jayalakshmi (63 years) and Govindasamy (71 years).After the brutal attack, they fled from the house and surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam on the next day.On getting information, Ashok Raj (P.W.4), nephew of Jayalakshmi (P.W.1), who was working as Assistant Professor in Government Engineering College, Salem, rushed by car to the Government Hospital, Namakkal and consoled Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2).He took Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) to Uppiliyapuram Police Station, where Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) gave a complaint (Ex.P.1) that was scribed by Ashok Raj (P.W.4) narrating the events, based on which, Jothilakshmi (P.W.23), Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Uppiliyapuram Police Station Crime No.80 of 2016 on 22.03.2016 at 20.00 hours (08.00 p.m.) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Prathap (A-1) and Chandru (A-2) and prepared the printed First Information Report (Ex.P.13), which reached the Jurisdictional Magistrate at 11.40 p.m., on the same day, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.Investigation of the case was taken over by Chezhiyan (P.W.27), Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and rough sketch (Ex.P.16) in the presence of witnesses Ilangovan (P.W.8) and Murugan (not 4/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 examined).From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer seized the following items in the presence of the same witnesses on 23.03.2016 at 07.15 a.m., under Mahazar-Ex.(i) samples of bloodstained cement plaster (M.O.2);(ii) samples of cement plaster without bloodstain (M.O.3);(iii) Bloodstained coir pieces from the coir cot (M.O.4);(iv) Samples of coir from the cot without bloodstain (M.O.5)(v) Bloodstained pillow cover (M.O.6).The Investigating Officer went to the mortuary of the Government Hospital, Namakkal, where the body of Gopinath was kept and conducted inquest over the body and the inquest report was marked as Ex.2) Laceration 6 x 3 x 1.5 cms over the left parietal region exposing the bone.x 1.5 cms over the left parietal region extending to the centre exposing the bone.4) Laceration 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cms just below the right knee.Internal Examination:Head - Fracture of frontal bone, orbit and Navel bone, Membrane torn, Brain - damaged frontal lober with blood clots all over the brain, C/S pale, Neck - Hyoid bone intact, Thorax - Ribs - No fracture, Heart - Normal chamber empty C/S pale, Lungs - Normal C/S pale Abdomen - Stomach normal contains 100 ml of undigested food, Liver, Spleen and both Kidneys were normal C/S Pale 6/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 Intestines - bloated with gas, Bladder normal.Based on the confession statement of Chandru (A-2), the Investigating Officer seized a Bajaj Platina Black Colour Motorcycle (M.O.7) in the presence of same witnesses on 31.03.2016 at 17.00 7/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 hours under Mahazar (Ex.P.11).The bloodstained articles were sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory through the Court for examination.Jaya (P.W.26), Scientific Officer, in her evidence as well in the Biological Report (Ex.P.14), has stated that blood was detected in the apparel that were worn by the deceased, pillow cover (M.O.6), cement plaster (M.O.2) and coir rope pieces (M.O.4), which were recovered from the place of occurrence and in the billhook (M.O.1).After all, Prathap (A-1) is none other than the elder brother of Ramachandran's (P.W. 14's) wife Brindha and Chandru (A-2) was Brindha's uncle's son.The Trial Court Public Prosecutor must have declared this witness hostile on this aspect, but, that was not done.Amuthasurabi (P.W.17) conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and in her evidence as well in the Post- mortem Certificate (Ex.P.7), noted the following injuries: 5/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 "External Injuries:-1) Laceration 7.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cms over the forehead with fracture of frontal bone exposing the brain.The deceased would have appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to (fracture of frontal bone) head injury."On coming to know about the involvement of Thiruppathi (A-3) in the conspiracy to eliminate Gopinath, the police arrested Thiruppathi (A-3) on 25.03.2016 at 09.30 a.m. and filed an alteration report (Ex.P.18) including Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code also.Based on the confession statement of Prathap (A-1), the police seized a bloodstained billhook (M.O.1) in the presence of witnesses Sivasakthi (P.W.18) and Etthiraj (not examined).However, from the Serology Report (Ex.P.15), it is seen that the blood grouping test proved inconclusive.After examining the witnesses and collecting various records, the police completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No.7 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, under Sections 302 r/w 120-B, 449, 302 and 302 r/w 114 of the Indian Penal Code against Prathap (A-1), Chandru (A-2) and Thirupathi (A-3).On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with 8/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.204 of 2016 and was made over to the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Trichy, for trial.When questioned, the accused pleaded "not guilty".To prove the case, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses, marked 19 exhibits and 7 material objects.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.No witness was examined from the side of the accused.However, in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence marked Exs.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial Court, by Judgment and order dated 04.04.2018, in S.C.No.204 of 2016, acquitted all the accused of the the charge under Section 120-B r/w 302 IPC, and convicted and sentenced Prathap (A-1) and Chandru (A-2) as under:Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentences, Prathap (A-1) and Chandru (A-2) have preferred the present appeal.None has chosen to challenge the acquittal of Thiruppathi (A-3).10/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018Heard Mr.R.Manickaraj, learned counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 and Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.The prosecution has proved the following facts beyond cavil:(i) The deceased Gopinath was the son of Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2);(ii) he was an M.B.A., Graduate and was living with his parents in Udaiyar Street, Alagapuri Village;(iii) he belonged to Udayar Community; and(iv) his death was a homicide and had occurred in his house on 22.03.2016 around 11.30 a.m.The nub of the prosecution case rests on the ocular evidence of his parents Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2).Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2), in their evidence, have stated that the deceased Gopinath was their son and that they know the accused; they heard from their son that he was warned by Prathap (A-1) for helping Ramachandran (P.W.14) to get married to 11/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 Brindha; on 22.03.2016 at 11.30 a.m., their son Gopinath was sitting on the coir cot in the hall of their house and they (P.W.1 & P.W.2) were sitting on the floor and chatting; at that time, Prathap (A-1) and Chandru (A-2) barged into the house and Prathap (A-1) started attacking Gopinath by saying "When we are weeping, you are happily chatting after making my sister run away"; when they both got up to go to the rescue of Gopinath, Chandru (A-2) pushed both of them down and held the legs of Gopinath, while A-1 hacked him; thereafter, they fled from the house.This is with regard to the kernel of the fact in issue.Thereafter, Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2) have stated that they made a hue and cry, hearing which, their relatives and neighbours rushed to the house and they carried Gopinath to the Government Hospital, Namakkal by ambulance, where he was declared brought dead.Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) has further stated that she went along with her nephew Ashok Raj to the Police Station and gave a written complaint (Ex.P.1).The learned counsel for the defence took this Court to the cross-examination of Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2) and submitted that there are contradictions.He submitted that Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) has stated that she had gone to the Police Station 12/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 with her husband, whereas, Govindasamy (P.W.2) has stated that he did not accompany Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) to the Police Station.The learned counsel further submitted that the First Information Report in this case was registered only at 08.00 p.m., which shows that there was a long delay in lodging the complaint.The learned counsel further contended that Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2) have stated that the police had come to the hospital, which shows that she had given an earlier complaint and that has been suppressed.We are unable to appreciate any of these submissions.The deceased Gopinath was a bachelor and was living with his parents Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2).He has further stated that he went to Uppiliyapuram Police Station with Brindha and lodged complaints (Exs.P.4, P.5 and P.6) seeking protection, since their marriage was an inter-caste 13/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 marriage.He has further stated that he knows Gopinath, but, has strangely stated that Gopinath did not help him to get married to Brindha.The reason for this somersault is obvious.However, the complaints (Exs.P.4, P.5 and P.6) that were given by Ramachandran (P.W.14) and Brindha to the police clearly show that he and Brindha feared that harm will befall them from Brindha's family.Apart from Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2), Deivendran (P.W.3) and Ashok Raj (P.W.4) and Arputham (P.W.5) have stated that the accused had animosity towards Gopinath for having aided the elopement of Brindha.With regard to the submission of the defence that there was delay in lodging of the complaint, it is seen that Jayalakshmi (P.W.1), in her evidence, has stated that after the incident, they carried Gopinath from Alagapuri to Namakkal, which is about 50 kilometres away and Gopinath was examined by Dr.Gopinath (namesake of the deceased) at 13.10 hours on 22.03.2016 and was 14/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 declared brought dead.Thereafter, the body was kept in the mortuary of the hospital.The old parents must have been in a state of terrible shock after having witnessed the attack and losing their beloved son.Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2) have stated that they are illiterates.They have scribbled their name in Tamil as signatures in the deposition.Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) has stated that she went along with her nephew Ashok Raj (P.W.4) from Namakkal District back to Uppiliyapuram in Trichy District and lodged the complaint.In the cross-examination, she has stated that she does not remember at what time she reached the Police Station.Just because she has stated that some policemen had come to the hospital, an inference cannot be drawn that the policemen were from Uppiliyapuram Police Station and that she gave a complaint to them and that complaint has been suppressed.It is possible that Constables attached to the Government Hospital Outpost would have come to ascertain the place of occurrence for sending intimation to the concerned station.R.Manickaraj, learned counsel contended that witnesses have stated that policemen from Uppiliyapuram Police Station had come to the house of the deceased after the occurrence.The possibility also cannot be ruled out, because, after the injured was carried to the Hospital, Uppiliyapuram Police would have got information and would 15/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 have come to the house of the deceased.All this, by itself, cannot lead to the inference that Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) had given a complaint earlier and that has been suppressed.On the contrary, Jayalakshmi's (P.W.1's) evidence shows that from the Namakkal Government Hospital, she came back to Uppiliyapuram Police Station, which itself is 20 kilometres away from Alagapuri Village and lodged the complaint in the evening.The defence has not put any suggestion to Jothilakshmi (P.W.23) Sub-Inspector of Police that an earlier complaint was given, the same was suppressed and a fresh complaint was obtained from Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) implicating the accused.We have no reasons to doubt the presence of Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) and Govindasamy (P.W.2), the parents of the deceased, in their own house when the incident had taken place.The learned counsel contended that there were no bloodstains in the cot on which the deceased was sitting at the time of incident.The stray submission of Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) that Govindasamy (P.W.2) also accompanied her to the Police Station 16/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 and the statement of Govindasamy (P.W.2) that he did not accompany his wife to the Police Station would not, by itself, discredit their testimonies.In the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence filed three documents as Exs.A perusal of them shows that Ex.D.1 is a copy of the petition in Crl.6438 of 2016 filed by Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) in the High Court for a direction to the police to complete the investigation in Crime No.80 of 2016 and file a final report.It is seen that Jayalakshmi (P.W.1) had given a representation (Ex.D.3) to the Superintendent of Police 17/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 alleging that the police had not properly investigated the case and thereafter, had filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6438 of 2016 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.A learned Single Judge of this Court has passed final orders on 22.04.2016 (Ex.D.2) with the following direction:The said statement is recorded.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Police to complete the investigation and to file the final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."These documents have not improved the defence case any further.Thus, the prosecution has proved the case beyond a peradventure and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.In the result, ● The Criminal Appeal is dismissed;18/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 ● The Judgment dated 04.04.2018, made in S.C.No.204 of 2016, on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy, is upheld.● Suspension of sentence granted by this Court on 05.07.2018 in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.4065 of 2018 in Crl.A.(M).No.217 of 2018 stands cancelled.● Since the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail, it is directed that the Trial Court shall take steps to secure them and commit them to prison to serve out the period of sentence.1.The First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) , Trichy.2.The Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram, Trichy District.19/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 20183.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.20/21http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A(MD).No.217 of 2018 P.N.PRAKASH, J.AND B.PUGALENDHI J. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
3,993,774 | [Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings C.M.P. No.17/Goonda/2015/M1 dated 15.03.2015, whereby the husband of the petitioner, by name Raja @ Fire Service Raja, S/o.Sankar, aged about 32 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions 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, 2080 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2080) branding him as a "GOONDA".2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.N.Manoharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] ; [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
400,200 | A complaint was filed by the respondent Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (for short 'the complainant') to the effect that they were the registered owners/proprietors of the Copyright of two artistic works of "USHA" registered in their favour on 24.3.1970 and 13.9.1979 under the Copyright Act (for short "the Act") and thus had the exclusive right to reproduce the said artistic works in any material form.They found that the petitioners were manufacturing/selling electric churners (madhani) illegally using the logo "USHA" in the same artistic manner in which it was registered in the name of the complainant and the petitioners had thereby committed the criminal offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act and under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code.On the basis of that complaint, FIR No. 330/89 was registered at Police Station Kotwali and in due course a report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted against the petitioners.Since then the case has been adjourned from time to time and even charge has not been framed.The case was fixed for arguments on charge on 2.9.1996 when an objection was taken on behalf of the petitioners that the case was covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Common Cause (supra) and he was entitled to be discharged as even trial has not commenced after 5 years.The petitioner being aggrieved against that order has filed the present petition.I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.It may also be an economic offence.When a manufacturer or trader infringes the copyright or design of someone else he does so to pass off spurious goods or goods of inferior quality as the goods of superior quality of the latter.This petition is accordingly dismissed.The stay granted is hereby vacated.The Trial Court shall proceed for trial expeditiously.The Trial Court record be returned forthwith. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,365,709 | The applicants along with co-accused persons called him for playing witchcraft for gaining money.He played witchcraft but failed, therefore, they all beat him.At the time of incident, Omprakash and Kailash were with the deceased.They tried to intervene.The accused persons beat them also.This second (repeat) bail application under section 439 of CrPC on behalf of applicants Ankit and Prahlad is in connection with crime number 214/2017 U/s 302, 323, 147 & 325 of IPC registered at Police Station -Kanadiya, District- Indore.First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24/01/2018 passed in M.Cr.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case.There is no evidence against them.The applicants are permanent resident of Gram Khemana, Tehsil & Distt.There is no possibility of his absconding.He is ready to furnish adequate security.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.The present applicants are charged under Section 302 of IPC for causing murder of one Gopal.According to the prosecution case, the deceased was 2 used to play witchcraft.The prosecution produced Omprakash and Kailash as eyewitnesses before the Court but they both turned hostile and have stated nothing against the present applicants.A car was recovered from possession of applicant No.1 after 6 days of the incident which was parked before the house in which the incident had happened.Trial is likely to take time. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,371,010 | The facts of the case is that the petitioner /accused No.2 along with other accused is said to have indulged in road roko, and though they were informed by the police that prohibitory order has been passed under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, which was in force from 01.10.2009 to 30.10.2009 20 persons and more indulged in roadroko without issuing prior notice and getting due permission and the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with accused Nos.1& 3 is alleged to have pushed the respondent/complainant.Hence, cases were registered against the petitioner and others for offence under Sections 143, 341, 188, 353 r/w 149 I.P.C. in Cr.The learned Addl.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is a specific allegation made by the complainant that he was pushed aside by the members of the gang and that it will amount to offence under Section 353 of I.P.C. and having prevented the movement of traffic, offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. was made out and having regard to the number of persons who assembled, offence under Section 143 r/w 149 of I.P.C. is also made out.However, he admitted that there was no prohibitory order.5.Having regard to the submission made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there was no prohibitory order passed, as stated in the complaint, there is no need for further proof.As stated supra, the registration of complaint for the offence punishable under Section 185 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained.However, having regard to the allegations made in the FIR that three persons pushed the respondent/complainant aside and prevented the bus and other vehicles from proceeding and indulged in the roadroko, in my opinion, prima facie, offences under Sections 353, 341 of I.P.C are made out.Thus, a reading of FIR makes out a prima facie case for offence under Sections 149, 341 and 353 of I.P.C., and therefore, FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.Hence theses Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Inspector of Police, Arni Taluk Police Station, Arni.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.Nos.28386 and 28387 of 2009and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2009 16.02.2015 | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,376,388 | A1 to A3 in the instant case are the Financial Establishments, out of which, A1 and A3 are partnership firms; A2 is a company registered under the Companies Act; and A4 to A25 canvassed and collected deposits from general public on various dates, but they failed to return the deposit amounts with interest.In the above circumstances, one Mullaikodi, lodged a complaint against the accused before the Additional Director General of Police, EOW-II, Vellore and based on the above said complaint, EOW-II, Vellore registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 2007 for the offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and Section 420 IPC.During investigation, it was found that A4 to A25 collected deposits in the name of A1 company from 184 depositors to a total sum of Rs.8,03,19,400/-, but defaulted to satisfy with interest to a sum of Rs.1,92,19,898 and total defalcation comes to a sum of Rs.9,95,39,298/-.They have also collected deposits in the name of A2 company from 176 depositors, totalling a sum of Rs.2,69,17,000/- and failed to repay with interest accrued for a sum of Rs.1,68,21,099/- and they committed default to the tune of Rs.4,37,38,099/-.Apart from that, A4 to A25 also collected deposits in the name of A3 firm from 120 depositors , totalling to Rs.1,78,48,500/- and the interest accrued thereon would workout to Rs.43,34,385/- and that they failed to settle the dues to the depositors to a total sum of Rs.2,21,82,885/-.The present Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2015 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.The petitioner is an accused in a criminal case in C.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act for the offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and Sections 420, 406 r/w.120(b) IPC.He filed an application before the Court below seeking to discharge him from the above criminal case and the Court below dismissed the said application.Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.In all, A4 to A25 collected deposits from various investors to the tune of Rs.12,50,84,900/- and the interest accrued thereon is worked to Rs.4,03,75,382/-.Thus, they cheated the depositors for Rs.16,54,60,282/-.After investigation, the respondent filed final report for the above said offence.Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking to discharge him from the above criminal case on the ground that he was not responsible for the day to day affairs of the company.The Court below while dismissing the application held that the deposits were collected from the general public and that there are prima facie materials available on record to show that the petitioner also canvassed and collected deposits from the depositors and that the petitioner was also involved in the collection of deposits.Challenging the above order, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and he is working as Junior under A4, who was the main accused in this case and that he had only attested some of the promissory notes as a witness and he never involved in the collection of deposits nor he was responsible for the day to day affairs of the financial establishments.Merely because the petitioner attested some of the promissory notes, he has been implicated as an accused.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that even though the petitioner is an Advocate and working as junior under A4, he had signed in number of pro-notes issued by the accused financial establishment and there are materials available on record to show that the petitioner also canvassed deposits for the financial institution.I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on records carefully.Admittedly, the petitioner is working as junior advocate under A4, and it is also admitted that the petitioner had only attested some of the promissory notes issued by the accused financial institution.Apart from that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he collected deposits for the institutions.Thus, this Court finds no material on record to show that the petitioner had participated in the day to day management of the affairs of the accused financial institution and that he has been roped in as an accused merely on the ground that he had also acknowledged the deposits received by the financial institution and he had also attested some of the pronotes.In a similar situation, this Court had an occasion to deal with the same set of facts in 2010 (1) MLJ (Criminal) 742 (Prasannadevi /vs/ State of Tamilnadu), wherein this Court has held as follows:The canvassing agents, as such, cannot be held responsible for the management of the affairs of the firm.A canvassing agent may contribute his mite by mobilising funds for the financial firm on contract basis for payment of brokerage or service charges.A canvassing agent gives a rosy picture about the firm to mobilise the deposit.It is only the depositors who shall verify the veracity of such embellished version regarding the performance of a firm and the financial soundness thereof with the person who is responsible for the management of the firm and offer his deposit."such a practice should be stopped forthwith as otherwise innocent victims just because they happened to be relatives of the mis-managed financial institution would be roped in and they have to undergo the ordeal of criminal trial."Merely because the petitioner had attested some of the pronotes without knowing the implication there of, it cannot be said that he committed the crime and he cannot be roped in without any further material to show that he had intention to cheat the depositors.In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no primafacie material available on record against the petitioner to proceed further.Hence, the petitioner is entitled for discharge from the charges.But the Court below erred considering the materials available on record in a proper perspective and dismissed the application.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside and the petitioner is discharged from all the charges.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.15.05.2017 (9/9)Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking ordermrpToThe Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.C.No.445 of 201515.05.2017 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
503,850 | a)P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Kumar.P.Ws.3 to 5 are the neighbours.P.W.1 and his son Kumar were employed in Bangalore and that they returned and were staying in their native village during the relevant time.P.W.2 was propagating that the members of the accused family were indulging in petty thefts and thus, there was quarrel often.The first accused abused her and P.W.1 pacified her.But, the accused did not stop the same.On hearing the noise, the deceased came there and questioned the conduct of the accused.Immediately, the first accused attacked the deceased with the stone on his forehead, while the second accused attacked him with the stick on his head.Immediately, he fell down and died.The accused fled away from the place of occurrence.b)P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station, where the Sub Inspector of Police was present, to whom P.W.1 gave the complaint at about 8.00 p.m., on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.557 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC.P.9, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court.c)P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.4, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.10, the rough sketch.He has also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.11, the inquest report.The place of occurrence and the dead body were photographed through P.W.8, the photographer.M.O.3 (series) photos and M.O.4 (series) negatives were marked.The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Ulundurpet for the purpose of post-mortem.d)P.W.7, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Ulundurpet, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of intradural and extradural bleeding into the skull due to head injury about 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.He voluntarily came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses.The admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the confessional statement, the first accused produced M.O.1, stone, which was recovered under Ex.P.6, mahazar.M.O.2, stick was also recovered under Ex.(The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Villupuram made in S.C.No.164 of 2005, whereby the appellants herein stood charged under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo three months R.I.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:P.7, mahazar.The second accused was also arrested on the same day, who has come forward to give confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses.The accused were sent for judicial remand.The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and also relied on 13 exhibits and 4 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.On the side of the defence, one witness was examined and 2 documents were marked.The trial court, on hearing the submissions made on either side and looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellants guilty as per the charge and awarded punishment as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this court.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel made the following submissions:The prosecution marched 5 witnesses as occurrence witnesses.P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased.P.Ws.3 to 5, though claimed to be the neighbours, even after witnessing the quarrel between the accused on one side and P.Ws.on the other side, did not intervene, which would be indicative of the fact that they could not have been present at the time of occurrence at all.Apart from that, there were contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, which would indicate their absence at the time of occurrence.Further, P.W.2 has categorically admitted that she went to the police station along with her husband and gave a complaint, but the police officer refused to receive the same and thereafter, her husband drafted the complaint and gave it to the police station and thus, the first information given by P.W.2 has been suppressed.b)Further, in the instant case, the investigation has been commenced even before the case was registered by the police.The learned counsel relied on the evidence of P.W.8, the photographer, who went to the spot and took the photographs of the dead body and the scene of occurrence at 7.00 p.m. and thus, it would be quite clear that the investigation was commenced earlier.Though the prosecution claimed that the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2, stone and stick respectively, was made from A-1 and A-2, they were never subjected to chemical analysis and no report was placed before the court.In the instant case, the medical opinion canvassed was also not in favour of the prosecution and all would to go show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.c)The learned counsel, in the second line of argument, would submit that there was a quarrel between the accused/appellants on one side and P.Ws.on the other side.Further, Exs.D.1 and D.2, the accident register copies of A-1 and one Annamalai were also marked before the trial court.It would also clearly indicate that the accused also sustained injuries in the same transaction, but the prosecution did not tender any explanation and thus, all would indicate that there was a quarrel between them and as a result of which, the accused also sustained injuries and hence the act of the accused cannot be termed as murder and all these aspects have got to be considered by this court.5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.6.It is not the fact in controversy that one Kumar, the son of P.Ws.1 and 2, was done to death in an incident that took place at 7.00 p.m. on 18.08.2004 at the place of occurrence.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.7, the Doctor, who has given his categorical opinion that the deceased died out of intradural and extradural bleeding into the skull due to head injury.He has also issued post-mortem certificate to that effect.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the trial court or before this court.Hence it has got to be factually recorded so.7.In order to substantiate the fact that at the time of occurrence, A-1 attacked the deceased with stone and A-2 also attacked the deceased with the stick, the prosecution marched 5 witnesses.It is true, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased.But, on that ground, their evidence cannot be discarded.Before accepting their evidence, the court must apply the test of careful scrutiny.Further, the prosecution fortunately had its benefit the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the neighbours.No circumstance or reason was brought about by the appellants to cast a doubt on their evidence.All the five witnesses have spoken about the incident in entirety.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that previously, there was a quarrel and it was the accused who pelted stones on the house of of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has shouted at the accused and there was a quarrel and at that time, P.W.1 intervened and pacified the situation and when the accused did not stop the same and continued the quarrel, it was quite natural for the deceased, the son of P.Ws.1 and 2, to question the conduct of the accused.Immediately, A-1 attacked him with the stone and A-2 also attacked him with the stick.It is pertinent to point out that actually, the genesis of the occurrence was clearly made known.It was the accused who commenced the quarrel and not P.Ws.There was quarrel between P.Ws.1 and 2 on one side and A-1 and A-2 on the other side and that the deceased had nothing to do.Quite naturally, the deceased questioned the conduct of the accused and hence he had no role to play in the quarrel.Immediately, both the accused attacked the deceased and caused his death.It is true, the accused sustained injuries at the time of occurrence.It remains to be stated that the prosecution is not duty bound to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in every case.In the instant case, the injuries sustained by them, as could be seen from Exs.D.1 and D.2, the accident register copies, are simple in nature.Further, the Doctor gave opinion at the time of cross examination that when the first accused was running from the place of occurrence, such injuries were likely to happen.Under these circumstances, non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused is not fatal to the prosecution.Further, it was never the case of the accused anywhere that they sustained injuries in the same transaction.Hence the court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants.8.Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the first information has been suppressed cannot be countenanced.Though a suggestion was put to P.W.2, no corresponding suggestion has been put to the Inspector of Police.According to him, P.W.1 came to the police station and gave Ex.P.1, the report and on the strength of which, the case came to be registered and hence it leaves no doubt in the mind of the court.9.Equally, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants that the investigation has actually been commenced before the registration of the case cannot be countenanced.The learned counsel relied on the evidence of P.W.8, the photographer in respect of this contention.According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at 7.00 p.m. The place of occurrence is situated 20 Kms.from Ulundurpet.P.W.8, the photographer, is having his photo studio at Ulunderpet.He has given his evidence to the effect that he took the photographes at about 7.00 p.m., which was humanly impossible.Giving benefit to the mistaken version, the court cannot come to the conclusion that the investigation has actually been commenced even before the case was registered.10.Apart from that, it is true, no report was received from the Forensic Science Department in respect of the analysis made with regard to the M.Os.But, there is evidence to indicate that both the M.Os., namely stone and the stick, were recovered from A-1 and A-2 respectively pursuant to their confessional statements and evidence was also placed before the trial court to that effect.Hence the recovery of weapon of crime pursuant to the confessional statements given by the accused, in the considered opinion of the court, would be pointing to the nexus of the accused with the crime.All put together would clearly indicate that A-1 and A-2 have jointly shared the intention and have attacked the deceased and caused his death instantaneously.The trial court has come to a correct conclusion after marshaling the evidence proper.Hence there is nothing found either factually or legally to interfere with the judgment of the trial court.11.In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.(M.C., J.) (M.V., J.) 07.01.2009Index : YesInternet : Yesvvk M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.AND M.VENUGOPAL, J.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, Villupuram District.2.Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Ulundurpet, Villupuram District.3.The Additional Pubic Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.A.NO.474 OF 2008 07.01.2009 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
503,934 | JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.These petitions are directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judges dated 3.6.1987 whereby the learned Judge has declined to exercise his revisional jurisdiction against the order dated 24.10.1986 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the accused under Section 411, IPC. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
