id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
150,064,052 | 08.01.2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.21 CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Ct.No.42 dc.C.R.R. 26 of 2021 Sk.Imran Ali versus The State of West Bengal In Re: An Application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with G.R. Case No. 1202 of 2011 arising out of Amta P.S. Case No. 161 of 2011 dated 16.05.2011 under Sections 147/148/149/186/307/333/353/506/427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 Arms Act and Sections 3/4 E.S. Act and Sections 3/4 PDPP Act pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah.Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Sk.Toslim Ali ... For the Petitioner.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with the necessary formalities.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,006,807 | He is on bail and now he is offending to other state in of the Crime No. 520/13 u/s 363 & 366 registered at Police Station-Amarwada, District-Chhindwara.rt It is submitted that applicant is innocent.He married with the ou deceased/prosecutrix while she claimed her age to be 19 years.The applicant-accused is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA sh Date: 2018.01.16 16:55:07 +05'30' e Pallavi ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig Hsh This is first bail application filed by the applicant / accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in e ad connection with Crime No. 520/13, Police Station-Amarwada, District-Chhindwara, offences registered under sections 363 & 366 of IPC.Pr The allegation against the applicant-accused is that the father of the a prosecutrix (since deceased) had lodged a missing report of the prosecutrix.At hy the time of incident, she was minor.From perusal of the case diary, it is revealed ad that the prosecutrix got married with the applicant and on 25.05.2014 and she died in the house of the applicant.She was found in C the custody of the applicant, who abducted the prosecutrix.If he failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,072,186 | The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,082,157 | gv CRL.O.P.No.26423 of 2019 and CRL.M.P No.14124 of 2019This Criminal original Petition has been filed by the accused under Section 407 Cr.P.C., to transfer the case in STC.No.199 of 2019 from the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, to the file ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 V Additional Family Court, Chennai District.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's husband is a practicing advocate at High Court Madras.He further submitted that the petitioner's husband himself told the petitioner that he has illicit extra marital relationship with the respondent since 2013 and based on the said statement, the petitioner has filed IDOP.No.4801 of 2018 on the file of the V- Additional Family Court, Chennai, on the ground of adultery.He further submitted that since IDOP.No.4801 of 2019 is pending on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, the case in STC.No.199 of 2019 also may be transferred to the V Additional Family Court, Chennai.He further submitted that the respondent/complainant and the witnesses are residing only within the jurisdiction of Judicialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, and hence if the case is transfered to some other court, that would cause prejudice to the respondent and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.Admittedly, the case in STC.No.199 of 2019 is a Criminal Case and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.II Ponneri.The petitioner requests to transfer the said case to the V Additional Family Court.(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other.''The provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure will apply only in respect of the proceedings under Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure, i.e., only in respect of maintenance cases.Hence, the Criminal Case cannot be transferred to the Family Court.For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.01.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Index :Yes/No gv Note: Issue order copy on 28.01.2020 ToThe Inspector of Police, C-1, Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.The II Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 P. RAJAMANICKAM., J. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,091,239 | Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.From perusal of record it appears that record of trial court is not available as the same has been weeded out and in the absence of record of trial court, it is not possible to hear this appeal on merits.Perusal of record also shows that record of the trial court was called for vide order dated 30.01.2013, but by report dated 24.05.2013 of Incharge Record Room, District Court, Saharanpur, it was informed that record of the case has been weeded out and only judgment is there, which was sent to this Court.Thereafter vide order dated 06.01.2017, this Court has directed for reconstruction of record, but by letter dated 17.05.2017, it was informed by C.J.M., Saharanpur that despite sufficient efforts, except the impugned judgment, no other document pertaining to the case could be available.Thereafter by letter dated 16.07.2020, District Judge, Saharanpur has informed that despite due and diligent efforts, only copy of judgment has been reconstructed and that matter is old and no record except copy of judgment could be reconstructed.In Shyam Deo Pandey Vs.P.C. and other relevant papers have been weeded out or are otherwise not available.In such a situation even if witnesses are available, apart from the fact that heavy strain would be put on the memory of witnesses, it would not be possible to test their statements made at the trial with reference to the earlier version of the incident and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation.The Sessions Judge had ordered reconstruction of the record.The Division Bench hearing the appeal held as below (Paras 4 and 5) :-The course adopted by the high court, if approved, would encourage dubious persons and detractors of justice by allowing undeserved premium to violators of law by acting hand in glove with those anti-social elements coming to hold sway,behind the screen, in the ordinary and normal course of justice.We , therefore, set aside the order of the high court and remit the matter back for fresh consideration.It is to be noted at this juncture that one of the respondents i.e. om pal has died during the pendency of the appeal before this court .The High court shall direct reconstruction of the records within a period of six months from the date of receipt of our judgment from all available or possible sources with the assistance of the prosecuting agency as well as the defending parties and their respective counsel.If it is possible to have the records reonstructed to enable the high court itself to hear and dispose of the appeals in the manner envisaged under section 386 of the code,rehear the appeals and dispose of the same, on their own merits and in ordering retrial interest of justice could be better served-adopt that course.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties counsel.It is true that another Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Narain Pandey (Supra) has decided the appeal on merit in the absence of lower court record on the basis of the impugned judgement only, but in my considered opinion, the appeal can not be decided on merit in the absence of lower court record.Unless the evidence is available for perusal, in my opinion, the appeal can not be considered and decided on merit merely on the basis of the lower court judgement, as evidence is essentially required to consider the merit of the impugned judgement and merely on the basis of the said judgement, no order on merit can be passed in the appeal."2.These two criminal appeals emanate from the same judgment and order dated 30.7.1982 passed in Session Trial No. 496 of 1981-State Vs.Laukush and others, by IXth Additional Session Judge, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the appellants Basdeo, Chhedi Lal, Beni, Shiv Ram, Ramesh, Shyam Lal (appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1877 of 1982) and two other appellants Laukush and Chhote Lal, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1878 of 1982, were convicted under Sections 302/149, 147, 307/149, 323/149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to life imprisonment, one year R.I., five years R.I. and six months R.I. respectively.Thus, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.1982 whereby their conviction and sentence as stated above, was recorded.Both the appeal Nos. 1878 of 1982 and 1877 of 1982 were admitted on 11.8.1982 and at the time of admission, the appellants were granted bail by this Court and since that date, the appellants continued to be on bail.As per report of the then District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 19.6.2003, the original record was received by the then Assistant Record Keeper Sri Mahesh Katiyar on 30.5.1983 who expired 7-8 years ago.The report to this effect was sent by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.The report of the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 19.6.2003 was put up before the Division Bench of this Court on 23.8.2007 when this Court passed the following order:-"In this view of the matter, the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar shall immediately take steps for trying to get the record of the case reconstructed and utilise the assistance of the counsel for the accused and State and submit compliance report to this Court within four weeks.List on 24.9.2007."The District Judge, Kanpur Nagar vide his report dated 12.2.2008 apprised this Court that efforts for reconstruction of the record were entrusted to Sri R.P. Pandey, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar.It is in compliance of the order dated 10.4.2012, passed by this Court, that a report dated 9.7.2012, sent by the Incharge District Judge, Kanpur Nagar to this Court has been placed before us.This report is taken on record which shall form part of this appeal.According to the report dated 9.7.2012, sincere efforts were made at different levels including C.M.O., C.M.S., Superintendent Hallet Hospital, S.H.O. Sachendi, Kanpur and D.I.G., Kanpur Nagar but the reconstruction of the record of the said Sessions Trial could not be possible despite multi pronged approach.According to this report, Smt. Janak Dulari, informant of this case had died long back and it was also informed by the injured persons of this case that their counsel was quite aged and was not practising for last several years and no document was available with them.A letter was also written by enquiry officer/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar to D.G.C. (Crl.), Kanpur Nagar for furnishing original/ copy of the case diary of the said case.The D.G.C. (Crl.), Kanpur Nagar has also informed that no document is available in the office relating to the said Sessions Trial.The report dated 9.7.2012 of the Incharge District Judge is detailed one mentioning of all efforts made by the Inquiry Officer/ Additional District & Session Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar.Affidavits of six accused persons have been filed to the effect that the documents of the aforesaid case are not available with them and their counsel had died long back.According to this report, two accused persons Shiv Ram and Shyam Lal had died.This lengthy and detailed report of the Incharge District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 9.7.2012 makes it evident that reconstruction of the said record is not possible.In the absence of original record, since reconstruction is not possible, remanding the appeal back for retrial will not serve any useful purpose at all.From the impugned judgment, it transpires that the incident had occurred on 8.6.1979, more than 30 years ago and the appellants were released on bail in the year 1982 by this Court.The impugned judgment is dated 21.12.1988 and this appeal is pending since last 31 years.The appeal is accordingly allowed. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,501,676 | JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.Indian Penal Code in respect of the murders of two brothers, Shanker and Keshri.Prem Raj had three sons, namely, Shanker appellant.Pitam and Megha.F.I.R. with regard to that incident was lodged by Megha, in which, Basant son of Hardayal was named as one of the culprits.On 23-6-1970 Megha made another report to the police alleging that Keshri, the deceased person in the present case, had committed an offence under Section 452, Indian Penal Code.On 6-10-1970, the police initiated proceedings under Sections 107/117, Criminal P.C. against both the parties.Megha, his brother Shanker, Piarey and Chhotey were arrayed on one side, while Basanta s/o Har Dayal, Keshri deceased and four, others were proceeded against as the Other party.On 2-5-1971, a written complaint was filed by the said Basanta against Megha, Shanker-appellant and three other under Sections 147, 148/307, Penal Code at Police Station Mogul-Pura.On 30-6-1971, Keshri laid a report under Sections 323/506/504, Indian Penal Code at the Police Station complaining that Megha, Persoti and Shanker sons or Prem Raj and Uttam s/o Lallu had beaten him and threatened to murder On 2-9-1971 a clash between the parties' took place in Moradabad.This is apparent from the General Diary Entry, Exh. Kha 16, which was recorded in the police station.On 29-9-1971, Megha reported to, the police that the said Basanta and Piarey s/o Baldeo had attempted to murder him.Towards the end of September, 1971, Megha was murdered and Basanta and Piare aforesaid were prosecuted therefore.The deceased persons used to look after the defence of Basanta and Piare.On account of these past events the accused bore hostility against the deceased persons.On 27-10-1971, Keshri and Shanker deceased were hoeing their potato field situated at a short distance from the Abadi of village Baldeopuri.They used to reside in a hamlet.At about noon, their mother, Smt. Rani, P.W. 2 and Keshri's wife, Smt. Bhagwati, P.W. 4 reached there and served the deceased with meal.The deceased rested for sometime and thereafter resumed their work.The women also stayed there.At about 1 or 1.30 a.m., the appellant armed with a pistol, Persoti s/o Megha and Uttam armed with knives, Hetram armed with a tabal and one stranger armed with a saria (iron rod) appeared on the scene.They caught hold of the deceased persons and forcibly took them to the adjoining field of Hulasi.The two women raised an alarm.Smt. Rani went ahead to the rescue of her sons, but was stopped and given saria blows by the stranger.The appellant fired his pistol at Keshri from close range, and Hetram assaulted him with the tabal.All the three were convicted under Section 302 read with 149, Penal Code.The appellant was sentenced to death, and each of the other- two imprisonment for life.They were also Convicted on the minor charges and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.Simultaneously, Persoti and Uttam stabbed Shanker deceased with their knives.Both Keshri and Shanker died at the spot.The culprits then went away.Smt. Rani called her husband Ram Swarup, P.W. 1, to the spot through the village Chowkidar.Ram Swarup came and she apprised him all about the occurrence.Ram Swarup then accompanied by the village Chowkidar went to Police Station Moghal Pura and lodged the First Information Report, Ex. Ka 3, at 2-30 p.m., the same day.On 28-10-1971 at 3-30 a. m. Smt. Ishwari, mother of Basanta (who was being tried for the murder of Megha made the report Ex. Kha 2, to the police that on 27-10-1971 at "about noon, Shanker (appellant) and three or four unknown persons forcibly entered her house and enquired regarding the whereabouts of her son, Cheta.Cheta who was then on the roof escaped by jumping into the lane at the backside of the house.When Cheta was not found, the intruders assaulted Smt. Ishwari with a sariya.Thereafter, the various visitors went sying that they deal with the supporters of basanta.The first contention of Mr. Pramod Swarup; learned Counsel for the appellant is that the High Court had committed an error of law in Using the F.I.R. Kha 2, for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4, against the appellant, although its author Smt. Ishwari was not examined as a witness in this case.If the evidence of these witnesses, proceeds the argument, was not safe enough without corroboration from Ex. Kha 2, for sustaining the conviction of Persoti and Uttam, it was, equally so qua the appellant.Mr. Uniyal, learned Counsel for the State, while conceding that Ex. Kha 2 could not be used to corroborate or contradict witnesses other than its author, maintains that the evidence of the three eyewitnesses was fully trustworthy so as to constitute a safe basis for conviction of the appellant.It is well settled that unless a First' Information Report can be tendered in evidence under any provision contained in Chapter II of the Evidence Act, such as a dying declaration falling under Section 32(1) as to the cause of the informant's death, or as part of the informant's conduct under Section 8, it can ordinarily be used only for the purpose of corroborating, contradicting or discrediting (under Sections 157, 145 and 155, Evidence Act) its author, if examined, and not any other witness.As already noticed, in the present case, Smt. Ishwari the informant was not examined as a witness.It is admittedly not a statement falling under any provision in Chapter II of the Evidence Act. The High Court was thus in error in using Ex. Kha 2, as they did.The High Court did not record a positive finding that Persoti and Uttam were falsely implicated.It merely h'eld that the case against these two accused was "not free from reasonable doubt" because the possibility of "their being falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity cannot be excluded.It is on record that on 16-9-1972, the Public Prosecutor submitted an application to the trial court, for discharge of these witnesses on the ground that they had been won over by the defence, and consequently the prosecution did not went to examine them as their witnesses.The defence Counsel disputed this assertion of the Prosecutor.It is thus too late in the day to argue that these witnesses were withheld by the prosecution for any ulterior motive.This contention was not raised before the High Court.It was no doubt agitated in the trial court and was rightly rejected.Keshri and Shanker were not concerned in or prosecuted for the murders of Pitam and Megha.They became victims of the wrath of Shanker appellant simply because they were on friendly terms with Basanta and were looking after the latter's defence when he was being tried for the murder of Megha.Being relations of the deceased persons, they would be the least disposed to substitute the appellant for the real culprit.Smt. Rani had received injuries which were the hall-mark of her presence at the scene.It was contended that the medical evidence did not confirm the assertion of Smt. Rani that the injuries to her had been caused with sariya.The argument is stated only to be rejected.It was raised in the courts below and was rightly rejected.There is no real conflict between the medical evidence and her testimony on this point.These have also been considered by the courts below and we do not think it necessary to go over the same field again.As regards Bhagwati, P.W. 4, it was urgued that she did not make any attempt to intervene and save her husband. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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. |
150,170,541 | This petition under Section 482 Cr.In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.05.1998, the complainant Pawan Kumar Agarwal made a complaint that an account payee cheque No.508735 dated 17.04.1998 for Rs.2,62,036/- was received CRL.M.C. 3232/2012 Page 1 of 8 by his firm Bansal Industries from NSIC.The cheque was deposited by him in his current account No.2371 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Azadpur Branch, Delhi.It is further stated that when the amount of the cheque was not credited in his account, he made an enquiry and came to know that the payment of the said cheque has been made on the counter of State Bank of Saurashtra, Nehru Place on 21.04.1998 by changing the account payee cheque to a bearer cheque by committing forgery.Initially, case FIR No.209/98 was registered by Police Station Adarsh Nagar, but the case was sent as 'untraced'.CRL.M.C. 3232/2012 Page 1 of 8Thereafter, the complainant filed a Civil Suit against the Oriental Bank of Commerce as well as State Bank of Saurashtra which was decreed in his favour, making both the Banks equally liable to make the payment.Against the said decree, the Oriental Bank of Commerce preferred an appeal before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2006 directed the Dy.Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch to investigate the matter, which resulted in re- investigation in FIR bearing No.209/1998 and thereafter chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned ACMM, charging the petitioner for committing the offences punishable under Sections420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.After hearing the prosecution and the accused on the point of charge, vide detailed and well-reasoned order, the learned ACMM formed a view that prima facie case for committing the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC was made out against the present petitioner for framing of charge under the aforesaid sections.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, impugning the order of learned ACMM on various CRL.M.C. 3232/2012 Page 2 of 8 grounds.CRL.M.C. 3232/2012 Page 2 of 8Further, opinion on the questioned documents was sought repeatedly, but from the same examiner thereby defeating the very purpose of seeking re-examination.It has been submitted that in view of this opinion, the petitioner deserves to be discharged and the criminal proceedings against him may be quashed.Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon on the decision Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others (2008) 14 SCC 1 in support of his contention that in rare cases where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrate the prosecution case to be absurd, the Court can look into the material produced by the defence even at the time of framing of the charge.On behalf of State, the role of the present petitioner in the whole episode has been highlighted, wherein an account payee cheque was converted into a bearer cheque and payment made at the counter, which has been thoroughly investigated.Not only that, the scientific evidence prima facie show the involvement of the present petitioner, hence he has been rightly ordered to be charged by the learned ACMM.It has been further CRL.M.C. 3232/2012 Page 3 of 8 submitted by the learned APP for State that once chargesheet has been filed and order for framing charge has been passed by the learned ACMM, the petitioner cannot pray for quashing of the chargesheet.On this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is limiting his prayer to the extent that the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the learned ACMM may be quashed in view of the fact that another opinion obtained by the petitioner proves his innocence and that the co-accused Ashutosh Swami who had the main role was not made an accused in this case.CRL.M.C. 3232/2012 Page 3 of 8I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,183,819 | However, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted photo copy of the challan paper and requested to here the argument on that basis.Challan paper perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.06/2019 registered by P.S. Bajariya District Bhopal (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 186 & 326(kha) of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.The case of the prosecution is that on 06/01/2019 at about 1.30 am, ASI Dilip Singh with other official, on the information of the informer have visited the street of Haji Mustafa under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bajariya, as soon as they reached the house of Suhail.On seeing the police party the applicants and other co-accused persons have started to abuse the police persons and have thrown stones on the police party.Later on, applicants and co-accused persons have come on the spot and have beaten the complainant and other police persons by wooden sticks and sword by which complainant Dilip Singh and other police party have sustained injuries.Report of the incidence has been lodged on the same day.On that basis, aforesaid crime has been registered against the applicants and other co- accused persons.Learned counsel for the applicants contends that a false case has been Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 03/05/2019 05:19:01 2 MCRC-15699-2019 been registered against the present applicants.The applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on bail.Applicants are in judicial custody since 19/02/2019 and trial will take time.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the applicants are in judicial custody since 19/02/2019, in the opinion of this Court, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants is allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 03/05/2019 05:19:01 | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,186,692 | DATE : 11th MARCH, 2020PER COURT :1. Learned APP on instruction submits that, 'B' summary isfiled in CR No. 3550/2019 for the offences punishable under Section35235, 3524 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered with AgripadaPolice Station.In view of above, writ petition stands disposed of.(V.G. BISHT, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)Bhagyawant Punde ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2020 21:36:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2020 21:36:16 ::: | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,190,384 | This criminal original petition has been filed by accused Nos.3 to 5 for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul District.The second respondent, namely, Kalimuthu is the defacto complainant in this case.He had purchased the property in question vide sale deed dated 23.10.2002 executed by the first accused Kodeeswaran and his father Subramanian.Accused Nos.4 and 5 are figuring as attesting witnesses in the sale agreement.The execution of the Power of Attorney and the sale agreementhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/5 3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.11656 OF 2015 dated 14.08.2009 is the cause of action for engineering the impugned prosecution.Crime No.218 of 2010 was registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Palani Town police station.Investigation was taken up and final report came to be filed against all the five accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 IPC r/w. 109 IPC.3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant states that there has been no instruction forthcoming from the defacto complainant.The petitioners' counsel would submit that subsequent to the registration of the First Information Report,http://www.judis.nic.in 3/5 4 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.11656 OF 2015 they have cancelled the sale agreement.The petitioners' counsel on instructions clearly states that accused Nos.3 to 5 have no claim whatsoever on the property in question.It is seen that the first petitioner herein was only a proposed purchaser.The second and third petitioners are only the attesting witnesses.Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, none of the offences can be said to be made out against them.The continuance of the impugned prosecution would only amount to abuse of legal process.In this view of the matter, the impugned prosecution stands quashed as far as the petitioners are concerned.The criminal original petition stands allowed.It is made clear that the impugned prosecution will continue against the remaining two accused.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.Palani Town Police Station,Palani, Dindigul District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD)No.11656 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2015 05.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,501,905 | The prosecution case emerging at the trial, shorn of unnecessary details, was that the appellant and his alleged accomplices; Mohd.Salim and Mohd.Hanif who have been acquitted entered premises bearing Municipal No. I-10 Jangpura Extension, New Delhi on 10.5.1992 at around 3.30 PM with Crl.A.No.187/1999 Page 1 of 10 intention to commit robbery and were armed with deadly weapons.Their entry was noted resulting in hue and cry being raised.The robbery got aborted.A crowd gathered.The accomplices managed to flee.Appellant was apprehended at the spot by the crowd and before he could be finally pinned down, he fired at the deceased Ram Prakash Nagar and his younger brother Ram Murti Nagar.The former died and the latter was injured.Anuranjani Nagar PW-3, Ms.Anuragini Nagar PW-4 and Ram Murti Nagar PW-5; who were the occupants of the house where robbery was attempted and thus Crl.I am pursuing M.A in Spanish from School of Languages at J.N.U. My Tau ji- Shri Ram Prakash Nagar and Tai- Sushila reside at the first floor of the said premises.Today at around 3.30 p.m during the day when I woke up from sleep I heard noise of screaming coming.In the meantime, my father Ram Murti Nagar and my sister Ragini came upstairs and my father caught hold of the person who had pointed revolver towards me.My father was trying to catch hold of the Crl.A.No.187/1999 Page 3 of 10 other two but gun shot was fired by Aslam.The other persons gave knife blows whose description is aged 24/25 years, black coloured, medium height.My father also got injured due to the gun shot.In the meantime all the three accused succeeded in running.I brought my father inside the room.The third person who made me to lay down upstairs had also fired from the gate.His description was 25/26 years, black coloured, small moustache and having a height of approximately 5 feet.Hearing the noise many persons came out.Aslam was apprehended by Azad Singh, Security Guard I-14 Jangpura alongwith another person and brought him.From his possession a revolver and six empty cartridges and four live cartridges have been recovered.I have identified him.It is he who had injured by gun shots my father and Tau, and he has been handed over to the police.Those who have run away can be identified by me if they are produced before me.My father and Tau have been taken to the hospital in car by neighbours Om Kumar."A.No.187/1999 Page 3 of 10The tehrir thereon, Ex.After a heated exchange of words, the accused boarded the vehicle and asked the deceased to drive to the police station.The deceased took a wrong route to which the accused objected and another altercation ensued at which the accused fired from his pistol.The first bullet hit an innocent by-stander, who got injured.Thereafter, the accused fired again, this time hitting the deceased resulting in death.Judgment and order dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Learned Trial Judge convicting appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 397 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act is in challenge.With the help of the security guard at House No.I-14, Jangpura Extension, appellant was apprehended and handed over to the police at the spot itself.A.No.187/1999 Page 1 of 10Perusal of the judgment penned by the learned Trial Judge reveals the trinity of incriminatory circumstances emerging against the appellant on the strength of which finding of guilt has been rendered are as under:-(i) The appellant was apprehended with a .32 bore Wesley and Scott revolver while attempting to flee from the spot.Six used cartridges and four live cartridges were also recovered.(ii) The opinion of the CFSL connected the above-said revolver found in possession of the appellant with the bullet extracted by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased as also with the 6 used cartridges.