id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
694,302 | The prosecution story, briefly stated, is as follows :The deceased Vikram Singh, injured Mohan Singh P.W. 5 and complainant Naresh Singh P.W. 1 were all real brothers.They were resident of Village Karayat, patti Bisung, District Pithoragarh.The accused appellant Gopal Singh was Bahnoi of Vikarm Singh and others.P.W. 8 Smt. Sarswati Devi was wife of the accused, who was married to him about 2-3 years before the date of occurrence of this case.The prosecution claimed that there was an old enmity in between the family of the deceased and the accused.Smt. Sarswati Devi was married to the accused by her father for making the relations of the two families cordial, but despite this marriage the relations of the deceased and the accused appellant continued strained.On 17-9-78, the injured Mohan Singh had gone to play foot-ball at Lohaghat District Pithoragarh.After playing foot-ball, he returned along Gopal Singh P.W. 6 and Diwan Singh P.W. 4 some-time in the evening.At about 9 or 9.30 a.m. Mohan Singh, Diwan Singh, Gopal Singh were sitting for purposes of taking dinner.On hearing the noise of the deceased Vikram Singh, they came out and saw the accused Gopal Singh having a knife in his hand and the shirt of the deceased was lying on the ground.Mohan Singh injured P.W. tried to pacify the accused appellant.Thereupon accused appellant assaulted Mohan Singh by means of the knife.He, thereafter assaulted the deceased Vikram Singh and caused injuries on the chest of the deceased.The deceased fell down and died.The mother of the accused appellant came there.Diwan Singh P.W. 4 and mother of the accused-appellant took the accused to his house.Naresh P.W. 1 the brother of Mohan Singh lodged a written report Ex. Ka-12 with the Patwari Kama Karayat.P.W. 9 Hariram Tamta who was working as Patwari/Police Officer Kama Karayat took up the investigation of the case.He recorded the statement of Nareh Singh P.W. 1 and rushed to Lohaghat hospital where he found injured Mohan Singh.He thereafter, came to the scene of occurrence.ORDER N.S. Gupta, J.1. Accused appellant Gopal Singh, who was convicted by Sri B.L. Hajelay, the then Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, under Section 304(1), I.P.C. and under Section 324, I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated April 5, 1980 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years under the first count and 18 months under the second count has come up in appeal before this Court.He prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post mortem examination.Sri Hari Ram Tamta recovered blood stained earth from the scene of occurrence and prepared recovery memo in respect of the same.He arrested the accused at about 10 a.m. on 18-9-78 from his house and recovered blood stained knife, which was used in causing injuries to the deceased and Mohan Singh, at the instance of the accused.He also recovered pant which was stained with blood.He recorded the statement of Diger Singh, Jaman Singh, Gopal Singh son of Narayan Singh, Smt. Sarswati Devi and Diwan Singh and after needful investigation into the matter, submitted chargesheet against the accused.Dr. Ashok Shartna P.W. 7 who was working as Medical Officer at PHC Lohaghat on 17/18th November, 1978 medically examined the injured Mohan Singh at about 12.30 in the night.He found the following injuries on his person :Stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 4 cms upwards and with swelling backwards from left anterior sup-iliac spine.Swelling was around the wound and was 8 cm x 8 cm fresh bleeding seen.Stab wound 3 cm x 1½ x 3 cm (deep) on front aspect of right thigh 14 cm vertically below the right anterior sup iliac spine.The injury No. 1 was kept under observation.All the injuries were simple.The injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged object and injury No. 3 was due blood collection.All these injuries were fresh.According to him, the deceased was aged about 42 years.Rigour mortis was present in all the four limbs.He found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased :Punctured wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 1 cm vertically below to the left anterior supiliac spine.Penetrating wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 7 cm away from left nipple at about 50 ' clock position, directed upwards, and medially penetrating lung left.Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm muscle deep (swelling ½ cm above the upper margin of left petella).On internal examination, Dr. Sharma found 6th and 7th ribs of left side cut.The pleura was punctured.The heart was empty.The left thorasic cavity was full of blood.In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the aforesaid injuries.The probable time since death was one day.6. Charges under Sections 302/307, I.P.C. were framed against the accused appellant.He pleaded not guilty and stated he has been falsely implicated in the case.After needful trial into the matter, the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid under Section 304(1) and 324, I.P.C. by the trial Court, hence the appeal.I have heard Sri D.N. Wali, learned counsel for the appellant, A.G.A. for the State; considered the facts and circumstances of the case and gone through the evidence on record.It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that even according to the observations of the trial Court, mystery of the incident in question was not.unfolded and yet the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appeallant.It was urged on behalf of the accused appellant that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was bad in law.I am unable to agree.I find from the record of the case that as many as three eye witnesses of the occurrence were examined by the prosecution before the court below.All these witnesses have clearly and consistently stated that on 17-9-78 they all had gone to Lohaghat and had returned from there some-time in the evening.They stated that at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. on 17-9-78 when they were sitting in the house of Diwan Singh, they heard the noise of Vikram Singh and on hearing the same they came out on the road and found there that the deceased Vikram Singh was saying that he was surrounded by the accused appellant Gopal Singh.The accused appellant Gopal Singh was armed with knife.When these witnesses asked the accused appellant not to quarrel, the accused appellant assaulted Mohan Singh P.W. 5 and caused injuries to him.He thereafter, assaulted the deceased Vikram Singh by means of the knife.After sustaining the injuries, Vikram Singh fell down in the field and had died.The accused appellant was thereafter taken to his house.The injured and his brother Naresh Singh went to Lohaghat where Mohan Singh was admitted in the hospital and Naresh Singh went to lodge the report about this occurrence.Even if for a moment, the testimony of Diwan Singh P.W. 4, Gopal Singh P.W. 6 is excluded from consideration on the ground that they were not named as witnesses of the occurrence in the first information report, the fact remains that Mohan Singh P.W. 5 was injured very clearly that the injuries found on his person were caused by the accused appellant and that, the accused appellant was also responsible for causing injuries by knife on the chest of Vikram Singh and that the deceased Vikram Singh had died as a consequence of the injuries caused to him by the accused appellant.is clearly proved by the medical evidence of Rs. Ashok sharma P.W. 7 that he had medically examined the injured Mohan Singh on the intervening night of 17/18th September, 1978 at about 12.30 and had found stab wound as noted above on his person.Dr. Sharma also conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 18th September, 1978 at about 3 p.m. and had found punctured wound on the dead body of the deceased, he clearly opined that the injuries found on the person of the injured Mohan Singh and the deceased Vikrm could be caused by means of knife on the date and time of the occurrence suggested by the prosecution.It is clearly proved by the evidence of Smt. Sarswati Devi (P.W. 8) wife of the accused appellant that her father had married her with the accused appellant for making the relations of the two families cordial but in spite of this marriage, strained relations of the two families continued.She has clearly stated that at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. on the date of the occurrence, the accused appellant was annoyed and was abusing his brothers.She stated that after about 1/2 an hour, Diwan Singh brought her husband Gopal Singh and that at that time the accused appellant was armed with knife.There was no shirt on his body.On enquiry, Diwan Singh informed that the accused had committed the murder of Vikram Singh, elder brother of Smt. Sarswati Devi and that he had caused injuries to Mohan Singh younger brother of this witness.I should state here that Naresh Singh P.W. 2 who lodged the first information report about the occurrence is a simple villager living in the remote area of a hill district like Pithoragarh.He cannot be expected to be well conversant with the intricacies and niceties of law.Thus the Omission of the names of the Diwan Singh P.W. 4 and Gopal Singh son of Narain Singh P.W. 6 as eye witnesses of the occurrence from the first information report Ex. Ka. 1 was rather natural omission committed by the simple villager.The circumstance that Diwan Singh, Mohan Singh P.W. 5 and Gopal Singh P.W. 6 all had gone to Lohaghat for playing football, the circumstance that they had all returned together in the evening on 17-9-78 and the circumstance that they all were sitting and talking together at the house of Diwan Singh where they intended to take dinner together and the circumstance that there they heard the noise of the deceased and on hearing the noise they to gether came on the road and the accused appellant assaulted Mohan Singh with knife and the appellant further assaulted the deceased by means of the knife make the evidence of all these three eye witnesses, namely, Diwan Singh P.W. 4, Mohan Singh, P.W. 5 and Gopal Singh P.W. 6'quite natural.The suggestion of the defence that the injuries were caused by Diwan Singh and the accused appellant was falsely implicated in the case is devoid of merit on the very face of it, for the reason that the accused appellant in this case was the husband of the deceased's sister and if the appellant was not responsible for the offence in question, Mohan Singh and his brother Naresh Singh who are also real brothers of the appellant's wife Smt. Sarswati Devi, could not have involved the accused appellant in the offence in question.It was argued on behalf of the accused appellant that the accused appellant was serving in armed forces.He was serving for the cause of nation.The occurrence may have been done by him under grave and sudden provocation or exceeding the right of private defence.It was urged on behalf of the accused appellant that the conviction of the accused appellant under Sec. 304(I) I.P.C. should be altered to Sec. 304 (II) I.P.C. and that the period of sentence already undergone by him should he considered as sufficient.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, and have also gone through the facts andcircumstances of the case.I find from the record of the case that the deceased was aged about 42 years, at the time of his death.The injured Mohan Singh was aged about 33 years.The accused appellant in his examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. stated his age about 20-21 years.It would thus be seen that the accused appellant was youngman of 20-21 years at the time of occurrence. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,431,589 | In the intervening night of 11/12.12.1992 around 10 O' Clock when the complainant went to sleep at his house, he saw three accused persons standing there.When the complainant asked them the reason for standing there, they abused the complainant and just then the two accused persons Ram Dutt and Bhajan Singh each fired one shot from their respective Tamancha at the complainant with an intent to kill him.The third accused-Ram Kishor threw Saria (iron rod) towards the complainant causing injury to him.The complainant saved himself by taking shelter behind thresher.Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicants has been filed for quashing order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, in Case No.65 of 1994, Durjan Singh Vs.Ram Kishor and others, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the review application which has been affirmed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, vide judgment and order dated 10.12.1999 in Criminal Revision No.376 of 1999 Ram Kishor and others Vs.State and Durjan Singh.Both the orders are under challenge in the instant application.According to the first information report, one Ram Swaroop, younger brother of the complainant Durjan Singh, won election of Village Pradhan defeating Genda Lal which caused enmity between the two parties.The accused persons were seen by the witnesses including the complainant in the moon light.The Investigating Officer during investigation recorded statements of the witnesses and filed the final report before the Magistrate.The complainant Durjan Singh (opposite party no.2) herein filed the protest petition on 21.10.1993 against the final report asserting therein that the Investigating Officer had not recorded his statement as well as of the witnesses.The learned Magistrate vide order dated 4.1.1994 rejected final report and summoned the accused persons under Section 307 IPC fixing 18.2.1994 for appearance after perusing the case diary and other material.The learned Magistrate also directed that the case shall proceed as complaint case.The injured Durjan Singh sustained injuries of hard object on chest and shoulder as per his injury report.The accused persons who are applicants herein challenged the summoning order dated 4.1.1994 by filing objections for setting the summoning order.The learned Magistrate vide order dated 4.10.1999 rejecting the objection of the applicants observed that there was no legal infirmity in the order.The accused persons preferred Criminal Revision No. 376 of 1999 against the order dated 4.10.1999 before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, on the ground that the learned Magistrate has rejected their objections without looking into case diary and facts of the case.The Criminal Revision was transferred to VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,433,809 | If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Page 3 of 7Baskaran is a Goonda as per Sec.2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 and there is compelling necessity to detain him in order to Page 4 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.No.1360 of 2019 prevent him from indulging in acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. "Page 4 of 7C3/D.O./47/2019 dated 26.06.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Karthikeyan @ Karthi, S/o.Baskaran, aged about 37 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.1.The Secretary to Government, (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai-600 009Page 6 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.No.1360 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 6 of 7and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.nvsri H.C.P. No.1360 of 2019 30.08.2019 Page 7 of 7http://www.judis.nic.inPage 7 of 7The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 26.06.2019 made in No.C3/D.O./47/2019, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Goonda’ and detained under 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 (hereinafter Page 2 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.No.1360 of 2019 referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).Page 2 of 7We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have perused the materials available on record.The main argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the case relied on by the detaining authority is not similar in nature and the offences in the adverse case and ground case are totally different.Therefore, the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is not there and the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not proper.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:"4.I am aware that Thiru Karthikeyan @ Karthi, S/o.Baskaran has been remanded in judicial custody upto 08.07.2019 and lodged at Central Prison, Cuddalore, in connection with Panruti Police Station Cr.No.338/2018 u/s.341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 363 IPC.I am aware that he has already filed a bail application before the Court Page 3 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.No.1360 of 2019 of District Vacation Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, on 14.05.2019 and the same was dismissed on 16.05.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.2973/2019 further he had again filed another bail application before the same court on 21.05.2019 in Crl.Again he filed another bail application before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, on 03.06.2019 in Crl.In a similar case in Thirupapuliyur Police Station Cr.No.218/2019 under section 294(b), 323, 324, 353, 332, 307 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted to the accused (Kanniyappan, S/o.Thanikachalam) by the Court of District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, in Crl.M.P.No.2980/2019 on 16.05.2019 (copy enclosed).Karthikeyan @ Karthi) coming out on bail in Panruti Police Station Cr.No.338/2019 since bail is granted by courts in such cases.On the materials placed before me, and after careful perusal of records and his antecedents, I am satisfied that the said Thiru.Karthikeyan @ Karthi, S/o.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration a similar case registered in Thirupapuliyur Police Station Crime No.218 of 2019 under Section 294(b), 323, 324, 353, 332, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and bail was granted to the accused in that case in Crl.M.P.No.2980/2019 on 16.05.2019 by the District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 353, 332, 307 and 506(ii) IPC, whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 363 IPC.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Page 5 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.No.1360 of 2019Page 5 of 7In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Cuddalore, Cuddalore District3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Cuddalore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,443,108 | The prosecution case in brief is that on 14 th May 1999 at about 4:30-5 in the evening deceased Mahesh and appellant Raloo clashed with each other.During the scuffle, Raloo picked up a stone and threw it towards Mahesh, which hit him on the head and he fell on the ground.He was taken to the hospital, but was declared brought dead.Dr KC Rane PW-14 intimated the death to the concerned Police Station Manawar (Ex. P/16).The police registered Merg No. 32/99 (Ex.P//15) and inquired the same.The police registered crime No. 205/99 under section CRA No.957/2000 2 302IPC (Ex.P/17) and investigated the same.(Delivered on 11th day of May, 2020)The appellant has preferred this appeal against judgement and order dated 27.05.2000 delivered in Session Trial No. 214/1999 by Additional Session Judge, Manavar, District Dhar, whereby the learned appellate Court has convicted him under section 304 part II of IPC and has awarded seven year rigorous imprisonment.The police called the witnesses vide notice Ex.P/7, prepared Punchnama lash Ex.P/8 in their presence, visited the spot, prepared spot map Ex.P/9, seized blood smudged and plain soil and a stone allegedly thrown by the appellant from the place of incident vide Ex.P/10, sent the dead body for post mortem with requisition Ex.P/18 and received post mortem report Ex.P/12, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.P/14, recorded statements of Chhotelal (PW-3), Omkara Lal (PW-4) and Sumanbhai (PW-5) under section 161 CRPC, who supported the allegation, sent the articles (stone, soil, blood stained clothes) seized from the spot and received from the hospital to the FSL vide letter Ex.P/11 and after completing the investigation, filed the charge- sheet.CRA No.957/2000 2The learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant under section 302 IPC.He abjured guilt and prayed for trial.After the trial, he was held guilty under section 304 part II IPC instead of the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment.The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgement and order of the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts on record.The learned trial Judge should have appreciated the fact appeared in the prosecution evidence itself that both the deceased and the appellant were quarrelling with each other.The deceased was the aggressor and he was the one who started pelting stones.CRA No.957/2000 3Therefore, there is no need to discuss the evidence produced by the prosecution in this regard in detail to arrive at the same conclusion as of the trial Court.Before this Court, the appellant has primarily pressed the plea of self defence.It is argued that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the fact appeared in the prosecution evidence that both the deceased and the appellant were quarrelling and the deceased was the aggressor and pelted a stone first.The Court considered that there was a quarrel between the parties.The accused was neither armed with any weapon when he came to the spot nor he brought anything from his house after the quarrel started. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,444,233 | Considering the rival contentions of the parties, without commenting on the merits of the case and taking note of the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants have been arrested on 07.06.2020 and due to outbreak of pandemic (COVID-19) in the country, there is no possibility of commencement of trial in near future, I am inclined to allow the application.Accordingly, the bail application of applicants is allowed.If the doctor suspects otherwise, the applicants shall be referred to the appropriate hospital for further management as per the protocol laid down by the State.In the event the jail doctor is of the opinion that the applicants can be released, then they shall be released.The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through E-mail.(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RC Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MRS RASHMI CHIKANE PASWAN Date: 2020.08.14 17:22:33 IST | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,445 | The High Court confirmed the sentence of death awarded to Devendra Singh.The version as given by Virendra Singh P.W. 1 in the first information report of the occurrence which took place on March 27, 1968 at Aligarh may be succinctly noticed, According to him he left his room for a walk at about 7 p.m. in the evening.When he reached near the coal depot of K.D. Gautam in Vishnupuri, Navin Dutt son of K.D. Gautam called him from behind and admonished him against misbehavior.On enquiry as to what was meant by misbehavior Navin started abusing him.On this there was some exchange of hot words.Navin caught hold of him by his neck and started beating him.Navin's brother Pravin also came there.He was given a beating by the two brothers and a third person who was with them.In the meantime Devandra Singh brother-in-law of Aidal Singh Surendra Bhardhwaj and Shiv Kumar Sharma arrived there.Krishnapal Singh Tyagi recognised him and made an attempt to save him, Thereafter Virendra Singh went to Manmohan Suman and told him the details relating to the incident near the coal depot.Virendra Singh brought Manmohan Suman to the coal depot for having a settlement of the unfortunate dispute which had arisen.Thereafter Suman and Virendra Singh went to the station for having a cup of tea.After having tea they went to the room of Santosh Kumar who was busy talking to Daya Shanker Sharma.JUDGMENT A.N. Grover, J.These appeals are by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court.He was also convicted Under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.Navin Dutt and Pravin Dutt who are brothers and who are appellants in Cr.A. 135/70 were tried for offences under the aforesaid sections and were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months respectively, Similarly Shiv Kumar appellant in the same appeal was tried and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to rigorous imprisonment for one year for offences Under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 In each case the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.Babu Ram Yadav and Netra Pal Singh who were present in his room.Santosh Kumar said that he had gone with some friends to Virendra Singh's room and he had an altercation with the mother and the sister Usha of Navin and Pravin who were also present there.At about 10 p.m. Virendra Singh accompanied by Santosh Kumar Baburam Yadav and Daya Shanker Sharma came in front of the coal depot.All the four appellants came there and said "Salas should be beaten".The words in Hindi are "Maro salon ko".Upon this Devendra Singh caught hold of Santosh Kumar by his neck and then fired a pistol shot at his abdomen.Shive Kurnar assaulted Daya Shanker with a knife which caused an abrasion near the elbow and tore his bushshirt.Santosh Kumar died as a result of injuries received from the pistol shot.When Virendra Singh appeared as P.W. 1 he gave some more details which furnished the reason for the quarrel between the appellants on the one hand and Virendra Singh, Santosh Kumar and their companions on the other, on the fateful evening The real reason was that some days prior to the incident Usha who was also a student of the Dharam Samaj College was going back home from the college.Some boys were standing at the gate along with Virendra Singh who called her "Usha Delux".She apparently complained about it to Navin and Pravin who were her brothers and it was for that reason that Navin admonished Virendra Singh on the evening of the occurrence and asked him to stop doing "badtamizi".It is unnecessary to mention the other additional matters except two.One was that Santosh Kumar had told him about the row which he had on the same evening with Usha and her mother in the presence of Navin and Pravin Virendra Singh had been told that both the women had called him and his companions "goondas".The other is that before the shot was fired by Devendra Singh, Navin pointing out towards the complainant party said to Devendra Singh "kill the salas" (Salo ko mardo).3. Learned Counsel for Devendra Singh has made an attempt to find fault with the medical evidence.It has been pointed out that according to Dr. S.D. Agarwal P.W. 4 the area which was blackened and scorched was not given.The doctor had clearly stated that Santosh Kumar deceased had gunshot wound with inverted margins on the upper and middle part of abdomen above the navel.The wound was directed slightly upwards, backwards, horizontal, piercing to stomach wall and coming out on back part.In cross-examination he could not say definitely as to the distance from which firearm might have been used but it was probable that it had been used while it was touching the body.The doctor, however, explained it by saying, "I have not mentioned the area of blackening around the injuries which may mean that there might not have been any area of it and scorching and blackening might have been on the wound alone".The version given by Virendra Singh P.W. 1 that Santosh Kumar came with him and two others also came because Santosh Kumar wanted to take milk does not carry conviction. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,456,272 | a hy This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)ad The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with M Crime No.215/2017 registered at Police Station Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections of 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(da, dha) and 3(2)(5ka) of rt SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. ou Allegedly, when the complainant, who is the member of SC/ST was sitting in the platform of Bihari Ju Temple along with his cousin- C Munnilal, then appellants came there with sticks, abused him filthily, h humiliated the complainant by caste and committed Marpeet with him, ig due to which, complainant sustained injuries on his head and H shoulder.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.He further submits that appellants have not caused any fatal injury on the person of complainant.They are permanent resident of District Chhatarpur.There is no chance of their absconding.It is also submitted by him that if the facts of the case are considered in its entirety, the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail, do not apply in the present case.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellanst.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate oppose the bail application.sh Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation against the appellants and the role ascribed to the appellants, it e ad would not be appropriate to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, NI ad ou=Administration, postalCode=482004, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=aa8f72857f3bf78e15d95 PRAJAP 74562da856998b54d5fd5155003 ab17dbda73f06859, M serialNumber=f487d5a64403484 95cfc3dec95a81237144a3514db9 ATI c5688195627b992f5dc04, cn=ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2017.11.01 12:22:02 +05'30' A.Praj.of rt ou C h ig H | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,459,441 | a Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of hy the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners ad Ramkishore Choudhary, Rakesh Choudhary, Harlal M Choudhary, Pramod Choudhary and Manoj Choudhary in Crime No.272/2017 registered by P.S. Bahoribandh, District-of Katni under sections 147 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.rt As per the prosecution case, on 12.06.2017, deceased ou Santosh had gone in the marriage of Mangilal's son Sanjay.During the marriage ceremony, petitioner Pramod was C making disparaging remarks against the character of h Vandana, daughter of the deceased; whereon an altercation ig had taken place between deceased Santosh and petitioner H Pramod.At about 10:00 p.m. on 13.06.2017, after marriage party had returned to village, petitioners Ramkishore, Harlal, Manoj, Pramod and Rakesh and Miththulal Choudhary caught hold of the deceased and started beating him badly with kicks and fisticuffs.Thereafter, petitioners Ramkishore, Pramod and Rakesh caught hold of the hand of the deceased and pushed him hard.As a result, Santosh fell on the ground, face first.Thereafter, Santosh's brother Prakash and his father lifted the deceased and took him to Government hospital on motorcycle.The deceased died as a result of head injury.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it appears from the material on record that there was a sudden fight sh between the deceased on one hand and the petitioners on the other.This was not a pre-planned and premeditated murder.e ad None of the petitioners used any weapon in the incident, not even a stick.They are said to have beaten the deceased only Pr with kicks and fisticuffs.Deceased died as a result of a accidental fall.It has further been submitted that no specific hy role has been ascribed to petitioners Harlal and Manoj in the ad incident.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners M be released on bail.of Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.rt From the statements of witnesses, it appears that no specific ou role has been ascribed in the incident to petitioners Harlal C and Manoj.The deceased appears to have sustained head injury when he was thrown on the ground, face first, by h ig petitioners Ramkishore, Rakesh and Pramod.H In these circumstances, petitioners Harlal and Manoj are entitled to be released on bail.However, it would not be appropriate to release Ramkishore, Rakesh and Pramod at this stage in the case.Consequently, the prayer for bail made on behalf of petitioners Harlal Choudhary and Manoj Choudhary is allowed.It is directed that petitioners Harlal Choudhary and Manoj Choudhary shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the sh case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.e ad The prayer for bail made on behalf of petitioners Ramkishore Choudhary, Rakesh Choudhary and Pramod Choudhary is Pr dismissed.They shall be free to renew their prayer at a later a stage of the trial.hy Certified Copy as per rules.ad M (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE of rt ou C b BIJU BABY 2017.11.01 22:05:43 h-07'00' ig H | ['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,459,673 | The matter has been placed today in the additional cause list, in Chambers.Heard Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Krishna Ji Pal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA for the State through video-conferencing.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant -Mohseen with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.544 of 2019, under Sections-406, 420, 411 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.Perused the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof.From perusal of the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:(ii) against FIR lodged on 16.07.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 22.07.2019 i.e. for more than ten months;(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation.(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;Bail Application Nos.38249 of 2019 and 39348 of 2019 vide separate order dated 23.04.2020;The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 27.5.2020 Shubham | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,329,296 | Heard SriRajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for releasing the applicant on bail during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No.487 of 2018, under Sections-376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Pihani, District- Hardoi.It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution story, the daughter of the informant, namely, Savita aged about 15 years, has been raped by the applicant, who is named in the first information report.It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of the victim was recorded in the trial court in which she stated that she has not seen person who has raped her.In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,330,021 | RESERVED ON :- FEBRUARY 12, 2019 PRONOUNCED ON :- FEBRUARY 13, 2019P. C. :-Even after her education was completed and when she wasworking at Malegaon, the Appellant used to visit her.The prosecutrixstarted asking him about their marriage.However, the Appellantstarted avoiding the subject.He stopped using his mobile phonenumber.The Appeal is preferred under theprovisions of Section 14A(1) of The Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Atrocities Act'.)URS 1 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 ::: 2 901-APEAL 1147-18.odt::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 :::The FIR vide C.R.No.I-163 of 2018 was registered atManmad City Police Station, District Nashik, under Section 376(2)(n)of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act. TheFIR was lodged by the prosecutrix who was aged 21 years asmentioned in the FIR.While she was in college, the Appellant contacted her andproposed to have love affair with him.The prosecutrix told him thatshe wanted to concentrate on her education and that she was notinterested.It is mentioned in the FIR that she clearly told him thatshe belonged to Mahar caste and the Appellant was belonging to adifferent caste and therefore, his parents would be objecting to theirmarriage.Even after the prosecutrix mentioned this to him, heinsisted that he would look after the prosecutrix.The Appellantdeliberately increased their interactions.It is the prosecutrix's case inthe FIR that the Appellant had assured to marry her and was treatingher as his future wife.It is the case of the prosecutirx that based onsuch promise, he developed physical relations with the prosecutrixURS 2 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 ::: 3 901-APEAL 1147-18.odtand they had sexual intercourse at different places on differentoccasions.The prosecutix, time and again asked him about theirmarriage but he refused.The FIR was lodged under the afore-mentioned sections.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 :::We have heard Mr. Aniket Nikam, learned Counsel for theAppellant and Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for State.State of Karnatakareported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1639 and on an order dated13th July 2007 (in Criminal Writ Petition No.363 of 2007) passedby a learned Single Judge of this Court at Nagpur Bench in the caseof Ashok Bapurao Thorat Vs.The State of Maharashtra & Another.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 :::Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for State,opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that theoffence was made out and there was bar under the provisions of theAtrocities Act to grant such relief.We have considered the submissions made by the learnedCounsel for both parties.To come out of the clutches of the definition of rape underthe IPC, it is necessary for the Appellant to establish that consent ofthe prosecutrix was not given under some misconception of facts.Section 90 of IPC mentions thus :::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 :::However in that case, the trial was completed and the observationswere in respect of the evidence before the Court.In the present caseURS 5 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 ::: 6 901-APEAL 1147-18.odtbefore us, the trial is yet to commence and whether the consent wasgiven under misconception of facts or otherwise, can only beestablished after the evidence is recorded.The offence assumesseriousness because the prosecutrix was belonging to the castecovered under the Atrocities Act and the Appellant was well aware ofsuch fact right from the beginning.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 :::Theprayer for anticipatory bail made by the Appellant is consequentlyrejected.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 02:19:02 ::: | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
693,351 | (made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the convict prisoner Velu @ Velmurugan (convict No.79319) son of Annamalai, who is now under detention in Central Prison, Coimbatore on having been convicted by the trial court (III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem) for the offences under Sections 147 IPC, 302 r/w 149 IPC and 323 IPC (2 counts) and the conviction and sentence having been confirmed by this court in an appeal preferred against the judgment of the trial court.The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of writ of habeas corpus directing the production of the above said detenu Velu @ Velmurugan before this court and pass an order setting him at liberty on the premise that the said convict is entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended by Act 33 of 2006, since on the date of occurrence he had not completed the age of 18 years.The detenu concerned in this HCP, namely Velu @ Velmurugan figured as the 5th accused in Sessions Case No.6/1999 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.Along with him four other persons were also prosecuted in the said sessions case.After trial, the trial court found the detenu, who figured as the 5th accused in the said case, guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 r/w 149 and 323 (2 counts) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 147 IPC, life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months in respect of each count of the offence under Section 323 IPC.Challenging the conviction and sentence, an appeal was preferred by all the accused in Crl.A.No.785/2001 on the file of this court.After hearing, this court (Division Bench) dismissed the appeal in toto and confirmed the conviction and sentence as per the judgment of the trial court.Pursuant to the dismissal of the said appeal, all the accused including the detenu concerned in this HCP surrendered on 04.10.2005 before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and were sent to the prison for undergoing sentence.It is the contention raised by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu that the detenu is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended by Act 33 of 2006, since he was a juvenile in accordance with the definition of the said term found in the Act, in so far as he had not completed the age of 18 years as on the date of commission of the offences for which he was prosecuted and convicted.It is the contention of the petitioner that though the case might have been disposed of and the appeal might have been concluded, if the detenu (convict) happened to be a person having not completed the age of 18 years as on the date of occurrence, then at any point of time, before any court, the plea of juvenility can be raised and necessary relief can be sought for.In support of the claim of the petitioner that the detenu had not completed the age of 18 years and was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offences, the petitioner has produced copies of SSLC certificate and Higher Secondary Course certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Tamil Nadu and Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Tamil Nadu respectively.A copy of the transfer certificate has also been produced.They are found in pages 1, 2 and 3 of the typed set of papers.Based on the said documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu was aged below 18 years on the date of occurrence and the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended by Act 33 of 2006, should be extended to the detenu and he should be set at liberty forthwith.This court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions as to the genuineness of the said certificates.The third respondent filed an affidavit stating that, on verification after getting the original certificates, it was found that the certificates were that of the detenu and they were genuine.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that based on the materials placed by the petitioner and based on the affidavit of the third respondent, appropriate orders may be passed. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,346,207 | Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant- Chandresh Yadav @ Chanda against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2016, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 12, Varanasi, in S.T. No. 161 of 2015 (State Vs.Chandresh Yadav @ Chanda), arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2015, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi, whereby convicted under Section 304 IPC, for 8 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default of fine, 4 months additional imprisonment and under sections 504 IPC for 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of fine 2 months additional imprisonment to appellant.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Brief facts of this case are as follows-:The written complaint (Ext. Ka-1) lodged by complainant Namwar Singh, P.W. 1 by way of NCR (Ext. Ka-5) with allegation that on 21.01.015 in the morning at 10.30 a.m. appellant Chandresh Yadav S/o Buddhu Yadav was giving filthy abuses to his younger brother Arvind Yadav when he refused to do so then appellant gave a lathi blow on the head of deceased Arvind Yadav due to such assault deceased got serious injury.On the basis of written complaint by P.W.1 NCR No. 10/2015 was lodged at police station Shivpur, under sections 323, 504 IPC at 15.05 p.m. on 21.01.2015 which was duly entered in G.D. Injured Arvind Kumar Yadav admitted in Pandit.Deen Dayal Upadhyay Government Hospital, Varanasi, for treatment, but on account of serious condition deceased referred to Nova Hospital, Varanasi, for better treatment, where he died on 28.01.2015 at 6.35 p.m. after 7 days on account of head injury sustained by him.The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector Raghvendra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 4).He received all the documents related to this case and enclosed in CD and during investigation recorded the statement of constable clerk Vinod Kumar and after recorded the statement of P.W. 1, prepared site plan Ext. Ka-3 on pointing out of complainant and thereafter the statement of sub-Inspector Kashyap Kumar was recorded who prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-2, after recording the statement of eye-witnesses, completing the formalities of investigation, charge-sheet Ext. Ka-5 submitted under sections 323, 504, 304 IPC.He has found following injuries on the person of deceased Arvind Kumar Yadav:-Contusion 10.5cm x 4.5cm placed on right side upper lateral part of chest up to nipple from the axilla.Contusion 6.5cm x 4cm placed on left left side upper and lateral part of chest at level of left nipple.On opening scalp extravasation of blood on frontal area of scalp in area 10cm x 4.5cm.on opening the scalp extravasation of blood on external occipital on protuberance below in area 5cm x 3.2cm.Colour of contusion purplish in colour.Internal Examination- the bone behind the head was fractured.Membrane of brain was congested.Brain was also congested.Cause of death due to effects of Coma as a result of Head and Brain injuries.Since the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable by the court of session, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, committed the case to the court of session for the trial where the case crime No. 20 of 2015 was registered as ST.No. 161 of 2015 (State vs. Chandrash Yadav), made over for trial from there to the court of sessions Judge, Court no. 12, Varanasi, on the basis of material on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused-appellant, framed charge under Sections 304, 504 IPC.The accused-appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to prove his case against the appellant examined P.W.1 Namwar Singh, who is the real brother of the appellant, P.W. 2 Baddu Yadav, father of the deceased, P.W. 3 Heerawati Yadav, mother of the deceased, P.W. 4 Raghvendra Bahadur, Sub-inspector, Investigating Officr (formal witness) and P.W. 5, Dr. Surendra Kumar Pandey, who was conducted the autopsy of the deceased, who was also formal witness.Accused-appellant in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied his participation and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.The accused-appellant did not however adduce any evidence in defence.The Additional Session Judge, Court No. 12, Varanasi, by impugned judgment and order after analyzing the evidence convicted the appellant under section 304, 504 IPC as above, hence this appeal.It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is poor person and there is no intention to kill the deceased and due to sudden quarrel this occurrence has happened and death of the injured occurred after seven days due to negligence of the doctor and no offence against the appellant is made out under Section 323 Cr.P.C. and finally submitted that offence, if any would not traverse beyond section 325 IPC and further argued that due to poverty of appellant he could not able to engage layer of his choice at the time of trial.During trial amicus curiae was appointed by trial court and case of the appellant contested by amicus curiae.It is also submitted that he was arrested on 01.02.2015 since then the appellant languishing in jail and also submitted that he is the sole bread earner in his family and he is the father of young children, so by taking lenient view, he could be punished by minimum sentence.Learned AGA has opposed the prayer and submitted that the accused was rightly convicted by the sessions court and there is no occasion for interference against the judgment and order of learned trial court and this appeal lacks merit and the same should be dismissed.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and carefully perused the entire record of the case.Although these 3 witnesses are relative witness but these 3 witnesses are natural witness and incident was happened inside the house, hence presence of the above witnesses at the spot is not suspicious from any point of view.On careful examination of the evidence adducef by these 3 witnesses is transpires that the appellant inflicted the lathi blow on the head of deceased and due to this single lathi blow deceased succumbed due to this injury during treatment.So the evidence produced by the prosecution inspire confidence.Prosecution is able to prove his case beyond all shadow of doubt.To come to the point, it was proved by evidence on record that after brief altercation and exchange of abuses between the deceased on the one hand and accused appellant on the other, in the heat of passion the appellant Chandresh gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased which proved to be fatal.It was a culpable homicide not amounting to murder.It is also peculiar fact that the blow was not repeated.Admittedly, the incident happened at the spur of the moment.Though he had no intention of causing either death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death.But knowledge has to be imputed to him that the act of striking lathi blow on the head of the deceased was likely to cause his death.The appellant gave a single lathi blow on the head of the deceased which proved fatal;Injury inflicted on the body of the deceased is not caused by the appellant that to fatal.The incident took place on 21.01.2015 at 10.30 a.m. and the deceased remained hospitalized from 21.01.2015 to 28.01.205 and ultimately died on 28.01.2015 at Nova Hospital, Varanasi.The trial court observed that there was no previous enmity between the parties.The accused gave one blow with the spear on the chest of the deceased causing his death.The injury was an incised wound.The Sessions Judge convicted the accused under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent."As the appellant's family consists of one minor daughter, two minor sons and wife and all of whom dependent on him and the appellant has no previous criminal history. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 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. |
69,347,513 | Consequently, the detenu, namely, Guna @ Gunasekaran, S/o.Poorasamy, aged about 39 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.SML/RSB To2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 H.C.P(MD)No.1071 of 2019 P.N.PRAKASH,J.[Order of the Court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Guna @ Gunasekaran, S/o.Poorasamy, aged about 39 years.The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 09.10.2019, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as “Goonda”.Challenging the same, the petititoner is before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.It is seen that the detenu came to the adverse notice in Vengamedu Police Station Crime No.155 of 2018 under Section 392 IPC; Karur Town Police Station Crime No.336 of 2018 under Section 392 IPC; Aravakurichi Police Station Crime No.226 of 2019 under Section 392 IPC; Aravakurichi Police Station Crime No. 251/2019 under Section 392 IPC and the ground case in Aravakurichi Police Station Crime No.272 of 2019 under Section 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC, based on which, the detention order has been clamped against the detenu.The Detaining Authority, while arriving at the subjective satisfaction for detaining the detenu, has relied upon the bail granted to an accused similarly placed as that of the detenu under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under Section 437 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, in the opinion of this Court, vitiates the detention order and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 H.C.P(MD)No.1071 of 2019AND B.PUGALENDHI,J.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
69,349,247 | A. 359/2006 Page 1 of 15The prosecutions case is briefly as follows:-3.1 On 06.08.1994, at about 3.20 pm, a telephonic information was received by the police personnel at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar that one Smt Baby r/o 14/481 Dakshinpuri had hung herself.This information was diarized and entered under DD No. 13A. The said DD No. 13A was forwarded to SI Om Prakash (PW12).PW5 specifically adverted to the fact that when the appellant visited her house along with the deceased they had tried to persuade the appellant not to harass the deceased.Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellant : Mr. K B Andley, Sr Advocate with Mr M Shamikh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr R N Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor CORAM :-This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as the Cr.P.C) against the judgment dated 28.04.2006 and sentence dated 02.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi.By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to in short as the I.P.C).Consequently, the appellant has been accorded punishment whereby he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs 2,000/- in respect of his conviction under Section 304B of the I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellant would be required to undergo a further simple imprisonment for a period of two months.In regard to the appellants conviction under Crl.A. 359/2006 Page 1 of 15 Section 498A of the I.P.C, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs 1,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant would be required to undergo a further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.Both sentences are to run concurrently.SI Om Prakash (PW12) alongwith SI Rajesh Kumar and Constable Karambir Singh proceeded to the address where reportedly the incident had occurred.On reaching the site of the incident, they found the body of the deceased laid out on a bed with two pieces of Scarf (Chunni) lying near her body.3.2 Immediately, SI Om Prakash (PW12) informed the Crime Investigation Team.SI Om Prakash (PW12), thereafter, took the body of the deceased Smt Baby to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to in short as the AIIMS).He also informed the concerned SDM, i.e., one Ms Namita Dutt (PW3) as regards the occurrence of the incident.3.3 On the next day i.e., 07.08.1994, the SDM recorded the statement (Ex PW2/A) of Sh Suresh Kumar (PW2) who is one of the brothers of deceased and thereafter directed the registration of the FIR based on the said statement.3.4 Consequent thereto, a rukka was received at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar based on which Sh Sunil Yadav (PW10) recorded a FIR (Ex PW10/A).After investigation, a case was registered against the appellant, his father Sh Munshi Ram, since deceased, his mother Smt Ramshri and his sister Asha.In the result charges were framed by the trial Court vide order dated 16.04.1996 against the appellant and his mother under Section Crl.A. 359/2006 Page 2 of 15 304B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and Section 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.. Since the appellant and his mother pleaded that they were not guilty a trial was conducted.A. 359/2006 Page 2 of 15By the impugned judgment, the trial court, as noticed above, convicted the appellant of the offence under Sections 498A/304B of the I.P.C. The mother of the appellant Smt Ramshri was acquitted of the charges framed against her.In support of the case, the prosecution has cited 13 witnesses.The appellant has cited two witnesses.The appellants statement was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C by the trial court.The learned counsel for the appellant Mr K B Andley, Senior Advocate assailed the judgment of the trial court on the following grounds:-(i) the trial court failed to appreciate the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304B of the I.P.C and the evidence brought on record by the prosecution for proving its case in regard to the defence under the said section.He elaborated his submissions in regard to the same by stressing on the aspect that the appellant could be convicted in respect of the said offence only if there was evidence on record to show that dowry had been demanded by the appellant "soon before" the death of Smt Baby;(ii) a reading of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses would clearly show that there was no harassment or demand for dowry for articles "soon before" the death of Smt. Baby;(iii) in so far as the appellants conviction under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is concerned, the same was erroneous in view of lack of any direct evidence.The testimony of the brothers of the deceased with regard to the demand for dowry was hearsay.Such evidence is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as Evidence Act), which is related to the cause of death as in the case of a dying declaration;A. 359/2006 Page 3 of 15A. 359/2006 Page 3 of 15(iv) a perusal of testimony of various witnesses, who deposed on behalf of the prosecution, would show that there were inherent contradictions in the statement made to the court, an aspect which the trial court failed to appreciate.In order to demonstrate this, the learned counsel brought to fore the following:(a) in the statement (Ex. PW2/A), of Suresh (PW2) (the brother of the deceased) recorded on 07.08.1994, based on which a FIR was recorded, there is no mention of demand of dowry of Rs 50,000/- by the appellant.The deposition of PW2, on this aspect in the Court, is definitely an improvement;As a matter of fact PW4 deposed that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs 30-40 thousand for setting up a shop.The trial court, based on the same evidence, has acquitted the other accused, i.e., the mother of the appellant, while curiously has convicted the appellant; and(c) lastly, the SDM (PW3), who had recorded the statement, based on which the FIR was registered, was not fully examined-in-chief and hence, she could also not be cross- examined.This, according to the defence, was the fatal flaw in the case.The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission cited following judgments:As against this, Mr R. N. Vats, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (in short the APP) submitted as follows:Consequently, the first Crl.A. 359/2006 Page 4 of 15 ingredient of Section 304B of the I.P.C. stood proved, as the death is occurred within seven years of marriage.A. 359/2006 Page 4 of 158.2 The testimony of the prosecution witness Dr. Sudhir Kr.Gupta (PW1) clearly brought to fore the aspect that the death of Smt. Baby had taken place on account of unnatural circumstances.The cause of death was opined as Asphyxia, as a result of antemortem, hanging by a ligature.Therefore, the second ingredient of Section 304B of the I.P.C. was also established, as there was no reason to doubt the veracity of the opinion recorded in post mortem report (Ex.PW1/A).8.3 As regards the third aspect, he submitted that a close perusal of the testimony of each of the prosecution witnesses would show that the deceased, Smt. Baby, was harassed with dowry demands.The brother of the deceased, Suresh (PW2), had clearly adverted to the fact that on 24.07.1994 a sum of Rs 7,000/- had been paid in cash to the appellant, and furthermore just two days before Smt. Baby committed suicide, she had visited her matrimonial home (i.e., on 04.08.1994) at which point in time she had complained of having harassed for dowry.It was thus submitted that the third ingredient, that there should have been demands for dowry, soon before the unnatural death of a victim, that is, within seven years of marriage, was also clearly established.It was further submitted that no suggestion whatsoever was made to the prosecution witnesses with regard to the payment of Rs 7,000/- to the appellant on 24.07.1994 or the demand for dowry, or even with regard to the deceased having visited her matrimonial home on 04.08.1994, and the events which transpired on that date.It was thus submitted that there was nothing, which was brought on record to have the court disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of harassment of the deceased Smt. Baby, on account of demand for dowry.In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it may perhaps be necessary to briefly note as to what each of the witnesses had to say with regard to the issue as to whether the deceased Smt. Baby was harassed for dowry soon before her death within the meaning of Section 304B of the I.P.C. and/or was Crl.A. 359/2006 Page 5 of 15 subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the I.P.C. The fact that the deceased got married on 15.02.1994 and that her death on 06.08.1994 had occurred on account of unnatural circumstances is not only proved but also not been put in issue by the appellant.A. 359/2006 Page 5 of 15On the aspect of death of Smt. Baby being unnatural, the learned APP has, in my view, correctly relied upon both the postmortem report (Ex. PW1/A) as also the testimony of Dr. Sudhir Dr. Gupta (PW1) who has proved the report.The cause of the death in the postmortem report (Ex.PW1/A) is recorded as Asphyxia, as a result of antemortem, hanging by a ligature.This aspect is also supported by the testimony of other prosecution witness Suresh (PW2) who said that he had found the body of the deceased on the bed with marks under her neck as well as on the bottom portion of the face.Similarly, Manju (PW5) deposed that when she reached the house, the deceased was found dead, and she had noticed marks on her neck.This was also adverted to by Ashok Kumar (PW6), the other brother of the deceased, who said that when he saw the body of the deceased the tongue and eyes were protruding out.Therefore, as indicated above, the evidence of the prosecution really seems to require analysis with respect to the aspect as to whether the deceased was harassed for dowry soon before her death or was subjected to cruelty.Suresh Kumar (PW2), in his first statement to the police (Ex. PW2/A) given on 07.08.1994, had stated that the appellant was not happy with the watch and the furniture which had been given at the time of marriage as part of the dowry and that the appellant desired that he be given another watch.It is also recorded in the said statement that it is for these reasons that his sister Smt. Baby had hung herself.In his deposition in Court, PW2 stated that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased Smt. Baby took place on 15.02.1994; the expenses on the marriage were made according to the capacity of the family; the appellant had started harassing and physically abusing his sister and demanded dowry; the appellant complained that the dowry articles, given at the time of marriage, were of poor quality; the appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash, one scooter Crl.A. 359/2006 Page 6 of 15 and a wrist watch apart from a demand of Rs 50,000/- to purchase a shop; the appellant was paid on 24.07.1994, a sum of Rs 7,000/- in cash, and; lastly, that on 04.08.1994, the deceased had come to the matrimonial house along with the appellant in a perplexed state, and at which point in time, she had said that she was being harassed by the appellant and that it would be perhaps her last visit to the matrimonial house.In the cross-examination, PW2 did not say anything contrary to or inconsistent with what was stated by him in his examination-in-chief.A. 359/2006 Page 6 of 15Smt. Suman (PW4), one of the sister-in-laws of the deceased, deposed to the effect that her father-in-law (i.e., the father of the deceased) had incurred expenses according to his capacity at the time of marriage of the deceased; whenever the deceased visited their house she complained that both the appellant and his mother harassed her for dowry; on 04.08.1994, when the deceased had visited their house she had told them that the appellant and his mother demanded a sum of Rs 30-40 thousand for setting up a shop; and at that time the father-in-law had paid 50% of the money demanded by the appellant, and; lastly, that the appellant used to bring the deceased to their house every Sunday for demanding dowry.In her cross-examination, PW4 denied the suggestion that the appellant had not demanded Rs 30-40 thousand for setting up a shop.PW4 also denied the suggestion that on 04.08.1994, the deceased had not visited her matrimonial home.She also denied the suggestion that the father-in-law had not given money to the appellant.PW4 also denied the suggestion that the deceased was in love with some other person before marriage, that is, one Mr Deepak,In similar vein, Smt. Manju (PW5), who is also the sister-in-law of the deceased, supported the case of the prosecution.In addition, she said that the appellant harassed the deceased with regard to the fact that she had brought insufficient dowry; and that the appellant would often taunt that the deceased belongs to a family of paupers.She stated Crl.A. 359/2006 Page 7 of 15 that the appellant, instead of accepting their advice, complained about the sub-standard quality of the articles given at the time of marriage.In her cross-examination, PW5 consistently denied all suggestions that the appellant did not harass the deceased on account of dowry.A. 359/2006 Page 7 of 15Ashok (PW6), the other brother of the deceased, Smt. Baby, deposed to the effect that after marriage the appellant and the members of his family started harassing deceased for bringing insufficient dowry.He specifically testified that in the second month of marriage, the appellant had demanded an amount of Rs 10,000, in cash, which was paid by the family to the appellant for the sake of their sister, that is, the deceased.He deposed that the demands of the appellant, however, did not abate.PW6 also adverted to the effect that the appellant had demanded a two wheeler scooter and Rs 50,000/- to set up a shop.He also testified that the appellant had threatened that if he was not paid the said sum of Rs 50,000/- he would not be responsible for the safety of his sister.He further stated that on 04.08.1994, the appellant had sent the deceased to their house for the purposes of having the deceased persuade the family to give Rs 50,000/-, if she was desirous of staying with her in-laws.In the cross-examination, when confronted with the statement made to the police (Ex. PW6/DA), it came through that eventhough PW6 had not referred to the fact that the deceased was harassed within two months of the marriage, it was mentioned by PW6 that the deceased was harassed and threatened.Furthermore, in his cross-examination it also emerged that in his statement to the police (Ex.PW6/DA) it is not recorded that the appellant had threatened that in case if he was not paid Rs 50,000/- he would not be responsible for the safety of the deceased.He, however, denied the suggestion that the appellant had not demanded Rs 50,000/- or two wheeler scooter or the fact that Rs 10,000/- was paid in cash to the appellant.At the time of marriage, PW7 spent about Rs 70-80 thousand.He also deposed that several household articles were given as gifts to his Crl.A. 359/2006 Page 8 of 15 daughter, which included bed, sofa set, Almirah, TV, Box, utensils, clothes and jewellary.He testified that after marriage, the deceased was harassed by the appellant and his family members on account of insufficient and sub-standard quality of the articles given as gifts at the time of marriage.He specifically adverted to the fact that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs 50,000/- for setting up a shop and that part of the money was paid by him.In his cross-examination he was confronted with statement made by him to the police wherein it was not recorded that the appellant had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for setting up a shop.He also accepted the fact that he was, at the relevant point in time, working in the American Embassy as a safai karamchari at a salary of Rs 5,000/-.He also accepted the fact that he has seven children and that prior to the marriage of the deceased he had married three other children.He volunteered that at the time of arrival of the baraat the appellant had demanded Rs 20,000/-.A. 359/2006 Page 8 of 15It is evident, upon perusal of the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW2, PW4, PW5, PW6 & PW7, that the appellant did harass the deceased with regard to the fact that the dowry, that she had got with her at the time of marriage, was both insufficient and of poor quality.In my opinion, the evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly points to the fact that the deceased Smt. Baby was subjected to harassment and cruelty which was connected to the demand for dowry.As observed above, the other ingredients of provisions of Section 304B of the I.P.C. are not only proved but also have not been disputed by the appellant.In these circumstances, the ingredients of cruelty, as given in Explanation b to Section 498A of the I.P.C., also stands fulfilled.A. 359/2006 Page 10 of 15A. 359/2006 Page 9 of 15The appeal is dismissed.RAJIV SHAKDHER, J DECEMBER 16, 2009 mb/kk Crl. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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. |