50,393,959 | Mohd. Usman.It has been alleged thatthe father of the respondent No.2 has executed the document of sale deedof contentious land in favour of one Yusuf Ali Kurban Hussain by way ofsecurity.After the death of Yusuf Ali, his son Mohd. Yusuf Ahmed persuadedthe proceeding for mutation of his name in the revenue record.Theconcerned Tahsildar after appreciating the circumstances and objectionsraised on behalf of respondent No. 2 mutated the name of Mohd. Yusuf inthe revenue record being the purchaser of property.{5} crapln 5784.16.odt(d) Respondent No.2 raised the objection by his protest applicationto the "B Summary Report" on behalf of the concerned police of City ChowkPolice Station.2] The applicant has preferred the present application underSection 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of thiscourt to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No. 321 of 2016 registered ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {2} crapln 5784.16.odtagainst the applicant and others at City Chowk police station, Aurangabad,for the offence punishable under sections 420,425, 465, 468, 471, 204, 417,120-B r/w. 34 of IPC.The applicant agitated the validity, legality andpropriety of the impugned FIR being subsequent FIR of the same offence andthe same set of allegations as contained in the earlier FIR bearing Crime NO.271 of 2014 registered at City Chowk police Station, Aurangabad, followingthe directions of the learned Magistrate dated 3.11.2014 under Section156(3) of the Cr.P.C. in private complaint proceeding vide Criminal M.A. No.2247 of 2014 initiated at the behest of the respondent No. 2 - Rafik Ahmeds/o.Mohd. Usman.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::3] The genesis of the application culled out in brief is as under :-[a] That,the contentious land Gat No.11 admeasuring 2H 3R,located at village Georai, Taluka Aurangabad was the ancestral property ofrespondent No.2 Rafik Ahmed s/o.The respondent No.2approached to the higher authority against the mutation allowed by theconcerned Tahsildar but the respondent No.2 did not succeed in his attempt.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::{3} crapln 5784.16.odtEventually, he filed Civil proceeding bearing RCS No.1131 of 2001, forcancellation of sale deed executed by his father in favour of Yusuf Ali.In themeantime, Yusuf Ali's widow - Hussainabee alienated the contentious suitland Gat No.11 in favour of the applicant for consideration by executing aregistered sale deed.Accordingly, the applicant approached to the revenueauthority for mutation of his name in the revenue record but he came toknow about the civil litigation initiated by the respondent No.2 forcancellation of original sale deed executed in favour of Yusuf Ali - husbandof Hussainabee.The applicant intervened in the litigation and got theex-parte decree passed in favour of respondent No.2 set aside and quashed.[b] There was a chequered history of litigation relating tocontentious suit land Gat No.11, but the respondent No.2 failed to obtainfavourable order from the Court of law.Meantime, in the year 2008, afterex-parte decree in favour of respondent No.2, his name came to be mutatedin the revenue record for the contentious land Gat No.11 of village Georai,Tahsil Aurangabad.But, after setting aside the ex-parte decree from theCourt, the applicant approached to the revenue authority to get his namemutated in the revenue record.The concerned revenue authority,appreciated the circumstances and after obtaining opinion from theconcerned DGP, mutated name of the applicant in the revenue record.Beingdissatisfied with the mutation entry of the applicant in the revenue recordby the concerned Tahsildar and Talathi, the respondent No.2 rushed to theCity Chowk police station and ventilated the grievances against the revenuepersonnel and the applicant.But the allegations nurtured on behalf of ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {4} crapln 5784.16.odtrespondent No.2 Rafik Ahmed were of civil in nature, the police authorityfound reluctant to act upon the complaint of the respondent No.2 RafikAhmed and advised him to take recourse of the Court of law.Therefore, therespondent No.2 approached to the Court of learned Magistrate and filedprivate criminal complaint u/sec.200 of Cr.P.C. bearing CriminalMiscellaneous Application No. 2247 of 2014 alleging that the so calledaccused prepared and fabricated fake and bogus documents, to grab theland of the complainant.The accused also tampered with the Governmentrecord maintained and preserved in the office of the revenue personnel andcommitted the offence of forgery and cheating etc. [c] The learned Magistrate considered the facts and circumstancesas well as nature of allegations nurtured against the revenue personnel andapplicant, and proceeded to direct the police of City Chowk police stationfor investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to thedirections of the learned Magistrate dated 03-11-2014 the police of CityChowk police station registered the FIR bearing No. I-271 of 2014 for theallegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating etc. and set the penallaw in motion, The concerned IO recorded the statements of witnessesacquainted with the facts of the case and collected the relevant documents.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::The learned Magistrate did not allow to close the proceedingby accepting "B" summary report and once again forwarded the complaint toACP(Crime) with directions to appoint senior inspector for furtherinvestigation into the matter.Accordingly, the ACP (Crime) appointed theSenior Police Inspector of MIDC police station to carry out the investigationand to submit the report.The senior PI of MIDC police station conducted theinvestigation and found no substance in the allegation for criminal action.Hepreferred to close the proceeding by filing "B" Summary Report for want ofconcrete evidence.But, it was also not accepted by the learned Magistrateand again, the matter was referred to the Senior Police personnel forinvestigation afresh.At this juncture also, there was no change in thecircumstances found available on record and the attending circumstancesconstrained the police authorities to once again prefer "B" Summary Report,as the charges against the applicant and revenue authorities were of civil innature.[e] However, the learned Magistrate came across with thecircumstance that complainant - Rafik Ahmed had filed an application on28.4.2014 and 29.4.2014 to the Tahsildar, Aurangabad pertaining to mutationof his name in the 7 x12 extract on the basis of ex-parte decree passed in hisfavour.But, the concerned revenue officer, in connivance with the applicanttampered with the Government record and took the entry of applicant'sname in the 7/12 extract on the basis of forged documents.According to ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {6} crapln 5784.16.odtcomplainant, the applicant and other revenue personnel committed mischiefof forgery and cheating etc. The learned Magistrate verified the allegationsof tampering of Government documents, cheating, forgery etc, andproceeded to issue process against the applicant under section 204 of Cr.P.C.The learned Magistrate refused to initiate penal action against the revenuepersonnel for the allegations cast on behalf of complainant, for want ofprosecution sanction.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::[f] Being aggrieved by the impugned order of issuance of process,the applicant - Mohd. Hisham Osmani s/o.Yusuf Osmani, approached to theSessions Court and filed Criminal Revision Application NO. 166 of 2016 to setaside the impugned order of issuance of process, interalia, the applicant alsopreferred an application for interim relief to stay the impugned order.[g] Meanwhile, respondent No.2 procured the relevant documentsfrom office of Tahsildar, Aurangabad and it was found that the applicant,hatched the conspiracy with the revenue personnel and prepared the fakeand spurious documents and shown these documents were issued by theconcerned Tahsildar, to deprive the complainant to mutate his name in therevenue record.Therefore, he once again rushed to the City Chowk policestation and filed another FIR bearing No. 321 of 2016, under Section 420,425, 465,468, 471, 120-B, r/w. 34 of IPC.It has been alleged that the ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {7} crapln 5784.16.odtapplicant hatched criminal conspiracy with revenue personnel and forgedand tampered the revenue documents during the period 22.12.2014 to16.5.2016, with an intention to cause loss to the first informant and to grabhis ancestral property Gat No.11 of village Georai Taluka Aurangabad.Accordingly, the City Chowk police station registered the another crime andonce again swung into action for collection of evidence against theapplicant.The impugned FIR is the subject matter of the presentapplication.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::4] The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that theaction of registration of subsequent FIR bearing Crime No. 321 of 2016 isillegal, unjust and not within the purview of law.The impugned FIR is totally false, baseless and filed with oblique/ulterior motive to harass the applicant.It is nothing but an abuse of processof law.Inview of the provisions of law, there cannot be two FIRs of the same incidentand on the same set of facts and circumstances, forming part of the sameoffence.The applicant agitated thepropriety of the impugned order of issuance of process against the applicantby filing Criminal Revision Application NO. 166 of 2016, which is subjudicebefore the learned Sessions Judge at Aurangabad.Meanwhile, on the similarset of allegations, the respondent No.2 filed subsequent FIR which is illegal,improper and not sustainable in the eye of law.According to learnedcounsel, the respondent No.2 lost the legal battle since beginning forclaiming the contentious land Gat No.11 of village Georai Taluka Aurangabad.Eventually, he resorted to criminal proceeding with a purported motivationto harass the applicant on same set of factual aspects.The applicant isinnocent.He has not committed any crime.There was no forgery cheatingor tampering with the Government record on the part of applicant.Hence,the learned counsel prayed to quash and set aside the subsequent FIR, whichis not sustainable within the ambit of law, as the same is abuse of process oflaw.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::He explained that the ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {9} crapln 5784.16.odtinformation which has been recorded at first point of time should beregarded as FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C. Mr. Kazi vehemently contendedthat in case any additional information is received to the respondent No.2herein, it would appropriate for him to furnish the said information to thelearned Magistrate in the matter subjudice before him.But respondent No. 2has no legal right to approach to the police of city Chowk police station, forregistration of subsequent FIR on same set of facts and allegations, and it isnot permissible at all within the purview of law.Therefore, he prayed toallow the application for quashing the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 321of 2016 being second FIR of the same cognizable offence.6] Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 raisedthe objection to the contentions put forth on behalf of applicant.TheRespondent No. 2 also filed his affidavit-in-reply on record.According tolearned counsel for the respondent No.2, there are circumstances on recordto constitute a cognizable offence of cheating, forgery as well as tamperingwith the Government documents.But, due to influence of the applicant andrevenue personnel, the police preferred the "B" Summary Reports into thematter.However, learned Magistrate has correctly appreciated thecircumstances on record and issued process against the applicant for theallegations nurtured in the private complaint.According to learned counsel,even after registration of crime, the applicant and other revenue personnelcontinued their alleged activities of cheating, forgery etc. The applicantused the spurious and fake documents in the court proceeding to deceiveand defraud the respondent No.2 in this case.Learned counsel for ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {10} crapln 5784.16.odtrespondent No.2 gave much more emphasis on the forged letter dated27-05-2014 which was shown and issued by the Tahsil office on 27.5.2014,having signature for Tahsildar.In fact, there was no such letter issued fromthe tahsil office on 27.5.2014 but the Tahsildar had put his signature on3.6.2014, which demonstrate that there was no direction to the concernedTalathi on 27.5.2014 for mutation of the name of the applicant in the 7 x12extract for the land Gat No.11 of village Georai Tahsil and DistrictAurangabad.There was no record available to show that the letter bearingsignature for Tahsildar dated 27.5.2014 relating to mutation entry of landGat no.11 was ever issued from the office of the Tahsildar.The impugnedFIR is maintainable and sustainable for fresh investigation into the crime.The learned counsel explained the attending circumstances on record andrequested that there is no illegality in registration of second FIR lodged onbehalf of respondent No.2 against the applicant.Hence, he prayed not tonod in favour of the applicant and to dismiss the application.7] We have given anxious consideration to the argumentsadvanced on behalf of both sides.We have also perused the relevantdocuments produced on record.In view of factual aspects mentioned aboveand the allegations nurtured on behalf of respondent No.2 against theapplicant and others, the pivotal issue, which is to be considered in this ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {11} crapln 5784.16.odtmatter is that, since the first FIR bearing Crime No. I-271/2014 has alreadybeen registered and investigated by the police pursuant to which the learnedMagistrate issued process against applicant, in such circumstances thesecond FIR could have been registered to initiate another penal proceedingon similar nature of allegations forming part of transaction of same offenceagainst the applicant, which would be violative of the principle of doublejeopardy.?::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::The respondent No.2, on receipt of the said information,suspected about the foul play on the part of applicant and revenue personnelrelating to letter dated 27.5.2014 issued to the concerned Talathi of Georaifor the mutation entry of applicant's name in 7 x 12 extract.The RespondentNo.2 alleged that when the Tahsildar put his signature on 3.6.2014, how themutation entry of the applicant in the revenue record, came to be effectedon 28.5.2014 prior to direction from Tahsildar.Therefore, on discovery ofthese new facts, respondent No.2 rushed to the City Chowk police stationand filed the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 321 of 2016, the validity andpropriety of which is agitated in this application.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::{12} crapln 5784.16.odt9] It is a rule of law that the very purpose of registration of FIR isto set the criminal law in motion which would culminate in filing of policereport by the concerned I.O. under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The law doesnot contemplate more than one FIR in relation to the same incident ordifferent incident arising from same transaction and factual aspect.Undisputedly, Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. deals with the information to thePolice and their powers to investigate.Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. pertains tocognizable cases, whereas, Section 155 deals with the information as tonon-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.The provision ofSection 154 of Cr.PC.prescribes that there has to be a FIR about the incidentwhich constitute a cognizable offence and every such information relating tocommission of cognizable offence, whether given orally or otherwise, to theOfficer In-charge of the police station, has to be reduced into writing by orunder his directions and be read over to the informant.The provisions ofSection 156(3) contemplates that the learned Magistrate has a discretion forissuance of directions to the officer in-charge of a police station to conductinvestigation and file report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The section 190of Cr.P.C. describes powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance of offenceunder certain circumstances.It is lucid that the scheme of Sections 154,156and 190 of the Cr.P.C. does not recognize more than one FIR about theallegations of one and the same cognizable offence.10] In the matter of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and othersreferred supra, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, it ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {13} crapln 5784.16.odthas been held that the registration of another FIR in respect of the sameincident, as FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., was not valid, legal andrequired to be quashed and set aside.The earliest or the first information inregard to commission of cognizable offence only be treated as FIR undersection 154 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there can not be second FIR andconsequently, no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information ofthe same cognizable offence.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::11] In the case of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat referred supra, theHonourable Apex Court, had an occasion to consider various judicialpronouncements on the question of registration of subsequent FIR inconnection with the same or connected offences, and elucidated thesame in para.What had been laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case is that any further complaint by the same complainant against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Cr.P.C. because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further the complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence, will be prohibited under section 162 Cr.P.C. However, this rule will not apply to a counter claim by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident.Thus, in case, there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, the Investigating Agency would take the same on two different FIRs and investigation can be carried under both of them by the same investigating3 (2004) 13 SCC 2922 (2001) 6 SCC 181 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {14} crapln 5784.16.odt agency and thus, filing an FIR pertaining to a counterclaim in respect of the same incident having a different version of events, is permissible.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::In Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs.State of Punjab 5, this Court considered a case where an FIR had already been lodged on 14.6.2002 in respect of the offences committed by individuals.Subsequently, the matter was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which during investigation collected huge amount of material and also recorded statements of large number of persons and the CBI came to the conclusion that a scam was involved in the selection process of Panchayat Secretaries.The second FIR was lodged by the CBI.This Court after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that matter investigated by the CBI dealt with a larger conspiracy.Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature.If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State3 (2006)1 SCC 7322 (2001) 6 SCC 1815 (2009) 1 SCC 441 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {15} crapln 5784.16.odt and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged."::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 :::Therefore, the second FIR for the same incident can not be registered.However, where the incident is separate, offences are similar ordifferent, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitudethat it does not fall within the ambit and scope of FIR recorded first, insuch circumstances, the second FIR could be registered.The Hon'bleSupreme Court expressed the view that the court has to examine the1 (2013)6 SCC 384 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:09 ::: {16} crapln 5784.16.odtfacts and circumstances giving rise to file FIRs and test of sameness isto be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relates to the sameincident and same occurrence or in regard to incident which was two ormore part of the same transactions.Theaspirations cast in both the FIRs are totally based on one and the sameoffence alleged to have been committed during the course of sametransaction having identical spectrum.The charges are oneand the same in regard to cheating, forgery, fraud, fabricating fakedocuments, tampering of Government record etc. In such circumstances, itwould hazardous to construe that both the FIRs are in respect of differentand distinct offences and not forming the part of same transaction.17] At this juncture, it would be profitable to reproduce theallegations nurtured on behalf of the respondent no.2 against the applicantin para.13,14 and 15, of the first FIR bearing Crime No. I-271 of 2014, asbelow :-14½ vls dh] lnjhy vkns'kkps tkod jftLVªke/;s dqByhgh ukasn ukgh o vkns'k i=koj dqBykgh uacj ukgh- ;ko#u vls fl/n gksrs dh vkjksih dza- 4 'kh laxuer d#u fQ;kZnhph oMhyksikthZr tehu lqMcq/nhus gMi dj.;kP;k mn~ns'kkus ,dk vkBoM;kr >kysyh csdk;ns'khj d`R; dsyh vkgs-15½ vls dh] fQ;kZnh fouarh iqoZd ueqn djrks dh] loZ vkjksihauh laxuer d#u 'kkldh; nLrk,sotkae/;s csdk;ns'khji.ks cny dsysyk vkgs rlsp ojhy ueqn csdk;ns'khj vkjksihaps d`R; y{kkr ?ksrk gs Li"V gksrs dh] vkjksih dz- 1 rs 3 ;kauh inkpk xSjokij d#u fQ;kZnhps uqdlku dj.;kps gsrqus fQ;kZnhph Qlo.kqd dsysyh vkgs- fQ;kZnhus fn- 29@04@2014 jksth vkjksih dza- 1 rgflynkj ;kaP;k dMs xV ua- 11] ekSts xsojkbZ ;k 'ksr tehu lanHkkZr QsjQkj ?ksÅ u;s rlsp fQ;kZnhus ek- ftYgk U;k;ky;kr vihy dsys vkgs Eg.kqu ys[kh vtZ fnyk gksrk- vkjksih dza- 1 o 3 ;kauh tkuhoiqoZd lqMcq/nhus fQ;kZnhyk uqdlku Ogkos Eg.kqu lnj pk ys[kh vtZ yioqu Bsoyk vkf.k rks tk.hoiqoZd cktqyk Bsoqu y{kkr rj ?ksryk ukghp ijarq lnjpk vtZ gk dks.kkpsgh y{kkr ;s.kkj ukgh ;kph iq.kZ dkGth ?ksryh vkf.k ;ko:u Li"V gksrs dh vkjksihauh dye 417 o 418 izek.ks fQ;kZnhph Qlo.kqd d#u xqUgk dsyk vkgs-18] Now, appreciating the circumstances which gave rise to thesecond FIR bearing crime No.321 of 2016 registered against the applicant, ittranspired that the allegations nurtured in the second FIR on the part ofrespondent No.2 are almost same and identical with the allegationscontained in the first FIR.In the second FIR, the respondent No.2 cast theallegations, which are extracted as below :-::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:10 :::{19} crapln 5784.16.odt "XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX ;krhy ble eksgean fg'kke o brj gs Lor%P;k cpkoklkBh laxuer d#u vfHkys[kkr cny fdaok ufou vfHkys[k r;kj d# 'kdrkr ;k fHkrhus eh rgfly dk;kZy;kr ekSts xsojkbZ czqd cWaM rk- ft- vkSjaxkckn ;sFkhy vkod@tkod jftLVj] QsjQkj jftLVj o brj dkxni=kaph ekfgrh vf/kdkjkr ekx.kh dsyh o ekfxrysyh ekfgrh fn-22@12@2014 jksth o nql&;kank fn- 16@05@2016 jksth feGkyh lnj jftLVjps voyksdu dsY;ko#u vls fnlwu ;srs dh] eh xV ua- 11 ;kckcr eglqy dkxni=k e/;s dks.krkgh Qsj cny d# u;s Eg.kwu laca/khrkauk izkIr >kysys vtkZph uksan u nk[kfo.;k djhrk R;kauh dV jpqu tk.kwu cqtqu lqMcq/nhu Bdckth d#u eyk uqdlku Ogkok ;k mn~ns 'kkus laxuer d#u ufou [kksVs jftLVj o brj dkxni= cufoys eksgaEen fg'kke o brjkauh Lor%ps Qk;nk vkf.k cpkok djhrk eksgEen fg'kkeyk izfrfyih Eg.kwu [kksVs i= r;kj d#u rgflynkj dfjrk Lok{kjh dsysyk tk-dz- 2014@tek@dkoh fn 27@05@2014 jksthpk i= rikl vf/kdkjh ;kauk fnyk- lnj i= fu'kkuh dz- 29] iku dz-15@105 ek- U;k;ky;kph eqG QkbZy e/;s miyC/k vkgs- eh rgfly dk;kZy;kdMwu feGkysyh tk-dz- 2014@tek@2@dkoh fn- 27@05@2014 Lok{kjh fn- 03@06@2014 jksthps i=kph izek.khr izr vkf.k eks- fg'kke o brjkauh laxue d#u ufou r;kj dsysY;k rgflynkj dfjrk Lok{kjh dsysyk tk-dz- 2014 @tek 2@dkoh fn- 27@05@2014 jksthps nksUgh i=kps voyksdu dsY;ko#u vls fnlwu ;srs dh] nksUgh i=k e/khy etdqj lkj[kkp vkgs- ijarq osxosxG;k rkj[ksl] osxosxG;k O;Drhus vkf.k osxosxG;k Lok{kjhus eksgEen fg'kke ;kauh brjkalkscr laxuer d#u dV jpwu tk.kwu cwtqu gsrqiqjLdj lqM cq?nhus Bdckty d#u uohu [kksVs dkxni= r;kj dsys-19] Perusal of the allegations contained in both the FIRs demonstratethat the earlier complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 Rafik Ahmed, for ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:10 ::: {20} crapln 5784.16.odtthe allegations of fabricating fake documents, forgery, fraud tampering withGovernment documents etc. and the edifice of second FIR also rests on thesame allegation.There are common factors in both the proceedings ofcomplaint filed u/sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and the subsequent FIR impugned.According to firstinformant, the alleged letter dated 27-05-2014 was forged and fake letterprepared with malafide intention to deprive respondent No. 2 from mutationin revenue record.Obviously, the grievances of respondent No. 2 against applicantrelate to the incidents of same offence and seems to be integral part ofsame transaction.The allegations in both the proceedings cannot beconstrued as occurrence of different and distinct offence independent ofeach other.Therefore, separate investigation is not required to be carriedout to bring home guilt of the applicant as the trial of all these accusationis in the seine of the learned Magistrate of the trial court.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:10 :::{21} crapln 5784.16.odt20] In such premises, in case, we allow to conduct the separateinvestigation on the basis of subsequent FIR, it would amount to abuse ofprocess of law.It would also amount to an violation of principle of doublejeopardy.Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the subsequentFIR bearing Crime No. 321 of 2016 registered against the applicant at CityChowk police station at the instance of respondent No. 2 is contrary to law.In the result, we have no anyhesitation to quash and set aside the impugned FIR by allowing theapplication in the interest of justice.21] With the above observations, application stands allowed in terms ofprayer clause "B".The Impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 321 of 2016registered at City Chowk police station, Aurangabad on 23-07-2016 for theoffence punishable under sections 420, 425, 465, 468, 471, 120B, 204, 417read with section 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.The rule ismade absolute in above terms.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2017 01:25:10 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,201,054 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of her arrest in connection with Crime No.219/2016 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506B/34 of IPC Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against her.Except of offence under Section 452 of IPC, the remaining offences are bailable.It is not alleged against the applicant that she went inside the premises with any weapon.Prima facie, no alleged offence under Section 452 of IPC is made out against her.At the most, offence under Section 451 of IPC may constitute which is bailable.The Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant for bailable offences in contravention to the provision contained under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Sangeeta Gahlot Vs.State of M.P.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.Consequently, the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present applicant namely Sangeeta Gahlot be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.C.C. as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,201,881 | AD C.R.M. No. 4236 of 2013 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19th March, 2013 in connection with Arambagh P.S. Case No. 230 of 1999 dated 19-12-1999 under Sections 147/148/149/353/337/338/186/332 /333/341/427/307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 27/27 of the Arms Act, Section 9 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act and Section 9(b)(ii) of the Explosive Act And In re: Gopi Nath Nandi. ... Petitioner.Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh. ... for the petitioner.The present petitioner was on anticipatory bail.He was regularly attending the court but only one occasion, he was absent in court with necessary steps.He is now in custody for 9 days.Having regard to the fact as aforesaid, we allow his prayer for bail.Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly, upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5000/-each, one of whom must be 2 local.He shall not tamper with the prosecution case or commit any offence, while on bail.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Subal Baidya, J.) | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,920,971 | 11.12.2018 Aloke Court 28 C.R.M. 11112 of 2018 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.12.2018 in connection with Panchla P.S. Case No. 78 of 2017 dated 14.03.2017 under Sections 448/325/307354B/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Debasish Makhal & Anr.Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that delay is due to the conduct of the petitioners who are repeatedly stalling the progress of the proceeding.We have considered the materials on record.In view of the aforesaid submission on behalf of the petitioners that there are case and counter case between the parties and the extent of complicity of the petitioners and that they do not appear to be the principal accused, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to conditions.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, on condition that they shall not enter the jurisdiction Panchla P.S. except for 2 attending court proceeding until further orders and shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioners fail to appear before the trial court and fulfil the condition as aforesaid, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Ravi Krishan Kapur,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,792,106 | JUDGMENTO R D E RCURATIVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.3 OF 2005INREVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NOS.864-865 OF 2003INCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.577-578 OF 1995Y.K. Sabharwal, J.Petitioner and seven others were charged for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') besides other lesser offences, detail whereof are not relevant for considering the present petition.The appeal of the accused was, however, allowed by the High Court and the judgment and order of Court of Sessions was set aside.This Court, by judgment dated 10th December, 2002, allowed the appeal of the State, reversed the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the Sessions Court.In this view, the record was directed to be corrected to show the appeal having abated against said two persons.PW4 was an injured witness having sustained gun shot injuries.Besides PW1 and PW4, the Court of Sessions had also relied upon the testimony of PW2, another eye-witness produced by the prosecution and who was said to be a neighbour of the parties.The family of the accused and that of the deceased were neighbours living in the same village.In the judgment dated 10th December, 2002, this Court, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the High Court in a highly cursory and cavalier fashion, totally ignoring the evidence of eye-witnesses, had set aside the convictions merely on the ground that the investigation was faulty pointing out some minor discrepancies in the evidence and deprecated the manner of decision of a serious case where at least eight accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and armed with lethal weapons committed the murder of two persons belonging to same family and seriously injured a third person, the motive of the crime being land dispute between the family of the victim and the accused persons. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,210,800 | there are no specific allegations of instigation against the present applicant as the offence under Section 306 of IPC is being registered against the present applicant.It is argued that there was a quarrel between husband and wife, owing to which, the wife has 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.21533/2020 (Jasvant Shakya Vs.Advocate General for the State has opposed the bail application stating that there are specific allegations against the present applicant.The applicant being the husband has utmost responsibility towards the wife.Even the statements of child witnesses which have been recorded before the trial Court as PW-2 and PW-3 support the prosecution story to the extent that there was a quarrel between husband and wife and the husband used to harass and beat wife, owing to which, she has committed suicide by consuming acid.Dying declaration was recorded wherein she has specifically stated that owing to the quarrel and the harassment and beating caused by the husband, the wife has committed suicide by consuming poison.He prays for rejection of the application.Accordingly, first bail application is hereby rejected. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,216,474 | passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Murshidabad, in Sessions trial 3/April/2002 and convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for a term of 7 years with fine.In the background of this appeal, the fact in a nutshell is as follows:- The victim girl prosecutrix aged about 17/18 years is deaf and dumb.Taking this advantage the accused caught her and pressed her mouth and dragged in a room and put off her wearing apparels after closing the door of the room and raped against her will.So the prosecutrix became pregnant and gave birth to a child.A 'Salish' held in the village where the accused admitted the said fact and promised to make compromise but the said compromise did not take place.A complaint was lodged.After investigation the police has submitted a charge sheet under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.The case was committed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad.On hearing of both sides, the learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused person under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.3 The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused person, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To contest this case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, while none was examined on the side of the defence.However, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The defence case, as appeared from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses as well as the replies given by the accused person at the time of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is denial of offence with a plea of innocence.On trial, the learned trial court convicted the present appellant and sentenced him by the impugned judgment.Now the point for consideration is if the impugned judgment suffers from any material irregularity and calls for any interference or not.Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code read as under:(i) The FIR was hit by the 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(ii) The incident occurred on 10.4.1999 but on the date of framing charge, the victim girl was 7 months pregnant.So that aspect also has to be taken care of. 5To appreciate the case from a better angle, the relevant pieces of evidence are required to be mentioned here.One Ersad Ali lodged it.It was stated therein that the victim girl being deaf and dumb was his daughter aged about 17/18 years.Taking opportunity of such condition; one Iasmin Sk of same village allured her through gestures and started mixing up with her illegally and she became pregnant.Iasmin Sk.informed him repeatedly that he committed mistake.So he wanted to get dispute settled through 'salish'.But the brothers of Iasmin Sk. did not allow him to settle the matter.Therefore, at least it indicates that the victim girl though deaf and dumb responded to the allurement given by the accused by gesture and she started mixing with the accused and became pregnant subsequently.P.W. 1 is the father of the victim.He corroborated prosecution case.She made a statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Therefrom it appears that one day a black fat and tall boy forcibly dragged her in a room pressed her mouth and after slapping her committed rape forcibly.Such incident took place once and thereby victim girl became pregnant.Needless to mention that the victim girl was produced by one constable Dulal Chowdhury and he identified her before P.W. 4 Smt. Kalyani Chakraborty, the Assistant Teacher of Maharani Nilima Probha Institute for deaf and dumb, Beharampur who was present to help the recording of the statement of the victim 6 girl by the Magistrate.Smt. Kalyani Chakraborty interrogated victim girl.As explained by her and narrated by Smt. Kalyani Chakraborty being the Assistant Teacher, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.W. 1 is the father maintaining link with the complaint he deposed and reproduced the prosecution story in his evidence.P.W. 2 knows both sides.He identified the accused but he stated that Jyotsna Khatun was heard to be pregnant but he could not say how she became pregnant.P.W. 4 is Smt. Kalyani Chakraborty, the Headmistress of Deaf and Dumb School, Berahampore.She stated that at the time of recording her statement, she was present.She interrogated deaf and dumb girl and recording was done in the chamber of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalbagh.The victim girl explained before her that one black complexion boy of her next house forcibly took her into the room and thereafter raped her and as a result she became pregnant and such rape was committed only once.Nothing could be obtained by cross-examination from these witnesses.P.W. 5 is a Doctor.She examined the accused and opined that he is capable of sexual intercourse.P.W. 6 is another Doctor.He examined the victim and found that she was pregnant for 24 weeks.P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer.After investigation and observing all formalities he submitted charge sheet.P.W. 8 is the victim lady.From her evidence, it appears that she is deaf and dumb and it transpires that she was examined through the interpreter Smt. Kalyani Chakraborty, Assistant Teacher of Maharani Nilima Probha Institute for deaf and dumb, Khagra, Murshidabad.Also it appears that the victim is an illiterate deaf and dumb woman.She was dispensed with the formality of swearing oath before the learned Magistrate.However, her mental and physical condition was tested by the interpreter and it was thought that the victim witness was mentally and physically alert.The victim identified the accused in dock and she becomes furious on seeing the accused on dock.This points towards the seriousness of the evidence of the victim girl.She is an illiterate deaf and dumb witness.So it is quite unexpected that she will falsely implicate a person without any rhyme or reason.Her evidence as well as statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conjointly proves that the present accused forcibly committed rape on the victim.The victim girl is above 16 years.The question of giving consent or to be a consenting party does not arise here because she is deaf and dumb.P.W. 8 further stated that the accused caught hold her and slapped her and pressed her mouth by right hand.So the victim could not get opportunity to shout.The accused took her inside the room put off her cloths, closed the door from inside.The accused called her on the bed but she refused to go.Then the accused had taken her on the bed and forcibly 8 committed raped on her and due to such rape, she became pregnant and she gave to birth to a child.P.W. 9 knows nothing about the incident and P.W. 10 was hostile.Specific question was put to the accused at the time of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he committed rape of victim girl.The accused simply denied this.In serial number 9- the accused stated that he was politically implicated falsely but from the evidence of the P.W. 1 it is clear that he is a supporter of C.P.M and Yunus Sk.The accused did not say that on the very first day he was not at the place of occurrence.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,218,489 | Heard Sri Inder Pal Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,219,333 | (N.K. GUPTA)Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.57/2015 registered at Police Station Khimlasa District Sagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 323, 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 22 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except of offence under Sections 307, 326 and 324 of IPC, remaining offences are bailable.It is not alleged against the applicant that he had any sharp cutting weapon.The applicant was not aware that the co-accused Narendra and others would assault the victim by a forceful manner with the help of sharp cutting weapon.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co- accused persons.No offence under Section 307, 326 or 324 of IPC is made out against the present applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Under these circumstances, he prays for anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,922,138 | This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent police to expedite the investigation in Crime No.209 of 2014 and to file the final report in accordance with law.On the complaint lodged by one Krishnappa of Belakondapalli Village, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.207 of 2014 on 10.12.2014 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC against one Harish and 6 members of his family which was subsequently altered into Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 326, 506(ii), 302, 307 r/w 109 of IPC.It is the case of Krishnappa that Harish and his family members had brutally attacked Anilkumar resulting in serious injuries to him.Since Anilkumar was alive at the time of giving complainant, Section 307 of IPC was included in the FIR, but, subsequently, he died on 12.10.2014 pursuant to which the case has been altered as stated above.The death of Anil Kumar, incensed his party and in retaliation three houses belonging to Harish and his party were set on fire.The respondent police is, therefore, directed to file the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such filing, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate judicial orders thereon.As regards the prayer of Harish to stay the further proceedings in S.C.No.117 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, until the final report in Crime No.209 of 2014 is filed by the respondent, such relief cannot be granted inasmuch as the incident that took place on 10.10.2014 and the incident that took place on 12.10.2014 do not form part of the same transaction.May be the incident that took place on 12.10.2014 is a retaliation to the incident that took place on 10.10.2014 but that by itself cannot be a reason for both the cases to be tried jointly.In the result, the criminal original petition is closed with a direction that the trial in S.C.No.117 f 2015 pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, shall proceed to its logical conclusion.Consequently, connected MP is closed.09..11..2016 kmkTo1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.2.The Inspector of Police,Matigiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH.J., kmk Crl.O.P.No.424 of 201609..11..2016 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,224,949 | Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari,J.The relevant factual aspects are not much in dispute.An F.I.R. came to be lodged upon unnatural death of a lady Smt. Sunita Bharti, who was married to the appellant earlier; but was later on allegedly married to the other accused Bhagwan Singh.Though the appellant was not named initially in the said F.I.R., but was implicated later on.However, the appellant was convicted under Sections 306, 120-B, IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in his judgment and order dated 26.08.1995 passed in S.T. No. 366 of 1987; and he was sentenced, inter alia, to 7 year's rigorous imprisonment.Against the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal bearing No. 1488 of 1995, which was considered and allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.05.2007; and the appellant was acquitted.In view of this acquittal, the bank proceeded to reinstate the appellant in service on 27.11.2007, but without back wages while treating the period from 26.08.1995 to 27.11.2007 as the period "not spent on duty".The petitioner-appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 12701 of 2008 in this Court which was disposed of on 22.05.2009 requiring the respondent-bank to consider his representation where he had claimed continuance of service and back wages.The representations of the appellant were considered and rejected by the respondent-bank on 01.01.2010, inter alia, with the following observations:Learned Single Judge has, inter alia, observed as under:Having heard learned Counsels on both side and having perused the regulation as well as its interpretation made by the competent authority in the impugned order there is no doubt in my mind that the petitioner has been given a fair opportunity of hearing and also the maximum relief that the bank could have given him in these circumstances.In fact the bank has adopted a extremely liberal approach while granting relief to the petitioner.The reliefs as sought by the petitioner in this petition, therefore, are not admissible at all to him and this Court is unable to give him any further relief other than what has also been granted by the bank.High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, (2012) 13 SCC 94, State Bank of India and another Vs.