(iii) The appellant was identified at the dock by Ms.Criminal Justice machinery was set into motion upon the statement of Ms.It would be fruitful to endow a moment of careful consideration upon this statement Ex.PW-3/B which reveals the vivid picture of events that had transpired till then.A translation thereof is reproduced as under:-"Statement of Ms. Anuranjani Nagar D/o Ram Murti Nagar R/o I-10 Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, Aged 21 years.Stated that I reside at the abovesaid address with my parents, sister and brother on the ground floor.I first went towards the back of our house and then I took the stairs to the first floor where I saw that my Tai was lying on the floor of the drawing room and three persons were beating her and Tau ji was present in the room upstairs.I caught hold one person from the collar and inquired what the matter was.On this that man pushed me on the ground and pointed a revolver towards me and inquired where was the money and the jewellery.On this I got up and rushed downstairs while screaming.My father and Tau also came down grappling with all the three persons.At the main gate near the parked car a person whose name I have come to know as Aslam S/o Aalamuddin R/o Gali Mahal, Punjabi Fatak, Delhi with the help of a revolver in his right hand fired at my Tau Ram Prakash who fell down there.PW-12/A, records that in pursuance of D.D No.10-A Insp.Ajit Singh PW-19, S.I.Lalit Mohan and Ct.Khagnesh Kumar PW-12 reached I-10 Jangpura.ASI Buni Singh PW-10 had already reached the spot before the arrival of Insp.Ajit Singh.ASI Buni Singh handed over the .32 bore revolver recovered from the appellant which was duly seized and taken into possession by Insp.Ajit Singh after sealing the same with seal A.Singh.Seizure Memo to this effect has been proved during Trial Ex.PW-3/A. The memo has been witnessed by Ms.Anuranjani Nagar PW-3 and the security guard Azad Singh; who had apprehended the appellant but unfortunately Crl.A.No.187/1999 Page 4 of 10 could not be examined as a witness as he could not be traced during trial, despite best efforts.The tehrir further records that upon being informed by ASI Buni Singh that the injured persons namely Ram Prakash and Ram Murti had been taken to AIIMS, Insp.Ajit Singh visited the hospital and seized the MLC of Ram Prakash Nagar from which it was revealed that the patient was brought dead.MLC of Ram Murti Nagar recorded the factum of having suffered dangerous shot gun injuries and the patient being unfit for statement.In wake of such attending circumstances statement of Ms.Anuranjani Nagar PW-3 was recorded and on the basis of the same F.I.R No.174/92 Ex.A.No.187/1999 Page 4 of 1012/B P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin was registered at 6.40 PM by the Duty Officer HC Yashwant Singh PW-22 when the rukka was brought to the police station by Ct.Khagnesh Kumar.It is pertinent to note that the special report was delivered at the residence of the illaqa magistrate at the same evening at about 7.45 PM and nothing has emerged on record to discredit the same or to suggest ante-timing of the F.I.R.A.No.187/1999 Page 5 of 10Upon careful analysis of the testimonies of witnesses and documents produced by the prosecution on this aspect we find no infirmity arising from the same and the evidence inspires confidence.The crucial documents which set the criminal justice machinery into motion such as the fardbayan, tehrir and the seizure memo of the revolver and the cartridges have been prepared with promptitude and are contemporaneous documents which rule out the scope of confabulations consequent to false implication.The ocular evidence of the three eye-witnesses PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 who have no animus against the appellant has remained unshaken in material particulars despite extensive cross-examination and in fact stands corroborated by scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution.As rightly observed by the Learned Trial Court the opinion of the CFSL Ex.Px-3 connects the revolver found in possession of the appellant with the bullet extracted by the doctor conducting the post-mortem as also the used cartridges picked up from the spot.A.No.187/1999 Page 6 of 10 accused was to rob the occupants of the house and there was no intention to commit murder.Counsel submits that with a view to facilitate his escape from the premises shots were fired by the appellant at the two male members of the house, who were grappling with him proved fatal qua Ram Prakash Nagar.On the day of the incident the accused had requested the deceased to take some wine with him but the deceased had curtly turned down the request.The deceased left on a tractor with his friends and feeling insulted the accused went inside his house and returned with a gun.He fired a few shots from a far distance, as a result, on being hit the deceased died. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
150,191,917 | The petitioner has also given a representation on 09.11.2020 to the respondents seeking for release of the said Tractor bearing 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16588 of 2020 Registration No.TN 63 AA 0828 and the trailer.Till such time, the vehicles cannot be kept idle.This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to release Tractor bearing Registration No.Heard Mr.By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 63 AA 0828 and the unregistered trailer.According to him, on 09.09.2020, the third respondent has seized the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 63 AA 0828 and the unregistered trailer alleging that the petitioner has transported sand illegally in his 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16588 of 2020 vehicle and the third respondent registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.223 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., alleging that the petitioner has transported 'sand' illegally in his vehicle.The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the third respondent Police on the same date.According to the petitioner, the seized tractor and unregistered trailer are now being kept in the open place and due to exposure of sun and rain and the vagaries of nature, the tractor and unregistered trailer will lose its value and may, ultimately become a wreck and worthless.In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed seeking for release of the said Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 63 AA 0828 and the unregistered trailer.(v) before releasing the vehicles, the police authority 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16588 of 2020 shall take photographs of the vehicles at the cost of the petitioner;(vi) the petitioner shall produce all xerox copies of the documents pertaining to the ownership of the seized vehicles to the first respondent; and(vii) as and when the respondents call for the vehicles for enquiry, the petitioner has to produce the vehicles in question and he shall cooperate with the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.Upon completion of the above mentioned formalities, the respondents shall release the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 63 AA 0828 and the unregistered trailer to the petitioner forthwith and without any delay.If this undertaking given by the petitioner is breached, the petitioner will not be entitled for interim release of the vehicles in the future.As far as confiscation proceedings initiated against the seized vehicles are concerned, the same can go on without any interference.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.However, there shall be no order as to costs.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 Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.2) The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Sivagangai District.3) The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.Order made in W.P.(MD)No.16588 of 2020 Dated: | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,571,963 | DD was handed over to Sub-Inspector Ranbir Singh, who went to the place of the incident and came to know that the injured has been taken to hospital.No eye witness was found there.He went to DDU Hospital but the injured was not found there.Thereafter, a call was made to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and it came to the notice that injured Manoj resident of 16/645 Bapa Nagar has been admitted to the hospital.The investigating officer went to the hospital, collected the MLC of the injured Manoj, who was found to be not fit for statement.After taking into consideration the MLC of the injured the rukka was sent for registration of a case under Section 307 of I.P.C.(I) The injured Manoj Kumar came into witness box as PW-1 on 02.08.2001, and deposed that about a year back when he was taking bath in underwear at Sulabh Complex Bapa Nagar near his house and Rajinder Kumar told him that he was not going to spare him that day and thereafter he was attacked with knife which caused injuries on the left side of his chest.Though he tried to escape for about 2/3 times, but he got injuries on the left side of the chest.He ran into the gali and fell down and became unconscious.He regained his conscious only in the hospital.He deposed that he cannot identify the knife with which he was hit.However, he deposed that one Sanjay was present near him when the attack was done by the accused Rajinder.(II) Sanjay (PW-2) deposed in his statement recorded before court that on the date of incident at about 8.30 PM, he came out of his house and was sitting near transformer in front of the gali No.10, on a two wheeler scooter alongwith Manoj.He avoided 2/3 times, finally he hit him on the left side of the chest.He started bleeding.P.S.TEJI, J.Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 09.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 308-II of I.P.C., and the order on sentence dated 17.10.2002 vide which the sentence has been passed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for further four months, the Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 1 of 23 present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.Investigation was conducted, accused Rajinder was caught from his residence and weapon of offence was also recovered at his instance.Charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. was framed against the accused/appellant who did not plead guilty and claimed trial.A. No. 964/2002 Page 2 of 23A. No. 964/2002 Page 2 of 23The prosecution had examined as many as 11 public witnesses namely; Manoj Kumar (PW-1), Sanjay (PW-2), Constable Satbir (PW-3), Smt. Shanti Devi (PW-4), Head Constable Arvind Kumar (PW-5), Dr. Pankaj Sharma (PW-6), Dr. U.C. Pant (PW-7), Constable Netra Singh (PW-8), Constable Surender (PW-9), Head Constable Biswas (PW-10), Sub-Inspector Ranbir Singh, Investigating Officer (PW-11).The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he did not plead guilty and claimed trial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.After conclusion of the trial, the appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 308, Part II, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and by an order dated 17.10.2002, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for further four months.Hence, the appellant is before this court to challenge the conviction and order on sentence.The challenge to the judgment of conviction and order on sentence inter alia on the following grounds:-A. No. 964/2002 Page 3 of 23A. No. 964/2002 Page 3 of 23(i) That the order of learned trial court is against law and facts and is not sustainable.(ii) The learned Trial Court has not weighed the evidence on record and there are contradictions, inconsistency on material parts of the prosecution story and the evidence produced in support of the same are not reliable.(iii) The learned Trial Court gravely erred in holding that on the date of incident, i.e., on 7.2.2000 at 8.30 PM, though no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the appellant but still he is convicted under Section 308, Part II of IPC by holding that the accused if not guilty of attempt of murder, he is definitely guilty of attempt of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 308, Part II IPC.(iv) The learned Trial Court has failed to observe that the name of the appellant is not mentioned in the FIR nor the name of eye witness is mentioned in FIR.There is no evidence which links the appellant with the offence under reference.(v) The learned Trial Court has acted illegally by convicting the Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 4 of 23 appellant on the basis of the evidence of Sanjay (PW-2) who after seeing the occurrence neither reported the matter to the police nor took the injured to hospital for treatment and even did not try to intervene at the time of incident.A. No. 964/2002 Page 4 of 23(vi) The appellant also raised a ground of inordinate delay in recording the statement of the eye witness Sanjay (PW-2) and no satisfactory explanation is given by the investigating officer.(vii) Shanti Devi (PW-4) who took the injured to the hospital neither disclosed the name of assailant to the Duty Constable at RML Hospital nor to the doctor on duty when the name of the assailant was given to her by injured Manoj(PW-1).The name of the appellant was introduced only after the occurrence of the incident therefore, the presence of the appellant becomes doubtful therefore, he is liable to be acquitted.(viii) The learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant only on the evidence of Sanjay (PW-2), as he was known to the injured Manoj (PW-1) for a long time prior to the incident, therefore, he is not an independent witness of the incident.A. No. 964/2002 Page 5 of 23A. No. 964/2002 Page 5 of 23(ix) Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the eye witness Sanjay (PW-2) did not support the prosecution in regard to recovery of knife from the possession of the appellant.Therefore, the learned Trial Court acted illegally while basing the conviction of the appellant by ignoring material evidence regarding recovery of incriminating article from the possession of the appellant.(x) The further ground taken by the appellant is that the investigating officer has neither seized clothes of injured nor sent the knife alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant to the CFSL so as to link the petitioner with an offence under reference.(xi) On the point of injuries, the ground taken by the appellant was that the learned Trial Court had acted illegally in holding the injuries on the person of Manoj (injured) (PW-1) to be dangerous when the medico legal report neither suggested any major blood vessel was cut nor was there any hemorrhage to major blood vessel, nor depth of injury was measured by Doctor Pankaj Sharma, (PW-6), before opining the injury to be Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 6 of 23 dangerous.However, no fracture was found in skiagram of X- ray report (Ex.PW7/A) and there was no evidence to the effect that any major blood vessel had been cut nor was there any hemorrhage to major blood vessel.Therefore, the injury was simple in nature.A. No. 964/2002 Page 6 of 23(xii) The learned Trial Court while convicting the appellant in the case under reference had lost sight of the important principle of law that all circumstances appearing in evidence against the appellant should be put to him during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and explanation regarding the said circumstances should be elicited from him before convicting him in regard to the case under reference.(xiii) The learned Trial Court has also lost sight of the important principle of law that it is the bounden duty of prosecution to prove a case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts and not for the defence to disprove the same.Even if the defence is false and sham the prosecution is not absolved for proving its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.A. No. 964/2002 Page 7 of 23A. No. 964/2002 Page 7 of 23A. No. 964/2002 Page 8 of 23Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has further drawn attention of this court that the appellant has caused the injuries to the injured, which were opined by the doctor as being dangerous.There is also a recovery of the weapon of offence being a knife, at the instance of the appellant.So far as the material contradictions in the prosecution cases, the same cannot be the basis for rejection of the other material evidence and deposition of the material witnesses, which are corroborated with the incident and guilt of the accused.Upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties at length, Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 9 of 23 evidence led is being examined as under:A. No. 964/2002 Page 9 of 23He saw the accused Rajinder stabbing Manoj Kumar on the left side of his chest.Thereafter police of Police Station Anand Parbat came on Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 10 of 23 the spot.Public persons took the injured to RML Hospital.He has further deposed that the accused was caught from his house by the police, who also recovered a knife from his house.No disclosure was made by the accused in his presence.In cross examination, he had deposed that the accused had not made any disclosure and no knife was recovered in his presence.The witness did not identify the knife which was shown to him.(III) Constable Satbir (PW-3) had deposed in his deposition that he accompanied ASI Ranbir Singh and reached the place of incident, where it was learnt that somebody had received knife injuries and has been taken to the hospital.It is further deposed that no-eye witness was available at the spot.In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not notice any blood near the place of occurrence.A. No. 964/2002 Page 10 of 23(IV) The other material witness was Dr. Pankaj Sharma (PW-6), who after seeing the MLC of the injured Manoj had opined the injuries as being dangerous, record of which has been exhibited as Ex.PW-6/A. He also submitted that the depth of the injury was beyond peritoneum because food matter was coming out Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 11 of 23 from the injury.There was no hemorrhage to the major blood vessel.A. No. 964/2002 Page 11 of 23I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and also gone through the evidence as well as material placed on record.Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded the arguments raised on the point of contradictions and there was no explanation by the prosecution.For ready reference, the same are reproduced herein as under:i) That why the name of the accused was told to the doctor?iii) Why PW Sanjay did not take the injured to the hospital?iv) Why the knife was sent to the doctor to explain whether the injury could be caused with such knife or not?This court further observes from the deposition of the injured Manoj Kumar (PW-1) that he was put to suggest that he was asked by Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 12 of 23 the public not to take bath in public and he has falsely implicated the accused, to which he had denied.It is also observed that the appellant was known to the injured and the enmity has been claimed by the appellant, then the appellant would have definite knowledge as to how the injured received injuries.This court further observes that there is a clear statement of the injured PW-2 duly corroborated by the medical evidence to the effect that the injuries were received and there is no reason to disbelieve the injured witness that it is the appellant who inflicted the injuries.A. No. 964/2002 Page 12 of 23This court further observes that the impugned judgment records the deposition of PW-6 - Dr. Pankaj Sharma, who opined the injuries to be dangerous.The doctor deposed in his cross-examination that he had examined the patient only at the time when he was admitted.He further went on to depose that he did not ascertain the depth in centimeter of the injuries but injury was beyond peritoneum because the food matter was coming out but there was no hemorrhage to the blood vessel.The depth of the injury was recorded to be 3 Cm x 1 Cm and such injury can only be caused with a sharp weapon.The judgment is challenged primarily on the ground that there Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 13 of 23 was only a single injury to the injured and there was no intention of the appellant while causing injuries to commit murder.However, as per deposition of the injured witness (PW-1), it is recorded that when he was taking bath at sulabh complex Bappa Nagar, near his house, the appellant told him that on the previous occasion he had been spared but now he will not spare him.It is further deposed that he was taking bath in underwear and the accused/appellant scolded him that he was taking bath naked.It was deposed that the appellant attacked him with a knife and although, he succeeded to avoid 2/3 times, but finally he hit him on the left side of the chest and he started bleeding.A. No. 964/2002 Page 13 of 23This court also observes that the premise of the conviction of the appellant was that the injuries caused to the injured were dangerous; stab wound on chest of 3 cm x 1 cm which could only be possible by a sharp weapon.Consequentially, an order on sentence dated 17.02.2002 was passed thereby sentencing him for RI Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 14 of 23 for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.A. No. 964/2002 Page 14 of 23From the facts of the present case, this court observes that initially, the case was registered under Section 307 of IPC, charge sheet was also filed for the offence under Section 307 IPC and despite that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused/appellant under Section 308 Part II of IPC.The relevant extract from the judgment is reproduced as under:-Now the next question is for which offence the accused would be convicted for causing injuries to the injured Manoj.The injuries is dangerous.It is a stab wound on chest of 3 cm.x 1 cm.such would be caused only with a sharp weapon.Whereas PWs says that it was caused with a knife.The counsel's this argument that there is no intention of the accused while causing injuries to commit murder which according to him is apparent because there is only simple injury.Accused claimed that he objected the injured of this taking bath at public toilet naked.The accused if not guilty of attempt of murder, he is definitely guilty of attempt of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 308 Part II IPC.Accused is accordingly convicted for the aforesaid offence."This court fails to understand as to on which ground the learned trial court has reached to such a conclusion, especially, there is a Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 15 of 23 specific deposition of Dr. Pankaj Sharma (PW-6), who in his cross deposed that he did not ascertain the depth in centimeter of the injuries but injury was beyond peritoneum because the food matter was coming out but there was no hemorrhage to the blood vessel.The injured remained in the hospital for 13 days.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also recorded its finding in para 10 in the following words:-A. No. 964/2002 Page 15 of 23I am of the view that the prosecution has also established on record that injury caused was the dangerous one.So far as the recovery of knife is concerned, the knife is an ordinary knife.The knife was not sent to CFSL nor it was sent to doctor to examine whether the injuries in this case could be possible by such type of knife.Accordingly, the recovery of the knife is definitely not material."The impugned judgment further records that the injured Manoj Kumar (PW-1) deposed before the court that he was attacked with knife by the appellant/accused which caused injuries on the left side of his chest.He ran into the gali and fell down and became unconscious.20. Let us examine the ingredients of an offence falling under Section 307 of IPC.It reads as follows:A. No. 964/2002 Page 16 of 23As per, appellant the injured was taking bath nude, however, the injured deposed that he was wearing underwear at the time of occurrence.As the injured told him that he spared him on previous occasions but he will not spare him on that day.Thereafter, he scolded the injured and attacked with knife.Though the injured succeeded in saving himself from the blows of the appellant 2/3 times, still the accused/ appellant continued to hit the injured with knife and ultimately, the appellant succeeded in hitting the victim on the left side of his chest.Thereafter, the victim fell down and became unconscious.A. No. 964/2002 Page 20 of 23A. No. 964/2002 Page 21 of 23 murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."A. No. 964/2002 Page 21 of 23A. No. 46/2005, titled as Angrej Singh & Ors.State, decided on 21.10.2013, wherein this court also dealt with the judgment in Mohinder Singh & Anr vs. State of Punjab, 1987 (Supp) SCC 65 and Krishnakanta Nag vs. The State of Tripura, 2012 Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 22 of 23 L.J. 2179, wherein the sentence awarded to the appellant was reduced to one and half years.A. No. 964/2002 Page 22 of 23The appellant is directed to surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of 15 days to serve the remainder of sentence of imprisonment.A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary steps.With aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 08, 2016 pkb/dd Crl.A. No. 964/2002 Page 23 of 23A. No. 964/2002 Page 23 of 23 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,575 | ALTAMAS KABIR,J.Leave granted in both the special leave petitions which are taken up for hearing and final disposal together.The respondents were Directors of the Indore Premier Co-operative Bank Limited and were also members of the Loan Committee for sanctioning loans.One Harish Patil and Kanhaiyalal Yadav lodged a complaint with the Special Establishment of the Lokayukt, 2Madhya Pradesh at Indore, alleging that therespondents had sanctioned loans amountingto Rs.56,50,000/- in favour of 35 personswithout verifying their eligibility toreceive such loans or the end-use of suchloans and had intentionally acted in anillegal manner to enable the said borrowersto avail of the loans.On receiving thecomplaint, the Special EstablishmentLokayukt, Indore, registered CrimeNo.133/99 and after investigation filed acharge-sheet against the respondents underSections 409, 420 and 120-B of the IndianPenal Code (`IPC' for short) together withSections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as the `P.C.Act').The Trial Court on due considerationof the charge-sheet, found a prima faciecase against the respondents and by itsorder dated 4.11.2006 directed framing ofcharges as suggested in the charge-sheet. 33. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 4.11.2006, directing framing of charges, the respondents moved in revision before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for setting aside the aforesaid order passed by the Special Judge, Indore, in Special Case No.1 of 2006 and for their discharge from the above-mentioned charges.Considering the case made out by the respective parties, the High Court came to the conclusion that admittedly the respondents were members of the Loan Committee and as such members they are only required to consider the loan cases which are put up to them by the concerned Bank Manager for the grant of loan and it was for the Branch Managers to verify the facts regarding entitlement for grant of loan before submitting the same to the Loan Committee.Furthermore, it is only after 4the Executive Officer had also verified theapplications for loan that the loan caseswere put up before the Loan Committee forits sanction.In view of the aforesaidprocedure, the High Court held that itcould not be said that the Members of theLoan Committee (the respondents herein) hadacted illegally and had wrongly sanctionedloans to the concerned borrowers.The HighCourt also took into consideration the factthat out of the total amount of loan whichhad been sanctioned by the Loan Committeeamounting to Rs.56,50,000/- a total sum ofRs.64,69,000/- had already been depositedby the concerned depositors in the Bank andhence it could not be contended that bysanctioning the loans to the concernedborrowers the Bank had suffered anymonetary loss since the full amount ofloan, together with interest, had alreadybeen deposited by the borrowers in theBank.On the question of status of the respondents as "public servants" for the purpose of prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the High Court relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah and others [(2000) 2 SCC 699] held that the respondents could not be treated as public servants and could not, therefore, be punishable either under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or under Section 409 IPC.On such finding, the High Court by its order dated 17th March, 2007, allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 4.11.2006 framing charges against the respondents and discharged them from the said charges under Sections 409, 418, 420 and 120-B IPC and 6 Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.The present appeals have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the said order of the High Court.Appearing for the appellant State of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the High Court had erred both as to the role played by the respondents and also on the question of the status of the said respondents as "public servants" for the purpose of prosecution under the provision of the P.C. Act. Mr. Srivastava also submitted that the High Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction under Sections 397 read with Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code in re- assessing the factual position in order to arrive at the conclusion that the provisions, under which they had been 7 charged, were not supported by the materials in the charge-sheet.Referring to the inquiry report dated 21st January, 1999, submitted by the District Vigilance Committee, Indore, on the complaint of Shri Kanhaiyalal Yadav, Mr. Srivastava submitted that it had come to light during the inquiry that the quotation of Indore Motor and Agro Machinery, having its registered office at 535 Scheme No.54, Indore, loans were advanced by the Banks to the persons named in the report for purchase of different kinds of vehicles.However, the said firm was not available at the address indicated.It also transpired that the firm was managed by one Shri Himanshu Joshi, son of Shri Hem Joshi, Public Contact Officer working in the Indore Premier Co-operative Bank and the Current Account of the firm was with the Kila Maidan Branch, Indore and the various 8 Demand Drafts were deposited in the said account and the cash was subsequently withdrawn.It was also reported that the loans were sanctioned with the connivance of the Bank administration for the purchase of vehicles, but were not used for the said purpose and the Demand Drafts were encashed with the intention of cheating the Bank.Mr. Srivastava submitted that the tenor of the Inquiry Report was that Shri Hem Joshi had, in his capacity as the Public Contact Officer of the Bank, in connivance with the other respondents, set up a fictitious firm in the name of his son Shri Himanshu Joshi for the purpose of encashing the Bank Drafts which were all deposited in the account of the purported firm in the Kila Maidan Branch, Indore.He also submitted that the officers of the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (hereinafter referred as `NABARD') conducted an inspection of the Indore Premier Co-operative Bank in June, 1998 and in their Report they also raised objections with regard to the loans which formed the subject matter of the present appeals.Mr. Srivastava submitted that the finding of the District Vigilance Committee was that while the Branch Managers of the different Branches of the Bank had not complied with the directions given with regard to the policy of sanctioning loans, the Chairman, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, who are the Respondent 10Nos.1 and 3 herein, failed to take anyaction despite the Inspection Report ofNABARD, which gave rise to the conclusionthat they had also played a decisive rolein defrauding the Bank.Mr. Srivastavasubmitted that since the said InquiryReport indicted all the respondents, alongwith several others, it had recommendedthat a case be registered under Section 420read with Section 120-B IPC against all thepersons named.A further recommendation wasmade to register a case against theofficers of the Bank, including therespondents herein, under Section 406, 409,419 and 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.Departmental action was also recommendedagainst the Members of the Loan Committeeof which the Respondent No.1, Rameshwar,was the President, while the otherrespondents, who were all Directors of theBank, were members.Mr. Tankha pointed out that the Charge was framed against the Respondent No.1 in his capacity as Chairman/Manager of the Indore Premier Co- operative Bank and as a Member of the Loan Sanctioning Committee during the period from 4th March, 1997 to 4th May, 1998, when he was a public servant.The charge against the Respondent No.1 was that in connivance with the other accused persons and on the basis of forged documents relating to "Indore Motor and Agro Machinery", he had, without verification of the loan applications filed for the purpose of purchasing of vehicles by the other co- 18 accused, without ensuring that the margin money was deposited as per the rules and without obtaining security, sanctioned the loans in contravention of the Bank Rules and issued the cheque/drafts of such loans to the applicants directly who withdrew the amount without purchasing the vehicles, resulting in misappropriation of Rs.56,50,000/-.Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 was purported to have committed the offence punishable under the above-mentioned provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal code.Similar charges were framed against the other respondents.Mr. Tankha submitted that from the Inquiry Report of the District Vigilance Committee it would be quite apparent that it was the Branch Managers of the different Branches of the Bank who had failed to comply with the procedure relating to grant and 19sanction of loans and that all the lapseswhich were attempted to be foisted on therespondents by Mr. Srivastava during thecourse of his submissions, were required tobe fulfilled at the Branches beforeproposals were put up for sanctioning ofthe loans. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,579,786 | 2 The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as follows:-When the matters stood thus, on 18.07.2016 at about 1.30 a.m. when P.Ws.1 and 2 were there in their respective houses, they heard the hue and cry of their brother Anandan from the nearby Velikaathan Grove [ntypf;fhj;jhd; njhg;g[].On seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused fled away from the scene of crime.P.Ws.1 and 2 took the body of the deceased to their house and thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Periyathatchur Police Station to lodge the first information under Ex.P.1 with P.W.17-Mrs.Jaihind Devi, Sub Inspector of Police on 18.07.2016 at about 8.00 a.m. P.W.17, registered the crime in Cr.No.181/2016 u/s.302 IPC under Ex.P.11-FIR and forwarded Exs.P.1 and 11 to the jurisdictional Court and copies to the higher officials.[c] P.W.18-Senthilkumar, Circle Inspector, Vikravandi, on receipt of FIR, took up the case for investigation ; went to the place of occurrence on 18.07.2016 at about 9.00 a.m. and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.12] and Rough Sektch [Ex.P.13] in the presence of P.W.11 and one Sethuraj.He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of villagers and panchayatdars and prepared the Inquest Report [Ex.P.14].He forwarded the dead body to the hospital for postmortem through a Constable.[d] P.W.15-Dr.Gitanjali, Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Villupuram, upon receipt of the requisition from P.W.18, commenced the postmortem on 18.07.2016 at about 4.15 p.m. She noted the following injuries:-External Examination:- Eyes closed.Face congested.All finger nails cyanose.