6,934,950 | RC.No.831/2007 The Inspector of Police,CBCID, Villupuram. .. Respondent in Crl.RC.No.864/2007 Criminal Revisions are filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the common judgment dated 9.6.2007 made in Crl.A.Nos.43 and 42/2006 respectively on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tindivanam confirming the judgment dated 21.8.2006 made in CC.No.52/1998 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.2.The case of the prosecution is that originally A1 and A2, who were then the Sub Inspector of Police and Head Constable of Gingee Police Station, along with A3 to A8 Police personnel attached to different Police Station, were charged for serious offences as if A1 and A2 trespassed into the house of PW1 Chandra and PW2 Balaraman and forcibly took PW2 Balaraman and PW4 Pachayappan.While doing so, A1 took Aruval from the roof of the house and cut the rope of Mangalya Sutra worn by PW1 and took Mangalyasutra and other gold items and both PW1 and PW2 were taken by Car to Gingee Police Station, where they were illegally detained for one week and thereafter to Sathyamangalam Police Station, where they were detained for two weeks.In the course of their illegal detention at Sathyamangalam Police Station, other police personnel have brought food daily by rotation to PW2 and PW4 and again, PW2 and PW4 were taken to various places and at last brought to Banruti Police Station, having A8 Kannaian as Sub Inspector of Police, where the case was registered against them and their signature were obtained and thereafter, they were taken to Sub Jail, Panruti and produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court and then remanded to judicial custody.3.Originally, PW1/wife and PW3/mother approached PW10, Prof.Kalyani at Tindivanam through one Kannan, on 18.2.1994 at about 2.00 pm and PW10 Kalyani obtained statement from PW1/Chandra and PW3/ Thaiyalnayaki/mother, in the presence of PW11/Lousina and obtained their left thump impression and sent the same to the District Collector, Villupuram and the copies were sent to District Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee and the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for necessary action and the copy of the complaint was also sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam through PW11 Lousina.As the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam was not available, PW11 Lousina handed over the copy of the complaint to PW26 Suyambu, Sub Inspector of Police in the camp office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam and requested him to hand over the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam.4.PW1, having found no further action on the complaint, approached this court by way of Crl.O.P. and the same was originally dismissed on 13.6.1994 and the order of this court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, who remanded the mater for fresh disposal of the High Court.After remand, this court enquired into the matter and disposed of the petition by directing the Principal District Judge, Villupuram to conduct an enquiry regarding this matter and submitted a detailed report to this Court.Our High Court, in HCP.399/94 on the basis of report and enquiry, awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation to PW1 and PW2 Balaraman and directed the Inspector General of Police (Crimes), CBCID to register the case and to investigate the matter.Thereafter, PW30 Harikrishnan, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Villupuram received Ex.P1 memo on 18.1.1996 from the Additional Director of Police (Crime) Madras dated 11.1.1996 directing him to register FIR and to submit the plan of investigation immediately regarding this matter and thereafter, he registered the case in Crime No.1/96 under sections 451, 354, 379, 344 and 220 IPC and prepared Ex.P9 FIR and submitted FIR along with relevant documents to the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur and other officials.Thereafter, the matter was investigated into by PW31 Meer Sowgath Ali, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chengalpet Range, who went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar, drew rough sketch, recorded statement from the witnesses and recovered MO1 to MO3 material objects.The Investigating Officer also took steps to conduct identification parade and the same was held on 6.11.1997 and also obtained confession statement from the accused.After investigation, PW31/IO filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 220, 451, 380, 365, 344, 345 r/w 34 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur.6.The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences as referred to above, examined PW1 to PW32 and produced Exs.P1 to P35 documents, besides MO1 to MO6 material objects.No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the accused.The trial court, on the basis of the available evidence, accepted the prosecution case and found A1 to A7 guilty of the respective charges framed against them and convicted and sentenced them.Aggrieved against the same, A1 to A7 preferred CA.Nos.40 to 45/2006 before the lower appellate court.9.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.The witnesses PW1 Chandra and PW9 Vijaya and PW10 Prof.Kalyani, PW11 Lousina and PW31 Meer Sowgath Ali, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chengalpet Range/Investigating Officer have categorically admitted that PW1 Chandra and PW3 Thaiyalnayagi went to the house of PW10 Prof.Kalyani, who obtained their statement and prepared the complaint and read over the same to them and sent the same to the District Collector, Villupuram and copies of the same were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee and the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for necessary action.PW11 Lousina handed over the copy of the complaint to PW26 Suyambu, Sub Inspector of Police in the camp office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam and requested him to hand over the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam and investigation was held by PW31, who enquired the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police in connection with the same.However, the document which is the earlier complaint in this regard is yet to see the light of the day.The complainant mentioned in the affidavit filed before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer also dealt with the occurrence is not seriously disputed.The High Court in HCP No.399/94 while accepting the observation made by the Enquiry Officer based on the evidence recorded by him, was pleased to dispose of HCP, by awarding compensation to PW1 and PW2 and by directing the Inspector General of Police (Crimes), CBCID, Chennai to register the case and conduct investigation, on the basis of the facts emanated from the HCP order and the report of the Enquiry Officer.But as the existence of the earlier complaint by the victim was already brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court through enquiry report and as the High court directed the Inspector General of Police (Crimes), CBCID, Chennai to register the case afresh, the question of drawing any adverse inference against the same does not arise herein.11.The second objection is unfairness and biased nature of the prosecution against A1 and A2/police officials attached to Gingee Police station and A3 to A7/police officials attached to different police station.This Court finds serious legal force in the argument so advanced on the side of the petitioners for the following reason.As already stated above, the charges framed against the accused are that they detained PW2 Balaraman and PW4 Pachiayappan illegally between 16.2.1994 and 14.3.1994 in Gingee Police Station, Sathyamangalam Police Station and Panruti Police station, wherein, false case was foisted against PW2 and PW4 for an act of theft in Cr.No.191/1994 under Section 41 and 102 Cr.Though it is categorically admitted by PW31 that he enquired the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police and also other general public, none of them deposed about illegal detention of PW2 and PW4 and no further investigation was held against them in this regard.12.Further allegations raised against the accused are that PW2 and PW4 were taken to Sathyamangalam Police Station from Gingee Police Station and detained there for two weeks.It is nobody's case that Sathyamangalam Police Station had no Deputy Superintendent of Police or Inspector of Police or Sub Inspector of Police.Here again, no investigation was held as to whether the so called illegal detention was with or without the knowledge of the higher officials attached to Sathyamangalam Police Station.The police personnel arrayed as A3 and A7 are the lower grade police officials attached to different police station and there is no explanation on the prosecution side as to why higher official are let free without any investigation in this regard.13.Even otherwise, the Investigating Officer ought to have recorded the statement of the other officials as referred to above who were in Gingee police Station and Sathyamangalam Police Station on day to day duty, had they been present and discharged their duties daily, they would have been aware of the illegal detention of PW2 and PW4 in their respective police stations.In that event, their failure to hold any enquiry and intimate the same to higher official amounts to dereliction of duty or amounts to an act of abetment in ably aiding the accused in continuing the offence.Further the Sub Inspector of Police of either of the police stations was neither arrayed as accused nor as witness to ascertain the fact.Such failure on the part of the prosecution to do so is arbitrary, unfair and biased and would render the entire proceedings to be vitiated.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would also draw the attention of this Court to the manner in which charges were framed against the accused.Had it been true that PW2 and PW4 were detained at the instance of A1 and A2 at Gingee and Sathyamangalam Police Station, the same could have come to the knowledge of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, but Deputy Superintendent of Police was omitted to be examined before the court and such omission remains unexplained by the prosecution.Further description by PW31 about the location of the police station and the location of different rooms without separate lock up room in the same and the location of Taluk office, Police Station and court under the same roof would not support the prosecution case regarding illegal detention without knowing others about the same.16.The next aspect to be seen herein is want of sanction order for prosecuting the Police officials.Order 63 of the Tamil Nadu Standing Order makes it mandatory to obtain sanction to institute the criminal prosecution against the police officer for the offence committed in his official capacity.Here in this case, the sanction order was not produced along with charge sheet.The copies of the sanction order produced as Exs.P30 to P33 are marked through PW31/Investigating Officer.The competent person to speak about the same is the sanctioning authority, who is not examined as one of the witnesses for the reasons best known to the prosecution and such omission is serious enough to go into the root of the case and would raise a serious doubt as to whether any sanction is actually obtained or not and the same renders the entire prosecution to be bad in law and stands vitiated.It is categorically admitted by PW1 Chandra and PW9 Vijaya that Gingee Police frequently visited their place and because of such visit, their people were unable to move freely from and out of their place and they decided to lodge the police complaint so as to prevent them from making frequent visit to their place.It is also categorically admitted by them that none of the police official stepped into their village and come to their houses to make any enquiry and the witnesses were summoned to common place and made enquiry. | ['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
3,948,861 | (VINOD SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 20-05-2019 Shri Sourabh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rohit Soughara, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.Heard on the question of grant of anticipatory bail.This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant in connection with Crime No.332/2009 registered at Police Station Nohata, District Damoh for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 506-B of IPC.As the offences registered against the applicant in the year 2009 and he did not appear before the trial Court, arrest warrant has been issued against him.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence registered against the applicant in the year 2009 and he was granted bail by the police station.It is directed that in the event of the applicant's arrest, he be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Date: 22/05/2019 10:45:11 2 MCRC-18590-2019 surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station Concerned.The applicant would be abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.SANJAY DWIVEDI) V. JUDGE Biswal Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Date: 22/05/2019 10:45:11 | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,488,686 | Her hymen was found intact.The skirt which she was wearing at that time was sealed and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory where on examination human semen was detected on that skirt(Ex.P-1).My mother had gone to the market.My father had given me key of the room at about 4 p.m. and told me to open the door of the room.I came down and in the process of opening door of my quarter, accused came there.He forcibly picked me and took me in his room and he started taperecorder.Accused removed his clothes and also removed my underwear and skirt which I was wearing at that time.Thereafter accused applied coconut oil on his private part.He made me lie on the bed and inserted his male organ in my urinal place and started pushing me.Brother of accused came there who used to be called as sonu.He knocked the door.Accused made me hide behind the curtain and opened the door for his brother.His brother and accused sent me outside the room.Then accused took me inside his room I had cried but accused put his hand on my mouth.I narrated entire incident to my father.My father told the facts to my mother when she came back from market.She enquired everything from me in separate room and I told my mother the entire facts.Next day, in the morning my parents took me to police station where my statement was recorded.P.K.BHASIN, J:The prosecution case was that on 7th January, 1997 at about 4 p.m. the prosecutrix, a child of about 7 years of age, was playing on the roof of Crl.A. 774/2006 Page 1 of 16 her house and her father was also sitting on the roof and he gave her the keys of the house and asked her to go downstairs.At that time her mother was not present in the house.While the prosecutrix was opening the door of her house the accused-appellant, who was her neighbour, came there and closed her mouth forcibly and took her to his quarter and bolted the door from inside.He then started playing his tape-recorder at high pitch and thereafter stripped her naked and then raped her.When she was still inside the accused's house his brother knocked at the door and the accused made her hide behind the curtain but when the door was opened the brother of the accused came inside and saw her and then the accused sent her outside and she came back to her home.She informed her parents about the said incident and also to their neighbour (PW-9).On 8th January, 1997 the said incident was narrated to the police by the prosecutrix herself when her mother and based on that statement FIR No. 44/1997 under Sections 376/342 IPC was registered.The prosecutrix was then got medically examined.No external injuries were noticed on her body by the doctor.Since the prosecutrix had named the accused - appellant in her first information statement to the police as the person Crl.A. 774/2006 Page 2 of 16 who had committed rape on her, he was arrested on 10th January, 1997 and he was also got medically examined by the police.During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also got recorded on 9th January, 1997 in which also she had categorically claimed that the accused-appellant Bittoo had committed rape on her.In due course, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant in Court and after committal of the case to the Sessions Court he was charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 376/342 IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the testimony of the prosecutrix(PW-1) and her parents(PW-8 and PW-11) found the accused - appellant guilty for the commission of the afore-said offences.Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed the present appeal.A. 774/2006 Page 1 of 16In support, one judgment of Crl.A. 774/2006 Page 3 of 16 Allahabad High Court in "Zahoor Ali vs. State of UP", 1989 Crl.L.J. 1177 was cited.The prosecution case was also challenged by the learned counsel on the ground that the incident was reported to the police on 9th January, 1997 even though the incident was of 7th January, 1997 and the parents of the prosecutrix were told about the incident same day by the prosecutrix and there was no explanation given by the prosecution for that delay in getting the crime registered.Finally, it was contended by the learned counsel that all the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case when considered alongwith the fact that admittedly there was prior enmity not only between the family of the accused and the father of the prosecutrix but between the accused and other neighbours also, including PW-9 Baljeet Kaur, as deposed by the prosecutrix herself in cross-examination, the benefit of doubt should have been extended to the accused.In reply to the argument of the counsel for the appellant that since admittedly the relations between the family of the prosecutrix and the accused were not cordial the learned prosecutor submitted that despite the fact that the prosecutrix had admitted this fact in her cross- examination that was no ground to reject her testimony and also that of her parents since it cannot be accepted that they would have levelled such kind of false allegations against the accused putting the honour of their own family and their daughter specially at stake to take revenge from the accused.A. 774/2006 Page 5 of 16I have examined and analysed the evidence of the prosecutrix independently with caution in order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State Crl.A. 774/2006 Page 6 of 16 keeping in mind the fact that she had admitted that the relations between her family and that of the accused - appellant were strained for some years.The prosecutrix in this case was examined as PW-1 and she being the star prosecution witness her testimony is being reproduced before considering the grounds of challenge to the reliability of her evidence put forth by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant.This is what the prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed in her examination in chief after the trial Court had satisfied itself about her competence to depose since she was below the age of 12 years by generally questioning her:-A. 774/2006 Page 6 of 16"........ In January 1997 I was residing along with my parents at Gurdawara Shish Ganj in quarters.Accused Avtar Singh @ Bittoo was also residing in one of the quarters in front of my house.As he is residing in room No. 3 and I am residing in room No. 9 On 7.1.97 I was present with my father on terrace.I identify my signature at point A on Ex. PW1/A. I was taken to hospital for medical examination and my skirt was taken by the police.I was also produced before MM for my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. sealed with seal of SK is allowed to Crl.A. 774/2006 Page 7 of 16 open containing statement.Statement is Ex. PW1/B which bears my signature at point B. I narrated entire incident to MM..............."A. 774/2006 Page 7 of 16In her cross-examination on behalf of the accused she categorically claimed that nobody had tutored her before recording of her statement at the police station but her mother had made her understand before she made the statement to the police.She admitted that her parents and the parents of the accused were not having cordial relations and further that the accused was also not having good relations with Surinder Kaur (PW-5) and Baljeet (PW-9).She also stated that she had tried to raise alarm when the accused had lifted her but the accused had gagged her mouth by putting his hand.She further deposed that when the accused had removed his clothes she had raised alarm but none had come.She further stated that when she had come out of the house of the accused she was not crying and she had also not raised any alarm or hue and cry at that time as she was confused.She also stated that when the accused raped her she had severe pain and at that time she had raised hue and cry and had also slapped the accused.She denied the suggestion that she was deposing at the instance of her parents and she had been tutored by them.Having carefully gone through the evidence of the prosecutrix, I find no plausible and justifiable reasons to disbelieve and discard her Crl.A. 774/2006 Page 8 of 16 testimony.She is a wholly trustworthy witness and her evidence cannot be brushed aside for the reasons urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.The prosecutrix has given graphic narration of the incident as was given by her before the police as well as in her statement(Ex.PW- 7/D) before the Magistrate(PW-7) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. No inconsistencies or contradictions could be brought on record during her cross-examination on behalf of the accused.The evidence of the prosecutrix being cogent, wholly reliable and trustworthy alone is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused - appellant, despite the fact that neither any external injuries were found on her body nor her hymen was found to be ruptured.Presence of injuries on the body of a rape victim is not the sine qua non for the offence of rape particularly in the case of rape of a girl of tender age by a fully grown up boy.These judgments were noticed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay also while deciding an appeal against acquittal of the accused for the offence of rape(being Crl.A. No. 192/1990) decided on 7-5-09 - "The State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Shankar Jadhav" (MANU/MH/0356/2009).In that case also there were no injuries found on the body of the victim and her hymen was also found intact at the time of her medical examination after the incident.The victim girl was found to be between 8 to 11 years of age and because of that medical evidence the Sessions Court had convicted the accused only for the offence of attempted rape but the High Court in appeal convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC.A. 774/2006 Page 10 of 16 her parents have denied the suggestions to that effect, it cannot be accepted that the child of tender age would have been tutored by her parents to speak from her mouth such obnoxious words which she used in her testimony.PW-1 claimed that the parents of the accused used to abuse her mother.That even otherwise is not such a serious matter so as to put the small girl in the forefront by her parents to say that she had been raped.The accused - appellant himself during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had not given the nature of disputes between his father and the father of the prosecutrix who was a Raagi in a gurudwara where the accused - appellant was employed as a driver.A. 774/2006 Page 10 of 169. Learned counsel for the appellant had also sought to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix by referring to some parts of the statements of the parents of the prosecutrix(PWs 8 and 11), who had also been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the statement of the prosecutrix that immediately after the incident she had informed them about what had been done to her by the accused - appellant.A. 774/2006 Page 11 of 16 examined to lend strength to the prosecution case that she had also been told about the incident of rape on the day of incident itself, I will examine this submission also of the learned counsel for the accused - appellant.The father of the prosecutrix was examined by the prosecution as PW-11 and her mother was examined as PW-8. PW-11 had in his examination-in- chief supported the version of his daughter that on returning back from the house of the accused she had informed her father about the incident of rape since at that time her mother was not present in the house.He also stated that when his wife came back to house she was also told about the incident.In fact, he had also deposed that the accused was brought to his house by his father and some neighbours and the accused had sought pardon at the instance of his father and the neighbours.That statement of PW-11 was not challenged in his cross-examination and the same, therefore, also lends full support to the prosecution case.He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused because of prior inimical relations with the parents of the accused.Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that PW-11 had claimed that he and his daughter had narrated the incident to his wife(PW-8) while the prosecutrix herself had deposed that it was her father who had told the facts to her mother when she had come back from the market and thereafter her mother had enquired everything from her in a separate Crl.A. 774/2006 Page 12 of 16 room and she had told the entire facts to her mother.I, however, do not find these statements of the prosecutrix and her father to be in any way harmful for the prosecution and the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be viewed with suspicion on this ground.PW-8 Paramjeet Kaur, mother of the prosecutrix, had also claimed that when she had come back to her house at about 6 p.m. her husband had told her that the accused had raped their daughter.She also claimed that the parents of the accused had also come to their house to apologize for the act of the accused.Thus, both PWs 8 and 11 have corroborated each other's version also besides the testimony of the prosecutrix to the effect that she had narrated about the incident to her parents.A. 774/2006 Page 11 of 16A. 774/2006 Page 12 of 16Learned counsel for the appellant had also submitted that if actually the prosecutrix had informed her father about the incident immediately thereafter, as was deposed by her, her father would not have waited for his wife to come back home and would have immediately rushed to the police station to lodge a complaint which he did not do and that circumstance also renders the entire prosecution case highly doubtful.However, I am not persuaded to accept this submission also for rejecting the wholly reliable testimony of the prosecutrix.There was nothing abnormal in the conduct of the father of the prosecutrix in not rushing to the police station immediately without waiting for his wife to Crl.A. 774/2006 Page 13 of 16 come back home.The mother of the prosecutrix had deposed that they had taken their daughter to the hospital same night where they were not entertained by the hospital staff since it was a case of rape and then they had come back around midnight when all of them were very nervous and so the matter was reported to the police next day.In my view, this statement of the mother of the prosecutrix is a sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging of the complaint with the police and the prosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground of delay in the registration of the FIR.A. 774/2006 Page 13 of 16PW9 Baljeet Kaur is the neighbor of the family of the prosecutrix.She had deposed that on 7-1-97 she had gone to the market along with PW-8 Paramjeet Kaur and when they had come back at about 6 p.m. the husband of Paramjeet Kaur had met them and told them that the accused had raped his daughter and thereafter she and Paramjeet Kaur had enquired from PW-1 regarding the incident and she repeated the same facts which had been told to them by her father.In cross-examination, this witness stated that she was informed about the incident by the prosecutrix herself for the first time which was after 15 minutes of their returning from the market.These type of discrepancies and inconsistencies are bound to occur when the witnesses are examined after a long period from the date of some incident.In the present case the incident was of 7th January, 1997 while examination-in-chief of PW-9 in Court was recorded on 24th August, 2000 and cross-examination was recorded about five years thereafter.Therefore, the accused - appellant cannot derive any benefit from this kind of discrepancy and inconsistency in the examination-in-chief of PW-9 and her cross-examination.A. 774/2006 Page 14 of 16The learned prosecutor had also argued that presence of human semen on the skirt of the prosecutrix also lends support to the testimony of the prosecutrix .In this regard he drew my attention to the FSL report Ex. PX.A. 774/2006 Page 15 of 16 of the sentence of imprisonment to be awarded to him taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances, which have been noticed already.The circumstances highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant have definitely made an impact in my mind and the same persuade me to take a lenient view in the matter.However, the leniency which can be shown to the appellant is that no notice of enhancement in sentence is being given to him which I was inclined to issue considering the fact that he had committed such a heinous crime of raping a girl of a tender age.I do not find any reason to award sentence of imprisonment to the appellant less than the minimum prescribed in the Indian Penal Code for the offence of rape of a girl of less than 12 years of age which the trial Court has awarded.A. 774/2006 Page 15 of 16This appeal is consequently dismissed. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,489,980 | With consent, heard finally.The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of order dated 25/5/2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Revision No. 12/2017; whereby, the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 1/4/2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 414/2011, has been affirmed.After receiving the application, the police started the enquiry and found that all the accused persons namely Gajraj Singh, Gambhir Singh, Mahesh Kumar, Raghuveer Singh, Amna Bee, Iqbal Singh and present petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy to cause tempering in the judgment of Court and recorded entry of alleged compromise in the original judgment though no such compromise has ever taken place, while the case was alive.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court i.e. Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basoda on HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C.No.23085/2018 (Aziz Mohd. Vs.State of M.P.) 10/8/1999 and on 19/1/2009, Magistrate took cognizance of the matter for commission of offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC.Accused persons, abjured their guilty, therefore, trial commenced and the case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence.State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 696, wherein, it has been held that cases which have reached to advance stage be transferred to session trial, committed the matter to the sessions Court.A revision was preferred against the said order but it met HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.The stage of trial cannot be judged by number of witnesses examined but by the stage to which it has reached.Although, all the witnesses have not been examined till now but it would not be considered as preliminary stage as some of the witnesses have already been examined.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and prayed for rejection of the petition.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,492,863 | pk CRM No. 16177 of 2014 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17th November 2014 in connection with Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No. 1943/13 dated 15.11.13 under Sections 384/354C/379/354A(i)(iii)/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No. 1943/13 dated 15.11.13 under Sections 384/354C/379/354A(i)(iii)/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.We have gone through the case diary.We find the petitioners are the relations of the principal accused.Accordingly the application for anticipatory bail stands allowed.In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 5,000/- each on condition that after release the petitioners shall surrender before the regular court within four weeks thereafter.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,496,871 | A five year old child, Biswarup Mandal (hereafter the victim), while returning home after attending a nursery school met with a road accident on 10th May, 2011 at about 11.30 hours.He was dashed by a speeding motorbike, and suffered multiple injuries.A head injury suffered by him was the most severe.Since the place of the accident was near about Egra, a small town in Purba Midnapore district where adequate medical facilities were not available, the parents of the victim perforce had to shift him to the Institute of Neurosciences, Kolkata (hereafter the Institute) on the advice of the Contai Sub-divisional hospital.The victim was treated at the Institute till May 14, 2011, whereafter he was admitted to Medline Nursing Home, Kolkata.The parents of the victim, immediately after the accident, did not lodge any complaint with the police.It was almost 33 days after the date of the accident that Egra Police Station F.I.R. No. 92/11 dated June 14, 2011, under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the basis of a written complaint of the father of the victim of even date.In such written complaint, it was alleged that a motorbike bearing registration no.WB-32A/8589 (hereafter the said bike) was responsible for the accident which could have even claimed the life of the victim.A few days thereafter, the mother of the victim (hereafter the claimant) presented an application dated July 8, 2011 before the relevant motor accident claims tribunal (hereafter the tribunal) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) claiming Rs.3,25,000/- as compensation for the victim.While alleging that the said bike had caused the accident and the driver thereof was solely responsible therefor, it was also pleaded as under:"Due to the impact of the said accidental injuries the victim has totally and permanently lost his working as well as earning capacity and has become permanently disabled and his entire future is under bleak".In respect of the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, it was pleaded as follows:"Multiple severe injuries all over the body especially right parietal depressed fracture with overlaying scalp loss and multiple hemorrhage and contusion, causing the victim suffered permanent disablement."Upon notice of the application being served on the owner of the said bike, Sri Nirmalendu Das (hereafter Nirmalendu), and its insurer (the opposite parties, in the proceedings before the tribunal), the application was contested only by the insurer.It obtained leave under Section 170 of the Act to raise all points in defence available to it in law.In all, four witnesses were produced by the claimant, including herself (PW-1), to support the case pleaded in the claim application.On behalf of the insurer, its legal manager entered the witness box to depose.A finding was returned that the victim suffered multiple injuries because of rash and negligent driving of the said bike, which caused the accident.The tribunal thereafter proceeded to compute compensation in a total sum of Rs.3,22,477/- under different heads and directed payment thereof with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the claim application till its realization, within a month from the date of receipt of the copy of the award, failing which the insurer would be liable to pay further interest @ 9% per month from the date of the award till its realization.It is this award that it is under challenge in the present appeal under Section 173 of the Act at the instance of the insurer.Having heard the insurer and the claimant and, prima facie, not being satisfied with the contents of a disability certificate issued by a doctor (PW-4), having diploma in orthopaedics, certifying that the victim suffered 60% disability, and there being no opinion of a doctor having specialization in neurology/neuro sciences, we felt it necessary to have a fresh opinion.The victim after the accident was first treated by the doctors at the Institute and hence, we had requested the director of the Institute to constitute a medical board for examining the victim to assess his present physical condition, with special emphasis as to whether his condition has improved or worsened over the years, and also the extent of physical disability that he may have suffered as a result of the accident.The Institute was requested, while honouring such order, to exempt the parents of the victim from bearing any charges for the medical examination he would have to undergo to facilitate recording of medical opinion, required by us.In compliance with such order, the Institute constituted a multi-member medical board (10 to be precise) comprising of consultant doctors drawn from various fields, i.e., neurology, neuro surgery, paediatrics, opthalmology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation medicine.The victim attended the Institute and each of the consultant doctors individually examined him.The report signed by each of the consultant doctors, inter alia, reveals that the condition of the victim has significantly improved over the years and that his disability status was stated in the following words:Copies of the report were made available to the parties.None took exception to the report.While hearing the application for stay on August 21, 2018, we were informed of a cross-objection having been filed by the claimant (C.O.T. No. 41 of 2018).With the consent of the parties, we have heard the appeal and the cross-objection on its own merits dispensing with all formalities.We propose to dispose of the same together by this common judgment and order.According to him, the reason for the police being belatedly approached would be sufficiently clear from the document at page 106 of the paper-book (Ext.A) titled MEDICAL REPORT TO THE POLICE IN MEDICO LEGAL CASE, generated on May 11, 2011 and signed by Dr. R. Samanta, Paedeatric Neurologist, the medical officer attached to the Institute.Our attention was invited to that part of the document where the history of the accident, as narrated by the father of the victim, has been recorded.Bearing these in mind, we had to look for the evidence of Nirmalendu.As has been noted earlier, Nirmalendu did not contest the claim application.We also learnt from Mr. Singh that the insurer did not produce Nirmalendu as a witness to support its case that the said bike was not involved in the accident.What would be the effect of Nirmalendu not deposing as a witness for himself and on behalf of the insurer, therefore, has to be considered.Nirmalendu could have given the best evidence to controvert the claim/evidence of the claimant that the said bike, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident in which the victim suffered the injuries, and thus persuade the tribunal to hold otherwise.Such evidence was not given.Even the insurer was at liberty to produce Nirmalendu as its witness to avoid its liability under the policy of insurance that Nirmalendu had bought from it.Advocate about the documents filed by claimant in this case with their evidence as well as the evidence laid by them and as such I came to know that the witness from Institute of Neuroscience has been examined as P.W. 2 in this case and during his deposition he admitted that intimation was duly given to the Beniapukur P.S. regarding admission of the victim in connection with being injured by Road Traffic Accident.During evidence the said witness also produced copy of such intimation given to police and from the said document it is clear that not the alleged offending motor cycle bearing Registration number WB 32 A 8589 but another motor cycle bearing Registration no. WB 07 7534 was actually involved in the alleged accident.The said document was also earlier procured by the investigator appointed by us after receipt of summons isued by your Honour in connection with this case and the said investigator also collected the aforesaid document during his course of investigation.For two reasons, we find ourselves unable to agree with Mr. Singh.A different yardstick is available for application in the facts and circumstances of the present appeal.There is one other weighty reason.The victim in course of proceedings was present before us on one occasion.We noticed the deep scar present over the right parietal without growth of hair, leading to a disfigurement of sorts and making his appearance somewhat different from a child of his age.The insurer shall credit Rs.28,463/- in the bank account of the claimant by electronic fund transfer, together with interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.75,000/- (Rs.5,97,477/- - Rs.3,22,477/-) from the date of filing of the claim application till date of payment in terms of this order, within 2 months of service of a certified copy thereof.The claimant, while serving copy of the certified copy of this order shall inform the insurer the particulars of her bank account to facilitate such fund transfer.With the aforesaid modification of the impugned award, the appeal as well as the cross-objection stands disposed of.There shall be no order for costs. | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
39,499,784 | The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in C.C.No.6863 of 2010 on the file of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The said final report in Calendar Case No.6863 of 2010 came to be filed in correspondence with investigation conducted by the 1 st respondent in pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No.238 of 2009 dated 11.06.2009 as against the petitioner and 2 others under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC on the complaint of the defacto complainant.2.The brief facts in nutshell behind the charges laid in C.C.No.6863 of 2010 against the petitioner as follows:According to the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant namely S.Lakshmi, the petitioner herein along with the 2 nd accused operated a consultancy in the name and style of Vigro Consultancy and the defacto complainant in order to secure a job to her daughter Umadevi has paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-.Though the petitioner and the 2nd accused namely Sakunthala secured defacto complainant’s daughter with Extreme InfoTech Software Private Limited owned by the 3rd accused, but the defacto complainant’s daughter was not paidhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 with salary regularly.3.For 4 months of employment only a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid as an aggregate salary.Thus the defacto complainant’s daughter as well her daughter was cheated and accordingly she lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent.The 1st respondent registered a case under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and proceeded with investigation.4.The 1st respondent in pursuant to investigation, filed the charge sheet under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC as against the petitioner and Sakunthala as second accused and the proprietor of Xtreme InfoTech Software Private Limited namely Shayam Singh as the 3rd accused.5.In support of charge laid, totally 8 witnesses were cited.The 7th and 8th witnesses are investigation officers handled the case.The 1st witness is the defacto complainant, 2nd witness is Uma Devi, the defacto complainant’s daughter, 3rd and 4th witnesses namely Thiraviyam Pillai and Mahendran relatives of de facto – complainant.The Witness Nos. 5 and 6 are the owners of the building premises ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 the 1st accused consultancy operating at Thiruvallikeni and Alwar Thirunagar respectively.6.I heard Mr.S.Sivam Sivanandraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.11.Thus a conjoint appraisal of above facts would disclose that after securing a job assisted by the 1st petitioner through consultancy for which naturally she should be paid but in pursuance to subsequent problems arisen with regard to employment, the defacto complainant cannot attribute 1st petitioner with an offence of cheating.12.If petitioner despite having received any remuneration or commission but if she had not secured a job for de facto - complainant’s daughter, it would be a clear case of cheating.http://www.judis.nic.in 613.Whereas admittedly job was secured by the defacto – complainant’s daughter in 3rd accused concern through 1st accused.Merely because the said job was secured through the petitioner, he cannot be victimized for the dispute prevailed between the 3 rd accused and the defacto - complainant's daughter.14.In this regard it is equally important to consider the statement of Abdul Kader and Bakruddin, the witnesses cited as 5th and 6th witnesses, the landlords of the petitioner’s consultancy has made clear that the petitioner’s consultancy have offered jobs to many clients who consult them and there is no complaint from any other client to whom the jobs were offered.15.Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the charges laid against the petitioner remains unsustainable as there was no case of cheating made out.Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the charge laid against the 1st petitioner in C.C.No.6863 of 2010 in as much as the petitioner is concerned.16.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the C.C.No.6863 of 2010 on the file of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai stands quashed in as much the petitioner alone is concerned.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,107,594 | On 26th November, 1983 at about 1.30 a dacoity took place at the shop 'Maya Jewellers' in Karol Bagh.The complainant Bishan Dev, his father Arjun Dass and accountant Jagdish Chander Kalra were present in the shop.While Bishan Dev was sitting at the counter and his father Arjun Dass was inside, six sikh gentlemen entered into the shop and took out the revolvers and shouted 'hands up'.In the meantime, Arjun Dass also came out.Out of the six persons, two persons came to the counter and put the revolver on both the temples of Bishan Dev and shouted to give whatever valuable goods were there.One of them who was a Sikh, was standing on the gate of the shop.Two of them surrounded Arjun Dass and took from his possession the gold chain and `500/-.The 6th gentleman threatened the customers and cut off the telephone connections.They collected the ornaments from the shop and tied Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 2 of 15 them in a cloth bundle which was used for tying the ledger books.After confining Bishan Dev, Arjun Dass and Jagdish Chander Kalra and the customers in the bathroom, they bolted the same from the outside and went away.Subsequently one Dharmender Anand, a neighbourer came and opened the bolt and police was informed.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 2 of 15On the basis of the statement of Bishan Dev, FIR No 871/1983 under Section 397/395 IPC was registered at Police Station Karol Bagh.Description of all the six persons was given by the Complainant.On 5th January, 1984 an information was received that some persons have been apprehended by the police officers at PS Connaught Place.When the Investigating Officer went to PS Connaught Place, one of the accused Sukhdev Singh was found in the custody who disclosed about this incident.Pursuant to the disclosure by Sukhdev Singh some jewellery items were recovered and on the basis of his disclosure other accused persons were also arrested.After investigation a charge sheet was filed against Sukhdev Singh, Khushal Singh and the present Appellants under Sections 395/397/342/412/213/120B IPC.Other accused persons namely Swaran Singh @ Billu, Gurusewak Singh @ Babla, Sukhdev Singh s/o Mahender Singh, Gurubhai Singh, Swaran Singh s/o Chandu, Charan Singh, Dalbir Singh, Gurnam Singh and Kulwant Singh were declared PO.Subsequently, the co-accused Sukhdev was killed in an encounter in Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 3 of 15 Punjab and the trial against him stood abated.After recording of the evidence and statements of the accused, Gurusewak @ Babla was acquitted of the charges for offence punishable under Sections 395 and 120B IPC.Khushal Singh was also acquitted of the charge under Section 412 read with Section 120B IPC.Though the two Appellants were acquitted for the offences under Section 395/120B, they were however, convicted for offences under Section 412 IPC.The allegation in nutshell against the Appellants is that at their instance jewellery looted from the shop was recovered and thus, this appeal is confined only to this aspect of the case.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 3 of 15Learned counsel for the Appellants contends that to prove the charge for offence under Section 412 IPC as against the Appellant Sarwan Singh alias Guru, the relevant witnesses are PW14 Kuldeep Kumar, PW30 Inspector Ram Singh, and PW46 Shri Ranbir Singh, ACP and as against the Appellant Smt. Surjeet Kaur, the relevant witness are PW8 Kundan Lal, PW30 Inspector Ram Singh, PW46 Shri Ranbir Singh, ACP, PW9 Nathu Ram and PW 5 Sharwan Kumar.On behalf of the Appellant Sarwan Singh alias Guru it is contended that there are two sets of recoveries attributed to him.Secondly, he had given some jewellery to co- Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 4 of 15 accused Khushal Singh and at the instance of Khushal Singh, the jewelleries were recovered.Challenging the recovery at the instance of Khushal Singh it is stated that the same is not legally admissible evidence against the Appellant.The only evidence used by the learned ASJ was the confession of the co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence and the Appellant cannot be convicted on the said basis.As regards the recovery from the house of the Appellant Sarwan Singh alias Guru, it is alleged that PW14 Kuldeep Kumar is the son of PW8 Kundan Lal who was the public witness associated at the time of alleged recovery at the instance of the Appellant, Surjeet Kaur.Both of them are residents of Naiwala Karol Bagh.At the time of recovery at the instance of Sarwan Singh alias Guru PW14 Kuldeep Kumar had met the IO and accompanied him.PW14, PW8 and the IO concealed the relationship between the two and it is only when PW14 came in the witness-box, that on his cross-examination by the defence he admitted his relationship with PW8 Kundan Lal.Moreover, PW14 Kuldeep Kumar in his testimony does not even recognize the Appellant Sarwan Singh alias Guru.He has not witnessed the recovery as he did not go inside the room and only saw the potli that was brought out by the SHO and he did not know what was contained in the potli.Even in his cross-examination by the learned APP, he sticks to his stand.As regard the testimony of PW30 and PW46, it is contended that their testimonies Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 5 of 15 are full of contradictions and in the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses, the same cannot be relied upon.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 4 of 15Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 5 of 15Qua the Appellant Surjeet Kaur, it is contended that against her also the police has planted two sets of evidence.Firstly, it is alleged that stolen jewellery has been recovered on the 13th January, 1984 from her residence at her instance.The second set of recovery is that of one necklace from the shop of PW9 which was allegedly given by Surjeet Kaur for converting it into bangles.It is stated that the register to show that the necklace was recovered from the shop of PW 5 was seized after the charge sheet was finalized on the objection of the prosecution.The same has not been produced in evidence.There is no signature or endorsement of the Appellant Surjeet Kaur on the register.Appellant Surjeet Kaur had produced in defence a slip Ex. D-I which PW5 admits to be in his handwriting according to which she had given a pair of tops and a piece of gold for soldering and not the necklace.As regards the recovery on 13th January, 1984 at her instance from her house, it is contended that PW8 Kundan Lal has not supported the prosecution case though he identified Surjeet Kaur but did not tell from where the recovery was made.It is stated that PW8 has categorically stated that he does not know from where the packet which was lying in the house and contained the ornaments, was Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 6 of 15 recovered.He further stated that as the packet was recovered by the Police officers, therefore, they would be knowing it.He also stated that he had seen the packet only in the hands of the police officer.Also he did not hear any talk of Surjeet Kaur with the police officer at that time.He did not even know as from where the gold ornaments, if any, were got weighed.It is thus, clear that this witness has not witnessed the recovery and has only been made to sign the seizure memo.It is next contended that even against Surjeet Kaur, the testimony of PW30 and PW46 is full of contradictions and thus, no conviction can be based on their testimony.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 6 of 15L.J. 334 to contend that PW8 and PW14 are chance witnesses who are not residing in the locality and in view of their doubtful and unnatural presence, it is not safe to rely on their testimony.Reliance is also placed on Mousam Singha Roy and others vs. State of West Bengal, 2003 (3) JCC 1358 (SC) to contend that when the panch witnesses have not witnessed the actual recovery and have just been told by the IO that the article has been recovered then, such evidence is insufficient to prove the recovery.It is also held that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 7 of 15 acceptable evidence.The law does not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 7 of 15Learned counsel for the Appellants next contends that the TIP of the property has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner and thus, the recovery cannot be connected to the accused.It is stated that PW32 nowhere states that the jewellery was mixed with similar jewellery.It is thus, prayed that since the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Appellants are entitled to be acquitted.In the alternative it is prayed that the Appellants have faced the ordeal of trial for a period of 27 years, are 75 and 71 years of age and if this Court comes to a conclusion that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC, then they be released either on probation or on the period already undergone.9. Learned APP for the State though fairly states that the learned ASJ erroneously used the statement of co-accused Khushal Singh against the Appellant Sarwan Singh alias Guru to prove the recovery at the instance of Khushal Singh as against the Appellant, however, the second set of recovery at the instance of Sarwan Singh that is from his house is stated to be clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt.It is urged that though the testimony of PW14 does not implicate the Appellant, however, conviction can be based on Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 8 of 15 the testimony of PW30 and PW46 the two police witnesses.Similar is the contention as regard the recovery at the instance of Smt. Surjeet Kaur.It is stated that the testimony of the police witnesses cannot be brushed aside and conviction can solely be based on their testimony.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 8 of 1510. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record, I find that the learned ASJ grossly erred on certain aspects.In the present case, the Appellants were not amongst the six accuseds who had looted the jewellery shop.The Appellants were charged for offences punishable under Section 395 read with 120B IPC for which they were acquitted.The Appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 412 IPC, that is, for dishonestly possessing stolen property with the knowledge or reasons to believe that the same has been transferred by the commission of a dacoity or that the same belongs to a gang of dacoits.This being the charge, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellants were in conscious possession of the stolen property.Secondly, they had the knowledge that the articles were stolen in dacoity.In the present case, the second essential ingredient has not been proved by the prosecution.The Appellants have already been acquitted of the charge of conspiracy.As held in Achyut Das & Anr.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 9 of 15 the accused knew that they were stolen articles and thus liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 9 of 15As regards the recovery at the instance of Smt. Surjeet Kaur from her house, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that PW 8 is not a witness to the recovery of the jewellery articles from her house.PW8 though has identified the Appellant Surjeet Kaur but has not stated from where the recovery was made and what was recovered.He has only seen a packet in the hand of the police officer and signed the seizure memo.Thus, the only evidence now left is the testimony of the two police officers.Though it is well settled that conviction can be based on the testimony of police officers, however their testimony will have to be scrutinized with caution as to whether the same is reliable or not.As per PW 30 and PW 46, the investigating officer, on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Sukhdev Singh, they went to the house of the Sarwan Singh @ Guru.Accused Sarwan Singh did not meet them there.However, his wife Surjeet Kaur was interrogated and she disclosed to have received some golden and diamond jewellery from her husband Sarwan Singh @ Guru and she produced a packet of jewellery.No site plan of the place of recovery was prepared.There is no mention of the box in the seizure Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 10 of 15 memo Ex. PW 8/A. The disclosure statement of the Appellant that this jewellery was given by her husband or that it was stolen property, is inadmissible in evidence.The possession by the wife will be that of the husband when the wife has possession on account of the husband.Moreover, the mere fact that the accused's wife produced the stolen articles from the house where both were living together, cannot lead to the conclusion that she was in conscious possession of the incriminating articles.Thus, even believing the recovery of jewellery from the house at the instance of Smt. Surjeet Kaur wherein she produced a packet, the same cannot be attributed in her conscious possession, especially when the prosecution case is that it is the husband who had the possession of the incriminating articles.Thus Appellant Surjeet Kaur cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.The other count on which the Appellant Smt. Surjeet Kaur is sought to be implicated is recovery of a necklace on 15th January, 1984 from the goldsmith Nathu Ram PW9, which she had allegedly given as per her disclosure for preparing two Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 11 of 15 bangles.This recovery made from the goldsmith Nathu Ram is also suspect as the register was not produced in evidence.PW9 has admitted his handwriting on Ex.D-1 which is a slip which shows that a pair of tops for repair and a piece of gold for the purpose of soldering.The necklace EX.P148 allegedly recovered from the shop of Nathu Ram has not been identified by PW 3 Bishan Dev, the complainant.The learned trial court rightly held that the recovery of the necklace from Nathu Ram was doubtful.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 10 of 15Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 11 of 15As regards the Appellant Sarwan Singh @ Guru is concerned, PW30 and PW 6 have stated that on 20th January, 1984 accused Sarwan Singh @ Guru was arrested from the Court of Shri R.S. Mahla learned MM, Delhi.He was interrogated and he disclosed that he can get his share of some pieces of jewellery and `1,100 which he gave to Khushal Singh recovered.PW 30 & PW 46 reached the place of work of Khushal Singh where he produced one box covered with velvet containing 22 notes of `50/- denomination and 11 pieces of silver and diamond and seized the same and stated that these articles were given to him by Sarwan Singh.This recovery on the basis of disclosure statement of Khushal Singh cannot inculpate the Appellant Sarwan Singh.This confessional statement of the co-accused Khushal Singh cannot be used against Appellant Sarwan Singh.Khushal Singh was also an accused in the present case.However, relying on his confessional statement, Khushal Singh Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 12 of 15 has been acquitted and Sarwan Singh has been convicted.In State NCT of Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 (11) SCC 600 it was held that there is need for an inextricable link between the information supplied and the physical object recovered.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 12 of 15As regards recovery of jewellery from the disclosure of Sarwan Singh @ Guru from his house, it may be noted that pursuant to the disclosure statement, the Appellant took the police to his house and got recovered jewellery from the shed.Though, PW 14 in his testimony has said that he joined the recovery but he did not go inside the room, however, there is no contradiction as regards the testimony of the two police officers PW 30 and PW 46 in this regard.Though, these witnesses stated that on 28 th January, 1984 on the basis of the disclosure statement of Sarwan Singh, the police were led to his house and took out a polythene from the tin shed, six golden ring, a pair of ear rings, a necklace were recovered and the same were seized vide memo Ex. 14/A. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of these witnesses except the fact that the prosecution witnesses PW 14 did not enter the room.However, the testimony of these two police officers cannot be brushed aside merely because the panch witness did not give the entire details.The contention that both PW 8 and PW 14 who were associated at the time of two recoveries were father and son and thus were chance witnesses is of no Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 13 of 15 consequence as even excluding the testimony of the public witness there is sufficient evidence to connect the Appellant Sarwan Singh with the recovery of jewellery from his house.The jewellery recovered from his house has been duly identified by PW 3 the Complainant in the TIP conducted.PW 32 has stated in his testimony that at the time of identification of the jewellery the same was mixed up with similar items brought by the investigating officer and thereafter the witnesses correctly identified their jewellery.On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, coupled with the presumption which can be raised under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act that when a person is found in possession of stolen property, it can be presumed that either the person himself stole the property or that he has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, I am of the opinion that the charge against the Appellant Sarwan Singh for offence under Section 411 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 13 of 15For the reasons stated above, Sarwan Singh @ Guru, Appellant in Criminal Appeal 235/2001 is convicted for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.The maximum punishment provided for an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC is imprisonment which may extend to 3 years.No minimum sentence has been statutorily prescribed.Appellant Sarwan Singh has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 10 months and has paid Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 14 of 15 the fine.He is 75 years of age and has faced the ordeal of trial and appeal for 27 years.In the interest of justice, he is awarded a sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone and the fine already deposited for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.Criminal Appeal No. 235 /2001 is disposed of as partly allowed.The bail bond and surety bond stands discharged.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 14 of 15Surjeet Kaur, the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 215/2001 is acquitted of the charge under Section 412 IPC.The impugned judgment convicting and sentencing Smt. Surjeet Kaur for offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is set aside.Criminal Appeal No. 215 is allowed.The bail bond and the surety bond are discharged.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 11, 2011 vn Crl.Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 15 of 15Appeal Nos.215/2001 & 235/2001 Page 15 of 15 | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,114,637 | THIS is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.433/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Barwani.As per the prosecution case on the basis of forged documents i.e. Bhu-Adhikar-Rin-Pustika and revenue records Mohan, Sevaram, Bhavsingh and Dariyab Singh have procured some loan from State Bank of India, Branch Julvaniya, District Barwani.During investigation, it -: 2 :- disclosed that these forged documents were prepared by the present applicant - Mukesh @ Mahesh and co-accused Pankaj and Kashiram.-: 2 :-Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young person and permanent resident of District Barwani.He is a businessman.He has been falsely implicated in this case.His father Kashiram has already been granted regular bench.In such circumstances, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the non-applicant/State opposes the prayer and prays for dismissal of the application.Accordingly, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his -: 3 :- arrest in the aforesaid crime, he be released on anticipatory bail on depositing Rs.25,000-00 [Twenty Five Thousand Rupees] as security in the Trial Court and upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000.00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for his appearance in investigation as and when directed and required and shall remain available for giving specimen signatures.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicant during trial with the condition that in case the final report is filed, the applicant shall furnish fresh bail- bond as per this order.Applicant shall ensure that he would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on him.-: 3 :-It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand -: 4 :- cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.-: 4 :-Certified copy as per rules.[ Jarat Kumar Jain ] JUDGE (AKS) | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,116,681 | Prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 14/10/2001, Kalmabai (since deceased) gave food to her ailing daughter Vineeta, who refused to eat.Appellant, husband of Kamlabai, said that he would also not take food if Vineeta did not have the same.They both cried, but appellant did not open the latch and fled from the spot.Vineeta and Vinod, opening the backdoor of the house, went to the Verandah, and found that Kamlabai, drenched in blood, was moaning.They called their maternal grandmother Devkibai and apprised her of the incident.B. D. Rathi, J.This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29/10/2002 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No.322/2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine stipulation.Kamlabai told the appellant that they should not compel Vineeta to eat as she was sick, upon which the appellant got enraged and, while abusing, got up to beat Kamlabai.However, Vineeta and her brother Vinod pacified the appellant.Thereafter, the appellant, without having meals, went and sat in the Courtyard and after a while, without 2 Cr.A. No.297/2003 informing anyone, left the home.Vineeta and her brother fell asleep and Kamlabai also slept in the Verandah.At about 3 to 4 a.m., upon hearing the sound coming from the Verandah, as Vineeta and her brother, peeped through the gaps in the door, they saw that appellant was assaulting their mother with a Vasula (Axe type weapon).They all put Kamlabai in a bullock-cart and were taking her to a Hospital, but Kamlbai expired in the way.Morgue intimation (Ex.P/14) was recorded at Police Station Junnardeo in the morning of 15/10/2001 at 11.40 a.m., on the information of Devkibai and, thereafter, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/15) was recorded.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Appellant was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.He denied the charge and pleaded false implication.She, accordingly, prayed that the conviction be set aside and instead, appellant be acquitted.In response, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the judgment of conviction was well merited.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.Dr. Indrajeet Singh (PW8), who conducted the autopsy and prepared the report (Ex.P/10), found as many as 3 incised wounds and 2 lacerated wounds on the dead body.According to him, cause of death was shock due to the injuries sustained.He also examined 3 Cr.A. No.297/2003 the Vasula seized from the appellant vide seizure memo (Ex.P/3), and opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the said weapon.Eye-witnesses Vineeta (PW5) and Vinod (PW6), children of the deceased, have been declared hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.Devkibai (PW1), mother of the deceased, deposed that appellant used to demand money from her daughter for consuming liquor and on her denial used to beat her.She further deposed that when she reached the spot, Kamlabai was alive and had informed her that appellant had assaulted with a Vasula.However, in absence of corresponding recital in the Morgue intimation (Ex.P/4), the trial Court did not believe the said dying declaration.Factum of seizure of Vasula at the instance of the appellant by Ramdayal Sharma (PW11), Assistant Sub Inspector, though not corroborated by witnesses of seizure viz. Mahesh (PW4) and Bhangilal (PW7), was believed by the trial Court in view of the fact that in absence of any material infirmity, evidence of Investigating Officer could not be discarded merely on the ground that he was a police officer.As per Forensic Science Lab report (Ex.P/20), human blood was found on the Vasula and shirt seized from the appellant.However, no explanation was given by the appellant regarding the said blood found on the articles seized from him.Though, Vineeta and Vinod have deposed in their respective cross-examination that their father had left the home on the date of incident at 3 p.m. for Pipariya, for cutting the Soyabean Crop at Garha, yet, the same does not inspire confidence in view of corresponding omission in their police statements (Ex.P/8 & Ex.P/9).Further, not calling of the appellant at the funeral of the deceased by Vineeta, Vinod and Devkibai clearly suggested that they were well aware that appellant after committing the offence had fled and there was no likelihood of his returning.In the examination under Section 313 of the Code, though the appellant took the plea of alibi saying that he had gone to Jheel Pipariya, yet, the same was disbelieved by the trial Court as detailed information was not furnished by the appellant regarding the same.Moreover, had he gone to Jheel Pipariya, his family members would have called him for the funeral of the deceased.On the contrary, the police arrested the appellant two days after the funeral as he did not surrender himself.The appeal, accordingly, fails and is, dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,118,731 | hy (Delivered on this the 14th day of February, 2018) ad M PER: Subodh Abhyankar,J.of This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal rt ou Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12/04/2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST C h No.204/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 of ig IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and under Section H 201 of IPC for two years RI with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of the same he is further sentenced to SI for one month on each count.The prosecution case in short is that in the night of 17 June, 2006 at around 11:00 PM at Village Hardua Sadaka, near the lake the murder of Tarwar Singh took place.As Tarwar Singh did not reach to his house, his father Kallu Singh and Gopal Gond went to search him and on 18.6.2006 at around 6:00 AM in the morning one Halle Singh PW/7 informed Kallu Singh PW/6 the father of the deceased that in the night he had seen Mansukh Raikwar, Sunnu Raikwar and deceased Tarwar Singh going towards the lake and when the father of the deceased along with Halle Singh and Munna PW/1 reached the lake, he found the dead body of Tarwar Singh, who had received injuries on his neck and nearby of his body, a shoe, a bottle of liquor, rat poison etc. were also lying.Thereafter FIR vide Crime No.168/06 was lodged by the father of the deceased on 18.6.2006 against the unknown persons.The dead body of the deceased was sent for the postmortem.After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the present appellant on the ground of sole testimony of a child witness, and the learned Sessions Judge, Damoh after recording the evidence convicted sh the present appellant under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and sentenced as e ad mentioned above.3. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ad appellant has been falsely implicated in the case, and the learned Trial Court has M committed a grave error in convicting the present appellant, as the child witness of Sunnu @ Sunil (PW-10) is not trustworthy and no case of circumstantial evidence rt against the appellant is made out.It is further submitted that the prosecution has ou miserably failed to complete the chain of circumstances leading to only C hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant has h submitted that only witness alleged to be eye-witness is a 17 years old boy Sunnu ig @ Sunil (PW-10) and his testimony cannot be relied upon, as he has been tutored H by the prosecution to depose against the appellant.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no recovery has been proved against the appellant, under these circumstances the finding of guilt is erroneous, which deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.On the other hand, Shri Y.D.Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that the prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant, and no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court in relying upon the child witness Sunnu @ Sunil (PW-10) as the quality of evidence rendered by PW-10 cannot be faulted with.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.So far as the death of Tarwar Singh is concerned, first of all it is to be seen that whether the same was homicidal in nature or not.In this regard the prosecution has examined Dr. K.K.Adya (PW-9), who conducted the postmortem of the deceased.According to him, the deceased was aged around 15-20 years and on his neck there were two deep chopping injuries, which had led to almost sh severance of his neck.Both sides of his neck had incised wounds.The death was e ad due to these injuries and were caused within 24-30 hours.This witness has Pr clearly opined that the injuries were chopping wounds and were homicidal in nature.Thus there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness and it a hy is held that the death of deceased Tarwar Singh is homicidal in nature.The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove its case and M two witnesses have been examined by the appellant in his defence.The memorandum under C Section 27 of the Evidence Act was proved vide Ex.P-3 and arrest memo as h Ex.However, in his cross examination he has admitted that he signed certain ig documents at the police station only and in he has further admitted in his cross H examination that the axe was seized in the police station only where 2-3 axes were brought and one out of which is shown to be recovered from the appellant, but this witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution.Thus his evidence is rather shaky cannot be relied upon.He is also the witness of the seizure memos P-1 to P-4 and not question has been put to him in his cross examination that the axe, clothes etc. have not been recovered at the instance of the appellant although he has also stated that the police got some documents signed in the police station only but he was informed that it was in respect of the seizure only and has also stated that he had read the documents before signing, thus his testimony regarding recovery of article is proved.He is a witness to the fact that the deceased had purchased two bottles of liquor from him on the night in which he was murdered.Sanjeev Kumar Gupta has been examined as PW-5, who happens to be the Patwari of the area, who had prepared the spot map (Ex.P-6), however this witness has been declared hostile.Kallu Singh has been examined as PW-6, who is the father of deceased sh Tarwar Singh.He has deposed that on the date of incident, his son had left his e ad house but never came back and then in the morning.Halle Singh came to his Pr house and informed him that his son Tarwar Singh is lying near the lake and he also informed that last night he saw Tarwar Singh accompanied by Mansukh a hy Raikwar, Sunnu Raikwar and Halle Singh towards the lake.This witness has ad expressed his suspicion that his son Tarwar Singh has been murdered by M Mansukh Raikwar, Sunnu Raikwar and Halle Bai.This witness has been cross of examined at length and can be said to be a hearsay witness only.Halle @ Lok Singh (PW-7) has stated that around 4-5 months ago at around 8 ou Oclock in the night while he was coming towards his own house, he saw that C Tarwar Singh (deceased), his younger brother Munna, Munsukh, Halle Singh and h Sunnu Raikwar were sitting in a hotel.He further stated that he also drank tea ig with them and thereafter he left from there for his home.When he came back to H the hotel, he did not find any of the aforesaid persons sitting there and in the morning Tarwar Singhs dead body was found.This witness has further stated that accused Sunnu Raikwar, Mansukh Raikwar and Halle Singh had taken Tarwar Singh on the pretext of walk.Although there is material contradiction in his statement, as in his cross examination he has stated that he had informed the police that the accused persons were sitting along with Tarwar Singh in a hotel but he cannot say why the same fact is not mentioned in his police statement.Sunnu Raikwar, aged 12 years has been examined as PW-10, who claims to be an eye-witness of the incident, thus a star witness.According to him, he knows the accused Mansukh Raikwar as also the deceased Tarwar Singh.According to him around six months ago he took Mansukh Raikwar and Tarwar Singh towards the lake where they consumed liquor.Accused Mansukh Raikwar asked this witness to fetch an axe to cut some trees and when he brought the axe, with the same axe Mansukh Raikwar assaulted Tarwar Singh in the night when he was trying to get some sleep he saw Mansukh causing injuries to Tarwar Singh with the aid of axe.He also saw Mansukh causing injury on the neck of the deceased Tarwar Singh and after seeing this incident he pretended to be sleeping.After the sh incident Mansukh washed the axe in the water and Mansukh took him to his own e ad house.This witness further states that on the next morning Mansukh informed Pr him that Tarwar Singh has died and if any person asked regarding this incident, he should not tell his (Mansukhs) name.He also informed the same to his a hy father Tikaram as also to the police.In his cross examination he has stated that ad he had given axe to Mansukh although he has denied that he drank liquor with M him, but subsequently he has admitted that he went along with Mansukh and of Tarwar Singh to lake where they drank wine.He had also drunk one glass rt (Kullad) of wine, but he has taken a u-turn in his cross examination and has ou stated that no quarrel took place in front of him and after having wine, he left C from there and thereafter he does not know what happened after he left.h Although he has admitted that when he woke up, he saw Mansukh assaulting ig Tarwar Singh, but he has denied that he has not seen Mansukh causing injury to H the deceased Tarwar Singh.A question was also put to him by the defence that whether 5-6 injuries were caused by Mansukh to Tarwar Singh to which he has replied that he saw Mansukh causing only one injury to Tarwar Singh and at that time Tarwar Singh was lying on the ground.Thus, this witness, despite being a child witness has remained unshaken in his lengthy cross examination and there is no reason for this court to disbelieve his testimony.Munna Singh (PW-11) has stated that he had seen accused Mansukh along with Halle and Sunnu accompanied by Tarwar Singh going towards the lack and in the morning he came to know that Tarwar Singh has died near the lake.Although in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which is exhibited as D-6 he has stated that he was informed by Halle that he had seen accused Mansukh Raikwar and Sunnu Raikwar going towards the lake along with Tarwar Singh in the night.Thus this witness is also a hearsay witness and cannot be relied upon.H.R. Pandey PW-14 is the Investigating Officer.This witness also seized the clothes which were worn by accused Pr Mansukh Raikwar at the time of incident vide Ex.P-1 in the presence of witnesses and the same were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, a hy Sagar from where a report Ex.P-17 was also received. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,121,072 | Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 8/10/10 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.132/2010, whereby respondent no.2 Ramsingh has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 302, 302/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), while the respondent nos. 1,3 to 6 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC and Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act.Prosecution case, in brief, is that after purchasing a new Tractor, Santosh Singh and Phool Singh were returning from Bina to Village Mudhiya on a Motorcycle, followed by their associates Munshi Singh and Govind Lodhi on another Motorcycle, who at Village Koha stopped at a Stall to have tea.At that juncture, Tularam, Shivcharan and Shaligram armed with Swords came on a Motorcycle, while Bihari, Asharam and Ramsingh, respectively armed with Swords and Katta (country made pistol) came on another Motorcycle and in furtherance of their common object to kill Munshi Singh, started assaulting him with Swords.Ramsingh gave a blow by the butt of country made pistol on the head of Munshi Singh, while the remaining assailants belabored him with swords.Ramsingh kicked Govind Lodhi and exhorted other miscreants to kill him.However, Govind was able to escape, but Munshi died on the spot.First Information Report (Ex.P/19) was lodged by Govind Lodhi at Police Station Khurai and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the trial Court.Govind (PW3), cited as an eye-witness, was declared hostile.Other witnesses Neeran (PW2), Hari (PW6), Hemant (PW7), Gutran (PW9), Deshraj (PW10) have also been declared hostile.Considering all this, trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and , accordingly, acquitted the respondents.On perusal of the evidence and material available on record, we fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record.The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,123,824 | C.R.M. 11235 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 22, 2010 And In re.: Sripati Bar Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty ...For the petitioner Mr. Aslam Khan ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Egra Police Station Case No. 113 of 2010 dated 16.7.2010 under Sections 341/323/324/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State.Perused the petition as well as the petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on his surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,123,942 | 3.In continuation, in order to harass the petitioner and to restrict his movements, at the instigation of the Superior Officers in the Policehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 W.P.(MD)No.12646 of 2020 Department, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened in H.S.No.119 of 2009 at the third respondent police station and the petitioner was compelled to attend the police station in the pretext of enquiry in a routine manner.In this regard, the petitioner had already made representation on 14.09.2020 to delete the name in the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet considered till date.W.P.(MD)No.12646 of 2020 25.09.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10This writ petition has been filed seeking the relief to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in H.S.No.119 of 2010, dated 19.01.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to close the history sheet.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Proprietor in Ram Silks Company, Pappanadu, Thanjavur and the following cases have been registered against the petitioner:-S. Crime Nos. Offences Status of the cases Nos.Crime No. Sections 147, 448, 427, 395 of Closed.206/2009 IPC r/w Section 109 of IPCCrime No. Sections 147, 448, 427, 457, Closed 207 of 2009 380 of IPC r/w Section 109 of IPCCrime No. Sections 147, 148, 341, 506 (ii), Acquitted 239 of 2009 307 and 302 of IPCTherefore, he sought for allowing this writ petition.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is an habitual offender indulging in rowdy activities, extortion, katta panchayats, etc. Hence, History Sheeted Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent police station as against the petitioner and it is being extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order.Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.On the basis of the abovehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 W.P.(MD)No.12646 of 2020 said Order, the Director General Of Police, Chennai issued a circular in Rc.No.66569/Crime 3(2)/2019 dated 24.04.2019, which reads as follows :-These records must be checked and brought upto date once in a year.Here the main thrust is on “Current Doings”.f. In the second category of opening history sheet, a mere act of conviction under the offences listed in PSO No.747 is enough.The name of the persons, who have been convicted for those offences can be retained for a period of two years after their release from jail.g. PSO No.748, is the most important provision, which deals with discontinuance of history sheet.This provision is common to both the categories falling under PSO Nos.As per PSO No.748, the Superintendent of Police may order a closure of a history sheet at any time.h. As per PSO 748, where retention of the history sheet is considered to be necessary, even after two years of registration, orders of an Officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/ Deputy Superintendent of Police must be taken for extension for the first instance upto the end of next December.For further annual extension from January to December, separate orders must be passed every time by an Officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police / Deputy Superintendent of Police.This provision is made applicable even for rowdy sheeters.i. For the purpose of passing such orders, there must be valid materials available on record and it cannot be passed on the whims and fancies of the Police Officers.Therefore, the authority empowered to extend the period of retention of the names of the persons in the history sheet, should record his reasons based on both objective and subjective instructions.j. Branding a person as a history sheeted rowdy, taints the name and image ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 W.P.(MD)No.12646 of 2020 the person.Therefore, a fair and reasonable decision, based on the materials, with sufficient reasons, becomes sine qua non to retain the name of a person as a history sheeter beyond the period stipulated in the Police Standing Orders.k. This Court has time and again brought the above principle to the notice of the Higher Police Officials and in one of the judgments in Manivanan Vs.State represented by The District Collector, Coimbatore District and Others, reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 501, this Court felt that there is lack of understanding on the part of the Police in maintaining history sheet and therefore, directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instructions / guidelines / circulars with regard to the manner in which it has to be maintained and the manner in which the orders will have to be passed for extension of the period to continue a person as a history sheeter.http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 W.P.(MD)No.12646 of 20208.The above principles that has been culled out of various decisions of this Court will now be applied to each case in order to see if the Police officials have scrupulously followed all the Police Standing Orders and the judgments of this Court, while retaining the name of a person as a history sheeter, beyond the stipulated period.”7.In view of the above circular passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders :-The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 14.09.2020 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.8.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.25.09.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No cphttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 W.P.(MD)No.12646 of 2020 R.PONGIAPPAN.cp Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.2.The Inspector of Police, Pappanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,124,347 | No.28 C.R.M. 1119 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06/02/2018 in connection with Tarapith P.S. Case No. 65 of 2017 dated 10/10/2017 under Sections 326A/376/511/354D/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: - Zinnar @ Jinnar Ali ....petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,125,761 | Shri Anshu Gupta, counsel for the applicant.Shri F.A.Shah, Panel Lawyer for the State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 25/1/2015 relating to Crime No.333/10, registered at Police Station Dehat Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376-G, 506 of I.P.C. and section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The prosecutrix is shown to be 25 years old married woman and as per the allegation, she remained with the applicant for more than 15 days and thereafter she had made allegation that she was abducted by the applicant and gang rape was committed by the applicant and co- accused-persons.However, in MLC report, nothing was found to show any resistance from the side of the prosecutrix.It would be apparent that false case has been lodged against the applicant.The applicant is in 2 Mcrc.1571/15 Jai Narayan Vs.Under such circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,132,041 | Rev. P. 16/2008 Page 1 of 12 was aggrieved by publication of an article titled: Peoples Car or Blood Car? Is Ratan Tata bent on destroying the JRD legacy Shame in Singur, TSI Exposes and Documents the Disgrace published in the periodical "The Sunday Indian" Vol.The criminal complaint for offences under Section 499, 500, 501 & 502 read with Section 34 and 25 IPC was filed against Arindam Chaudhuri, Editor-in-Chief; Malay Chaudhuri, Chief Consulting Editor; A. Sandeep, Editor; Sutanu Guru, Managing Editor; Abhimanyu Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer and Ashok Bose, Publisher & Printer.It was alleged that the article was defamatory and lowered the esteem of the petitioner and its management."The intention of the writer does not seem to defame the complainant and to harm the reputation of the complainant.No malice can be made out from the article.The words Blood car and War Zone only seems to be exaggeration in the circumstances which does not mean that the comment is unfair specifically when it seems to be made in good faith and for protection of public interest.The imputations included the cover page of the magazine apart from "It (Singur) looks like a war zone.You get the feeling that blood has been spilled here.And that more will be.The petitioner set out various imputations in the said article which according to them attract the aforementioned offences under the Indian Penal Code.Rev. P. 16/2008 Page 1 of 12The petitioner produced four witnesses during pre-summoning evidence.The learned MM dismissed the complaint vide order dated 09.10.2007 while observing as under:The complaint Crl.Rev. P. 16/2008 Page 4 of 12 advice.The said allegation against the respondent was published in various newspapers. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,134,791 | SI Manoj Kumar, PS Punjabi Bagh.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)Abhishek @ Pritam and Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey (the appellant) were arrested in case FIR No. 13/11 by the police of PS Mandir Marg for committing offences under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC and sent for trial alleging that on 18.01.2011 at about 09.30 P.M. near Lady Harding hospital, they in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to the complainant - Dinesh Prasad and deprived him of his mobile phone and cash ` 8,000/- at the point of knife.Abhishek @ Pritam was apprehended at the spot whereas Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey succeeded to escape from the spot.First Information Report was lodged after recording Dinesh Prasad's statement (Ex.PW-7/A).Subsequently, Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey was arrested.Statements of the Crl.A. 948/2012 Page 1 of 3 witnesses were recorded.The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove the charges.In 313 statements, the accused persons denied their complicity in the crime.The trial resulted in their conviction.By an order on sentence dated 26.11.2011, the appellant was awarded RI for five years with fine ` 2,000/- under Section 392/34 IPC; RI for five years with fine ` 2,000/- under Section 394/34 IPC; RI for one year with fine ` 500/- under Section 411 IPC.The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.Being aggrieved, the appellant - Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey has preferred the present appeal.It is unclear if Abhishek @ Pritam has challenged the conviction.A. 948/2012 Page 1 of 3Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction in view of the overwhelming evidence of the Crl.A. 948/2012 Page 2 of 3 complainant who identified him in the Court as one of the assailants who inflicted injuries to him coupled with medical evidence, his conviction stands affirmed.His overall jail conduct was satisfactory.The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.A. 948/2012 Page 2 of 3A copy of the order be sent to Superintendent Jail for information.Trial Court record be sent back immediately.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 05, 2014/ tr Crl.A. 948/2012 Page 3 of 3A. 948/2012 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
411,415 | This is an appeal preferred by the original Complainant, one Anoop Krishan Sharma, who had filed a private complaint numbered as Case No. 40/S of 1982 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivli, Bombay.Original Accused No. 2, who is supposedly an employee of original Accused No. 1, was not available at the time of the trial.At the hearing today, neither the original complainant, who is the Appellant before me, nor his learned advocate, nor for that matter original Accused No. 1, who is present Respondent No. 2, nor his learned advocate have appeared.With the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Kothari, I have gone through the record as also the judgment of the learned Trial Magistrate.Mr. Kothari, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the learned Trial Magistrate has adopted a rather far-fetched reasoning and the grounds on which he has acquitted Accused No. 1 are wholly unsustainable.A perusal of the record will indicate that the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 are related to each other.The record also indicates that a certain amount of hostility had come up because of certain transactions relating to two companies with which the respective Accused were connected.In the course of these disputes, which related to transfer of shares and also related to the appointment of director and removal etc. certain litigation had also erupted and it was quite obvious that the relationship between the parties was extremely strained on the date when the incident in question took place.It is alleged that on the morning of 17-6-1979, the Complainant and two others, who had gone to the factory, were locked inside the factory by pulling down the rolling shutter and were not allowed to come out.At that time, Accused No. 1 was not there and it is alleged that even after he came and even after the Complainant's wife and her advocate arrived on the scene that Accused No. 1 refused to open the rolling shutter on the pretext that the Complainant was a trespasser, who should not have entered the premises by virtue of the Civil Court's order.Accused No. 1 is further alleged to have stated that under the Government orders due to power cut, the factory could not be opened for another three days and nothing could be done in the matter.Some commotion appears to have taken place, after which the complainant and others were able to come out of that place.In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. | ['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,367,458 | The said Rambabu is not the resident of same village, instead, he is in Indian Army and posted somewhere else.The applicants do not live in the same house where the deceased resides.For want of element of mens-rea and any close/reasonable proximity with the alleged act of committing suicide, the applicants even cannot be remotely connected with the crime.Certified copy, as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Arun/-Arun Nair 2018.03.19 18:34:25 +05'30'Ms. Pooja Jain, counsel for the complainant.This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of applicants.As per prosecution story, the deceased died with a small child drowning in the well.It was alleged to be a case of dowry death.Accordingly, case has been initially registered against the husband and mother-in-law under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 of IPC, however, the husband and mother-in-law are enlarged on bail by the trial Court and, at a later stage, on a statement of the brother of deceased-Rambabu under Section 161 Cr.PC, the applicants have been named in the FIR and are likely to be apprehended by the police.Counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the offence only on the basis of the statement of the brother of deceased under Section 161 Cr.PC.In the event they are arrested, they 2 MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.8982 OF 2018 (Rameshwar and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) shall suffer social indignation in the company of hardened criminals.They have no past criminal antecedents.Under such circumstances, counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Per Contra, Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and Counsel for the complainant opposes the anticipatory bail application with the contention that as the applicants reportedly demanded the dowry from the deceased, as was told to the witnesses on phone as reflected in the statement of the brother of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC.Hence prays for rejection of anticipatory bail.Keeping in view the submissions made by Counsel for the parties and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.Consequently, the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,378,805 | Meanwhile, the appellant arrived there by motorcycle and snatched the golden chain weighing about 10 grams worth Rs.10,000/- from the neck of complainant and flew away.The 2 Cr..A.No.2833/2015 Sanjay @ Kaalu @ Sanju Vs.State of M.P.complainant has lodged the FIR Ex.P-1 in police station Piplani, where an offence under Section 392 of IPC has been registered and investigation was initiated.On 03.06.2011 the police got information regarding some criminal elements assembled in Durga Nagar slum area in order to commit the crime.The town inspector police station Bagsewaniya namely C.P. Dwivedi alongwith staff went to Durga Nagar and intercepted the appellant and other anti-social elements.On interrogation of appellant, a large number of offences relating to chain snatching and robbery committed by him were discovered.On memorandum of appellant, the police has recovered the golden chain of complainant.The identification of chain and appellant was conducted by Tahsildar, in which complainant has identified both.Appellant abjured guilt.The prosecution case against the appellant rests upon the test identification parade in which the complainant has identified the appellant and also the recovery of chain of complainant at the instance of appellant.Investigation Officer C.P. Dwivedi (PW-5) deposed that on information, he went to Durga Nagar alongwith police staff on 03.06.2011 and found appellant alongwith other co- accused in a hut of Kamal Balai.On interrogation, it was revealed that the appellant had committed various offences of loot and robbery.The police has recorded his memorandum Ex.P-6 and recovered 54 ornaments alongwith the golden chain of complainant concealed under the bricks from the place inside the hut of Kamal Balai.(07.02.2017) This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment dated 24.08.2015, passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities SC/ST Act) Bhopal, in S.T. No.520/2011, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.The prosecution story in short is that on 07.11.2008 at around 11:45 AM in front of Tanantan Dhaba at Ayodhya By- pass road Bhopal, while returning to home, complainant Smt. Ranjana Sharma was waiting for bus.Thereafter, charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court against the appellant and other two co-accused persons.The prosecution witnesses were examined.Appellant has not adduced any evidence in his defence.After considering the evidence, the trial Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2015 held appellant guilty under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.Other co-accused persons were acquitted.In appeal, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses.There are lots of contradictions and omission occurred in their evidence.The identification of appellant and chain is not proved beyond doubt.Appellant was already shown to the complainant in police station prior to test 3 Cr..A.No.2833/2015 Sanjay @ Kaalu @ Sanju Vs.State of M.P.identification parade, therefore, it has no value and on this account alone appellant cannot be held guilty.The trial Court has committed illegality in convicting the appellant.Considering the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that it is not disputed that on the date of incident, the chain of complainant Smt. Ranjana Sharma (PW-1) was snatched and looted by one unidentified person.A seizure memo Ex.P-7 was prepared.Thereafter, the proceedings for identification of chain and appellant were conducted by Tahsildar Varun Awasthi (PW-2).Tahsildar Varun Awasthi (PW-2) in his statement deposed that on 09.07.2011 he has arranged the test identification parade of appellant in central jail Bhopal.The appellant was duly identified by complainant Smt. Ranjana Sharma.In this regard, the complainant Smt. Ranjana Sharma (PW-1) in her examination-in-chief clearly stated that she does not identify the appellant.In para 2 of her statement, she deposed that at present she is not able to state, out of three accused persons standing in the Court room whom she had identified in jail.In cross- examination also, she admits that at the time of incident, all of a sudden, a person on motorcycle came near to her, snatched her chain and ran away, she could not see him properly.The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court.Therefore, this fact is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant's chain was recovered at the instance of appellant.The golden chain be returned to the complainant. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,383,816 | The Petitioner is stated to have opened copper wire factory under the name "Vishvesh Wire"Rev. P. 139/2006 Page 1 of 8and installed heavy machinery, which was financed from the State Bank of India (SBI), which was hypothecated to the said bank.The Petitioner was arrested for power theft and an FIR No.686/97 dated 21.9.1997 was registered against the Petitioner under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC at PS Samaipur Badli.The said factory was closed on 25.9.1997 because of the said FIR.The factory was later sealed by the Pollution Department, Government of NCT of Delhi.The Petitioner was informed on 10.9.2001 by the Manager, SBI regarding removal/sale of the hypothecated machinery to one Rajiv by respondent no.4, stated to be the relative of Respondent No.3 and was allegedly found in the factory.The Petitioner further alleged forcible dispossession and trespass along with theft of machinery.Rev. P. 139/2006 Page 2 of 8FIR of the present case was registered on the basis of written complaint filed by the petitioner with the allegations that the respondent Mahender Yadav was the landlord of the premises at Gali No.A1, Samaipur Badli.He opened a copper wire factory at the tenanted premises and installed heavy machinery after getting it financed from State Bank of India.An FIR No.686/1997 PS Badli was registered against the petitioner for power theft under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and under Section 379 IPC.The factory of the petitioner was sealed by the Pollution Department.It was alleged that on 10.09.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Manager of State Bank of India that the respondent Brijesh removed/sold the hypothecated machinery to some Rajiv.Rev. P. 139/2006 Page 3 of 8As per investigation report, the petitioner visited his factory on 19.11.2001 with Inspector Jagbir Singh and found that the machinery in his factory premises was intact.No machinery allegedly stolen was found to be missing from the factory.There is no allegation of presence of respondent Mahinder Yadav and Devender Yadav on 10.09.2001 when the alleged theft of machinery had taken place.It also revealed during investigation that on 10.09.2001, respondent Brijesh Yadav, friend of the petitioner met the bank officials at the factory premises.Even the petitioner had handed over another set of keys of his factory to the respondent Brijesh Yadav.It has come on record during investigation that on 10.09.2001, respondent Mahinder Yadav and Devender Yadav were not present in the factory premises of the petitioner, so there is no basis in the allegations that they had committed any forcible entry in the factory of the petitioner what to say commission of theft of machinery.Rev. P. 139/2006 Page 4 of 8The allegation against respondent Brijesh Yadav that he was found present in the factory on 10.09.2001, but as per the investigation report, the petitioner had himself handed over keys of his factory to his friend respondent Brijesh Yadav.Aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the closure report filed by the police and releasing respondent Nos.3 to 5 for the offence under Sections 448/380/34 IPC, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.After conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed showing respondent nos.3 to 5 in Column No.2 as not sent up for trial.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the closure report and released the respondents.Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, releasing the respondent nos.3 to 5, the petitioner has preferred the Crl.Written synopsis was filed by the petitioner.On the basis of complaint of the petitioner, FIR under Section 448/380 IPC was registered and later on Section 506 IPC was added.It is not the case of the petitioner that he visited his factory premises on 10.09.2001 when the respondent Brijesh Yadav was allegedly seen then.The said allegations were based on the information given by the Manager of State Bank of India, Samaipur Badli.From no stretch of imagination the order dated 26.11.2005 Crl. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
71,395,503 | This application has been filed by the appellant No.1-Ramesh for suspension of his sentence awarded by 1st Additional Session Judge, Sujalpur, District Shajapur in S.T.No.205/2015 who is convicted for offence under Sections 302/149 of the I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine 1 year additional R.I. and u/S 148 of I.P.C. to undergo 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine 3 months additional R.I.As per material which has come on record the allegation against the appellant is that he had caused injury to deceased- Manoharlal.Referring to the Statement of PW-16 (Dr. J.P. Dubey) learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased died due to 3 injuries which are caused by hard and blunt object.None of the injuries are by hard and sharp object and prays for suspension of jail sentence.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prays for rejection of bail. | ['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. |
70,824,701 | This is the third application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.First application was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.08.2014 which is M.Cr.Second application was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.03.2015 which is M.Cr.The applicant is in custody since 04.06.2014 in connection with Crime No. 186/2014 registered at Police Station City Kotwali district Vidisha for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 304-B of IPC subsequently, charge was framed for offence under Sections 306, 498-A and 506-B of IPC.It is alleged that the applicant is husband of the deceased.It is alleged that Smt. Kalabai died due to burn injuries in the suspicious circumstances.She was admitted in the hospital and her statement was recorded on 19.03.2014 by Tehsildaar Zamil Khan in which she has stated that on 18.04.2012 her marriage was solemnized with the applicant.She has a child due to the wedlock.Because her husband used to treat her with cruelty and threatened her of her life, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil and setting herself on fire.(Gangaram Ahirwar Vs.State) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 3981/2015 On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that, charge filed earlier under Sections 498-A, 506, 304-B but subsequently, vide order dated 17.11.2014 charge has been framed under Sections 306, 498-A and 506 (part-II) of IPC and he is in custody for more then one year.The statements of the father and mother of the applicant did not support the prosecution story.The deceased was mentally unsound and she was tend to commit suicide.Copy of the statements of Bhaiyalal and Sanu lal have been referred in which the brother of the deceased has stated that "the deceased before her marriage, also tried to commit suicide several times".Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of the regular bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application.Earlier applications were not decided on merit.Applicant has been in custody for more then a year.At this stage, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing his presence before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-(Gangaram Ahirwar Vs.State) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 3981/2015If the applicant found breach of any of the conditions above, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge LJ | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,830,036 | Ankur was working at Bangaluru.There was discord between the couple.According to the wife, she was initially driven out from her house, however, with the assistance of the Protection Officer, under the Domestic Violence Act, she could enter into her in-laws' place in Medinipur.Prabir Adya, the father of Ankur, filed second case alleging that he was forcibly driven out from his own house at the instance of Rajeswari where Rajeswari is running Physiotherapy Center and Beauty Parlour.Prabir, as also his son, Ankur were not allowed to enter into his house.506, 341, 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Another case, as against the in-laws and the husband being respondents above named, has been initiated at the instance of the wife, being C.R. Case No. 97 of 2010 under Section 498A/354/323/407/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code.Both these cases are now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur.In the first case initiated at the instance of the wife, charge sheet has been submitted and charges have not yet been framed, whereas; the second case is pending for service return for the process.The facts would depict that one Ankur Adya was married with Smt. Rajeswari Adya.The learned Magistrate has directed process to be issued and served upon the accused.Mr. Soumen Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the complaint was devoid of any particulars and the alleged complaint was nothing but a counter to the original complain made by the wife.He has drawn my attention to the said complaint to submit that the allegation made by Prabir could not have been made.At her instance, the Protection Officer submitted a report and on that basis she is now residing in her in-laws place.Hence, question of her forcibly entering into the house in December 2009 could not arise.Mr. Mitra further contends that Ankur was working in Bangaluru, 3 hence, there is no reason why Rajeswari would forcibly stay in her in-laws place, more so because of the reason the house belongs to Prabir Adya and not Ankur.I do not wish to enter into the factual controversy.In my view, both the cases should be heard one after the other and judgment should be delivered simultaneously to avoid complication once for all.Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.( Banerjee, J.) akb. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,832,688 | Petitioner/A1 along with A2 faced trial for offences u/s.409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC in C.C.Nos.370, 367, 364, 365, 366, 368, 372, 371, 369 and 370 of 2002 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tharapuram.The prosecution case was that petitioner, who was working as an Assistant at Tharapuram Government Hospital, along with A2, received monies from Tharapuram Treasury and misappropriated such sums by creating forged documents.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgments dated 30.01.2008, while acquitting A2, convicted petitioner/A1 of offences u/s.409, 467, 468 and 477-A IPC, sentenced him to undergo 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- i/d 1 week S.I. for each of the offences u/s.409, 467 and 468 IPC and 2 years R.I. for offence u/s.477-A IPC and directed that the sentences run concurrently.There against, petitioner preferred C.A.Nos.50, 54, 51, 52, 53, 55, 59, 58, 56 and 57 of 2008 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Tharapuram, Erode District.Appellate Court, under judgments dated 31.12.2008, dismissed such appeals.Hence, these revisions.He has been in custody for a period of 147 days.Submitting that petitioner is now aged 68 years and suffers from various health problems, learned counsel prays this Court to show leniency on the question of sentence.Heard learned Government Advocate on the above submissions.Fine amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today.In default, petitioner shall undergo 6 months simple imprisonment in each case.Sentences to run concurrently. These Criminal Revisions are disposed of with the above modification.17.12.2014Index:yes/noInternet:yes/noajr/1.The Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court III, Tharapuram, Erode District.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Tharapuram, Erode District.3.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Erode District.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,834,228 | This petition relates with an offence under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, S.T. No.881 of 2005, P.S. Sikhera, District Muzaffarnagar pending before Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C.-3, Muzaffarnagar.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA.Looking to the gravity of the offence vide paragraph 2, the applicant seems to be aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2005 vide annexure no.9 passed by the learned trial Judge.By the said impugned order, Sessions Judge F.T.C. Muzaffarnagar has exercised the discretionary power on the basis of evidence tendered before him and has summoned Babloo and Om Prakash to stand the trial along with already being tried accused for the aforesaid offence of kidnapping, abduction and rape.The aforesaid order was passed on the strength of the testimony of P.W.1 Raj Kumar and P.W.2 Pratima in her examination-in-chief.In her testimony before the Court, victim has testified that her chastity was ravished also by Om Prakash and Babloo and, therefore, she anointed the guilt of gang rape upon the applicant.Victim was 16 years of age and she was kidnapped from lawful guardianship of her father informant Raj Kumar.In that respect F.I.R. was got registered under sections 363 and 366 IPC.During investigation, victim was recovered and her statement was recorded, medical examination was conducted and X-Ray was also prepared.Wrapping up the investigation, only a single accused Bhushan was charge sheeted under section 363, 366, 376 IPC.He was charged with the aforesaid crime.Informant father Raj Kumar was examined as P.W.1, who supported his F.I.R. version.Looking to the evidences given in the court and the attending facts that the learned trial Judge rightly exercised his discretion in summoning non charge sheeted accused Om Prakash (present applicant) and Babloo to stand trial along with Bhushan for abduction, kidnapping and rape.After going through the record of this 482 Cr.P.C. application, I do not find any error, which has been committed by the learned trial Judge in summoning the accused to stand trial including the applicant for the aforesaid offence.Interim order dated 6.1.2006 stands vacated.Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Judge for him to take up the trial expeditiously and conclude it positively within a period of six months without granting any unnecessarily and uncalled for adjournment either to the prosecution or to the accused. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,839,333 | CRM No. 7562 of 2018 Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10th September, 2018 in connection with Chinsurah Police Station Case No. 25/2018 dated 18.1.2018 under Sections 121/121A/ 122/124A/147/148/149/323/325/326/186/224/325/333/353/152 /153 /307/427/ 436/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9 of the MPO Act.And In Re:- Subhra Bramha & Ors.... Petitioners Mr. Subir Banerjee Mr. Sandip Bandyopadhyay Mrs. Ruxmini Basu Roy ..for the Petitioners Mr. Ranabir Raychowdhury Mr. Mainak Gupta .. for the State The petitioners seek bail in connection with Chinsurah Police Station Case No. 25/2018 dated 18.1.2018 under Sections 121/ 121A/ 122/ 124A/147 /148/149/323 /325/326/186/224 /325/333/353/152/153 /307/427/ 436/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9 of the MPO Act.1 2 The petitioners claim that because of lack of drinking water facilities at the jail, the petitioners started an agitation and the jail authorities have now slapped several sections on them for that.The petitioners say that several other co-accused have been released on bail by the Court below.The State refers to the report by the jail superintendent to indicate the extent of damage to jail property as a result of the violence unleashed by the petitioners.The State also denies that the petitioners' agitation was for lack of adequate drinking water.The State says that it has applied for cancellation of the bail granted in several others pertaining to the same complaint.Considering the nature of the damages and the incident, it may not be necessary for the petitioners to remain arrested in connection with the case of agitation and alleged violence in the jail.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly, on condition that they shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever and he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and in the event they fail to do so, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 3 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,840,498 | (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)Criminal contempt proceedings were initiated against 10 Contemnors namely :Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Advocate (Contemnor no.1); Arvind Kumar Gautam, Advocate (Contemnor no.2); Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, Advocate (Contemnor no.3); Suresh Dixit, Advocate (Contemnor no.4); Raghunath Das Bishnoi, Advocate (Contemnor no.5); Yusuf Ishtiyaq, Advocate (Contemnor no.6); Karmksheta Awasthi, Advocate (Contemnor no.7); Aftab Ahmad, Advocate (Contemnor no.8); Udai Shankar Dwivedi, Advocate (Contemnor no.9); and, Pankaj Gupta, Advocate (Contemnor no.10), pursuant to an inquiry report of an incident took place on 20th November, 2014 in the afternoon, in District Judgeship Jalaun at Orai in the Court of Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as "Informant-Presiding Officer").The advocates alongwith the aforesaid Contemnors pressurized Informant-Presiding Officer to retire in Chamber since advocates had passed a resolution of abstention and when he resented, advocates manhandled, assaulted and insulted him.Informant-Presiding Officer narrated the entire incident to Administrative Judge on telephone and also said that District Judge did not take any appropriate action in the matter.On 7th May, 2015, Court noticing the fact that Contemnors have been found to abuse informant-Presiding Officer, shouted slogans and assaulted him by throwing CPU of computer and pen holder, creating ruckus and ransacked dais of Court, and in the incident some advocates also sustained injuries, found prima facie case of 'criminal contempt' against the aforesaid advocates since their aforesaid acts amount to scandalizing the Court, interfering and obstructing administration of justice, tarnishing image of Court and lowering down dignity and authority of Court, issued notice requiring them to show cause why they may not be punished for committing contempt.It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of appreciation of evidence of the above mentioned witnesses and fact and circumstances narrated by them, it revealed that Sri Manoj Shukla after attack on him got down from the dais and abused learned advocates who entered in the court room.Meanwhile, advocates gripped him and dragged towards Varandah outside his court and manhandled and abused him also.Thus Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also provoked learned advocates and indulge in scuffle with those advocates.Work and conduct of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.Contemnors then filed replies and after perusing the same, Court framed charge against Contemnors on 24.8.2015, which reads as under :"You, Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Arvind Kumar Gautam, Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, Suresh Dixit, Raghunath Das Bishnoi, Yusuf Ishtiyaq, Karmkshetra Awasthi, Aftab Ahmad, Udai Shankar Dwivedi and Pankaj Gupta, Advocates, who are all stated to be practising lawyers and also associated with the District Bar Association of Jalaun at Orai on 20th November, 2014 at about 12.45 p.m. forcibly entered Court No. 3 presided over by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, the Additional District & Sessions Judge and shouted slogans using unparliamentary language and assaulted him physically by throwing items on his dais thereby creating a ruckus and ransacked the court resulting in injuries sustained by some of the advocates in the court room that left the court scandalized thereby lowering the esteem of the judiciary.The said incident therefore amounts to a clear interference with and an obstruction in the administration of justice and such act substantially interferes with the due course of justice which falls within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, this court is of the prima facie opinion that you contemnors deserve to be tried for having committed the criminal contempt of the subordinate court as reported for which you deserve to be punished." (emphasis added)Applications were filed thereafter by Contemnors requesting to supply copies of statements recorded by S.O. (Vig.) on the basis whereof report dated 17.12.2014 was submitted and also a video footage, which was taken note in the said report.Court accepted the said request and vide order dated 01.9.2015, directed to supply the aforesaid material to Contemnors.Though a large number of advocates had put in appearance on behalf of Contemnors but Sri Dharam Pal Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava has advanced submissions on behalf of all the Contemnors except Contemnor no.5 on whose behalf Sri Avnish Mishra has advanced his submissions.Subsequently Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava came to be elected as President of Bar Association.A communication dated 18.10.2014 of Secretary, Bar Association was issued to Advocates that Court of Informant-Presiding Officer shall be boycotted till he is transferred outside the District and said communication was also endorsed to District Judge.Vide letter dated 21.10.2014, it was forwarded by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, District Judge, Jalaun at Orai to this Court.On 20.11.2014, following massage was received on the mobile of the then Administrative Judge of District Judgeship Jalaun at Orai from informant-Presiding Officer :"Respected Lordship, Today at 12.45 p.m. Advocate Pradumn Kumar Srivastava, President of Bar and his colleagues attacked on Court and beaten me and the D.J. is not taking any action.Statements of Court Reader, Orderly and a Class IV employee, were recorded by S.O. (Vig.).Perusal thereof show that at about 12.45 P.M., Informant-Presiding Officer was sitting on the dias when several Advocates entered Court room, shouting slogans, threw CPU of computer and pen-holder towards Informant-Presiding Officer; Table glass and and pen holders were broken and files fell down and scattered.Due to ruckus created by advocates, Informant - Presiding Officer got down from dias whereupon advocates gripped and dragged him out of Court in Varandah.In this ruckus some advocates also sustained injuries.In the process when advocates gripped informant-Presiding Officer and manhandled him, he also got indulged in scuffle.S.O. (Vig.) for the purpose of inquiry formulated following three points :Whether Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President Bar Association, Jalaun at Orai along with his colleagues attacked on 20.11.2014 in the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special Officer (Gangster Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 03, Jalaun at Orai and he was man handled by these advocates?Whether the then District Judge Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav did not provide proper security to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla and provoked learned counsels to beat him up?Whether on 20.11.2014 at about 12:30 Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla himself along with his gunner and ten constable of P.A.C. assaulted on the member advocates of delegations with kicks, fists and gun and constable of P.A.C. Beaten-up the learned acvocates with sticks and caused injuries to them while these advocates went to inform about the resolution passed in general meeting on 20.11.2014 at about 11:00 a.m.?"After referring to evidence collected by him, he recorded his conclusion and findings as under :"Conclusion :On the basis of above discussions and appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, I have arrived at the following conclusions:-E.W. 12 Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, E.W. 48 Sri Shailendra Kumar Sharma, E.W. 37 - HCP 142 Sri Santosh Kumar Sachan, Pairokar of the police station Rampura, E.W. 31 - Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Senior Prosecuting Officer, E.W.18 - Sri Ram Jiyawan Shukla and E.W. 26 - Sri Neeraj Mishra, Class-IV Employees have proved the incident dated 20.10.2014, stating that some advocates had arrived reached in the Court and thrown a bag towards the dais, which dropped between reader and the presiding officer.E.W. 48 - Reader has clarified this fact the learned advocates and the presiding officer had conversation in high volumes of voice, some senior advocates along with Court Moharir took these advocates and accused person out side the court, when the court was vacated by these persons, someone locked the court outside.After one hour this lock was opened by someone.E.W. 48 - clarified this fact that they were detained in the Court Room during this period.After opening of lock further dates were fixed in presence of accused persons.The learned advocates have conveyed this fact that on 20.11.2014, a resolution was passed at about 11:00 a.m. in the general meeting of the District Bar Association, which was handed over at about 11:15 a.m. by the delegation of Bar Association to the District Judge, then the delegation informed the various courts about boycott and reached at about 12:30 p.m. At the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.They have refuted this suggestion that delegation of the Bar association went straightway to the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, after visiting the chamber of the District Judge.The learned advocates have stated that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has passed orders arbitrarily and illegally.He has insulted the litigants and learned advocates in the open court.They have quoted an example of his misbehave that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla told a litigant in presence of Sri Devendra Ved, Senior Advocate, while he was conducting cross examination that why he has engaged learned advocate, he will cause damage to him and he would be convicted.On the same day, Sri Devendra Ved, sustained cardiac attack.The learned advocates have forwarded complaint written as well as oral regarding misbehave of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to the District Bar Association.The learned advocates have also clarified this fact that most of the learned advocates are not satisfied with the working of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.The learned advocates entered in the Court room of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla forcefully and attacked on 20.11.2014 at about 12:45 - 01:00 p.m. on him while he was sitting on the dias.Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has named Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the president of the District Bar Association, Arvind Kumar Singh, Rajawat, Suresh Dixit, Raghunath Dass Bishnoi and Yusuf Ishtiyaq who abused him, shouted slogans and assaulted him by throwing CPU of computer, pen holder and beaten him up.I have watched video recording produced by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.It revealed that Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, E.W.1 the President and E.W. 02 Sri Arvind Kumar Gautam, Advocate, General secretary of the District Bar Association along with 10-15 advocates entered forcefully and created ruckus and ransacked the dais of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla E.W.1 - Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Sri Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, E.W.-08 - Sri Suresh Dixit, E.W.43 - Sri Karma Kshetra Awasthi, Sri Aftab Ahmad, E.W.-4, Sri Udai Shanker Dwivedi, Sri Pankaj Gupta, Advocates sustained injuries in this incident dated 20-11-2014 is established, which shows they have participated actively in this incident.Therefore, proceeding of the contempt of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla should be drawn against these learned advocates.E.W.36 - Constable No. 65 - Sri Abir Singh Court Moharir of the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla also sustained injuries, while he was trying to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.E.W. 32 - Sri Girja Shanker Dwivedi and Sri E.W.34 - Sri Kamal Kant Kushwaha, have clarified this fact that on 20-11-2014, no baton charge was made on learned advocates only slap and fists were used during thrashing each other.E.W. 34 has stated that police personnels were not having sticks.E.W. 38 - Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has clarified this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla gripped and thrashed only one advocate E.W.47 - Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gurjar, Assistant Government counsel of the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also clarified this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla had abused learned advocates only, he did not see anyone to thrash each other.Finding on Point No.3On persual of comments dated 17-04-2014, it is clearly established that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla had protested against the then District Judge, because he was not satisfied with the allotment of his residence and shifting of his court room.Likewise, the then District Judge had discharged him from the responsibility as the Officer In- charge of Library and Nodal Officer of Computers.The reasons mentioned by him regarding the irregularities committed for the purchase of oil, toner of ink cartridge for computer printer and judgment paper and other stationery items and non availability of new edition of books at library, may likely be correct, even then it is inferred from the facts mentioned in this comments that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla was not satisfied with the allotment of his official accommodation and shifting of his court.The incident dated 24.04.2014 occurred at night at the guest house of Irrigation Department has been conjoined by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla with the facts of recall of Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2012 - Smt. Khillan Devi Vs.Video recording was shown to S.O. (Vig.) on 26/27.11.2014 i.e. after a gap of 6-7 days giving sufficient opportunity for manipulation in video recording.The preparation/recording of video by manipulation by several device including device of cut paste is a common feature, which the modern development of science has made easily possible.Recording of Video through laptop at the time of alleged occurrence was practically not possible.Video recording timing is 01:04:08 p.m. on 20.11.2014 whereas the incident is said to have taken place between 12:45 to 1.00 p.m.Then in paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of affidavit, allegations are made against Informant-Presiding Officer and it would be appropriate to reproduce the same as under :That it has also come in the inquiry report that Learned Judge, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla is in the habit of abusing his own staff, like his stenographer.That the evidence of EW-23 Sri Umesh Dixit, Stenographer of Learned Judge, Sri Monoj Kumar Shukla discussed at Page 259 to 261 is sufficient to show/prove that the Learned Judge, Sri Manoj Shukla himself responsible for what happened on the day of occurrence.That the Learned Vigilance Officer has clearly found that the Learned Judge, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has manipulated/ prepared false evidence against the then Learned District Judge, and S.S.P. Jalaun at Orai (Kindly see at page no.203 of the inquiry report).That the Learned Vigilance Officer has also observed (page 275 - 276) that he could not peruse the inquiry report dated 28.06.2014 and the letter dated 24.04.2014 submitted by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then district Judge, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.That regarding the work and conduct of Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava made by Learned Vigilance Officer at page 276 of report, it is submitted here that Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava (present deponent) has never been served with a copy of any show cause notice with respect to the Transfer Application (Civil) No. 501 of 2014 filed before this Hon'ble Court.The applications were not received in the Court and instead Informant-Presiding Officer retired to his Chamber.Contemnor 6 personally met District Judge and made complaint against conduct and behaviour of Informant-Presiding Officer.For this reason, Informant - Presiding Officer got annoyed with Contemnor 6 and included his name in the present criminal contempt matter.When the incident occurred, Contemnor 9 was in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and was coming from that Court.Then again some allegations are made against Informant - Presiding Officer. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
708,417 | Do you know where there is bua (fake spiritualists).There are bais (women) Kundatai is in Bombay and he is enjoying here".ORDER N.A. Britto, J.These petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) can be disposed of as revision petitions filed under Section 397 of the Code.All the three petitions arise from C. C. No. 121 /04/A and since facts are common, and so also the law applicable thereto, they can be disposed of by this common Judgment.The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said complaint.4. Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties.The complainant claims to be a Public Charitable Trust having its Office at Sukhsagar, Ponda, Goa, and that it is established to educate people about the science of spirituality by organizing discourses, seminars, workshops, etc. The complainant claims that its seekers have faith in it and it has earned a high reputation in the society in general and in thousands of seekers in particular.The complainant claims that on 15-5-2004, the respondent/A-1 Smt. Vimal Dessai filed a false report with Panaji Police Station against Shri Reshak Gaokar, Shri Dinesh Naik and Shri Rajesh Gaokar, seekers, following their spiritual practice under the guidance of the complainant and thereafter in furtherance of their common intention to defame the complainant, the said respdhdent/A-1 /Vimal Dessai and the re-spondent/A-2/Dr.Ashutosh Dessai telephoned many seekers who are carrying on their spiritual practice under its guidance and communicated to them the defamatory statements pertaining to it and its founder Param Pujya Dr. Jayant Balaji Athavale.As per the complainant, false and defamatory statements were, made by respondent/A-1 and respondent/A-2 as follows:On 15-2-2004, accused No. 1 telephoned Mr. Hemant Kale of Madkai, Goa and inter alia, told him that "Saunsthane Gund posle ahahe sodle na gund".On 18-5-2004, accused No. 1 telephoned Dr. Manoj Solanki of Madgao, Goa and inter alia told him that "P.P. Dr. Athavale has started sending sadhaks as goondas.In Ponda Ashram scandals are going on, women and ladies folk should not go to Ponda Ashram.Do not take your wife to Ponda Ashram.On 18-5-2004, accused No. 1 telephoned Smt. Suma Puthlat of Kochi, Kerala and told her "your sadhaks are behaving like goondas.There are so many young ladies staying in your ashram.On 19-5-2004, accused No. 2 telephoned Bapu Raokar of Raigad of Maharashtra and while talking to him told him that "Sanathanmode gund girich vadli ahai.As far as the respondent/A-3-Deepti Sarvottam Kamat is concerned, the complainant stated that she had aided and abetted the offence of defamation committed by A-l and A-2 against the complainant.The complainant on or about 15-7-2004 addressed a common notice to all the three accused alleging what has been stated herein above and claiming damages.Each of the accused replied separately denying the allegations made by the complainant.Thereafter, the complaint came to be filed and statement on oath of the complainant recorded.On the basis of the complaint and the statement on oath of the complainant, the learned C.J.M. was pleased to issue process against the accused by Order dated 9-9-2005 which came to be set aside in revision, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji.The complainant has challenged the said Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in these petitions.There is no dispute that the complaint was filed by the complainant, a Public Charitable Trust, through its Managing Trustee Shri Virendra Marathe and only his statement on oath was recorded and on the basis of the same process was issued by the learned C.J.M. As far as re-spondent/A-3-Deepti S. Kamat is concerned, whether it is in the complaint or in the statement on oath of the complainant only a sweeping statement was made that the respondent/A-3 aided and abetted the offence of defamation. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,084,231 | Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the complainant.In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.I.A. No.20815/2020, an application filed u/S. 301(2) Cr.P.C. is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the learned Panel Lawyer.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this third application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.His first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dt.13.03.2020 passed in M.Cr.His second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt.25.08.2020 passed in M.Cr.Co-accused- Yogendra Singh not only filthily abused and exhorted to kill, but also with an intention to kill, fired at the complainant which hit at driver's gate.Besides, co accused- Monu Katle and Chhotu Rajput also fired from behind.The incident was witnessed by Brajendra Singh and Vijay Pratap Singh Rajawat who were sitting in the vehicle.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated.Charge sheet has been filed.It is submitted that irrespective of the injuries, in order to attract the provisions of Section 307 of the IPC, there must be intention or knowledge on the part of accused persons, which is vivid in the facts and circumstances of the present case.In his memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, co-accused- Yogendra Singh has admitted that the gun was handed over to the present applicant Dhirendra, which has also been recovered from him.Besides, applicant has criminal antecedents to his discredit.On such grounds, he prays for dismissal of the application.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,847,086 | Further one of the co-accused has been found to be influencing a prosecution witness.BAIL APPLNs.During the trial after filing of the charge sheet the copies of the charge sheet and list of documents were supplied to the accused on 24th May, 2011 when the Petitioners sought copies of the documents in E-form and the co-accused Surjit Lal sought a hard copy of the same.On 21st July, 2011 CBI supplied the copies of complete charge sheet, documents and statements in a DVD to all the accused persons.When this also did not bear fruit, the Petitioners with co-accused got issued a tailor made RFP to suit STL to the exclusion of other vendors.This is borne out from the fact that even prior to submitting of the bid in response to RFP on 4th November, 2009 the Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi in the presence of Petitioner V.K. Verma on 12th October, 2009 declared to the General Assembly of the CWG Federation that the TSR system would be provided by STL.In fact no such meeting took place.In order to suppress the dissent, PW-2 V.K. Gautam was divested of his supervision of the Technology F.A. and vide order dated 13th October, 2009 the Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi entrusted it to Petitioner V.K. Verma.Thereafter on 6 th November, 2009 V.K. Gautam was removed from OCFC and Sujit Panigrahi was superseded by the Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi by appointing one Sandeep Arya as ADJ Technology.Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Gautam Narayan, Spl Counsels with Mr. Nikhil Menon, Advocate.By these petitions the Petitioners seek bail in case FIR bearing RC- DAI-2010-A-0044 for offence under Section 120B read with Sections BAIL APPLNs.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 1 of 18 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act).BAIL APPLNs.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 1 of 18All the offences alleged against the Petitioner are at the most punishable upto seven years except for offence under Section 467 IPC.In fact after filing the charge sheet the CBI has twice filed applications as late as on 24th September, 2011 and 3rd November, 2011 for placing additional documents and further list of witnesses on record.The application dated 3rd November, 2011 has been allowed on the 4th January, 2012, and the matter is now listed for scrutiny.Thus the Petitioner be granted bail.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 3 of 18 Supreme Court.The other aspect of the Petitioner being influential so as to be in a position to influence the witnesses is that he has deep roots in the society.The aspect of the Petitioner having deep roots in the society thus there being no likelihood of his fleeing from justice has been ignored by the Trial Court.The allegations are essentially that the Petitioner along with other co-accused conspired to change the eligibility criteria so as to benefit the Swiss Timing Omega.The company Swiss Timing Ltd.(STL) enjoys a huge reputation worldwide.When arguments on bail were heard on 1st June, 2011, CBI produced an ante dated statement of Jarnail Singh.In his statement, Jarnail Singh disowned his note and stated that the files were only routed through him.BAIL APPLNs.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 4 of 18Thereafter, BAIL APPLNs.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 7 of 18 a request was made by the accused persons that hyper-linking be done for which CBI sought time.On 5th August, 2011 E-copies of the challans with hyperlink were furnished to the accused persons.In the meantime, three other accused surrendered before the Trial Court and E-copies of the challans were served upon them.Since some of the accused are still not available for trial, the CBI moved an application for separation of the trial, which was opposed by the Petitioners and other accused.The Trial Court has already directed for proceeding with the matter on day-to-day basis and thus from the perusal of the orders passed by the Trial Court, it is evident that there is no delay on account of the CBI.BAIL APPLNs.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 7 of 18As regards the allegations under Section 467 IPC, learned counsel for the CBI contends that the gravamen of charge against the Petitioners is that they in concert with other accused to achieve a common object entered into a conspiracy and as a part of conspiracy, Surjit Lal the co-accused forged the documents.If the Pan American Games were also included then other players in the field of this device would have also been included and thus there would have been more competition.His condition is all right as is evident from the fact that he even approached this Court seeking permission to attend the Parliament.Thus, bail should not be granted to the Petitioners.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 9 of 18Though PW-1 Sujit Panigrahi recommended that an agreed approach to the provision of TSR system be adopted as the extent of planning and work required to deliver the services was significant, however this note was returned by the office of Petitioner V.K. Verma with the remark that no action was required on that file and PW-1 was dissuaded from processing the matter for open tender and to prepare a scope of work for STL instead.Even this RFP was manipulated and tampered with and the decisions taken thereon in the 8th OCFC meeting were fabricated.PW-1 Sujit Panigrahi has alleged that he was harassed and totally sidelined in all the matters.The resignation was not accepted at that time and further harassment followed.The witness even asked for being relieved on health grounds as the maltreatment was affecting him and finally on 20th January, 2010 he was relieved of his duty and one Sandeep Arya was brought in, who could manage the things as per the desire of the Petitioners and co-accused.PW-2 V.K. Gautam has stated that due to BAIL APPLNs.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 15 of 18 falsification and manipulation of records, heated arguments ensued between him and V.K. Verma the Petitioner herein, and he threatened to expose the manipulation.However, the Petitioner V.K. Verma contemptuously stated that he was not bothered about it and PW-2 could do what he wanted.PW-2 also had an exchange of words with the Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi on 13th October, 2009 whereafter the work of Technology F.A. was taken away from him and he was put under V.K. Verma.According to this witness the situation in O.C. became so unbearable that he proceeded on long leave from 20th December, 2009 citing personal reasons.Thereafter there was no influence on the witnesses and they made their statements fearlessly before the CBI.Though the learned Trial Court has directed that the trial be conducted on day to day basis, however, in the main charge sheet itself 49 witnesses have been cited.Thereafter, further witnesses have been cited in the two supplementary charge sheets.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 17 of 18(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 19, 2012 'vn' BAIL APPLNs.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 18 of 18BAIL APPLNs.1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 18 of 18 | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
657,204 | The accused has been charged under Sections 279, 304(A) and 337 of IPC.The short facts of the case of prosecution are that on 7.6.1998 at about 5.45p.m., when the accused was driving the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN.27-N-0664 from Mettur to Salem Town at the place of occurrence, while over taking, the lorry bearing Registration NO.TDS -2557 dashed against a stationery lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850 in a rash and negligent manner causing death of a stationery lorry driver and due to the impact caused simple injuries to the six persons, who were travelled in the bus.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem, after taking the case on file, had issued summons to the accused who is a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus driver and on his appearance had furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, who had committed under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.. on appearance before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Salem, the charges levelled against him were explained to the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.On the side of the Prosecution , P.Ws 1 to 21 were examined.Exs P1 to P21 were exhibited.According to him, while he was proceeding in his lorry on 7.6.1998 at about 5.45p.m., from Karuppur in the Omalur- Salem road towards Salem, the accused drove the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0664 in a rash and negligent mannder over took him and dashed against the stationery lorry parked on the right side of the road in the opposite direction causing injuries to the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.He has identified the accused as a driver, who had driven the ill fated bus at the time of the accident.5b. P.W.4 to P.W.8 and P.W.10 are the passengers, who have travelleld in the ill fated bus on the date of occurrence and sustained injuries in the accident.P.W.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850 and issued Ex P2 certificate stating that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect.TDS -2557 and issued Ex P3 certificate stating that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect in the lorry bearing Registration No.Since P.W.10 has failed to identify the accused, he was treated as a hostile witness.P.W.11 is the doctor, who had issued Ex P4 wound certificate for one Madesh.P.W.12 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.5 Sivapackiam, a passenger on the date of the accident in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P5 wound certificate.He has also examined Rani P.W.6 for the injuries, she had sustained in the accident, while travelling in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P6 copy of the accident Register.On the same day at about 8.15 p.m, he has examined P.W.7 Andal, another passenger in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P7 copy of the accident Register.P19 is the inquest report.The Point:Even according to P.W.1, the lorry driver bearing Registration No.This revision has been filed against the Judgment in C.A.No.126 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Salem which emanates from the Judgment in C.C.No.380 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Salem.GJ-6-V-7850 and also to the passengers travelled in the said bus and that P.W.2 Mani was the cleaner of his lorry at the time of the accident and Ex P1 is the complaint preferred by him.Even according to him, the accused, the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.He has also examined the lorry bearing Registration No.The doctor has opined in Exs P5,P6 and P7 about the injuries sustained by the above said witnesses P.W.5 to P.W.7 respectively.P.W.13 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.5 Sivapackiam and issued Ex P8 wound certificate stating that the injury sustained by P.W.5 is simple in nature.P.W.14 is the Doctor, who had examined P.W.6 Rani and issued Ex P9 copy of the accident register stating that the injury sustained by P.W.6 is simple in nature.P.W.15 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.4 Subramaniam,another passenger who had sustained injury in the ill fated bus and issued Ex P10 copy of the accident Register stating that the injuries sustained by P.W.4 are simple in nature.He has also examined one Makudeshkumar and issued Ex P11 copy of the accident Register stating that the injuries sustained by Makudeshkumar are simple in nature.P.W.16 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.3 Dhanam and issued Ex P12 copy of the accident Register for the injuries, she had sustained in the accident, while travelling in the ill fated bus.P.W.17 is the doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of one Ashok, the driver of the stationery lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850, who died in the accident.The doctor has opined that due to the injury, the deceased had sustained in the neck, back bone and due to shock and haemorrhage,he died .P.W.18 is the Doctor, who had examined two children Lokesh Kumar and Jeevathinam, who have sustained injuries in the accident and issued Ex P14 and Ex P15 copy of the accident Register respectively.P.W.19 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had inspected the ill fated bus bearing Registration No.5g.P.W.20 is the then Inspector of Police, who is the successor of P.W.21 , had took up investigation in this case which was registered under Crime No.1014/1998 under Sections 279,304(A) and 337 of IPC.He had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.He would further depose that First Information report was registered by the then Head Constable Mr.Mahalingam , who is now no more.Ex P18 is the copy of the first information report.He has conducted inquest on the corpse of lorry driver Ashok, who died in the accident on 8.6.1998 in the hospital.He has also examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.Ex P20 is the trip sheet for the ill fated bus.Ex P21 is the observation Mahazar prepared by him in the presence of the witnesses.When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, he would deny his complicity with the crime.After going through the materials available on record before the trial Court by the prosecution including the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the offence constituted under Sections 279,304(A) and 337 of IPC(6 counts) has been made out against the accused by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo one month simple imprisonment and convicted the accused under Section 3o4(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and convicted the accused under Section 337 of IPC (6 counts) and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each count and ordered that the sentence to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.126 of 2004 before the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Salem, who heard the appeal had dismissed the appeal after confirming the judgment of the learned trial Judge, which necessitated the accused to prefer this appeal before this Court.Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 304(A) and 337 of IPC(6 counts) against the accused by the learned trial Judge which was confirmed by the first appellate Court in C.A.No.126 of 2004 is sustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the revision?Heard Mr.TDS 2557, the accident had occurred only, at the time, when the driver of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0664 /the accused while over taking the lorry bearing Registration No.TDS 3557, without responding to the signal given by him about a lorry which was coming in the reverse direction from Ponni Way Bridge which is situated on the left side of the road where the accident took place and that the said lorry was also coming towards his right on the southern side, the driver of the bus/the accused had driven the bus rashly and negligently in a high speed dashed against the stationery lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-7850 which was parked to his extreme right side.From Ex P17, rough sketch itself, we can infer that only due to the rash and negligent act of the accused, the accident had occurred.Ex P17 forms as Res Ipsa Loquitur which shows the manner in which the accident had occurred and also indicates under whose rash and negligent act ,the accident had occurred.Both the Courts below have based on the evidence of the injured passengers and also on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration NO TDS 2557, the cleaner of the said lorry bearing Registration No.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the accused is a Government Servant and he is due to retire within one or two years and some leniency may be shown on the sentence.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would rely on a dictum reported in Sukhdev Singh-vs-State of Punjab(1982)2 Supreme Court Cases,439).In fine, the revision is dismissed, while confirming the conviction of the first appellate Court in C.A.No.126 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, No.2,Salem against the accused, the sentence alone is modified to that of the period already undergone and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 of IPC in default to under go one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-under Section 304(A) of IPCin default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each (six counts) under Section 337 of IPC, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment each.(The total amount of fine Rs.17,000/-) .Out of the fine amount the injured P.W3 to P.W.8 shall get Rs.1000/- each towards compensation and the Legal representatives of the deceased Ashok(the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.GJ-6-V-7850) shall be entitled to Rs.10000/- towards compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is permitted to deposit the above said fine of Rs.17,000/- before the trial Court on or before 22.8.2007, failing which, the revision stands dismissed.The Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.2 Salem.2. -do-the District and Sessions Judge Salem.The Judicial Magistrate No.2 Salem.4. -do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate Salem.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.The Superintendent of Central Prison Salem.The Sub Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station Salem. | ['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
65,830,851 | The complaint alleges that one Prataprao Govindrao Pawar is Chairman of M/s Sakal Papers Private Limited.It is engaged in the business of printing and publishing news papers in the States of Maharashtra and Goa.The Company has also Website, therefore, publications have wide circulation throughout India and abroad.One Abhijeet Prataprao Pawar is Director on the Board of Directors of the said Company.One Leelatai Parulekar is also a Director and she is daughter of the founder of the said Company, namely, late Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar.5 It is alleged that there was function organized on 20.09.2011 to celebrate 114th Birth Anniversary of Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar.That programme was organized at Balgandharva Rangmandir, Pune at 06:00 PM in the evening.The function was attended by high dignitaries and Mr.Prataprao Pawar was also personally present.When that programme was going on, a person i.e. the Petitioner, intending to obstruct the same and to create chaos and confusion, entered the hall although he was not an invitee.He was distributing some pamphlets.He had entered the hall ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 ::: *3* wp.314.12.sxw after pushing several persons.The pamphlets contain the defamatory material against the said Prataprao Pawar.The Petitioner was also seen speaking in defamatory language to those present in the audience.The said Dhananjay Divakar also saw the Petitioner in the hall and at that time, the Complainant Mr.Mahendra Pisal, General Manager of the Company, was shown this pamphlet.It is alleged that Claude Lila Parulekar, the owner of the shelter that has over 200-300 animals, is now completely helpless.She is physically disabled and cannot even lift her head on her own and her two limbs are paralyzed and one limb is fractured.She is mentally inconsistent due to severe dementia and other ailments of the brain and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 ::: *5* wp.314.12.sxw nervous system.The said Lila Parulekar has no relatives and therefore, a politically well connected person is trying to grab her land.10 It is alleged that the Petitioner is, therefore, facing harassment by Police and anti-social elements since last one and a half year to withdraw from the issue.The false and frivolous complaints were filed against the Petitioner with the Animal Welfare Board of India and the Bombay High Court Animal Welfare Committee to get him derecognized as an Animal Welfare Officer.It is stated that after facing enquiry from Animal Welfare Board of India, the Petitioner was found to have been framed and the so-called Complainants said that their signatures/ letterheads have been forged.A second set of complaints was filed in the name of Lila Parulekar with the AWBI in the month of September and the AWBI after perusal of medical records, found that Lila Parulekar was not in sound disposing mind.11 It is alleged that the Complainant, in this case, at an earlier occasion has used the similar modus operandi to force an opponent named Chandrashekhar Hari Joshi to withdraw all cases filed by him against Prataprao Pawar and his Company.21 We have been taken through the contents of other website which is entitled www.savelila.com.Statement of objects and reasons:-The Information Technology Act was enacted in the year 2000 with a view to give a fillip to the growth of electronic based transactions, to provide legal recognition for e-commerce and e-transactions, to facilitate e-governance, to prevent computer based crimes and ensure security practices and procedures in the context of widest possible use of information technology worldwide.With proliferation of information technology enabled services such as e-governance, e-commerce and e-transactions, protection of personal data and information and implementation of security practices and procedures relating to these applications of electronic communications have assumed greater importance and they require harmonisation with the provisions of the Information Technology Act. Further, protection of Critical Information Infrastructure is pivotal to national security, economy, public health and safety, so it has become necessary to declare such ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 ::: *20* wp.314.12.sxw infrastructure as a protected system so as to restrict its access.There, the defendant was an internet service provider (ISP) who offered a Usenet facility enabling persons to publish material to readers across the globe.Persons would submit their work (postings) to the local service provider who would then disseminate them via the internet.The defendant's Usegroup facility kept the articles for two weeks.Judgment (Per Dharmadhikari, J):::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::On reading it, he found that it contains defamatory statements and also refers to websites, namely, www.savelila.com and www.jeevraksha.org.The Petitioner was calling upon the people in the audience to view these websites.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::On accessing those websites, the Complainant noticed that they contained several defamatory statements and material against Prataprao Pawar and whole purpose was to defame him.Thus, these are the statements made by the Petitioner and some of his associates, although these persons have no connection with the said Company or the said Leelatai Parulekar or her social work.The statements were made to malign and defame Prataprao Pawar.For all these reasons, it was alleged that they have committed the offences punishable under the aforementioned provisions.7 In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that he is a spirited individual working for the betterment of animals and is also the founder of the Pune Unit of People for Animals.He is also an Animal Welfare Officer (Hon) with the Animal Welfare Board of India (for short "AWBI") under the Ministry of Environment and Forests.He has also been appointed as an Animal Welfare Officer (Hon) by the Bombay High Court Committee for monitoring of Animal Welfare Laws in the State of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 ::: *4* wp.314.12.sxw Maharashtra.He also runs a helpline for animals that rescues around 1200 animals a year.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::8 It is alleged that the Information Technology Act, 2000 was deliberately used purely to convert a non cognizable offence into a cognizable one.The Petitioner believes that though there was no case against him under the Information Technology Act, 2000, he was framed under pressure/ influence of politically well connected person to firstly get the Petitioner arrested and tortured in police custody and to harass him further if needed.It is alleged that all this was with an intention to force the Petitioner to withdraw the criminal cases against the said Prataprao Pawar and his men.The First Information Report does not say that the Petitioner was harassing anyone.He did not send any menacing or threatening messages nor that any content of the websites was obtained through illegitimate means.The only complaint being repeated is that his "Saheb" was defamed by the actions of the Petitioner.9 It is stated that the Petitioner is an Animal Welfare Officer appointed by the Animal Welfare Board of India as well as the Bombay High Court Committee for Animal Welfare.The Petitioner is extremely concerned and frustrated over the situation of animals in the shelter by name "Jeevraksha".It is claimed that the Petitioner is fighting against this illegality.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::In that particular case, merely on the grounds that Mr.Chandrashekhar Hari Joshi had reimbursed his credit card expenses from Lila Trust, he was in police custody for 7 days and after which he withdrew all cases in the Company Law Board, District Court, High Court and resigned from all Trusts and flew out of India for an indefinite period.Subsequently, the Police were unable to find any evidence and the case was closed.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::of animals since last 14 years and also a friend of Claude Lila Parulekar, who is currently under house arrest and under illegal custody of Prataprao Pawar.The Petitioner tried to raise awareness on the plight of animals and Lila Parulekar through a website www.jeevraksha.org which was made together by a group of Lila's friends and animal lovers called Jeevraksha Support Group.The Petitioner also spread the message through leaflet and email so that Lila and her animals can get justice.It is claimed that the Petitioner also peacefully went to the said function held to celebrate the Birth Centenary of Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar, father of Lila Parulekar.The Petitioner explained people about condition of Lila and how she is being neglected and her property is being usurped.The Petitioner has annexed the copies of websites at Annexure-B. The Petitioner has also referred to the notice issued to him on behalf of Prataprao Pawar.A copy of notice is at Annexure-C and reply thereto is at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition.13 In paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Writ Petition, this is what is alleged:-Prataprao Govind Pawar found it humiliating that people are being made aware of the pitiable condition of Lila Parulekar who is the only daughter of Nanasaheb Parulekar under whose name he runs several trusts and institutions.He also found it difficult to answer before public as to why is this lady in neglect and not being allowed to meet her own friends and well wishers.The accused therefore put to task an entire machinery to avenge this humiliation and also to remove him from his way for grabbing land owned by Lila Parulekar and Jeevraksha.It is also notable that the Complainant Pratap Govindrao Pawar and Sakal Papers Limited appears to have extreme domination over the Police ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 ::: *7* wp.314.12.sxw Department.The Hon'ble High Court issued orders for proper care of animals at Lila Parulekar's shelter on 02.12.2011, however, the guards of Sakal Papers still did not allow volunteers inside the bungalow.The Division Bench of Hon'ble Chief Justice and Justice R.S.Dalvi, perturbed by blatant misuse of muscle power, directed the Commissioner of Police, Pune to provide protection to activists.Despite the specific order to the Commissioner of Police, Pune the Police are reluctant to act and even now animals are not being allowed to be cared for as per orders of the High Court.This amply illustrates what kind of respect the Complainant has kind of clout it has over the Police Department."::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::14 After alleging as above and complaining that the Petitioner was denied bail on unjustified grounds and put under arrest, what has been then alleged is that it is the Petitioner who has been defamed and publicly.The Information Technology Act, 2000 has been deliberately referred to purely to convert a non cognizable offence into a cognizable one.In these circumstances, the First ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 ::: *8* wp.314.12.sxw Information Report deserves to be quashed.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::17 In support of this Writ Petition, Mr.Mor, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence.The allegations in the First Information Report are vague.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::allegedly defamed is recorded, but that of an employee of M/s Sakal Papers Private Limited.In these circumstances, this Writ Petition be allowed and the First Information Report to the extent prayed be quashed.At that time, it is alleged that the Petitioner entered the hall and with a view to disrupt the function, by pushing some guests, started distributing pamphlets containing defamatory statements.The title of that pamphlet has been reproduced in the statement of the General Manager Mr.Mahendra Pisal.The website has also been referred and therefore, the allegations are that the contents of this website defamed the said Prataprao Pawar and Sakal Papers Private Limited.It is alleged that this is the sole motive of distributing the pamphlets and containing defamatory statements.Even the contents of website affirmed this position.The said contents and of website www.jeevraksha.org have been set out at Annexure-B page 21 and what one finds is that they indicate, prima facie, as to how there were disputes between Parulekars and Pawars.It has also been set out as to how the Pawar Group filed the complaint.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::The Information Technology Act, 2000 has brought in a legislation so as to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as "electronic commerce", which involve the use of alternatives to paper-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::*19* wp.314.12.sxw based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies and further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.34 The statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act 10 of 2009 clarifies that the Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted with a view to give a fillip to the growth of electronic based transactions, to provide legal recognition for e-commerce and e-transactions, to facilitate e-governance, to prevent computer based crimes and ensure security practices and procedures in the context of widest possible use of information technology worldwide.The statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act 10 of 2009 reads as under:-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::A rapid increase in the use of computer and internet has given rise to new forms of crimes like publishing sexually explicit materials in electronic form, video voyeurism and breach of confidentiality and leakage of data by intermediary, e-commerce frauds like personation commonly known as Phishing, identity theft and offensive messages through communication services.So, penal provisions are required to be included in the Information Technology Act, the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent such crimes.The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the year 2001 adopted the Model Law on Electronic Signatures.The General Assembly of the United Nations by its resolution No.56/80, dated 12th December, 2001, recommended that all States accord favourable consideration to the said Model Law on Electronic Signatures.The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."The Authors observed thus:-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:59 :::The claimant brought proceedings alleging defamation for the period between 17th January and 27th January.The defendants argued, inter alia, that they were not the common law publishers.However, Morland J. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
65,865,270 | 2.The case of the petitioner is that he is a Law Graduate, enrolled as an Advocate on 10.01.1979, and after about 4 years of practicing in the Court, he was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II on 23.09.1983 by the District Collector, Erode.He was promoted as Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.I, in March 2000 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Director of Prosecution on 25.09.2006 and deputed to serve as Legal Advisor in the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-corruption, Tirunelveli.While he was serving as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Gr.I, at Cheranmahadevi, he was in-charge of District Crime Branch cases and the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli obtained legal opinion from the petitioner on the petition given by one Tr.P.Lakshmana Perumal, Secretrary, Indian Industrial Mineral Producers Welfare Association, Chennai, addressed to the District Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, for taking criminal action against one Tr.Srinivasan, Director, M/s.Earth Mineral Resources Pvt. Ltd. After going through the petition, based on the averments made in the petition, the petitioner herein gave his opinion to take action against the said Tr.Srinivasan for violations of Mines and Minerals Research and Development Act. In respect of allegation No.4 (sedition) and allegation No.5 (criminal intimidation), the petitioner had opined to register a case under Section 124(A) and 506-II IPC.Following the said opinion, a criminal case was registered against the said Tr.R.Srinivasan in Cr.No.25/2004 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli for offences under sections 124(A) and 506-II IPC.After investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the complaint preferred by the complainant Tr.Lakshmana Perumal dated 23.02.2004 was due to professional rivalry and the said complaint was preferred based on the instigation of one Tr.Sakthivel, formerly Inspector of Police, DCB Thirunelveli and Tr.The petitioner submitted a reply specifically stating that the said legal opinion was given in the regular discharge of his duty based on the request of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli and not at the instance of one Tr.The petitioner has also pointed out that a mere reading of the complaint given by Tr.Lakshmana Perumal, clearly made out the ingredients of offence defined under Section 124(A) IPC, which is a congnizable offence.However, the petitioner's explanation was not accepted and punishment was imposed by the 1st respondent on 23.09.2007 withholding one increment for one year with cumulative effect.The petitioner filed review petition on 10.12.2007 before the Government and challenged the order of punishment. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
65,898,536 | The Complainant take strong exception to the wilful non-performance of the obligations by the Accused under the MoU and also the non-submission of the quarterly and annual Utilisation Reports which clearly demonstrates the unilateral and wilful default by the Accused and places the strong possibility of misappropriation and siphoning-off of the Grant Amount i.e. Rs. 2,88,03,600/- released by the Complainant under the Scheme Udaan.In the light of the fact that the Accused has illegally and wrongfully failed to comply with the terms of MoU despite receiving an amount of Rs.(vii) Following the submission of the above complaint, by NSDC, against the applicant, the EOW addressed communications, dated 18th April, 2019 and 18th September, 2019, to NSDC, informing NSDC that its complaint was being enquired into, and directing Mr. Ravi Verma, who had addressed the complaint, to the EOW on behalf of NSDC, to appear, in person, before the Inspector, EOW, with certain documents, and to answer certain queries.(ix) On 12th June, 2019, the applicant replied to the EOW, in response to the complaint of NSDC.It was emphasised, in the said reply, that the applicant had, consequent to the grant of 2,88,03,600/- (which was the limited amount withdrawn by the applicant out of the total grant, by NSDC, of 72,69,48,000/-), recruited 5000 students with great difficulty, and at high cost.It was further stated, in the reply, that the applicant had consistently provided feedback to the Udaan team, regarding the deficiencies in the program, and the ineffectiveness of communication which NSDC, in Jammu and Kashmir.(xii) On 14th April, 2020, NSDC addressed, to the applicant, yet another email, which has provoked the filing of the present application.The email read thus:Accordingly, requesting Mr. Yogendra to accord the priority to this case and instruct iYogi, its Director and authorized representative to refund the amount of grant disbursed by NSDC and not utilised by iyogi as per the MoU executed between the parties under the project Udaan.CO. APPL.These communications, contends Mr. Duggal, clearly indicate that the grievance of NSDC, against the applicant, was only that (i) it had not furnished the original utilisation certificate, evidencing utilisation of 1,44,60,180/-, but had provided only a soft copy thereof, and (ii) it had not provided proof of utilisation of the balance amount of 1,43,43,420/-.The applicant had also submitted a claim, for reimbursement of 50,000/- (per student), which was pending.(xi) Vide email dated 18th June, 2019, NSDC responded to the email, of the applicant, dated 12th June, 2019 supra.In the CO. APPL.For want of the Original Utilisation Certificate, the soft copy thereof, dated 7th August, 2015, it was stated, could not be accepted by NSDC.The applicant was, therefore, requested to furnish the Original Utilisation Certificate, dated 7th August, 2015, representing utilisation of an amount of 1,44,60,180/-, duly certified by CAG empanelled auditor, as well as Original Utilisation Certificate for the balance amount of 1,43,43,420/-.CO. APPL.(M) 135/2016 Page 12 of 34CO. APPL.(M) 135/2016 Page 15 of 34The deposit was by way of two separate cheques, of 1.25 crores each, which were duly encashed.The ICDs were for a period of 120 days, and DCM was liable to repay the amount before the expiry thereof, along with interest." In any event, submits Mr. Duggal, the email, dated 18th June, 2019 supra, from NSDC to the applicant, acknowledged the fact that the soft copy of the Utilisation Certificate, dated 7th August, 2015, evidencing utilisation, by the applicant, of an amount of 1, 44,60,180/-, out of the total amount of grant, extended to it by NSDC, had been received by NSDC.The grievance of NSDC, as voiced in the said communication, was that the applicant had not furnished the original utilisation certificate (though, Mr. Duggal would seek to submit, no such requirement existed, under the MoU between the applicant and NSDC, or elsewhere).The "request", with which the said communication concluded, was "to immediately submit the below mentioned documents to NSDC for CO. APPL.2. Original Utilisation Certificate for an amount of 1,43,43,420 [i.e., balance of (a) total disbursed amount of 2,88,03,600 less (b) UC for an amount of 1,44,60,180 sent by email] duly certified by CAG empanelled auditor thereby certifying utilisation of the rest of the financial assistance disbursed to iYogi."The email, dated 14th April, 2020 supra, addressed by NSDC to the applicant, which provoked the filing of the present application, too, points out Mr. Duggal, requested the EOU to "instruct iYogi, its Director and authorised representative to refund the amount of grant disbursed by NSDC and not utilised by iYogi as per the MoU executed between the parties under the project Udaan."(M) 135/2016 Page 32 of 34 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
66,212,168 | Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the sake of brevity), appellants/original accused are challenging the order dated 27 th February 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, thereby rejecting the avk 1/4::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2020 04:20:25 ::: 4-APEAL-441-2019.doc application for anticipatory bail filed by them in Crime No.I-358 of 2018 registered with Kalyan Taluka Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3 of the S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2020 04:20:25 :::My attention is drawn to the order dated 27th February 2019 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1819 of 2018 thereby granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused.It is further urged that the learned trial court erred in rejecting a similar application of the present appellants/accused.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2020 04:20:25 :::3 The learned APP opposed the appeal by contending that specific acts constituting the offence under the S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are alleged against appellants/accused, and therefore, in view of bar of Section 18 as well as Section 18A of the said Act, no anticipatory bail can be granted to appellants/accused.4 I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the FIR as well as the impugned order.5 The learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail, by the impugned order dated 27th February 2019, has observed utterances of appellants/accused persons and categorically held that offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(r) and (s) of the S.C.S.T. (Prevention of avk 3/4::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2020 04:20:25 ::: 4-APEAL-441-2019.doc Atrocities) Act are made out from the FIR, and therefore, in view of bar of Section 18 of the said Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2020 04:20:25 :::6 Perusal of the FIR goes to show that casteist abuses were made against the First Informant by both appellants/accused.It is further averred in the FIR that the First Informant was assaulted by both appellants/accused by giving casteist abuses to him in a public place.8 The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2020 04:20:25 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