(5) If the employee prefers an appeal or revision application against his conviction and is acquitted on such appeal or revision, in case he has already been dealt with as above, he may apply within 2 months from the date of such acquittal to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of his case and the Disciplinary Authority shall review his case and may either reinstate him or pass orders that he may be proceeded against as provided in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of this Regulation...In the case of Gurpal Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the matter of a Judicial Officer who was suspended for having remained in police custody for more than 48 hours.The petitioner therein was ultimately acquitted by the trial court finding it to be a case of no evidence.The suspension of the petitioner continued even during the pendency of the appeal against acquittal, however, ultimately, the appeal was also dismissed.The representations made by the appellant on 16.01.2008 and 05.11.2009 were required to examined by the authorities concerned dispassionately and objectively.The core question to be examined by authorities concerned, thus, had been as to whether the appellant was involved in and convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.The authorities appear not to have adverted to this aspect at all.Though ordinarily the judgment of the criminal court in such matters carry relevance only to the extent of showing that there had been an acquittal in the criminal case but, looking to the nature of controversy, where the nature of offence alleged has its own relevance, it appears apposite to take note of the salient feature of the said criminal case, particularly such parts which have a co-relation with the appellant.The case of the prosecution had been that Bhagwan Singh and his family members had been ill-treating the deceased, who died in unnatural circumstances on 09.11.1986 wherefor, her maternal uncle lodged a first information report in which, Bhagwan Singh and his family members were named as the accused persons. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,308,181 | On going through her statement except a minor discrepancy broadly she started the prosecution case and unexpected of a teacher/professor.She has tried to commit suicide by consuming phenyle and she has attached to the revisionist in the July 2015 and therefore casting expulsion of her mental condition.Learned counsel for the revisionist has tried to negate and nullify the impact of the allegations made by her in the FIR in number of departmental inquiry would not going to mitigate the allegations of the FIR.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at great length and learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.By means of the instant revision the revisionist Dr. Anand Pratap Singh, Head of Department, Department of Psychology and Mental Health, Gautam Budh Nagar University, Gautam Budh Nagar assailing the summoning order dated 26.09.2017 passed by learned IIIrd A.C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar in case no. 3938 of 2016 in-re (State Vs.Anand Pratap Singh) arising out of case crime no. 15 of 2016 under Section 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 406, 506 and 504 IPC, P.S.-Ecotech-I, District Gautam Budh Nagar.3. Perused the impugned summoning orders.It transpires from the record that on earlier occasion, the applicant approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 434 of 2017, which was allowed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 22.08.2017, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate by speaking order within a month.The genesis of the case, that opposite party no.2 Ms. Nisha Rajput on 07.02.2016 has lodged an FIR for the incident said to have been taken place during 15-10-2015 to 15.02.2016 against sole accused Dr. Anand Pratap Singh, who happens to be the Head of Department of Psychology.The skeletal facts, as culled out from the FIR are, that the opposite party no.2 is a regular student pursuing her Master Degree in Clinical Psychology from Gautam Budh Nagar University, Greater NOIDA.She was assigned to do work under the revisionist to complete her assignment/dissertation for the degree of master of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology.From the very inception, relationship of her's qua her guide Dr. Anand Pratap Singh was very strange, abnormal and unbecoming like a Guide.He often use to make comments and remarks about her looks, cloths and etc and when she has protested then the revisionist has extended threat that he would not give required completion certificate and create impediment and hurdle in completing her degree.A detailed allegations was made in the FIR which amply throws light on the character of her guide which need not be elaborated as they are castic to taste and unexpected from a Professor.It is not expected to a teacher to call her taught in her chamber upon his computer showing obscene and nude photographs of actresses.All these allegations are not only mischievous but also horrible for a young girl.An act of debasement of his own taught.The FIR was registered under Section 354A, 354B, 354C,354D, 406, 506 and 504 IPC against sole revisionist Dr. Anand Pratap Singh.After registering the case, the police started conducting the investigation and during which her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 22.03.2016 and 21.06.2016 respectively.The standard of proof of both the proceedings are quite different and distinct.The allegations in the FIR supported by her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. along with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the independent witnesses, namely, Shabana Uroos, who happens to be the Warden of the Girl Hostel has also given the vivid description about the nature and character of the revisionist.There shall however, be no order as to costs. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,312,412 | C.R.M. 3233 of 2015 pk In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on April 8, 2015 in connection with Nakashipara Police Station Case No. 128 of 2014 dated 21.02.2014 under Sections 447/325/326A/307/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Menoka Biswas ...Petitioner.Mr. Sumanta Das ... for the petitioner.Mr. Atif Ahmed Siddiqui ...for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.The charges against the petitioner are serious.The petitioner has been charged under Sections 447/325/326A/307/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The charge sheet has been submitted.It appears that the victim made a statement before the Doctor that she had been set on fire by Menoka Biswas, that is, the petitioner.The application is dismissed.We, however, request the Sessions Court to hear and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.(Indira Banerjee, J.) (Sahidullah Munshi J.) | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,314,300 | Mrs.Kalimuthu, a woman, aged about 30 years, her father and four children were all sleeping in their lonely house atThoppuvalasai Village in Ramanathapuram District.They would have neveranticipated that end to their lives was fast approaching.It is alleged thatby around 01.00 AM, when they were fast asleep, their house was burnt intoash.They also perished in flames.This occurrence was not witnessed byanyone.On the next day, viz., on 01.10.2012, at about 9.00 a.m., oneVallaichamy, who is a relative of the deceased, made a complaint to the SubInspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, upon which the present case inCrime No.301 of 2012 was registered under Sections 147, 436 and 302 IPC.The case was investigated and finally on 29.12.2012, one Mr.P.Jayachandran, theInspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, filed a final police reportbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.In the saidfinal report, he had reported that a total number of nine persons wereinvolved in the occurrence.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of theoffences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 109 and 436 r/w 109 IPC against theaccused.On committal, the case was taken cognizance of by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.The petitioner ? Mr.A.Sujakhani, is the seventh accused in the case.2.Six precious lives have been snatched away in a gruesome manner.He filed a petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, inCr.M.P.No.2084 of 2013 seeking discharge.In the said petition, he allegedthat there was no evidence whatsoever collected against him and the entirefinal report was based only on the confession allegedly made by the firstaccused to the investigating officer during the course of investigation.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, however, inter alia held that theadmissibility or acceptability of the confessions are all matters to bedecided at the time of trial.Thus according to the learned Sessions Judge,there were grounds to frame charges against the accused.Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with thepresent Criminal Revision Case.Before proceeding further, let me narrate the contents of the finalreport filed by Mr.P.Jayachandran, upon which cognizance was taken.According to the said final report, the deceased were, for a long time,residing in the house which was burnt.Her father and four children were alsoresiding with her.The land actually belonged to one Louis Raj, who has beenarrayed as the sixth accused in the case.There was an arrangement between the sixth accused and the present petitioner, by which the present petitioneroffered to pay some amount of consideration for the land and to sell the landto various other persons.As per the said arrangement, the presentpetitioner sold away the properties to various persons and out of the saidconsideration, he paid the amount, as agreed upon, to the sixth accused.The sixth accused, accordingly, executed sale deeds in favour of thepurchasers.It is the further case that the deceased, who had no rightwhatsoever on the land, refused to vacate.The family members of thedeceased were often threatened to vacate.There were also proceedings beforethe Revenue Divisional Officer and the other authorities between them.Sincethe deceased family did not vacate the land and hand over vacant possessionto the purchasers, there developed ill-feeling, which later on developed intoa very strong motive for Mr.Louis Raj - 6th accused and the petitionerherein.According to the final report, seven days prior to the allegedoccurrence, there was a conspiracy.In the said conspiracy, the accusedNos.1, 6 & 7 participated.The conspiracy was to engage hirelings to do awaywith the entire family members of the deceased.Regarding this conspiracy,though in the final report, there were allegations and cognizance was takenby the Court, there were no materials collected to even make out a primafacie case to frame charge of conspiracy, on this aspect, against thepetitioner, except the confession statement said to have made by the firstaccused on his arrest to the Police.Apart from the above, two witnessescited as witnesses 26 & 27 had seen these three accused together in theseashore.It is based on the statements of these two witnesses and theconfession given to the police, Mr.PJayachandran reported that there wassecond conspiracy.It is further reported that in the actual occurrence, three accusedviz., A1 ? Mr.Lathe Muniyandi, A2 -Vellaisamy and A3 ? Centru @ Nagarajan, participated.In other words, these three accused only burnt the house andcommitted the murder of all the six inmates of the house.In order to provethe participation of these three accused in the actual occurrence inpursuance of the conspiracy also, there were no sufficient materialscollected by the earlier Investigating Officer.When this Criminal Revision Case came up for hearing before thisCourt, on 17.04.2015, on considering the above facts, this Court passed thefollowing order:?It often happens in this country that even in heinous crimes,the Police bring to book some persons as the accused, the Courts proceed withthe trial, ultimately, only to acquit the accused for want of proof of theinvolvement of the accused.The society at large, without fully aware of thenature of the evidence produced by the Police, at times, put the blame onCourts of law for acquitting the accused.The system is impelled to bearthe ignominy.Totally thereare 9 accused in the case.They have been prosecuted for offences underSections 147, 436, 302, 120(B) read with Section 109 and 149 IPC.3.Due to a civil dispute, according to the prosecution, six peopleincluding four children have been done to death, while they were fast asleepin their house.The house was burnt along with the deceased.Thelearned Principal Sessions Judge, however, by order dated 29.10.2014dismissed the said petition thereby declining to discharge the petitioner.Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision.On that day, thelearned counsel for the petitioner took me through all the materials placedalong with the final report as well as the final report and submitted thatthere is no material against the petitioner to frame charges.According tothe final report, one week prior to the actual date of occurrence, namely,01.10.2012, there was a conspiracy among the accused involving thepetitioner, in which, the conspirators had hatched a plan to commit murder ofall the six deceased.The task was, according to the conspiracy, entrustedto the first accused.It is the further case of the prosecution that on theprevious day before the actual day of occurrence, some of the accused werefound on the seashore in the occurrence village, in which also, it is allegedthat the conspiracy was again reiterated.On the following night, theoccurrence had taken place.So far as the petitioner is concerned, even according to theprosecution case, he was not present at the time, when the 2nd conspiracy washatched and he did not participate in the actual occurrence as well.It istheir definite case that in the first conspiracy, which took place seven daysprior to the alleged occurrence alone, the petitioner participated.In the course of the proceedings, this Court, while going throughthe papers, expressed its displeasure that the investigation has not beendone in the manner, in which, it is required to be done by the police.Regarding the reasons for such displeasure and materials available on record,I refrain from making any record, because any comment, which I may make, may have influencing effect in the mind of the trial Court, as the trial ispending.I deem it suffice to record my displeasure over way in which theinvestigation has been done.The Investigating Officer, who was present before thisCourt, was not able to say anything to obliviate doubts, loopholes,shortcomings, etc., which this Court had noticed.His explanation was not atall satisfactory to this Court.Therefore, this Court directed theSuperintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District to be present before thisCourt with necessary explanation and also to state as to whether he had anyoccasion to monitor the investigation in this case, though six valuable liveshave been lost in the occurrence in a very gruesome manner.As directed, today, the Superintendent of Police, Mr.M.Mayilvahananis present before this Court.I have heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for therespondent.Similarly fair trial means that trial should be fair to one andall, namely, the accused, victims, their relatives and the Society at large.Mayilvahanan, the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, who has been entrusted with the task of further investigation, isnot required to seek any further formal permission from the jurisdictionalMagistrate or from the Sessions Court.The Registry is directed to communicate thisorder to the trial Court.The Registry is to list this case for furtherhearing on 25.06.2015.?On 17.04.2015, Mr.N.M.Mylvahanan, the Superintendent of Police,Ramanthapuram District, assured to this Court that he would take up furtherinvestigation and come up with an appropriate report with materials.It is submitted that as per the order I took up investigation of theabove said case on 24.04.2015 by forming a team of officers AdditionalSuperintendent of Police Head Quarters and Deputy Superintendent of Police,District Crime Records Bureau, Ramanathapuram District to assist me in theinvestigation and proceeded with investigation.I visited the scene ofoccurrence along with my team, Revenue Officials and Scientific Experts,prepared observation Mahazar, Rough Sketch and took Photographs and examined witnesses at and around SOC and recorded their statements under section 161(3) Cr.P.C and collected documentary evidences.During my absence, I directed the AdditionalSuperintendent of Police Head Quarters and Deputy Superintendent of Police,District Crime Records Bureau, Ramanathapuram District to conduct furtherinvestigation in this case.The Additional Superintendent of Police,Headquarters, Ramanathapuram District examined witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and also collected materialevidences.The Police Officers who erred in the investigation may be dealt withdepartmental proceedings for the lapse.But, at the same time, this Court, beinga creature of the constitution, to ensure human rights and the fundamentalrights of the citizens of this Country, cannot close its eyes, even afterhaving come to notice that such a serious human rights violation has beencommitted to these poor innocent villagers.If this Court simply records letting these accused free, withoutmaking any more attempt to alleviate their grievances, I am of the firm viewthat it would not amount to doing of justice.But,the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that going by the agonies,sufferings and the stigma caused to the victims, each may be awardedRs.5,00,000/- as compensation.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr.N.R.Elango, yet another learned Senior Counsel, who were present in Court, were requestedby this Court to place their views as Amicus Curiae.They expressed that thevictims may be entitled for a reasonable amount of compensation, which may goup to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, per head.While considering the question of compensation, I took into account as to whetherthe victims were falsely implicated, knowingly by Mr.P.Jayachandran or theywere implicated without collecting sufficient materials against them.I do not want to express any opinion regarding the conduct ofMr.P.Jayachandran, because any such opinion or observation, which I may make, may have some influence in the mind of the appointing authority.Therefore, thisCriminal Revision Case deserves to be allowed, the order dated 29.10.2014made in Cr.MP.No.2084 of 2013, is liable to be set aside and the matter is tobe remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal, after furnishingcopies of all the documents and after giving sufficient opportunity to thepetitioner herein to raise additional grounds.It is also unfortunate to note that in this case, the learnedPublic Prosecutor, who argued the case before the Trial Court, also did notnotice that there were no materials and the investigation was full of flaws.Had he taken notice and advised the police, I believe, they would have madefurther investigation, after getting necessary permission from the Court.Hehas also failed on this aspect.The whole episode would not have come to the notice of this Court,but for this Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner herein.As I havealready pointed out, the five accused, who are now dropped, have notapproached this Court.But, for this Criminal Revision Case filed by thispetitioner, there would have been no occasion for this Court to order forfurther investigation, which has resulted in the present report, giving cleanchit to the five innocent people.These observations, which I have made hereinabove, only go to showthat the agencies, which are expected to be sensitized, have shown disregardto the human rights of these poor people, which has made the State to paycompensation to these victims, vicariously.More often than not, this Courthas been making suggestions and at times issuing directions to the PoliceDepartment about the need for improving the skill of investigation and tosensitize the Investigating Officers by conducting regular legal workshops.Iapprehend that the said observations and directions have not been taken noteof seriously.The Tamil Nadu Police, which is even today considered to be oneof the best police in the Country, may have to lose its status, prestige andglory, if this trend continues.I am only hopeful that the State Governmentwill take serious note of this situation and take all out efforts to enhancethe quality of the investigation and the skill of the investigators.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in thefollowing terms:-The impugned order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge made inCr.The victims, Mr.Nagu, within a period of two months from today.The amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the above persons by way of cheque or demand draft drawn in the name of the individual concerned, throughthe District Legal Services Authority, Ramanthapuram and the same shall bereported to this Court.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Before parting with this order, I would like to place on record myappreciation for the efforts taken by Mr.N.M.Mylvahanan, the Superintendentof Police, Ramanthapuram District, who has completed the furtherinvestigation, within the time frame and submitted a report, which is primafacie found to be satisfactory.Registry is directed to list the matter, on 25.08.2015 for reportingcompliance.1.The Secretary, Home Police Department, Chennai.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.3.The Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.4.The Additional Advocate General, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.5.The Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,931,443 | With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.The facts of the case as emerging from the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the pleadings of the parties are that the respondent no. 4 Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi gave a written report at P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Agra on 24.02.2017 at about 21.45 hours stating therein that marriage between her and Dr. Sumit Agrawal, son of petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Lal Agrawal, resident of Ghantaghar Hathras, presently residing in Khandari, P.S.- Hariparvat, Agra, was solemnized on 22.02.2016 in which her father had spent about Rs. 1,20,00,000/- which included a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash and ornaments of gold and silver worth Rs. 50,00,000/- were given by her father to the petitioners as dowry and Rs. 30,00,000/- spent on purchase of valuable clothes, appliances and articles of domestic use and reception etc. However, her husband petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal, mother-in-law petitioner no. 2, Smt. Rupa Agrawal, father-in-law petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Agrawal and sister-in-law (nanad) petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi were not satisfied with the dowry given to them at the time of marriage and hence, they started demanding Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash and a flat in Delhi as additional dowry from the respondent no. 4 and when she expressed her inability to fulfill their demands of dowry, they started torturing and maltreating her and abusing her father saying that he had promised to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in cash as dowry but he had paid to them only Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of which the honour of their family had been adversely affected.They also threatened that until their demands of additional dowry of Rs. 50,00,000/- and one flat were fulfilled, they would not allow her to stay in her matrimonial home.Her husband in a state of intoxication used to beat her and force her to have unnatural sex with him.On 26.02.2016, her husband petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal took her to Maldives where after showing her obscene video films, he insisted on having sexual intercourse with her in the same manner as depicted in the obscene video films and when she protested, she was beaten by him with fists and kicks who announced that until his demands for additional dowry were fulfilled, she would be subjected by him to the same treatment.The respondent no. 4 with the intention of saving the honour of her family and her marital life, kept tolerating everything.After returning from Maldives on 29.02.2016, her husband had kept her in a room in AIIMS guest house in New Delhi where her sister-in-law (nanad) petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi came with her husband petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg and incited her husband and then both of them started torturing her for non-fulfillment of their demands for additional dowry.Since petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi was repeatedly asking her to come to her house in Delhi, she went to the house of petitioner no. 4 on 15.04.2016 along with her father and after her father went away to attend a conference in Delhi, leaving her behind with her husband petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg who started torturing her in different ways on account of non-fulfillment of demands of additional dowry and the petitioner no. 4 pushed her in a room and locked it from outside and shouted that she would see that how the respondent no. 4 could lead a peaceful marital life.The room was not opened by her despite her imploring repeatedly which compelled her to inform her father about her predicament by her cellphone on which her father rescued her from the clutches of the petitioners and took her to Agra.On 24.02.2017, all the petitioners and two other persons assembled in the house of Sri Kamal Kant Agrawal situate in Ajanta Colony, Dhaulpur House in order to settle the matter amicably but suddenly petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Lal Agrawal suggested to her father that they should hold talks in his house on which she, her father and the petitioners came to the house of the respondent no. 4 situate in Kothi Meena Bazaar and when her father left for the market for buying sweets for his guests, respondent no. 4 asked the petitioners as to why they were destroying her marital life and assured them that all their demands would be fulfilled by her parents gradually on which her husband petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal said that she was not providing her marital bliss as per his desire on which she replied that she was not an animal but a human being on which her mother-in-law petitioner no. 2, Smt. Rupa Agrawal caught hold of her hair and her sister-in-law (nanad) petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi gagged her, her father-in-law petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Lal Agrawal exhorted the other petitioners present there to finish her off on which petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi put a stole around her neck and tried to strangulate her while her brother-in-law (nandoi) petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg slapped her and her father-in-law petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Agrawal dealt a blow on her head with a stick which was lying nearby.At that very moment, her mother came with tea and on noticing the situation, she screamed.On account of the matter being a family affair, nobody intervened or inteceded although, a huge crowd had gathered outside her house.The petitioners left her house threatening to see her later.The respondent no. 4 claimed to have received serious injuries in the aforesaid occurrence.(2) A reddish contusion size 33 cm x 2.5 cm all ant.are back expert 3 cm back of neck left side 9 cm from chin mid line 0.5 cm from rt.Ear and 5.5 cm from left ear.The facts of the case which are not in dispute inter alia are that the petitioner no. 1 is a highly qualified doctor by profession who had obtained his MBBS degree from Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi and had thereafter completed his M.D. (Radiology) from Era Medical College, Lucknow.Currently and at the time of the incident also, he was working as a Senior Resident in Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi.The petitioner no. 2, Smt. Rupa Agrawal, is a housewife married to petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Lal Agrawal who is a highly reputed and qualified doctor, owns and runs a clinic at District- Hathras.Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.A further prayer has been made by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged.On the basis of the written report, Case Crime No. 28 of 2017 u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 377, 506, 307 I.P.C. read with Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered against all the petitioners at P.S.- Mahila Thana.The respondent no. 4 claims that her injuries were examined by Dr. Prabhat Singh, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Agra on 25.02.2017 at about 12.30 p.m. who also prepared her injury report, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.Her injury report indicates following injuries on her person :-(1) A traumatic swelling size 4.5 x 1.5 cm on it.Side head 0.5 cm for face.KUO Advice X-ray and CT scan.(3) A reddish contusion 4 x 1 cm over lt. Arm.(4) A reddish contusion 5 x 2 cm lt. Side chest.(5) A reddish contusion 9 x 3 cm lt. Side waist.(6) C/O pain over lt. Ear with injury.KUO refer to ENT surgeon.Difficulty in hearing.(7) A reddish contusion 3 x 1.5 cm are left side back of chest.The injury report of respondent no. 4 reflects that she was not taken to the District Hospital, Agra by any police constable but her mother Dr. Alka Singh had accompanied her without the copy of the F.I.R. and it was in her presence that her injuries were examined.Although the respondent no. 4 was advised to undergo certain advanced examination like CT scan, X-ray but she, for the reasons best known to her, chose not to undergo any advanced medical examinations.Suspecting that the injury report of respondent no. 4 was fabricated, the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal filed an application on 07.03.2018 before the District Magistrate, Agra requesting him to refer the case to a duly constituted Medical Board.Acting upon the aforesaid letter dated 07.03.2018 filed by the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal, the District Magistrate, Agra further wrote a letter to the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, S.N. Medical College, Agra on 09.03.2018 seeking opinion of the Forensic Expert.The Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, S.N. Medical College, Agra submitted his opinion to the District Magistrate, Agra, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. S.A.2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners in this writ petition.In the opinion of the Forensic Expert, there was no clear evidence of strangulation and there was a gap in the ligature mark which was noted by the doctor who had examined the injuries of the respondent no. 4 and prepared her injury report.He further opined that although the respondent no. 4 at the time of her medical examination had complained of difficulty in swallowing but in case her complaint was genuine then it should have been accompanied with difficulty in breathing also about which she had not made any complaint.Moreover the dimension of the injuries noted by the doctor in the primary medical examination report of the respondent no. 4 were different, indicating use of not one but several blunt weapons.Since, the Investigating Officer of the case was also of the opinion that the respondent no. 4 should be examined by a Medical Board in order to ascertain the authenticity of her injuries, he also wrote a letter on 05.03.2017 in this regard to the Principal, S.N. Medical College for duly constituting a Medical Board, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.The Medical Board was duly constituted and the respondent no. 4 was summoned to appear before the Medical Board on 10.03.2017 on which date the respondent no. 4 did not appear before the board whereupon 18.03.2017 was the next date fixed.The opinion of the Medical Board has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition.An enquiry was also initiated by District Magistrate against Dr. Prabhat Singh for allegedly preparing a false medical report.In the background of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 roping in the entire family of her husband petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal including his parents, mother-in-law petitioner no. 2, Smt. Rupa Agrawal, father-in-law petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Agrawal, sister-in-law (nanad) petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and brother-in-law (nandoi) petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg containing absolutely false and concocted allegations regarding commission of offences by the petitioners u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 377, 506, 307 I.P.C. read with Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners although there is no iota of any evidence on record even prima facie supporting the F.I.R. allegations.Examination of neck did not suggest any old or new injury, no injury was found in or around oral cavity and the rectal examination did not indicate any old injury inside or around the anus.The memo of the Medical Board opined that after the examination, the injuries mentioned in the primary medical examination report could not be confirmed on re-medical examination on 18.03.2017 at 11.30 a.m. He next submitted that it being proved from the report of the Medical Board and the opinion of the Forensic Expert that the injury report of the respondent no. 4 prepared by Dr. Prabhat Singh of District Hospita, Agra on 25.02.2017, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, is a forged and fabricated document, the allegations regarding commission of offences by the petitioners u/s 323 and 307 I.P.C. stand prima facie proved to be palpably false.He next submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash and a flat in New Delhi was being demanded by the petitioner no.1 from the respondent no. 4 and her parents, petitioner nos. 4 and 5, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and Dr. Bhavuk Garg, sister and brother-in-law of petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal by no stretch of imagination can be said to be the beneficiaries of the additional dowry allegedly demanded by the petitioner no. 1 especially in view of the fact that petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal even as per the F.I.R. allegations, is living separately from the other petitioners with his wife in Agra.However, the correct fact is that presently he is employed as Senior Resident in Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi and he is not living in Agra while petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Agrawal who is himself a qualified doctor and runs and owns a clinic in District Hathras, resides there with his wife petitioner no. 2, Smt. Rupa Agrawal and likewise petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg who is an orthopedic surgeon currently working as an Associate Professor in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi who is also a highly qualified radiologist.He also submitted the injury report of the respondent no. 4 having been found by the Forensic Expert and the Medical Board to be a fabricated document, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence qua the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 and hence, no investigation against the petitioner nos. 2 to 5 can be permitted without the order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. He next submitted that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis whereof no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners.He lastly submitted that in any view of the matter, the implication of petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg in the present case is with the sole malafide intention of harassing them and it being apparent on the basis of the reports of the Forensic Expert and the Medical Board that the allegations made by the respondent no. 4 in the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi that she tried to strangulate her are palpably false and the impugned F.I.R., which is a bundle of lies and a product of malice, at least qua the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg, is liable to be quashed.submitted that upon perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence against the petitioners is made out and hence, no enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. is warranted at this stage.He next submitted that specific allegations of demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash and a flat in New Delhi from the respondent no. 4 and her father by the petitioners and her being tortured and maltreated in her matrimonial home by them on account of non-fulfillment of alleged demands of additional dowry and an attempt on her life being made by petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal and petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi in the house of the respondent no. 4 herself by trying to strangulate her during which she was allegedly slapped by petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg which was preceded by demand of dowry made by petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Agrawal from the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 4 being gagged by petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and thereafter her being dealt a blow on her head with a stick by her father-in-law petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Lal Agrawal and specific allegations of her sexual harassment by her husband petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal who insisted on having unnatural sexual intercourse with her, have been made by the respondent no. 4 in the F.I.R. He further submitted that the report of the Medical Board dated 18.03.2017 which was prepared on the basis of primary medical examination report of the respondent no. 4 after 20 days of the incident cannot be made the basis for holding her injuries to be false and fabricated as the marks of the injuries which were inflicted by the petitioners on respondent no. 4 were bound to disappear after lapse of such a long time especially in view of the fact that the injuries were properly treated.He lastly submitted that this writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners had invited our attention to Chapter 12 of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology titled "Injuries by Mechanical Violence".In rejoinder, Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no. 4 deliberately avoided appearing before the Medical Board on the first date which was fixed for her re-medical examination well within 20 days of the occurrence so that the factum of her injury report being fabricated may not be exposed and she deliberately appeared before the Medical Board after 20 days of the occurrence.