\Injuries noted:-[1] A transversely placed ligature mark length 18 cm, breadth 1.2 cm seen over front and sides of middle 1/3rd of neck The upper border is 6 cm below the chin and the lower border is 7cm above suprasternal notch.[2] An oblique abrasion of length 6cmx0.5cm over the front of upper part of right thigh extending from right to left side.Ex.P.9 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by him and the Viscera was preserved for Chemical Analysis.P.8 is the Viscera Report wherein it has been stated that there is no detection of poison.They have also seen their respective husbands running towards the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time P.Ws.6 and 7 also rushed to the spot on hearing about the occurrence.[f] P.W.18, in continuation of investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.He effected the arrest of the accused / A-1 and A-2 near Gingee Bus stand.A-1 came forward to give a voluntary confession statement, in the presence of P.W.12 and one Muthu, the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.In pursuant to the same, M.O.1-Nylon rope was seized under Mahazar-Ex.P.16 in the presence of the same witnesses.The accused were, thereafter, sent for judicial remand.On receipt of the Final Report from the doctor, he altered the offence from u/s.302 IPC to one u/s.120[b], 341, 302 read with 34 IPC.P17 is the Alteration Report.He examined the witnesses, Medical Officer ; recorded their statements ; collected various documents relating to the case including the Medical Reports and on completion of investigation, filed the Final Report u/s.120[b] and 302 IPC as against A-1 and u/s.120[b], 341, 302 read with 34 IPC as against A-2 on 13.09.2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tindivanam, who took it on file and issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, furnished them copies of the documents u/s.207 Cr.P.C. and having found that the case is exclusively tried by the Sessions Court, committed the same to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram, u/s.209 Cr.P.C., who in turn had made over the case to the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, who took it on file in SC.No.131/2017 and on appearance of the accused, had framed the charges u/s.120[b], 341, 302 read with 34 IPC and questioned them.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them.[g] The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked Exs.[h] The accused were questioned under section 313[1][b] Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances against them in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false.No witness was examined and no documentary evidence was marked on the side of the accused.[i] The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials, has held that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is not reliable and acquitted the appellant/accused and hence, this appeal.3 Mr.Their evidence has been simply discarded by the Trial Court merely on the ground of delay in filing the first information.It is the contention of the learned counsel that P.Ws.1 to 3 are rustic villagers and merely because the complaint was lodged belatedly, that itself cannot be a ground to discard their evidence outrightly.He also submitted that the medical evidence had clearly established the case of strangulation and illicit intimacy between A-1 and A-2 has also been proved by the prosecution.Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed for setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and allowing of this appeal.4 We have heard Mr.V.Arul, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State during the stage of admission itself.We also perused the entire materials and evidence on record including the impugned judgment of acquittal.5 The only point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and that the Judgment of Acquittal passed by the Trial Court is correct in the eye of law?6 It is a well settled position of law that unless there are substantial and compelling reasons that are good and sufficiently strong reasons, the Appellate Court would not normally interfere with the order of acquittal.Similarly, when the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly, the Appellate Court would be reluctant to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court.In view of the above settled position of law, when we peruse the evidence and materials produced by the prosecution, we are of the view that this appeal is to be disposed of at the admission stage itself.7 The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are stated to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence.As per the prosecution version, the occurrence took place on 18.07.2016 at 1.30 a.m. [early hours].The motive for the alleged crime is said to be the illicit relationship between A-1 and A-2 / wife of the deceased and that they had decided to do away the deceased.Accordingly, on 18.07.2016 at about 1.30 a.m., A-2 caught hold of the legs of the deceased and A-1 strangulated him using Nylon rope [M.O.1] and the occurrence is said to have taken place in the Velikaathan thoppu.It is the version of the prosecution that P.W.1 and P.W.2-brothers of the deceased Anandan, were in their respective houses at the relevant point of time and on hearing the noise of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with P.W.3 neighbour, rushed to the spot and they saw A-1 strangulating the deceased and A-2 catching hold of the deceased legs.On seeing P.Ws.1 to 3, A-1 and A-2 fled away from the scene.Though P.Ws.1 and 2 in one voice, had stated that they rushed to the place of crime and saw A-2 catching hold of the legs of the deceased while A-2 strangulated him using a nylon rope, their evidence is totally inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 had stated as if both the accused had caught hold of the legs of the deceased and strangulated him.It is further to be noted that the occurrence allegedly took place in the Velikaathan Thoppu.Admittedly, there was no source of light whatsoever, available at the alleged place of occurrence.Therefore, the witnesses, witnessing the occurrence and giving minute details about the alleged role played by each of the accused, is highly improbable and doubtful.8 It is the version of P.W.1 that he along with P.W.2 had witnessed the occurrence in a moonlight.This version has been spoken for the first time before the Court during cross-examination.Therefore, this aspect also creates a serious doubt about the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the occurrence place and witnessing the occurrence.Had they really witnessed the occurrence at the relevant point of time, their immediate reaction would be to take the victim to the hospital or would have made some attempts to save the life of the deceased.But, their evidence clearly indicate that they just took the dead body of the deceased to their residence and kept it on the cot and at 8.00 a.m., they lethargically went to the police station and lodged the first information.This conduct is against the normal human conduct.Further, as already indicated, even in Ex.P.12-Observation Mahazar, the Investigating Officer has not even found any struggle marks on the land on which the alleged occurrence took place.This aspect also throws considerable doubt on the very place of occurrence itself.Further, the Observation Mahazar shows as if the occurrence had taken place where there were full of thorns.This is also yet another aspect throwing serious doubt about the place of occurrence itself.9 Similarly, the inquest is prepared only to show the cause of death.This fact also creates serious doubt about the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the place of occurrence and witnessing the alleged occurrence together, when the deceased was very much alive till 19.00 hours on 17.07.2016 only.The First Information was registered only at 8.00 a.m. on 18.07.2016, though the alleged occurrence took place as early as at 1.30 a.m. Further, FIR was despatched to the Court concerned only at 17.00 hours on the same day, with an inordinate delay.Therefore, the arrest and seizure projected by the prosecution is also highly doubtful in this case. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,581,358 | CRM No. 10918 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30th November, 2018 in connection with Raiganj Women Police Station Case No. 86 of 2017 dated 8th December, 2017 under Sections 447/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code.Considering the allegations levelled by the victim in such statement, there is hardly any room to require the immediate arrest of the petitioner.However, the petitioner should cooperate with the investigating agency.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the investigating officer at such time 1 2 and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,825,961 | ORDER M.H.S. Ansari, J.The petitioner at the material time was serving as Sub Inspector, R.P.F and was placed under suspension by order dated 11th August, 1986 and thereafter dismissed from service on having been convicted under section 120B and 218 of Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act in Special Case No.30 of 1971 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to under go RI for two years and one year under different provisions.The petitioner submitted the copy of the judgment of the Patna High Court and asked for his reinstatement into service.The instant writ application has been filed praying for relief inter alia as under :"(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to the purported dismissal order dated 31.12.86 annexure 'P-1' to this application.(c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the purported dismissal order dated 31.12.86 being annexure P-1' considering the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court Patna, dated 13th December.1993."The petitioner's petition before the Hon'ble High Court Patna in Criminal appeal No.51/ 83 allowed but no clear order of acquittal was passed, rather it was viewed by the appeal Court that he was entitled of benefit of doubt.Moreover, the result of the criminal appeal delivered by Hon'ble High Court/Patna on 13.12.93 and he relevancy with the DAR case."The admitted position emerging from the above facts as noticed from the averments made in the writ application and the affidavit-in-opposition is that the petitioner was dismissed from service solely on account of his conviction in the criminal case.No departmental enquiry, however, was conducted against the petitioner.In terms of R.P.F. Rule 161, the order of dismissal was passed being security Order No. 198/86 dated 31st December.The grievance of the petitioner in the case on hand, however, is as regards the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities with respect to reinstatement of the petitioner into service consequent upon his acquittal by the Appeal Court.The Appeal was allowed by order dated 13.12.1993 being Crl.In the Instant case, the respondents have taken no action despite several representations made in that behalf by the petitioner for reinstatement consequent upon the orders dated 13.12.93 passed by the Appellate Court nor any valid reasons have been assigned for such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition.For the said reason, the order of dismissal dated 31st December, 1986 being Security Order No. 198/86 be and is hereby quashed and set aside.The petitioner was convicted on charges of criminal offence.He was later acquitted by the Appellate Court.The respondent cannot be said to be in any way connected with the prosecution launched against the petitioner or his subsequent conviction.The Instant writ petition was filed only on 2nd September 2000 being the date on which the affidavit was affirmed.Admittedly, the petitioner has not worked in the post till date, as he was not reinstated.This order, however, shall not preclude the respondent/disciplinary authority from initiating such action as may be open to them in law against the petitioner under RPF Rules.There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,602,815 | Around 13.00 hours, M.S.Pandian, son-in-law of V.K.Gurusamy, who was known to her, came there running and rushing inside the house where Jeyanthilal is residing in the ground floor.It is, at that time, 5 persons armed with deadly weapons chased the said M.S.Pandian and trespassed into the house and all of them attacked M.S.Pandian repeatedly with aruvals and swords.When Vasantha tried to prevent them, the five persons threatened to cut and kill her also.Therefore, she raised alarm.However, the said M.S.Pandian was indiscriminately attacked.5/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.1077 of 2019 Thereafter, when she went inside the house, she found M.S.Pandian was lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries.An amputated finger of M.S.Pandian was found inside the house.At the entrance of the house, a bullet and a broken cell phone were also found.Thereafter, the said victim was shifted to nearby Velammal Hospital by an ambulance.However, he was pronounced dead by the doctors.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that thereafter, Vasantha came to B4 Keeraithurai Police Station and prepared a complaint statement requesting action based on which a FIR in B4 Keeraithurai P.S.Cr.No.412/2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC was registered.After thorough investigation, Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai, S/o.Alagarsamy and Muthupandi, S/o.Kumar were arrested on 24.04.2019 and their confession statements were also recorded.Besides, the case properties, namely, a Two Wheeler was seized from Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai and a sword and Aruval were seized from Muthupandi under Athachi.Thereafter, the duo were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai.Further, the investigation reveals that there was a previous enmity prevailing between V.K.Gurusamy and Rajapandi of Keeraithurai area over political rivalry and family disputes for years together.Due to that, both the parties carried out their revenge murders.Recently, V.K.Gurusamy's son V.K.G.Mani and Son- in-law M.S.Pandian kidnapped Thoppilli Muniyasamy S/o.Rajapandi, murdered him and burnt his body into ashes.Therefore, in order to take revenge, the supporters of Rajapandi murdered one Muniyasamy on 12.06.2018 mistaking him as M.S.Pandian.In continuation, Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali, relative of Rajapandi insisted Boomi @ Boominathan on several occasions to murder M.S.Pandian.Under such circumstances, the accused Boomi @ Boominathan joining with other accused Rambabu, Selvam @ Pinam Thinni, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari came in a car armed with deadly weapons driven by Padam @ Muniyasamy.Chinna Vavuthalai followed them on a two wheeler with Muthupandi as a Pillion Rider.The detenu Muthukumar @ Pattakumar was driving another two wheeler with Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth as pillion rider and followed them and all of them rushed 7/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.1077 of 2019 to Nagupillai Thope.After seeing M.S.Pandian going on walk, Boomi @ Boominathan, who was in the car shot M.S.Pandian with a pistol in his possession.On hearing the sound, M.S.Pandian, escaped from them and ran away.Immediately Boomi @ Boominathan, Selvam @ Pinam Thinni armed with big aruval, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari armed with a big sword, Muthupandi and Chinna Vavuthalai armed with deadly weapons chased M.S.Pandian and attacked him indiscriminately.On seeing this, when Vasantha tried to prevent them, the assailants threatened her also and fled away from there by car and two wheelers.They have also robbed a Two Wheeler TN 59 BP 5477 creating panic and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the local people and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the public order.Even the shopkeepers there also closed their shops and the vehicle riders came on that way also returned.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that when M.S.Pandian was killed by the accused Boomi @ Boominathan with pistol with prior conspiracy and also robbed the two wheeler from an innocent rider who came on that way, the detenu Muthukumar @ Pattakumar, S/o.Palpandi was arrested on 02.05.2019 8/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.1077 of 2019 and his confession statement was recorded and a Two Wheeler and one Aruval were seized from him under attachi.Then he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai.Moreover, the accused Bhuvaneswaran @ Bhuvanesh @ Kocha S/o.Ganesa on his arrest has given a confession statement on 25.04.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody.Besides, Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy, S/o.Muthu was arrested on 26.04.2019 and his confession statement was recorded.Thereafter, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV , Madurai on 26.