66,345,126 | On the basis of averments in criminal complaint (CC No. 55/1/2012) of the second respondent (the complainant) and the evidence led in support in the pre-summoning inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners and their father Syed Daud Meer, along with third and fourth respondents herein, were summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 17.02.2016, to appear as accused persons and face proceedings on the accusations of involvement in offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).It is stated that Syed Daud Meer, father of the petitioners, he being the first accused in the criminal complaint case of the second Crl.M.C. No.1906/2016 Page 1 of 4 respondent, died on 30.06.2013, which fact is fairly conceded to be correct by the counsel representing the second respondent.The allegations against the petitioners and their late father Syed Daud Meer are distinct from the allegations against the third and fourth respondents, and, thus, the grievances of the petitioners against the summoning order would have no bearing, and shall not be construed as reflective of opinion, on the case of the complainant against third and fourth respondents.M.C. No.1906/2016 Page 1 of 43. Syed Daud Meer, the late father of the petitioners, had instituted a civil suit no. 347/1998 seeking a decree of specific performance of contract and for perpetual injunction vis--vis property no. 745, Fatak Dhobian, Farash Khana, Delhi, on the strength of a document which he described as an agreement of purchase of the said property executed by the complainant, she purportedly having received from him an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money.The suit was contested by the complainant claiming, inter alia, the said document dated 10.07.1997 to be forged and fabricated.It appears that in the said civil suit, copy of the said document styled as "receipt" was brought in evidence as Ex.PW-1/1, its copy having been presented during the pre-summoning inquiry into the criminal complaint as Ex.CW-1/B.A copy of the judgment dated 22.01.2002 rendered by the court of Additional District Judge on the said suit of Syed Daud Meer has been submitted and was relied upon in the pre-summoning inquiry by the complainant.The suit was dismissed on the basis of findings to such effect being recorded.Against the above backdrop, the criminal complaint was filed alleging the afore-mentioned offences having been committed by the petitioners and their late father Syed Daud Meer, averments qua third and fourth respondents being that they had "also committed" similar offences by compelling the complainant to execute the sale deed in their name without paying full consideration and get the sale deed executed in their name for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- only.It is conceded on behalf of the complainant that in the pre- summoning inquiry, she led evidence by examining only herself (as CW-1) and her daughter Farheen Israil (as CW-2), the evidence of both the said witnesses (CW-1 and CW-2) primarily meant to bring on record the above-mentioned documents.The allegations in the complaint lodged by the second respondent insofar as they are directed against the petitioners were vague.They have been clubbed with the late father without any specific role being attributable to them.They have been wrongly accused of having filed the afore-mentioned civil suit or having presented forged or fabricated document in the civil suit.The summoning order passed against the petitioners is found to be an order mechanically passed without due application of mind.The proceedings in its wake against the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue inasmuch as the same would be an abuse of the process of law.For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed.The proceedings against the petitioners in the criminal complaint case (CC No. 55/1/2012), pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, pursuant to the summoning order dated 17.02.2016, are hereby quashed. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,611,853 | (iv) Applicants shall not threaten the witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence;(v) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2020 00:40:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2020 00:40:10 ::: | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,613,208 | Factual matrix, as discernible from record appears to be that a written report was lodged at police station- Kotwali Shahr- on 15.07.2008 at 10.05 a.m. by Smt. Shamima w/o Wakil Ahmad (accused in this case) r/o Hamidpur, Police Station- Kotwali Shahr, District Bijnor regarding commission of rape committed by the accused on his own daughter with allegations, inter alia, that the informant has three daughters and one son.Her elder daughter is the victim, aged about 13-14 years and she is minor.The father of victim (Wakil Ahmad) used to take her to forest for collecting woods and used to commit rape on her there.This continued for quite long time and on resistance being offered by the victim, she was threatened by him.The episode came to the knowledge of the informant and the people of the locality when victim became pregnant with she developed symptoms of pregnancy.The informant inquired with the victim about the actual fact/incident, whereupon, she disclosed everything to her (informant), that her father has committed rape on her and has threatened that in case, she discloses this facts anyone, she will be killed.The incident was brought to the knowledge of the Village Pradhan, whereupon, Village Pradhan and the informant were also threatened by the accused- appellant.Entry of contents of written report was noted in the concerned check F.I.R. at 10.05 A.M. on 15.7.2008 at Case Crime No.1456 of 2008, u/s 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Shahr, District- Bijnor, which is Ex.The investigation ensued, and the same was initially conducted by Subodh Kumar Saxena (P.W.5), who after recording the relevant entries in the concerned General Diary prepared memo of clothes of the victim, Exhibit Ka-2 and also recorded statement of the witnesses and ensured recording of statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.Record reflects that the victim was medically examined by Dr. Savita Gupta P.W.4 on 24.07.2008 at Women Hospital, Bijnor, wherein, she noted following internal examination (Exhibit Ka-5):-Internal Examination- Vagina opening admits two finger, hymen torn old healed, no bleeding, no congestion, vaginal smear prepared, Patient give H/o 5 months menstrual.Per abdomen exc.at size 20 wps- 22 wps.Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.Heard Ms. Seema Pandey, learned amicus curiae for the appellant, Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned AGA assisted by Sri Rajiv Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of this Jail Appeal.By way of instant Jail Appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.03.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.4, Bijnor, in Sessions Trial Nos.858 of 2008, State Vs.Wakil Ahmad, arising out of Case Crime Nos.1456 of 2008, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Shahar, District- Bijnor, whereby the accused-appellant- has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.20,000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC and in default of payment of aforesaid fine, he will have to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.Age of the victim was assessed to be 17 years.The said report has been proved by Dr. Savita Gupta P.W.4, which is Exhibit Ka-6 on the record.Pursuant to the filing of the charge-sheet, proceeding of the case was committed to the court of Sessions.As a sequel to that, Sessions Judge, Bijnor allotted S.T. No.858 of 2008, State Vs.Vakeel Ahmad.The Sessions Judge, Bijnor heard the accused on point of charge and he was, prima facie, satisfied with the case u/s 376 IPC against the accused-appellant.Therefore, it framed charge against the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC.Charge was read over and explained to the accused, who abjured the charge and opted for trial.Thereafter this case was transferred for disposal to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, court no.6, Bijnor.In turn, the prosecution, in order to prove guilt of the accused examined as many as five prosecution witnesses.Brief sketch of the witnesses is herein below:-She has lodged the first information report.She is the wife of accused.She is the daughter of the accused.She has medically examined the victim besides, assessing the age of the victim as 17 years.He has proved the part of investigation he conducted.Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case.No evidence, whatsoever, was led by the defence.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, court no.6, Bijnor, after appraisal of facts and merit of the case and the evidence on record, returned aforesaid finding of conviction and passed sentence for life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.20,000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC and in default of aforesaid fine, he was directed to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment.Resultantly, this appeal.The Investigating Officer also colluded with the informant and the concerned Gram Pradhan and has deliberately collected false evidence and filed the charge- sheet.The prosecution case does not inspire confidence and the trial court failed to appreciate properly these particular aspects of the case and erroneously recorded conviction and passed sentence.Also considered the above rival submissions. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,614,171 | The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 23.4.2007, the complainant Ram Balak Soni was going from his jewellery shop at village Dhera to his house situated at village Tamri by a motorcycle.He had a bag on his motorcycle.He had some silver and golden ornaments with him.(Passed on the 8th day of January, 2013) The applicants have challenged the order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa in S.T.No.143/2007, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 392, 397 and 120-B of IPC were framed against the applicants.They overtook the motorcycle of the victim and thereafter- 2 -Criminal Revision No.1308 of 2012 assaulted him.They shown a country made pistol to the victim and kept a dagger on his neck.Thereafter, 2 stones including a pearl and a blue stone, 84 silver payals, a golden ring and other ornaments were robbed by them.After sometime, the victim chased the motorcycle of the culprits and he found that due to an accident, the motorcycle was lying on the road and one culprit was present with the motorcycle, who told his name to be Vikas Singh and another culprit Guddu Singh Baghel went alongwith the entire robbed property.On the FIR lodged by the victim Ram Balak Soni, a case was registered.On due investigation, it was found that a criminal conspiracy was committed by the accused Vikas Singh, Guddu @ Roni Singh @ Mahendra Singh, Divakar and others to commit robbery with the victim.In the memo of the accused Guddu @ Mahendra Singh, it was mentioned that he and Divakar visited the house of the applicant No.2 Munna @ Ramgopal Soni, so that the robbed property could be sold and thereafter, the robbed property was sold to the applicant Chandrika Soni.The police has filed a supplementary challan against the applicants thereafter.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is alleged by the eye witnesses etc. that only two- 3 -Criminal Revision No.1308 of 2012 persons were involved in the robbery and those two persons were Guddu and Vikas Singh.Hence, it is apparent that no offence punishable under sections 392 or 397 of IPC was committed by the applicants.According to the various witnesses and memos given by the accused persons, it would be apparent that Divakar and one more accused were involved in the criminal conspiracy.Divakar and Munnu helped the other accused persons at the time when they were taking the robbed property and the complainant was chasing them by a motorcycle but, no role of the applicants is shown.Though the statements given by the various accused persons under section 27 of the Evidence Act are not admissible against the applicants, however, if they are accepted as such, still no role of the applicants is shown by them, so that it could be said that they were involved in the criminal conspiracy of robbery and therefore, no offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC is made out against the applicants.At the most, offence punishable under section 411 of IPC may constitute but, there is no evidence with the prosecution that the applicants had obtained the robbed property.Nothing has been seized from the applicants.Under such circumstances, the memo given by the co- accused Vikas Singh or Guddu under section 27 of the Evidence Act is not admissible because such memos are- 4 -Criminal Revision No.1308 of 2012 inadmissible as per the provisions of section 24 of the Evidence Act. Hence, there is no prima facie offence against the applicants that they willfully obtained the robbed property and therefore, no offence under section 411 of IPC even is made out against the applicants.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants may be discharged.The learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.After considering the entire evidence as collected by the police, it would be apparent that only two persons namely Vikas Singh and Guddu had participated in the crime of robbery.It is also apparent that accused Divakar and Munnu helped them and they were also involved in the conspiracy but, there is no iota of evidence against the applicants that either they participated in the robbery or they participated in the criminal conspiracy of the robbery and therefore, no offence punishable under sections 120-B, 392, 397 of IPC is made out against the applicants.The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not frame the charge of offence punishable under section 411 of IPC against these applicants.However, there is no admissible evidence against the applicants that they obtained the robbed property and therefore, no charge under section 411 of IPC may be framed against the applicants.- 5 -Criminal Revision No.1308 of 2012 The learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges, without any basis and therefore, he has committed an error of law.Hence, the revisionary powers of this Court are required to be exercised.Consequently, the revision petition filed by the applicants Chandrika Prasad Soni @ Chandrika Soni and Munna @ Ramgopal Soni is hereby allowed.The order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa relating to the applicants is hereby set aside.The trial Court may proceed further with the trial against other accused persons.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 8/1/2013 Pushpendra | ['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,615,229 | 419/420/468/471/120-B/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed of 5th December, 2013 (Annexure-P-4) and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Compromise Deed of 5th December, 2013 (Annexure-P-4) and terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties.Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Compromise Deed of 5th December, 2013 (Annexure-P-4)and of his affidavit of 12th December, 2013 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.In Gian Singh Vs. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,616,984 | (Jabalpur dt.: 07.02.2018) Per : V.K. Shukla, J.-(Substantive sentence to run concurrently) 3The case of the prosecution is that on 26-06-1998 at about 9 PM , Ramswaroop Chourasia (PW-8) was coming home after visiting temple.On the way, while he was coming back, he met his younger son PW-9 Hariom Chourasia and asked him to accompany him back to the house.Hariom met Ramswaroop at Bijawar Naka.Thereafter, when they proceeded to their house and reached near Pulia, they heard shouting "Mar Dalo Chourasia Ko".After hearing this when they reached the shop of Shibbu Sahu, they saw that appellants Halkai, Ibbu , Abraj, Iddu, Ilias, Hansraj, Pankaj Dubey and Ghanshyam Pathak were assaulting deceased Shyam Bihari with iron rod, butt of katta, butt of knife and bricks etc. There was profuse bleeding from the body of the deceased.On shouting of Ramswaroop and Hariom Chourasia, other persons PW-10 Shivshankar, PW-11 Cheedalal and Kailash reached at the spot and saw that the appellants were assaulting Shyam Bihari.According to them, there was sufficient light and they had identified the accused persons.The deceased was taken to Bijawar Hospital, where he was declared dead.The dead body was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr.R.G.Kotia and the postmortem report is Ex.In para-4, he has stated that there was sufficient light and therefore, he has identified the accused persons.Other witness PW-9 Hariom Chourasia, who is brother of the deceased has also supported the statement of PW-8 Ramswaroop and he has stated that when alongwith his father, was going to the home, he heard the voice and had seen the incident that the accused persons Abbu, Iddu, Israj, Illias , Halkai Sahu, Ghanshyam Pathak and Pankaj Dubey were beating the deceased with the help of iron rod , butt of katta and knife and bricks.He also stated that other persons his uncle Shiv Shankar and uncle Chhedalal reached at the spot, thereafter the accused persons ran away from the spot.The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.PW-10 Shiv Shankar has also supported the statements of PW-8 Ramswaroop and PW-9 Hariom.In para-1 of his statement, he stated that he had seen that the accused persons Halkai, Abbu, Iddu, Illias, Israj, Pankaj, Ghanshyam and Shyam Bihari were beating the deceased with the help of of butt of knife and katta and bricks.PW-11 Chhedlal has also supported the prosecution case and stated that when he heard the shouting of Ramswaroop and others, he rushed 7 to the spot and had seen that the accused persons Ghanshyam, Halkai, Abbu, Iddu and Israj were beating the deceased but he stated that he had not seen, who was beating with which weapon to the deceased.PW-7 Dr. R.G.Kotiya stated that he had carried out the autopsy.In these appeals, a challenge has been made to the 2 common order of conviction and sentence dated 19-06-2003, passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge Chhatarpur, in S.T.No.197/2001,whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :Criminal Appeal No.1031/2003 Conviction Sentence Under Section 147 of R.I. for one year IPC.(Substantive sentence to run concurrently) Criminal Appeal No.1072/2003 Conviction Sentence Under Section 147 of R.I. for one year IPC.(Substantive sentence to run concurrently) Criminal Appeal No.1753/2003 Conviction Sentence Under Section 147 of R.I. for one year IPC.A written report Ex.P-23 was made by PW-8 Ramswaroop.Subsequently, the FIR was scribed on the basis of the written report and the offences under 4 sections 302, 147 and 148 of IPC were registered against the accused persons.The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and spot map Ex.P-25 was prepared by PW-3 Janki Prasad.After recording the statements of the witnesses, the accused persons were arrested.He made seizure of the cloths and weapons on the discovery statements of the accused persons and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination.The FSL report has been filed by the prosecution.The prosecution has examined eye witnesses PW-8 Ramswaroop Chourasiya, PW-9, Hariom Chourasia, PW-10 Shivshankar and PW-11 Chhedalal, who have supported the prosecution case.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the eye witnesses are relatives and the prosecution has not examined any independent witness.It is also submitted that one witness Kailash has not been examined by the prosecution.It is further contended that two persons were not prosecuted by the prosecution namely Pankaj Dubey and Ghanshyam .Per contra , learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the order of conviction and sentence.It is also brought to the notice that two persons were not prosecuted because of the court proceedings.Since the present case is based on the testimony of eye witnesses PW-8 Ramswaroop Chourasiya, PW-9, Hariom Chourasia, PW-10 Shivshankar and PW-11 Chhedalal, we think it appropriate to examine first testimony of the eye witnesses.PW-8 Ramswaroop Chourasia, who is the father of the deceased has deposed that on 26-06-1998, at about 9 P.M. when he was coming back to home from the temple, on the way his younger son Hariom (PW-9) met him, he asked him to come alongwith him.Thereafter, they all proceeded to their house and when they reached near Pulia, they heard the noise "Mar Dalo Chourasia Ko" and after hearing when they reached near the shop of Sibbu Sahu, they saw that the accused persons namely Halkai Sahu, Abbu Musalman, Ibbu Khan, Illias Musalman, Israr Musalman, Pankaj Dubey and Ghanshyam Pathak were beating the deceased Shyam Bihari with the help of rod and butt of knife and Katta and bricks etc. There was bleeding from his body.In para-3 of his statement, he 6 said that after hearing their shouting , the other persons Shiv Shankar and Hira Lal reached at the spot and they had seen the incident .He had found the external injuries and there was blood clotting on the head.There was also lacerated wound near the left side of the ear one incised wound of 2 inch length was there and parietal wound was broken.He said that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.He has also reported that there was a wound 2x2 inch on the face and there was blood clotting .There was also internal injuries.In addition to this, the weapons and cloths of the deceased were seized, which were proved by the prosecution witnesses.The seized articles were sent to the FSL and in the FSL,on the weapons which were marked as Articles M, N-1 and N-2 and on the garments of the deceased, blood was found.On assimilation of the entire facts and the evidence of the present case, we find that the FIR was lodged within one hour of the incident.The names of the witnesses PW-9 Hariom Chourasia, PW-10 Shivshankar and PW-11 8 Chhedalal were mentioned in the FIR and the presence of these witnesses are mentioned by the informant PW-8 Ramswaroop in the FIR itself.The seizure of iron rod and paint shirt vide Ex.P-5 from accused Israj and seizure of articles including weapon knife vide Ex.P-10 and articles from accused Halkai vide Ex.P-11 have been proved.Though the Investigating Officer B.B.Gautam has died and therefore, he was not available but his signatures on the documents have been identified by PW-2 Gopichand.He has clarified this aspect in para-4 of his cross- examination also.It is true that PW-5 Harishchand has not supported the prosecution case.He has admitted his signature on the same.Thus, the seizure of weapons has also been proved by the prosecution.The seized weapons were sent to the FSL and in the FSL report on the weapons Exhibits M, O, Q blood has been found.Thus, the evidence of eye witnesses P-8 Ramswaroop Chourasia, PW-9 Hariom Chourasia, PW- 10 Shiv Shankar and PW-11 Chhedalal stand corroborated and the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they are related to the deceased.In the cases of Brathi alias Sukhdev Singh Vs.State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 318 and State of A.P. Vs.Punati Ramulu and others 1994 Supp(1) SCC 590 it has been held that relation ship by itself is not enough to discard the testimony 9 of related witnesses.Thus, we find that the evidence of the prosecution is trustworthy and it inspires confidence in the mind of this court and it cannot be held that the accused persons have been falsely implicated .Thus, we do not find any error in the order of conviction and sentence warranting any interference.Accordingly all the appeals are dismissed.four thousand) to the amicus curiae who assisted this court. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,620,497 | Nutan Saxena Public Prosecutor.1. Heard on admission.Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order date 23.5.2009 passed by the court XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Cr.Revision No.160 of 2009 affirming the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the court of JMFC, Gwalior in Cr.Case No.10771 of 2006 rejecting the private complaint of petitioner under Section 203 of Cr.P.C filed against the respondents no.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 and 120 of IPC.The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision are that on a FIR lodged by respondent no.2, Crime No.436 of 2006 was registered at PS Janakganj Gwalior against the petitioner along with two others for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506B and 34 of IPC.The petitioner was arrested.His bail application was opposed by respondent no.1 on 13th July, 2006 by filing affidavit on wrong facts before JMFC, Gwalior to the effect that the MCRC.6287.2009. 2 injured Sunil sustaiend injury on his head which had to be fractured with 20 stitches and that injured Renu sustained such injury on her head requiring 10 stitches.On the basis of this wrong affidavit, bail application of petitioner was rejected.Thereafter, the petitioner moved bail application before the sessions Court which was also opposed by the respondent no.1 on the same wrong facts adding a new one to the effect that Smt. Renu is under treatment in Neurology department.The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court in Cr.The said order of revisional court was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in M.Cr.C.No.3169 of 2007 which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.3.2008 by a bench of this Court.3 complaint for the offences as stated herein above.MCRC.6287.2009. 2MCRC.6287.2009. 3Hence, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner herein before this Court.The petitioner submits that learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court both have committed error in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner by not taking cognizance against the respondents whereas, sufficient evidence was produced by him for the same.4 the ground that there was not sufficient evidence on record for taking cognizance as the statements of all the witnesses were not got recorded by the petitioner.However, in the subsequent complaint, he got the statements of seven witnesses recorded before the trial court.Nonetheless, the learned trial court did not properly consider the statements of witnesses for taking cognizance of the alleged offences.The petitioner has further placed reliance upon Vishnu Agarwal Vs.State of UP and Another 2011 Volume 3 MPWN SN 126 and requested that the impugned order as well as trial court's order be set-aside directing the trial court for taking cognizance against the respondents.MCRC.6287.2009. 4Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has filed the second criminal complaint before the trial court suppressing the facts of the earlier complaint.The act of the petitioner comes under the purview of contempt of courts for which, he should be punished and fined heavily.The counsel further argued that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case to warrant the maintainability of second complaint filed by the petitioner.On the aforesaid grounds, counsel prayed for rejection of this petition.MCRC.6287.2009. 5On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner earlier filed a criminal complaint on 11.9.2006 (annexure A/1) before the court of JMFC Gwalior under Section 193, 195, 196, 197, 199 and 200 of IPC and Section 340 of Cr.P.C on the basis of the same facts and with same allegations.6 Cr.P.C. After considering the merit of the case, learned JMFC passed the order dated 11.12.2006 annexure A/2 and rejected the said complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C having discussed the evidence elaborately and without taking cognizance against the respondents as no offence was made out against them.The petitioner filed a criminal revision bearing No.45 of 2007 before the court of IV ASJ, Gwalior where from the revision was dismissed vide order dated 1.5.2007 confirming the order of trial Court.Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C bearing M.Cr.C.No.3169 of 2007 was filed, which was decided by this court vide order dated 7.3.2008 and dismissed affirming the order of the revisional court as well as the trial court.MCRC.6287.2009. 6On this ground, the fact that on 13th July, 2006, she was admitted does not appear false.On perusal of X-ray report dated 17th July, 2006 of injured Kaushalya, it appears that she sustained fraacture in ulna left side.On perusal of the medical report of injured Sunil and Renu dated 12th July, 2006, it apepars that Sunil sustained lacerated wound at his occipital bone for which, x-ray was advised and Renu sustained lacerated wound at her head and swelling over nose.MCRC.6287.2009. 7Vide x-ray report of Kaushalya of the same date, it appears that she sustained three injuries and two injuries were referred for x-ray.Seema was also sustained one injury.There is no evidence on record as to whether, any of the injuries sustained by the injured person, got stitched or not?.The learned trial court after recording the statement of the witnesses again passed the order 8.4.2009 and rejected the complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C holding that the offences under section 420, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC were not made out as the respondents had not prepared any forged document.The learned trial court further held for the sake of arguments that if the offences under section 191, 192 and 193 of IPC are made out against the respondents, the court concerned before which the alleged affidavits was tendered is only competent to file criminal complaint under section 195 of Cr.P.C without which, the cognizance of the said offences cannot be taken by the court.The said order was MCRC.6287.2009. 8 challenged by the petitioner before the XIV ASJ, Gwalior whereby, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2009 affirming the findings of the trial court.MCRC.6287.2009. 8 | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,625,942 | The following are the allegations contained in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the case:-The petitioner is sister's husband of first accused who is husband of defacto complainant.He was not at all a member in the family of the 1st accused at the time of marriage.Hence the petitioner may be discharged from the case.In the counter filed by the respondent it is averred as follows:2.(a) The petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.The above petition is filed to drag on the case and to gain time.Hence, the Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition for discharge. | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,630,496 | In short, the prosecution case is that on 25.3.1993, in Railway Colony, Shahdol, when Suresh, the deceased, had been sitting at his bakery shop, accused Sanjay reached there.When Suresh demanded Rs.500/- from Sanjay, which were due on him, there occurred an altercation.Sanjay went away.However, after sometime, at about 7.00 pm, he came back with his brothers Dipak and Santosh Kumar.While Suresh was standing in front of his shop, Sanjay dealt a blow with a hockey on his back and accused Dipak dealt blows with a Gupti in his abdomen.All the three accused persons then dragged and dropped him in a drain and ran away.He managed to come back near his shop and fell down unconscious.His brother Shanker, sister and mother lifted him and took him inside the shop.They wrapped clothes around his injuries and took him to hospital.However, he died.Shanker (PW-1) went to Police Kotwali and lodged first information report (Ex.P/1).Investigating officer inspected the dead body and conducted inquest proceedings.He prepared inquest memorandum (Ex.P/3).The dead body of Suresh was referred for postmortem examination.Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.6.1994, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Sessions Trial No.104/1993, convicting appellant No.2 Dipak Kumar @ Munda under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100 and convicting appellant No.1 Sanjay Kumar and appellant No.3 Santosh Kumar @ Gudda under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 2 sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.100/- to each of them.Dr. M.D. Shukla (PW-5) conducted postmortem examination of the body of Suresh and found six incised injuries on various parts of his body.In his opinion, the cause of his death was excessive bleeding and the injuries to vital organs.During investigation accused persons were arrested.Weapons and blood stained clothes were recovered and seized from their possession.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of CJM, Shahdol who committed the case to sessions court for trial.All the accused persons were charged under Section 302 and 302/34 of 3 the Indian Penal Code.They abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.However, no specific plea in their defence was put forth by them.Prosecution, to support its case in the trial, examined 18 witnesses.Most of the witnesses did not support the prosecution case.However, relying mainly on the evidence of eyewitness Shanker (PW-1) and the medical evidence of Dr. M.D. Shukla (PW-5), learned Additional Sessions Judge held accused Dipak Kumar guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.Finding the evidence insufficient for convicting accused Sanjay and Santosh Kumar under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them of that charge.However, finding enough evidence to establish charge under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code he convicted and sentenced them accordingly.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, accused/appellants have filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court misappreciated the evidence of eyewitness Shanker (PW-1), who happened to be a younger brother of deceased and a child of about 12 years of age.Since other witnesses did not support the prosecution case, appellants were entitled to be acquitted.He further submitted that the conviction of appellants Sanjay and Santosh Kumar under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified in view of the medical evidence of Dr. M.D. Shukla (PW-5), who, on postmortem examination of the body of deceased, found no injury on his body caused by hard and blunt object.According to him, the evidence of sole eyewitness Shanker (PW-1) was belied by the medical evidence.In the facts and circumstances of the case, their jail sentences 4 deserved to be reduced.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of Shanker (PW-1) was cogent, consistent and reliable.He justified the conviction of accused/appellants and supported the impugned judgment.On examination of the body of deceased by witnesses, many injuries by sharp and pointed weapon were found by them on his body.The fact that he died because of the injuries was mentioned in the first information report (Ex.P/1).The fact that he died a homicidal death is also established by the evidence of Dr.M.D. Shukla (PW-5), who conducted autopsy of the body.According to Dr.Shukla (PW-5), he found following injuries on the body of deceased:-Incised wound 6 cm x 4 cm deep into cavity near right armpit.Penetrating wound 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep near 10th rib.Penetrating wound 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep near 7th rib.It had pierced spleen.Penetrating wound 2 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on left side near 9th rib, on mid axillary line.Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x deep up to brain over vertex, on back side of head.Penetrating wound 3 cm x 1 cm on iliac spine of spinal bone.All the aforesaid injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.On internal examination liver and spleen were found cut.All the injuries had been caused by sharp and pointed weapon.The death of deceased had been caused due to shock resulted from excessive haemorrhage from the injuries.The postmortem examination report (Ex.P/11) was written and signed by him.From the above evidence, it is clearly established that the deceased died a 5 homicidal death.Shanker (PW-1), a young boy of about 12 years of age, who happened to be the real brother of deceased, deposed that at about 7.00 O'clock in the evening, when he was present in front of his bakery shop, all the three accused persons came to his shop and called Suresh out of the shop.They talked about some transaction of money.In the meanwhile, suddenly, accused Dipak dealt a blow of Gupti in the abdomen of Suresh.He dealt further 5-6 blows of Gupti to Suresh.Accused Sanjay and Santosh assaulted Suresh with Lathi and hockey.They dragged him and dropped in a drain.When Suresh shouted, his mother, who was inside the house near the bakery shop, came out.Other persons also assembled there.By that time, accused persons ran away.Suresh came out of the drain and fell near the garbage.He, his mother and two servants lifted Suresh and took him inside the bakery and wrapped clothes on his wounds.He took Suresh to hospital, but he died.He and his mother went to police station and lodged a report (Ex.P/1).It is true that at the time of incident Shanker (PW-1) was a young boy of about 12 years of age, but he was subjected to a lengthy and rigorous cross-examination, which he faced firmly and remained undeviated.His presence at the spot cannot be doubted.He was present at the bakery shop since before the occurrence.He categorically stated that when his brother was assaulted, he was standing at the door of the shop.The evidence of this witness stood corroborated by the first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by him soon after the occurrence.The names of all the accused persons were mentioned by him in the said report.It was clearly stated in the FIR that accused Dipak assaulted deceased with Gupti.The evidence of Shanker (PW-1) stood further corroborated by the evidence of Dr. M.D. Shukla (PW-5), who found six penetrating injuries on the body of deceased.Though Shanti Rajak (PW-2), mother of deceased, stated that when she reached, deceased told to her that Munda (Dipak), Sanjay and Santosh assaulted him, but her evidence about this oral dying declaration was disbelieved because no injuries caused by hard and blunt object were found on the body of deceased on postmortem examination.In our opinion, trial court committed error in doing so because Shanti Rajak (PW-2) did not say as to with which weapon accused persons assaulted deceased.She merely stated that deceased told to her that the aforesaid three accused persons assaulted him.Thus, the evidence of Shanti Rajak about the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to her was reliable and it furnished corroboration to the evidence of Shanker (PW-1).The evidence of Raju (PW-3), younger brother of deceased, appears to be hearsay in nature since he named the appellants on the basis of information furnished to him by his mother.Shanti Rajak (PW-2), however, did not say that she told to him that Dipak, Sanjay and Santosh assaulted the deceased.On a close appraisal of the evidence of Shanker (PW-1) we find that his evidence was cogent, consistent and reliable.He did not appear to be a tutored witness.His evidence was natural and spontaneous.In our opinion, the trial court committed no error in placing reliance on his evidence.From the evidence of Dr. M.D. Shukla (PW-5), it was clearly established that the injuries found on the body of deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death.It was established by the evidence of Shanker (PW-1) that accused Dipak caused those injuries to deceased with a Gupti.Thus, trial court committed no mistake in holding accused Dipak Guilty of commission of offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.As far as the conviction of accused/appellants Sanjay Kumar and Santosh Kumar is concerned, the evidence in regard to causing of injuries by 7 them to deceased with hockey and Lathi stands belied by the evidence of Dr.M.D. Shukla (PW-5), who did not find any injury on his body caused by hard and blunt object.Therefore, in our opinion, trial court was justified in holding that they did not share the intention of accused Dipak or had common intention with him to commit murder of deceased, but, since they went at the shop of deceased with accused Dipak and quarreled with him when Dipak wielded a weapon like Gupti, it could be clearly inferred that they knew that a grievous hurt was likely to be caused to deceased with a sharp cutting and pointed weapon.The trial court rightly held them guilty of the charge under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which could be held to be a minor offence of charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the trial court rightly convicted appellant Dipak @ Munda under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to appellants Sanjay and Santosh under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Their conviction for the aforesaid charges is, therefore, affirmed.As far as the question of sentence of appellants Sanjay Kumar and Santosh Kumar under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, trial court has imposed sentence of imprisonment for three years on them.Since then about 18 years have elapsed.At the time of occurrence, appellants were young boys of about 27 and 22 years of age.By now, both the appellants have settled in their occupations.They are looking after their families and leading peaceful life.Though it was alleged that they assaulted deceased with hockey and Lathi, but it has been found that they did not cause any injury to deceased.They have been convicted only because they accompanied accused Dipak, who assaulted 8 deceased with Gupti.In these circumstances, if the aforesaid appellants are sent back to suffer imprisonment, it shall irreparably affect their lives and career and shall serve no purpose.Appellant No.1 Sanjay has served out about one year of jail sentence and appellant No.3 Santosh has remained in custody for a period of 8 months and 10 days.Their sentence of imprisonment therefore deserved to be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore-(a) The conviction of appellant No.2 Dipak Kumar @ Munda under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him is affirmed.His appeal is dismissed.Sentence of fine is, however, affirmed.Appeal partly allowed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,106,357 | The appellant and the other accused persons are Venkars by caste whereas deceased Zaver Chhita and the complainant party are Chamars.The residential locality of the Vankars is called Vankarwas and the residential locality of Chamars is called Chamarwas.Both are situated adjacent to each other.There is street running in east-west direction in Venkar was and on the eastern side of the said street, there is the temple of Ranchodji.Towards south of the said temple is the temple of Chamunda Mata which was built by Chamars about a month prior to the occurrence.The relations between Vankars and Chamars in village Majalpur were strained for some time past.Vankars were not permitting the Chamars to pass through the street in Vankarwas.On November 12, 1977, the day of the occurrence, at about 7.30 p.m., one Shantaben (PW. 1) was passing through the street in Vankarwas to which the ladies of Vankars objected.The appellant also objected to Shantaben passing through the said street and kicked her on the abdomen.Shantaben went to the temple of Chamunda Mata where Arti and Bhajans were going on and after the Arti and Bhajans were over, she informed the deceased Zaver Chhita, who was elder brother of the deceased husband of Shantaben as well as other persons present there about her having been assaulted by the appellant.Thereupon, Zaver Chhita along with his son Thakarebhai (P. W. 2), his cousin brother Rameshbhai (PW. 4) and other persons present at the temple proceeded towards the house of the appellant.When they had reached near the Neem tree near the temple of Ranchodji, they were confronted by the appellant and other accused persons.The appellant was armed with a gun and other accused persons were also armed.The appellant fired his gun at Zaver Chhita.The gun-shot hit Zaver Chhita on the chest and he fell down near the neem tree.Thakarebhai, PW. 2 took Zavar Chhita to a place near the temple of Chamunda Mata.About ten minutes after the firing of the first gun shot, another gun-shot was fired by the appellant towards the house of Punja Chhita.The said shot hit Raman Shiva who was standing in the Osri (courtyard) of the house of Punja Chhita.Zaver Chhita and Raman Shiva died as a result of the gun-shot injuries sustained by them.Two of the accused persons, namely, Chandulalji (accused No. 7) and Manilal Jethalal (accused No. 8) also received injuries.The information about the incident was given to the police control room by Chittabhai Mithabhai Parmar (PW. 27) and Mahendra Manilal Vaghela.4 are relevant.Shantaben, PW. 1, has stated that after she had narrated the incident involving the appellant having kicked her on the abdomen, Zaver Chhita, along with Takhorebhai, Rameshbhai, Purshottambhai, Dayabhai, Hirabhai started going to the house of the appellant and she also accompanied them and when they reached near the neem tree, the appellant fired a gun-shot towards Zaver Chhita which hit Zaver Chitta on the chest and he fell down near the Tulsi Kyara near the neem tree.P.W. I has also stated that at the time when the appellant fired the gun, others, who are his relatives were also there and some of them had sticks and one had hockey stick.She had also stated that when Zaver Chhita had fallen down, she was injured by a stone by someone and that stones were being thrown by the opponents and that, the stone hit her on the left temple region.On cross-examination, she has stated that at the time when she reached Chamunda Mata temple, Arti was over and Bhajans were being sung and she narrated the incident after the Bhajans were over.The Chamars who were present, in the temple went home when the Bhajans were over and after she narrated the incident, some Chamars heard and returned back and those who returned had no weapons like sticks etc. It took about 5 minutes to return for the Chamars who had returned.About 6-7 persons had so returned.She has denied that on her telling the Chamars about the beating given to her, they came to the temple of Chamunda Mata with sticks, hockey sticks etc. weapons.She has, however, admitted that on her telling the Chamars about the incident they had become angry against the opponents and they came to Vankarwas from the temple of Chamunda Mata saying "let us deal with Purshottam now".She has stated that stones were thrown from both the sides and that Chamars came upto the neem tree while throwing stones.She has also stated that there was one big stick in the hands of her hushand's elder brother and he had no other weapon whatsoever and that Ramesh had no stick with him.She has denied that the mob was beating Chandulal and Manilal Jethabhai and the gun shot was fired to save them.She has stated that a mob of 25 to 30 persons had come from the other direction, i.e., western side, of Vankarwas but it was not throwing stones.Thakarebhai, PW. 2, has deposed that at about 7.30 to 7.45 p.m., Shantaben had come to the temple of Chamunda Mata through Vankarwas and started telling them that the appellant and Vitthal Lalji had given her kicks and fist blows and thereupon P.W. 2, his father Zaverbhai, Rameshbhai, Parshottam, Vitthalbhai, Dahyabhai, Hirabhai and others started going to the house of the appellant to persuade him and when they reached near the neem tree, they saw a mob coming from the opposite direction.The said mob comprised of the appellant, Vitthal Lalji, Jayanti Chandu, Chandubhai Laljibhai, Jivan Lalji, Mahendra Manilal, Manilal Jetha, Ramna Ratilal and others and the appellant was heading them and was raising shouts "Beat, beat" and the appellant had a gun in his hand and others had sticks, pipes, chain, hockey sticks etc. weapons.P.W. 2 has further stated that when they went near the neem tree by about 2-5 paces, the appellant came there with a gun and straight way, he fired a gun shot at his father from a distance of about 11 feet.P.W. 2 has also stated that his father received the bullet injury on his chest and thinking him to be alive, he took him to the temple of Chamunda Mata.P.W. 2 further stated that about 10 or 5 to 7 minutes thereafter he heard another gun fire, and after this shot, he went to see towards Vankarwas and he saw the appellant running away.On cross-examination, P.W. 2 has stated that when Shantaben told that she was beaten by the appellant and his brother, they did feel that it was a very bad act of the appellant in beating Shantaben when she passed through the passage and that her father had become angry though others had also felt but they did not become angry.He has, however, denied that after hearing Shantaben's complaint, Chamars went home and after going to their respective houses they brought weapons and assembled and that about 60 to 70 Chamars came upto the neem tree in Vankarwas from the temple of Chamunda Mata.P.W. 2 has stated that there were 4 to 5 persons who started going to the appellant's house to enquire from him why he had beaten Shantaben and why should 'there be a quarrel on the auspicious day and that they did not feel it proper to go with weapons.He also stated that when they reached near the neem tree, stones were thrown on them but none of them received injury by a stone.He also stated that no stone was thrown from their side.P.W. 2 also stated that Manilal received injury in this fight and he was not aware whether Chandu received any injury.P. W. 2 has also stated that Manilal was injured by a stone in the stone throwing that had ensued subsequently in Vankarwas.He has denied that another mob of Chamars which came from western direction also started stone throwing and that they had weapons like sticks, iron pipes etc. He has also denied that his father had a stick in his hand or that he (P.W. 2) or Rameshbhai had sticks in their hands.Rameshbhai, PW. 4, has also deposed that on the date of the occurrence, he was at the temple of Chamunda Mata and while Arti was going on Shantaben came there and told that she was beaten by the appellant and Vithal Lalji and thereupon he, Zaver Chhita deceased, and others started going from the temple of Chamunda Mata to persuade the appellant and when they reached near the neem tree, they saw the appellant with other persons coming from the opposite direction from the Vaghela's house and the appellant had a gun and others were having other weapons and on coming there the appellant fired the gun towards Zaver Chhita and at that time the appellant was at a distance of about 11 feet from Zaver Chhita.On cross- examination, he has admitted that he is an accused in the case which has been filed with respect to the injuries received by Chandulal Lalji and Manilal Jetha at the time of the incident.He has denied that when Shantaben came to the temple and told them about h6r having been beaten, all the Chamars got provoked and they went upto the neem tree in Vankarwas with sticks, Dharias, etc., to beat the appellant and others.He has also denied that another mob of Chamars came to Vankarwas from Chamarwa's from western direction and the mob of Chamars which came from two sides was throwing stones on the house of people in Vankarwas.According to P.W. 4, they (chamars) were 3 to 4 only and none of them had any weapon.P.W. 4 has also stated that no exchange of words at all took place before the gun was fired.P.W. 4 has denied that when Shantaben came and informed them that she was prevented from passing through Vankarwas and was beaten by the appellant and Vitthal Lalji all the Chamars got provoked and went to Vankarwas armed with pipes, dharias, sticks, etc. to beat Vankars and the appellant.He has also denied that they had thrown stones and they were about 70 to 80 Chamars.He has also denied that he had a stick in his hand and that mob of Chamars had surrounded Manilal Lalji near the neem tree and that he (P.W. 4) and the Chamars accompanying him were beating Chandu Lalji with sticks and pipes etc. and that mobs had arrived from eastern and western directions and started throwing stones and therefore, the appellant had fired the two shots.As regards the second part of the occurrence involving firing of the second shot by the appellant resulting in the death of Raman Shiva Parmar, there is the evidence of Rameshbhai, PW. 4, who has stated that after the firing of the first gun-shot by the appellant, he ran away from there and he tried to hide near the house of Dalsukh Chhita and the deceased Raman Shiva was there.He has further stated that after firing the first shot, the appellant had chased him and had aimed and fired at him but as he had moved aside, the bullet hit Raman Shiva on his forehead.P.W. 4 has further stated that the bullet entered the house through the lattice and thereafter he rushed in the house of Dalsukh as its doors were open and therefrom he fled away.During the course of cross-examination, he has explained that Dalsukh and Punja Chhita live in one and the same house on the upper floor and ground floor respectively.He has also stated that Punja Chhita is neither in Chamars group nor in Vankars' group and that he took shelter in the house of Punja Chhita because other houses were closed.He has stated that he had straightaway entered the Osri and that he might have stood for about a minute or two after reaching the Osri and the second shot was fired and the bullet struck Raman.P.W. 4 has also stated that when the second shot was fired, the appellant was about ten paces away and was about 15 to 20 feet away from J.D. Parmar's house and that the appellant was standing opposite the house of Dalsukh.He has also stated that the place where the appellant was standing was about 40 feet away from the neem tree.He has also stated that there was no weapon whatsoever at that time in his hands and that Raman had also no weapon.JUDGMENT S.C. Agrawal, J.This appeal arises out of an incident which took place at about 7.30 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. on November 12, 1977 in Village Manjalpur, District Vadodara, in Gujarat wherein two persons, namely, Zaver Chhita Solanki and Raman Shiva Parmar sustained gun shot injuries caused by a gun fired by the appellant.The said injuries resulted in the death of both of them.Eight persons, including the appellant, were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara on charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated November 28, 1978, acquitted all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them.The State filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against the said order.The said appeal as against the acquittal of the seven accused other than the appellant was dismissed by the High Court at the admission stage.The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as follows:The control room passed on the said information to Makarpura Police station and thereupon the police reached the scene of the occurrence.On the basis of the complaint dictated by Thakor Chhita Solanki (PW. 2) a case was registered at the police station, Manjalpur and investigation was started.After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons.The following injuries were found on the person of Zaver Chhita:A gunshot wound of 2 cms.diameter at the 6th intercostal spare an the right side chest 3 cms.anterior to the middle axillary line margins is inverted, the wound was vacity deep with surrounded charring and blackness.A gun shot wound 1 cm.in diameter just near the 1st injury on the right side chest on the mid axillary line on the 5th rib, margins inverted, the wound was cavity deep with surrounding charring and blackness.A multiple gunshot wound of 1/4 cm.diameter with surrounding blackness and charring on the right side chest extending from second rib to the 8th rib in axillary line about 60 were counted and were in 16 cms.A reddish contusion of 2 cms.diameter below the right nipple.According to Dr. Patel, the cause of death was due to bullet injuries to the lungs, liver and intro thoracic and intra abdominal haemorrhage.He also stated that looking to the nature of the injuries, the bullet must have been fired from a distance of 5 ft. to 10 ft.Dr. R.K. Patel found the following injuries on the person of Raman Shiva:A gun shot wound of 2 cms.diameter cavity deep, brain material seen from the cavity on the bridge of the nose in between the eye-brows, slightly more on the right side with surrounding charring and with a black mark with echymoya on the right eye margins of the wound inverted.It is a wound of entry.Irregular more or less triangular shaped wound 3 1/2 cms.x 2 x 1 cms.Margins even (brain substance was coming out right side occipital region likely to be wound of exit).Small reddish contusion 2 1/2 cms diameter on the left shoulder.According to Dr. Patel, the cause of death was laceration of the brain and haemorrhage with fracture skull due to bullet injuries.He also expressed the opinion that the distance from which the bullet was fired would have been within 5 feet.Dr. V.D. Gohil, PW.8, examined the injuries found on the person of Chandulalji (Accused No. 7) on November 13,1977, and the following injuries were found on his person:C.L.W. 3" x 1/2" x scalp deep over right side partial region.C.L.W. 1" x 1/4" x scalp deep over occipital region near nap of neck and semilunar.Swelling over left thigh.In the opinion of Dr. Gohil, the said injuries can be caused by hard and blunt substance and could have been caused by a stone.Dr. Gohil found following injuries on the person of Manilal Jethabhai (Accused No. 8):C.L.W. of 2" x 1/8" scalp deep at front to partial region near mid line oblique in direction.Abrasion 1" x 1/2" at nuochal furrow.Abrasion of 6" size on left side back oblique in direction.Abrasion of 1" diameter of intescapular region right to mid-line.Abrasion of 4" size by knee.Abrasion of 3" size linear over right side kidney area, vertical in direction.Linear abrasion of 6" over calf area.According to Dr. Gohil, the injuries on the person of Manilal could, have been caused by a hard and blunt substance like stick or pipe.During the course of investigation, the investigating officer, Govind Jayarambhai.Choudhary (PW. 28) recovered two empty cartridge cases, slipper, 20 pieces of stones, lead bullet, the photo fallen down in the house of Punja Chhita and also recovered a stick from the place of occurrence.He also recovered a 12 bore gun and cartridge belt with a licence of the said gun in the name of the appellant from the house of the appellant.The prosecution has examined Shantaben, PW. 1, Thakarebhai, P.W. 2, Rameshbhai, P.W. 4 and Baban Laxaman Chohan, PW. 7 as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.Shantaben, PW. 1, has deposed about the incident wherein she had been kicked on the abs omen by the appellant prior to the occurrence and the first part of the incident upto firing of the first gun shot resulting in the death of Zaver Chhita.Thakarebhai, P.W. 2, has deposed about Shantaben coming to the temple of Chamunda Mata and complaining about the appellant having kicked her on the abdomen and about the persons present at the temple of Chamunda mata proceeding towards Vankarwas from the temple of Chamunda Mata and the firing of the first shot by the appellant resulting in the death of Zaver Chhita.Rameshbhai, P.W. 4, has deposed about the entire occurrence involving firing of the two gun shots by the appellant resulting in the death of the deceased persons.He has stated that a day prior to the occurrence, the appellant and three others had beaten his mother and brother.He has also stated that appellant was bearing a grudge against him because he also appeared as a witness for Bhatthu in a case of rape filed by one Usha Barot in whom the appellant is interested.He has deposed about the visit of Shantaben to temple of Chamunda Mata and her having been assaulted by the appellant and about Zaver Chhita and others, including himself, going towards Vankarwas and the firing of the first gun shot at Zaver Chhita.With regard to the firing of the second shot which hit Raman Shiva, he has stated that on seeing him, the appellant had chased him and while he (PW. 4) was in the Osri of the house of Punja Chhita, the appellant fired the gun at him but as he had moved aside, the bullet hit Raman Shiva who was standing nereby.In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC, the appellant stated that on the day of the incident Shantaben was passing through Vankarwas to which two Vankars ladies objected and there was exchange of words between Shantaben and those ladies and thereupon the appellant went near Shantaben and said that since Vankars and Chamars were not on good terms, it would be better if she did not go through the.said place and that Shantaben, thereafter, went through the said place itself towards the temple of Chamunda Mata and 15 to 20 minutes thereafter, a mob of Chamars came shouting "Kill Purshotam Lal Ji and burn down the houses of Vankars" and that the said mob of about 40 to 50 persons armed with sticks, pipes, dharia etc. came towards the appellant's house in Vankarwas.He further stated that another mob of about 50 to 60 persons armed with dharias, sticks and pipes started coming from Chamarwas from the northern direction towards the western direction and started pelting stones and raising shouts "kill Purshotam Lal Ji and Vankars, burn down the houses, burn down the house of Purshotam Lal Ji" and that as a result the females and children of their street and the inmates in the house of the appellant started shouting "save us, save us".At that time, from the neem tree, near the temple, Manilal Jethabhai Vaghela, uncle of the appellant, shouted "Save, save, I am killed" and at that time, the appellant was perplexed and he came out with the gun from his house and started going to the place where the appellant's uncle was being beaten and since the Chamars had surrounded his uncle and were beating him with sticks etc., and as the appellant went there the mob rushed towards him.The appellant has, further, stated that he felt that they would kill him and his uncle and therefore fired a shot in defence.After firing the said shot, the appellant started returning but in the meanwhile another mob of Chamars rushed there and the appellant came rushing near the house of Punja Chhita and found that his brother Chandubhai was surrounded by the mob and he was shouting "save, save" and the mob was having sticks, pipes, dharias etc. and were beating Chandubhai near the Osri of Punja Chhita's house.As the appellant went towards that side he felt that mob would kill him and his brother, and,; therefore, he fired the second shot in self-defence, towards the Osri and since there was darkness in the Osri, he does not know whom it hit.The appellant has thus admitted having fired two shots from his gun and the said gun shots resulted in the death of Zaver Chhita as well as Raman Shiva.The appellant has put forward the plea that the said shots were fired by him in exercise of the right of private defence of his own person as well as the person of his uncle, Manilalbhai and brother Chandulalbhai who were being assaulted by the armed mobs of Chamars and there was apprehension of injury to persons residing in the Vankarwas.The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the said plea raised by the appellant but the High Court, in appeal, did not accept the said plea.The question which requires to be considered in the appeal is whether the gun shots which resulted in the death of the two deceased, were fired by the appellant in the exercise of the right of private defence of person available to him in law.In order that the said right may be available, it is necessary to examine whether the time when the shots were fired, the appellant was under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to himself or to those whom he was protecting.In the instant case, the occurrence resulting in the death of the two deceased persons was preceded by the incident involving assault by the appellant on Shantaben.The occurrence itself is in two parts.The first part covers the firing of the first gun shot resulting in the death of Zaver Chhita and the second part covers the firing of second gun shot resulting in the death of Raman Shiva.There is a difference of about 7 - 10 minutes between the firing of two gun shots and the places from where the shots were fired and the places where the two deceased persons received the injuries are also different.Zaver Chhita received the gun shen injury close to neem tree near the temple of Ranchodji at the end of the street passing through Vankarwas.At the time of firing of the said gun-shot, the appellant was standing at the end of the said street and was facing in the direction of the temples of Ranchodji and Chamunda Mata.The second gun shot resulting in the death of Raman Shiva was fired by the appellant from a place opposite the house of Punja Chhita in the street passing through Vankarwas.It hit Raman Shiva while he was standing in the Osri of the house of Punja Chhita which is the fourth house on the northern side from the eastern end of the street passing through Vankarwas.The incident involving assault on Shantaben by the appellant is proved by Shantaben, P.W. I, who has deposed that at about 7.00 to 7.30 PM on the day of incident, she was having pains in her abdomen.She went to bring milk and when she reached the door of the house of the appellant, she was told by the appellant that the passage of Khalpas (Chamars) from there was closed.She replied that it was their day and night passage and asked why they were preventing her.P.W. 1 has stated that thereafter, the appellant gave her a kick blow on her abdomen.She then went to the temple of Chamunda Mata where her husband's elder brother, Zaver Chhita, her nephew Thakorcbhai, Purshottambhai, Dahyabhai Hirabhai and others were present and she narrated the above incident to Zaver Chhita.The said evidence of Shantaben, PW. 1, has been corroborated by Thakorcbhai, PW. 2 and Rameshbhai, P.W. 4, who were present at the temple of Chamunda Mata.The testimony of Shantaben, PW. 1, also finds corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. R.K. Patcl, PW. 6, who has stated that P.W. I, was brought to him as the police and she had complained of backache, pain in the abdomen and pain over the right eye brow.Dr. Patel has expressed the view that the aforesaid injuries could have been caused by a kick.In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. PC the appellant has also admitted that the incident took place involving him and Shantaben when she was passing through Vankarwas.From the evidence of Shantaben, PW. 1, which finds corroboration for testimony of Thakarebhai, PW.2 and Rameshbhai, PW.4 as well as the medical evidence, it is established that an incident involving appellant and Shantaben had taken place in the evening at about 7.00 - 7.30 p.m. on the day of the alleged occurrence near the house of the appellant in the street passing through Vankarwas and that while Shantaben was passing through the said street, the appellant has objected to her going through the said street and had also kicked her on the abdomen.With regard to the first part of the occurrence involving firing of the gun resulting in the death of Zaver Chhita there is the evidence of Shantaben, PW. 1, Thakarebhai, PW. 2 and Rameshbhai PW.The Panchnama of the scene of offence (Ex.86) shows that fresh marks of flowing of blood were found on the tar road at a distance of 10 inch away towards south from the neem tree.The dead body of Zaver Chhita was found lying near the temple of Chamunda Mata at a distance of 41 '7" from the place where the blood was found and the Otta of temple of Chamunda Mata is situate at a distance of 6' from the place where the body was lying.Scattered pieces of bricks and stones (14 in number) were found around the place where the blood was found on the road.At a distance of 29'8" from the place where the blood was found an empty case of cartridge of 12 bore gun was found on the road and on smelling it was emitting smell of explosive.At a further distance of 25' from the place where the empty case of cartridge was found, another 12 bore empty cartridge case was found lying.The place where the second empty case of cartridge was found lying is opposite the Osri of the house of Punja Chhita and the dead body of Raman Shiva was lying in the Osri of the said house at a distance of 16'6" from the place where the second empty cartridge case was found.Scattered pieces of stones and bricks (20 in number) were found lying between the places from where two cartridge cases were found.There is a room towards the north of the Osri and in the said room bullet marks were found on the niche in the wall situate to the north of the window and there was a fresh mark of breaking of a brick at the place in the wall where the bullet had hit and a photograph of Lord Shanker, whose iron frame was bent from the middle on the upper portion, was found lying on the ground and lead cartridge was also found lying on the ground.Further towards the west of the house of Punja Chhita is the house of the appellant and two others and scattered pieces of bricks (12 in number) were found lying on the road in front of these houses.From the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that after the incident wherein Shantaben, P.W. 1 was kicked on the abdomen by the appellant, she went to the temple of Chamunda Mata where she narrated the said incident to the persons who were present there at that time including the deceased, Zaver Chhita, and on hearing about the said incident, the Chamars who were present in the temple felt agitated and decided to proceed towards the house of the appellant in Vankarwas.Since these people left directly from the temple without going to their houses would support the case of the prosecution that they were not armed.When they reached near the neem tree they found that the appellant and other persons were present near the said tree.The appellant was armed with a gun and other persons were also armed.The presence of pieces of bricks and stones near the neem tree indicates that there was some pelting of stones at that place.The prosecution evidence indicates that the second shot was fired by the appellant from opposite the house of Punja Chhita and it hit Raman Shiva who was standing in the Osri of the said house.Rameshbhai, P.W. 4 was also standing in the said Osri at that time when the second shot was fired, the appellant and moved inside the street passing through Vankarwas by nearly 40 ft.to 50 ft.According to Rameshbhai, P.W. 4, the said shot was aimed at him but since he moved it hit Raman Shiva.There were some brick pieces in the street between the places for where the empty cartridge case of first and the second gun shot were recovered and there was also some pelting of stones opposite the houses of the appellant and some of the accused persons further towards the west in the street passing through Vankarwas.Shri Lalit, the learned Counsel of the appellant has placed reliance on the statement of Shantaben, that deceased Zaver Chhita was having a stick in his hand and further that stones were thrown from both the sides and that Chamars came up to the neem tree while throwing stones and that as the stone throwing started, females, children raised hue and cry in Vankarwas and stones were thrown on the houses and doors of Vankarwas and Vankars were shouting 'save, save'.He also pointed out that Shantaben, PW. 1, has admitted that another mob of Chamars had come from Vankarwas and they were about 30-35 in number.The submission of Shri Lalit is that the after hearing about the incident of Shantaben being kicked on the abdomen by the appellant, the Chamars were enraged and they came towards Vankarwas and that they assaulted Manilal and Chandulal and also indulged in stone throwing on a large scale which created an apprehension in the mind of the appellant that grievous hurt would be caused to him and to Manilal and Chandulal as well as other persons in Vankarwas and that in the circumstances, he had no option but to fire the gun in exercise of the right of private defence of person.It is no doubt true that after hearing from Shantaben that she had been kicked on the abdomen by the appellant, the Chamars present at the temple of Chamunda Mata must have felt enraged and they were going towards Vankarwas in an agitated mood.But they were not large in number because Shantaben had narrated the incident at the temple of Chamunda Mata after the Arti and Bhajans were over and by that time most of the Chamars present there had left and only 5 to 7 persons returned on hearing about the incident.Moreover the said group of Chamars which left the temple of Chamunda Mata for Vankarwas was not armed since they were proceeding directly from the temple and people do not carry arms when they go to the temple for worship.He was waiting at the eastern end of the street of Vankarwas along with other Vankars and he was armed with a gun.It does appear that there was pelting of stones near the neem tree where Zaver Chhita received the gun shot injury.According to Thakarebhai, P.W. 2 and Rameshbhai, P.W. 4, the pelting of stones was from the side of the accused only and they did not indulge in pelting of stones.But Shantaben P.W. I has deposed that there was pelting of stones from both the sides.Accepting that the pelting of stones was from both the sides, it was not on a large scale because only 14 pieces of stones were found lying near the neem tree.It was not even suggested to the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination that before the firing of the first gun shot anybody on the side of the accused had sustained any injury as a result of pelting of stones by the group of Chamars coming from the side of the temple of Chamunda Mata.In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that at the time when he fired the first gun shot which caused the death of Zaver Chhita the appellant had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to himself or to those whom he was protecting.On the other hand, the first shot was fired by the appellant as soon Zaver Chhita and the party of Chamars, who were unarmed, reached near the neem tree.The firing of the second gun shot is even more indefensible.The said shot, as indicated earlier, was fired from a place opposite the house of Punja Chhita which means that after firing the first shot, the appellant had moved inside the street towards the house of Punja Chhita and he fired a gun shot while facing towards the house of Punja Chhita.If the appellant had any apprehension of injury to himself or Chandulalji from the mob of Chamars which had come from the western side of Vankarwas, as pleaded by him, he should have fired the gun towards the mob in the western direction in the street.But the gun shot that was fired by him was towards the Osri in the house of Punja Chhita while facing the said house.This lends support to the version given by Rameshbhai, PW. 4, that he was being chased by the appellant and since he was standing in the Osri of the house of Punja Chitta, the appellant had fired the gun aiming it at Rameshbhai, P.W. 4 and since PW. 4 had moved aside and the said shot hit Raman Shiva who was also standing in the Osri. | ['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. |