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the material brought on record as well as the law reports cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions.The petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi who is a qualified radiologist, is married to petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg, who is a highly qualified orthopedic surgeon currently working as an Associate Professor in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and has also obtained his M.S. (Ortho) from AIIMS, New Delhi.The averments regarding the aforesaid facts have been made by the petitioners in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the writ petition which have not been denied by the respondent no. 4 in her counter affidavit.The reply to the contents of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the writ petition has been given by the respondent no. 4 in paragraph 4 of her counter affidavit in which she has stated that the contents of the paragraphs 3 to 8 of the writ petition are factual in nature and hence do not call for any reply from the answering deponent.The chronology of this case indicates that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal and the respondent no. 4, Smt. Shubhanjali Sen as already stated hereinabove, was solemnized on 22.02.2016 in Agra.As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. On 26.02.2016, the respondent no. 4 had left with her husband petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal for Maldives.It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in Maldives, the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal compelled the respondent no. 4 to watch obscene video films and then coerced her to have sexual intercourse in the same manner as depicted in the obscene video films and when she objected, she was beaten by him with kicks and fists.On 29.02.2016, the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal and respondent no. 4 returned from Maldives and stayed in a guest house of AIIMS, New Delhi where it is alleged that the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi came and incited petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal whereafter both of them had tortured her for non-fulfillment of alleged demands for dowry.The next incident took place in the house of petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi on 15.04.2016 in which it is alleged by the respondent no. 4 that the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal, petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg had tortured her in different ways and then petitioner no. 4 had locked her in a room and threatened to destroy her marital life and had refused to open the door ignoring the implorations of the respondent no. 4 and eventually her father whom she had called by her cellphone, had come to the house of petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and rescued her.In the said episode which had taken place in the house of the respondent no. 4 situate in Kothi Meena Bazaar at about 7 p.m., accusations were hurled at her by the petitioners regarding non-fulfillment of demands of dowry in the absence of her father who had gone to the market which was followed by petitioner no. 2, Smt. Rupa Agrawal catching respondent no. 4 by her hair and pushing her on the ground and threatening to gag her forever when she had requested the petitioner no. 2 not to destroy her marital life and assured that their demands would be fulfilled gradually, the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi gagged her so that she may not scream, her father-in-law petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Lal Agrawal exhorted the other petitioners present there to kill her on which her husband petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal and sister-in-law petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi tied a rope around her neck and tried to strangulate her while her brother-in-law petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Agrawal slapped her and her father-in-law petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Lal Agrawal dealt her a blow with a stick which was lying nearby.While all this was going on, her mother made an entry with a tray of tea in her hands.On noticing her, she screamed loudly but no one intervened although a huge crowd had gathered outside the house on account of the aforesaid dispute.On seeing the huge crowd, the petitioners left her house threatening her with dire consequences.One striking feature of this case which stands out is that the last incident is alleged to have taken place in the house of the respondent no. 4 herself and admittedly when her mother was present in the house.As we have already observed that the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 cannot be said to be the beneficiaries of the dowry allegedly demanded by the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal from the respondent no. 4 and her parents, the allegations framed against the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg and as set forth in the F.I.R. that the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi had gagged and then tried to strangulate the respondent no. 4 along with the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal in the house of the respondent no. 4 itself and the petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg having slapped her, stands belied from the opinion of the Medical Board which upon medical re-examination of the respondent no. 4 found no such marks of the injuries which were allegedly found by the doctor on her medical examination done by him on 25.02.2017 and those noted by him in her injury report.Prima facie, it appears to us that if she had actually received any injury on 24.02.2017 in her house at the hands of the petitioners, she would certainly have appeared before the Medical Board on 10.03.2017 for her medical re-examination.The authenticity of the incident which had allegedly taken place on 24.02.2017 in the house of the respondent no. 4 herself, itself being under the cloud, the only allegations left against the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg are of general nature that they had demanded additional dowry from the respondent no. 4 along with other petitioners and on non-fulfillment of alleged demands of additional dowry, they tortured her in different ways and petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi had further locked her in a room in her house in connection with unfulfilled demands of dowry.The sister-in-law petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and brother-in-law petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg of the respondent no. 4 against whom there is no evidence of living with the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal and the respondent no. 4, is a glaring example of over-implication.Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that as far as the indictment of petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg in the present case at the behest of the respondent no. 4 is concerned, we find that the same has been done with the solitary object of harassing them and ensuring that each and every member of her husband's family is implicated, arrested and sent to jail and qua the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.We accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the following directions :-1) The impugned F.I.R. qua the petitioner no. 4, Dr. (Smt.) Surabhi and petitioner no. 5, Dr. Bhavuk Garg, is hereby quashed.2) The investigation of the aforesaid case qua the petitioner no. 2, Smt. Rupa Agrawal and the petitioner no. 3, Dr. Murari Lal Agrawal shall go on but they shall not be arrested till the submission of police report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.3) Qua the petitioner no. 1, Dr. Sumit Agrawal, this writ petition stands dismissed.Order Date :- 31.05.2018 KS | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,932,663 | C.R.M. 6556 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20/08/2018 in connection with Santipur P.S. Case No.158 of 2018 dated 15/05/2018 under Sections 341/326/307/302/34 of the Indian gd Penal Code.And In the matter of: Bappa Chakraborty & Anr.....petitioners.Ms. Sonali Das ...for the petitioners.Mr. Sudip Ghosh Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Santipur P.S. Case No.158 of 2018 dated 15/05/2018 under Sections 341/326/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners refer to an order dated August 10, 2018 and claim that the petitioners are on the same footing as the petitioners in CRM 5936 of 2018 who were granted anticipatory bail by such order.The State produces the case diary and cannot deny that the petitioners are on a similar footing.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) 2 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,333,603 | /34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the E.S. Act.And In the matter of : Abu Bakkar Sk @ Abu Bakkar @ Bapi ... ... petitioner Ms. Shabana Hasin ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Khargram P.S. Case No. 164 of 2018 dated 28.06.2018 under Sections 323/325/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the E.S. Act.The petitioner claims that there was an altercation regarding the cutting of a bush which resulted in a scuffle and injuries being suffered on either side.In addition, the petitioner is directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.This restriction will, however, not preventing the petitioner from meeting the investigating officer as and when call for.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
179,334,886 | Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record of the trial Court be requisitioned.Also heard on I.A.No.2609/2016, which is an application for suspension of execution of jail sentence filed on behalf of the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence and material and wrongly convicted the appellant.During trial, the appellant was on bail.He has not misused the liberty.Disposal of the appeal likely to take time, hence prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence.Prayer is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and material available on record, the application is allowed.It is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand only) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 02.05.2016 and on all such other dates as may be fixed in this behalf.Accordingly, the application (I.A.No.2609/2016) stands disposed of. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,793,374 | The prosecution has examined 14 withesses and the case of the prosecution as revealed from these witnesses in brief is as follows :-P.W. 1's husband Rajalingam, the appellant are all agricultural collies and they go in the morning to attend cooly works and returns in the evening.The deceased Govindam Pillai.P.W. 1 and the appellant are all living in the same area in Thimmampatty village within the limits of Kulithalai police station.On 7-5-1987 at about 6.00 p.m. when P.W. 1 was alone in her house, the appellant came to her house and expressed his love to her.He also invited her for his sexual pleasure.P.W. 1 became furious and shouted at him that she would beat him with broomstick.The appellant ran away from there.P.W. 1 thinking that if this incident was revealed to her husband on the same night it would provoke her husband, she suppressed it and on the next day morning she told him about the misbehaviour of the appellant.Her husband Rajalingam told her that he would tell to his parents to scold him.On 8-5-1987 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were conversing in the street in between the house of P.W. 2 and one Paramasivam.The mother of the appellant Ahilandathammal and his aunt Nagammal who were coming by that way scolded P.W. 1 for speaking about the appellant, saying that her conduct itself is disputable.P.W. 1 provoked by such a scolding, took up a stick lying there and beat the mother of the appellant Ahiladathammal on her left hand.P.W. 2 also with a similar stick beat Nagammal.At that time the appellant was standing at the enterance of his house.In the notice created on account of this quarrel between them, the deceased who was in his house came out.The deceased told Ahilandathammal that she, should ask her son to come out, so that he would disclose about his conduct.The appellant who was standing in front of his house, immediately saying that who was he to question his conduct, came with M.O. 1 spade handle and hit him on his head on the back side, right shoulder, right sheek and left chest.The deceased immediately fell down and became unconscious.The appellant took to his heels with the M.O. 1 spade handle.P.W. 1's husband Paramasivam went in search of the Village Administrative Officer, but as he was not found P.W. 1 the wife of the deceased, and P.W. 1's husband took the deceased in a bullock cart to Kulithalai police station.As the deceased was unconscious P.W. 1 give the complaint Ex P.1 to the Head Constable P.W. 12 who was available in the police station.P.W. 12 registered the complaint by about 10.00 p.m. in Crime No. 160 of 1987 under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and prepared the First Information Report Ex. P.9 which was sent to the court.The deceased and Ahilandathammal were sent to Kulithalai Government Hospital for treatment.P.W. 6 the medical officer attached to Kulithalai Government Hospital examined the deceased by about 11.15 p.m. and he found on him a contusion of 3" X 2" in the left temporal region, another contusion of 1" X 1" in the right cheek with a superficial abrasion and another abrasion of 1" X 1/2" on the right scapular.As he found the blood pressure was very high he suspected subdural haemorrhage and therefore after giving emergency treatment he referred the patient to headquarters hospital at Tiruchi.P.W. 6 is the accident register recorded by him.P.W. 7 the Doctor attached to the headquarters hospital at Tiruchi admitted the deceased in the hospital for treatment.In the meanwhile the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 13 took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence where he prepared the observation Mahazar Ex. P.2 in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W. 3 and also prepared the rough sketch Ex. P.11 for the scene of occurrence.Death intimation was sent to, the outpost police station which conveyed the death of Givindam Pillai to Kulithalai Police Station.The Station Officer at Kulithalai Police Station, recording the death information prepared an express report Ex P.12 after altering the nature of the offence in F.I.R. to 302 of Indian Penal Code and forwarded the express report to the court and also to the higher police officials.P.W. 14 the Inspector of Police received the Express Report on 9-5-1987 and took up the investigation.The left temporal muscle brussed, Membrances found ruptured in the line of fracture to the same extent.There was sub-dural haemotoma over left temporal and parietal region 6 x 3 cms.The brain over the left parietal and temporal lobes were contused.The Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased died due to the injury to the vital organ viz., brain about 13 hours prior to the post mortem.Ex. P.8 is the post mortem certificate issued by him.P.W. 14 the Inspector of Police continued, the investigation and arrested the appellant on 11-5-1987 near Pettaivaithalai bus stand in the presence of P.W. 5 and on examination he made a statement before the Inspector of Police.He took the Inspector of Police and P.W. 5 to Timmampatti and east of the land of one Rathinam Pillai, near the water pipe, he took up M.O. 1 spade handle from a bush.The appellant herein stands convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge.Tiruchirapalli to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304 Part II in Sessions Cases No. 175 of 1987 for having caused the death of one Govindam Pillai.After verifying the statements recorded by the S.I. of Police, he visited the hospital and conducted the inquest at 10.30 a.m. on that day in the presence of panchayatdhara Ex. P.13 is the inquest report prepared by him.The body was handed over to P.W. 10 constable attached to Kulithalai police station who recovered M.O. 3 Dhothi from the body of the deceased after inquest.P.W. 14 sent requisition Ex. P.7 to the Medical Officer attached to the Tiruchy General Hospital to conduct post mortem examination on the body of the deceased.P.W. 9 the Medical Officer in the Headquarters Hospital at Tiruchi received the requisition on 9-5-1987 at 4.30 p.m. and commenced the post mortem on the same day.He found a swelling over the left temporal region and left parital region, a contusion 1 cm.diameter over the right cheek, an abrasion 2 X 5 cms over the injury No. 2, an abrasion 5 X 1 cm front of left shoulder, an abrasion 4 X 1 cm.left mammary region and an abrasion 3 x 1 cm front of right shoulder.The opening of the skull revealed the extensive haemotoma over left temporal and parietal region 10 X 4 cm.size, fracture of left temporal bone and adjoining parietal bone vertically placed 6 cms in length extending from 2" from the left of midline to 1" above the left zygoma.The same was seized under Mahazar Ex. P.5 in the presence of P.W. 5 and another person.The appellant was remanded to judicial custody.On the complaint given by the mother of the appellant P.Ws. 1 and 2 were prosecuted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and they were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- each.The Inspector of Police, after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against this appellant on 15-6-1987 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.After the committal of this case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchi framed charge against this appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. After the examination of the witnesses on the prosecution side, the appellant was asked to explain the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied the complicity in the crime and he simply stated that he did not know about the occurrence itself as he was in a place where his cycle was kept.He did not examine any witness on his side.The learned Sessions Judge, having gone through the evidence has found that the offence committed by this Appellant would fall under Section 304 Part II and therefore, he has convicted him for the said offence and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years.Mr. K. N. Basha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the evidence on the prosecution side establishes the fact that there were so many persons closely related to the deceased standing at the time of occurrence, when the mother of the appellant was beaten up by P.W. 1 and therefore, there was imminent danger to the life of the appellant and his family members for which he had to resort by retaliation and therefore, the action of the appellant will amount to private defence for which he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. the learned counsel would further contend that even assuming that the private defence was not available to the appellant at the time of occurrence, he gave only a single blow on the head of the deceased without any intention of causing his death and therefore, this would fall under Section 325 I.P.C. So far as his first contention is concerned, the evidence reveals that there was no imminent danger to his mother at the time of occurrence.The appellant was standing in front of his house when his mother Ahilandathammal was quarelling with P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the street.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 reveals that they bear Akilandathammal And Nagammal only with a small sticks having thorns.The evidence nowhere discloses that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 attempted on the life of the said Akilandathammal and Nagammal.As there was quarrel between them, Akilandathammal, the mother of the appellant when questioned about the virtues of P.W. 1, it appears that she was provoked and taking out a small stick found nearby, she beat Akilandathammal and her cousin P.W. 2 also had beaten Nagammal.The appellant was not provoked on account of beating of his mother and aunt.But when the deceased came from his house and asked Akilandathammal to bring her son, so that he would disclose his conduct, the appellant became furious by saying that who was he to question his conduct and only thereafter he attacked the deceased with spade handle.The evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 makes very clear that there were no circumstances to show any danger to the life of Akilandathammal or Nagammal including that of the appellant, because, these two women were beaten only with small sticks.But the appellant who was standing and watching this quarrel at some distance came to the scene of occurrence only when the deceased was shouting that he would disclose the conduct of the appellant and pounced upon the deceased by beating him with spade handle on his head.It is true that some others including the husband of P.W. 1 Paramasivam, Nallu Pillai, Manimegalai, Angammal, Selvam and others were present at the time of occurrence.P.W. 1 has spoken in her evidence that the appellant is her husband's Pangali (agnate).Therefore, all these who were standing there, were related to bothsides.There is also no evidence that any of these persons who were present on the scene of occurrence attempted to assault the appellant or his family members.In view of this clear evidence, at no stretch of imagination it can be said that the appellant had the right of private defence to attack the deceased when especially the deceased was unarmed and he was simply shouting at the appellant's mother.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 has not been shattered in the cross-examination by the appellant/accused.As the mother and aunt of the appellant, picked up wordy quarrel with P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and the wife of the deceased, imputing the character of P.W. 1, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 beat those two women only with a small twig like sticks.Till then the appellant did not interfere in this quarrel.But only when the deceased came there shouting that he would impeach the character of the appellant he was attacked by the appellant as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2 the eye witnesses.As I find no infirmity in their testimony, their evidence is acceptable to uphold the participation of the appellant in the crime alleged.The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K. N. Basha citing certain decisions argued that as the weapon viz., the spade handle cannot be considered to be a dangerous weapon and as a single blow alone was aimed at the head of the deceased, the appellant had no intention to cause his death and further as he did not have the knowledge that the blow he delivered was likely to cause the death, the appellant cannot be punished for the offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. but the offence would fall under Section 325 I.P.C. The spade handle M.O. 1 is to the length of 24" and is having two iron rights around it.As this spade is to the length of 24" feet this cannot be compared with an ordinary stick.This spade handle certainly can be used as a weapon of offence even to cause death.In this case, the appellant had aimed at the head of the deceased and delivered the fatal blow which had caused fracture of frontal and temporal bones.As two bones have been fractured it shows the violent force applied by the appellant while attacking the deceased who was an old man.When he had aimed at the head of the deceased which is a vulnerable part and delivered a blow with such a force, it is futile to argue that he had no knowledge that the injury on the head was likely to cause death.There was haemotoma on the head and the deceased became unconscious soon after the hit on his head.In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant is liable to be punished only under Section 325 I.P.C. for having caused the fracture of the skull bone and that he had no knowledge that the injury caused by him on the head was liely to endanger the life of the deceased.As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor if the aim of the appellant was on any other part, especially on non-vital parts, this argument can be accepted.The head being a vital and vulnerable part, the blow on the head certainly ropes in the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. which the court below has rightly concluded. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', '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'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,323,842 | accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from and an affidavit in support of the statement of facts contained in the petition.Under Rule 10 the petition for grant of special leave shall be put up for hearing ex-parte unless there be a caveat.The Court if it thinks fit, may direct issue of notice to the respondent and adjourn the hearing of the petition.Under Rule 13, the respondent to whom a notice in special leave petition is issued or who had filed a caveat, shall be entitled to oppose the grant of leave or interim orders without filing any written objections.He shall also be at liberty to file his objections only by setting out the grounds in opposition to the questions of law or grounds set out in the S.L.P.. On hearing the Court may refuse the leave and dismiss the petition for seeking special leave to appeal either ex-parte or after issuing notice to the opposite party.Under Rule 11, on the grant of special leave, the petition for special leave shall, subject to the payment of additional Court fee, if any, be treated as the petition of appeal and it shall be registered and numbered as such.The appeal shall then be set down for hearing in accordance with the procedure laid down thereafter.Thus, a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal and the appeal itself, though both dealt with by Article 136 of the Constitution, are two clearly distinct stages.In our opinion, the legal position which emerges is as under :-While hearing the petition for special leave to appeal, the Court is called upon to see whether the petitioner should be granted such leave or not.While hearing such petition, the Court is not exercising its appellate jurisdiction; it is merely exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to grant or not to grant leave to appeal.The petitioner is still outside the gate of entry though aspiring to enter the appellate arena HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.21813/2019 (Awadhesh Kumar Verma Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh) 8 of Supreme Court. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,324,272 | /34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9B of Explosives Act.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,324,323 | It is alleged that the Petitioners started similar training courses in the name and style of M/s. Institute of Hotel Cargo and Tourism Management (IHCTM) wherein the Petitioner No. 1 is director.It is further alleged that both the petitioners are Editors of an in-house journal in the name of "Opportunities today".The petitioners wrote and published an article in the said journal in September 2001 issue titled as "Flight of Fancy Crash Courses of Crashing Hopes".The Crl.The present petition assails the summoning order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the Ld. MM in CC No. 297/1 titled "M/s Frankfinn Management Consultants v. Subhash Motwani & Anr".The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant company is engaged in Basic Cabin Crew Training and job assistance to its trainees.M.C.3686/2009 Page 1 of 6 said article allegedly contained incorrect and defamatory content and provided a distorted picture of the complainant/respondent.The article contained material projecting the complainant/respondent No. 1 as making the students a scapegoat and thereafter extracting money from them.It is alleged that the article was published with a mala fide intent as the Petitioners and Complainant/ Respondent are competitors and was done to cause unlawful loss to the Complainant/ Respondent No. 1 and unlawful gain to the Petitioners.The Complainant led pre-summoning evidence which revealed that several calls were received by the Complainant enquiring whether the contents of the article are true.The petitioner also filed a petition Crl.The Ld. MM vide his order dated 07.09.2009 framed notice u/s 251 CrPC against the petitioners u/s 500/34 IPC.This petition is filed for quashing of the said complaint. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,324,440 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.The present bail application has been filed for enlarging the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 690 of 2016, under Section 302, 394, 504 I.P.C. Police Station Kherkhoda District Meerut.It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely implicated in the present case.At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the trial is proceedings at snail's speed, hence the trial court be directed to conclude it within some time bound period.Keeping in view that the applicant is in jail since 26.10.2018, the trial court is directed to make all possible efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.With the aforesaid observations, the bail application is rejected.Order Date :- 7.9.2020 Ishan | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,324,839 | In fine, this criminal original petition is dismissed.20-08-2015glpToThe Inspector of Police CBI/SPE/ACB ChennaiThis criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973('Cr.P.C.' in short) praying to call for records pertaining to Calendar Case No.11 of 2008 pending on the file of the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge for CBI cases relating to Banks and financial institutions, Chennai and quash the same.During that period Account No.3778 has been opened by N.S. Krishna Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Sri Ram Trading Company, T. Nagar, Chennai.The said N.S. Krishna Kumar has approached Canara Bank, Kellys Branch for financial assistance and introduced by one N.S. Madanlal, partner of M/s. Bharathy Traders.The Current Account No.3778 has been opened on 23-10-2002 by one John Nelson.As per bank procedure, emergency discretionary power register is to be maintained and the said register has to be signed only by Credit Manager.The petitioner has never issued any order reducing the margin to 10%.From the record it is evident that without showing the discretionary register, and without getting the petitioner's concurrence, Manager-credit on his own discounted and reduced the margin intentionally.The petitioner has put his writing only on covering letter dated 17-12-2002, stating, "Pls.discount by maintaining margin of 25%".If the Credit Manager discounted the bills by maintaining a margin of 25% as per order of the petitioner, the amount for four bills would be upto Rs.18.45 lakhs only.But, without maintaining the stipulated margin, the amount for four bills increased upto Rs.20.52 lakhs.The petitioner has not exercised any power beyond the permitted limit.It is the duty of the Credit-Manager to verify the Valuation Report given by the party.One Mr.The petitioner has also filed Crl.The petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.But during 18-12-2002 to 20-12-2012, bills have been discounted to the tune of Rs.20.52 lakhs, under discretionary powers.Thus the limit of Rs.18.75 lakhs has been exceeded by the petitioner.It is false to aver that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following points so as to substantiate the contentions mentioned in the petition:(iv) one Sulochana Nagarajan has given a favourable reply.Further as per the statement given by the approver, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the contentions put forth on the side of the petitioner cannot be accepted and further, lot of materials are available to proceed further against him and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.The XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge for CBI cases, relating to Banks and financial institution Chennai -1A. SELVAM,J.O.P.No.4317 of 2015 20-08-2015 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,325,367 | Bharat has no issue, but his brothers haveissues.As Bharat has no issue, his brothers were asking him to take issueof one of the brothers in adoption.Allegations are made that other Accusednamely Bapu was also there.When the first informant shouted for helppersons like Vishwanath Shelke and daughter in law of Ramling Ingolereached there to rescue him.These persons, virtually threw the firstinformant into road side ditch.The first informant was then shifted first toRural Hospital, then Civil Hospital, Osmanabad and from there to CivilHospital, Solapur.He was indoor patient initially for 11 months and thenfrom time to time, for taking treatment in respect of the injuries, which wereinflicted on him in the incident.His statement came to be recorded inOsmanabad Hospital by Bhoom Police and crime came to be registered forthe aforesaid offence.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 ::: 4::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 :::945 APPEALS 413 & 637 of 2003.odt4 During the course of investigation, spot Panchanama wasprepared.Blood was found on the spot.Sessions Case No.177 of 1999, which was pending in the Court of AdhocAdditional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad.The Trial Court has convictedAccused No.1 Datta and Accused No.3 Ambrushi for the offencepunishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code andeach one of these two Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.500/-.Other two Accusedlike Bhagwat Bhagwan Mali and Bapu Satva Mali are acquitted.The firstappeal is filed by the convicted Accused and the other appeal is filed by theState against the convicted Accused for enhancement of sentence.2 In short, the facts leading to institution of present twoproceedings can be stated as follows:Both Datta and Ambrushi are real brothers of informant Bharat Mali.Partition had taken place amongst these brothers.There is one more ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 ::: 3 945 APPEALS 413 & 637 of 2003.odtbrother by name Bhagwat.Bharat had said no to it and due to that,his brothers namely Datta and Ambrushi had become angry with him.3 The incident in question took place on 12 th December, 1996 atabout 11:30 am.When Bharat was proceeding towards the field, he wasintercepted by his three brothers and they again asked him to see that hetakes one issue of one of his brothers in adoption.When he refused to doso, Datta and Bhagwat held his hands and then Ambrushi assaulted Bharatby using iron bar on his upper and lower limbs.In the assault, Bharatsustained fracture injuries.Statements of witnesses came tobe recorded.One iron bar came to be recovered on the basis of statementgiven by Accused Ambrushi.Iron bar was sent to C.A. office alongwithclothes of the injured.Blood was detected on the iron bar.Record ofmedical treatment was collected and then charge-sheet was filed againstfour Accused persons.5 To the charge, both Datta and Ambrushi pleaded not guilty.Prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses for proving the offence.TrialCourt believed the first informant and considered the medical record.Considering the relationship between the parties, Trial Court has givensentence only of three years imprisonment to Datta and Ambrushi.6 During the pendency of appeal filed by Ambrushi (CriminalAppeal No.413 of 2003), Ambrushi died and his appeal came to bedisposed of as abated.This Court has carefully gone through the evidencegiven as against Datta and the medical record.In substantive evidence,Bharat (PW-8) has stated that during the incident, he was held by Datta andthe Ambrushi gave blows of iron pipe on his legs.He deposed that due tothe blows, he sustained injuries to his legs.He deposed that he was then ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 ::: 5 945 APPEALS 413 & 637 of 2003.odtthrown into road side ditch.The substantive evidence shows that he madeallegations mainly against Deorao and Ambrushi and he did not makeallegations against other two Accused.Against Datta, he has deposed thatDatta had held him when Ambrushi was assaulting by using iron bar.Thus,all the injuries are attributed to the assault made by Ambrushi.7 The evidence in the cross-examination of Bharat (PW-8)shows that there was dispute for more than 10 years amongst thesebrothers.In the past also, criminal case was filed against Ambrushi on thebasis of report given by Bharat.In that case, Datta had stood surety forAmbrushi.The evidence shows that even after the present incident, manycases were filed against Datta and Ambrushi by family of Bharat.Due tothe nature of dispute and number of cases filed, the evidence of Bharatneeds to be scrutinized closely.There needs to be some corroboration tosuch evidence before basing conviction on it.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 :::8 There is virtually no circumstantial evidence against Dattaother than the circumstance of motive.The evidence of Bharat of assault ismainly against Ambrushi.History was given that abrother had assaulted Bharat.The evidence of wife of Bharat (PW-12) ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 ::: 6 945 APPEALS 413 & 637 of 2003.odtshows that she had reached the spot after learning about the incident andsome boys had informed her about the incident.The persons, who couldhave witnessed the incident are not examined.The evidence of Mangal(PW-12) shows that no disclosure was made to her by Bharat.It appearsthat first disclosure was made in the Hospital at Osmanabad where thestatement was recorded by Police.In that statement, allegations weremade of assault against one brother by mentioning that a brother hadassaulted him.This circumstance cannot be ignored as there is nocircumstantial check to the substantive evidence given against Datta andfurther the allegations of assault are made only against Ambrushi.In thepast also, case was filed against Ambrushi for making similar assault.Hewas acquitted in that case.In ordinary course, circumstantial evidence could have beencollected against Datta if there were bleeding injuries.9 The medical evidence given by two doctors show that therewere five contusions.Out of them, there were three diffused contusions.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 ::: 7::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 :::945 APPEALS 413 & 637 of 2003.odtThere were fractures of right forearm, left forearm, right leg, left leg andparieto occipital region right side.Here only it needs to be mentioned thatin substantive evidence Bharat has stated that assault was made only onhis legs.Nothing is said about other three injuries found on the person ofBharat.This circumstance also creates doubt about the version of Bharatand there is possibility that he has tried to implicate every brother whenassault was not made by Datta and other brother and Datta had notparticipated in the incident.10 The Trial Court has not considered the aforesaidcircumstances.Though there was a charge under Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish the presenceof Accused persons on the spot.In view of the nature of allegations, it canbe said that Bharat did not want to exclude the real assailant and so hetook the name of Ambrushi as the person, who caused him injuries.In the result, the following order is passed:::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 ::: 8::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 :::Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2003 stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:49:18 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,032,580 | Partly allowed AJ.C.R.M. 6092 of 2017 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.And In the matter of: 1. Abdul Karim Sekh,Kajim Sekh,Abdul Hai Sekh,Aynal Sekh,Mantajali Sekh @ Mantaj Sekh,Ajamul Hussain @ Ajajul Sekh,Mosharaf Sekh,Jahinur Sekh @ Jahanur Sekh,Ashraful Sekh.... petitioners.Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Mr. Sudip Guha....... for the petitioners....... for the State.Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Sahebganj Police Station F.I.R. No. 38 of 2017 dated 02.06.2017 under Sections 447/341/325/326/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners by citing an order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by this Bench in C.R.M. 6018 of 2017 submits that all the petitioners stand on the same footing as the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 therein and, therefore, are entitled to parity of treatment.However, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the other petitioners, namely, petitioner nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 stands rejected.( Dipankar Datta, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