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody.When the investigation team was searching the other accused, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari S/o.Chellapandi, Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth, S/o.Chinnapandi and Rambabu, S/o.Murugan surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Trichy.On 26.04.2019, they were transferred to the Central Prison, Madurai.Therefore, the 2nd respondent appears to have inferred that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the above case and if he comes out on bail, he would indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The above reasoning given by the Detaining Authority shows that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind properly for the reason that the 2 nd respondent failed to consider the fact that at the time of passing the detention order whether the said bail application was pending before the Sessions Court or not, but nowhere in the detention order the detaining authority mentioned about the date of filing bail application, 3/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.1077 of 2019 date of hearing, date of pending disposal whereas the detention order has been passed on 20.08.2019 without verifying the pendency of the bail application.Hence, this non-application of mind would vitiate the impugned detention order, it is pleaded.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the detention order says that the co-accused Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy was granted bail by the Madurai Bench of this Court, it has to be seen that the said Muniyasamy was granted bail on the ground that though he had two previous cases, but the same are not similar in nature.Insofar as the present detenu is concerned, the Sponsoring Authority did not place the entire materials before the Detaining Authority.For all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to go.Since the detenu also has moved the bail application, the same was pending.As per the ground case, one Vasantha, w/o.Pandian is residing at Flat No.572, TNHB Colony, Anuppanadi, Madurai for rent and her ancestral house is located at Door No.50/216, Subbammal Compound, Sinthamani Main Road, Madurai.While so, one Jeyanthlal is residing at the ground floor for lease whereas one Seenivasan is residing at the first floor of the house for rent.On 18.04.2019 at about 12.00 hours, Vasantha came to the said house and was sitting on the stairs in the ground floor.Thereafter, the trio were taken to police custody on 27.04.2019 and their confession statements were recorded.More over, the case properties, namely, a sword was seized from Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari, a Hero Honda Splender Two 9/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.1077 of 2019 Wheeler was seized from Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth and one Two Wheeler was seized from Rambabu on 28.04.2019 under attachi.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the representation dated 02.10.2019 submitted by the petitioner addressed to the State Government marking a copy to the Detaining Authority was duly considered without any delay by calling for remarks from the Sponsoring Authority and after receiving the remarks, the same were sent to the Government on the same day without any delay.Therefore, there is no infirmity in the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and I have also perused the typed set of papers including the detention order carefully.10/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.1077 of 2019At the outset, it is an admitted case that after killing M.S.Pandian, when the investigation team was searching the offenders, the accused Boomi @ Boominathan was surrendered before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 25.04.2019 and was remanded to judicial custody till 03.05.2019 at the Puzhal Prison, Chennai.The accused Rambabu along with other accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Trichy.Moreover, a sword was seized from Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari.On the basis of the confession statements given by them, it appears that a Hero Honda Splender Two Wheeler was also seized from Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth and one another two wheeler was seized from Rambabu on 28.04.2019 under attachi.Thereafter, all these three accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and their remand period has also been extended.While so, the detenu Muthukumar @ Pattakumar, S/o.Palpandi was arrested on 02.05.2019 and his confession statement was recorded and a Two Wheeler and one Aruval were seized from him under attachi.Then he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and remanded 11/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.1077 of 2019 to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai.Secondly, the detenu was in remand in the ground case in Crime No.412/2019 of B4 Keeraithurai Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC altered into Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392 and 302 of IPC and Section 25(1- A) of the Arms Act, 1959 altered into Section 120-B, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392, 302 of IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act, 1959 in Central Prison, Madurai and on the date of passing of the detention order i.e. on 20.08.2019, the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.3500/2019 was pending disposal.Kumar 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 (T.N.Act 14 of 1982).In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,603,017 | Case diary perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.C.C. As per rules. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,836,070 | The synopsized allegations against the appellant are that the three siblings Rinki aged about 8 years and her twins brothers Sanjeev and Rajeev aged 6 years, all children of Suraj Pal Singh, first informant, had gone to sugar cane field for chewing of sugar and after that they started playing there.After sometime, the twins brothers Rajeev and Sanjeev came back to house but Rinki did not return.Informant asked his sons regarding Rinki on which he was informed that she was in the sugar cane field.When Rinki did not return till 11:00 a.m., then the informant went in search of her .On the call for Rinki yelled out by the informant Urmesh S/o Shivram Singh the: present appellant, appeared from the sugarcane field of Shree Pal Singh, Village Pradhan, adjusting his underwear and ran towards the west.Informant sensing something wrong took Ved Pal Singh PW 2, Nakshatra Pal Singh and Shreepal Singh alongwith him and went inside the sugarcane field of Shree Pal Singh, Village Pradhan where he found the dead body of his daughter Rinki.Her undergarments were untied and there was mark of injury on her neck.Her abdomen was also incised and it seemed that her chastity was ravished and thereafter she was done to death.of 1995 under Sections 376/302 I.P.C. on the same date at 7.05 p.m.Head Constable Yad Ram prepared the chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-5) and G.D Entry (Exhibit Ka-6), and S.H.O. Harish Mehra PW-5 engineered the investigation, recorded the statement of HC Yadav Ram and then proceeded for the spot.At the spot he recorded the statements of the informant Suraj Pal Singh.Ved Pal.Nakshatra Pal and Shree Pal.He stayed in the village during the whole night.Next day morning (27.10.1995) he got the inquest report(Exhibit Ka-7) and other papers Challan lash (Exhibit Ka-8), Photo lash (Exhibit Ka-9), letter to R.I. (Exhibit Ka-10), letter to C.M.O. (Exhibit Ka-11), prepared through Sub Inspector Sant Ram Yadav and then dispatched the dead body to mortury for autopsy through Constables Om Prakash and Charan Singh.Thereafter, he conducted the spot inspection prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-13) and recovered the blood stained earth from the place of the incident and prepared it's recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-12).He also prepared the map of place of recovery as (Exhibit Ka-14).Suraj Pal Informant, PW1 supported his version in the trial and stated that deceased Rinki aged about 8 years was his daughter and on the date and time of the incident she accompanied by her twins brothers Rajeev and Sanjeev had gone to the Sugar cane field for chewing sugar cane at 8:00 a.m. After sometime the twins Rajeev and Sanjeev returned to the house leaving Rinki behind.On being enquired about Rinki they informed the informant that the deceased stayed at the field.When Rinki did not returned till 11:00 a.m. informant went in her search, giving called to her by name.At that time appellant Urmesh emerge from the sugarcane field of Sri Pal Singh, village Pradhan, adjusting his underwear and ran towards west.Pie was seen adjusting his under wear and running by the witnesses Ved Pal, Nakshatra Pal and Shreepal who all joined in the search for Rinki.When all of them entered sugar cane field of Shreepal Singh they found the dead body of Rinki with her undergarments untied and the corpse had injuries on her neck and abdomen.Sensing that chastity of her daughter was ravished and then she was murdered that the first informant got the F.I.R., Ext. Ka 1 scribed through Jaspal Singh Rathore and lodged it at the Police Station Fatehganj, District Bareilly which was duly proved by him.lie further testified that he was aged about 60 years and had 8 issues.He had narrated the topography of the place of the incident and had deposed that when the children had gone to the field he was not present at the house and the witnesses were working in their field " at the time of the incident.He has further deposed that the appellant had emerged from the sugar cane field of Sri Pal Singh adjusting his under garment and seeing them he had sprinted towards west and only then the body of Rinki was discovered which was sent for autopsy on a tractor of Pharnam Singh.He also evidenced that the accused appellant was arrested from the house of Shreepal Singh witness.From his cross examination nothing material was elicited by the defence which could discredite his testimony.Ved Pal, PW2 stated before the Court those very facts which were'' mentioned by PW1 and also stated that he had a field near the field of informant and Shri Pal Village Pradhan.At the time of the incident he was working in his field from 7 or 8:00 a.m. alongwith his brother Nakshatra Pal when the deceased in the company of his twins brothers came for chewing sugarcane and started playing.At that time appellant Urmesh was also present on the spot.After sometime, the twins brothers Rajeev and Sanjeev were not spotted by him who had seen the appellant going inside the sugarcane field alongwith the deceased.lie thought that they were going for sugarcane chewing.At 11:00 a.m. when the informant came searching for.Rinki then the appellant came out from the sugarcane field of Shri Pal Singh and ran towards west alongwith a Darati in one hand and adjusting his undergarment from the another.In his cross examination he had clearly stated that he was in the field when he had seen the appellant, the deceased and his twins brothers at about 7.00 or 8:00 a.m. in the morning.He had further deposed that he had seen the deceased going along with accused-appellant and first the accused came out of the field and ran towards the west and subsequently they discovered the corpse of the deceased.He had denied the 'suggestion that he had not seen any incident and is deposing falsehood.Finding prima facie offence being disclosed against the appellant, Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-16) hi the Court.Since the charge sheet submitted by him had got some cuttings on it therefore on the instructions of Circle Officer he prepared another charge sheet on I 3.11.1995 (Exhibit Ka-17) and submitted that also in court.The accused was summoned by C.J.M., Bareilly on the basis of the charge sheet and his ease was commuted for trial before the court of Session's as S.T. No. 48 of 1996 which was transferred to the Court of 1st Additional Session Judge, Bareilly for trial and disposal.Jagpal Singh Rathore (Rye Witness) PW3 were witnesses of fact and Dr. S.P. Varshney PW4, Harish Mehra PW5 and Dr. Ghanshyam Singh PW 6 were formal witnesses.He had also accompanied the informant to the police station for lodging of F.I.R. He also denied the Suggestion that he has not seen the deceased in the company of the appellant accused and he had testified with ulterior motives.Jagpal Singh Rathore PW 3 who has scribed the F.I.R. proved the F.I.R. as (Fxhibit Ka-1) and the recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-2).He was thoroughly cross examined but nothing material had come out from his evidence which can discredite his testimony.Dr. S.P. Varshney.PW4 conducted an autopsy of the dead boy of the deceased on 27.10.1995 at about 3:30 p.m. and found that she was aged about eight years and 1 1/2 days had lapsed since her death.Rigour Mortis had passed off from the upper limbs and was passing off from the lower limbs and putriscensing had commenced.Following ante-mortem injuries were present on die body:Two linear abrasion vertical 12 cm each at 1 cm distance.One linear abrasion cum abrasion 6 cm left extents into the leg 7 cm × 2.5 cm.× muscle deep.Multiple figure nail abrasion in area of 5 cm × 4 cm back chin.4. Contusion in front of neck 10 cm × 1 cm.Contusion right cheek 1 cm × 1 cm.Laceration vaginal orifice clotted blood present over inner thy cum external genitals linear laceration present at 6 o'clock position 1.05 cm.long cum muscle deep visible under neath.Two slides prepared and vaginal smear sent for pathological examination.The physical examination of the corpse disclosed that there were contusion on the neck of the deceased, her larynx and lungs were congested and cause of her death was asphyxia as result of throttelling.Doctor also testified that injury No. 6 to the deceased could be because of partial penetration of male organ and she could have died at or about the time of the incident and weapon injuries could be caused by Darati.lie has proved the post mortem report as Fxt.He was also subjected to searching cross examination but nothing material came out favourable to the accused appellant.Dr. Ghanshyam Singh PW6 had examined the appellant but did not found any injury on his genitals.He was not under the influence of any intoxication.There was no smagma on his genitals.However, he had stated that he did not prepared any supplementary report and the age of the accused-appellant in his estimation was round about 18 years.Dr. K.K. Gautam CW1 has proved the x-ray report regarding age of the appellant which according to the x-ray report was 16 years.In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused took of defence of false implications.1st Additional Session Judge, Bareilly on such evidences found the case of prosecution proved to the hilt, and guilt of the appellant established and therefore he convicted the appellant for both the offences under Section 376 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment for each of the said offences.We have heard Shri Amit Mishra learned amicus curie, in support of this appeal and Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned AGA on behalf of the Slate.Shri Amit Mishra contended that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and prosecution has not been able to established the charge against the appellant by cogent and reliable evidences.He submitted that there is no medical evidence to support charge of rape on the victim and from the examination of the appellant also it could not Lie said that he had indulged into any sexual act.He further submitted that the evidences led in the trial through the prosecution witnesses, is wholly insufficient to convict the appellant as the chain of circumstances are not complete and the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant only on suspicion.Learned Counsel further submitted that Post Mortem Report examination does not indicate that any homicidal attack was made on the deceased.He submitted 'that the appellant was a resident of the same village and therefore his presence on the spot is not an incriminating evidence against him.He further argued that thorn was no weapon mentioned in the F.I.R. and subsequently to make the prosecution case consistent with the medical evidence that the prosecution alleged Darati in the hands of the appellant.Pie further submitted that PW1 is not a reliable witness and therefore the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge is wrong and this appeal deserves to be allowed, .convictions and sentences of the appellant deserves to be set aside and he be acquitted.Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that in this case the evidence led in die trial court through the witnesses Suraj Pal, Ved Pal, Dr. S.P. Varshney and S.H.O. Harish Mehra fully established a guilt of the appellant and the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.We have given our anxious considerations on the submmissions raised by both the sides and have gone through the entire evidences on the record of the appeal our selves.This part of the statement of PW2 was not challenged by the defence at all but by a bald suggestion which has been denied by him.We have also looked into the case diary to be satisfied as to whether this part of his statement is an embellishment or not but we found that said statement is consistent with his statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ved Pal.PW2 is a resident of the same village.He had no enmity with the appellant and there was no reason for him to falsely implicate the appellant.His cross-examination also did not bring out anything on the basis of which it can be said that his evidence is blemished and unreliable.More over his evidence is well supported by the evidence of PW1 the first informant.There was no reason for the first informant also ' to falsely implicate the appellant but he being an interested witness and being the informant we have sought for corroboration of his testimony through PW 2 which we found well supported.The statement of Dr. S.P. Varshney PW 5 clearly established that the deceased was strangulated to death and before she was murdered her chastity was ravished.We find no reason to discard the testimony of this doctor which is creditworthy.The F.I.R. in this case is promptly lodged without any delay at 7:05 p.m. when the distance of Police Station was 10 Kms and occurrence occurred on 26.10.1995 at 11:00 a.m. Therefore chances of any embellishment and false implications is absent.From the totality of evidences led in the trial we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant successfully and has proved the charge against him.Let a copy of this order be certified to the trial court. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,613,348 | 2 Cr. A. No.2212/20132(a).Briefly stated, the prosecution case before the trial Court, was that accused Lokman had married deceased Gayabai about 20 years before the date of the incident.The couple had no issues.Due to childlessness, the accused used to persistently harass the deceased.Consequently, deceased Gayabai had left her matrimonial home at village Pajnari and had shifted to her maternal home at village Ghugra, where she lived with her brother Lattu (PW-5).However, after sometime, accused Lokman also shifted to Gayabai's maternal home and started to live with her.(b) About 4 days before the date of the incident, i.e. on 03.11.2007, Lattu had gone to his sister Jhingobai's place at village Kishunganj.He had left accused Lokman and deceased Gayabai behind at his home.At night, Babulal (PW-3) had gone to Lokman's place to borrow a torch.He had also gone to return the torch the same night.At about 11:00 a.m. on 03.11.2007, Laxmi Bai (PW-2), who worked in a school as cook along with Gayabai, had gone to her place to call her; however, Gayabai was found dead at her 3 Cr. A. No.2212/2013 home.Her mouth was stuffed with a part of a yellow sweater.Laxmi Bai informed about the incident to the villagers.Khuman Singh (PW-7) informed Kotwar Umrao Singh, who lodged marg intimation (Ex.P/10) at police out-post Kerbana.Subsequently, first information report was lodged in P.S. Bathiagarh, District-Damoh.He had married her about 20 years ago but they had no issues.On account of infertility of the deceased, the appellant used to beat her and threatened to abandon her.As a result, deceased Gayabai had started living with her brother Lattu Raikwar (PW-5).Corroborating the statement of Jhingo Bai (PW-4), Lattu Raikwar (PW-5) has stated that deceased Gayabai lived with her.Sometime after Gayabai had rejoined him, appellant Lokman had also started to live with her at her maternal home.A day before the date of the incident, he had gone to Kishanganj to meet his elder sister Jhingo Bai.(Delivered on this 19 th day of June, 2017) Per: C.V. Sirpurkar, J.This Criminal Appeal against conviction under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of appellant/accused Lokman is directed against the judgment dated 17.08.2013 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.330/2012; whereby 2 Cr.A. No.2212/2013 accused/appellant Lokman was convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Gayabai and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine in the sum of Rs.5000/-.In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five months.During post-mortem examination, 7 abrasions was found on the throat of the deceased.The doctor conducting postmortem examination concluded that the deceased was throttled to death.After the incident, the accused went missing and could be arrested only 5 years later.3 Cr. A. No.2212/2013Learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Lokman.He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.In his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he took the defence that he was innocent.A day before the date of the incident, there was a dispute between himself and his wife and he got annoyed; therefore, he had left her matrimonial home and went away.On the basis of circumstantial evidence, the trial Court held that the deceased was throttled to death in the intervening night between 2 nd and 3 rd of November, 2007 at her maternal home.On the eve of the incident, the accused and the deceased, who were husband and wife, were together at her maternal home.The accused went missing since the incident and could be arrested only 5 years later.In these circumstances, the burden had shifted upon the accused to explain the 4 Cr. A. No.2212/2013 circumstances in which his wife had died.However, he failed to discharge that burden.Therefore, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, he was convicted for committing murder of his wife.4 Cr. A. No.2212/2013Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings recorded by the trial Court mainly on the grounds that the trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the circumstantial evidence on record and had erred in holding that the burden was upon the appellant to explain the circumstances of the death of his wife.Learned counsel for the appellant has invited particular attention to the fact that a panchnama (Ex.P/11) was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 06.12.2007, wherein it had been recorded that the appellant had been absconding from his village for 2 months next before the date of preparation of panchnama.The trial Court had ignored the effect of that panchnama.It has also been contended that on the date of the offence, the appellant was in jail; therefore, he could not have committed the alleged offence.In aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment.No serious challenge has been mounted in respect of this finding during the course of arguments before this Court either.In these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the fact that deceased Gayabai had died a homicidal death due to strangulation.5 Cr. A. No.2212/2013He had left appellant Lokman and deceased Gayabai behind at his home.Babulal Raikwar (PW-3) has stated that a day before the date on which Gayabai's dead body was found, he had met 6 Cr.A. No.2212/2013 appellant Lokman and his wife deceased Gayabai at their home.6 Cr. A. No.2212/2013As per his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Babulal had borrowed a torch from appellant Lokman at night and had gone towards the water tank.Thereafter, he had returned the torch to appellant Lokman.However, he had denied this fact before the trial Court.Likewise Lattu Raikwar (PW-5) has stated that he had gone to his sister's place a day before the date of the incident, whereas in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has stated that he had gone to his sister's place four days before the date of the incident.In the same manner, Khuman Singh (PW-7) has not stated before the Court that he had seen the appellant running away from Lattu Raikwar's house on the night of the incident; however, none of the aforesaid facts goes to the root of the matter or shake the foundation of the prosecution story.Therefore, the trial Court has not rightly given much importance to these discrepancies.Laxmi Bai (PW-2) has stated that she and Gayabai used to work as cooks in the school.Next morning, she had gone to Gayabai's house to call her; however, she found that Gayabai did not respond.Other people gathered on the spot.When they went inside, they found that Gayabai was lying on the floor.She was dead and a sweater was partly stuffed in her mouth.The panchnama was prepared in village Pajnari, the place where deceased Gayabai's matrimonial home was.It is prosecution case that the appellant had left village Pajnari and had started to live with the deceased at village Ghugra.As such, two years prior to the date of the incident he was not at Pajnari but was at Ghugra.The offence was committed at Ghugra; therefore, the panchnama to the effect that the appellant had been missing from village Pajnari since the year 2005, does not help the case of the defence in any manner.7 Cr. A. No.2212/2013The second ground that has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that on the date of the offence, the appellant was in jail.The accused absconded immediately after the incident.On 10.10.2008, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC Hatta, showing the appellant as absconding.As a result, the JMFC issued an arrest warrant against the appellant.Since, the arrest warrant could not be executed, on 27.12.2008, the Executing Officer, Head Constable Balwan Singh appeared before the trial Court and submitted a report that the appellant had been absconding and was unlikely to be traced in near future.On the basis of aforesaid submission, a perpetual warrant of arrest was issued against the appellant.On 11.09.2012, the police filed an application before JMFC Hatta, to the effect that the appellant had been incarcerated in Sub-Jail Banda, District Sagar in 8 Cr. A. No.2212/2013 connection with some other case.Therefore, a production warrant to procure his presence before J.M.F.C. Hatta was issued.In execution of the aforesaid production warrant, the appellant was produced before J.M.F.C. Hatta on 24.09.2012 and he was sent to judicial custody in the instant case as well.Thereafter, on 10.10.2012, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and on 24.11.2012 the case was committed to the Sessions Court.8 Cr. A. No.2212/2013In his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also, he has clearly stated that a day before the date of the incident, he had had a quarrel with his wife deceased Gayabai and had left her matrimonial home.If the appellant had indeed been in jail on the date of the incident in connection with any criminal case, this fact could easily have been proved on the basis of the jail record; however, the appellant has failed to do so.In these circumstances, the trial Court has committed no error in placing reliance upon the statements of prosecution witnesses.On the strength of aforesaid evidence, following links in the chain of circumstances were established beyond reasonable doubt:(i) the appellant was husband of the deceased.They had married about 20 years ago and had no children;(ii) on account of childlessness, the appellant used to beat the deceased and used to harass her;9 Cr. A. No.2212/2013(iii) as a result, the deceased had shifted to her maternal home at village Ghugra and was living with her brother Lattu;(iv) after sometime, the appellant had also followed the deceased and at the time of the incident, he was living at his brother-in-law Lattu's house with the deceased;(v) on the date of the offence, Lattu had gone to village Kishanganj to visit his sister Jinggo Bai.As such, on the date of the offence, the appellant was alone with the deceased at her maternal home;(vi) Babulal Raikwar had met the appellant and the deceased together at their home on the eve of the incident;(vii) at about 10-11 a.m. on 03.11.2007, deceased Gayabai was found dead in her maternal home.A part of the a sweater was stuffed into her mouth;(viii) in the post-mortem examination, she was found to have been throttled to death;(ix) the appellant had absconded after the incident and could be arrested only after 5 years;(x) the appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove as to where he had been on the night of the incident;With regard to the burden of proof in respect of offence committed within four walls of the house, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Rajkumar Prasad Tamrakar Vs State of Bihar 2007 3 SCC Cr. 716 that:"When at the time of the occurrence only the wife and the husband were present in the house and when there was homicidal death and there was no possibility of entrance of anybody else in the house and causing of injury to the wife by 10 Cr. A. No.2212/2013 another person, the burden lies on the accused husband to explain as to how his wife died." | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,615,560 | O.P.No.8339 of 2020The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is A2 conspired with A1, had kidnapped and murdered the deceased.Thereafter, on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in S.C.No.10 of 2020 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Thirupattur.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is of the year 2013, the petitioner was granted bail and thereafter the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the case.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is working as a daily coolie and she has two children aged about 10 and 7 years respectively, she has been working various workplaces.O.P.No.8339 of 2020On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner conspired with A1, A1 had availed cash loan from one person, since the said person insisted to repay the amount, to take revenge, the petitioner kidnapped the said person’s son, who aged about 5 years and murdered.Considering the rival submission made by either side and considering the fact that the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 109 and 120(B) of IPC and she has conspired with A1; further, the petitioner is a mother of two children aged about 10 and 7 years and a collie by occupation and considering the fact that the period of incarceration by the petitioner is more than 216 days, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:a) the petitioner shall execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Crl.O.P.No.8339 of 2020b) thereafter, the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate on or before 01.07.2020, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed.11.06.2020 Internet: Yes/No dhhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Crl.O.P.No.8339 of 2020The Station House Officer, Yelagiri Police Station, Tirupattur District.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Crl.O.P.No.8339 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR.,J.dh Crl.O.P.No.8339 of 2020 11.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.11.2019 for the offence under Sections 364, 302 of IPC r/w.Section 109 and 120 (B) of IPC, in Crime No.79 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.http://www.judis.nic.in 1 Crl.Therefore, for the past six months she is under custody in jail.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that earlier, the petitioner filed bail application in Crl.The trial could not proceed with the case and complete the same as directed by this Court due to lockdown for Covid-19.http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Crl.[c] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[d] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.[e] the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court during every hearing date without fail.[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[g) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs.State of Kerala[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection229AIPC.The Superintendent, Central Jail, Vellore.3. Judicial Magistrate- III, Tirupattur District.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,616,491 | % Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 1 of 79 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 1 of 79The particulars of their convictions and sentence may be set out thus:(ii) Sonu was convicted u/S 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 and 396 IPC.He was sentenced, (a) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/, with default sentence of one year RI, under Section (u/s) 302 r/w 34 IPC and (b) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/, with default sentence of one year RI, u/s 396 IPC.