110,645,013 | Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.By means of present revision, the revisionists has challenged the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge (F.T.C. Court O.A.W.)) Jhansi in S.T. No. 192 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 487 of 2016, under Sections 452, 325, 323, 504, 506, 329, 450, 354A, 354B IPC, P.S. Sipari Bazar, District- Jhansi, by which the revisionists' application has been rejected.Brief facts of the case are that on 23.9.2016 at about 4 p.m. while the husband of opposite party no. 2 was raising construction at his ancestral house, the revisionists Ravi armed with country made pistol, Hemant armed with kulhari and Deepak armed with iron rod and their friend Sanjeev armed with danda reached at her house and with an intention to kill Kali Charan, Ravi opened fire upon him which missed the target.Thereafter, Ravi is said to have instigated the revisionist Hemant to kill him, on which Hemant with an intention to kill Kali Charan assaulted him by an axe on his head, due to which, he suffered injuries.Kali Charan in order to rescue himself entered in his house, however the revisionists followed him in the house and further assaulted him and when the first informant tried to rescue her husband, then Deepak with an evil intention, disrobed her and tried to commit indecent act with her and thereafter dragged out her husband and further assaulted him.The revisionists after hurling abuses threatened the victim Kali Charan of life in case he raises any further constructions.On the basis of said allegations, the first information report was lodged against the revisionists which was registered vide Case Crime No. 487 of of 2016, under sections 307, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC.The police had drawn the charge sheet against the revisionists under Sections 452, 325, 323, 504, 506 IPC, however the said charge sheet was placed before C.O, Jhansi who directed to make further investigation by transferring the process of investigation to District- Lalitpur and thereafter police after making further investigation laid the charge sheet under Sections 452, 450, 329, 323, 325, 354-A, 354-B, 504, 506 IPC and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the said charge sheet under the aforesaid sections.After the charge sheet was laid down against the revisionists, the revisionists filed an application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. and prayed that revisionists be discharged as the offence, complained of, are not made out against them.Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that taking into entire allegations made in the first information report and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, no offence u/s 329, 450, 354-A, 354-B IPC and therefore they be discharged.Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report and the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, offence, complained of, is clearly made out against them.The first informant Kaushalya Devi- opposite party no. 2 in her statement recorded during the course of investigation, has clearly stated that when she tried to rescue her husband while he was being mercilessly beaten by the revisionists, they tried to disrobe her and committed indecent act with her.Further in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. witnesses have categorically stated that the revisionists threatened them that only after paying them Rs. 2 lacs they would allow them to raise construction else they would be done to death.Thus, from the said allegations made in the statement of the witnesses, prima facie offence u/s 329, 450, 354-A, 354-B IPC is made out against the revisionists and the court below after taking into consideration the said evidence and material on record has rightly rejected the revisionists' application for discharge. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,647,923 | Mr. Pahwa submits that the essence of the allegation is that the accused persons, including the applicant, have illegally usurped the subject property by transferring its ownership to the applicant's wife Mrs. Ekta Jain, who is also an accused in the matter.Mr. Pahwa further submits that other documents, which were with the applicant, have already been handed-over to the Investigating Officer.Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 3 of 27Consequent thereupon status report dated 25.08.2020 has been filed.Nominal roll dated 24.08.2020 has also been received from the Jail Superintendent.Relying upon the status report, Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned APP for the State opposes the grant of bail, essentially contesting the submission that the subject matter of investigation in the Delhi FIR is the same as that in the Kolkata FIR, in which closure report has been filed.She submits that in the Kolkata FIR it was alleged that the accused persons had hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant by inducing him to comply with an arbitral award and ___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 4 of 27 to part with various documents, conveyance deeds, share-scripts etc.; and by taking possession of such documents 'theft' of the originals was committed, to use them to change the beneficiaries/nominees.The nominal roll also shows that there is another FIR, bearing No.128/2019 registered under sections 409/420/467/468/471 IPC at P.S.: EOW, Delhi, that is pending against the applicant.2265/2020 Page 25 of 27c. The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of this Court and shall ordinarily reside in his place of residence as per police records;d. The applicant shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a cell phone number on which the applicant may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times;e. The applicant shall cooperate in any investigation in the matter, as and when required;f. The applicant shall not, whether directly or indirectly, contact nor visit nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case.The applicant shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter.Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations contained in the FIR; nor on the maintainability and validity of the FIR nor on the merits of the matter in any manner whatsoever.___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.The applicant, who is an accused in case FIR No. 53/2019 dated 28.03.2019 registered under sections 409/467/468/471/120B IPC at P.S.: Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi ('Delhi FIR', for short), seeks regular bail.___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 1 of 27Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 1 of 27Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Sunil Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the complainant is the real brother of the applicant, who has filed the FIR in relation to a property bearing No. 9, Hanuman Road, New Delhi ('subject property').Senior counsel submits that, other thing apart, substantially the same allegation was investigated in an earlier complaint filed by the same complainant before P.S. : Hare Street, Kolkata, which led to the registration of FIR No. 329/2018 dated 25.11.2018 ('Kolkata FIR', for short).While several allegations were investigated as part of the Kolkata FIR, one of the allegations was inter alia that the applicant had transferred the subject property in favour of his wife on the basis of forged documents including board resolutions etc. and by opening bank accounts.Mr. Pahwa states that after completing investigation however, a final report dated 13.04.2019 has been filed in the Kolkata FIR, in which the Investigating Officer has concluded that the dispute arose long ago and subsequently several civil litigations are pending between the parties before different courts in relation to the dispute; and that accordingly the investigation has been closed, declaring it to be a dispute of civil nature.___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 2 of 27Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 2 of 27Mr. Pahwa places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others1 and draws attention to para 20 of the judgment, to submit that apart from the fact that there cannot be two FIRs in relation to the same offence, there also cannot be any fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.In the context of the arbitral proceedings a custodian was appointed, who had custody of original documents and papers, including the original title deeds of the subject property; and who subsequently handed-over such documents to the Registrar of the 1 (2001) 6 SCC 181 ___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 3 of 27 Original Side of the Calcutta High Court in appeal proceedings under the directions contained in order dated 30.07.2018, which order was upheld by review order dated 08.11.2019 made by that court.Senior counsel submits that in fact the aforesaid orders of the Calcutta High Court have since also been upheld by the Supreme Court by order dated 08.06.2020, whereby an SLP preferred against those orders has been disposed of.Ms. Sharma further points-out that as recorded in the closure report, though in the course of the investigation in Kolkata, the complainant had submitted a letter dated 15.12.2018 making allegations in relation to the subject property, those allegations were different from the ones made in the Delhi FIR.The learned APP argues that the allegations made in the Kolkata FIR related only to theft of documents; whereas the allegations in the Delhi FIR relate to illegal usurpation and transfer of the subject property in favour of the applicant's wife, which is alleged to have been done in 2012, well before the arbitration proceedings.Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 4 of 27Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, learned counsel for the complainant has also joined the video-conference hearing on behalf of the complainant, seeking to be heard.However he was advised to assist Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned APP for the State in making submissions.A brief overview and comparison of the Kolkata FIR and the Delhi FIR is telling :a. The Kolkata FIR was filed by the applicant's brother Suresh Kumar Jain as the sole complainant; and the applicant, his brothers along with one Kamlesh Sogani, who is a Chartered ___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 5 of 27 Accountant appointed by the Arbitral Tribunal as a 'custodian' of certain documents etc. for the effective implementation of arbitral award dated 03.01.2013, were implicated as accused;Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 5 of 272265/2020 Page 6 of 27 have been done without the custodian handing-over the original documents to the accused persons.It is noteworthy that letter dated 15.12.2018 begins by saying :Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 6 of 27****** "It was also informed by them that the suit filed in Patiala in Patiala House Court (sic) by the complainant seeks reliefs with regard to the said 9, Hanuman Road Property has also been dismissed on ___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 7 of 27 the basis of the ground of pre-existing litigations before High Court at Calcutta in respect of that property...."Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 7 of 27(emphasis supplied) f. Now, there are two complainants in the Delhi FIR, namely one M/s Veerprabhu Projects Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile LMJ Projects Pvt. Ltd.) and Suresh Kumar Jain, i.e. the complainant in the Kolkata FIR;g. As far as the subject property is concerned, the essence of the allegation in the Delhi FIR is that the subject property was owned by M/s. LMJ Projects Pvt. Ltd. and that the accused persons conspired to usurp the subject property by illegally transferring the ownership of the same in favour of the applicant's wife.This, it is alleged, was done on the basis of a conspiracy hatched around 2012, by opening new bank accounts in the name of that company and of the ___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 8 of 27 applicant's wife; by transferring money from the company's bank account as loan to the applicant's wife; which money the applicant's wife utilized to purchase the subject property from the same company;Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 8 of 27h. What is important is that in the Delhi FIR also, the complainant says that Kamlesh Sogani, the custodian appointed for implementation of the arbitral award, handed- over the original sale deed and other original documents pertaining to the subject property alongwith actual physical possession thereof to the applicant's wife, thereby facilitating the offences committed;It is for this reason that the complainant himself submitted letter dated 15.12.2018 to the Investigating Officer in Kolkata, to which clarification was sought by the Investigating Officer from the accused persons and observations have been made in relation to that in the closure report filed in the Kolkata FIR.The nominal roll records that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.07.2020, which is the date of his arrest.Accordingly, no police remand of the applicant was ever sought.___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 9 of 27Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 9 of 27This court is informed however that notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicant, in response to which the applicant joined investigation as and when called.It is also noticed that in order dated 20.07.2020 made in the applicant's Bail Appl.No. 851/2020, the learned Sessions Court has recorded a submission made on behalf of the Investigating Officer to say that "... the investigation on almost all the aspects except the purported forged bank account opened pursuant to Board Resolution dated 26.06.2012, are complete ...." and that " ... he shall send the purported forged documents pertaining to the said account to FSL for expert opinion ...".2265/2020 Page 22 of 27Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 22 of 27a. The applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Lacs Only) with 02 sureties in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each, at least one being from a family member, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 25 of 27 b. The applicant shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer ;Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 26 of 27Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 26 of 27The bail application stands disposed of.The applicant be released on bail subject to the conditions imposed above, if not required in any other case.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J 28th August, 2020/Ne/uj ___________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 27 of 27Bail Appl.2265/2020 Page 27 of 27 | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,652,418 | Record of the Court below has been received.Heard on admission.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent State accepts notice on behalf of respondent -State; as such, no further notice is required.Heard on I.A. No.6326/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Sardar Singh.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the appellant stands convicted under Sections 459, 324 and 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo effective R.I. for a period of 4 years and fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.As per the prosecution case, on 01.01.2016, when the prosecutrix was at home with her mother, at around 01:00 a.m, appellant entered her house and was holding her hands.When the prosecutrix protested, the appellant assaulted her with a Baka causing two injuries to her head and one to her hand.Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 14/08/2018 17:52:36 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.3178/2018 Sardar Singh Vs.State of M.P.On the basis of compromise, the appellant was acquitted under Section 325 of the IPC; however, he was convicted under Sections 458, 459, 324 and 354 of the IPC and Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act. The factum of compromise can be taken into consideration on the question of sentence even in non-compoundable cases.It has further been submitted that the appellant was in custody for a period of 8 days during the trial and he has been in custody since 05.04.2018, i.e., the date of the judgment of the trial Court; therefore, it has been prayed that the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant deserves to be suspended and he be released on bail.Consequently, I.A. No.6326/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Sardar Singh, is allowed.Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 14/08/2018 17:52:36 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.3178/2018 Sardar Singh Vs.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 29.01.2019 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge sh Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 14/08/2018 17:52:36 | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,653,635 | The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.) | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,657,212 | 30.07.13 Item No. 18 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 18And In the matter of: Madan Ghosh & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra Mr. Somnath Majumder For the Petitioners Mrs. Debjani Shaw For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Bangaon Police Station Case No. 391 of 2013 dated 12.05.2013 under sections 448/323/379/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,659,908 | C. No. 4448/2017 Jabalpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.According to case, one Deepak Matani has filed a complaint against the petitioners and other co-accused persons stating that when he received a letter from Tehsildar, Panagar on 05.08.2015, he came to know that the petitioner and other accused persons sold the land located at khasra No. 67 in Tehsil Panagar, District Jabalpur, belongs to person of ST community without taking permission of authority and by this way the accused persons committed forgery and cheating with him.The accused persons have also sold the part of land of said khasra number to Divya Matani.(09.07.2020) Since, both the petitions arise out from the same order and the relief sought are identical, therefore, these petitions are being heard and decided analogously by this common order.These two petitions have been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR and its consequential proceeding registered in Crime No. 59/2016 at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur District 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2681/2017 M.Cr.When the complainant contacted accused persons then they have executed some agreements with the complainants for returning the amount and gave a cheque which was dishonoured.The allegation against the present petitioners are that they have shown aforesaid land to the complainant for selling purpose knowing the fact that the land belongs to person of ST community and petitioner-Santosh Jain and Kailash Yadav were also the witnesses of the sale deed.Hence, the police has registered the FIR and after completing all the investigation, filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.Learned counsel for the petitioners-Santosh Jain and Nikunj Ahuja submits that on perusal of transaction between the parties in relation to the property in question leaves no room for doubt that the petitioners are neither the vendors of the property nor 3 M.Cr.C. No. 2681/2017 M.Cr.C. No. 4448/2017 they have derived any benefit out of the purported transaction.He further submits that the complainants themselves have entered into compromise with the Lalchand Dasani on 07.10.2015 whereby Lalchand Dasani agreed to return the amount of Rs. 19,30,000/-and 13,00,000/- to the complainants.The allegations were leveled against the complainant by the Tehsildar Panagar regarding forgery and cheating done by them in the transaction pertaining to the land of Dhannu.Further, the complainants have stated that they had conducted thorough title search before purchasing the property in question, hence, no case is made out against the petitioners-Santosh Jain and Nikunj Ahuja.He further submits that even otherwise merely because the property in question is stated to be a property of a tribal person, no case is culled out in the facts and circumstances of the instant case more so when the purported tribal person namely Dhannu has not raised any grievance and he has received full consideration for the transaction undertaken between him and Lalchand Dasani.Hence, at the most, the sale deed of Lalchand Dasani can be declared as null and void, however, no case of any forgery or cheating is made out against the petitioners Santosh Jain and Nikunj Ahuja.With the aforesaid he prays for allowing the petition, filed on behalf of the petitioner Santosh Jain and Nikunj Ahuja.In support of his contention he has 4 M.Cr.C. No. 2681/2017 M.Cr.The petitioner has only made his signature in the sale deed on the instance of Deepak Matani, except this nothing has been done by him directly or indirectly.He further submits that there is no cogent and plausible evidence against the petitioner to constitute the aforesaid offences.There is no material on record to establish that the applicant has ascribed any role in the alleged offence even neither he make any document and nor received any money.He never put up any document except the signature as witness in the sale deed.He further argued that the matter is of civil in nature and therefore, registration of criminal case is totally abuse of process of law.The entire allegations made against the petitioner are false, frivolous and leveled with ill motive of the complainant.In support of his contention, he has relied on the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex in the case of State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 and R.P. Kapoor Vs.866. 5 M.Cr.C. No. 2681/2017 M.Cr.C. No. 4448/2017Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a 8 M.Cr.C. No. 2681/2017 M.Cr.Thereafter, through a power of attorney, the co-accused Hemant Pathak and Abhishek Soni connivance with the present petitioners have sold the land to complainants Deepak Matani, Divya Matani and Rajesh Matani.Thereafter, due to some dispute, petitioners made an agreement among Lalchan Dasani (through his power of atorny Abhishek Soni), Hemannt Kumar Pathak and complainants for returning the sale consideration amount and co-accused issued cheques in favour of the complainants which got dishonoured.The police has impleaded Dhannu Lal, original owner of the land as an accused as he executed registry of land without getting permission from the State.The allegation against the present petitioner and other accused persons are also that they have prepared forged documents by affixing forge seal of notary.Further, on perusal of statements of witnesses namely Prahlad Matani, Rajesh Matani, Deepak Matani and Divya Matani, it 9 M.Cr.C. No. 2681/2017 M.Cr.C. No. 4448/2017 appears that the petitioners Santosh Jain and Nikunj Ahuja have shown disputed property to the complainants.They all have stated that due to dispute among the petitioners and other co-accused persons regarding distribution of amount, they denied to give possession of land and demanded more sum, hence, the complainants have refused to purchase the land then petitioner Santosh Jain and Nikunj Ahuja made an agreement from Abhishek Dubey and Abhishek Tariya in favour of the complainants and had given a cheque which got dishonoured.Therefore, prima facie there is sufficient material available against the petitioner Santosh Jain and Nikunj Ahuja for prosecute them further.So far as, case of the petitioner Kailash Yadav is concerned, the only allegation against him is that he was the witness of sale deed executed in favour of the complainants, but it reveals from the police statement of Prahlad Matani, Rajesh Matani, Deepak Matani and Divya Matani that applicant-Kailash Yadav was also involved in taking the alleged amount.Hence, it is alleged by the prosecution that applicant/Kailash Yadav participated in this incident in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other applicants/accused.Therefore, it can not be said that no prima facia material is available on the record against the applicant/Kailash Yadav.Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that, there was some conversation between the applicant/Kailash Yadav and complainant/respondent No. 2 which shows that applicant/Kailash Yadav did not participat in this incident but this fact will be investigated in trial.This piece of 10 M.Cr.C. No. 2681/2017 M.Cr. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 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. |
110,662,806 | ssn CRL.O.P.No.3020 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.1806 of 2020 13.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.334 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 34 of IPC, as against the petitioners.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.334 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 34 of IPC, as against the petitioners.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 Mr.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.3020 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.1806 of 2020In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.334 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.13.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ssn ToThe Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-I, Chennai District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.3020 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.1806 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,666,393 | Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal AppealSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byANITA MALHOTRADate: 2019.02.25 (DB) No.77 of 1994 whereby the High Court16:05:32 ISTReason:dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein. 1In order to appreciate the short questioninvolved in this appeal, a few relevant facts needmention infra.By judgment dated 08.02.1994, the AdditionalSessions Judge convicted the accusedKanhaiPrasad Chourasia for the commission of offenceunder Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the ArmsAct and he was accordingly sentenced to undergolife imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 2 rigorous imprisonment for seven years underSection 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences wereto run concurrently.So far as coaccusedLukho Prasad Chourasia,Birendra Prasad Chourasia, Binod PrasadChourasia and Deep Narayan Chourasia areconcerned, all the four were acquitted from thecharge of commission of offence under Section 302IPC.However, all the four accused were convictedfor commission of offence under Section 27 of theArms Act and accordingly sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for five years.Theconcluding para of the order of Sessions Judgereads as under:“Accordingly, on the basis of my findings, accused Kanhai Prasad Chaurasia, who is in custody, is convicted u/ss 302 IPC and 27 of Arms Act and is again remanded to custody to serve his sentence and accused Lukho Prasad Chaurasia, Birendra Prasad Chaurasia, Binod Prasad Chaurasia and Deep Narain Chaurasia; who are on bail; are convicted u/s 27 of Arms Act and, consequently, their bail 3 bonds are cancelled and are taken into custody to serve their sentences.”All the five accused named above felt aggrievedby their respective conviction and the award of jailsentence and filed two criminal appeals in the HighCourt.So far as Kanhai Prasad Chourasia isconcerned, he filed Criminal Appeal(DB)No.112/1994 whereas the remaining four accusedare concerned, they jointly filed CriminalAppeal(DB) No.77/1994 in the High Court of Patna.Both the Criminal Appeals were clubbed together forhearing.So far as Criminal Appeal No.112/1994 filedby the accused Kanhai Prasad Chourasia isconcerned, the question to be considered thereinwas only one, namely, whether the AdditionalSessions Judge was justified in convicting him 4 (Kanhai Prasad Choursia) under Section 302 IPCread with Section 27 of the Arms Act.So far as Criminal Appeal No.77/1994 filed byremaining four accused, namely, Lukho PrasadChourasia, Birendra Prasad Chourasia, BinodPrasad Chourasia and Deep Narayan Chourasia isconcerned, the question involved therein waswhether the Additional Sessions Judge was justifiedin convicting these four accused under Section 27 ofthe Arms Act and sentenced them to undergorigorous imprisonment for five years.The High Court, however, was completelyunder misconception and misdirected itself byforming an opinion as if all the five accused wereconvicted under Section 302/149 IPC andaccordingly went on to appreciate the evidence andwhile dismissing both the appeals by a commonjudgment convicted four accused under Section302/149 IPC along with Kanhai Prasad Chourasia.This is clear from the first and concludingparas of the impugned judgment, which arereproduced below:First Para “As both these appeals arise out of a judgment dated 8th February, 1994, passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 264/92, convicting the appellants under Section 302 of I.P.C. with life imprisonment and the other accused for offence under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment, so also each of them for offence 27 of the Arms Act to five years’ R.I., these appeals have been filed by the appellants and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.” (Emphasis supplied) Concluding Paras “Even though learned counsel for the appellants by taking us through the evidence tried to point out minor contradictions in the same, but we find that considering the complete reading of the evidence, the story as is narrated by the witnesses and as it is recorded in the fardbeyan by P.W.5 Sundar Tanti is proved.It is a case where the appellants after the incident that took place in the morning, with an intention to commit the crime, armed with rifles and pistols came to the spot, committed the offence and while fleeing away, to threaten the villagers who had assembled there, firing in the air ran away.It is a case where they formed an unlawful assembly, committed the offence 6 and, therefore, conviction under Section 302 and 302/149 of I.P.C. is proper and as the entire conviction is based on the evidence that came on record, we see no reason to interfere into the matter and allow this appeal.The prosecution has proved its case and the conviction, in our considered view, does not suffer from any infirmity.Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.The appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.The appellants are on bail.It is against this judgment, only one accusedDeep Narayan Chourasia has felt aggrieved and filedthis appeal by way of special leave in this Court.So, the question, which arises forconsideration in this appeal, is whether the HighCourt was right in dismissing the appeal filed by theappellant herein.Having heard the learned counsel for theparties and on perusal of the record of the case, weare constrained to allow the appeal, set aside theimpugned judgment of the High Court and remandthe case to the High Court for rehearing of theappeal in question on merits in accordance withlaw.In our opinion, the Division Bench failed toapply its judicial mind and committed fundamentaljurisdictional errors as detailed below. 8The first error was that the High Courtproceeded on wrong factual premise that all the fiveaccused have suffered conviction under Section302/149 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Actby the Additional Sessions Judge.It was not so.The second error was that the appellant (DeepNarayan Chourasia) along with other three accused(Lukho Prasad Chourasia, Birendra PrasadChourasia and Binod Prasad Chourasia) wereacquitted from the charge of commission of offenceunder Section 302/149 IPC by the AdditionalSessions Judge but were convicted only underSection 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.However, as a result of the High Court’s order, theywere convicted under Section 302/149 IPC withoutthere being any appeal filed by the State against theorder of their acquittal and without there being any 9 notice of enhancement of their sentence issued bythe High Court suo motu to these four accused.In other words and as mentioned above, thequestion before the High Court was whether theappellant herein (Deep Narayan Chourasia) andother three accused were rightly convicted andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fiveyears under Section 27 of the Arms Act by theAdditional Sessions Judge or not.Instead ofrecording any finding of affirmation of the convictionor acquittal, as the case may be, the High Courtconvicted all the four accused under Section302/149 IPC also.It is a fundamental principle of law that anillegality committed by a Court cannot be allowed tobe perpetuated against a person to a Lis merelybecause he did not bring such illegality to the noticeof the Court and instead other person similarlyplaced in the Lis brought such illegality to theCourt’s notice and succeed in his challenge.It will be a travesty of justice delivery systemwhere an accused, who is convicted of a lesseroffence (Section 27 of the Arms Act alone) and wasacquitted of a graver offence (Section 302/149 IPC)is made to suffer conviction for commission of a 15 graver offence (Section 302/149 IPC) withoutaffording him of any opportunity to defend suchcharge at any stage of the appellate proceedings.Needless to say, if the other four accused hadfiled the appeals in this Court, they too would havegot the benefit of this order.A fortiori, merelybecause they did not file the appeals and the case isnow remanded for rehearing of the appeal at theinstance of one accused, the benefit of rehearing ofthe appeal cannot be denied to other coaccused.The 16 impugned order is set aside in its entirety.Both theCriminal Appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal(DB) No.77/1994 and Criminal Appeal(DB) No. 112/1994are restored to their original numbers before theHigh Court for their analogues hearing.The High Court will issue notice to other fouraccused persons before hearing the appeals, ifanyone fails to appear.The High Court may alsoconsider appointing a lawyer for providing themlegal assistance.February 25, 2019 18 | ['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. |
1,106,778 | The deceased Santokh Singhreceived as many as 8 injuries five of which were on thehead.Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik Ranbir Yadav, Adv.for R.S. Suri, Adv.for theappellant B.B. Vashisht, P. Narasimhan and R.S. Suri, Adv.forthe Respondent O R D E R The following order of the Court was delivered.Leave granted.We have heard learned counsel on both sides.This appeal by special leave relates to nature of theoffence committed by him.The admitted position is that on October 25, 1985 atabout 6 a.m. in village Kahlon within the jurisdiction ofthe Police Station Nawahshahr, one Santokh Singh and hisparty and the respondents ad their party had a dispute onland.They indulged in quarrel as a result of which SantokhSingh died.The courts below recorded a finding that theoccurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. in which both theparties sustained injuries.Under these circumstances, the only questionthat arises is : whether the respondent had inflictedinjuries without undue advantage and acted in a cruel orinjuries with a gandasa on the head, it is implicit that hehad taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel or unusualmanner in inflicting four heavy blows on the head resultingin death of Santokh Singh.Under these circumstances, thelearned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court havecommitted grave error of law in applying Exception 4 toSection 300 IPC and giving the respondent the benefitholding it to be an offence of culpable homicide.The appeal is accordingly allowed. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,678,881 | P/4 to the police.The applicant took a defence that he was simply showing that draft to the Branch Manager to ascertain as to whether it was correct or not.On the contrary, he had given the draft to the Bank Authority for its encashment.The applicant took a second defence that he had given a sum of `20,000/- to one Baijnath Tiwari on credit and Baijnath Tiwari had returned a sum `17,000/- by that bank draft.In defence, some portion of the document Ex.(Passed on 7th day of May, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 467 & 468 of IPC vide judgment dated 9.1.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Shri Deepesh Tiwari), Beohari in criminal case no.259/90 and sentenced for two years R.I. with fine of `500/- and one year imprisonment with fine of `400/-.In criminal appeal no.15/01, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Beohari, District Shahdol vide judgment dated 8.3.2001 dismissed the appeal.Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant has preferred the present revision.The prosecution's case, in short is that, Shri Vishnu 2 Criminal Revision No.260/2001 Kumar Wadhwani Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Branch Budhar had sent a written report Ex.P/4 that on 7.4.1989 the applicant had produced a draft no.464707, which was issued by Siyaganj Branch, Indore for a sum of `17/- but on that draft by forgery a sum of `17,000/- was mentioned and therefore, the applicant produced a forged draft for its encashment of `17,000/- hence, it was an offence of cheating with the bank.Consequently, a case was registered at Police Station, Beohari for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant.The applicant abjured his guilt.He took a plea that he did not give the draft for its encashment, whereas he was asking to the Branch Manager whether the draft was correct or not.Actually, one Baijnath Tiwari took a sum of `20,000/- from the applicant on credit and in place of giving the cash payment, he gave that draft, which was shown by the applicant to the Branch Manager.In defence, Ramashankar Patel (DW-1) was examined.The learned J.M.F.C. Beohari after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that an expert was to be examined in the case.D/1 was produced and one Ramshankar Patel (DW-1) was examined.Ramshankar has stated that the applicant and Ramshankar were the employees of the Forest Department.However, they did not state about their posts.He has stated that one Baijnath was their neighbour at Khandwa, who was working as a transporter and the applicant gave a sum of `20,000/- to Baijnath Tiwari and thereafter, an acknowledgment was taken on a plain paper, which was produced as Ex.After sometime, Baijnath gave a sum of `3,000/- in cash and a draft of `17,000/- to the applicant.The testimony of the witness Ramashankar (DW-1) is highly doubtful.He could not state that he himself or the applicant were posted in the Forest Department.No document is shown to show that the applicant was an employee in the Forest Department.The statement given by Ramashankar Patel appears to be unnatural.A huge amount cannot be given to an unknown person in such a manner.A small employee of the Forest 6 Criminal Revision No.260/2001 Department cannot provide such a huge sum to anyone.If Baijanth Tiwari gave a draft of `17/- in place of `17,000/- then, it was for the applicant to initiate a proceeding of cheating against that Baijnath Tiwari and a copy of the FIR etc. could be filed before the trial Court but no such documents are produced before the trial Court and therefore, it appears that the story of Baijnath is created only to defend the applicant and therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the story of Ramashankar Patel.However, it was for the prosecution to prove that the applicant was the person, who committed a forgery.It is nowhere established that the alleged draft was sent to the handwriting expert for its examination to ascertain as to whether any forgery was done by the applicant or not.The applicant must have had complete knowledge because any prudent person could locate the forgery in the draft Ex.P/1 upon simple reading of the draft as the portion where amount is written in words of the draft it was mentioned to be "` Seventy/-" only, whereas in the figure "Rs.x17"/- was mentioned and below the figure, the figure of "Rs.17,000/-" was mentioned in a different ink and there was no counter signature of the officer, who issued the alleged draft.Under such circumstances, it was not possible for the applicant to mention such a figure in the draft.The applicant could do the forgery by himself, if he got the draft prepared by himself or with 7 Criminal Revision No.260/2001 the help of his friend.If the applicant was interested in doing the forgery then, he could not have received the draft, which was required to be deposited in his account.In such a case, he should have prepared a draft so that at any span of time, its payment could be received in cash.It was found that the draft was forged by manipulation in figures and the applicant could not be held liable for that manipulation therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was the person, who forged the draft.Initially, a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC but the learned J.M.F.C. did not frame the charge of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.At present, the applicant has faced the trial, appeal and the revision for the last 22-23 years and therefore, it would be improper to send the matter back to the trial Court for its re-trial, whereas it would be a hardship to the applicant if case is remanded.After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is proved that the applicant placed a forged draft for its encashment, though he knew that it was a forged document otherwise, he could not have taken a defence that he was inquiring about the correctness of the draft and therefore, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC.However, fine imposed upon the applicant may be enhanced.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed.The conviction as well as sentence directed for the offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC are hereby set aside.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 07.05.2013 pnkj | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,681,149 | Heard on I.A.No.11210/2016- which is an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence of appellant No.3 Nadan Bee w/o Late Shri Hanif Khan.The appellant has preferred this application against the judgment dated 30.01.2015 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in S.T. No.206/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,00/- and in default of payment of fine three months R.I. and u/S.201 of IPC sentenced to seven years R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine three months R.I.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no reliable evidence on record to find the appellant guilty for the offence u/S.302 & 201 of IPC .The trial Court only on the basis of statement of five years old boy Aman (PW.6) found appellant guilty while from his cross examination, it is clear that he had not seen the incident and gave false statement only at the instance of his grandparents.Hence, counsel prayed for grant of suspension of jail sentence since the appeal is likely to take time.On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the prosecution evidence, it is clearly proved that appellant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased Shabana Bee and other co-accused harassed the deceased and subjected her to cruelty before her death.Shabana Bee had already filed the report against the present appellant and other co-accused regarding harassment for dowry before the incident.From the statement of Sikandar Khan (PW.1), Haseena Bee (PW.2), Sattar Khan (PW.3), Shahaja Bee (PW.4) & Babulal (PW.5) who is the father of the deceased, it is clearly proved that appellant and other co-accused harassed deceased Shabana Bee and subjected her to cruelty.Shabana Bee died due to hanging in the house of appellant.So the trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences.Hence prayed for rejection of the application.We have gone through the record and arguments advanced by the counsel of both the parties.It appears from the record that the trial Court only on the basis of statement of sole eyewitness Aman (PW.6) who is just five year old found appellant guilty for murder of Shabana Bee.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for her regular appearance before the trial Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellant, after being enlarged on bail shall mark her presence before this Court on 24th of July, 2017 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the this Court/Registry.CC as per rules. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,006,262 | In the said FIR she had indicated her age to be 17 years and she accused the second respondent of having subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse constituting the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act five-six months prior to the report to the police, such Crl.M.C. No.4181/2016 Page 1 of 8 conduct having continued thereafter, she having been rendered pregnant with a child, her pregnancy at the time of medical examination carried out on 19.03.2015 found to be more than 12 weeks' old.The Special Court constituted under the POCSO Act took cognizance and issued summons to the second accused who had been earlier released on bail by default, by order dated 19.05.2015, the charge-sheet having not been submitted within the statutory period of 90 days in terms of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.M.C. No.4181/2016 Page 1 of 8Reference was made to the age estimation report dated 24.03.2015 issued by board of doctors of the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Lady Hardinge Medical College & Smt. S.K. Hospital, New Delhi, wherein it had been opined that having regard to the physical, dental and radiological Crl.M.C. No.4181/2016 Page 2 of 8 finding, the age of the prosecutrix possibly was more than eighteen and less than twenty years.M.C. No.4181/2016 Page 2 of 8After having examined the above-mentioned three medical officers CW-1, CW-2 and CW-3, the Special Judge, by his order dated 10.02.2016 held that the prosecutrix was "major on the dates of the alleged occurrences".The respondent/State joins the petitioner in seeking to assail the afore-mentioned order of the Special Judge.He eventually appeared on the said date with a counsel engaged by him.As per her version, her mother had died before she came to Delhi she having been engaged as a child labour.Noticeably, she alleged that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse by the second respondent from five-six months prior to the report to the police.She would also allege that she was subjected to such sexual intercourse repeatedly thereafter on several occasions. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,110,122 | The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29-9-97 at about 10.00 A.M. prosecutrix Phoolmati (P. W. 1) was going to her cattle shed with a bucket of water to provide it to the cow.Appellant was sitting near the door of cattle shed.He caught hold of the hand of prosecutrix and when she objected, appellant pressed her neck and gagged her.The appellant pushed prosecutrix on the ground and committed rape on her.The prosecutrix tried to resist.Hearing the sound of resistance and struggle Jagmati (P.W. 2), the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix who was cooking food in the house, came out and saw the appellant committing rape on the prosecutrix.When she raised alarm, appellant threatened her.Hearing the cries of Jagmati, Sudama, the husband of the prosecutrix also came to the spot and saw the appellant running away.Certain persons of the locality also gathered there.On 3-10-1997 she went to Police Station, Madha alongwith her husband and lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-1).Prosecutrix was medically examined by lady Dr. Nama Tirkey (P.W. 4).On examination, she found nail scratch mark on the right breast of the prosecutrix.Both the breasts were painful and tender.Bangle scratch marks were found on the right wrist joint.Dr. Tirkey cut the pubic hair of the prosecutrix and preserved for examination.Ex. P-3 is the report of Dr. Tirkey.The appellant was examined by Dr. B.L. Seth (P.W. 5) who found him capable of sexual intercourse.The undergarments of the appellant were recovered by Dr. Seth.Two slides of his semen were prepared and were preserved for chemical examination.JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J.Vaginal secretia was obtained and preserved for examination.Underwear of the prosecutrix was also recovered.Dr. Tirkey opined that rape was committed on the prosecutrix.The underwear, slides of the semen, the petticoat and slide of the secretia of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar.But the report of the F.S.L., Sagar has not been filed by the prosecution.After investigation, a challan for offence punishable under Section 376, IPC was filed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Session.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC who abjured the guilt and pleaded alibi. ;On the basis of above prosecution case, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution established its case for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence aforesaid, the appellant has filed this appeal.I have heard Shri Satish Pateria, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ku.Alka Pandya, Govt. Advocate appearing for the State and perused the record of the Trial Court.Shri Pateria, learned Counsel for the appellant led me through the record and contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in accepting the prosecution evidence.He submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are illegal and incorrect, as such, are liable to be set aside.On the other hand, Ku.Alka Pandya, learned State Counsel has supported the judgment recorded by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above.Phoolmati (P.W. 1) has stated that on the date of incident, she was giving water to the cow in a bucket.Her mother-in-law was cooking food inside the house.Her husband was lying inside the house as he was sick.Appellant was sitting outside the cattle shed.He caught hold of her and took her in the cattle shed.When she tried to shout, the appellant gagged her mouth and committed rape on her.On hearing the sound of struggle, her mother-in-law reached the spot.On seeing her mother-in-law, the appellant gave her threat and took to his heels.Jagmati (P.W. 2) has stated that on the date of incident her daughter-in-law, Phoolmati was sent to fetch water.When she did not return with the water she came outside the house to see her.She found the appellant committing rape on the proseculrix.Appellant gave her a threat and ran away towards his house.The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her.Lalji (P.W. 3) has also stated that on hearing cries of prosecutrix he went towards the spot.At that time, he saw the appellant running away from the place of incident.The version of prosecutrix has been corroborated by the medical evidence also.Dr. Tirkey (P. W. 4) who medically examined the prosecutrix has stated that on examination she found nail scratch marks on the right breast of the prosecutrix.Her both the breasts were painful and tender.Bangle scratch marks were also found.She has opined that the rape was committed on the prosecutrix.Ex. P-3 is the report of Dr. Smt. Tirkey.Dr. B.L. Seth (P. W. 5) has stated that he examined the appellant and found him capable of sexual intercourse.Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the rape case, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, particularly when she is a married and grown up woman must be scrutinised with abundant caution and care to ensure that it is not unconcocted or embellished to any extent.Reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been given.Delay in complaint of such cases in India does not raise inference that the complaint was false.The complainant stated that as her husband was sick, she could not go to lodge the report.In the circumstances of the case, the evidence of prosecutrix can not be discarded.Delay in lodging report alone can not be said to be vital.The evidence of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by the evidence of her mother-in-law and also by the evidence of Lalji Medical evidence further corroborates her evidence.Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Trial Court committed grave error in rejecting the plea of alibi.Ram Bharose (D.W. 1), Sarpanch has stated that on the date of incident appellant was working as labour for the construction work of Panchayat Bhavan.In none of these entries signature or thumb mark of the appellant were obtained.While the signatures/thumb marks of other labour were obtained.Even otherwise the distance of the site where the construction work was going on is only 12 K.Ms.from the place of occurrence.The appellant could have come from the site of construction work to the spot and could have returned to the site after the incident.Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the plea of alibi and rightly relied of the evidence of prosecutrix which is corroborated by the evidence of her mother-in-law and other circumstances.The evidence of prosecutrix can not be said to be untrustworthy. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,110,135 | Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench ofthe Calcutta High Court rejecting the application for suspension of sentenceunder Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code').Four persons who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.168 of2008 were convicted by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,Fast Track, Second Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur for offences punishableunder Sections 342, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (in short the `IPC').Law was set into motion on 9.7.1994 by one Shamburam Maity,alleging that 17 accused persons and many unknown persons on 8.7.1994 atabout 11.00 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention had murdered thecomplainant's brother Shibram Maity and had concealed the dead body inthe house of one Sasanka Maity.The police undertook investigation andafter completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against 19 persons.Charge was framed on 5.11.2005 and the accused persons faced trial as theypleaded innocence.It is to be noted that charges were framed against 16 persons as two ofthe accused persons had expired before the commencement of the trial.Thetrial Court on consideration of the evidence came to hold that appellantsbefore the High Court were guilty as afore-noted.The application for suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389 ofCode was filed which was rejected primarily being of the view that theevidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 7 was sufficient to establish the accusationsand, therefore, this was not a fit case where prayer in terms of Section 389of Code was to be accepted.Notice was issued qua petitioner No.1 only.Learnedcounsel for the appellant-Anil Ari submitted that the said appellant is nearly70 years old and is in jail for nearly one year and that he was on bail duringtrial. | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,015,803 | C.C. as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE MKBShri Jitendra Sharma, counsel for the applicants.Shri JM Sahni, Panel Lawyer for the State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.58/2015, registered at Police Station Pohri, District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.The applicant- Anuj Sharma is a teacher by profession.It was alleged against accused persons, namely, Deendayal, Banti Sharma, Vivek Paliwal and Avtanya Jain, that they fired with the guns.However, there is no such allegation against the applicants that they assaulted any of the victim by any weapon.No common intention or object may be presumed with the co-accused persons.Prima facie, no offence under Section 307 is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the applications.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.They 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 applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicants during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider their application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,018,778 | (Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of LawTherefore, he would plead that the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on this sole ground.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.M.P.Nos.8705/2013 & 8706/2013 and the same are pending. ... | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,019,845 | Heard on admission.Record of the Courts below has been received.Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State; as such, no further notice is required.Heard on I.A.No.12459/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Abhishek Jaat @ Guddu.A perusal of record reveals that appellant stands convicted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine in the sum of Rs.3,000/-, with default stipulation.Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, this application (I.A.No.12459/2018) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and 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 the Registry of this Court on 19.11.2018 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,118,629 | Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated.He has clean antecedents.It is submitted that the present FIR was registered on 27.06.2019 on the complaint of one Mr. Vimal Kumar who was working as a cashier in the shop of one Mahavir Singh against unknown persons alleging that a bag containing some important documents and a sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs was stolen from his room at H.No.4712, 3rd Floor, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi on 20.06.2019 at around 5.00 to 7.00 a.m. As per the complaint, the petitioner was sharing accommodation with the complainant as both of them were working in the shop of Mahavir Singh.The petitioner was arrested by the police on 28.07.2019 when he came to Delhi from his native place Bikaner.It is next submitted that co-accused Abhishek Singh in his disclosure statement has disclosed that the petitioner has informed him about the cash and accordingly they had planned to commit theft along with co-accused Anshul Rathoor @ Monti, Rashid, Vijender @ Viju, Vicky Panwar and Lateer.It is further submitted that after almost one month from the date of registration of the FIR, statement of BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 4 of 8 over and the charge-sheet has been filed.It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail, in the interest of justice.BAIL APPLN.During investigation detailed statement of complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he has stated that he is working as a cashier in Inderpuri Courier Company at 320, 2nd Floor, Kucha Ghashi Ram, Delhi.On 19.06.2019, he had put a parcel of Rs. 12 lac in his room and the next day he found that the same has been stolen from there and he got the online FIR lodged but BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 5 of 8 subsequently on checking he came to know that Rs. 79,31,000/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Lac Thirty One Thousand) which were kept to purchase grains have also been stolen.Thus, a total of Rs. 91,31,000/- (Ninety One Lac Thirty One Thousand) was got stolen.The complainant further alleged that one person Laxmi Narayan @Leeladhar S/o Parmeshwar R/o Vill-Hemasar, Tehsil-Dungar Garh, Distt.Bikaner who was working there and was living with them has committed the said theft.Accordingly, the offence under Section 379 IPC was converted into 380 IPC.During investigation, the CCTV footage of the area were checked and some of the suspects were shortlisted and their photographs were developed, the DVR containing the CCTV footage was taken into police possession and sent to FSL for expert opinion.It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigation accused Abhishek Singh S/o Jitender Singh, R/o Village Jasraspur, PS Ratan Nagar, District Churu, Rajasthan was arrested from Jaipur on 27.07.2019 and disclosed that Laxmi Narayan @ Leeladhar (petitioner) had informed BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 8 of 8BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 8 of 8BRIJESH SETHI, J.(Oral)Vide this order, I shall dispose of the bail application u/s. 439 CrPC filed by the petitioner Laxmi Narayan Sharma in FIR No. 000160/2019, u/s. 379 IPC, P.S. Lahori Gate, Delhi.BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 1 of 8BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 1 of 82717/2019 Page 2 of 8 complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.07.2019 wherein he made improvement and stated that when he and his friends checked the room on 29.06.2019, an amount of Rs. 79,31,000/- was found to be missing from a white bag kept in the room for purchase of grains.Thus, it was ultimately alleged on 18.07.2019 that a total amount of Rs. 91,31,000/0- was stolen.The name of the petitioner had appeared there for the first time.BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 2 of 8It is next submitted that in the charge-sheet, it is alleged by the police that it has recovered an amount of Rs. 21,500/- from the co- accused Abhishek Singh out of the entire stolen amount of Rs. 91,31,000/-.Police, in fact, has concocted a story that huge cash amount was kept by Mr. Mahavir Singh to purchase the grains even in complete violation of the finance Bill, 2017 which prohibits cash transaction of more than 2 Lakhs.The police has acted as henchmen of Mr. Mahavir Singh during the entire investigation and arrested several persons including the petitioner and extorted money from them on the pretext of investigation of the present case.It is further submitted that in daily newspaper of Bikaner, Rajasthan dated 02.07.2019 and 03.07.2019, a news was flashed that the policemen of BAIL APPLN.BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 3 of 8It is next submitted that bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 23.08.2019 in the most unlawful manner and by wrongful observing that the allegations made in the FIR were so grave.Aggrieved by the impugned order of Ld. MM, petitioner filed a bail application before the Ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari but Ld.ASJ ignored all the facts of illegal extortion by the police and dismissed the bail application on 15.10.2019 in the most mechanical manner and without application of judicial mind.2717/2019 Page 4 of 8APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.Petitioner is involved in the offence of theft of Rs. 91,31,000/- along with other co-accused persons.He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail application.I have considered the rival submissions.As per prosecution version, the present case vide E-FIR no 000160/2019, u/s 379 IPC was registered online on the complaint of Vimal Kumar s/o Mangi Lal, R/o 4712, 3rd floor, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri Delhi with the allegations of theft of Rs. 12 lacs.2717/2019 Page 6 of 8 them about the cash and they had committed theft of an amount of around 91 Lacs along with the co-accused Anshul Rathor @ Monti, Rashid, Vijender @ Viju, Vicky Panwar & Lateef and later on divided the amount amongst them.During investigation, one witness Bansi Lal Sharma @ Lal Chand stated that he was there in the room on 20.06.2019 around 5.45 am where 5-6 persons had come along with Laxmi Narayan @ Leeladhar and Leeladhar had introduced them as his relatives but soon thereafter when he had come from the washroom, all those people had disappeared and Vimal, the cashier informed him that the cash has been stolen.During investigation efforts were made to recover the case property but the same could not be recovered due to non-cooperation of the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 5 of 8BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 6 of 8It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.In view of the fact that other co- BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 7 of 8 accused persons namely Anshul Rathor @ Monti s/o Laxman Singh @ Lal Sinhgh, Rashid Khan S/o Ummed Khan, Vijender @ Viju S/o Deendayal, Vicky Panwar @ Samsher, Lareef and Fariyad Khan S/o Mohmood Khan Dilawarkhan are absconding and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against them have been initiated and out of the stolen amount, only Rs. 21,500/- have been recovered so far and the remaining amount is yet to be recovered, no grounds for grant of bail to the petitioner are made out at this stage.The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.BAIL APPLN.2717/2019 Page 7 of 8BRIJESH SETHI, J NOVEMBER 19, 2019 (AK) BAIL APPLN. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,111,240 | Facts, which are in short compass, are mentionedhereinbelow.Although the prosecutrix-P.W.1 was resident ofGadarwara, she had come to Bhopal about four months prior tothe date of occurrence.In Bhopal, she was staying with herrelative.She had gone to an Ayurvedic Hospital fortreatment where she came in contact with acquitted co-accusedSneh Lata, who showered love and affection on her.Thus,she was allured by Sneh Lata and went to stay with her.Therecord shows that she was kept in wrongful confinement at herhouse.She used to be beaten up and was not allowed to leavethe house.Many boys and girls used to visit the said houseof Sneh Lata.On 14th October 1988, she gave Rs.10/- to theprosecutrix, with which the prosecutrix went to BhopalTalkies to watch the matinee show.After the movie, when shecame out of the theatre, she found a few boys standing therewho started teasing her.In the meanwhile, the appellant- accused Wahid came there in his auto who voluntarily offeredto help her.She requested him to drop her to her relative'splace but instead of taking her to the house of relative ofthe prosecutrix, he proceeded towards airport via Lal Ghati.She tried to stop the accused from proceeding in the wrongdirection, but, he continued to ply the auto-rickshaw.Inthe darkness, near bushes he stopped the auto and used filthylanguage against her.He also threatened to kill her if sheraised hue and cry.After gagging her mouth, he took her tothe nearby bushes and removed her under-garments.He alsoremoved his pants and under-garments and committed rape onher.Deepak Verma, J.Judgment was pronounced in the said Sessions Case on17th May 1991 wherein and whereby co-accused Sneh Lata wasacquitted of the charges levelled against her, but theappellant was found guilty of commission of offence underSection 376, IPC and was awarded seven years' rigorousimprisonment.Insofar as the charge levelled against himunder Section 366 was concerned, he was acquitted by the saidcourt.Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction,appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.548 of 1991 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.At that very point of time, some sharp light camefollowed by two police personnel coming there and catchinghim red-handed while performing intercourse with theprosecutrix.Both of them were taken to the Bairagarh PoliceStation where FIR (Exh. P-1) was lodged by the prosecutrix.She was sent for her medical examination and accused was alsosent for his medical examination.After usual investigation, chargesheet was filedagainst appellant and co-accused Sneh Lata for commission ofoffences as mentioned hereinabove for which they were triedand upon completion of trial, the appellant was found guiltyfor commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC.The conviction of the appellant is founded on theevidence of P.W.1-prosecutrix as also the evidence of P.W.3-B.B. Subba Rao, Sub-inspector who had caught him red-handed while he was committing rape.Medical report dated 15thOctober 1988 of the prosecutrix is on record.It recordsthat her hymen was found to be in tact whereas her privatepart admitted only tip of little finger with difficulty.Inthe opinion of Dr. B. Biswas who had examined her, nointercourse was done with her.But, for determination of herage, she was sent to Forensic Department of Hamidia Hospital.B. Biswas has not been examined by the prosecution.At the time of medical examination of theprosecutrix, her medical history was recorded, marked atExh.P-9 which categorically records the manner in which theappellant had committed rape on her.12. P.W.1-prosecutrix had initially not supportedprosecution case and was declared hostile.But, on beingconfronted with her statement recorded under Section 161,Code of Criminal Procedure, she narrated the true and correctstory and the manner in which rape was committed on her.Shehas categorically deposed that the appellant removed herunderwear, lied on her, put his male organ into her privatepart and was moving up and down.To corroborate the evidence of prosecutrix,prosecution has examined I.O. (P.W.3-B.B. Subba Rao), Sub-inspector of Police Station Bairagarh.According to him, on 14th October 1988 he was on field duty with regard toinvestigation of some other case and he received aninformation that an auto driver was going in an auto at about8 O'clock in the evening with a girl towards airport road.According to him, on search, auto was found in abandonedcondition on a secluded road.The police officer has statedthat he suspected some foul-play and went in search of theowner of the same.What is mentioned by him is that near thebushes, he found the auto-rickshaw parked by the side of theroad and appellant committing rape on the prosecutrix.According to him, the appellant was caught red-handed.In his cross-examination conducted by learned counselfor the appellant, which is more suicidal, he has deposedthat both of them were found to be in compromising positionand were naked below the waist.It is mentioned by him thatthe appellant was lying on the prosecutrix and was indulgingin sexual intercourse and he had seen the incident in thelight of the vehicle in which he was travelling.Accordingto him, the site of incident was 2-3 furlongs away from themain road and as soon as the appellant was caught, stood upand was found in a perplexed condition.He has furtherstated that they thereafter put on their clothes and werebrought to the police station, where FIR was lodged by theprosecutrix.According to him, his auto-rickshaw was seizedon the same day and he was apprehended on next day.Perusal of the record would show that Exh.P-1 (FIR)was lodged by the prosecutrix herself on the date of the incident on 14th October 1988 at the police station soon afterthe incident.When she was sent for medical examination, sheagain narrated rape on her by the appellant before themedical officer which finds place in her medical reportExh.To furthercorroborate aforesaid evidence, the statement of P.W.3-B.B.Subba Rao fully establishes that it was Wahid Khan who hadcommitted rape on the prosecutrix.As mentioned hereinabove,whatever little lacunae was there in the prosecution story,has been cured in his cross-examination.Cumulative reading of the aforesaid would provebeyond shadow of doubt that it was the appellant who hadcommitted offence of rape on minor girl and had completelyravished her.According tohim, looking to the totality of the facts and features of thecase and the evidence available on record, at best, it wouldestablish a case wherein the appellant could have beenconvicted only under Section 354 of IPC but no case was madeout for his conviction under Section 376 thereof.On the other hand, Shri Sidhartha Dave, learnedcounsel appearing along with Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for the respondent-State contended that even if full penetration hadnot been there, slight penetration itself is sufficient andwould complete the offence of rape as contemplated underSection 375 of the IPC and thus both the courts below werejustified in finding him guilty under Section 376 of IPC andawarding him punishment accordingly.The law on the point is now too well settled. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,136,213 | L.P. 284/2014 Page 1 of 10L.P. 284/2014 Page 1 of 10"On 06.08.2011, Police machinery was set into motion on receipt of DD No.8A , SI Nar Singh (PW-14) along with SI Dheeraj(PW-12) went to the spot namely House No.13A, New Heera Park, where various articles were lying scattered in burnt condition.As per opinion of the Doctor, the injury to Poonam was grievous.The statement of Poonam was recorded on the basis of which FIR No.131/11 dated 06.08.2011 was lodged under Section 307 IPC.As per the statement of the Complainant, Ms. Poonam(PW-13), she was residing with her parents and was doing stitching work.The accused Kuldeep, who is the brother-in-law of the Complainant and husband of her sister, Ms-Bharti(PW-2), used to beat her sister Ms. Bharti and also threatened to kill her.Whenever the accused used to beat her, the Complainant used to oppose such beating by the accused to her sister.On 06.08.2011, the accused came to the house of the Complainant on his motorcycle bearing No.DL 4S BH 6923 at about 7AM under the influence of liquor and started quarrelling with the family members and insisted upon to take along with him her sister Ms. Bharti.The father of the Complainant tried to convince the accused but he started quarrelling with him and entered into the room where the Complainant, along with her sister Ms. Bharti, was present.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.The present Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent from the charge framed against him under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).The accused, therefore, was having a grudge against the Complainant.The accused started beating her sister Ms. Bharti.The Complainant opposed such acts of the Accused.In the meantime, the Accused took out a bottle of petrol from the waist of his pant and sprinkled the same on the cloth and after lighting matchstick threw the same on Complainant, thereby, set the Complainant on fire.The Complainant raised alarm.The fire was, thereafter, doused by her family Crl.L.P. 284/2014 Page 2 of 10 members.In the course other articles of the house also caught fire.During the course of investigation I.O. recorded statement of the Complainant, wherein she had stated that the accused put her and her sister on fire by sprinkling petrol on them.Bharti, sister of the Complainant and wife of the Accused also got injured in the incident.That after completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was filed by the police under Section 307 IPC against the Accused."L.P. 284/2014 Page 2 of 10Addressing the arguments in support of the present criminal leave to appeal, Mr. Pranay Kishore Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the impugned judgement passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law and the facts on record.Counsel further submits that because the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the discrepancies, if any, in the evidences are minor discrepancies, which ought not to have been taken into account to acquit the accused after giving him benefit of doubt.Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that it is the evidence of PW13 alone that is contrary to the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, in regard to the incident.Counsel further submits, that the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the light of estranged relation of the accused with his wife, PW-2, who had left the matrimonial house much prior to the date of incident and living with her parents.The admitted presence of the accused at the site of incident in the early morning was not under the cordial environment.The hostile statement of the Complainant was, Crl.L.P. 284/2014 Page 4 of 10 therefore, not natural and therefore not trustworthy.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that acquittal of the accused giving benefit of doubt under the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record would be undue advantage to the accused.Counsel further submits, that the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that cane of petrol, which the Complainant has mentioned in her hostile statement has not been recovered from the site of incident or anywhere else, however the bottle carrying petrol, which was used by the accused has been recovered at the instance of the accused himself in his disclosure statement and the same has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses.Counsel further submits, that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that even medical evidence support the case of the prosecution, apart from the ocular evidence.L.P. 284/2014 Page 3 of 10L.P. 284/2014 Page 4 of 10We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by him.We have also gone through the impugned judgement and other material placed on record. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,136,450 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 3.6.2014 relating to crime No.40/2012 registered at Police Station Amarkantak, District Anuppur for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 294, 323, 341 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 29 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the accused Prabhat that he assaulted the deceased Dilip by a knife on his abdomen, due to which he died.It is alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the deceased by stick, causing simple injuries.The applicant was not aware that the co-accused would assault in such a manner.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with co-accused Prabhat.No offence under Sections 307 or 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 of IPC, whereas remaining offences are bailable.The applicant is in custody since 3.6.2014, without any M.Cr.C.No.12532/2014 substantial reason.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant viz. Rohit @ Monu may be accepted.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,139,673 | (b) On 07.09.2013, around 2.45 p.m, P.W.2 and the deceased were working in their field.P.W.1 is the sister's son of the deceased.P.18 is the First Information Report.He forwarded the other documents to Court.(f) The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.12, Inspector of Police, who proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and a rough sketch and also recovered blood stained clothes, blood stained earth and sample earth.No skull fracture or brain injury.No rib fracture.Heart and lung congested and normal.On opening of the abdomen liver, spleen, pancreas and kidneys normal and congested.100-150ml of undigested rice seen in the stomach.Uterus not found ( A scar running down from Umbilicus to public area seen).Death probably due to injury to major vessels of the neck and trachea injury resulting in heavy bleeding and shock.He further opined that the deceased would have appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage and the injuries found on the body.P.7 is the Post mortem and Ex.P.8 is the final opinion.He arrested the accused.On such arrest, the accused made voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife.At the time of occurrence he was wearing dhoti, shirt and banian.P.W.12 recovered these three clothes.In pursuance of the confession made by the accused, the accused took the police and the witnesses to the place of occurrence and produced M.O.1 knife.P.W.12 recovered the same under mahazar.[Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.152 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore.He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC.By Judgment dated 07.01.2016, the trial Court convicted the accused in both the charges and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment under Sec.324 IPC.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up with this appeal.(a) The accused is a resident of Kaliapuram village in Pollachi Taluk.The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Thangamani.She was the wife of the accused.P.W.2 is her son, aged about 36 years.The deceased and P.W.2, claiming absolute right, started enjoying the property.This was not to the liking of the accused.He opposed the same.It is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.He was also present in his field, which is adjoining to the field of the deceased.The field, where the deceased and P.W.2 were working, was in the vicinity of the place, where P.W.1 was working.At that time, the accused, in a drunken state, came in a motorcycle and questioned the authority of the deceased and P.W.2 as how dare they were to enjoy the property.So saying, suddenly, he took out a knife hidden in his banian.He opened the knife and started attacking the deceased.Raising alarm, P.W.2 rushed to the rescue of the deceased.He caught hold of the accused and by that time P.W.1 also reached the place and attempted to rescue the deceased.However, the accused managed to get relieved himself from the clutches of P.W.2 and also stabbed P.W.2 repeatedly.P.W.2 fell down with injuries.The accused then ran away from the place of occurrence with the weapon.) P.W.1 made arrangement for sending the deceased and P.W.2 to the hospital.P.W.5 Dr.Vikram Muralidharan admitted the deceased in T.T. Nair Hospital at Anaimalai on 07.09.2013 at 3.00 a.m. P.W.5 was told that the deceased was stabbed by her husband.He found lacerated injuries measuring 5.6 cm at length on the right side of the neck and correspondingly there was an injury to the trachea.The vital nerves of the neck were also found cut.P.W.5 admitted the deceased as inpatient in the hospital and started treating her, but within fifteen minutes, the deceased died in the hospital.(d) P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital at Ambarampalayam and he was treated by P.W.4 Dr.Vivekanandan on 07.09.2013 at 5.10 p.m. P.W.2 was then conscious.He told that he was stabbed by knife by his father.P.3 is the Accident Register and Ex.P.4 is the Wound Certificate.According to P.W.4, the injury found on P.W.2 would have been caused by a knife and that the said injury was simple in nature.He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased between 10.00 p.m and 12.00 midnight and forwarded the same for post mortem.(g) P.W.6 Dr.Azhagappasami conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 08.09.2013 and he found the following injuries:(1) On the right side of the neck.A cut wound measuring 1.5 x 1.5 inch (length, width and depth respectively) injuring the underlying muscles and blood vessels (2) on the center of the neck 5-6 inches below chin a cut wound measuring 1x0.5x.15 inch (length, width x depth respectively) Injuring trachea seen.Hyoid bone no injury.16-20 hours prior to postmortem.He opined that the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like knife.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court.(i) Investigation was thereafter continued by P.W.13 Inspector of Police.He collected medical records, examined other witnesses and at his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.The report revealed that there were human blood stains on all the material objects, including the clothes, recovered from the accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges under Secs.302 and 324 IPC.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 20 documents and 6 material objects were also marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, is the eyewitness to the occurrence.He has spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.2 is the injured witness and the son of the accused and the deceased.He has spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.3 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and the rough sketch on the place of occurrence.P.W.5 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased.P.W.5 has further stated that within fifteen minutes, the deceased died.P.W.6 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.7, an Expert from Forensic Science Lab has spoken about the examination of Material Objects and found that there were blood stains on the Material Objects including knife.P.W.8 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the confession made and also the recoveries of the material objects from his possession.5. P.W.9 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and a rough sketch.P.W.10 the learned Magistrate has spoken about the recording of statement of witnesses under Sec.164 of Criminal Procedure Code.P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.12 and P.W.13 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.His defence was a total denial.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on his side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant, has come up with this 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.So far as P.W.2 is concerned, he is none other than the son of the accused as well as the deceased.He is an injured eyewitness.Therefore his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.The presence of P.W.1 cannot also be doubted because, according to him, he was in the neighbouring field and he is none other than the sister's son of the deceased.Neither P.W.2 nor P.W.1 are shown as having any grudge against the accused.At the earliest point of time, when P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital, he told the doctor that he was stabbed with a knife by his father.Likewise when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, the doctor was told that she was stabbed by her husband.Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have been cross examined at length, nothing could be elicited to create even a slightest doubt on the veracity of their evidence.From the evidences of these two, coupled with medical evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who caused injuries on the deceased by stabbing her with knife, which resulted in her death.The prosecution has also proved that it was this accused who stabbed P.W.2 with knife and caused simple hurt.Undoubtedly knife is a dangerous weapon.Having come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused, we have to examine as to what is the offence that was committed by the accused by such act.As spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 the motive for the occurrence has been established.The accused came to the place of occurrence well prepared, which is evident from the fact that he had hidden the knife in his banian and he has not explained as to why he came armed with a knife to the place of occurrence.Neither P.W.2 nor the deceased had developed any quarrel with the accused.It is the accused who came to the place of occurrence premeditated, took out the knife and stabbed the deceased.When P.W.2 intercepted and caught him hold, the accused managed to escape from the clutches of P.W.2 and stabbed P.W.2 also.Thus the Act of the accused in causing the death of the deceased would squarely fall within the first limb of Section 300 of IPC and the same does not fall under Exception I to Section 300 IPC.Therefore, for causing the death of the deceased, the accused is liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC and for causing simple hurt on P.W.2 with knife, he is liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Sec/324 IPC.Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial court imposed only minimum punishment, which does not require any interference.In the result, We find no merit in the appeal and the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.The judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore dated 07.01.2016 in S.C.No.152 of 2014 is confirmed. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,143,168 | Learned counsel for the parties have brought to the notice of this Court order dated 25/10/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.18196/2017 passed in similar circumstances.The order dated 25/10/2017 passed by the coordinate bench reads as under:-"Shri A. Malhotra, learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner / State.Shri Y. P. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents.Arguments heard.1. Being aggrieved by order dated 15.09.2017 passed in MCRC Nos.9606/2017 and 9608/2017 whereby the FIR No.743/17 and FIR No.739/17 respectively registered at Police Station Khategaon dated 21.07.2017 under Section 420, 467, 468, and 34 of IPC were quashed, the prosecution has preferred the present petitions for recalling of the orders.Prosecution case is that on 29.04.2017, one Deepak S/o Vallabhdas submitted a written complaint before the police alleging that accused Ketan Dalal of Ahemdabad, Gujarat contacted him through Rajkumar Jain of Harda and offered him that he will get higher price of wheat for him or will arrange the sale of wheat at higher price and induces him to deliver wheat at Ahmedabad, Gujarat on an assurance that payment will be made within10 days of delivery of the wheat.Trusting his statements, the complainant transported total 5741 quintals wheat worth of Rs.1,22,60,663/- by 28 trucks which was received and sold by the accused persons, but the payment was not made.By adopting similar tactics, the accused also cheated other traders of Khategaon Mandi like Saurabh S/o Ramesh Chandra, Agarwal Brothers and Firm M.M. Warehouse, Firm Bakliwal Ginning, Firm Patni Ginning and Factory and Firm M/s Mulchand Gopikishan Garg.The police registered Crime No.383/2017 under Section 420, 467, 468, and 34 of IPC.Later on, other person namely Saurabh S/o Ramesh Chand and partners/proprietors of firms mentions in last preceding para also submitted written complainant alleging the same allegations as made by Deepak S/o Vallabhdas.The police Khategaon registered Crime Nos.739/17, 740/17, 741/17, 742/17, 743/17 and 744/17 and investigating the same.One of the accused Sandeep S/o Purushottam Chouhan approached this Court stating that Crime No.741/17 was registered on the same set of facts which are mentioned in the already registered Crime No.383/2017, therefore, proceedings of the FIR -2- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M. Cr.C. No.18199/2017 (State of M. P. Vs.Sandeep Chouhan) registered subsequently i.e. Crime Nos.739/17 and 743/17 be quashed.The matter was heard in the presence of public Prosecutor who fairly admitted that both the FIRs are related to the same set of facts.It is further submitted by learned public prosecutor that on the date when impugned order was passed, case diary was not available with the learned public prosecutor, therefore, he got confused and could not disclosed correct factual position before the Court.Actual picture emanated, when facts of all the crimes registered against all the accused persons studied simultaneously, hence, the present petitions are filed.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that crime no.383/17 was first in time, it was registered on the written complaint of Deepak S/o Vallabhdas.At the time of submitting the report in the police station, all other complainants were accompanied him.Therefore, all other complaints filed by the complainants are subsequent in time.The learned public prosecutor appeared at the time of hearing had admitted that both the FIRs were registered on the same set of facts and the Court has rightly quashed the FIRs which were later in time.C. No.18199/2017 (State of M. P. Vs.Though, the manner of defrauding was the similar, but all the complainants were defrauded independently and separately, therefore, they all filed separate complaints with the police and police registered crimes on distinct numbers.The FIRs in the present matters are related to the two different incidents/crimes.Sandeep Chouhan) following order:-"MCRC No.9607/2017,10698/2017, 10727/2017, 10728/2017, 10730/2017, 18195/2017, 18198/2017, 18215/2017 & 18229/2017 INDORE dt. 28-11-2017 Parties through their counsel.The applicants before this court have filed this present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the concerned FIR registered at Police Station Khategaon District Dewas.The contention of the applicants is that initially first information report was registered against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint made by one Deepak on 24-04-2017 alleging commission of an offence u/s 420, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC and thereafter again the First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint made by Kalash for an offence u/s 420, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC.C. No.18199/2017 (State of M. P. Vs.State of Gujarat (supra) as cheating has been committed against different persons independently they have got every right to lodge First Information Report against the present applicants. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,143,246 | CRM No.850 of 2014 In re : Sri Nimai Rakshit ........ Petitioner.Re : An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16th January, 2014 in connection with Belda Police Station Case No.269 of 2013 dated 20-11-2013 under Sections 147/148/341/427/323/325/354B/379 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das, Mr. Gourav Das ..... For the Petitioner.Mr. Sabir Ahmed ..... For the State.2 Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on further condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and shall report to the Investigating Officer whenever called, but at least, once a fortnight until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the petitioner, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Indrajit Chatterjee, J. ) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,146,637 | For reasons mentioned in the writ petition she is constrained to reside in the matrimonial home of her daughter.The residential house at 120D, Linton Street, Kolkata 700014 was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner.Apart from abusing the petitioner, the 74 respondent no.5 slapped her with his slipper.The petitioner was made to work as maid in her own house and to perform all household chores.The respondent no.5 started bringing pork while the petitioner used to take meal, knowing fully well that being a Hindu widow she would not be able to tolerate the same.Other acts of cruelty have been mentioned which need not be elaborated.Suffice to say that the respondent no.5 made the life of the petitioner miserable for which she had to take shelter in her daughter's matrimonial home.Feeling aggrieved thereby, this petition has been presented with a prayer for ordering the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate action on the basis of such complaints lodged by the petitioner and to command the respondent no.5 to allow her to stay at the said residential premises and not to create any disturbances in any manner whatsoever.The respondent no.5 was represented by learned advocate.The police officer has observed that the relation between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 soured after the will referred to above surfaced.The situation worsened when the petitioner applied for probate before the Civil Court.The respondent no.5 has been contesting such application.The property was not partitioned.However, Binapani Halder under compulsion executed a deed of gift in favour of the respondents 5 and 6 which was registered on 23.3.1998 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Diamond Harbour.By the said deed the entire property of the deceased Sacchidananda Halder was transferred to the respondents 5 and 6 without the 78 knowledge of the petitioner no.1 who claims 50% share therein.Challenging the deed of gift and consequent transfer of property, the petitioner no.1 has instituted title suit against the respondent no.5 and the same is pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Diamond Harbour.Refusal to accede to such request resulted in manhandling of the petitioner no.2 by the respondent no.6 by fists and blows.W.P.22614 (W) of 2009 (Sudhir Kumar Chakraborty v. State of W.B. & ors.) The respondent no.4 is the elder son of the petitioner, who is aged about 69 years.He lives on his retirement benefits.He has a house property which he purchased along with his wife jointly.The petitioner complains of the respondent no.4 having no source of income but being addicted to drinks.The petitioner is after threatened for money and assaulted physically if money is not given.He further complains of pressure being created by the respondent no.4 to transfer the house property in his favour.Not being able to withstand the pressure from the respondent no.4, complaint was lodged with the Inspector-in-Charge, Jagaddal Police Station.Despite receiving such complaint, 80 the police it is alleged did not cause any probe.The respondent no.4 was not even called at the police station.Accordingly, order has been prayed for on the police authorities to take appropriate steps on the complaint lodged by the petitioner and to save his life and property.Inspector-in-charge, Jagaddal Police Station has furnished written instructions to his learned Advocate.The same has been placed before me.It appears therefrom that the allegation that no enquiry was made, has been denied.However, on enquiry, it could be ascertained that the respondent no.4 and his wife jointly inflicted mental torture on the petitioner and created pressure for money on several occasions.The allegation that the respondent no.4 threatened the petitioner to hand over the house property has also been found true.Based on such local enquiry, the respondent no.4 and his wife have been cautioned and advised not to disturb the petitioner in any way.W.P. 13564(W) of 2009 (Jaya Rani Sakhari and ano.v. State of W.B. & ors.) The petitioner and her husband are aged about 60 and 70 years respectively.The petitioner's husband raised and constructed a dwelling house where they are residing with their married daughter, since deserted by her husband, as well as the respondents 3 and 4, their son and daughter-in-law respectively.It is claimed by the petitioner that the respondents 3 and 4 have been given permissive possession in respect of a portion of the dwelling house and that they are gratuitous licensees.The petitioner and her husband due to old age have been suffering from various ailments and their daughter is looking after them.However, the 82 respondents 3 and 4, who are in the employment of the Government, have never contributed towards their maintenance and other expenses pertaining to the dwelling house.However, for some time past, the respondents 3 and 4 have been creating various sorts of problems and harassing the petitioner and her husband in respect of peaceful enjoyment of possession of the dwelling house by resorting to various illegal activities with a view to dispossess and/or to evict them.However, the police refused to receive the written complaint.Consequently, the complaint was despatched to the Superintendent of Police, North 24-Parganas as well as the Officer-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station by registered post.However, no action having been taken, the petitioner presented this petition before the Court praying for an order on the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate legal action against the respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of the complaint being Annexure 'P-3' to the petition.The Officer-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station has furnished written instructions to his learned advocate on the basis of enquiry conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police.Prosecution has been submitted vide NCR 279 dated 30.6.2009 under Sections 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. against the respondents 83 3 and 4 and both have been directed to maintain peace.It has further been observed in the written instructions that the dispute arises out of family problems and that no cognizable offence has taken place so far.It is claimed in the petition that her husband having died a premature death without leaving any savings of his own, the petitioner shouldered full responsibility to bring up her son and daughter.The petitioner's mother was the owner of three buildings which she inherited after the death of her mother.The respondent no.5 after getting married in the year 2005 has been staying with the petitioner.No kind of money support is provided; on the contrary, the respondent no.5 has been constantly pressurising her to make a gift in his favour in respect of the house properties.Being under the influence of alcohol, the respondent 85 no.5 even assaulted her.Prima facie, the allegations contained therein disclose commission of cognizable offence.The respondent no.5 was represented by learned advocate.He denied and disputed the material allegations in the petition and contended that in view of the decision in Aleque Padamsee (supra), the writ petition is not maintainable.No sort of maintenance has been paid.87 The respondents 5 and 6 have been mounting pressure so that the petitioner and his wife vacate the residential premises and take shelter in an old age home.The ill and wretched condition of the petitioner and his wife arising out of misdeeds of the respondent no.5 led the petitioner to ask for maintenance whereupon the respondent no.5 became furious and beat the petitioner and his wife.The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Muchipara Police Station on 6.3.2010 but unfortunately no action has been taken resulting in presentation of this petition praying for order on the police authorities and in particular the Officer-in- Charge, Muchipara Police Station to take immediate action against the respondents 5 and 6 for commission of offence.Upon receipt of the complaint, the Officer-in-Charge has registered Muchipara Police Station (Section 1) Case No.111 dated 9.3.2010 under Sections 341/323/114 of the IPC.Investigation is in progress.The respondents 5 and 6 did not appear.Abdullah & anr.The first petitioner is the absolute owner of a multistoried building.There are several tenants in the said building.The petitioners carry on business from a shop room and have been surviving on the income derived from rents as well as the small business.In this petition too, it has been alleged that the respondent no.4 has been constantly pressurising the petitioners to transfer the immovable property in his 89 name.The petitioners are however aggrieved because no action till date has been taken by the police authorities to redress their grievance.None has entered appearance on behalf of the private respondents despite despatch of copy of the writ petition by registered post.Learned advocate for the State has placed before the Court written instructions furnished by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Golabari Police Station.It appears therefrom that the accusation of the petitioners that the respondent no.4 has taken charge of the business run from the shop room is correct and that over such issue the parties have been quarreling with each other.The police authorities upon receipt of complaint dated 8.6.2009 submitted prosecution vide NCR 352 dated 18.3.2009 under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C before the Court of Executive Magistrate (Sadar), Howrah against both the parties.The complaint dated 10.6.2009 does reveal that the petitioner no.2 was assaulted by the respondent no.4 and received physical injury.No explanation has been furnished as to why the complaint was not registered as First Information Report under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. The police must be held to be negligent on this scope.The petitioner admittedly has gifted the property in equal shares to his two sons including the respondent no.4 and did not retain any portion thereof for his own residence.Admittedly, he is residing with his younger son.He complains of unbearable torture, both physical and mental, being inflicted on him by his elder son being the private respondent.92 The private respondent demanded a share of the monthly pension received by the petitioner, a retired government employee.The allegation of torture could not be substantiated.He claims to have spent his earnings for bringing up his children and also for construction of a dwelling house at Bhabanipore in the North 24 Parganas under Police Station Bishnupur.The eldest son is a daily labourer and, therefore, unable to maintain the petitioner.His second son is in private employment and staying at Kharagpur.The younger son is a school teacher and his wife is also a 94 teacher in an Anganwari Kendra, both of whom reside with the petitioner.It is alleged in paragraph 7 that the younger son being a member of the local gram panchayat drove the petitioner and his wife out of their dwelling house and forcefully occupied the rooms of the petitioner.Also the belongings were thrown out.It is further pleaded that the ouster of the petitioner and his wife were brought to the notice of the local gram panchayat as well as the local police station but to no avail.The respondents 4 and 5, being the younger son of the petitioner and his wife, have not appeared before this Court despite despatch of copy of writ petition by registered post.It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Court of Writ has been approached by the petitioners with a prayer to direct the police to stop physical torture and threat at the instance of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and to initiate criminal proceedings against them.Respondents 4 and 5 have refused to accept copy of the writ petition tendered to them as it appears from the affidavit of service.The respondents 9 and 10 are the daughters-in-law of the petitioners.All of them reside in common premises.After having assaulted the petitioner no.2, she went to Vidyasagar Hospital for her treatment.The doctor of the hospital also wrote on his prescription about such assault.The duty the police owe to the petitioners was not duly discharged.Respondents 9 and 10 are the father-in-law and the brother-in-law of the respondent no.7 respectively.The petitioner no.1 claims to be the owner of several immovable properties.The son of the petitioners got married to the respondent no.8 without the petitioners' consent.This resulted in differences between them.It is claimed that on 22.2.2008, the respondent no.7 gave an undertaking 102 not to create any trouble and if he creates trouble, then he would leave the house.Inspite of such undertaking, the respondent no.8 continued to trouble the petitioners with the help of some antisocials.Finding no other alternative, the petitioner no.1 on 26.3.2009 submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Uluberia, Howrah, seeking administrative protection from the said authority.After this incident, the petitioner no.2 had to be treated in the Sub-Divisional Hospital and an injury report was issued by the attending doctor.On the self same day, the petitioners lodged a complaint with the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Uluberia and Sub-Divisional Officer, Uluberia complaining about the reign of terror unleashed on them by the respondents 7, 8, 9 and 10 and their men and agents.Both of them are not in a position to move freely.It has been alleged in the petition that the respondents 3 and 4 have been constantly creating mental pressure and multifarious problems, as a result whereof their right to live peacefully is being vitally affected.It has further been alleged that the respondents 3 and 4 are trying to oust the petitioners from their own house.It is also the petitioners' claim that although their daughter intends to look after them, the respondents 3 and 4 have been preventing her to look after her parents.Pursuant thereto, Sankrail Police Station Case No.279 of 2009 dated 26.5.2009 under Sections 498A/323 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioners and their daughter and son-in- law.However, all the accused persons were released on anticipatory bail.Since the petitioners obtained orders of release, the respondents 3 and 4 further assaulted them and it is their grievance that till date the police has not taken any action to make the respondents 3 and 4 behave in an orderly fashion.It is alleged that due to misbehaviour of the respondents 8 and 9, the petitioner has been residing separately with immense trouble and difficulty.The respondents 8 and 9 tortured the petitioner and thereby created pressure on him to execute a deed in their favour in respect of all his movable and immovable properties.Infuriated by the petitioner's refusal, it is further alleged that the 113 respondents 8 and 9 have driven him out from his residence.The petitioner has to pass his days sometimes in the house of his relatives, or in the cowshed or mosque with tremendous mental agony.He approached the Officer-in-Charge, Bishnupur P.S. and narrated his grievance.However, the police did not take any further action.Further representation/complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police on 7.12.2009 requesting him to ensure that he can reside in his own house but such request was not heeded.Keeping pace with the needs of changing society, the Parliament has introduced two enactments of late in respect of two separate classes at the receiving end, viz. (i) women and (ii) parents and senior citizens.The respondents in the appeal had been successful in invoking the writ jurisdiction for enforcement of a private right to immovable property against the appellants despite the fact that pendency of a civil suit between the parties was known to the High Court.Mr Arun Jaitley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 1 has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commissioner of Police who were respondents 1 and 2 was also made.It has to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondents 3 and 4 before the High Court; and the High Court has by the impugned order, considered it fit to allow the prayer of the respondents against them for removal of the grills for access to the backyard.According to the stand of the landlord-respondent, since the police were taking a partisan attitude against her, the filing of a writ petition became necessary.There will be no order as to costs.(underlining for emphasis by me) The other decision is P.R. Murlidharan (supra) referred to above, where a dispute arose as to whether the respondent was entitled to continue in the capacity of Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan of a particular Sangh.A suit filed 67 earlier by the respondent for declaration that he was entitled to continue was dismissed for default.The application for restoration was also dismissed.After such dismissal, he filed a writ petition praying for police protection.The High Court while allowing the prayer observed that the respondent was entitled to hold the said office and that the State and the police officials were under a legal obligation to give protection to his life and properties.The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court.iii) it would be open to the police after receipt of a complaint to enter into a dialogue with the parents and the accused son/daughter-in-law and to coax and to cajole them to resolve their disputes and differences but in the process there must never be any coercion or compulsion;The petitioner had applied for probate of the will of her late husband.Served with notice of such proceedings, the respondent no.5 broke the padlock on the bedroom of the petitioner and started assaulting her brutally.It is further alleged that the respondent no.5 poured water on the body of the petitioner and disconnected the geyser forcing her to take her bath with cold water and made her to sleep on wet bed.A further complaint dated 5.2.2010 was lodged.It has been submitted on his behalf that the petitioner has left the said premises on her own 75 volition.He has denied the allegation of torture.Written instructions furnished by the Officer-in-Charge, Beniapukur Police Station to Mr. Rajdeep Biswas, learned advocate for the State, has been placed before the Court.Apart from a cursory reference to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 through counseling on one occasion, there appears to be no indication as to how the complaints lodged by the petitioner have been dealt with by the officer-in-charge.I have perused the complaints annexed to the petition.The same prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence.It is incomprehensible as to why the Officer-in-Charge, Beniapukur Police Station or his subordinates did not take appropriate action thereon as envisaged in law.It appears to be a clear case of non-discharge of statutory duty by the police.Inaction of the police to discharge 76 statutory duty is well substantiated and, therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the said Officer-in-Charge to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the basis of such complaints.Since the respondent no.5 has not disputed the petitioner's right of residence, the petitioner shall be at liberty to inform the said Officer-in-Charge the date on and from which she would like to return and to continue to stay thereat.There shall be no order as to costs.Despite receiving the complaint, the police authorities have not taken any action resulting in the present petition.The writ petition has been contested by the private respondents.It has been submitted by Mr. Das, learned Advocate that deed of gift executed by the grandmother of the respondent no.5 in his favour has been challenged before the Civil Court and, therefore, this is not a fit and proper case for exercise of writ powers by this Court.According to him, the Court of Writ ought to direct the parties to await the decision of the Civil Court and no order should be passed which might prejudice the interest of the respondent no.5 in the pending suit.Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the State has failed to assist the Court for want of instructions from the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station.The petitioners have annexed to the petition copies of receipt issued by Falta Police Station endorsing 79 the general diary entry number.In the absence of the complaints lodged by the petitioner with the police station, it is difficult for this Court to issue any positive direction.There shall be no order as to costs.Prosecution vide Jagaddal PSPR No.943/2009 dated 31.12.2009 under Sections 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. has been submitted.The respondent no.4 has not appeared despite service.The Inspector-in-Charge shall maintain strict vigil so that the respondent no.4 in future may not disturb the petitioner or his wife in any manner whatsoever and thereby affect their dignity.If at all any complaint is lodged by the petitioner alleging commission of cognizable offence, the Inspector shall proceed in accordance with law.The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, without any order for costs.The respondents 3 and 4 have not appeared despite service.Having considered the averments in the petition and the contents of the written instructions, I find that the petitioner has been residing with her husband and daughter in the dwelling house constructed by him.The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, without any order for costs.Unable to bear the physical and mental torture and perceiving a threat to her life, the petitioner lodged written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Narkeldanga Police Station.However, no further action having been taken by the police authorities on such complaint, this petition was presented praying for an order on the respondent no.4 to take immediate action and/or measures for restraining the respondent no. 5 from continuing with his illegal conduct.The Officer-in-Charge, Narkeldanga Police Station has furnished written instructions to his learned advocate it appears therefrom that on the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner, Narkeldanga Police Station Case No.72 dated 22.5.2010 under Sections 341/323/506/427/114 of the IPC has been registered against the respondent no.5 and his wife.It further appears therefrom that on visit to the residence of the petitioner, the officer concerned requested her to pursue the remedy 86 contemplated in the DV Act.It shall be the duty of the police to ensure that the respondent no.5 and his wife do not in any manner harass the petitioner or otherwise interfere with her right to live with dignity.If at all any further complaint is lodged by the petitioner, the same must exercise due consideration of the Officer-in-Charge and steps shall be taken in accordance with law.The petitioner shall be free to pursue her remedy as advised by the Officer- in-Charge and as provided in the DV Act.The writ petition stands disposed of, without any order for costs.W.P. No.5474 (W) of 2010 (Pradip Ojha v.Whatever little benefit he received from the employer has been spent for the well-being of the family and proper up-bringing of the respondent no.5, his son, who is a graduate.Copies of the writ petition were dispatched to them on 19.3.2010 by Regd.In this case too, I find the accusation that the police has largely remained inactive is not borne out by the facts stated in the written instructions.Proceedings are pending before the Court and the respondents 5 and 6 have obtained bail.In such circumstances while observing that the police may carry on investigation in accordance with law, I direct that the petitioner and his wife 88 ought to be extended all sorts of assistance and protection so that they may spend the remaining days of their lives peacefully and without any sort of discomfiture for having complained against the respondents 5 and 6 to the police.The writ petition stands disposed of, without order for costs.W.P. 10423(W) of 2009 (Sk.Having learnt of lodging of complaint dated 10.6.2009, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 became furious and threatened the petitioners with dire consequences.The respondent no.5 even threatened to lodge a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Citing the above incident, a further complaint dated 12.6.2009 was lodged.Hearing of the writ petition was adjourned on two previous occasions on the ground of the petitioners' inability to argue.It shall be open to the petitioners to avail their remedy under the Cr.P.C. Needless to observe that the officers of the local police station shall maintain constant watch and ensure that there is no breach of peace and tranquility in the locality as a result of the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents.If in the near future any further complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offence is received by the local police station, FIR ought to be registered immediately and steps in furtherance thereof shall be taken to conduct investigation in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation contained herein.The police authorities shall also ensure that the lives of the petitioners are not endangered at the instance of the private respondents.It shall be open to the 91 petitioners to pursue the channel of civil litigation for restoration of possession.The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of without any order for costs.W.P.5499 (W) of 2010 (Sri Santosh Kumar Chowdhury v. State of W.B. & ors.) The petitioner, aged about 82 years, claims to be the owner of an immovable property within Habra Municipality.In paragraph 12, an allegation of refusal of the respondent no.3, the Officer-in-Charge, Habra Police Station to take any step on the complaint of the petitioner on the ground that there exists a family dispute between the petitioner and his son is pleaded.The private respondent was unpresented despite despatch of copy of the writ petition by registered post.Instructions furnished by the Officer-in-Charge, Habra Police Station to the learned advocate for the State reveals existence of a long pending dispute between the father and the elder son.The reason therefor is that the petitioner and the private respondent reside in separate mess.The respondent no.4 and his wife have been asked not to inflict any torture on the petitioner and to maintain peace.From the writ petition it does not appear that the private respondent has 93 physically harmed the petitioner.The allegations are vague and based thereon no positive direction on the police can be given.However, the police authorities are directed to maintain peace in and around the residences of the petitioner and the private respondent.They shall further ensure that as a result of the ongoing dispute, there is no loss of life and limbs.If at all any complaint is received by the police authorities in future from the petitioner disclosing commission of cognizable offence, they shall proceed to discharge their statutory duty without compelling the petitioner to knock the doors of the Court for justice.The writ petition stands disposed of, without any order for costs.W.P.15344 (W) of 2009 (Manindra Nath Santra v. State of W.B. & ors.) The petitioner is a septuagenarian and father of three sons and a daughter.Proceedings under Section 144(2) of the Cr.P.C. were initiated.Ultimately, on 9.1.2009 the gram panchayat had convened a meeting for amicable settlement of the dispute between the petitioner and his younger son but the younger son denied to cooperate and, as such, the matter could not proceed further.It appears from the complaint that a prayer was made before the Officer-in-Charge to ensure that the petitioner and his wife could return to his home and spend the rest of his life peacefully.Written instructions furnished to the learned advocate for the State by the Inspector-in-Charge, Bishnupur Police Station have been placed.So far as 95 the allegation of ouster is concerned, it appears that the respondents 5 and 6 removed the petitioner from the room which was being occupied by him and shifted him to a smaller room.The petitioner did not wish to occupy the smaller room and insisted that he would stay in the room so long being occupied by him.Since his request was not accepted by the respondents 5 and 6, he started staying in a 'kacha' room which was being used as cow-shed long back.The allegations of police inaction have been disputed and reference has been made to the prosecution that had been submitted against the respondents 5 and 6 under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. It has also been stated that the petitioner has initiated criminal miscellaneous case no.166/08 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court at Alipore against the respondent no.5 and that the said case is sub-judice.If at all the petitioner has approached the Magistrate for maintenance, the proceedings shall be decided by the Magistrate in accordance with law.The Inspector-in-charge without being ruffled by the allegation of inaction levelled by the petitioner against him shall mediate and try to bring about an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 so that the petitioner in the remaining years of his life can spend his days in peace in his ancestral property.If the effort of the Inspector-in-Charge fails, the parties shall be left to pursue their remedies under the ordinary laws.Needless to observe, close vigil shall be maintained at the locale to avoid any untoward incident of breach of peace and tranquility.The writ petition stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.96 W.P. 6090 (W) of 2010 (Paresh Chandra Nandi & anr.v. State of W.B. & ors.) Parents of the respondent no.4 are the petitioners before this Court complaining of inaction of the police to mitigate their sufferings inflicted by him.After 2005, the respondents 4 and 5 decided to live in the same house but in a different mess.Unable to bear the pressure mounted by the respondent no.4, the petitioners were compelled to complain to the police authorities at Pandua in respect of unlawful acts.Since the Protection Officer has already enquired into the complaint of the petitioner no.2 and submitted his report before the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sadar, Hooghly, law shall take its own course.Any observation, if made herein, is likely to affect the merits of such proceedings and, therefore, I decline to give any positive direction to the police to prevent the respondents 4 and 5 from acting in offensive manner.The writ petition stands disposed of, without any order for costs.It is claimed that the private respondents have been threatening the petitioners since long for getting jewellery and money and also to have the property of the petitioner no.2 registered in their name.The petitioners have given details of the complaints lodged with the police authorities from time to time against the private respondents who, it is claimed therein, have unleashed violence on them for not acting as per their dictates.They allege complete inaction of the police to come to their rescue.On 6.4.2008, the petitioners lodged a complaint with Behala Police Station being G.D. No.502/08, alleging that they were mercilessly beaten up by the respondent no.8 with stones.On 16.1.2010, the respondent no.8 poured kerosene oil on the door of the petitioners' room and set the door on fire.On 16.4.2010 at about 8.30 a.m. the respondents 7 and 8 along with their wives again started pressurizing the petitioners for getting their names inserted in the will.When the petitioners refused to do so, they mercilessly beat them up and even they throttled the petitioner no.2 and threatened her that they would kill her if she does not insert their name.On 17.4.2010 at about 6 a.m., the respondents 7 and 8 abused the petitioners in filthy language.But the 100 Officer-in-Charge did not take any positive action against them.The written instructions furnished to the learned advocate for the State by the Officer-in-Charge, Behala Police Station reveal apprehension of breach of peace because of the uncompromising attitude of the private respondents leading to submission of prosecution vide Behala P.S. P.R. No. 169/10 dated 5.5.2010 under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. It is also revealed therefrom that the petitioner no.2 is the owner of the property in question.None has appeared for the private respondents despite dispatch of copy of writ petition to them by Regd.The hearing of this petition was concluded on 16.6.2010 and hence it is presumed that they have been duly served.Accordingly, it is directed that so long the petitioners are alive, the police shall ensure that the private respondents do not indulge in overt acts and cause disturbance in the petitioners' day to day life.Every possible step shall be taken to protect the petitioners' right to life.Any future complaint lodged by them against the private respondents shall be given due consideration and dealt with in accordance with law.However, any dispute relating to property shall not form the subject matter of probe by the police and the parties must agitate such issue before the civil 101 court.The writ petition stands disposed of, without order for costs.W.P. 6546 (W) of 2010 (Chandi Charan Khan & anr.On 2.6.2009, the petitioners lodged a complaint with Uluberia Police Station alleging that respondent no.7 locked one of the residential rooms of the petitioners on R.S. Plot no.125 and drove them out of the said room but the police officials refused to record such complaint.On 1.6.2010, the younger son of the petitioners lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Uluberia praying that the petitioners stayed at their residential house peacefully may be ensured.When both the Sub-Divisional Officer, Uluberia and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Uluberia did not pay heed to the application filed by the petitioners' younger son, he filed an application before the District Magistrate for 103 taking necessary action by breaking the padlock of the door put by respondent no.7 so that the petitioners may stay there peacefully.However, despite approaching the police officers for breaking open the padlock so as to enable the petitioners to stay there, no action was initiated.Since then, the petitioners have been running from pillar to post without the desired result having yielded.Finding no other alternative, this petition dated 30.3.2010 has been presented before this Court, inter alia, praying for direction on the respondents/police officers to investigate the complaints lodged against the respondents 7 to 10 as well as to remove the padlock of the room at plot no.125 and to put the petitioners in possession thereof by rendering necessary assistance.It also appears from the petition that the petitioner no.1 addressed a representation dated 15.2.2010 to the District Magistrate Howrah complaining of involvement of Sri Tanmoy Bhattacharya, A.S.I. The said representation was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Howrah for conducting an enquiry into such complaint.The Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Howrah on 12.3.2010 sent a message to the petitioner no.1 requesting him to attend his office chamber on 16.3.2010 in connection with an enquiry.It is, however, alleged that the said police officer did not meet the petitioners when they went to his office.None appeared for the private respondent no.7 despite service as it appears from the affidavit-of-service.The other respondents refused to accept service.The Inspector-in-Charge, Uluberia Police Station through his learned 104 advocate submitted a report.This led to differences between them.It appears therefrom that both the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.7 are desperate and dangerous and have no respect for each other.More than a year back prosecution under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted against both of them.The police are not supposed to interfere in civil dispute; therefore, it shall be open to the petitioners to seek relief by pursuing the channel of civil litigation.I have considered the order of this Court dated 11.12.2009 referred to above.No law has been declared therein having the effect of a binding precedent and, therefore, I do not propose to issue similar direction.Regarding the petitioners' prayer for investigation into the complaints, I 105 direct the Superintendent of Police, Howrah, to take the process started by him by Memo dated 24.11.2009 to its logical conclusion, if such process has not yet been concluded.If concluded, the petitioners shall be duly informed of the opinion formed by him.The officers attached to the local police station shall ensure that as a result of the acrimonious relationship between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.7, peace and tranquility in the locale is not breached and that there is no loss of lives and limbs.The writ petition stands disposed of, without any order for costs.W.P. 5318 (W) OF 2010 (Smt. Sabitry Das v. State of W.B. & ors.) The petitioner has four sons and four daughters.On 1.6.1990, the husband of the petitioner died.In the ground floor of her house, there are four shop rooms.The trade licenses of doctor's chamber, spectacles unit, medicine shop and grill manufacturing unit, operating therefrom are all along in the name of the petitioner.The petitioner at present is residing at the said house with her unmarried mentally challenged elder daughter namely Pratima Das, unmarried younger deaf and dumb daughter namely Baby Das, married sons Shankar Das and Ratan Chandra Das and their family.Others are staying outside.The respondents 5 and 6 got married on 6.5.2001 of their own accord and 106 started living in a separate mess.On 10.3.2007, the respondents 5 and 6 came to the house of the petitioner and started torturing her for money and other articles.Respondent no.5 not only abused the petitioner but he, along with his men and agents, threatened the petitioner with dire consequences.Respondent no.6 also threatened the petitioner and her family by saying that if the petitioner does not transfer the property in their name they would initiate criminal case under Section 498A of the IPC.After having been abused and assaulted by the respondents 5 to 8, the petitioner at the end of 2007 lodged G.D. entries with the local police station but to no avail.She also lodged several complaints against the respondents 5 to 8 before the local panchayat and the Protection Officer under the D.V. Act but all were in vain.This petition dated 11.3.2010 was presented praying for orders on the respondents 5 to 8 and their men and agents not to harass, torture and assault the petitioner and her other family members, as well as not to disturb the petitioner's possession.Direction has also been prayed for on the respondents 2 to 4 to provide immediate and necessary protection to the petitioner and her 107 family members.It further appears therefrom that several complaints have been lodged by the petitioner as well as by her sons.Prosecution reports vide nos. 174 and 175, both dated 21.4.2010 under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. have been submitted against the respective parties.It is reported that the differences have arisen out of family affairs and property disputes and deep tension is prevailing between the parties over long-standing acrimony.The private respondents have not appeared despite service.There shall be no order as to costs.The petitioner referred to earlier complaint which was diarised vide GDE No.1793 dated 21.2.2010 and the fact that the respondent no.3 has not been abiding by a settlement which had been arrived at between the parties.The petitioner sought for advice from the said officer-in-charge as to how and in what manner he could divest the respondent no.3 of his property.Learned advocate for the respondent no.3 is right in his submission that the petitioner had sought for an advice from the said officer-in-charge and that there is no allegation of commission of offence by the respondent no.3 in the recent past.If indeed the police did not take any action on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, why it took the petitioner a year's time to approach the Court has not been explained.Having perused the contents of the writ petition, it appears to me that strained relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 has resulted in the former presenting in the petition out of anguish.In the event the said officer-in-charge has not tendered advice to the petitioner in terms of his request dated 31.3.2010, a writ petition would not lie since it is no part of the duty of the Officer-in-Charge of a police station to advice on matters pertaining to civil law.The petitioner cannot be granted any relief.The writ petition stands dismissed.This order of dismissal shall not preclude the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate forum, if so advised.W.P. 16523 (W) of 2009 (Nirapada Ghosh & anr.v. State of W.B. & ors.) The petitioners are the parents and parents-in-law of the respondents 3 and 4 respectively.It is claimed in the petition that the petitioners, who are retired teachers, are aged above 70 years having good reputation in the locality.The first petitioner is suffering from paralysis and needs regular medical 111 attention.The second petitioner has been suffering from gastric and arthritis problems as well as other old age diseases.Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the State has denied the material allegations against the police authorities.According to him, if the petitioners seek the assistance of the police, the same shall be extended to them in accordance 112 with law.Learned advocate for the respondents 3 and 4 resisted the writ petition by submitting that the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts.The remedy of the petitioners lie in pursuing the ordinary legal remedies and no case for interference of the Writ Court has been made out.I have heard learned advocates for the parties.He shall further ensure that the petitioners are not ousted from their property except in accordance with law.However, in the event, the respondents 3 and 4 commit any cognizable offence, it shall be open to the petitioners to pursue their remedy under the Cr.P.C. Nothing in the order shall affect the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners and the same shall be taken to its logical conclusion uninfluenced by the result of this petition.The writ petition stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.W.P. 4957 (W) of 2010 (Akbar Ali Sk.v. State of W.B. & ors.) The petitioner, aged about 72 years, is the father of the respondents 8 andFollow up steps taken by the petitioner by addressing further representation dated 6.2.2010 to various administrative authorities not having yielded any result, this petition dated 8.3.2010 was presented, inter alia, praying for order on the official respondents to extend necessary protection so that the petitioner can reside in his own house.But he did not appear on 29.7.2010 when the writ petition was finally heard and judgment was reserved.By order dated 17.6.2010, I had called for affidavits from the respondents.However, no counter affidavit has been filed.Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate for the State, placed before the Court the written instructions furnished to him by the Inspector-in-Charge, Bishnupur Police Station.It appears therefrom that the petitioner is the father of four sons and four daughters.As a result of differences that cropped up between the 114 petitioner on the one hand and the family members on the other, the petitioner has now been living in the house of a fellow villager.Several sittings were held in the police station to bring about an amicable settlement but no fruitful result yielded.Since the respondent no.9 has not controverted the statements made in the petition by filing counter affidavit, the allegation that the petitioner was driven out from his residence is presumed to be true.The Inspector-in-Charge, Bishnupur P.S. therefore shall extend every possible protection to the life of the petitioner and if he intends to reside in his own house, he shall ensure that the respondent no.9 does not create any obstruction.He shall further ensure that as a result of the differences between the parties, there is no breach of peace and tranquility.The writ petition stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.In this writ petition, she has claimed the following relief :c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent No.4 and 5 from allowing the respondent No.6, to withdraw any amounts lying in the fixed deposits of the petitioner without the consent of the petitioner."On perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent no.6 are joint account holders of fixed deposit accounts in a bank and under monthly income scheme in a post office.The dispute primarily centers on withdrawal of maturity proceeds from the said accounts.It has been alleged by the petitioner that the respondent no.6 has fraudulently withdrawn the proceeds to her utter prejudice and detriment.It has also been alleged that the respondent no.6 had been inflicting severe torture on the petitioner for which she lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Shyampukur Police Station dated 20.2.2010 biut no fruitful action yielded.According to him, someone else has provoked the petitioner to file the writ petition and money is the only consideration.The respondent no.6 claimed that the investments were made by him out of his own earning and the certificates/receipts were all along with him.Since the accounts could be operated by either of the account holders or the survivor, no wrong was committed by the respondent no.6 in withdrawing the maturity proceeds.Mr. Bhattacharya, however, denied that the respondent no.6 is not looking after his 116 mother or that he has been torturing her.The respondent no.6 happens to be a teacher.It is the respondent no.6 who on maturity of the accounts has been withdrawing the proceeds.. Enquiry further revealed that the wife of the respondent no.6 lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging torture.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.Considering the contents of the writ petition, I do not find any reason to interfere.In so far as prayer (c) of the petition is concerned, it has been admitted in the petition that the accounts are in the joint names of the private parties and that the same are to be operated on either or survivor basis.If at all the petitioner considers herself to have been wronged by the respondent no.6, it is open to her to pursue the channel of civil litigation for relief.However, the police are directed to ensure that as a result of the acrimonious relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no.6, there is no loss of lives and limbs.If at all the petitioner and the respondent no.6 do not sort out their differences amicably, it shall be open to either of them to seek 117 relief by pursuing the ordinary legal remedies.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.If any of the petitioners applies for the judgment (pages 1 to 73), and the order passed on the particular writ petition filed by him/her, the same shall be furnished accordingly.Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, shall be given to the applicant as early as possible in tune with the above direction.(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,111,547 | The then Assistant Director was Mr. Ravinder Nath (Retd.) and the then Deputy In-charge of the Delhi Zonal office was Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (since transferred).During the search the officers of the Enforcement Directorate seized a FAX message (debit advice) from one of the shops of Mr. Bharjatya purportedly from Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland which reflected a debit of US$ 150,000 from the account of Royalle Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland in favor of one Mr. S.K. Kapoor, holder of account No. 002-9-608080, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), head office at Hong Kong, as per the advice of the customer i.e. Royalle Foundation.As per the CBI, investigation revealed that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with the respondent No. 2 with an object to frame Mr. Bharjatya in a FERA case and in order to achieve the object of conspiracy a forged FAX message, purportedly sent by the Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland, to Mr. Bharjatya at his FAX number, was planted on the night of 31.12.1997 and on the next morning the petitioner conducted the raid at the premises of Mr.Bharjatya and reference was made to the aforesaid FAX message planted on Mr. Bharjatya's FAX machine on the previous night.This FAX message was used illegally to nail Mr. Bharjatya.According to the prosecution, during investigation the file relating to the FERA case against Mr. Bharjatya was examined and it revealed that some person had contacted HSBC, New Delhi as Mr. S.K. Kapoor and had left a mobile phone number of Delhi.On enquiry it was found that this number was of Mr. Abhishek Verma, respondent No. 2 herein.The respondent No. 2 could not be examined immediately as he was reported to be out of country.In November 1999, when it was learnt that Mr. Verma returned to India, he was summoned to the CBI office and was examined.In his statement he disclosed certain facts, including the role played by the petitioner.According Page 2307 to the CBI, he had disclosed the true facts of the case and there was no apprehension of his tampering with the evidence.Therefore, he was arrested and bailed out as per law.In his statement, he stated that at the instance of the petitioner he forged a fax message containing details of hawala transactions made by another FERA accused, namely, Shri Subhash Chander Bharjatya, and the details of hawala transactions were obtained by him from the shop of Mr. Bharjatya itself.He further alleged that it was done by him at the instance of the petitioner, to whom he also paid Rs.10 lacs as bribe.According to the prosecution, the petitioner was earlier examined but he had tried to mislead the investigation.After the aforesaid confessional statement of the respondent No. 2 was recorded, it was decided to re-examine the petitioner.However, he was trying to avoid investigation and had gone into hiding.JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.We are concerned, in the present petition, with the validity and propriety of order dated 7.9.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in the proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'CBI') and pending before him under Section 120B read with Sections 193/467/471/342 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').Two persons who are arraigned as accused persons in these proceedings are Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and Mr. Abhishek Verma.The respondent No. 2 had moved a petition on 18.7.2000 seeking his pardon.The petitioner herein, who is the co-accused in the said proceedings, however, strenuously opposed the said application.The petitioner is an officer who belongs to Indian Revenue Service.At relevant time, i.e. in November 1996, he was posted as Deputy Director of Enforcement (Delhi Zone).As per the First Information Report (FIR) dated 29.1.1999 lodged by Mr. Abhijit Chakraborty, Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi with the Delhi Special Police SIU-VIII Branch, New Delhi, against unknown officers of Delhi Zone, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, a letter was received from the Enforcement Directorate in which four instances of misconduct were mentioned.Three of them pertain to administrative misconduct whereas the fourth instance, prima facie, reveal commission of a criminal offence.Accordingly, a DO letter was sent to the Enforcement Directorate requesting that a formal written complaint giving brief facts connected with the alleged fabrication of evidence may be given to the CBI.As per this complaint, the Delhi Zonal office of the Enforcement Directorate conducted a search on 1.1.1998 at the office and residential premises of one Mr. Subhash Chander Bharjatya at G-51, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi and his business premises consisting three shops at Hotel Maurya Sheraton, Page 2306 New Delhi.Mr. Bharjatya filed a complaint dated 4.1.1998 alleging that the said FAX message was a forgery and was planted in his premises during the course of search in order to frame him and further that he and his employee were illegally detained on the night of 1.1.1998 and were threatened and manhandled.Mr. Bharjatya was arrested on 28.1.1998 on the basis of the above-mentioned FAX message.Later, in the month of March 1998, Mr. Bharjatya submitted to the Enforcement Directorate a letter obtained by Mr. M. Kapur, his Chartered Accountant, from Mr. Eric Huggenberger, Attorney of Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland, confirming that the above said FAX message was a forged document and was never issued by the said Bank.In these circumstances, in the complaint it was alleged that these facts prima facie pointed out to a criminal conspiracy hatched by the officers of the Delhi Zonal Office, Enforcement Directorate, to create a forged document and not only used it as a genuine document but also create false evidence to implicate Mr. Bharjatya.Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 moved an application in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.11.1999 for recording his confessional statement.Search for the petitioner was launched countrywide.He was subsequently arrested from Saharanpur on 23.12.1999, where he was staying in Hotel Taj under an assumed name of 'Ravi Garg'.On 18.7.2000, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Special Judge, CBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi for becoming an approver and grant of pardon to him.The learned Special Judge asked for certain information about the respondent No. 2 before deciding this application.However, while this application was pending, on 3.1.2001 the CBI submitted to the Court that request of the respondent No. 2 for grant of pardon be considered only after the conclusion of investigation of the case.The respondent No. 2 also agreed for such a deferment.On 2.5.2001, the respondent No. 2 moved application for revival of his earlier application seeking pardon.When this application came up for hearing on 3.5.2001, CBI again gave no objection if the respondent No. 2 was made an approver and granted pardon.The reading of the impugned order would indicate that in the reply dated 3.5.2001 the CBI had mentioned that investigation was complete, except that reply was awaited from Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland on certain points referred in the letterrogatory.It was also stated by the CBI that there were certain vital facts related to the case, which the prosecution would not be able to prove independently and the statement of the accused respondent No. 2 would be essential to bring home the charges against the petitioner, who was the principal accused.The learned Special Judge also took note of statement of the respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The reasons given by the learned Special Judge while allowing the application moved by the respondent No. 2 need verbatim reproduction:I have heard applicant/accused Abhishek Verma in person and Sh.T.P. Singh, Sr.P.P. for CBI.I have gone through the FIR, case diaries, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement of applicant accused Abhishek Verma recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that in the absence of the statement of applicant/ accused Abhishek Verma prosecution may not be able to prove the existence of criminal conspiracy between principal accused Ashok Kr.Aggarwal and the applicant/accused Abhishek Verma.Forging of debit advice by the applicant/ accused on the direction of accused Ashok Mr. Aggarwal, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.10,00,000/- from applicant/accused Abhishek Verma by principal accused Ashok Kr.Aggarwal and certain other material facts, I am, therefore, of the belief that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to tender pardon to applicant/accused Abhishek Verma, with a view to unearth all facts of conspiracy and to establish the role played by principal accused Ashok Kr.Following order was passed by the Special Judge on 3.11.2000:The applicant (Abhishek Verma) has submitted a petition stating that in view of the stand taken by the CBI, the decision on this application for grant of pardon may be deferred till the conclusion of the investigation.The petitioner also filed writ petition in this Court on 31.8.2001 highlighting the repeated acts of malafides, forgeries and highhandedness on the part of the CBI officials praying for transfer of investigation of the case from the aforesaid two persons and in this writ petition also Court had issued notices to the said officials.Learned Counsel for the petitioner summed up his submissions by highlighting:The application was got revived before filing the charge-sheet with the sole purpose that the petitioner is not heard in the matter inasmuch the petitioner as accused could get chance to participate in the proceedings only after the filing of the charge-sheet;(b) impugned order does not disclose any awareness about the letterrogatory and subsequent correspondence exchanged between the prosecution/court and the Swiss authorities.It could, therefore, be inferred that the learned Judge was oblivious about these developments.Case was registered on 29.1.1999 on the written complaint of Sh.Abhjit Chakraborty, Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, which was on the basis of complaint dated 4.1.1998 of Sh.He also submitted that after the application for grant of pardon was adjourned sine die and the respondent No. 2 moved application for revival of the said application on 2.5.2001, the CBI filed reply dated 3.5.2001 to the said application stating that investigation was complete excepting that reply to the letterrogatory was awaited.Reference was made to Lt. Cdr.The Special Judge asked for certain information about the respondent No. 2 before deciding this application.The information asked for by the Special Judge in his order dated 1.9.2000 was crucial and would reflect the mind of the Special Judge, as he wanted to know about the antecedents of the respondent No. 2 before bestowing his consideration on the request made by him for pardon.Instead, on 3.1.2001 request was made for consideration of this application be deferred till after the conclusion of investigation of the case.The respondent No. 2 had also agreed for such a deferment.The application was moved on 2.5.2001 and on the very next date, i.e. 3.5.2001, when this application came up for hearing, the prosecution gave its no objection.The learned Special Judge did not bear these considerations in mind and took on himself something from which he should have kept aloof.All that he should have done was to have asked for the opinion of the Public Prosecutor on the proposal.But since the Public Prosecutor, when appearing in the High Court, stated that the prosecution also considered favorably the tender of pardon to Jagasia we say no more than to caution Magistrates and Judges in the matter of tender of pardon suo motu at the request of the accused. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,167,611 | He is illiterate and wishes to live a normal social life after his release from the jail.He was running a meat shop to earn his livelihood as narrated by the convict.He is sole bread earner in his family.Details regarding Behaviour, Habits and moral values Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 3 of 25 etc:- The convict is habitual of beedi smoking, gutkha chewing and other prohibited and health threatening substances.He was addicted of intoxicants before his jail tenure.It has been narrated by the jail officials and also verified from the jail reports that the convict is indulged in nuisance conduct and engages in quarrels, threatening and undesirable behaviour with fellow convicts and jail officials.A summary of punishments/warnings imposed on the convict in the jail is enclosed herewith as Annexure-A.Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 3 of 25Temperament, Character & Personality Traits:- The convict is aggressive and short tampered in his behaviour and emotionally unstable.He becomes violent too and none of the staff or fellow convicts has any appreciation for his behaviour.Physical and Mental History and Present Conditions:- Convict's mental condition appeared to be normal and he shares about his plans to settle down peacefully after his release from jail.Contact with Social & Religious Organization, if any:- Reported Nil.Economic Conditions of the Family:- The family of the convict is presently residing in their own house covering an area around 25 Sq.Yards in JJ Colony Bindapur and falls in the lower income group.Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 4 of 25Report of Neighbours: Neighbours have not reported favourably in view of his past multiple criminal cases.The neighbours particularly requested the PO about non- disclosure of their identities.Attitudes of Family Towards Offenders and Extent of his Influence of him/her:- The family members of the convict are willing to see him released from jail as early Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 5 of 25 as possible and want to resume their socio-economic life.A. No.769/2015 Page 5 of 25Home Surrounding and General Out Look:- The family of the convict lives in JJ Colony and condition of civic amenities are poor.The home surrounding is very congested and unhygienic.People living in the locality belong to poor/low socio economic strata and unemployed youth of the neighbourhood are prone to criminal activities.Offenders Own Reaction to the Offence and his Attitude Towards Possible Punishment:- Convict feels repentant about his guilt and confessed to have committed the offence.He is seeking lenient consideration from authorities and hope for his early release.Observation:- The convict is desirous of restarting a normal social life after his release from the jail and he also expressed his willingness to build peaceful and cordial relations with everyone in society, though the convict's past criminal cases evidently establish that the convict is a threat to the society."7. Learned APP while opposing the present application filed by the appellant submitted that On 17.11.2004 on receiving of DD No 39 at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi, ASI Ramphal along with Ct Rakesh reached at D-58B Chankya place where he came to know that injured had been taken to DDU Hospital by CAT ambulance.Then they reached at DDU hospital and found that injured Amardeep and Bharat Thakur were admitted.ASI Ramphal collected MLC of the injured and recorded the statement of Amardeep on 17.11.2004 wherein injured Amardeep reported that on Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 6 of 25 16.11.2004 at about 8:45 PM accused Yamin stabbed his father and Arvind stabbed him with knife while Kamlesh and Ram Pratap caught hold them.On the basis of said statement and a case vide FIR No. 1013/2004 U/s 307/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi.Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 6 of 25During the course of investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared, MLC also collected.Accused Arvind was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded.Nature of injuries of Amardeep and Bharat were opined as dangerous injuries.Later on Investigation was assigned to SI Neeraj Kumar who formally arrested the accused Kamlesh as he was on anticipatory bail.Later on, investigation was assigned to ASI Ram Chander who formally arrested the accused Yamin as he was arrested in FIR No. 669/2005 U/s 25 Arms act PS Uttam Nagar.Accused Ram Prasad could not be apprehended.The appellant also needs a fresh lease of life.The appellant undertakes to conduct himself as per the accepted norms of the society.The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.Present applicant had filed the appeal mentioned above by seeking prayer as under:Accordingly, vide order dated 02.07.2020, the Social Welfare Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi was directed to appoint a Probation Officer, to examine the appellant's case and assess the family background, the family situation, the chances of reformation and reintegration of the appellant with family and society and other relevant factors, as per the protocol of the said Department, and submit the report.Pursuant to the directions of this Court, Probation Officer, Mandoli Jail filed its report dated 21.07.2020 wherein stated as under:along with family on the above said address, which comprises of 05 people.Charge sheet u/s 307/34 IPC against accused Kamlesh @ Baby, Arvind and Yamin were filed and accused put to trial.Later on, accused Ram Prasad was also arrested and supplementary charge sheet was filed against him.Vide orders dated 19.04.2006 and 21.09.2007, charge u/s 307/324/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons by Trial Court in which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 7 of 25Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 7 of 25During trial, accused Arvind has expired and proceeding qua him abated vide order 22.01.2008 and accused Ram Prasad was declared proclaimed offender.After examination of prosecution witnesses, Trial Court held that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused Yamin and Kamlesh@ Baby along with Arvind (since expired) and Ram Prasad (since PO) in furtherance of their common intention has caused injuries to Amardeep and Bharat Thakur with the intention to commit their murder.Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted both the accused for offence U/s 307/34 IPC for attempting to commit murder of Amardeep and Bharat Thakur.Consequently, Trial Court has imposed a sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs 20,000/- each for the offence U/s 307 IPC for attempt to murder to injured Amardeep and Bharat Thakur, in default of payment of fine, convicts shall further sentence for six months simple imprisonment.Further directed that if fine is realized from both the convicts, Rs.35,000/- shall be paid to the injured Amardeep and Bharat Thakur as compensation U/s 357 Cr.P.C.Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 8 of 25Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 8 of 25Learned APP further submitted that the appellant has following criminal antecedent:-Learned APP has informed this Court that the appellant also filed the Crl.M.A. No. 10016/2015 in Crl.Appeal No. 811/2015 before this court wherein he prayed to direct sentence awarded in case FIR No. 64/2011 registered under section 392/397/411/34 IPC PS Bhalswa Dairy to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in FIR No.67/2011 PS Swaroop Nagar.The said application was dismissed vide order/judgement dated 20.05.2016 by observing that sentence in the case i.e. 64/2011 and FIR No.67/2011 are commission of distinct offence at different periods.Sentence order records that A-2 has suffered conviction in FIR No.1180/2013 under section 356/379/34 IPC PS Uttam Nagar, FIR No.37/2006 under section 324/341/34 IPC PS Hari Nagar Delhi; he is involved in fifteen other criminal cases under various offences at various police stations.Apparently, Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 10 of 25 the appellants are habitual hard core criminal.Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 10 of 25Learned APP submitted that in the instant case, not only the victim was robbed of valuable articles but also inflicted dangerous injuries on his body.Thus, present application deserves to be dismissed.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.The Chart below delineates the FIR particulars, quantum of sentence awarded and the status of the respective Appeals filed by the Appellant.F.I.R. Particulars Quantum of Sentence Status of Appeal F.I.R. No. 64/2011, 10 years RI with fine of Crl.U/s.394/397 I.P.C. Rs.10,000/- with default Dismissed on P.S. Bhalswa Dairy sentence of 1 month.Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 11 of 25It is pertinent to mention here that similar prayer was made by co- accused Vicky in the FIR No. 67/2011 & 64/2011 in Crl.A. No. 1496/2013 titled Vikas @ Vicky vs. State, before this Court.However, vide common judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed in Crl.A. Nos. 1496/2013 & 811/2015, pleased to reject the said prayer.The co-accused Vikas @ Vicky filed Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Crl.A. No. 208/2020 against the common judgment dated 20.05.2016 of this Court.The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the said appeal vide judgment dated 31.01.2020 by directing the sentences to run concurrently in F.I.R. No. 64/2011, F.I.R. No. 67/2011 and F.I.R. No. 263/2009 and further directed to release the said accused since he had already suffered 10 years RI.116)].Section 427 Cr.P.C. is relevant which reads as under:Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprison- ment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run con- currently with such previous sentence.A. No.769/2015 Page 13 of 25A. No.769/2015 Page 13 of 25The objection of State was as under:The Appellant was a young boy aged 18 years at the time of the commission of the alleged crime in question.Presently, he is aged about 35 years.Further, poverty, illiteracy and misguidance resulting due to impressionable young age, led into Appellant's implications.A. No.769/2015 Page 24 of 25Accordingly, I hereby direct that 7 years sentence awarded to the appellant in case FIR No.1013/2004 registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar shall run concurrently with the 10 years sentence awarded in case FIR No.67/2011 registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar.In view of above, the present application is allowed and disposed of.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, while maintaining the orders of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE JANUARY 11, 2021 ab Crl.A. No.769/2015 Page 25 of 25 | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,171,584 | The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under:-::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::ApealS140.00 & 186.00 5PW 12 - Vithoba Nagre on 14th December, 1989 was attached to Khallar Police Station in Amravati district, as a Police Station Officer.On the said day, he got an information that one Jalilkhan [PW 1] is injured, has sustained several injuries and is admitted in the hospital.Therefore, he along with Police Sub-inspector- Gawai [PW 11] and other police staff went to the hospital.There, they noticed Jaillkhan and Sabirkhan [appellant no.4] were having injuries and were admitted in the hospital.Therefore, he gave requisition to the doctor to examine the patients.Shri Nagre also directed PSI Gawai to obtain report of Jalilkhan [Exh.120].As per the oral report lodged by Jalilkhan, he was working as a driver in Public Works Department of Zilla Parishad since last fifteen years.On 14th December, 1989 around 9.00 - 9.15 a.m., when he was going to Daryapur from his house to attend his duties, five-six persons suddenly came in front of him near Masjid [mosque].They were armed with sticks and axes and they started assaulting him.Of them, Shabir delivered a blow of axe on his head, whereas other persons, ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: ApealS140.00 & 186.00 6 namely Nisar alias Aaloo, Gafarkhan, Sayyad Hasan, Sheikh Isak and Kifayatkhan assaulted him by means of sticks, due to which, he received injuries.That time, Balu Sawai, Bhaskar Zaparde and Jagannath Jawanjal witnessed the assault on him.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::After being entrusted with the investigation, Vithoba Nagre [PW 12] visited the spot and prepared Spot Panchanama and also collected stones stained with blood, simple as well as blood smeared earth.Exh.81 is the Spot Panchanama, whereas Exh.75 is the Seizure Memo.He also recorded statements of the witnesses.On 14th December, 1989, arrest of Kifayatkhan was made.On 15th December, 1989, Shri Nagre seized axe from the house of Sabbirkhan in presence of his sister [Exh.139 - Seizure Panchanama].He also seized sticks from Kifayat Khan.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2000 is filed by the appellants against their conviction and order of sentence which is imposed upon them by the impugned Judgment, for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, and for that they are ordered to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months by each of them and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by each of them and in default, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for one month.They are also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and for that, they were were ordered to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2000 is filed by the State against acquittal of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2000 of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307, Indian Penal Code.During pendency of the present appeals, Appellant No. 3 -As such, the appeal of Gaffarkha and Kifayatkha stands abated.On the basis of the said oral report, a crime was registered vide Crime No. 105/1989 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.He completed other usual investigations and filed the charge-sheet before the Court of Law.The learned Trial Court framed the charge against the appellants and six others for the offences punishable under Section ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: ApealS140.00 & 186.00 7 307 read with Section 149, and also for the offences punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 and under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed for their trial.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all twelve witnesses and also relied upon various documents.The learned Trial Court, after a full-fledged trial, convicted the original Accused No. 2 - Sheikh Isak, Accused No.3 - Nisar, Accused No.4 - Gaffarkha, Accused No.5 - Kifayatkha and Accused No.7 Sabirkha of the offences punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and also convicted them of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code.However, they were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.Remaining accused persons were acquitted of all the charges.The judgment gave rise to the present two appeals.The appellants are challenging their conviction, whereas the State wants that their conviction should be under Section 324, instead of under Section 323, Indian Penal Code.I have heard learned Adv.Ms. D.V. Sapkal holding for Adv.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::ApealS140.00 & 186.00 8 Mr. A.S. Kilor for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2000 and Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State.With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings and notes of evidence minutely.According to the prosecution, the incident of assault was witnessed by Najmunnisa [PW 2], the wife of injured Jalilkhan, Shrikrishna Sawai [PW 3], Balu Ubhad [PW 4] and Shankar Pachkande [PW 9].PW 9 - Shankar Pachkande, the other eye-witness has turned hostile, and has not supported the prosecution at all.Though PW 2 - Najmunnisa is examined as an eye-witness to the assault on her husband, the learned judge of the court below has disbelieved her as an eye-witness.According to her evidence, on the day of the incident, her husband proceeded with a tiffin box which she prepared, for attending duty and that time, she was standing in front of her house and when her husband - injured Jalilkhan reached near the Masjid, the accused persons made an assault on him.Her statement that when her husband was proceeding towards Masjid, she was standing in the courtyard is a proved ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: ApealS140.00 & 186.00 9 omission.Further, she has admitted that on the way in between her house and Masjid, there are houses on both sides.In her cross-::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::examination, she has admitted that when heard a loud noise of her husband, she reached to the Masjid.That time, she noticed her husband Jalil Khan was already on the ground.What is worth to note is that her evidence is completely silent that from her house, the place of incident can be seen.Further, the Spot Panchanama does not show about scattering of the tiffin which Najmunnisa claimed to have prepared and was with the injured.The aforesaid re-appreciation of her evidence allows me to confirm the finding of the learned Judge of the Court below that Najmunnisa cannot be termed as an eye-witness.In so far as PW 3 - Shrikrishna Sawai's evidence is concerned, his evidence shows that on the day of the incident, he was working with one Rashidkhan Pathan and was tying bullocks to the bullock-cart.He noticed that wife of Jalil Khan was making a loud noise and, therefore, he started running to that side following her.His evidence further shows that, that time Accused No. 7 - Sabir Khan, Accused No. 4 - Gaffarkha and Accused No. 3 - Sheikh Nisar alias Aaloo attacked him by means of weapons in their hands, due to which ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: ApealS140.00 & 186.00 10 he fell down and sustained injuries.His evidence is completely silent that he noticed the attack on Jalilkhan at the hands of the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::Therefore, PW 3 - Shrikrishna Sawai cannot be termed as an eye-witness in respect of the attack on PW 1 - Jalilkhan.However, his evidence can be considered as an injured witness who was attacked by the attackers.In so far as evidence of Balu Ubhad [PW 4] is concerned, his evidence would go to show that he has not witnessed attack on either Jalil Khan or on Shrikrishna; but he came to the spot when Jalilkhan was lying on the ground.Therefore, he along with the brother of Jalilkhan and others lifted Jalilkhan for giving medical treatment.Learned APP Shri Pathan submitted that the appellants are required to the convicted of the offence punishable under Section 324 in view of their conviction under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code.The learned Judge of the court below, while acquitting the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307, noticed that in strict sense, the injuries are not proved.In the present case, x-ray plates of injured Jalilkhan in respect of fracture to tibia and fibula bones were not placed before the Court.The Injury ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: ApealS140.00 & 186.00 11 Certificate [Exh.128] in respect of Jalilkhan shows that there was no fracture to his skull.The learned Judge noticed that there was no fracture on the body of PW 3 - Shrikrishna and the injuries were simple in nature.Further Dr. Purushottam Hole, who has examined the patient - Shrikrishna, did not state that the injuries suffered by Shrikrishna were grievous in nature.In that view of the matter, I see no reason to upset the finding of fact recorded by the court below for acquitting the appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307, Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::The evidence of Vithoba Nagre, Investigating Officer, shows that when he got the information that Jalil Khan is admitted in the hospital, he visited the said hospital along with police staff.There, he noticed that along with Jalil Khan, one Sabir Khan was also admitted in the hospital.This Sabir Khan is Accused No.7 who is convicted by the court below.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, on the day of the incident, there was a scuffle between two groups and in that Sabir Khan [Accused No.7] also received injuries.It would be useful to refer to the portion as appearing in the evidence of Jalilkhan during the course of his cross-examination, which reads thus:-"I know Balu Jawanjal, Jagannath Jawanjal, Bhaskar Zaparde, Shrikrishna Ujjainkar and Shrikrishna ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: ApealS140.00 & 186.00 12 Sawai.They are the resident of my village.It is not correct that I along with these five persons had attached on Sabirkha and Kifayatkha and tried to commit the murder of them.But it is true that on the report of Nasirkha a father of Sabirkha there had been registration of the offence against me and these five persons.It is true that Sabirkha and Kifayatkha both are the accused in this matter and that these five persons are also the witness in this matter. ....."::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::From the aforesaid, it is clear that a case is registered against Jalilkhan and Shrikrishna [PW 3] on the basis of the report lodged by Nasir Khan, father of Sabirkhan.The said fact is also admitted by the Investigating Officer as it could be seen from the following:-"It is true that I also investigated the offences in Crime No. 106/89 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 337 and 107 against Jalilkhan and others."Though PW 1 - Jalil Khan claimed that he was admitted in the hospital for about twenty days, no document is placed on record in that behalf.During the course of the cross-examination of Jalil Khan, a suggestion was given to him that he along with others gathered unlawfully and attacked Kifayatkhan and Sabir Khan.The said suggestion is denied by him.Not only that he has stated that he is not aware as to whether there was any injury to them or not.The aforesaid claim of Jalilkhan stands falsified in view of registration of the crime against him and other witnesses vide Crime ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: ApealS140.00 & 186.00 13 No. 106/89, as admitted by Vithoba Nagre [PW 12].Not only that, Vithoba Nagre has stated in his examination-in-chief itself that when he reached the hospital, he noticed that not only Jalil Khan was admitted, but Sabirkhan [accused no.7] was also admitted in the hospital.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::Sabirkhan must not have been admitted by the Medical Officer just for that.He must have received injuries warranting his admission as an indoor patient.Not only that, Shri Nagre has stated in Examination-in-Chief that he gave requisition to doctor for their examination.However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the Injury Certificate of Sabirkhan is not coming on record.What was the nature of injuries is not brought on record.The law on this aspect is well settled by Their Lordships of Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh & others Vs.Further, Their Lordships of the Apex Court ruled that the witnesses who have denied ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: ApealS140.00 & 186.00 14 the presence of the injury on the person of the accused, are lying and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable.In the present case, Jalilkhan [PW 1] has shown ignorance about any of the injuries suffered by Sabirkhan which claim stood falsified as observed in preceding paragraphs.In that view of the matter, according to me, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2000 are entitled for the benefit of doubt, since the evidence shows that the injuries were suffered by PW 1 - Jalil Khan and PW 3 - Shrikrishna in altercation between the two groups.Further, it is also proved on record that Sabirkha [original accused no.7] has also received injuries which remained unexplained.Therefore, the prosecution, in my view, has utterly failed to prove that which party was an aggressor.Hence the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt.That leads me to pass the following Order:-::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:40:57 ::: | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,175,746 | Item No. 23The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir Md. Musharraf Mr. Prasenjit Sarkar For the Petitioner Mr. Prasun Datta Mr. Subrata Roy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Anandapur Police Station Case No. 36 of 2011 dated 06.06.2011 under Sections 147/148/149/448/326/307/302/506/201/120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 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 the other relevant material on record.We have verified from the list which was annexed to the order passed by the Supreme Court on 05.04.2013 that the Petitioner's name is included in the list of the absconding accused persons against whom the proclamation was issued in the aforesaid case.As the other persons named in the list have been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court, the Petitioner herein also deserves the same relief.We have been informed that the charge sheet has been filed and the other accused have been committed.As the charge sheet has been filed, the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 15 (fifteen) days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,183,693 | This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in Crime No.56/2020, u/S. 393, 395, 120-B of the IPC and 25,27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station YD Nagar Distt.At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner claimed parity with co-accused Sameer, Faizan and Juber, who have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.06.2020, 26.06.2020 & 03.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.The learned panel lawyer fairly admitted the parity.The order passed in favour of co-accused Sameer reads as under:-This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.56/2020 under Section 393, 395, 120(b) of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station - YD Nagar, Mandsaur.According to the prosecution case on 07/02/2020 the complainant was coming back home to Indore with Rs. 21 lacs kept in a bag.He was assaulted by some unknown miscreants, who first threw chilly powder on him and then tried to snatch his bag, but could not succeed, however, they managed to run away from the spot.The matter was reported to the police.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has complete parity with co-accused Faizan and Juber who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.06.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application but has not controverted parity claimed by the petitioner.In view of the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the accused on bail.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.22361/2020 Anwar @ Annu @ Naati Vs.State of MP Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner Sameer S/o Israr Khan be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing truth before the Court;(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activity is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled."However, the learned panel lawyer objected the bail on the ground that allegation against the petitioner is that he traced the movement of the complainant and informed the same to the main accused persons and a pistol with a live cartridge is recovered from his possession.Having regard to the allegation made against the petitioner and evidence collected to support them, the petition of petitioner Anwar @ Annu @ Naati S/o Sher Mohammad stands allowed.The petitioner is granted bail on the same terms as is granted to the co-accused Sameer.(Virender Singh) Judge sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2020.07.14 14:07:43 +05'30' | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
111,186,621 | It is alleged in the affidavit that the first detenu isworking as a Soldier in Indian Military.He came to his village on 21.11.2017for holidays.However, when he was standing in the bus stop, he wasassaulted by the respondent police and as such, there was a clash between herhusband and the police officials and hence, the first detenu/husband of thepetitioner was taken by the police officials and kept him in the illegalcustody along with other detenu.Hence, she has come forward with this petition.2.When the matter was taken up for consideration, a detailed statusreport was filed stating that on 21.11.2017, when the police officials wereon patrol, the detenu along with others in an inebriated state attacked theSub Inspector of Police and the Driver with iron rods, thereby the SubInspector of Police sustained grievous injuries and the Driver also sustainedinjuries and lost one of his eye.Subsequently, case has been registered inCrime No.386/2017 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 333, 324, 506(ii)and 307 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 r/w 201, 212 and 120(B) IPC and except Palanisamy, the detenu 2,3,and 4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and so far as the firstdetenu is concerned, he is absconding.3.Today, the respondent police produced the detenu, namely, Palanisamy.When we enquired, he stated that he is not in the illegal custody of any one.4.In view of the above, we are of the view that no case has been madeout by the petitioner warranting this Court to give direction.Hence, thisHabeas Corpus Petition is closed.1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirumangalam, Madurai District3.The Inspector of Police Tirumangalam Police Station Tirumangalam, Madurai District4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,034,926 | The Detenu is ordered to be set at libertyunless his presence is required in connection with any other case.To The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR ,J.) The petitioner, who is the sister of the detenu Elangovan,branded as 'Goonda' in detention order in C.No.43/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2013,dated 16.11.2013 by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, has sought for awrit of Habeas Corpus Petition.The Detenu has came to the adverse notice of the police in twocases, were registered against him in Crime Nos.257 and 401/2013 underSections 387 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Tiruchirappalli City, PalakkaraiP.S. The first adverse case is pending trial and the second adverse case hasended in conviction, when the order of detention was passed.The order ofdetention was passed on the basis of the ground case alleged to haveregistered on 10.10.2013 on the file of Cantonment Police Station in CrimeNo.1357 of 2013 under Sections 392 r/w 397 IPC in which he has been remanded.On being satisfied that the Detenu is habitually indulging in activities,affecting the public Law and Order, the Detaining Authority has clamped theDetention Order on the Detenu.At paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority hasconcluded as follows:No.1357/2013 and has moved bail application before the Sessions Court,Tiruchirappalli Division in Cr.M.P.No.1557/2013 for Cantonment PSCr.No.1357/2013 and the same is pending.In a similar case, registered atPalakkarai P.S.Cr.No.277/2012 u/s 392 r/w 397 IPC bail was granted to theaccused Elangovan by the in-charge Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalliin Cr.From thisI draw inference that he (Elangovan) is very likely to be released on bail inthis case.If he comes out on bail he may indulge in such activities again aswell which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The reason for immediate consideration of the representation is tooobvious to be stressed - the personal liberty of a person is at stake and anydelay would not only be an indifferent act on the part of the Authorities,but would also be unconstitutional, violating the right enshrined underArticle 22(5) of the Constitution of India of a Detenu to have hisrepresentation considered with reasonable expedition.The unexplained delayin sending the remarks, in our considered view, would have the effect ofvitiating the Detention Order.For reasons stated supra, the Detention Orderis liable to be quashed.2.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,046,477 | It is stated by Respondent No. 2 that it is hervoluntary act without any coercion to enter into amicable settlement and topray for quashing of the FIR.Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners prays for leave toamend.Leave granted.Amendment to be carried out during the course of theday.2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Due to some workpressure there was some misunderstanding between the Petitioners andRespondent No. 2, which led to filing of FIR against the Petitioners. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,047,614 | Item no. 39 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.7629 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.09.2018 in connection with Khardah Police Station Case No. 660/18 dated 28.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Amit Dey ... Petitioner Mr. Rameshwar Sinha, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Debajyoti Deb, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Khardah Police Station Case No. 660/18 dated 28.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.The State refers to the usual modus operandi of the petitioner and his ilk.Considering the nature of the charges and the material against the petitioner, at least the losses suffered by the complainant should be covered before the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.Subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.30,000/- with the trial court within a fortnight from date, the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit in terms of this order as indicated hereinafter.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The trial court will deposit the amount in a fixed deposit with any nationalised bank.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 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,054,327 | The order passed by the District Magistrate dated 12/11/18 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Commissioner Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur.Petitioner has filed the present writ petition stating therein that opportunity to cross-examine the witness was not given to the petitioner.The order has been passed on the basis of the old and stale cases.On the basis of such finding, The District Magistrate has passed the order of externment.The said order has also been affirmed by the Commissioner.Petitioner has not denied the fact that he has not been convicted thrice within period of three years under Public Gambling Act. Petitioner has not filed any application to show that he wanted to cross examine any of the witnesses of the prosecution.Petitioner was given opportunity by issuing show cause notice and he has also filed a written reply.Along with show cause notice, the petitioner was also provided with the report of Superintendent of Police and copies of documents filed in support of such complaint.He was also permitted to lead defence evidence in the case. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,057,478 | A.Nos.32 and 257 of 200705.08.2015 | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,059,887 | pk CRM No. 1926 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.2.15 in connection with Haskhali P.S. Case No. 25/15 dated 20.01.15 under Sections 448/325/326/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Ram Biswas & Ors.448/325/326/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J) | ['Section 325 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 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,061,892 | (29/06/2017) This appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Judgment and Sentence dated 11-1- 2005 passed by Shri V.P. Singh, 2nd A.S.J. (Fast Track), Sheopur in Sessions Trial No. 310/2004 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to under the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default imprisonment.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 10-11-2003, the committed rape on prosecutrix aged about 5 years.According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix, aged about 5 years had gone to purchase chocolate, 2 Cr.A. No. 73/2005 where she met with a person, who took her on his cycle near the canal, and committed rape on her.The prosecutrix came back and was crying.She informed her father about the incident.The F.I.R. was lodged and the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.Dr. Sheela Kushwaha (P.W.1) has stated that She had medically examined the prosecutrix.They were cross examined in detail by the public prosecutor, however, nothing could be elicited from their cross examination, which may corroborate the prosecution story.Prosecutrix (P.W.5) has identified the appellant in the Court as per the person who had committed rape on her.It is stated by this witness that the appellant took her to a distant place on his motor cycle and removed her 4 Cr.A. No. 73/2005 undergarments and also removed his undergarment and lie down on the prosecutrix.The statements of the witnesses were recorded, but as the police failed to ascertain the identification of the accused, therefore, closer report was filed.Subsequently, on the basis of the statements of Golu, Santosh, Vishnu Kumar, Salim, Girraj Prasad and Abdul, the matter was further investigated.The appellant was arrested and on his discloser statement, one cycle was seized.The appellant was got medically examined and after completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the appellant.2 Cr.A. No. 73/2005The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined, Dr. Sheela Kushwaha (P.W.1), R.P. Goyal (P.W.2), Gotu (P.W.3), Santosh (P.W. 4), Prosecutrix (P.W. 5), Vishnu (P.W.6), Indra (P.W.7), D.S. Parihar (P.W.8), Dr.A.K. Garg (P.W.9), and Y.S. Gurjar (P.W.10).The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.Dr. A.K. Garg (P.W.9) has stated that a Board was constituted by Civil Surgeon, to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix.Dr. A.K. Dixit, Dr. S.K. Saxena were also the members of the Board.After examination, the age of the 3 Cr.A. No. 73/2005 prosecutrix was found to be less then 14 years and from physical appearance, the prosecutrix appeared to be 5-6 years.3 Cr.A. No. 73/2005On medical examination, tenderness and redness was found around and inside the private part of the prosecutrix.Injuries on Vulva, Vaginal wall and over whole private part were found which were caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours.Thus, from the evidence of Dr. Sheela Kushwaha (P.W. 1) and Dr. A.K. Garg (P.W.9), it is clear that the prosecutrix was below the age of 14 years and on physical appearance, She was appearing to be aged about 5-6 years, and on medical examination, injuries were found on the private part of the prosecutrix.Thus, it is clear that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault.He had also tried to insert something in her private part.As the blood started oozing out from the private part, therefore, the appellant brought her back to her house.She went along with her father to lodge the F.I.R. She was sent for medical examination.She was cross examined and in cross examination, she again said that it was the appellant who had committed offence with her.4 Cr.A. No. 73/2005Vishnu (P.W. 6) is the father of the prosecutrix.He has stated that his daughter had gone to a shop to purchase chocolate at about 12 P.M. He came back to his house at about 2:30 P.M. and the prosecutrix and his wife were crying and lot of persons had gathered there.The prosecutrix told him that one person had took her and also noticed that blood was oozing out from the private part of the prosecutrix.However, the prosecutrix did not inform that who had taken her.The spot map Ex. P.6 was prepared.This witness was cross examined.Indra (P.W. 7) has also corroborated the evidence of Vishnu (P.W. 6) and the prosecutrix (P.W.5).She has specifically stated that the prosecutrix came back to the house and she was crying and blood was coming out from her private part and her cloths were stained with blood.She was told by the prosecutrix that when She had gone to purchase chocolate, at that time, She was sexually violated by one person.The information of the 5 Cr.A. No. 73/2005 incident was given by this witness to the villagers and her husband.D.S. Parihar (P.W. 8) and Y.S. Gurjar (P.W. 10) have investigated the case.5 Cr.A. No. 73/2005These, viz. labia majora, are the first to be encountered by the male organ.They are subjected to blunt forceful blows, depending on the vigour and force used by the accused and counteracted by the victim.Further, examination of the female for marks of injuries elsewhere on the body forms a very important piece of evidence.To constitute the offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen.Partial penetration within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum with or without emission of semen is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape as defined in the law.7 Cr.A. No. 73/2005 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.