803,279 | The facts are that the deceased was working in the house of the appellant as a maid.She was absent from her duties and the appellant went to her house, which is at a nearby area from the house of the appellant, to call her to join her duties as a maid.GANGULY, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Some important questions have come up for consideration in this case.This appeal is against the concurrent finding of both the courts convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.The High Court by judgment and order dated 17.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2001 affirmed the same.In view of this position under the rules and having regard to the constitutional provision under Article 142, we do not think that this Court at the time of final hearing is precluded from considering the controversy in its entire perspective and in doing so, this Court is not inhibited by any observation in an order made at the time of issuing the notice.In paragraph 31 at page 658, this Court, after making an express provision to Article 142 held as follows:-"So far as civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 6451 of 2005 and civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) no. 8239 of 2005 are concerned, although limited notice having been issued confining the case to back wages, but keeping in view the order passed in the other cases, we are of the opinion that the said order shall be recalled and leave on all points should be granted.The respondents being placed similarly should not, in our opinion, be treated differently.The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions.No costs."By way of analogy we may refer to the provision of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code.Section 100 runs as follows:-Second Appeal.The appellant went to the house of the deceased being accompanied by one Alpesh.In the house of the deceased, an altercation ensued between the appellant and the deceased as the deceased was refusing to come and join her work as a maid presumably on the ground that the amount of Rs. 375/- per month which was paid by the appellant to the deceased by way of remuneration was very low.The appellant had stated by way of defence that the deceased had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000 from the appellant and the appellant wanted the deceased to return the same.However, this defence has not been accepted either by the trial court or the High Court.Admittedly, an altercation followed and it is alleged that the appellant on the spur of the moment, went to the deceased and gagged her mouth.The further prosecution case is that the deceased was cooking at the time when the appellant went to her house.A can of kerosene was lying nearby and the appellant almost emptied the can of kerosene on the deceased and lit the match stick.Surprisingly, Alpesh who accompanied the appellant to the house of the deceased ran away before the incident of burning had taken place and he was not examined by the prosecution at all.The only two other witnesses in this case are PW 1 husband of the deceased and PW 2 the elder sister-in-law of the deceased.PW 2 came to the place of occurrence after hearing the shouts of the deceased and made arrangements for taking the deceased to the doctor for treatment.Both PW 1 husband of the deceased and PW 2 Kanta Ben, who made arrangements for taking the deceased for medical treatment were declared hostile.PW 1, the husband of the deceased, in his evidence submitted that the deceased had suicidal tendencies in the past.The case is, therefore, entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the statement of the deceased in more than one dying declarations.The first dying declaration appears to have been 9 recorded when PW 2 Kanta Ben took the deceased to hospital at 0330 hours wherein the doctor said that the deceased was fully conscious and had informed the doctor that the appellant had sprinkled kerosene on her at 0200 hours at her residence when she was doing her work and set her on fire with a match stick.The second was recorded by PSI which is Exh. 27 and the third one was by the Executive Magistrate (Exh. 31).Virtually, there is no inconsistency between these dying declarations of the deceased recorded at the interval of few hours on the day of the incident.The prosecution evidence is that the deceased survived for six days after the date of the incident and lost her consciousness and did not regain her consciousness till she was alive.The evidence of PW 1 is that he was informed of the incident and he came to see the deceased on the date of the incident and found her unconscious.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted the doctor had not given his written opinion that the deceased was fit enough to give her statement. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,330,476 | Reserved on : 14.03.2017 Pronounced on : 31.03.2017 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):Since both the Applications are filed praying relief of quashing and setting ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 ::: 546.2015 Cri.Appln.+.odt 3 aside the First Information Report bearing Crime No.I-206/2014, registered with Parner Police Station, Parner, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 467, 468, 477 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Both these Applications are being heard and disposed off by the common judgment.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::On 11th January, 2005, he submitted his resignation from the post of Cashier of the said Credit Society and the charge was handed over on the very day.The said resignation came to be accepted by the said Credit ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 ::: 546.2015 Cri.The applicant worked in the capacity of Clerk in the said Credit Society during the period from 11th January, 2005 to 13th January, 2013 and wherefrom he resigned on 13th January, 2013 and came to be relieved on the very day.It is submitted that, non applicant no.2 audited the said credit society for the period from 1st April, 2013 to 31st March, 2014, and prior to the said period, applicant has resigned.He submits that, the application deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::The learned counsel appearing for the applicant, namely Shivram Sukhdeo Sable, in Criminal Application No.3285/2015 submits that, in the year 2008 the applicant was member of the Managing Committee of the Ashwamedh Gramin Bigarsheti Path Sanstha, Wadzire, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar.The applicant resigned from the membership and tendered his resignation as Managing ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 ::: 546.2015 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for respondent-State in Criminal Application No.546/2015 relying upon the investigation papers submits that, there are number of documents show involvement of the applicant.He invites our attention to the various deposit vouchers wherein the applicant has signed.Even on 20th November, 2013, the applicant has drawn Rs.10,000/- towards his fees.The learned APP submits ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 ::: 546.2015 Cri.Appln.+.odt 7 that, the contention of the applicant that his resignation was accepted, is in dispute, as a matter of fact that his resignation from the post of Cashier was not accepted.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::In reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 3285/2015, the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State submits that, the scope of investigation is not restricted only to the financial year 2013-14, however, respondent no.2 during the audit, noticed that since the registration of the said society, contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws, the Managing Committee in collusion with the employees have disbursed the loan amount and also not recovered the same.In collusion with the then Auditor, who audited / inspected the record of the society for earlier period in collusion with the members of the Managing Committee and employees have prepared false ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 ::: 546.2015 Cri.Appln.+.odt 8 documents showing that the financial affairs of the society are in good health and as a matter of fact the said society is running in making profits.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, and the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State at length.With their able assistance, we have perused the averments in the applications, grounds taken therein and the investigation papers.There is also an affidavit Rs.100/- on stamp papers that, personally he will be responsible for the affairs of the said society for the period, which is mentioned in the said affidavit.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::546.2015 Cri.Therefore, the prayer for quashing the FIR deserves no consideration.The Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 ::: 546.2015 Cri.Appln.+.odt 10 Vs.Monica and others1 in para 11 and 12 held thus:::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::The facts, as alleged, therefore will have to be proved which can only be done in the course of a regular trial.Once the aforesaid stage is overcome, the facts alleged have to be proved by the complainant/prosecution on the basis of legal evidence in order to establish the penal liability of the person charged with the offence.1 [2014] 3 SCC 383::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 ::: 546.2015 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::Appln.+.odt 13 record to suggest that the offenders were entitled to secure the order in the ends of justice.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 :::The observations made herein before are prima facie in nature.This order will not preclude the applicants to apply for discharge in the event of filing of the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:07:24 ::: | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,333,515 | This application for bail has been filed by the appellant Nakul seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2019, under Sections 302, 387 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, P.S. Jakhalaun, District Lalitpur during the pendency of Trial.It transpires from record that an incident took place on 11.8.2019, in which present applicant Nakul and Bittu Raja were involved.An F.I.R dated 12.8.2019 was lodged by Vinod Singh, which was registered as Case Crime No. 87 of 2019, under Sections 302, 387 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, P.S. Jakhalaun, District Lalitpur.In the aforesaid F.I.R, two persons namely, Bittu Raja @ Aman Pratap Singh and Nakul have been nominated as named accused.The role of firing has been assigned to Bittu Raja whereas, applicant has been assigned the role of catching the deceased.Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated and is liable to be enlarged on bail.Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.Having heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.Let the applicant Nakul be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,369,503 | 11. P.W.2 deposed that P.W.1 is her father, Kanai Maity since deceased was her paternal uncle.On 19th Aswin, 1388 B.S. at about 10/11 a.m. Kanai was killed.While she was returning to their house from Nimpur hat she saw all the accused persons and others assaulting Kanai Maity on the road in front of the house of Adhar Singh.She hurriedly returned to their house and narrated the incident to her father and other inmates.On hearing that, her father, her uncle Paramananda and her aunts rushed towards the P.O. She also accompanied them.On reaching the P.O. they found trace of fresh blood from the front of the house of Adhar leading towards the house of Bhupen Bera.They also saw the bag of vegetables stained with blood lying there, some vegetables and chira lying scattered.She saw Ananta Jana, Bani Maity, Bhim Poira and Bibek Maity with blood stained Bhalis in their hands.They were trying to rub out the bloodstains.The other persons were standing with lathis and iron rods.They were all near the house of Bhupen Bera.Panchanan came out of the house of Suresh Bhar and stated that all the accused persons and others assaulted and killed Kanai.On seeing her father and others coming, the accused persons left the place.They later entered into the house of Bhupen and found Kanai was lying dead on a pool of blood.He had several bleeding injuries on several parts of his body and intestine came out.They started crying.The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No.VII of October, 1983 decided on 02.03.1988 whereby the appellants have been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years each for commission of offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and also to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months each for commission of offence under Section 304 (I) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 IPC.However, both the sentences wound run concurrently.Sans unnecessary details the prosecution case may be reproduced in the following words:-"That on 06.10.1981 at about 11.40 a.m. when the de-facto complainant Anil Kumar Maity returned home from Banamali Chatta Hospital, his daughter Prativa Rani Maity came running and reported that the appellants had been assaulting her uncle Kanai Maity with 'Bhali' in front of the house of Adhar Singh.Hearing that the de-facto complainant and his elder brother Paramananda Maity rushed to the place of occurrence and found blood stain on the road and the appellants Bani Maity, Ananta Jana, Prasanta Maity and Bhim Paira were wiping out the blood stain from the 'Bhalis' by their hands in front of the house of Panchanan Bera.The remaining appellants were standing on the road.They also found bleeding injury on the leg of the appellant Bibek Maity.Seeing them the appellants fled away through the Northern Side Bridge.Panchanan Bera came running to them and told that the appellants had murdered Kanai Maity, brother of the de-facto complainant, inside the house of Panchanan and fled away.Panchanan further reported that while Kanai was returning from Nimpur hat the appellants attacked him in front of the house of Adhar Singh and chased him and he rushed towards the house of Panchanan and he fell down.Then Achinta and Bani struck Kanai with 'Bhali'.Kanai somehow took shelter inside the house of Panchanan and the said Ananta Jana and Bani Maity entered inside following Kanai and assaulted him and murdered him.Thereafter, the de-facto complainant went to the Contai P.S. and lodged a written complaint on the basis of which Contai P.S. Case No.11 dated 06.10.1981 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered.That case was investigated into and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted.Thereafter, the case was placed for trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore who framed charges under Section 148 I.P.C. and u/s 302/149 I.P.C. against the present appellants and after completion of the trial he held the appellants guilty and convicted them as aforesaid.In order to prove the charge the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses.The seizure lists are vague.The rough sketch map also does not fix the place of occurrence clearly.Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt;iv) The post mortem report was not produced or exhibited.Thus the cause of death is not established;v) The only alleged eye witness is P.W.2 Prativa Maity who was aged about 10/11 years at the relevant time and she has failed to render cogent, reliable and truthful account and her version is not corroborated by other evidence on record.Thus no reliance can be placed upon such version of P.W.2 and it cannot be made the basis of conviction ;vi) The examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was not proper in as much as the circumstances, which have been used against them, were not put to them during such examination.The miscreants were using lathis, Bhalis and iron rods.She further stated that Adhar Jana, Atul Singh and Badal Mondal were the other miscreants besides the accused persons.Her father left the place for going to Thana.She was examined by the I.O.In cross-examination P.W.1 could not say the names of the persons from whom she made purchase in the Hat that day.She got frightened on seeing the incident and raised alarm but none arrived there.Beside the inmates of her house she did not tell anything to the inmates of any other house intervening their house and the P.O. The neighbours arrived in their house and she told them about the incident.The weeping continued for more than one hour.The neighbours did not accompany them to the spot.Sometimes after their arrival at the P.O. some other villagers numbering 50/500 reached there.They narrated the incident to them.They did not arrive so long her father and paternal uncle were at the P.O. The villagers also heard the incident from Panchanan.She further stated that she saw the incident of assault just for a while.She denied the suggestion that she did not tell the I.O. that some of the accused persons had lathis and iron rods in their hands while assaulting Kanai or that she saw Bibek standing with blood stained Bhali in his hand and he was cleaning the blood stains or that some of the accused persons were standing near the house of Bhupen with lathis and iron rods in their hands.She further stated that she did not see Badal Jana amongst the miscreants and she did not name Badal Jana to the I.O. She further denied that she did not name Badal Jana, Phani Maity and Achinta to the I.O.But I find that P.W.11 S.I. Tarun Kumar Das (I.O.) after being confronted with the statement of P.W.2 disclosed that the said witness P.W.2 did not state to him that while Kanai was being assaulted some of the accused persons were having lathis and iron rods in their hands and that after the incident she saw Bibek standing with a blood stained 'Bhali' and cleaning the same and that some of the accused persons were standing near the house of Bhupen with lathis and iron rods.He further made it clear that she did not mention the name of Phani Maity as one of the miscreants but she however named Badal and Achinta before him.Thus it is seen that P.W.2 who was aged about 10/11 years and is the sole eye witness to the first part of the incident has made some material omissions and contradictions.She did not state to the I.O. that while the victim was being assaulted, some of the accused persons were armed with lathis and iron rods.In the F.I.R. which was authored and lodged by P.W.1 after hearing the incident from P.W.2 it is mentioned that all the accused persons were assaulting the victim Kanai Maity with 'Bhali'.Further she did not disclose before the I.O. that after the incident she saw the appellant Bibek Maity standing with a blood stained 'Bhali' and that he was cleaning the same.Similarly she also did not disclose before the I.O. that some of the accused persons were standing near the house of Bhupen with lathis and iron rods.She also did not mention the name of Phani Maity as one of the miscreants before the I.O. Moreover, although she claimed not to have mentioned the name of Badal Jana before the I.O. but the I.O. discredited her on this score.Yet further she named three more miscreants Adhar Jana, Atul Singh and Badal Mondal whom she also saw to take part in the assault upon the victim but curiously enough in the F.I.R. (Ext.1) the names of Adhar Jana and Badal Mondal are not mentioned.It remains a wonder that she being a young girl of 10/11 years witnessed the incident for just a while and still she could retain it in her memory alive for more than 7 years and could name as many as 19 assailants.Be that as it may, the law is well settled on the point that evidence of a child witness can be relied upon if the same is truthful and corroborated by other evidence on record.In the case of Radhey Shyam Vs.State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 5 SCC 389 (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others told him and thus a child witness is a easy prey to tutoring.So let me now proceed to examine the other evidence and materials on record in order to see how far P.W.2's evidence is reliable and can be acted upon.Looking into the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 who are all close relations of the deceased, I find that they have all claimed to have heard about the incident from P.W.2 and rushed to the P.O. But in the F.I.R.(Ext.1) it is mentioned that when P.W.1 returned home from hospital, P.W.2 came running and narrated the incident to him and there is no mention that all other inmates were present at that time.Further they have stated that after hearing the incident they rushed to the P.O. but in the F.I.R.(Ext.1) it is stated that P.W.1 and P.W.6 only rushed to the P.O. Another vital contradiction which easily attracts the attention is that although those witnesses have claimed to have seen stains of blood starting from the P.O. in front of the house of Adhar Singh to the house of Panchanan but this fact conspicuously does not find place in the F.I.R. P.W.1 made improvement from his F.I.R. version by claiming that he stated to the I.O. that he heard from Panchanan that while Kanai was asking for mercy, Hemanta asked to finish him and Bani and Ananta gave final blows but the I.O. P.W.11 totally discredited him by disclosing that P.W.1 did not state so in his subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by him.P.W.3 did not state before the I.O. that P.W.2 was returning from Hat or that P.W.2 stated about lathis, iron rods and that she marked trails of blood leading from the road in front of the house of Adhar to Panchanan's house.She also did not mention the names of all the appellants as the miscreants before the I.O.P.W.4 deposed that on reaching to the P.O. Panchanan told that the accused persons killed her husband and were running towards east after crossing the wooden bridge.The I.O. P.W.11 disclosed that she did not name Phanibhusan Maity as one of the miscreants and that P.W.2 was returning from the Hat or that when she reached there the accused persons were fleeing away after crossing the wooden bridge.He found Ananta Jana, Bibek Maity, Bani Maity, Prasanta Jana and Bhim Paira cleaning their blood stained 'Bhali' near the house of Panchanan and the other accused persons stood at some distance and seeing them the accused persons left the place after crossing the wooden bridge.But the I.O. P.W.11 contradicted him by stating that P.W.6 stated before him that he saw some of the accused persons cleaning their 'Bhalis" but did not name Bani or Bibek to be amongst them.P.W.11 further disclosed that P.W.6 did not state to him that while Panchanan named the assailants of Kanai inside his house, he also named Bibek and Prasanta as the assailants.It is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. (Ext.1) that Panchanan Bera came running to them and stated that the accused persons had murdered Kanai Maity inside his (Panchanan's) house and fled away.Thus it remains a mystery how these witnesses could see the accused persons standing at or near the scene of occurrence at all.P.W.2 stated that her father left the place for going to Thana.P.W.1 however stated that he went to the P.S. on call.From the F.I.R. (Exts.1 and 3) it appears that the written complaint was lodged at 14.08 hours on 06.10.1981 while the date and hour of occurrence is recorded therein as on 06.10.1981 at 11.40 hours but there is no explanation put forward for such delay of more than 2 hours when the P.S. is about 12 kilometers distant from the village of the informant.It further appears that there was eight (8) days delay in sending the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate and there is equally no explanation assigned by the prosecution for such inordinate delay in receipt of the F.I.R. by the Magistrate concerned.Therefore, there is every reason to suspect that the F.I.R. was cooked up subsequently and the time mentioned therein was not the actual time of recording.In this context, I think it appropriate to quote the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meharaj Singh (L/NK.) V. State of U.P. reported in (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 188 which is as follows: "FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial.The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any.If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate.The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report.Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report.The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR (Para 12)."All these P.W.s. namely P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 stated that they entered inside the house of Panchanan Bera and found the dead body of Kanai was lying on a pool of blood.P.W.1 more specifically stated that the dead body was lying inside the western room of the house.P.W.11 i.e. the I.O. deposed that he was taken to the house of Panchanan Bera by P.W.1 and there he found the dead body of the deceased was lying on the floor of that house on a pool of blood and that he held inquest over the dead body.But the rough sketch map (Ext.4) prepared by P.W.11 shows that the dead body was lying on the entrance of the house of Panchanan Bera.Be that as it may, P.W.11 admitted that he did not seize any blood or controlled earth from the place where the dead body was found on pool of blood.He further admitted that in the seizure list (Ext.2), column of place and from whom seized had been left blank by him.But curiously enough P.W.6 stated that Daragababu seized blood stained earth etc. from inside the house of Panchanan.The non-seizure of the blood stained earth from the alleged place of occurrence by the I.O. and want of evidence showing blood trail from the road in front of the house of accused Adhar Singh to the place where the dead body was found suggests that the occurrence did not take place in the manner suggested by the prosecution and that the actual occurrence has been suppressed from the Court.Withholding of the inquest report without any plausible explanation further casts a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution version.Another fact is required to be addressed to.It is interesting to see that all the incriminating materials which have been used against the accused persons have not been put to them in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and such examination has been made in a cryptic manner.It appears that all the accused persons were asked to give explanation by putting that P.W.1 had seen all of them to assault the deceased Kanai Maity.But in fact P.W.1 is not at all an eye witness and he heard about the incident from P.W.2 and P.W.5 whose evidence was expunged.Therefore, this amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating the trial as the accused were prejudiced.The alleged eye witness P.W.2 and the other witnesses namely P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6 are undoubtedly deeply interested in the prosecution.On careful scrutiny of their evidence as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, it appears to me that none of those witnesses had actually seen the occurrence and they posed themselves as eye witnesses after thoughtful deliberations and consultations. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
873,699 | The facts leading to this appeal are thus:The acquitted accused Kallu alias Kalyansingh, who was married to deceased Sulochana, had developed illicit relationship with the appellant: therefore, there were always bickerings and quarrels between Kallu and his wife, and this was the subject of village gossip; hence, Arjunsingh (P. W. 1), father of Kallu, asked Kallu to live separately.It is said by the prosecution that there were quarrels also between the deceased and the appellant.Therefore, to remove the obstacle in the way of illicit relationship between Kallu and the appellant, the two accused conspired to get rid of Sulochana from their way.Hence, in the intervening night of 19th and 20th April, 1985, Kallu and the appellant both committed the murder of Sulochana by strangulation; the body was brought about 3 furlongs away from the residence of the deceased, to a ditch of quarry behind 'Chamada Ghar, ' where the body was covered with stones and earth.On 22-4-1985 Kallu went to his father and told him that Sulochana was not found.On it, P. W. 1 Arjunsingh told him that she might have gone to her parents' house.On enquiry from the parents it was found that she did not reach there; a report (Ext. P/1) of 'Gumshudi' was lodged at P. S. Isagarh by P. W. 1, wherein P. W. 1 entertained his suspicion on the appellant.On 24-4-1985 the appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ext. P/2) in the presence of 'Panch' witnesses P. W. 2 Babulal and Harnam Singh (P. W. 6).After preparing spot map (Ext. P/10), P. W. 13 at about 11 a.m. lodged the first information report (Ext. P/19), thereon a case at Crime No. 78 of 1985 for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the two accused.The dead body was sent for post mortem.P. W. 9 Dr. V. R. Ratnakar performed autopsy and gave his report (ExtJP/14), according to which the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation, death being homicidal in nature.JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J.In this appeal the appellant/accused has challenged her conviction under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment, passed on 2840-1986 in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1985, by Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, District Guna.After investigation, the 'challan' was filed against both the accused persons.The accused denied the offence and raised the plea of false implication.During trial, the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Arjunsingh, father of Kallu, P. W. 2 Babulal, brother-in-law (Sadhy Bhai) of Kallu, P. W. 3 Nanna, P. W. 4 Nathansingh, P. W. 5 Shivshankar Sharma, P. W. 6 Harnamsingh, brother of Kallu, P. W. 7 Lalu, Ramnath Garg P. W. 8, P. W. 9 Dr. V. R. Ratnakar, P. W. 10 Nagendrakumar, cousin brother of deceased Sulochana, P. W. 11 Jaisingh Sodi, who made an entry of Ext. P/1 in the Daily Diary, P. W. 12 V. S. Bhadoria, who performed some part of the investigation, and P. W. 13 M. A. Hasmi, the investigating officer.The trial Court after evaluating the evidence, acquitted both Kallu and the appellant of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, holding that there was no evidence to hold them guilty.The trial Court also acquitted co-accused Kallu of the offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, but convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.Shri V. K. Saxena, Counsel for the appellant, and Shri C. S. Dixit, Deputy Government Advocate for the State, were heard.Record perused.Before I deal with the appeal on merits, it would be worthwhile to mention a fact that the learned Deputy Government Advocate could not point out whether the State has preferred any appeal against the acquittal of Kallu under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, and of the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the appellant attacked the manner in which the investigation was conducted, and contended that the central figure of the crime, Kallu alias Kalyansingh was cleverly saved by the prosecution witnesses, some of whom are near and dear relatives of Kallu, in collusion with the investigating officer; the appellant, who is a poor woman and deans utensils for her livelihood, having two children, has been made a scapegoat so as to clear the way for the acquittal of Kallu, so that he may go scot free and may enjoy life.Shri Saxena took this Court through the evidence and contended that the evidence of discovery is inadmissible, as it is clear from the evidence that before the appellant was taken in custody, the place where the dead body was buried was known to the Police.The contention, in my opinion, has got a force.P. W. 10 Nagendrakumar has stated in para 4 of his cross-examination that Bhuribai was arrested at about 2 p. m., on 23-4-1985, prior to the date of information and discovery; after 1, 1/2 hours of her arrest, Bhuribai gave her statement leading to the discovery.At that time, Babulal (P. W. 2) and Harnamsingh (P. W. 6) were present at the Police Station, on it at about 3 p. m. the Police wrote certain papers.In para 5 the witness stated that, thereafter, they all went to the spot and saw the dead body buried, but as it was getting dark, the Police did not recover the body and asked 6-7 persons to remain there to have a watch and guard of the body.In para 6 the witness admitted that the dead body was recovered on the next day morning at the instance of the appellant.P. W. 2 Babulal, though not a witness to Exts.P/8 and P/9 stated in para 3 that Bhuribai was called from her house and was arrested; when interrogated, she did not give information thereupon a woman Constable was called from Guna, on whose interrogation, Bhuribai gave the information leading to the discovery.In para 6 the witness stated that P. W. 1 lodged 'Gumshudi' report (Ext. P/1) between 4 and 5 p. m. on 22-4-1985, thereafter, Bhuribai was called in the night, who gave information leading to the discovery; the Police with the appellant went to the spot at 8 a.m. on the next day.The other witness to information and recovery, P. W. 6 Harnamsingh in para 2 of his cross-examination, stated that after lodging of the report (ExtP/1) Bhuribai was arrested at about 10 a. m. on the next day; she did not give any information then, but gave information after 24 hours or thereafter of her arrest.The witness admitted that the place where the dead body was found is a public place and is accessible to all.P. W. 13 M. A. Hasmi denied and specifically stated that the appellant was arrested on 244-1985, who after arrest gave information leading to the discovery.In para 8 the witness admitted that when Bhuribai was being interrogated a woman Constable was in the Police Station. | ['Section 302 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. |
87,374,499 | ORDER :-Issue notice to the respondent.Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent- State of Maharashtra.Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent - State of Maharashtra.Perused the application and other relevant documents produced on record.Present application is filed seeking suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant-appellant and also releasing him on bail, pending the appeal.Admittedly, the applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC").The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously held guilty for the charges against them.The applicants::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:33:34 ::: 2 914-CrAn-3967-19 have no concerned with the alleged crime, but they have been falsely implicated in this case.The applicants were on bail during the course of trial.There were no allegations about misuse of liberty against them.The applicants also deposited the entire fine amount.In view of short term sentence, learned counsel for applicants prays to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and admit them on bail pending the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:33:34 :::Learned APP has raised objections and submits that the offences levelled against the appellants are serious.The leaned trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and convicted the applicants for the charges pitted against them.Therefore, prayer for suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court may not be entertained and requested to reject the application.5. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants-appellants, I find that there is no impediment to suspend the short term substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicants, pending the appeal.The learned trial Court appreciated the evidence on record and held the applicants-appellants guilty for the charges pitted against them and imposed the resultant sentence.In view of short term sentence, there is no propriety to curtail valuable liberty of the applicants pending the appeal.In case, short term sentence of imprisonment is allowed to run pending the appeal, it would cause injustice and prejudice to the applicants and very purpose::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:33:34 ::: 3 914-CrAn-3967-19 of filing present appeal would become infructuous in all respect for appellants.Moreover, the applicants were on bail during the course of trial.There were no allegations of misuse of liberty.In such circumstances, the Criminal Application deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:33:34 :::Accordingly, the Criminal Application stands allowed.The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicants by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No. 23 of 2013 is hereby suspended pending the appeal.Meanwhile, the applicants (i.e. original accused No. 2 to 4) - (1) Rahul s/o.Bail before the learned trial Court, accordingly.The Criminal Application stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:33:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 02:33:34 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,385,353 | /120B of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
873,860 | Application No. 7791 of 2006 has been brought for quashing the charge sheet submitted by the police in case crime No. 21 of 2006 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 I.P.C. police station Vijai Nagar, Ghaziabad.In both the cases it is asserted that Dr. Narendra Kumar, father of the applicants after acquiring high degrees in the field of medicine joined as Professor/ Medical Director of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and was also doing medical practice at 2917 Middleboro Place, Modesto, California.Both the applicants were born at California and acquired their higher secondary qualification from U.S.A. in Science subjects.Applicants had chosen medical education with the consent of their parents and got admission in MBBS course for the Academic Session 1996-97 in Santosh Medical College & Hospital, Ghaziabad in short the College' against N.R.I. quota.They had to make total payment of one lac U.S. dollar Rs. 50 lacs towards capitation fees.In addition the college also took loan of Rs. 25 lacs from the father of the applicants and its payment was assured by giving a hand written slip.The college also charged hostel and security fees from both the applicants.The dispute and differences had started between the father of the applicants and Dr. P. Mahalingam, Chairman Managing Director /Trustee of Maharaji Education Trust and Santosh Medical College and Hospital, when he was asked to refund the loan amount.The matter was also reported to the District Administration.Dr. P. Mahalingam also acknowledged the said loan amount in writing through the slip dated 19-4-2001 given to the Addl.District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and also assured to refund that amount, He gave five cheques each of Rs. 5 lacs against loan amount and two Demand Drafts each of Rs. 2.50 lacs for the accrued interest.The father of the applicants had no option but to bring a complaint case No. 7272 of 2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 16-12-2003 against Dr. P. Mahalingam.The Court had also taken cognizance and issued summons against him.Dr. P. Mahalingam and Dr. M.K. Srivastava, Principal of that college refused to get her appear in Pharmacology examination and final professional M.B.B.S. Part-I examination of March, 2001, even order of Vice Chancellor, Chaudhari Charan Singh University in that regard was defied.Resultantly she had to bring Civil Misc.JUDGMENT S.S. Kulshrestha, J.Both the applications are taken together as the common question of facts and law are involved.Criminal Misc.Application No. 7792 of 2006 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code has been brought for quashing the charge sheet submitted by the police station Vijay Nagar district Ghaziabad in case crime No. 412 of 2005 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. against the accused applicants and also for entrusting further investigation to C.B.I. In the meantime arrest of the accused applicants is sought to be stayed, Another Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 9150 of 2001 wherein this Court summoned the answer book of pharmacology examination of March, 2000 along with the Tabulation chart and Marks sheet of final professional M.B.B.S. part-I examination.That was entrusted to the Head of Department, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad for evaluation.Dr. Monica Kumar got good marks and was declared successful.Result of the applicant No. 1 was also withheld by the college authorities and so Contempt Petition No. 887 of 2002 was brought.Again she had to bring Civil Misc.This Court called for the Tabulation Chart of Surgery practical of all the students along with the applicant No. 1 and Agra Medical College was asked to take practical examination in surgery and on their evaluation she was declared successful.This annoyed Dr. P. Mahalingam and he started harassing the applicants on one or the other grounds.It is further alleged that as many as 7 frivolous reports were got lodged by Dr. P. Mahalingam from his subordinates yes-men in collusion with Sri Anil Somaniya, S.H.O, police station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad.Police also rushed up for filing charge sheet against the applicants without making fair and effective investigation.This was all got done with the intention to harass the applicants.Even in case crime No. 21 of 2006 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 I.P.C. registered at the police station Vijay Nagar all possible efforts were made so as to get the offence under Section 308 I.P.C, added though not substantiated from the medical reports.This was all with the purpose to see detention of Dr. Manish Kumar in judicial custody for a long period.As a consequence of which he was detained in judicial custody for 18 days till he was admitted on bail.It is also said that the police personnel and all high-ups either in administration or in political circle are obliged from Dr. P. Mahalingam and the police proceeded to file charge sheets on fake, and fabricated grounds.It is said that the applicants approached the Human Rights Commission, China who had also sent communications to the various authorities for redressal of the grievances of the applicants.More so on the representation made by the applicants U.S.A. Government have also taken up the cause of the applicants who are U.S. Citizens with the Government of India.These both the applications were resisted on behalf of Dr. P. Mahalingam contending them to be false and vexatious.Applicants are said to have concealed material facts in both the applications with the mala fide intentions so as to scuttle the criminal proceedings.They have flouted the court's order dated 24-7-2006 by not appearing before the concerned Magistrate.Through out in both the applications the incident and the statement of the witnesses were not questioned.All allegations and aspersions were made with a view to create impression that the applicants are being harassed on account of personal grudge of Dr. P. Mahalingam with Dr. Narendra Kumar on the issue of non refund of the money borrowed by him.As regard the prayer of the applicants for entrusting investigation to C.B.I. it is said that now charge sheet has been filed and there is no occasion for referring the matter afresh for further investigation to C.B.I. Moreover, when the applicants brought writ petition No. 11192 of 2005, before this Court, for quashing of the F.I.R. they ought to have made such prayer if at all there was any apprehension for not having fair investigation.Now insisting for entrusting investigation to C.B.I. would amount to circumvent the result of investigation already arrived at.As regards the matter of enquiry by the National Commission for Women, the answering respondent brought Writ Petition No. 19638-40 of 2004 in the Delhi High Court wherein, applicants absented and the Commission also informed the court that no further action was contemplated against Dr. P. Mahalingam.In that backdrop, the said writ petition was also dismissed, Other complaints made to the various authorities by the applicants and their father were found to be baseless.Even the complaint to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was on enquiry found to be frivolous.The Ministry of External Affairs also made enquiry in the matter and found the allegations in the complaint to be barren of substance.The other allegations made in the application were also controvertedby Dr. P. Mahalingam.It is also contended that the applicants and their father are trying to blackmail the answering respondent and the staff members of the college by making false complaints to various authorities with a nefarious design.The contents of the report registered at case crime No. 412 of 2005 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. police station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad transpires that on 5-10-2005 at about 6 p.m. Dr. Monika Kumar and Manish Kumar entered in the house of Dr. Indra Mohini Sharma, H-14, Sector 12, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad with knife and brick bats.They started hurling abuses to her saying that she is much close to Dr. P. Mahalingam.She was also slapped and was also threatened that her children would be kidnapped and killed.On her cries security men namely Rajveer, Prempal and some of the students of the college, came for her rescue.She was rescued by the security men Rajveer and Prempal.Police also recorded statement of these two security men also of Gaurav Pandey, student of the college who reiterated about the incident.For the other incident dated 14-1-2006 report was lodged at case crime No. 21 of 2006 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 I.P.C. at police station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad against Dr. Monika Kumar and Dr. Manish Kumar as they are said to have beaten the security man Rajendra Kuntal and also damaged the college properties.The investigating officer has recorded the statement of Rajendra Kuntal and other security personnel namely Prem Pal and Manoj Kumar.Both the witnesses have supported the F.I.R. version.And the other incident was at the security check post where security guard was assaulted by the applicants. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,396,307 | (Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.) The detenu himself is the petitioner herein.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.1269/201175 CP Act r/w.7(1)(A) CLA Act2.F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.812/2012392 IPC3.F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.1935/2012379 IPC4.D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime No.476/2013392 IPC @ 323 and 397 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, D-2 Anna Salai Police Station in Crime No.547 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 427, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Senthil @ Senthilkumar are taking action to take him on bail in D-2 Anna Salai Police Station Cr.No.476/2013 by filing bail application in the appropriate Court..... ... ......Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Senthil @ Senthilkumar, S/o.Gopal, made in BDFGISSV No.396/2013, dated 11.07.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,400,748 | (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR MISHRA 2020.11.20 10:40:58 +05'30' 4 of 4The applicant has filed this second bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 25/08/2020 by Police Station Umri, Distt.Bhind (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.14/2020 registered for offence under Section 379 of IPC.applicant- Sandeep Singh that the applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated in this case.Hence, prays for rejection of present repeat application filed for grant of bail to the applicant.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case diary.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.The applicant shall mark his presence before the SHO of the concerned Police Station once in every fortnight till conclusion of the trial.The concerned SHO is directed to submit attendance report of the applicant before the Principal Registrar of this Court once in every quarter of a year.Application stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for 3 of 4 MCRC-42484-2020 compliance.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,404,385 | Item No. 33And In the matter of: Elahi Sk.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas For the Petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Soumik Ganguly For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Thanarpara Police Station Case No. 65 of 2013 dated 05.4.2013 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The Petitioner's name does not figure in the F.I.R. however, he is named in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.The Charge sheet has been filed and some of the co-accused of the Petitioners have already been enlarged on bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,587,245 | The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant - Shankar (P.W.1) was in search for a bride for his younger brother - Kailash.Co-incidentally, he met with the appellant Rahul and expressed his wish.Rahul offered relation of her sister-in-law Puja @ Poonam (sister of his wife) and also shown her photograph.Shankar and his family liked her.Rahul put a condition that for arranging marriage, Shankar has to pay Rs.50,000/-, Shankar agreed for that and paid Rs.5,000/- then and there.Rahul called Puja and introduced her with Shankar and Kailash, who liked her.Thereafter, Rahul and Puja, both left the place.On 29/03/2016, Rahul and Puja both reached village - Gaurkhedi of Shankar and Kailash.Rahul demanded remaining Rs.45,000/- agreed between them for the marriage.Shankar gave him Rs.20,000/-.Rahul left Puja at his house.Puja stayed with them.Next day, Rahul called Puja on mobile.Complainant and his family members were unaware about the conversation between them.Puja cooked food and served it.Mother of complainant Shankar - Gangabai, wife-Sangeeta and brother-Prem ate that food while Shankar and Kailash did not take food.Puja herself had food only with pickle.After having meal, they all went to sleep.He tried to awoke his wife and mother but they were in deep sleep, and could not got up fully and in semi-conscious state they replied that they are Cr.A. No.6263/2017 (Rahul & Anr.vs. State of M.P.) 3 not aware about Puja.Shankarlal awoke Kailash and they both searched for Puja nearby areas but found no clue.They came back home.In the morning at about 9, Shankar called Rahul, Rahul assured them stating that Puja is with him and nothing is to worry and he will bring Puja at their home about 3 O' clock in the afternoon.After sometime, when Shankar again called Rahul, his mobile was switched off.Shankarlal called ambulance and took his mother- Gangabai, wife-Sangitabai and brother-Prem to M.G.H. Hospital, Dewas and tried to search Puja and Rahul but in vain.At about 3 in the night, Shankarlal awoke and saw that Puja was not in the house.During search, he came to know that in the similar passion, Puja and Rahul have cheated 2-3 other persons also.Shankarlal then approached to the police and lodged FIR in Police Station- BNP Dewas.Police registered Crime No.352/2016 under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC.Police recorded statement of witnesses, prepared spot map, arrested Rahul, Puja and Mahesh, recovered Rs.3000/- from Rahul, 4 sleeping pills and 5200/- rupees from Mahesh, Rs.3000/- from Raju.The police also obtained an affidavit from one Arjun Singh showing marriage of Arjun and Poonam @ Puja @ Abhilasa and two photographs.After completing investigation, police filed charge-sheet against six persons namely, Rahul, Abhilasa @ Poonam @ Pooja, Mahesh, Jagdish @ Jagnnath, Sangeeta and Raju.After the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted all other accused persons except the present appellant Rahul and Puja and co-accused Mahesh and Cr.A. No.6263/2017 (Rahul & Anr.Prosecution has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.I have considered the contentions of the petitioner and so also the objection raised by the prosecution. | ['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. |
87,600,712 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.49428/2019 (Santosh @ Lalla s/o Lt. Mahavir Bhadoriya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 02.12.2019 Mr. A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,609,265 | It is the petitioner's case that no credit against the said cheque was received in the bank account of late Shri Bhanwar Singh and that the application for issuance of NOC had been submitted under his forged signatures wherein second to sixth respondents had acted fraudulently and dishonestly.It is also his grievance that mutation of the said land in favour of the second Crl.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 4 of 11 respondent was allowed on 28.04.1999 without any notice to him.Reference is also made to an agreement to sell entered upon by the fourth respondent, allegedly at the instance of the second respondent, with the petitioner on 24.02.1999, the said transaction having fallen through, the earnest money received by the petitioner (and his brothers) having been forfeited because the fourth respondent had failed to perform his part of the contract.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 4 of 11The petitioner had instituted a criminal complaint (CC No.173/1) on 10.03.2006 impleading second to sixth respondents as prospective accused alleging they having committed offences punishable under Sections 423/463/468/471/120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), making a prayer to the Metropolitan Magistrate Crl.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 1 of 11 (MM) for them to be summoned, tried and punished, along with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking direction to the police for investigation.The prayer for investigation by the police was declined by order dated 24.03.2006 and instead inquiry embarked upon under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The petitioner examined eight witnesses during the said preliminary inquiry.The said evidence was considered by the MM, by order dated 10.03.2014, holding that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the said respondents, the complaint consequently having been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 3 of 11 Bhanwar Singh died on 09.09.1998, whereupon the right to the said land had devolved upon his three sons including the petitioner and his two brothers Pradeep Kumar and Sandeep Kumar.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 3 of 11It is alleged by the petitioner that on 01.02.2003, he had learnt about the claim of the second respondent as to the title in the land vesting in him on the basis of Sale Deed executed on 22.07.1998 by the second respondent on the strength of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 22.07.1998 allegedly executed by late Shri Bhanwar Singh, (i.e., father of the petitioner).It is his case that the document shown as GPA dated 22.07.1998 was a forged and fabricated document purportedly bearing signatures of fourth and fifth respondents as attesting witnesses.It is his allegation that the attestation by Notary Public on the said document was fraudulent since the Notary Public (K.M. Bhatnagar) was not even registered as such on the date the said document was statedly executed.As mentioned earlier, during the pre-summoning inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the petitioner examined eight witnesses.Copies of the testimony of the said witnesses as recorded during the inquiry have been submitted with the petition.The said witnesses included Head Constable Naresh Kumar (CW1) of Police Station Alipur, who proved complaints dated 10.02.2004, 25.09.2005 and 03.01.2006 that had been submitted by the petitioner prior to approaching the court of Metropolitan Magistrate; O.P. Sayal (CW2), Bailiff in the office of Tehsildar, Narela who produced the office record pertaining to Sale Deed dated 22.07.1998 and GPA dated 22.07.1998; S.C. Munjal (CW3), the incharge of the record room of the District North-West, who proved certain records in respect of consolidation and mutation proceedings; S.K. Vashishtha (CW4), Kanungo from the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanjhawala, who made statement about the mutation proceedings, inter alia, confirming no notice having been sent to late Shri Bhanwar Singh or his sons; Rakesh Kumar (CW5), an official from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pitam Pura, where late Shri Bhanwar Singh was employed as a Crl.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 5 of 11Crucially, neither the petitioner (as the complainant) nor any of his brothers nor, for that matter, any other witness was called in or examined to prove that the GPA dated 22.07.1998 did not bear the signatures of late Shri Bhanwar Singh, or, to put it simply, that the signatures appearing on the said document had been forged or fabricated.The Metropolitan Magistrate and the revisional court have observed in the impugned orders that the allegations to the effect that the GPA dated 22.07.1998 was forged goes to the root of the matter and no evidence in that regard having been adduced, the complaint could not be taken up further, no case for proceeding against any of the respondents having been brought out.The evidence respecting attendance of late Shri Bhanwar Singh at his work place (school) on 22.07.1998 may give rise to some suspicion as to whether he could possibly have been present elsewhere for executing the GPA.But then, there is nothing on record to show that GPA was executed during the hours when he was supposed to be on duty at school.The non- payment of credit against the cheque on the strength of which the payment of consideration leading to the Sale Deed is sought to be indicated, at the most, gives rise to a cause of action for civil suit to be instituted.That, in itself, cannot lead to inference that the signatures on GPA, a different document, had been fabricated.It may be that while entertaining the request of second respondent for mutation, the concerned revenue authorities did not issue notice to late Shri Bhanwar Singh or his sons.But, this is a lapse which again cannot be a ground for criminal action against the private party respondents, particularly as there is no allegation of revenue authorities also having acted in concert with them.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 6 of 11It was requisite against the above backdrop that the petitioner adduced some evidence to support his case that the signatures on GPA dated 22.07.1998 had not been made by his father late Shri Bhanwar Singh or that the same had been forged or fabricated by someone.There is not a shred of evidence adduced to such effect.In absence of such evidence, the criminal complaint could not result in any order other than the one of dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 7 of 11Such opportunity under Section 391 Cr.P.C., in the considered view of this court, cannot be available just for the asking or, not the least, to fill in lacuna or deficiency.The party asking for such opportunity for further evidence to be adduced Crl.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 10 of 11 must not only plead but also show to the satisfaction of the concerned court, particularly in a situation like the one at hand as to why it could not or did not adduce such evidence when opportunity was available earlier.M.C. 1171/2015 Page 10 of 11In the present case, the petitioner made no endeavour to even offer any explanation as to why no evidence was presented earlier during inquiry under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate in support of the allegations made that the signatures of the late Shri Bhanwar Singh on the GPA dated 22.07.1998 were forged or fabricated.Without such explanation being given, the prayer for opportunity for additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. did not deserve to be granted.In the foregoing facts and circumstances, no case is made out for re-opening of the inquiry under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. by grant of opportunity for additional evidence to be adduced under Section 391 Cr.P.C.The overall view taken on the complaint by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and the revisional forum cannot be faulted.The pending application also stands disposed of. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,430,823 | This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, Manikandan, S/o Masilamani, aged 29 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in D.O.No.40/2014-C2 dated 29.09.2014, 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, Vellore, 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.However, he admitted that the copy of the bail application in similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.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 case, the accused was released on bail by the Tiruvannamalai District Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.228/2012 in Crime No.28/2012 on the file of Vettavalam Police Station for the offence under sections 392 IPC @ 397 IPC IPC. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,431,116 | ( M.G. SEWLIKAR, J. ) ( T.V. NALAWADE, J. )SRM/13/1/2020 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 01:33:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 01:33:27 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,432,721 | Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.111/2017 registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under sections 354, 354-D, 294,.506 and 376 of IPC.The prosecution story in nutshell is that the complainant has lodged a complaint on 19/03/2017 to the effect that the present applicant- Kishan has threatened the complainant to make relation with him.He frequently came at her house and used filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences.On 17/03/2017, again the applicant came and said that your husband had come and then applicant threatened her to live with him and in case she do not open the door, he would kill her parents.He came along with gun.The applicant is married person having three children and he has been blackmailing her for more than ten years but she could not lodge the complaint against him due to fear.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he is a 50 years old and reputed citizen of the locality.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the offence registered under Sections 354, 354-D, 294, 506 of IPC he has been granted bail under Section 437 of Cr.P.C on 20/03/2017 by the lower Court.Section 376 of IPC has been added later on during the trial. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,433,166 | As per the prosecution case, the victim Durga Prasad has a house in Ward No.9 Ghamapur of Jabalpur city.Even before 30.01.2016, on 19.08.2015 he had given application in the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur for mutation of his name on aforesaid property.In fact, the victim never sold aforesaid house to the appellant and never received any part of the amount mentioned in the forged agreement of sale.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a dispute of civil nature.Even before that, the appellant was in possession of the property as a tenant.The appellant is paying property tax upon the house and the electricity bills is also issued in his name.It has further been submitted that the alleged witnesses of the agreement of sale dated 30.01.2017 namely Rajesh Sharma and Ranjit Patel have stated before the police that no agreement was signed in their presence and the appellant had got the agreement signed by them; therefore, it has been prayed that the application be dismissed.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts:there are two agreements of sale on record of this Criminal Appeal one dated 31.03.2012 and other one dated 30.01.2016;the application for mutation was given after the first agreement dated 31.03.2012;the property tax and the electricity bills are being deposited in the name of the appellant;it appears to be a civil dispute, though with elements of a criminal offence present therein;the appellant has been in custody since 20.03.2017;- in the opinion of this Court, appellant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this appeal for bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is allowed.It is directed that the appellant Pramod Patwa shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 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. |
81,433,503 | (09-09-2015)This criminal revision is directed against order dated 27.08.2014 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, link at Niwas, in Sessions Trial No.95/2014; whereby a charge under sections 420,467,468,471,406 & 409 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code was directed to be framed against the revision petitioners/accused persons.Respondent No.1 Dinesh filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Niwas, under sections 409, 467, 468 & 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the revision petitioners Sudan Singh, Sarpanch, Mithlesh, Secretary, Mahendra, Mate, Gram Panchayat, Chargawan, Arvind Mishra, Sub-Engineer and Bhagvendra Singh, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat.By order dated 19.01.2010, the private complaint was registered against all accused persons.By order dated 12.07.2012, learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged accused No.5 Bhagvendra Singh.Subsequently, by order dated 17.07.2014, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Niwas, committed the case in respect of remaining accused persons for trial to the Court of Session.It has been alleged in the private complaint that Kashiram, father of complainant Dinesh, owns agricultural land in village Chargawan.An amount of Rs.19000/- was allotted by Gram Sabha for construction of embankment in his field.In the muster roll for the first week between 27.02.2008 to 02.03.2008, Balveer Singh, Bhagwati, Dhaniya Bai, Parvat Singh and Dasiya were shown as labourers, who had worked on the embankment; whereas, none of the aforesaid persons actually worked there.Likewise, in the muster roll for the period from 03.03.2008 to 09.03.2008, Vinod Kumar S/o Kehar Singh, Narendra and Vinod S/o Narayan Singh were shown to have worked but none of the aforesaid three persons worked on the project.In fact, Narendra who is said to have worked from 28.02.2008 to 02.03.2008, was also shown to have worked in the muster roll relating to embankment in the field of Sukal Singh.One labourer is shown in the muster roll as waterman; whereas, no waterman was actually deployed and the labourers arranged for their own drinking water.It has further been alleged that the accused persons were entrusted with the work of supervision, measurement and preparation of muster rolls for aforesaid work.Applicant No.4 Sub Engineer Arvind Mishra was entrusted with the work of measurement and verification of documents including muster rolls.The applicants/accused persons conspired to prepare forged muster rolls making false statements and defrauded the exchequer and the complainant of a sum of Rs.4061/-.Inviting attention of the Court to various precedents, learned counsel for the applicants has assailed the impugned order framing charges as aforesaid, mainly on the following grounds:(i) Learned JMFC has recorded statements of 2 witnesses under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after registration of offence and the statements so recorded have been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the purpose of framing of charge.(ii) No sanction for prosecuting the applicant No.4 Sub- Engineer Arvind Mishra under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained.(iv) The accused Bhagvendra, Chief Executive Officer, having similar role as applicant Arvind was discharged by learned revisional Court.It may be stated at the outset that learned counsel for the applicants has fairly conceded that the trial has proceeded and all but one prosecution witnesses have already been examined.Now the Court shall proceed to consider the grounds taken by the revision petitioners one by one.The complaint was directed to be registered on 19.10.2010; however, by order dated 14.06.2013, it was observed that the offences are triable exclusively by Court of Session; therefore, in accordance with section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was necessary to examine all witnesses cited by complainant.Thereafter on 24.04.2014, statements of remaining two witnesses Khuman Singh and Amar Singh were also recorded.Nagendra Tiwary, 2010 Cr.The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.(C V SIRPURKAR) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
814,363 | By theimpugned judgment and order, out of 24 accused, the DesignatedCourt convicted A-6 Subhashsingh Shobhnathsingh Thakur, A-2Jaywant Dattatraya Suryarao and A-7 Shamkishor ShamsharmaGarikapatti for the various offences as under: -1. A-6 Subhashsingh Shobhnathsingh Thakur(a) under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA (P) Act and issentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, indefault of payment of fine to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one month more;(b) under Section 120-B IPC and is sentenced todeath;(c) under Section 3(2)(ii) of the TADA (P) Act and issentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and topay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment offine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for onemonth more;(i) under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code forcausing the death of Police Constable K.B.Bhanawat, Buckle No.22579 and is sentenced todeath and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only, in defaultof payment of fine to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one month more;(j) under Section 307 read with 34 of Indian PenalCode for attempting to commit the murder of PW9Police Constable Vijay Krishna Nagare, PW42 PSIK.G. Thakur, PW11 Shankar Ganpat Sawant,PW54 Shankar Ramchandra Jadhav and issentenced to suffer imprisonment for life;(k) under Section 27 of the Arms Act and is sentencedto death;2. A-2 Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao(a) under Section 3(4) of the TADA (P) Act and issentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment forseven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, indefault of payment of fine to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one month;(b) under Section 212 of IPC and is sentenced tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and topay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment offine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for onemonth;3. A-7 Shamkishor Shamsharma GarikapattiIt is the prosecution version that on 12.9.1992 at about 03:20hours the incident of shoot out took place in J.J. Hospital Campus atMumbai, which is a Government Hospital having occupancy of 1500beds.It is alleged that having made preparation, such as procuringsophisticated weapons like AK-47 rifles, pistols, revolvers, dynamitesand hand-grenades and by firing the shots through the said weapons,accused have committed murder of (1) Prisoner Shailesh ShankarHaldankar, who was undergoing treatment in Ward No.18 in the saidhospital; (2) Police Head Constable Chaintaman Gajanan Javsen; and(3) Police Constable Kawalsingh Baddu Bhanawat.The twopolicemen were on guard duty of prisoner Shailesh ShankarHaldankar.It is also alleged that they attempted to commit murder ofsix other persons including PW11 Shankar Ganapat Sawant -- apatient undergoing treatment in ward no.18, Yunus MohamedDadarkar a relative of a patient, PW54 Shankar Ramchandra Jadhavwatchman on duty, PW9 Constable on guard duty, Vijay KrishnaNagare, PW42 PSI Thakur, the Police Officer on duty to exercise thesupervision over the guard and a staff nurse Smt. Chandrakala VithalVinde, who was on duty.Thus, it is alleged that all the accused havecommitted the offence punishable under Sections 120-B of IPC readwith 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5 and 6 of Terrorist and DisruptiveActivities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as theTADA) and Section 302 read with section 34, in the alternativesection 302 read with section 114, in the alternative read with Sections149, 307 read with section 34, in the alternative section 307 read withsection 114, in the alternative section 307 read with section 149 of theIndian Penal Code and Section 27 read with section 5 of the ArmsAct.It is the prosecution case that in Mumbai City, criminal gangsoperate and they commit organized crime and recover large sum fromindustrialists, businessmen, professionals, hoteliers etc. as khandani(protection money).It is also stated that sister of Dawood Ibrahim (agangster) had married one Ibrahim Parkar who was man of confidenceof Dawood Ibrahim.Ibrahim Parkar was shot dead at his residence on26.7.1992 in Nagpada locality and an offence, under CrimeNo.589/93, under Section 302 IPC was registered in that connection.Deceased Shailesh Haldankar was suspected to have pointed him out.It is also alleged that the said Shailesh Haldankar was a personbelonging to the gang of Arun Gawali, the arch rival of DawoodIbrahim.On the night between 30.8.1992 and 31.8.1992 ShaileshHaldankar, Bipin Shere, Raju Batata and Santosh Patil had fired shotsat one Masukh Rawat in the Kumbharwada locality and therefore theoffence (at Crime No.460/92) under Section 307 IPC was registeredagainst them and as such Shailesh Haldankar, Bipin Shere and RajuBatata were wanted accused in that crime.On 2.9.1992 at about 8.00a.m.or so, Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere and their associateRaju Batata (now deceased) were noticed by some one inKumbharawada locality and the police was informed.Oninformation, police party chased them and noticing police party, theytried to scare away the police by brandishing the weapons i.e. theswords and choppers.Somehow or the other, the police succeeded inoverpowering Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere.Third personRaju Batata managed to escape in the melee.At the same time,number of persons who had gathered there, on seeing the commotionman-handled Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere.The policesuccessfully persuaded the members of the public to maintain peaceand thereafter Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere were removed toJ.J. Hospital for treatment of injuries sustained by them.They weretransferred to J.J. Hospital and kept in Ward No.18 on the third floor.A guard comprising of one head constable and two constables wasposted on duty to prevent the escape of the prisoners.It is the prosecution version that on 12.9.1992 at about 2.00a.m.PW42 PSI Thakur had gone for guard duty check at the J.J.Hospital.After checking guard of Bipin Shere, he went to ward no.18to check the guard of the prisoner Shailesh Haldankar.PW9 PC Nagare who had become alert andwho had taken the position with the rifle in his hand noticed verysame person whom he had seen inside the ward earlier comingtowards the southern door of the cabin, therefore, he fired one shotthrough his rifle in his direction.Thereafter, that person entered inside the room and firedshots indiscriminately towards Shailesh Haldankar.HC Javsen andPC Bhanawat were also hit by those bullets.At that time, he heard hueand cry in the ward.Because of the injury sustained on his thigh, hefelt giddy.We would first refer to the relevant part of the confessionalstatements of A-2, A-6 and A-7 and thereafter other evidence led bythe prosecution to connect the accused with the crime.CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF A-2Suryarao (A-2) has disclosed that A-7 Shamkishore was knownto him since year 1988 and was frequently visiting his residence inShanti Niketan Society on LBS Road, Ghatkopar.He had sold hismotor Car No.It is further disclosed that his election to the post ofPresident was not liked by his political rivals and the said rivals lostno time in mobilising a campaign against him for no confidencemotion.In the month of July, 1992 the news had appeared in theNavashakti Marathi Daily that he had sent Shamkishor Garikapatti(A-7) to the residence of R.C. Patil (PW61 President of Thane DistrictCongress Party) to tell him to stop the campaign against him and thatDawood Ibrahim had telephoned to R.C. Patil asking him to stop thecampaign against him.Thereafter, he had issued a press-note denyingthese allegations.On 2.9.1992 at the behest of A-7, A-2 accompaniedwith his wife Priti and PW34 Himmat Raval had gone to SeemaHoliday Resort in car belonging to Shri Palsule, driven by DriverHalim (PW62).He requested Pappu Kalani to ask R.C. Patil (PW61)to stop the campaign against him.Pappu Kalani promised him to dothe needful through his contacts and further told him that A-7 was theman of his confidence and he should help him.Next day, hecontacted A-7 on phone and enquired with him as to whether he hadreceived any message from Pappu Kalani.Then A-7 replied innegative and told him that he was doubtful whether Pappu Kalani hadgone to Delhi.He further disclosed that on 12.9.1992 at 6.30 a.m., he got atelephone call from A-7 asking him to see him before 9.30 a.m. withan air-conditioned car.At 8.45 a.m. again A-7 telephoned him.Thereafter, he accompanied by bodyguard PC Laxman Vishe (PW12)left for Bombay in the Contessa Car No.MH-04-A-1445 driven byPW17 Shripad Tambe.When he reached at the residence of A-7 atGhatkopar, A-7 told him that early in the morning Arun Gavlis menhad fired at his friend and he is to be taken for medical treatment tothe hospital and he should make arrangements for his transportation.Thereafter, A-7 asked him to go toSagar Hotel at Nagpada where a person would meet him and take himto the injured and after meeting the said injured he should take theinjured to Goregaon in his official car.A-7 also informed him that hehas booked suite in a Hotel in Juhu where he could relax.Then, thecar was driven to Sagar Hotel and from there with the assistance of ayoung Muslim boy it was brought towards Bombay Central Area infront of a chawl.The said boy took him to the building where he sawone person with a bandage around his abdomen, having height of56, slim built and a shallow complexion.He met another personthere who gave his name as Dr. Bansal.Subhashsingh Thakur (A-6)was also present there.He was knowing A-6 because he met himtwice before at the instance of A-7 at Seema Holiday Resort owned byPappu Kalani situated at Varap village on Kalyan Murbad Road.Hethen enquired about the condition of the patient with Dr. Bansal.Theinjured was brought to the Contessa Car by Dr. Bansal with the helpof two other persons.Dr. Bansal as well as the injured sat in the caralong with him and then the car was driven to Hotel Centaur at Juhu.From there the car was taken to Hotel Holiday Inn at Juhu becausethere was none to receive them at Hotel Centaur.He got down fromthe car alongwith his body guard P.C. Vishe (PW12) and asked driverTambe (PW17) to take the injured to the hospital as per the directionsof Dr. Bansal.Thereafter, Vijay madetelephone call and left the said room.Sometime thereafter, A-7telephoned him and requested him to go back to Bombay Centralwhere he had gone before.At about 1.00 p.m. driver Tambe returnedfrom the hospital when he asked him as to whether he had left Dr.Bansal and the injured and he told him that he dropped them atGoregaon.Thereafter, he and PW12 PC Vishe sat in the car and at hisbehest driver Tambe drove the car to Hotel Sagar where the very sameMuslim young boy who had helped him in the previous visit to lead toplace, was waiting for them.A-6 came down and sat by his side andthen asked the driver to proceed towards the Petrol Pump situatedopposite to J.J. Hospital.A-6 asked the driver to stop the car theretelling that Savtya was coming.After a few minutes Savtya camethere and then A-6 asked him as to where he was going and he toldhim that he was going towards hotel Holiday Inn.When the carreached near Lido Cinema in Santacruz locality at about 2.30 p.m., A-6 asked the driver to stop the car in front of a petrol pump and then A-6 and Sunil Sawant got down and walked away.When they weretavelling in the car, A-6 opened the zip of the airbag and showed hima stengun and four revolvers.Then they went to Hotel Holiday Innand he collected the keys of room no.315 from the receptionist.It ishis further say that near the Reception counter, he heard someonetalking about the shoot out incident in J.J. Hospital and he realisedthat he had helped the gangsters of Dawood Ibrahim in fleeing.Hebecame restless and returned to Bhiwandi at 6.00 p.m. On 13.9.1992at 10.00 a.m., he received a telephone call from A-7 and then hecomplained to him that he had unnecessarily put him in trouble but A-7 got annoyed and threatened him and asked to keep quite on the issueand forget about it.It is further stated that on 13.9.1992 at the instance of A-7, hemet Pappu Kalani and A-7 at Seema Holiday Resort and then PappuKalani told him that he should not tell anybody about the removing ofthe injured persons and others in his official car failing which hewould finish him and his family.On 14.9.1992 at about 9.00 a.m.,when he was about to leave his residence, Baba Gabriel and oneunknown person met him and informed him that A-7 had asked him tocome at his residence with his official car.At that time, A-7 alsotelephoned him and asked him in a threatening tone to bring the carotherwise his family would be butchered.He got frightened andasked driver Badruddin Chimkar to get Maruti 1000 car bearingNo.The bodyguard police constable was also withhim. A-7 then asked him to bring Himmat Raval, who was known toA-7 and he was also taken from his residence.The car was thenbrought to the residence of A-7 at Ghatkopar and then A-7 boardedthe said car and it was brought to Vile Parle.In a flat on the groundfloor, he met a male person aged about 30/35 years.Himmat Ravalgot down from the car and stayed behind and the said male personthen boarded the said car and asked the driver to proceed towards PaliHill side.On reaching there, Vijay who had met them earlier at HotelHoliday Inn came there.He had come there in a white colouredMaruti Car alongwith 2/3 persons.They were carrying their suit caseswith them.At about 2.00 p.m. at the behest of A-7, driver BadruddinChimkar drove the car towards Santacruz and when the car reachedone locality, probably Daulatnagar in Santacruz area, A-7 asked himto stop the car and went in a multi-storey building.He saw A-6 therewith one more person.A-6 sat in the car and A-7 asked to proceedtowards Manor.In themeanwhile, two blue coloured Maruti cars arrived there.One of thecars bearing No.MP 09 D-9634 was identified by him and he sawSatish Rao, Ms. Meena Rao and his friend Himmat Raval gettingdown from the car.He also noticed other 5 to 6 persons getting downfrom another car.He took A-7 aside and requested him to relieve himbecause he did not want to go ahead with them.A-7 agreed to relievehim on the condition that he should give him Maruti 1000 Car bearingNo.MH-04-A-5353 belonging to Bhiwandi-Nizampura MunicipalCouncil with the policeman on duty.He agreed to spare the said carwithout a policeman.A-7 agreed and also gave him Maruti carNo.MP-09-D-9634 for their return.He, his bodyguard and HimmatRawal sat in the said car and came back to Bhiwandi.Mr. and Mrs.Rao, A-6 Subhashsingh, and others went ahead in the Maruti 1000motor car and the other vehicle.On the same day, at 7.30 p.m., hereturned to Bhiwandi and left the motor car MP-09-D-9634 at theresidence of Himmat Raval.Thereafter, he took another car of hisfriend Mohan Amre and visited Kalava to see Rajaram Salvi,Agripada Leader.He intercepted it and found it to beoccupied by Mr. Satish Rao and his wife Mrs. Meena Rao, A-7 andDriver Badruddin Chimkar.He asked driver Badruddin Chimkar tocome next day morning at 9.00 a.m. On the same day at 9.00 a.m. A7telephoned him and asked him for his car with the policeman to besent at his residence but he refused to oblige him.On 16.9.1992 at 9.00 a.m., A-7 telephoned him and informedhim that he has done the job without his help (Probably the referencewas for not providing the car with a policeman).A-7 was rude onphone saying that he could do anything and nobody can stop him.Thereafter, as instructed by him driverTambe (PW-17) re-wrote the logbook.It is his further say that on 19.9.1992, when he learnt thatMumbai police had come to Bhiwandi and were making inquiries ofthe motor car bearing No.MH-04-A-1445 and its driver, he gotfrightened and contacted A-7 on telephone and informed himaccordingly.A-7 advised him to send driver Tambe out of Bombayfor 3/4 days and in the meantime he would try to subside the matterthrough the sources of Pappu Kalani.He also advised him to makeefforts to subside the matter through his sources.For our purpose, it is necessary torefer to relevant part of shoot out incident at the J.J. Hospital.Hestated that he murdered one Paul Patric Newman, belonging to ArunGavlis gang.After the murder he started staying with Sunil Sawantat Kathmandu, Nepal.During that period, he used to often come toDelhi, Gonda and Bombay.When he was in Kathmandu, one KimBahadur Thapa, a Corporator (who was his mentor) was killed bymembers of Chhota Rajan gang.To avenge the killing of KimBahadur Thapa, he killed Sanjay Raggad, Diwakar Churi and oneAmar Juker, all belonging to Chhota Rajan gang with the help of hisassociate Brijeshsingh (absconding accused) and others.It is his saythat after previous involvement in murder cases, he was living atDelhi with one Brijeshsingh.Deceased Sunil Sawant suggested himthat since number of days, they have not participated in any gameand they should go to Bombay.Thereafter, they came to Bombay andstarted living in flat in Queens View Apartment near Lido Cinema atJuhu owned by deceased Manish Gangaram Lala.On 11.9.1992 hewas informed by Sunil that in J.J. Hospital the killer of brother-in-lawof Dawood Ibrahim was admitted and he was required to be murdered.Sunil was taking instructions from Dawood Ibrahim by contactinghim on telephone.It is his say that Sunil informed him thateverything was set and when they would reach at the hospital, at thepoint of AK-47 rifle policemen should be asked to raise their handsand thereafter remove the bullets from their rifles and then go in theward, finish the killers and return.At about 1.00 or 1.30 a.m., Sunilinformed Brijeshsingh to go along with some persons of Nazir at J.J.hospital to find out the situation.After one hour, he was informedthat one police constable was on duty and it would be easy to carryout the work.At about 3.30 a.m. on 12.9.1992, he alongwith otherpersons went to J.J. Hospital.He was having 9mm pistol withmagazines.Others were also having loaded pistol or revolver.Pradhan and Brijesh were also having AK-47 rifles with extramagazines.Suryarao enquired where he was to be taken.Then hetold Suryarao to take him in Hotel Holiday Inn where a boy namedVijay would meet him to make further arrangement.At about 12.00noon he received telephone call from Sunil that Pradhan has reachedhospital of Dr. Mohan Gedam and Vijay was present there and that ina short while the car would be going back to Hotel Holiday Inn.Hetelephoned Suryarao (A-2) in Hotel Holiday Inn and asked him tobring back the car to the residence of Najir Jariwala.Suryarao agreed.After sometime, Suryarao came there alongwith Brijeshsingh.It is his say that heis a resident of Shanti Niketan, Ghatkopar (W), Bombay.He is B.Sc.and that after graduation he started business of transportation of liquidchemicals.In January, 1985 he was playing a cricket match at Shellcolony ground in the morning.At about 10.30 a.m. or so, he noticedone person running across the ground and he was profusely bleeding.While running, he collapsed on the ground.He was identified asSubhashsingh Thakur (Accused no.6) by Mangesh More andMahboob Kunji.They took him to Dr. Lads hospital, Dhar, Bombay.Lad examined him and removed bullet from his body andinformed him that it was a police case.He asked him to inform thepolice or remove the injured to government hospital, otherwise hewould inform it to police.He got frightened and left the hospital.Next day, he came to know that accused no.6 had fired at police andin retaliation police had fired at him and he had sustained bulletinjuries.In the year 1987, Subhashsingh Thakur asked him to help inthe said case.Subhashsingh was acquitted from the said case.Thereafter, he has narrated other incidents wherein A-6 Subhashsinghwas involved.It is his say that while he was having meeting withSubhashsingh, Himmat Raval, the then Vice President of BhiwandiNagar Parishad, introduced him with Suryarao (A-2).At thattime, Pappu Kalani told Suryarao that he should help him (A-7Kishore).On 12.9.1992, at about 6.00 a.m., he got a telephone callfrom Subhashsingh Thakur who told him that there was firing at J.J.Hospital and one of his friends was badly injured in the incident andhe wanted to remove him immediately and safely out of Bombay andasked him to call official vehicle of Suryarao (A-2) and to send thesame to Sagar Hotel at Nagpada.He contacted Suryarao and askedhim to go at Sagar Hotel, Nagpada with his official car.SubhashsinghThakur once again telephoned him at his residence and informed thaton 12th September, 1992, in the early morning at about 4.00 a.m., healongwith Sunil Sawant, Brijeshsingh, Pradhan, Nirmalsingh, PrasadKhade, Bacchisingh, Pappu, Babloo and two three muslim boys ofNazir stormed into ward no.18, J.J. Hospital and fired at ShaileshHaldankar in which Shailesh Haldankar and two policemen wereinjured and died subsequently.He also informed him that Suryaraohad come with his car and removed the injured.At about 2.00 p.m.,he received telephone call from Suryarao, who informed him that hedropped the injured at Andheri and that he was leaving for Bhiwandi.Thereafter on 14.9.1992, Subhashsingh rang him and informedthat he wanted to leave Bombay and asked him for the same vehiclewhich removed the injured.He again contacted Suryarao and askedhim to come at his residence with his official vehicle.At 10.00 a.m.,Suryarao came to his residence with white colour Maruti 1000 CarNo.He was accompanied by Himmat Raval, hisdriver and a police constable in uniform.Thereafter, they went at AnilSharmas house.Anil Sharma took them at the Guest House, wherehe met Manishlala, who informed him that Subhashsingh wasintending to leave Bombay for Gujarat.Thereafter, he has narrated in detail how they reached uptoSagar Petrol Pump.It his say that as Suryarao was having somework, he returned to Bhiwandi in another vehicle of Satish Rao(PW22) with Himmat Raval and his driver.He kept Maruti 1000 car.Subsequently, from Vapi they returned to Bhiwandi and left the car atSuryaraos house.In cross-examination, he stated thatMukhtiyar Manzil is at a distance of 2 minutes walk from the J.J.Junction and J.J. hospital is at a distance of about 4 minutes walk fromJ.J. Junction and that in the Mastan Talao locality, there are number oflanes.The J.J. Junction and the Nagpada Junction are at a distance ofabout ½- ¾ km. from Nagpada and that Mastan Talao is at thedistance of 5 to 10 minutes walk from Nagpada junction.He has alsostated that there are number of mutton shops in mini bazar, nearMastan Talao and that he was not knowing whereabouts of his son.PW12 Laxman Vishe, whowas armed police constable attached to Thane Police Head Quarter,was assigned the duty of regular Guard to A-2, who was the Presidentof Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Council at the relevant time.It ishis say that A-2 Suryarao was having two houses and two wives, oneat Najrana Compound in Bhiwandi Town and other in Gokul Nagar.He was having two cars, one white colour Ambassador car and otherContessa Car having No.It is his further say that on12.9.1992 at about 8.00 a.m., he accompanied A-2 in Contessa Car.At that time he was in police uniform.A-2 directed the driver Tambeto take the car to highway via Bhiwandi Vegetable Market.Oneperson, who was standing in the Bhiwandi vegetable market, wastaken inside by A-2 and that person got down at Thane highway.Afterpassing one bridge on Old Agra Road, car was taken to a building inGhatkopar area.A-2 got down from the car and asked him to wait inthe car.After 15/20 minutes A2 returned to the car and directed todrive the car to Sagar Hotel at Nagpada Junction.There, he and A-2got down from the car.Both the persons after having a talk with each othersat on the rear seat in the Contessa car.After about 5 minutes ofdriving, the said boy asked the driver Tambe to stop the car nearmutton lane.A-2 and the said boy got down from the car and A-2asked him to wait near the car.The two then went through a by laneand disappeared.After 10/15 minutes, A-2 came back followed by 3persons.One of the three persons was given support by taking hisarms on their shoulders by the other two persons.One more personfollowed them with a suitcase in his hand.Of the two persons, oneperson was the very same person who had met them near Sagar hoteland who had led them to the mutton lane.The person who was ill andthe person who was having briefcase occupied the car along withSuryarao and other two persons went away.Thereafter, they went tohotel Holiday-Inn in Juhu locality.On enquiry, A-2 told him that thepatient was son of his friend and that he was suffering from kidneytrouble and required to be taken to the hospital.After half-an hourdrive, they reached Hotel Holiday Inn and he alongwith A-2 got downthere.One young person of 25/30 years age led them to room no.315and thereafter he went down stairs saying that he will be going to thehospital alongwith the patient. A-2 received a number of telephonecalls in the room and also made number of phone calls.After half anhour, A-2 enquired with the Reception Counter about arrival of Car.Thereafter, they came down and A-2 enquired from the driver as towhether the patient reached safely to the hospital and the driverTambe replied affirmatively.A-2 then asked the driver to take the carto Sagar Hotel in Nagpada locality.The very same person who hadmet them in the morning in the Sagar Hotel and who guided driver totake the car to mutton lane met them.He occupied the seat in the rearby the side of A-2 and helped the driver to take the car again to thevery same place i.e. the mutton lane.A person having 59 height andstrong built of about 28/30 years of age came there in a short whileand sat on the rear seat by the side of A-2 Suryarao.That person askedthe driver to take the car to the Petrol Pump near J.J. Hospital.Theperson who had helped the driver to take the car to mutton lane fromSagar Hotel got down from the car after they reached mutton lane.When the car reached near the Petrol Pump, one person came thereand told the said tall person that the person for whom he was waitingwill be reaching there within a short time.Saying so, the said personwent away.5/10 minutes thereafter, a person of about 30/32 years ofage came there wearing a Kurta Pyjama and a Bohara Muslim cap andhaving a tin of Paan Parag in his hand.The tall person introduced thesaid person to A-2 as Savtya (deceased).Thereafter, all of them leftfor hotel Holiday-Inn.The car was stopped on way in Santacruzlocality near a petrol pump at the behest of Savtya.On the way,Savtya got down from the car and went away in a lane anddisappeared.Hethen questioned A-2 as to why they had come to that place.A-2replied that all the Municipal Members of Bhiwandi-NizampuraCouncil were expected to come there for a meeting to be attended bythe son of Shiv Sena Leader Bal Thackery.The Municipal Membersas well as the son of Bal Thackeray did not come there.Thereafter,A-2 asked the driver Tambe to take the car to Thane.A-2 went insidethe bungalow of Shiv Sena leader Anand Dighe.Within half an hour,he returned to the car and then they went to Bhiwandi at the residenceof A-2 near Najrana Compound.On 26.9.1992, he was called at theDCB CID Office for an identification parade held by the SpecialExecutive Magistrate and in that parade he identified the person whomet them near Sagar Hotel and led them to mutton lane as accusedno.1 Jahur Ismail Faki.On 22.10.1993, after the arrest of A-6,identification parade was held and he identified A-6 by saying that hewas the very same person who sat in their car when they visitedmutton lane second time.He was the person who asked the driverTambe to bring the car to the petrol pump near J.J. Hospital and onway to the hotel Holiday Inn, he got down in Santacruz locality.He also denied the suggestionthat prior to the test identification parade, accused no.6 was shown tohim by the police.Similarly, PW26 Ramesh Shankar Patil, who was armed policeconstable and Guard to accused no.2, corroborates the prosecutionversion with regard to travelling of A-2, A-6 and A-7 by Maruti car.It is his say that on 14.9.1992, at 8.30 a.m., he accompanied A-2Suryarao in a white coloured Maruti bearing No.There was a metallicnameplate of President Bhiwandi, Nizampura Municipal Councilaffixed on the front side of the car.A-2 directed the driver Badruddinto take the car to Dhamankar Naka at Bhiwandi.When theyapproached Dhamankar Naka, a person was standing there and A-2asked him to sit inside.On making enquiry, he came to know that hewas Himmatbhai Raval (PW34).A-2 told driver to drive the cartowards Bombay via Pipeline.After about 30/35 minutes, aftercrossing the Mulund Check Naka along the highway, A-2 asked thedriver to take a right turn.He realised that they were in Ghatkoparlocality.When the car entered in the compound, A-2 asked the driverto stop the car. A-2 asked him to wait.A-2 alongwith Himmatbhaiwent away and after 15 minutes came back alongwith one anotherperson.At that time, one NE 118 car was there.A-7 occupied the rearseat of Maruti 1000 car and asked the driver to follow the said NE 118Car.After some time, both the cars reached a colony, namely Postand Telegraph Employees Colony.After getting down from the car,Himmatbhai and A-2 went in a building nearby and returned afterabout 15/20 minutes.Thereafter, after driving the car for about 20minutes, the driver stopped the car and Himmatbhai got down fromthe car and one person (accused no.4) boarded that car.Then underthe guidance of A-4, the car was taken to a place where there was abig garden.There was a gate to the compound.The watchman onduty was wearing uniform having nameplate reading BombaySuburban Electricity Supply Company (BSES).The car was takeninside the compound, where A-2, A-4 and A-7 got down from the carand he continued to wait near the car.Occupants of boththe cars got down.A person came there from the petrol pump and ledall of them to a first floor room at the petrol pump.He and driverstayed near the car.The remaining person returned to the car after30/35 minutes.They all boarded their respective cars for going toShirsat Fata.On the way, they all got down from the cars.Personsgot down from the blue Maruti 800 Car and took the seat in the CarMH-04-A-5353. A-6 and A-7 also sat in the same car.He alongwithA-2 and Himmatbhai sat in the blue Maruti 800 car.A-2 drove theblue maruti car and asked his driver to leave all the occupants of theCar MH-04-A-5353 to Vapi and come back.Other Corroborative Evidence PW27 Manohar Padarinath Gabdule, a police Naik who was onduty of maintaining EPR register at JJ hospital has stated that at about1.40 a.m./1.45 a.m., a woman and a man went to the cabin of clerkBorge, PW21 and enquired about a patient who had met with anaccident, namely, Aziz Khan.As there was no one of that nameadmitted in that hospital, they went away.It is his further say that atabout 2.30 a.m. both of them again came and asked the clerk Borgewho supplied the information that generally the patients in accidentcases are admitted in the ward Nos. 17, 18 and 19 and both of themhad gone upstairs.He has also identifiedabsconding accused Mohd. Hussain who accompanied her.He guessed that theymight be the policemen having come for some enquiry.When heasked them whether they had entry pass with them, they told him thatthey are police inspectors and how dare he could ask them for entrypass.Some of those persons went upstairs and some stayed at theground.A-10 Khade caught him and dragged to one corner andthreatened him that he should not move and at the same time accusedno.9 Bacchisingh hit him by the revolver butt on his face andresultantly, he fell down and became unconscious.He regainedconsciousness later on when he was taken to casualty ward.In thetest identification parade, he identified accused no.6, SubhashsinghThakur to be the person who was holding the collar of the person andasking him to show his other associates, and accused no.9 and accusedno.10, but refused to identify them in the dock.Thereafter he wasdeclared hostile.This also corroborates the say of A-6 in hisconfessional statement.PW6 Constable Anant More has stated that at about 3.30 a.m.to 3.45 a.m., he noticed three persons entering Ward No.18 throughthe main door.He also noticed that two of them were having AK 47rifles in their hands.The third person was also armed with a weapon.They had entered the hall by firing shots.He stated that it was notpossible for him to fire at them in the open place and shots were firedin his direction, therefore, it was not possible to fire in the oppositedirection.He rushed to the southern side of the ward, entered the door,shots were fired at that door, but he could not fire from his weapon inretaliation by the side of the door.He heard the sound of firing.Hesaw that the patients were frightened, some of them were takingshelter underneath the cot or in the corners.Some had pulledchadder on their bodies and kept quiet.The prisoner, whom he wasguarding, had taken shelter underneath the cot.After the firingstopped, he went to the gallery, where other constables were guardingShailesh Haldankar.Nos.2A to 2D (CAs exhibit) are consistent with the fireof 7.62 mm rifle bullets.From the CA report, it is evident that theassailants have used 9 mm pistols and AK47 rifles in the incident.Asper the confessional statements of Subhashsingh Thakur, BachhisinghA-9, Ex.239 and Prasad Khade A-10, Ex.237 in all 12 fire arms likeAK-47 assault rifles, 9 mm pistols, .32 revolvers, .38 revolvers andalso two hand grenades were taken by 10 assailants in the J.J.Hospital.Further, PW42 PSI Krishnavatar Thakur (complainant andhostile witness) has supported the prosecution entirely on the incident,but refused to identify accused No.6, Subhashsingh Thakur andadmitted identifying one person in the TI parade.He proved Ex.140,the FIR.He admitted that he saw a person near the door of the cabin,with a weapon like AK 47 rifle and claimed that he had fired one shotat him and closed the door by latching it from inside and claimed that4/5 persons were present in the Ward No.18 and that he was hiding inthe bathroom as he had exhausted all the six rounds from his revolver.After some time, he went to the cabin, saw constable Bhanawat fallendown by the side of the cot of Shailesh Haldankar and head constableJavsen lying in the cabin.He also claimed that constable NagarePW9, was lying underneath the cot of Shailesh Haldankar.He pattedhim and gave the call Nagare, Nagare and Nagare opened his eyesfor a moment and again closed the eyes.He noticed the blood and allthe bodies were bleeding having fire arm wounds.Thereafter, hewent downstairs, noticed the blood stains all along the staircase.Hesaid that doctors examined 4 injured in the casualty ward.Javsen andBhanawat were declared dead.Constable Nagare, PW9 had injury onhis leg.Nagare was taken to the operation theatre.He himself had abrushing injury on the left leg and he had noticed the trail of bloodupto the big tree outside the building.He had handed over his servicerevolver and empty cartridges.Description of the other person who was holding an automaticweapon was given by him as aged about 22/25 years, medium built,height about 56, wearing snuff coloured shirt, dark colour pant.From the evidence of hostile witness PW25 Girish KumarShrinath Singh, who is owner of petrol pump namely Sagar AutoDealers at Sativali near Vasai, it is apparent that on 14.9.92, at about3.30 p.m., one lady and two three other persons including oneconstable came in a car, having red light on the top, at his petrol pumpand while sitting in his cabin they had called tea and drinking waterfrom the nearby hotel.He had paid the bill.On that day, he had seenonly two cars having come there one after another with the gap of5/10 minutes.One of those persons tried to connect some number ontelephone but as the phone was not connected, they went away.In hiscross-examination, he stated that his brother Ajay told him that a ladyguest has come in a car having the red light on the top and she wantedto go for the toilet.As the lady guest had arrived in the car having thered light on the top, he thought that she might be some VIP and,therefore, he led her to the self-contained room.He also stated thatthose persons came at his petrol pump on 14.10.1992 and not on14.9.1992 and failed to identify accused no.2 and accused no.6.Further, there is testimony of PW33, Bhagchand Soni, who wasserving with Milan Auto Service, a fuel pump at Agra road, Bhiwandi,which was supplying fuel to the Bhiwandi Municipal Council.He has produced slipEx.PW17 Shripad Tambe (hostile) was the driver of Contessa Carbelonging to Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Council.He has statedthat he was shown 2 sheets of papers.On the right corner of both thepapers the vehicle number 1445 was entered.According to his say the 2 pagesappeared to have been torn from the said register and the entry in theregister made subsequently.He has further admitted that the entry also indicates that on1.9.92, 45 litres of petrol was filled up in the tank.He hasdenied that Suryarao A-2 asked him to adjust the entries of 12.9.92and 13.9.92 in the register.He has further denied the suggestion thathe managed to procure a false certificate of illness from Dr. Sontakke(PW37).He has admitted that on 20.9.92, he boarded a luxury bus forgoing to Bangalore along with his 3 friends, Ramesh, Anil and Suresh.He stayed in Bangalore for 2 days and then went to Mysore.Driver Tambe re-wrote the logbook at his instance.This is corroborated by aforesaid evidence andthat of PW37 Dr. Kantilal Vishnu Sontakke, who gave certificate ofillness to Tambe on 19.9.92 when he visited Indira Gandhi Memorialhospital.Then, there is evidence of PW19, Matatil Damodar Itty whowas working as Engineer in Bhiwandi Nizampur Council and wasrequired to look after the maintainance and repairs of the Municipalvehicles.He has stated that thepolice called one officer from the Municipality and took 2 logbooks intheir possession from that officer.Those books consisted of one logbook of Contessa Car and one slip book.He had signed thepanchnama Ex.72-A. PW23 Ashok Bagul is another panch witness.He has stated that he had gone to Crowford market and a policemancame there to call him to be a panch witness.Accused No. 2 Suryaraowas present in the DCB CID office.In his presence, he made astatement that he had torn the pages from the log book and had keptthose pages at Bhiwandi and he would produce the said pages fromBhiwandi.He has furtherstated that the police along with Suryarao took them to the house ofSuryarao in a jeep.He remained as President and Vice President ofBhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Council.He stated that he knewaccused no.2 Suryarao since 1984, who was sitting in the dock beforethe court.State of Maharashtra Vs.Subhashsingh Shobhnathsingh ThakurJ U D G M E N T Shah, J.These appeals have been filed against the judgment and orderdated 7.8.2000 passed in TADA Special Case No.31 of 1993 passedby the Designated Court for Greater Bombay at Bombay.(d) under Section 3(3) of the TADA (P) Act and issentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and topay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment offine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for onemonth more;(e) under Section 5 of the TADA (P) Act and issentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term of 10years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default ofpayment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor one month more;(f) under Section 6 of the TADA (P) Act and issentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years andto pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment offine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for onemonth more;(g) under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code forcausing the death of Shailesh Shankar Haldankarand is sentenced to death and to pay a fine ofRs.500/- only, in default of payment of fine toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one monthmore;(h) under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code forcausing the death of Police Head Constable C.G.Javsen, B.No.18005 and is sentenced to death andto pay a fine of Rs.500/- only, in default ofpayment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor one month more;(a) under section 3(4) of the TADA (P) Act and issentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for tenyears and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only, in defaultof payment of fine to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one month;(b) under Section 212 of Indian Penal Code and issentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twoyears and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default ofpayment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor one month.A-1 Jahur Ismile Faki, A-3 Mehaboobi Aziz Khan, A-4 AnilAmarnath Sharma, A-8 Ahmed Mohmed Yasin Mansoori, A-9Jaiprakashsingh Shivcharansingh @ Bacchisingh and A-10 PrasadRamakant Khade were acquitted for the offences for which they werecharged.For A-11 to 24, it has been stated that some were shot deadduring the trial and some were absconding.Therefore, the trial of theaccused, present in the court, was separated.Against the said judgment and order(a) A-2, Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao has preferred CriminalAppeal No.975 of 2000;(d) The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1101 of 2000against the acquittal of A-1 Jahur Ismile Faki, A-3 MehaboobiAziz Khan, A-4 Anil Amarnath Sharma, A-8 Ahmed MohmedYasin Mansoori, A-9 Jaiprakashsingh Shivcharansingh @Bacchisingh and A-10 Prasad Ramakant Khade.In the saidward, Shailesh Haldankar and other patient (PW10) Siddiq AhmedAmin were sleeping on cots.Police Constable Nagare (PW9) wassitting on the stool between the cots.Head constable Javsen and PCBhanawat were sitting on the very same cot on which ShaileshHaldankar was lying.Shailesh Haldankar was handcuffed.PSIThakur went inside the cabin and sat on the said cot.It is alleged that all the accused came from the room ofabsconding accused Nazir Jariwala by two fiat cars.Accused no.8Ahmed Mansoori and deceased Sunil Sawant went ahead on scooter.They were followed by cars.The blue car was in front and wasoccupied by accused no.6 Subhashsingh and others.Other car wasoccupied by other accused.Both the cars entered through the westernside gate of J.J. Hospital.Some accused took their position near thestaircase and accused no.6 and others went upstairs.It is alleged thataccused no.6 made a show by catching the collar of abscondingaccused Ravi Sorte and played a hoax that he was the police man whohad caught the criminal by uttering the words saale tumhare bakisatthi dikhao.PW54 Shankar Ramchandra Jadhav, a watchman onduty, who was standing near the staircase in the main building in frontof the lift at the ground, after noticing the weapons in the hands ofaccused, suspected that probably they might be the policemen.However, when he attempted to go ahead to make an enquiry, A-10Khade caught him and threatened him that he should not move and atthe same time accused no.9 Bacchisingh hit him by the revolver button his face.It is stated that PW54 Shankar Jadhav fell down in semi-conscious state and re-gained consciousness later on when he wastaken to casualty ward.PW6 Police Constable Anant More, an unarmed constableattached to Police Head Quarter, Thane, on 12.9.1992, was on guardduty in Ward No.18 of J.J. Hospital because one of the accused, whowas lodged in Kalyan Prison was admitted in that ward for treatment.His duty hours were from 3.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m., he noticed threepersons duly armed entering the said ward at about 3.40 a.m. Two ofthem were having AK-47 rifles.He rushed to the southern side wallof the ward.There was a door in that wall and the shots were beingfired at that door itself and, therefore, he could not fire from hisweapon in retaliation.The prisoner whom they were guarding hadtaken shelter underneath the cot.He went in left side room, whereinanother prisoner was admitted, who was being guarded by a guardfrom Mumbai and noticed that the accused and two policemen werelying in the pool of blood on the ground in the said room.Hisstatement was recorded by Byculla Police Station Staff.After the accused entered the said ward, all of asudden PW42 PSI Thakur heard the words hands up, do not move,else we will kill you.At that time, PW9 PC Nagare attempted toclose the door but it was not fully closed.Further, PSI Thakur heardfour rounds having been fired on the door which was sought to beclosed and noticed that a person was standing outside the door at adistance of 1-1/2 or 2 feets.Hewent out from the southern side of the cabin.At that time, deceasedShailesh was uttering release me, they have come to kill me.PW9PC Nagare and the other constables became alert.PSI Thakur wentout through the southern door of cabin and rushed towards the anotherdoor which connected the main ward to the eastern gallery of the wardNo.Then he noticed that the person who was standing outside thewestern door was in the same position and one or two persons werethere at a distance of about 7/8 feet behind that person.He alsonoticed 3-4 other persons in the ward.He fired one shot in thedirection of the said person.He fired one more shot and then recededthrough the very same door back to the veranda.He receded in thesouthern veranda and when he was rushing towards the bath roomthrough the verandah, he heard somebody saying udharse bhaga marosaleko meaning (the person) had run away by that side, kill thebastard.Before rushing towards the bath room he had closed the saidsouthern door of the ward and no sooner the aforesaid utterances wereheard, he noticed that a number of shots were fired on that door.Hewent inside the bathroom.PW9 PC Nagare has identified the person who was seenby him in the ward, who had uttered the word hands-up, hilo matnahi to maar dalenge, and who had entered the cabin and fired theshots at Shailesh Haldankar, HC Javsen and PC Bhanawat to be theaccused No.6 Subhashsingh Thakur.Other facts stated by theprosecution witnesses are not relevant and, therefore, they are notnarrated.After completion of the investigation, accused were tried forvarious offences and convicted as stated above.Relevant Part of Evidence:To prove the story, the prosecution has relied upon confessionalstatements, evidence of injured witnesses and other corroborativeevidence.He also met Shri Anand Dighe, Thane districtShivsena Chief.On 15.9.1992 at about 1.30 hrs., he saw Maruti Car No.MH-04-A-5353 near Pious High School.Thereafter, he paidan amount of Rs.1000/- to driver Tambe and sent him to A-7 atGhatkopar with his nephew Bhimsen in his private white colouredAmbassador car no.He also called Smt. Tambe (wife ofPW17 Tambe) and paid her an amount of Rs.500/- for domesticexpenses and told her that her husband had gone out of Bhiwandi andwould return after 3-4 days.Confessional Statement of A-6:In his confessional statement, he has narrated history ofhis anti social activities in detail.They went in two fiat cars.When they entered the gate,they saw one watchman was standing near the staircase.Najir and hisman caught the colour of Ravi Sorte to make a show as if a policemanwas taking an accused.On seeing them, the policeman who was onguard duty closed the door for entry to the ward.Then Brijeshsinghknocked the door but none opened.At that time, he felt that there wasno setting and, therefore, he asked Brijeshsingh that they all should goback.During that time, Brijeshsingh fired three to four times from hisAK-47 rifle on the closed door.Again he asked Brijeshsingh toreturn.Meantime, someone else fired at them from the opposite door.Thereafter, they all moved towards the side from where they werefired.During that time, policemen continued to fire towards themfrom one door or other and they also retaliated.Thereafter,Brijeshsingh came towards him quickly and told that he has killed allthe persons inside the ward and asked them to move from that place.Finally they reached at the house of Najir Jariwala.There they foundthat Pradhan was having bullet injury in his abdomen and Ravi wasinjured on his hand.They contacted Chhota Shakeel at Dubai whogave them assurance for arranging a doctor and that he would begiving information to Dawood.After half an hour, Dawood made calland informed that one doctor would be reaching shortly.One doctorthereafter came and gave injections to Pradhan and Ravi.Doctorinformed him that treatment to Pradhan is not possible.Doctor alsoinformed on telephone to Chhota Shakeel that Pradhan is required tobe operated.Chhota Shakeel thereafter informed that he will sendsome other doctor.Another doctor came and told that operation ofPradhan is required to be done urgently and he was not havingoperation accessory.Thereafter, he contacted Kishore - A-7 formaking some arrangement and informed him that Pradhan hassustained bullet injury.Thereafter, A-7 informed that Suryarao hasleft Bhiwandi and would be reaching there within a short time.WhenSuryarao came alongwith Najirs boy, he introduced himself toSuryarao and told him that due to internal conflict one of his personshas sustained a bullet injury and was required to be taken to hospitalimmediately.Heasked Brijeshsingh to leave alongwith one boy of Najir and thereafterhe sat in the car alongwith Suryarao.Najirs boy took them near apetrol pump.Suryarao thereafter left the place and they left for theflat of Manishlala.On 14.9.1992, he informed Kishore that he wantedto leave Bombay and whether he could arrange car of Suryarao.Finally, Kishore was asked to come in the car of Suryarao at BSESguest house by 4.00 p.m. In the car of Suryarao, they reached at SagarPetrol Pump, Vasai.It is his say that finally he reached to Delhi andthereafter went to other places.For the purpose of this appeal, otherpart of the statement is not required to be narrated.Confessional Statement of A-7 A-7 has also revealed the detailed facts about the incident andthat he was arrested on 18.7.1993 by Delhi Police.Thereafter, he has narrated that finally he leftBombay and went to other places including Delhi and Vaishnodevi.Independent Corroboration to the Aforesaid Statements:Before referring to the other evidence, we would refer to theevidence of some hostile witnesses who corroborate the aboveconfessional statements.They stayed there for half an hour.Then the said person occupied therear seat with A-7 and directed the driver to drive the car on the HighWay.After 20/25 minutes they reached near the garage on the highway.The car was driven nearby a multi storey building.The car wastaken inside the compound.Then a tall person (A-6) wearing asalvar-kamij came there.Thereafter, A-6 accompanied them and ledthe car to Sagar Petrol Pump at Vasai.There, one blue colour Maruti800 car was standing at the petrol pump.In that car one woman, oneanother person and Himmatbhai Raval were there.They came back toGokul Nagar in Bhiwandi.On 6.9.1993, he was called by the policefor test identification parade in the DCB CID Office near CrowfordMarket at Mumbai.He was shown 10/11 persons in a row.Heidentified A-4 Anil Amarnath Sharma as the person who had boardedthe car near the railway crossing and who had guided the driver totake the car to BSES guest-house.In cross-examination, there is nothing whichwould affect the version given by the witness or which may supportthe accused.Next important witness is PW9 Vijay Nagare, who at therelevant time was posted on the guard duty in the J.J. Hospital inwhich Shailesh Haldankar was lodged.It is his say that ShaileshHaldankar was sleeping in a cot having handcuffed with the upperside rod of the cot.Other two police constables Javsen and Bhanavatwere also sitting on the said cot.PSI Thakur came there in mufti tocheck the guard on duty.He also sat there on the cot where ShaileshHaldankar was sleeping.At about 3.40 a.m. or there about, he sawone person inside the ward and in front of the room.He was havingfirearm like a rifle in his hand.He shouted loudly hands up, do notmove else we will kill you.Immediately, shots were fired likecrackers.He tried to close the door but the door was not fully closed.PSI Thakur thereafter fired one shot in the direction of the said personthrough his revolver.Thereafter, door was closed.He took his rifle inposition to defend himself.Shailesh Haldankar attempted to get up byforce to rescue himself by freeing his hands from the handcuff.Atthat time, constables Javsen and Bhanavat caught hold of him so thathe does not run away.To that, Shailesh Haldankar pleaded thatassailants have come to kill him and they should allow him to goaway.He also heard that shots were being fired on the door whichwas closed.Thereafter, PSI Thakur receded from another doortowards the verandah.He noticed that very same person whom hehad seen inside the ward earlier had come near the southern door ofthe cabin and, thereafter, he fired one shot from the rifle in hisdirection and before he could fire the second round, the bullet whichthe said person had fired hit his right thigh.He receded a little andfell down by the side of the cot.Very person who was firing fromoutside entered the room and fired shots indiscriminately at ShaileshHaldankar as well as other two police constables.It is his say that atthat time there was hue and cry in the ward and because of injury hefelt giddiness.He identified A-6 - Subhashsingh Thakur in the testidentification parade by stating that he was the person whom he hadseen firing the shots indiscriminately and who uttered the wordshands up, hilo mat nahi to maar dalenge.Confessional statement of A6 that inquiries were made at the hospital,gets corroboration from the say of PW 27 who was on duty at JJhospital that one man and woman went to the cabin of clerk Borge formaking inquiries.PW54 Shankar Ramchandra Jadhav was watchman of the J.J.Hospital and his duty time at the relevant time, i.e. on 12.9.1992, wasbetween 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. He was posted at the main gate near thestatue of Parsibaba in the new building and his duty was to check thepersons entering the hospital.On that night, at about 3.55 a.m., ninepersons having weapons like revolvers in their hands, entered throughthe main gate and came in the direction of the staircase when one ofthe persons had caught the collar of another person and they weremaking enquiry about his other associates.He saw Shailesh Haldankar and two policemenlying in the pool of blood on the ground in the said room.He noticedsome 30-35 cartridges lying there.Then the police came there.Theytook the injured for treatment.In all 6 persons were injured includingPWs 9, 10, 11, 42, 54 and one nurse and one Yunus Dadarkar.PW10, Siddiq Ahmed Amin (hostile witness) who was in thesame room where deceased Shailesh Haldankar was kept, stated thathe heard some loud shouts of people and therefore, he woke up.Onepolice inspector was there having a revolver in his hand and talkingwith some one outside the room.He heard shots being fired.Thefiring stopped after 2/3 minutes.As he got frightened, took shelterunder the cot, and after the firing stopped, he went to the hall,continued to sit there till policemen came there.He had sneaked inthe hall by crawling.He did not identify any one in the Court anddenied having identified accused No. 6, Subhashsingh Thakur in theTI parade and denied giving the description of other two persons whohad followed Subhashsingh Thakur.Brief halt of A2 and others at Bombay Suburban ElectricitySupply Company (BSES) Guest House:PW63 Arvind Pinge was in charge of a BSES guest house,Marol, Andheri.According to him on 12.9.92, one Felix AlexDsouza, PW29 (a hostile witness), came to him and told him that thenephew of Union Minister of Energy, Mr. Kalpanath Rai was stayingin BSES guest house and he would like to introduce him.He hasstated that he had brought him at his residence.He has stated that they had received a telephonemessage from Delhi from one S.P. Rai, P.A. of Kalpanath Rai, thethen Minister of Energy for booking the accommodation.Later, hecame to know that nine guests were staying in two rooms and he hadasked who these guests were.Later on, he came to know that theguests were involved in shoot out in the JJ Hospital.PW31 ArvindanKunjivan (a hostile witness) was working as a cook in the BSESGuest House.He had shown two rooms to the guests and they stayedin those rooms.He did not identify anyone.PW18 Prabhakar Durve, the Chief Security Manager Holiday-Inn establishes that room no.315 was occupied by VIP who arrivedthere on 12.9.1992 at 11.10 a.m., which was in the name of Suryaraoand was signed as S. Rao.Departure was shown on the same date.This also corroborates the say of A-2 with regard to their going atBSES Guest House and Hotel Holiday Inn.Injuries to PW9 and C.A. Reports Evidence of PW9 gets further corroboration from Ex.128,which is an entry in the MLC register at Sr.No.7154 dated 12.9.1992.It shows that a part of the bullet, which was retrieved from the thighof Vijay Krishna Nagare was put in a bottle and it was handed over tothe police.The same was taken to the Forensic Laboratory by PW40,head constable Suryakant Kupwadekar. Ex.129 is the injurycertificate of PW9, Nagare and Ex.117 is the Chemical AnalysersReport.The result of the analysis also gives the reading that 7.62 mmshot rifle cartridge cases, which were found on the scene of offenceare generally fired from either AK47 rifle of Russain make or chineseversion of the same.In the Chemical Analysts report,Ex.147, the bullet retrived from the right thigh and the left thigh ofdeceased Shailesh Haldankar have been opined by the chemicalanalyser to be the fragment of 7.62 mm bullets.The CA Ex.1 is one.303 rifle which was carried by Nagare and Ex.3K is the one .303 inchrifle empty and Ex.7 is four intact .303 rifle cartridges.These factsshow that PW9 Nagare had fired one bullet from .303 rifle and theother four bullets were intact in the rifle and the result of Analysisshows that Ex.3K has been fired from Ex.1 i.e. .303 rifle.In his cross examination, he admittedthat he had submitted his resignation because a cash reward of Rs.1lakh was reduced to Rs.25,000/- which he did not accept as he was nothappy about it.He also stated that he had suffered mental depression,was spending sleepless nights and was taking tablets for the same.This incident was a part and parcel of his worries and was feelingtense about the safety of his family.In the FIR, Ex. 140, he haddescribed two persons, one person who had fired at the constable andkilled them by firing from an automatic rifle and also who had fired athim at the southern side of the verandah.He gave the description ofthe person as aged about 25/26 years, height about 58, strong built,fair complexion, wearing a metal framed spectacle, round face,wearing white full shirt and pant, shirt tucked in side the colouredpant.He stated that each vehicle had got a logbook and a petrolslip book.He has admitted that the Art. Nos.61 and 60 were the samelogbooks, which he had produced before the police under Panchnama.Accordingly, the panchnama was drawn.Accused No.2 Suryarao produced some pagesfrom a book.The police took charge of those papers and put the samein the packet.A detailed panchnama Ex.76A was drawn.He alongwith co-panch signed the panchnama.Hostile witness PW22 Satish Bhujang Rao, an InteriorDecorator, resident of Ghatkopar (W), Bombay has stated that heknew accused no.7 Shamkishore and Himmat Raval (PW34).Shamkishore used to treat his wife as his elder sister.In the year1989-90, when Shamkishore was arrested by the police in a case ofattempt to murder, he stood surety for Shamkishore.HimmatbhaiRaval had entrusted him the job of fixing PVC tiles at the residence ofSuryarao at Gokul Nagar at Bhiwandi and he did the job.He had nooccasion to meet Suryarao.Himmatbhai Raval had paid the amountfor the above work.He saw Suryarao only in the DCB CID Office.Further, he had no occasion to see accused no.6 Subhashsingh Thakurand that he has seen him for the first time in the dock.WheneverShamkishore came to attend the dates in the court in connection withthat case, he used to stay at his house.PW34 Himmat Rupchand Raval, businessman, resident ofBhiwandi, Distt.Thane was also a hostile witness.They were having cordial relationships.He also knewaccused no.7 Shamkishor since 1986, who was sitting in the dockbefore the court.Thereafter, he has not supported prosecution versionas narrated in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.From the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution followingfacts emerge:If the confessional statements of A2, A6 and A7 are taken intoconsideration as they are, then the Designated Court has rightlyconvicted themThe aforesaid statements are corroborated(a) By the confessional statements of other accused asdiscussed by the Designated Judge.(b) By the evidence of PW 12 Laxman Vishe and PW 26Ramesh Patil.(c) By evidence of PW9 who was an injured witness at thetime of incident.He received bullet injury in the incident.(d) For the movement of A2, A6 and A7 on 12th and 14thafter the incident, there is no reason to disbelieve theevidence of two independent witnesses who werebodyguards of A-2, who was President of BhiwandiMunicipal Corporation.(e) The confessional statement of A-6 gets corroborationfrom PW27, who has specifically stated that at about1.40/1.45 p.m., A-3 and absconding accused Mohd.Hussain went to the clerk Borge and made enquiry aboutpatients.It also gets corroboration from PW54 ShankarRamchandra Jadhav.(g) Evidence of PW25 Girish Singh, PW17 Tambe and thatof PW37 Dr. Sontakke corroborates the statement of A-2with regard to movement of car on 12th and 14th as wellas asking driver Tambe to go out of city as directed byA-7 as police was making enquiry about movement ofcar.(h) Hostile witnesses PW22 Satish Rao and PW34 HimmatRawal admited that they were having relations with A-2Suryarao and A-7 Kishore since years.On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, learned counsel for theaccused submitted that judgment and order passed by the DesignatedCourt is illegal and erroneous asTherefore, we have considered confessional statements with the otherevidence connecting the accused with the crime.It is his contention that A-2 and A-6 were knowing each otheras per their admission in confessional statements.He further submittedthat in any set of circumstances, he was compelled and threatened byA-7 Shamkishore to send the car, otherwise he and his family wouldmeet the same fate as that of Shailesh.It is true that there is no direct evidence that A-2 was knowingthat A-7 had called the car for the purpose of moving out otheraccused who were involved in the shoot out.He sought assistancewith regard to the no confidence motion which was sought to bemoved against him and in return as per his say, Pappu Kalani hadasked him to help A-7 when such help was sought for.Further, as perhis own say, A-6 was introduced to him on 12th.No doubt, it is true that incident of firing must have happenedwithin few minutes, at the same time, it is the say of PW9 that he sawA-6 thrice once, when he tried to come in the room from northerngate, again when he came from southern gate and finally when heentered the room and fired shots indiscriminately.In the present case, asstated, PW9 was the police constable who was present in the room, hewas injured, he saw accused no.6 coming in the room thrice and firingindiscriminately and hence, there is no reason to doubt identificationby him.The learned counsel for accused no.6 contended thatconsidering the evidence against him, it is doubtful whether he fired atShailesh Haldankar and other two police constables because he wasaccompanied by other injured accused Pradhan, who was also havingsimilar weapon and had fired.For this purpose, reliance is placedupon the evidence of PW48 Dr. Mukund Karia and PW49 Dr.Rajendra Thakare.PW47 Madhukar Yadavrao Shirsat of AthavalinePolice Station, Surat recorded the statement of injured Pradhan atSurat and he also described Pradhan as having 56 height, mediumbuilt and of shallow complexion.PW48 Dr. Karia who had examinedPradhan at about 2.30 to 2.45 a.m. on 14.9.1992 at the residence ofDr.3. Sanction to prosecute under TADA granted by the competentauthority cannot be said to be in any way illegal or erroneous.Confessional statements of A2, A6 and A7 are corroborated:-(a) By the confessional statements of other accused asdiscussed by the Designated Judge.(b) By the evidence of PW12 Laxman Vishe and PW26Ramesh Patil.(c) There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW9who himself is an injured witness and who was policeconstable on duty in ward no.18 for the deceasedShailesh Haldankar.He got bullet injury at the relevanttime.Description given by him gets fullcorroboration from evidence of PW12, PW26 and PW42PSI Thakur.(d) Evidence of PW25 Girish Singh, PW17 Tambe and thatof PW37 Dr. Sontakke corroborates the version of A-2with regard to movement of car on 12th and 14th as wellas asking driver Tambe to go out of city as directed by A-7 because police was making enquiry about movement ofcar.Hence, in our view, the Designated Court was fully justified inconvicting the A2, A6 and A7 and we uphold the same.As a responsiblecitizen, he ought to have informed the concerned police authorities.To this, learned counsel for A-2 submitted that when the police failedto give protection to the person who was in custody, it would bedifficult to imagine that police would have given such protection tohim or could have saved him from the wrath of the gangsters.REGARDING A-7:In ourview, considering the activities carried out by A-7 as confessed byhim, it cannot be said that sentence imposed by the learned Judge is inany way excessive or discriminatory.From the role played by A-7, itis clear that he was vitally involved.At his instance, on 12th and 14th,A-2 was compelled to bring the cars of Bhiwandi Nagarpalika that toowith the police guard, for giving treatment to injured accused and forfacilitating further to move from one place to another.Considering theoverwhelming evidence against A-7, particularly the evidence ofPW26 and confessional statements, it cannot be said that learnedJudge has committed any error in convicting A-7 and sentencing himto suffer RI for 10 years.REGARDING A-6:Death Reference Case No. 1 of 2000:During that time, Brijeshsingh fired 3-4 times from his AK-47 rifle onthe closed door.Again he asked Brijeshsingh to go back from thatplace.Meantime, someone else fired at them from the opposite door.Subsequently, Brijeshsingh came towards him quickly and informedthat he has killed all the persons inside the ward and asked them tomove from that place. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,445,083 | (a) The complainant Zia-Ul-Haque Nizamuddin Ansari is residing at Room No.304, Building no.11, Kapadia Nagar, Kurla (W), Mumbai along with his family consisting of parents and brothers.The livelihood of the family is depending upon sale of spare parts of motor vehicles at CST Road, Kismat Nagar, Kurla (West), Mumbai;(b) On 5 July 2016, the elder brother of the complainant namely Azharuddin Ansari was at the aforesaid shop premises.The complainant was at home.He received a telephonic call that his elder brother is being assaulted by some persons;(c) The complainant proceeded to their shop premises and noticed that accused were assaulting Azharuddin, as he had refused to sell the spare parts at lower price, as demanded by the accused.The people tried to intervene in the quarrel but the accused kept on assaulting the brother of the complainant as well as complainant;(d) The complainant fell on the ground during the assault by the accused and at that time the accused assaulted the ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: 4 of 16 WP.2567.2016 complainant by an iron spoon which is used for frying Potato-Vada.As a result of that, the complainant received injury to his finger.At the same time, accused poured the hot oil from the outlet of Vada-::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::Pav upon complainant.As a result of that, he suffered severe burn injuries on his head, ear, hand and other parts of body.The accused then fled away from the scene of the offence;It was further stated that no such incident has taken place on 5 July 2016 on which FIR came to be registered.Date of reserving the judgment : 11 August 2016 Date of pronouncing the judgment : 25 August 2016 JUDGMENT - (Per : Prakash D. Naik, J.) :-1. Rule.The parties in both the petitions have sought quashing of the impugned FIRs on the ground that there has been amicable settlement between them.The parties have lodged cross complaints against each other which are under challenge in the aforesaid petitions and hence the same can be disposed of by a common order.The FIR was ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: 3 of 16 WP.2567.2016 registered on 15 July 2016 at the instance of Respondent no.2 in the said petition for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC').The Petitioners therein were impleaded as accused in the said FIR.::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::Brief facts, as alleged in FIR bearing CR No.267 of 2016 which is subject matter of Criminal Writ Petition No.2567 of 2016, are as follows :(e) The complainant and his brother Azharuddin were then treated at Bhabha Hospital at Kurla and they were required to be admitted in the hospital for the purpose of treatment.Petitioner no.6 was arrested in connection with CR No.267 of 2016 on 6 July 2016 and he was produced for remand before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla, Mumbai.In the said remand application it was stated that the victim had suffered burn injuries to the extent of about 50% on his face and other parts of body on account of hot oil which was poured upon him by the accused, and that the victim is taking treatment in intensive care unit.Other accused in the said FIR i.e. Petitioner nos.1 to 5 were shown as wanted accused.The arrested accused was produced for remand on 7 July 2016 and was remanded to police custody.A copy of the said remand application and order passed thereon has been annexed to the petition.In the said letter, it was stated that he is the complainant in CR No.267 ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: 5 of 16 WP.2567.2016 of 2016 which was registered for offences under Sections 307, 324, 143, 144, 147, 149 of IPC.It was mentioned that since he was in tremendous pain, he had given names of Shahnawaz, Sohail, Shaukat, father of Sohail, Saif and Sameer.There is no person known as Aatique being known to him.It was further stated that no incident as stated in the FIR, dated 5 July 2016, has occurred.It was stated that Shahnawaz fell down in front of his shop and sustained head injury and people had gathered.It was also mentioned that oil from Vada-Pav stall fell on him due to which he sustained burn injuries.On account of burn injuries, in a heat of anger, he registered the FIR.It was also mentioned that nobody is responsible for the injuries sustained by him, which was due to an accident and he has no complaint against anybody.The said letter dated 11 July 2016 is also annexed to this petition.It can be seen that the complainant in CR No.267 of 2016 has completely washed out his assertion which was made in the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::It was reiterated that Petitioner no.1 fell down in front of his shop and sustained head injury and on account of that, he had abused the second Respondent, as a result of which people had gathered on the spot and in the crowed oil from Vada-Pav ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: 6 of 16 WP.2567.2016 stall fell upon him resulting into burn injuries.He has further asserted that nobody is responsible for the injuries sustained by him which had occurred due to accident and he has no complaint against anybody.In paragraph no.3 of the said affidavit it was mentioned that the accused are residing in the locality and carrying out business of selling spare parts of the cars, there is a case and a cross case between them and they have amicably settled the matter and do not wish to proceed against each other.::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::The Petitioners in the said petition were impleaded as accused and the FIR was registered at the instance of Respondent no.2 Shahnawaz Noor Hasan Khan.The FIR was registered on 5 July 2016 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 of IPC.Brief facts, as stated in the FIR registered vide CR No.266 of 2016, are as follows :(a) The complainant Sahanawaz Noor Hasan Khan is residing at Kamar Manzil, C.S.Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai along with his family consisting of his wife, sons and daughter;(b) The younger brother of the complainant namely Shaukat Khan is the owner of a shop namely Super Automobile, at Pipewali Galli, at Kurla, Mumbai;(c) On 5 July 2016, the complainant received a call from his brother Shaukat Khan stating that a quarrel is going on at Kismat ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: 7 of 16 WP.2567.2016 Nagar and he should come.The complainant, therefore, proceeded at the said place;::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::(d) The complainant noticed that quarrel was going on between his brother Shaukat, nephew Anas, his sons Arbaz and Sameer with Nizamuddin, Zia-Ul-Haq, Azharuddin, Sadda, Naushad and Salim.The complainant tried to be peacemaker;(e) It is alleged that Zia-Ul-Haq assaulted the complainant by an iron spoon on his head as a result of which he sustained injury.Others were assaulted by bamboo sticks.During the scuffle, the accused Zia-Ul-Haq tried to pour hot oil from Vada-Pav stall on complainant's son and while doing so, he lost his control and the oil had spilled over his body.The complainant's son Arbaz also sustained injury to his finger on account of hot oil.The prosecution case was narrated in the remand application, as reflected in the FIR.The accused was remanded to police custody.In the remand application, accused Nizamuddin, Saddam, Salim, Naushad and Zia-Ul-Haq were shown as wanted accused.The said remand application and the order passed thereon has been annexed to the petition.The medical certificate with regard to the treatment with regard to the examination of Zia-Ul-Haq are also on record.::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::8 of 16 WP.2567.2016The complainant in CR No.266 of 2016 forwarded a letter to the Senior Police of Inspector on 12 July 2016 stating that he was in tremendous pain and due to which he has given the names of Nizamuddin, Saddam, Salim, Naushad, Zia-Ul-Haq and others.It is further stated that no such incident, as stated in his statement dated 5 July 2016, has occurred.The complainant fell down in front of Bombay Automobile shop, which is the shop of Zia-Ul-Haq and sustained head injury and since Zia-Ul-Haq has abused him, the people had gathered and in the crowd, the oil from Vada-Pav stall fell on Zia-Ul-Haq resulting in burn injuries.In a heat of anger, he registered the FIR.Nobody is responsible for the injuries sustained by him, which had occurred accidentally.He sustained head injuries but he has no complaint against anybody as it was accidental.It was further mentioned that the said letter be treated as a supplementary statement.The letter has been annexed to the petition.From the contents of the said letter it is apparent that the complainant has denied his version and occurrence of incident dated 5 July 2016 as alleged in the FIR.It is pertinent to note that complainant in cross case i.e. Zia-Ul-Haq had also written identical letter on the same day taking a similar stand.It is clear that the respective complainants are denying the incident as a matter of strategy and a common stand is adopted by them in connivance with each other.The complainant Shahnawaz Khan who had lodged FIR vide CR No.266 of 2016, which is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Writ Petition No.2681 of 2016 and who has been impleaded as Respondent no.2 in the said petition, has tendered an affidavit before this Court.In the said affidavit it is stated that on 12 July 2016, he ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: 9 of 16 WP.2567.2016 has submitted the supplementary statement to Senior Inspector of Police giving explanation about reasons for giving the names of Petitioners-accused.He further averred that no such incident has taken place on 5 July 2016 as alleged in the FIR registered at his instance.He further stated that he fell down in front of his shop due to which he sustained head injury and nobody is responsible for the injuries sustained by him, which is accidental and that he has no complaint against anybody.In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, however, it is stated that the Petitioners are residing in the said locality and carrying on the business of selling spare parts of the cars.There is a case and a cross case between them.They have amicably settled the matter between them and do not wish to proceed with the complaint registered against each other.The said affidavit is taken on record.From the tenor of the affidavit, it is apparent that the complainant has taken a somersault and given complete go-bye to the contents of FIR lodged by him.It can also be inferred that the dispute is being settled because there are cross cases against each other.::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::We have perused the contents of the petition as well as documents annexed to the petitions.The parties have contended that there is a settlement and hence respective FIRs may be quashed and set aside.It is also noted that the complainant in CR No.267 of 2016 has forwarded a letter dated 11 July 2016 to the Senior Inspector of Police of the concerned police station wherein he has absolved the accused and tried to give an explanation to the injuries sustained by him and the person from other side.The complainant has completely denied the genesis of his FIR.On the face of the record, the contents of the said letter dated 11 July 2016 are concocted and after thought.It is pertinent to note that said contention is also reflected in the affidavit of the complainant which was filed in this Court to support the prayer of quashing of said FIR.Similarly, the complainant in the FIR registered vide CR No.266 of 2016 has also forwarded a letter dated 11 July 2016 to the Senior Inspector of Police of the concerned police station wherein he had taken an identical stand as that of the complainant in the cross complaint.The said version is also reiterated in the affidavit filed before this Court.It is apparent that the complainants in both the complaints have resiled from the contents of FIRs.An attempt is made to deny their own versions.The stand adopted by the complainants in their respective complaints is obviously by conniving with each other and, therefore, it cannot be said that the settlement made by them is genuine.Taking into consideration the conduct of ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: 11 of 16 WP.2567.2016 the parties, we are not inclined to exercise our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain present petitions.Apart from the above observations, we were not inclined to grant prayers of the Petitioners taking into consideration the magnitude of offences committed by them.::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::In CR No.267 of 2016, which was registered primarily for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, the complainant/injured person had sustained serious injuries.It is his grievance in the FIR that the accused had poured hot oil on him with an intention to kill him.We have perused the medical certificates and it was noticed that the victim had sustained burn injuries on the vital parts of his body.The case registered vide CR No.266 of 2016 was primarily for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, is apparently being utilized for settling the dispute between the parties.The injured has also sustained injuries in the said incident.The settlement arrived at between the parties is to seek quashing of both the cases which are registered against each other.It would be dangerous to accept such a proposition wherein the complainants have agitated before this Court ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: 12 of 16 WP.2567.2016 that their own statements in the FIRs are false.On sustaining injuries, the complainants have set into motion the law and police machinery in exercise of their powers and being diligent, have registered FIRs against respective accused persons.How it can be digested that the complainants have withdraw their own versions which were spelt out in the complaints.::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::The offender should be punished in order to deter others effectively, as it amounts to greatest good of the greatest number of persons in the society.We have taken into consideration the factual aspects referred to hereinabove, the medical certificates of the injured persons, the nature of injuries sustained by the victims/injured persons as well as mala fide conduct of the parties in resiling their own statements made before the police.The accused have committed crime against society.::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 :::Hence, we pass following order :(a) Criminal Writ Petition No.2567 of 2016 and Criminal Writ Petition No.2681 of 2016 stand dismissed;::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2016 00:29:59 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
81,452,813 | In default of payment of such fine, they have been directed to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 months.All of them have further been convicted under Section 148 IPC, and punishments of 7 years’ RI, alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, has been imposed on them, and in default, they have been directed to suffer further SI for 1 month under Section 307/149 IPC.The appellants Sita Ram, Ranveer and Yogendra have further been convicted under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and have been awarded the sentence of 3 years’ RI, alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of such fine, they must further suffer SI for a period of 1 month.Since then they have been cultivating the said land.On 18.10.1999, a written report Ex.P-1 was lodged by Shodan Singh (PW.1), at the Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur, alleging that 7-8 days prior to the incident, Karan Singh and others had sown some mustard on the said land.On 18.10.1999 at about 12 noon, the complainant party was informed by Shiv Singh, that the mustard that had been sown by them was being removed by the appellants alongwith others, with the help of a tractor.On receiving the said information, the complainant party, i.e. Karan Singh, Kewal Singh, Badan Singh, and a few other family members had proceeded to the place of incident.They had seen the accused persons destroying the mustard that had been sown by them.The accused persons had been fully armed with lathis, kattas, and farsas.On hearing the hue and cry raised as a result of the same, Vijay Pal and few others had reached the place of occurrence.Shodan Singh (PW.1), informant, had also witnessed the incident, as he had been coming back from his fields at the relevant time.Some people from the complainant’s side had received firearm injuries.Some of them had also received injuries from lathis and farsas.The accused had then fled away from the scene after injuring 15 people.The injured persons had been taken to the hospital.Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2007, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench), in Criminal Appeal No.583 of 2003, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track) Judge No.1, Bharatpur, so far as the appellants are concerned.The Trial Court therein, had convicted 9 accused, including the present 5 appellants as under:-Sita Ram and Ramveer, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).Yogendra @ Yogesh, Rattan Singh, Kalwa, Ranveer, Ghambhir Singh, Paras Ram and Balla under Section 302/149 IPC.They have been awarded the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each has been imposed on them.However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The High Court has modified the judgment and order of the Trial Court, dismissing the appeal of some of the appellants and convicting Sita Ram, Ranveer, Yogendra, Ramveer and Balla.Sita Ram and Ramveer have been convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC, and the sentences awarded to them have remained the same.Their conviction under Section 307/149 IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act have remained intact.Conviction and sentence of Yogendra, Ranveer and Balla under Section 302/149 IPC and 307/149 IPC, and of Ranveer and Yogendra under Section 3/25 Arms Act have remained intact.However, they have been acquitted of the charge under Section 148 IPC.The appeals of the other accused persons, namely, Ratan Singh, Kalwa, Ghambhir Singh and Paras Ram were allowed.One of them had been armed with a gun.When the complainant party had tried to stop the accused, Ratan Singh had instigated the other accused persons to assault the complainant party, and thus, the assault began.Veer Pal and Satyendra had suffered grievous injuries.They had been referred to Jaipur, and a case was registered against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 447 and 307 IPC, and investigation commenced in this respect.B. During the course of the investigation, Veer Pal succumbed to his injuries and therefore, Section 302 IPC was also added.His dead body was subjected to an autopsy, and necessary memos had been prepared.Statements of witnesses were recorded.The accused persons were arrested, and on completion of the investigation, a chargesheet had been filed.C. Aggrieved, they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2003 which was disposed of vide impugned judgment dated 3.12.2007, which acquitted a few people, but the conviction of the appellants with certain modifications was upheld, as has been referred to hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.Shri Altaf Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted, that the Trial Court had convicted 9 persons, out of which, 4 have been acquitted by the High Court, though they had also earlier been convicted on the basis of the same evidence.Hence, in light of the same, the conviction of the appellants can also not be sustained, owing to the fact that if the High Court has disbelieved certain evidence with respect to 4 of the acquitted accused, the same could not have been relied upon by it, so far as the appellants are concerned.There are material discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses.The same should not therefore, have been relied upon.The judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside.Per contra, Shri Ram Naresh Yadav, learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal, contending that the High Court has re- appreciated the entire evidence on record, and has thereafter come to the conclusion that the present appellants had been responsible for causing the death of one person, and for causing grievous injuries to fourteen others.Most of the injured persons have appeared as witnesses, and their presence cannot be doubted.There may be a possibility of false implication of some of the accused in the present case, but the evidence of the injured witnesses deserves to be accepted.It is not possible that such injured persons, in a case where there has been loss of life, would spare the real culprit, and falsely implicate anyone.Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.The Trial Court has examined the evidence on record very intricately, and after properly appreciating the same, has convicted all 9 accused.The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence has given 4 accused persons the benefit of doubt, in view of the fact that they had not been in possession of any arms.Both the courts below have rejected the theory of self-defence, and have held the appellants to be aggressors.The courts have found that the presence of the present appellants at the place of occurrence stands fully established beyond any reasonable doubt.They had in fact been present at the place of the incident, and had been armed with a gun and kattas.The complainant party had in contrast, been entirely unarmed, and they had remained outside the land in dispute and had simply requested the appellants and others to not destroy the mustard crops that had been sown by them.Even otherwise, the absence of any injury made on the part of any of the assailants except Ghambhir Singh (acquitted accused), renders false, the defence’s version.There was no question raised regarding how so many injuries could have been caused to so many persons.In the instant case, complainant Shodan Singh (PW.1), and all other injured witnesses have deposed consistently, as regards the involvement of the present appellants.They have also deposed that the appellants had been heavily armed with weapons, and had caused injuries to the deceased, as well as to the witnesses.The post-mortem on the body of Veer Pal, had been conducted on 19.10.1999, and the following ante-mortem injuries had been found on his body:-i) Multiple punctured lacerated wound ¼ x ¼ cm oval to round shape on (Rt) side lower neck to shoulder and upper part of anterior and frontal medial (Rt) side of chest.ii) Punctured lacerated wound has entered (Rt.) side peritoneum to (Rt.) liver lobe.In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was shock hemorrhage, caused as a result of ante-mortem injuries to the lung and liver, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Duration of injuries was fresh before death, by projectile firearm weapon gun shot injury.So far as the other injured persons are concerned, it is evident from the record and the evidence provided by the doctors, that Padam Singh had two injuries on his person.Satish Kumar also had various wounds caused by trampling.Radhey Shyam had suffered two injuries.Maharaj Singh had on his person, four injuries which had been caused by a fire arm.Injury Nos. 1 & 4 were found to have been caused by a blunt weapon.Chander Hans had two injuries on his person.Bachcho Singh also had two injuries.Similarly, Raj Kumar had two injuries, and Vijaypal also had two injuries.Kewal Singh had suffered two injuries by a fire arm.Pushpender had also suffered grievous injuries caused by a fire arm.Karan Singh had four injuries on his person, out of which two injuries were found to be grievous.Satyendra had only one injury on his person.The court must assess the extent to which the deposition of a witness can be relied upon.The court must make every attempt to separate falsehoods from the truth, and it must only be in exceptional circumstances, when it is entirely impossible to separate the grain from the chaff, for the same are so inextricably entertwined, that the entire evidence of such a witness must be discarded.The courts below have examined the evidence and have appreciated the same in correct perspective.The Trial Court, after appreciating the medical evidence and the injuries etc. on the persons of the injured witnesses, has come to the following conclusions:Padma and Kewal who respectively expired and lost mental balance could not be examined and they have received fire arm injury.In the head of injured Karan Singh and in the finger of his hand grievous injury has been caused by the impact of a blunt weapon.From the statement of Karan Singh it is clear that Paras Ram gave lathi blow on his head and Ghambhir gave farsa blow on his head and caused injuries thereon and one blow of the farsa is stated to have landed on his finger also.Both the injuries in the head and the hand are grievous.Firstly the medical examination of Karan Singh was conducted by Dr. B.L. Meena (PW.18) and found 4 injuries on his person but after that Karan Singh was treated in the SMS Hospital and from the statement of PW.35 Dr. Vivekanand Goswami it is clear that on the person of Karan Singh there were six injuries instead of four and he had grievous injury on his head and there was a punctured wound on the middle finger of his left hand.This injury was also found to be grievous.On the right hand of Karan Singh there were three trampling wounds of fire arms.”The High Court has re-appreciated the evidence on record and considered the case taking into account the gravity of the injuries, as well as the death of Veerpal, and has come to a conclusion as under:?“From the evidence of Shodan Singh (PW.1), Raj Kumar (PW.2), Chandra Hans (PW.4), Satish Chand (PW.5), Shiv Singh (PW.6), Maharaj Singh (PW.7), Foren Singh (PW.8), Bachcho Singh (PW.10), Vijay Pal (PW.11), Radhey Shyam (PW.12), Pushpendra (PW.15), Satyendra Singh (PW.16) and Karan Singh (PW.19), the fact situation that emerges may be summarized thus:i) As per site plan (Ex.P-9) mustard crop, standing on the land in dispute was destroyed by the tractor.ii) As many as 14 member of the complainant party sustained injuries.Veerpal died as a result of injuries received by him.iii) Member of complainant party had gone to the land in question unarmed and asked the accused party not to disturb mustard crop whereas accused party had gone with lethal weapons.iv) There is chequered history of litigation between the complainant party and the accused party.v) Accused Sita Ram and Ranveer had guns whereas accused Ranveer, Yogendra and Balla had kattas (country made pistols) and they indiscriminately opened fire at the members of complainant party.vi) According to Prahlad Singh I.O. (PW.29) cross case bearing FIR No.254/99 under sections 447, 323, 341, 147 and 148 IPC was registered against the members of accused party.Ghambhir Singh (appellant) sustained simple injuries that were incorporated in injury report (Ex.D.15).”The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, has rightly rejected the contention of self-defence that had been raised, and acquitted some of the convicted accused, giving them the benefit of doubt.In light of such a fact-situation, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.The present appeal thus lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed.The appellants are on bail.A copy of this order be sent to the CJM, Bharatpur by the registry for information and compliance.……….………………………J.(Dr. B.S.CHAUHAN) ………………………………J.(DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi, May 21, 2013 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,410,003 | C O M M O N O R D E R These revisions arise against orders of learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3405 of 2015 in C.R.P.No.4 of 2014 and Crl.3.On complaints of the 3rd respondent, case in Crime No.304 of 2007 was registered for offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 r/w 471 and 120(B) IPC.and case in Crime No.305 of 2007 was registered for offences under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) IPC.In a line, the complaints informed of wrong doings relating to the affairs of the petitioner company and its properties.On completion of investigation final reports were filed informing both the complaints to be mistake of fact. Third respondent/defacto complainant initially moved protest petitions.The same were considered in Crl.M.P.Nos.3405 and 3028 of 2015 and under orders thereunder, learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu was pleased to dismiss such petitions.There against, the investigating agency moved Crl.R.C.Nos.4 and 5 of 2014 before Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.The petitioner sought to implead itself in such revisions.Under orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.3045 and 3028 of 2015 dated 11.01.2016, such petitions were dismissed.Aggrieved, petitioner has moved the present revisions.4.In dismissing Crl.O.P.No.8632 of 2011 dated 26.04.2011 wherein the de facto complainant had sought a direction for registration of case, has observed as follows:Though it is in a rare case that we would hear a party against whom accusation is made in the complaint, we find useful information furnished by such party that on the very same allegation as now made by the petitioner, a complaint was preferred on 18.01.2007 and the same has resulted in registration of Crime No.305 of 2007 by the Chennai City Central Crime Branch for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC r/w. 120(B) IPC.On completion of investigation, the case in such crime number was referred as a mistake of fact.10.These Criminal Revisions shall stand allowed.The orders of learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3405 of 2015 in C.R.P.No.4 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.No.3028 of 2015 in C.R.P.No.5 of 2014 on 11.01.2016, shall stand set aside.Such petitions shall stand allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Principal District Judge, Chengalpet.3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team XXII, Egmore, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 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. |
69,428,198 | A. No.514/2003 Page 1 of 12 punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC; for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months.Both the sentences were to run concurrently.She had deposed that on the intervening night of 26-27th of August, 1992 when she was on her way in a mini bus from Okhla Mandi to Lajpat Nagar, while she was sitting in the front row she dozed off.At the Fountain bus stand accused Shankar (present appellant) woke her.PW-3 asked him as to whether the bus had reached Lajpat Nagar; she was told that the bus was at the Fount bus stand.There were 2-3 passengers in the bus; they got down at ISBT.PW-3 remained sitting in the bus.The bus was taken behind the Red Fort.It was 1.00 a.m.; PW-3 has categorically deposed that she was raped by Shankar by spreading four seats of the bus on the rear portion of the bus.PW-12/X. The salwar of the victim had detected blood stains upon it; so also the underwear of the appellant Shankar which had also been taken into possession.The vaginal slides of the victim which had been preserved and handed over to the investigating officer and subsequently sent to the CFSL had also detected sperm heads; this has been proved in the report Ex.CW/A. This corroborative scientific evidence which had noted blood stains not only on the salwar and underwear of the appellant but also sperm heads on the vaginal swab of the victim is a clear indicator that rape had been committed i.e. how the vaginal swab taken from the vagina of the victim had sperm heads.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 13.9.2001 and 14.9.2001 respectively wherein he had been convicted along with his co-accused Shail Kumar for the offences under Sections 376 (2)(g) and 366 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence Crl.Shail Kumar (co-accused) thereafter attempted to commit rape upon her but then the police arrived.PW-3 and both the accused persons were taken to the police station.Statement of PW-3 Crl.A. No.514/2003 Page 2 of 12 Ex.PW-3/A was recorded.Salwar of PW-3 was taken into possession.She was medically examined.Crl.A. No.514/2003 Page 1 of 12Crl.A. No.514/2003 Page 2 of 123 PW-5 H.C. Satpal has corroborated this version.He had on oath deposed that he along with Jaipal Singh (PW-9) were on beat duty.When they were near Yamuna Pusta at about 1.00 a.m. they noted a mini bus parked on one side of the road; they found that one girl lying on the rear portion of the bus; she was naked.The appellant Shankar and co-accused Shail Kumar were present; they were in their under wears.The accused were apprehended.PW-3 was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.She admitted that she had given her statement both before the police and Court.She denied the suggestion that she had deposed on tutoring.She admitted that in those days she was residing near Kalyanpuri at Shashi Garden; she admitted that they are four sisters and two brothers and she is the eldest; she stated that she never left her parental house prior to this incident.She denied the suggestion that she used to remain away from her house for several nights at a stretch.In this Crl.A. No.514/2003 Page 3 of 12 version there was discrepancy wherein she had stated that first Shail Kumar raped her and when Shankar (the appellant) was just going to commit rape upon her the police reached there.Crl.A. No.514/2003 Page 3 of 12A. No.514/2003 Page 4 of 12 (ExPW-10/C) as also her version on oath.Simmi had left the hospital.This MLC reflects the history which have been given by the patient herself alleging that while she had fallen asleep in the bus on the fateful day she was taken by conductor and driver of the bus to Red Fort and was raped by the conductor (appellant Shankar was the conductor).There was a bruising noted on the vestibule; hymen was however intact.According to PW9, there was a definite indication of attempt to rape the girl.Also, later semen of human origin was traceable in the private parts of the girl, as indicated by the FSL Report.This would sufficiently indicate that she had been subjected to rape.The explanation to Section 375 IPC has been worded by the legislature so as to presume that if there was penetration, it would be sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse necessary for the Crl.A. No.514/2003 Page 6 of 12 offence of rape. | ['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,429,468 | The State has filed this appeal along with an application for leave to appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.10.2016, passed by Special Judge, U.P. Gangsters Act and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act/ IInd Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2) Banda in G.S.T. No.192 of 2006, (State of U.P. vs. Jagpat Singh and others) in Case Crime No.98 of 2006, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat-District-Banda.Learned A.G.A. has contended that by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Special Judge, U.P. Gangsters Act and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, has illegally acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges framed against them under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 without weighing and assessing the evidence properly and thereby arriving at the wrong conclusion while acquitting the accused-respondents on flimsy grounds.Hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal being perverse, illegal, unjustified and bad in the eyes of law the same may be set-aside.Vide order dated 18.1.2017, the lower court's record was summoned, which has been received.The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, S.O. of Police Station Kotwali Dehat, lodged First Information Report at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, on 27.8.2006 at 11:15 A.M. hours against the accused-respondents mentioning therein that he came to know from local public that Jagpat Singh (respondent no.1) is a hardened Criminal, he is the leader of an organized gang and Anil Singh Babu Darji, Angad Singh, Syam Sundar,Durga Prasad and Ashwani are other active members of this gang.All of them use to indulge in anti-social activities and in commission of heinous crimes, like murder and abduction etc. by creating panic in public with the object of disturbing public order and gaining undue pecuniary and material advantage.Nobody dares to lodge report or to give evidence against them due to their terror.The accused persons are habitual of committing offences mentioned in Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of I.P.C. As per gang chart, cases in crime no.95/06, under Sections 394, 411 and 120-B I.P.C. Crime No.135/03 under Sections 13 Gunda Act, Crime No.47/02 under Sections 387, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. were registered against Jagpat Singh, Crime No.95/2006 under Section 394, 411 and 120B I.P.C., Crime No.388/06 under Sections 25A Act were registered against Anil Singh, Crime No.95/06 under Sections 394, 411 and 120B I.P.C., Crime No.390/06 under Section 25A Act were registered against Angad Singh, Crime No.95/06 under Sections 394, 411 and 120B I.P.C., Crime No.391/06 under Section 25A Act were registered against Shyam Singh and Crime No.95/06 under Sections 394, 411 and 120B I.P.C. were registered against Durga Prasad and Ashwani Ojha.Hence, an action under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is required to be taken against all the accused persons.After grant of approval of gang-chart by District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Banda, the first Information Report was lodged against accused persons.The investigation of the case was entrusted to Station Officer, Mataundh.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 7 prosecution witnesses namely, PW 1, Sub Inspector Yuvraj Singh, PW 2, Complainant Sub Inspector Sunil Kumar Mishra, PW 3, S.O. Madhu Sudan, PW 4 S.O.Virendra Singh, PW5 Narayan Babu Tiwari, PW 6 Ram Subhag Ram Swaroj and PW-7 Sub Inspector Bajrang Bali Yadav.Manohar Ali 1987 (1) Crimes 748 (754) (GOU), Sukliya Vs.State of M.P. 2002 (5) JT 302, Kalyan Singh vs.State of M.P. 2006 (13) SCC 303 and Sujit Bishwas Vs.State of Assam, 2013 Crl Law Journal 3140 (SC).The impugned order shows that the learned trial court has discussed in detail, the entire evidence and has recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence available on record.On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, I do not find any factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below in so far as the acquittal of accused-respondents is concerned. | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.