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 2 of 79(iii) Vikas's conviction and sentence were identical to Sonu's.He, too, was convicted u/s 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 and 396 IPC, and was sentenced (a) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/, with default sentence of one year RI, u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC and (b) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/, with default sentence of one year RI, u/S 396 IPC.The learned ASJ further observed that, in view of the fact that the appellants were being sentenced u/s 396 IPC, there was no need to pass a separate sentence on them u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC.The case of the prosecution, as set out in the charge sheet, dated 9th June 2009, read with the documents exhibited in the case, may be set out as under.On 16th March 2009, Duty Officer HC Hoshiyar Singh (PW-3) had informed, vide DD No 24A (Ex. PW-3/A), that a telephone call had been received, with the caller stating: Gazipur Shamshan Ghat par mere bhai ko chaku maar diya.The information was given to SI Harpal Singh (PW-12) for necessary action.Following thereupon, Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 3 of 79 Inspector Mahender Kumar (PW-31) reached the Shamshan Ghat with HC Rajesh Kumar (PW-29), Ct.Yogender (PW-13) and Ct.Javed (PW-20), where they were informed that two persons, who had suffered knife wounds, had been taken to the hospital in the PCR van, and that the condition of one of the two was critical, for which the other had called the PCR, from the mobile phone of the store keeper, near the cremation ground.Thereupon, the said team reached LBS Hospital, where they were informed, of the situation, by SI Harpal Singh (PW-12), who also handed over, to them, MLC No 1647/09 (Ex. PW-1/A), of the deceased Jitender and MLC No. 1648/09 (Ex. PW-1/B) of the injured Mool Chand (PW-4), along with samples, sealed with the seal of the hospital.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 3 of 79The MLC of Jitender (Ex. PW-1/A), prepared by Dr. Shalini Gupta (PW-1) at 3 PM on 16th March 2009, stated that the patient had been brought dead, and that he had suffered an incised wound right side chest upper part 3 x 1 cm.The MLC of Mool Chand (PW-4) (Ex. PW-1/B) stated that he was conscious, oriented, his general condition was fair, and that he had a lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.plus swelling in left thigh middle 1/3rd.The nature of his injury was noted as simple blunt.The charge sheet further stated that the deceased Jitender had a knife wound at the centre of his chest, and blood was also found on the trouser worn by him.The investigating team, accompanied by Mool Chand (PW-4), thereafter, visited the spot where the incident Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 4 of 79 had taken place.A safety thread of a mobile phone, with blood marks, as well as a key ring, were found there and seized vide seizure memo exhibited as PW-4/C. The crime team also reached the spot.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 4 of 79The statement of Mool Chand (PW-4) was recorded, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.).He stated that (i) on 16th March 2009, he, along with his nephew Jitender (i.e. the deceased) had proceeded from his village to Gazipur Dairy Farm to buy a cow, (ii) he was carrying Rs.3,000/-, and Jitender was carrying Rs.7,000/- (iii) at around 2 P.M., while they were walking on the road, near the cremation ground, four boys,around 20-30 years of age, emerged from behind the wall and surrounded them, out of which two brandished knives and the other two held the arms of Jitender and himself from behind, (iv) the knife- wielding boys asked them to hand over everything in their possession,(v) when they tried to resist, one of the boys, using a knife inflicted a fatal wound, on the chest of Jitender, which started bleeding, (vi) the other boy attempted to stab him, i.e. Mool Chand; (vii) however, he managed to escape with an injury on his left thigh, (viii) thereafter, the assailants fled with their money and mobile phones, (ix) he carried Jitender to the nearby cremation ground, from where he dialed 100 using the mobile phone of the cremation ground store keeper, and (x) the Police, thereafter, arrived and took them to hospital, where Jitender was declared brought dead.The statement was signed by Mool Chand in vernacular and attested by Inspector Mahender Kumar (PW-31).I have read it.It is correct.Mahender Kumar (PW-31) arrived with his staff and made inquiries from him i.e. Brijesh Tiwari (PW-6), whereafter Insp.Mahender Kumar (PW-31) also left with his staff for the hospital.He vouchsafed to having read his statement and to the correctness thereof.A supplementary statement was also taken from Mool Chand (PW-4), on the same day i.e, 16th March 2009, in which he modified his earlier version of the incident by saying that the number of assailants, were, in fact, five and not four.In view of the statements, by Mool Chand (PW-4) as well as Suraj Pal (PW-8), to the effect that there were five persons who had Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 7 of 79 attacked Mool Chand and Jitender, the charge under Section 394/34 IPC was converted to Section 396, IPC, viz. dacoity with murder.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 7 of 79On 17th March 2009, after handing over the dead body of Jitender to his father Kunwar Pal, Inspector Narender Singh (PW-21) prepared the inquest papers, Post-mortem report (Ex. PW-7/A) was obtained from Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW-7).EXTERNAL GENERAL APPEARANCE Dead body of young adult, male, wearing pant, underwear, pair of socks and shoes.Red colour Kalawa present over right wrist and black colour thread (Tagdi) present over coin region.Extravasation of blood was present in soft tissues around the hilum and around descending aorta.Left lung is pale.At lower lobe of right lung through and through wound is present.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 8 of 79OPINION Haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injury to right lung and its vessels produced by single cage sharp cutting stabbing weapons.On 18th March 2009, acting on secret information, one of the assailants (who, being a juvenile, is referred to hereinafter as J-1) was arrested and, from his possession the Nokia 3500 mobile phone, belonging to the deceased Jitender, was recovered.On the basis of the information given by J-1, Sonu was arrested on 19th March 2009, from Noida.The Nokia 1650 mobile phone, belonging to Mool Chand, was recovered from his possession and seized vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex. PW-15/C.17. J-1 and Sonu were produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the learned MM) in the Karkardooma Court and remanded to judicial custody.On the said date, Mool Chand (PW-4) clearly identified J-1 and Sonu, Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 9 of 79 and recording to that effect was made by the learned MM on the TIP proceedings.(Ex. PW-16/A, Ex. PW-16/C)Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 9 of 79The remaining three assailants i.e. J-2, Neeraj @ Karan and Vikas were arrested on 30th March 2009 under Sections 41(1) of the Cr.P.C. and were presented before the learned MM, on 02nd April 2009 and formally arrested.The said three accused refused to undergo TIP; however, they were correctly identified, in the E.D. lock up by Mool Chand (PW-4), when he had come to the Karkardooma, Distt.A statement of Mool Chand, to the said effect, was recorded.He further identified them in the Court during trial, as would be clear from the recitals hereinafter.On information given by Neeraj and J-2, in their disclosure statements recorded on 2nd April 2009, the dagger and knife used in the crime,were found hidden in the ground (soil) behind the veterinary hospital at Ghazipur, and seized on 5th April 2009 (Ex. PW-13/J).Subsequently, J-2 and Neeraj were first remanded to police custody, whereafter they were presented before the learned MM who remanded them to judicial custody.On 08th May 2009, a subsequent opinion (Ex. PW-7/C) was obtained from Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW-7), to the effect that the injury Crl.She also clarified that, as she had stated, in the MLC, that Mool Chand was conscious and oriented, he was, consequently, also fit to give his statement.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 11 of 79(ii) PW-3, HC Hoshiyar Singh, who was working as Duty Officer from 8 AM to 4PM at PS Kalyanpuri on 16th March 2009, deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 16th March 2010, regarding receipt of information, from the PCR at 2.41 PM on the said date and regarding the events that transpired thereafter.Nothing substantial was elicited in his cross examination.(iii) PW-4, Mool Chand deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 16th March 2010, that (a) on 16th March, 2009, Jitender and he had left his house for Ghazipur dairy farm, to purchase a cow, (b) he was carrying Rs. 3000/-, and Jitender was carrying Rs. 7000/-, (c) they were also carrying mobile phones, his being a Nokia 1650 phone with a safety thread, and Jitender's a Nokia 3500 phone, (d) while walking towards Ghazipur Diary Farm, via Khattewala Road, at about 2 PM, two persons came Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 12 of 79 out from behind the wall of the Nallah towards the Shamshan Ghat side, carrying knives, (e) one caught hold of Jitender and the other inflicted knife blows on his person, (f) they were both present in the court that day, and he could identify both of them,(g) in the meanwhile, three more boys came from behind; one of them caught hold of him and the other boy stabbed him, but he caught his hand and, in the process, sustained an injury on his left thigh, (h) the fifth boy, tookout money from the pocket of Jitender, (i) the accused persons asked them to hand over all their belongings, and attacked them when they resisted, (j) Jitender and he started bleeding, owing to the injuries sustained by them, (k) the accused persons stole their cash and their mobile phones and ran away, (l) he, thereafter, lifted Jitender and took him towards the main road, where, using the mobile phone of the store keeper at the Shamshan Ghat, he dialed 100,(m) the Police, thereupon, arrived and took them to hospital, (n) Jitender was declared brought dead, whereas he was given treatment, (o) his statement was recorded by the Police, and exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A, (p) from the hospital, the police brought him to the spot of occurrence, where the crime team took photographs, (q) at the spot, the safety thread of his mobile phone, and one key ring of Jitender, were found, (r) sample soil, with blood stains, was also seized by the I/O from the spot, (s) his, i.e. Mool Chand's bloodstained clothes were also seized and another pair of clothes given to him for wearing, (t) he had initially told the police that there were four assailants, but later Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 13 of 79 told them that there were five, (u) he participated in the search for the accused persons, but in vain, (v) the IO recorded the statement and prepared site plan, at his instance, on the spot, and (w) on 26th March 2009, he participated, with the IO, in judicial TIP, in which he identified J-1 and Sonu.During his further examination-in-chief, on 10th May, 2010, PW-4 proved the TIP proceedings relating to J-1 and to Sonu, which were exhibited as Ex PW-4/D and PW-4/E respectively.He further testified that, on 4th April, 2009, he had seen the remaining three accused at Karkardooma Court and that he had informed the IO, whom he met on the ground floor, of the said fact.He correctly identified Neeraj and Vikas, who were present in court.He further identified the two Nokia phones allegedly stolen by the accused as well as the key ring stated to belong to deceased Jitender.He also identified the clothes that he had been wearing, which were also exhibited.(Ex. PW-4/B)Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 13 of 79(iv) In his cross examination, which took place on 10th May 2010, PW-4 Mool Chand deposed that his first statement was recorded by the police on 16th March 2009 at the spot of occurrence.A suggestion was put, to him, that his statement, which was dated 16th March 2009, was actually recorded on 17th March, 2009, for Crl.Relying on the said suggestion, it was further suggested that, he i.e. Mool Chand had not, in fact, witnessed any incident on 16 th March, 2009 at all.While accepting the fact of over writing of the figure 6 by 7 in the third line of his statement, PW-4 Mool Chand categorically denied the suggestion that his Section 161 statement had, in fact, been recorded on 17th March, 2009 and deliberately ante-dated.He also attributed the fact of having initially referred to four assailants and, later, to five assailants, to fear and nervousness while making the initial statement (Ex.PW-4/A).He reiterated the fact that inquiries had been made, from him, by Insp.In cross examination, by counsel for Neeraj, Brijesh Tiwari (PW-6) stated that it was the unknown person, who had come for his help, who had talked to the PCR, using his, i.e. Brijesh's phone, and not Brijesh himself.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 15 of 79(vi) PW-7, Dr. Arvind Kumar, who had signed the post mortem report of the deceased Jitender, proved, in his examination-in-chief on 20th July 2010, his post mortem report.The relevant portion of his examination-in-chief may be reproduced as under:On dated 16.03.2009, I was posted as Junior Specialist at LBS Hospital, Khichripur.Direction of the wound was inward, upward and backward, entered the right chest cavity after cutting third and fourth ribs at costo- condral junction.Right chest cavity was full of blood and blood clots.Bronchus, pulmonary vessels of right side were cut at hilum.Nick was present over descending arota.Total depth of the wound was 10.3 cm, right lung was collapsed.Extravasation of blood was present in soft tissue around hilum, right side and around discendingarota.Left lung was pale.At lower lobe of right lung through and through wound was present.(vii) In cross examination, PW-7 stated that the body had been given to him for post mortem at 10.50 A.M. He denied the suggestion that the injury suffered by him was not sufficient to cause death.(viii) PW-8, Suraj Pal, purportedly an eye witness to the incident, stated, in his examination-in-chief on 30th September 2010 that (a) on 13th March, 2009 at about 1:45 PM, he had seen five persons at the road near the Khatta robbing two other persons, (b) one of the robbers had a knife in his hand, and (c) two of the robbers had apprehended the two persons who were being robbed, whereas the other two were conducting their search.He stated that he had, thereafter left the spot out of fear, and had not seen the robbers inflicting knife injuries on the two victims.In his further cross examination by counsel for Sonu and the present appellant, Suraj Pal stated he had seen the incident of robbery from his motorcycle while driving at 25 to 30 kmph.He also denied having made any call to the PCR, from the telephone available at the house of his friend Ravi, whom he had gone to visit.He further deposed that Mool Chand's statement was not recorded in his presence.(x) Suraj Pal was re-examined by the learned APP, who confronted him with his contradictory depositions on the issue of identification of the accused persons.It was pointed out, to Suraj Pal, that, during his cross-examination by the learned APP, he had correctly identified all the accused persons, explaining that he had been unable to do so during his Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 20 of 79 examination-in-chief owing to the presence of a crowd in the Court, whereas, in his cross-examination by counsel for accused, he had stated that he was not in a position to identify the accused.He was, therefore, requested to clarify which of his statements were correct.He stood by the statement made by him during his cross-examination by defence counsel, to the effect that he could not identify the accused persons.He sought to justify his earlier statement, to the learned APP, that he had managed to identify them, by saying that his eyesight was weak, and he could not, therefore, see the persons properly.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 20 of 79(xii) PW-13, Constable Yogender Kumar, in his examination- in-chief conducted on 07th July 2011, deposed that the deceased Jitender had an injury in the middle of his chest, caused by a sharp edged weapon, as well as blood stains on his pant.PW- 13 was recalled, for further examination-in-chief, on 25th August 2011, when he deposed regarding the recording of disclosure statement of J-1 and of the interception and arrest of Crl.Further examination-in-chief of PW-13 was conducted on 12th April, 2012, when he testified to the recovery of a mobile phone from Sonu, and to the recording of his disclosure statement, as well as his confession, on being confronted with J-1, that the mobile phone recovered from him was one of the two mobile phones that had been stolen, by him, along with Neeraj, J-1 and J-2, three to four days earlier, after the incident of stabbing.He also deposed that, on 5thApril 2009, he, along with HC Rajesh (PW-Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 21 of 7929) and Ct Amrik (PW-25) went, to the spot of occurrence, with Neeraj and J-2, who pointed out the place of incident, vide Memos exhibited as Ex PW-13/G and Ex PW-13/H. He also deposed that, thereafter, Neeraj and J-2 took them to the spot where they had dumped the chopper and knife, from where Neeraj recovered the said weapons, stating that they were the weapons of offence.He stated that sketches of the two weapons had been made (exhibited as Ex. PW-13/I and Ex. PW-13/K), and that they were seized vide Seizure Memos exhibited as Ex PW-13/J and Ex PW-13/L. He also deposed that his own statement had been recorded by the IO, and that Neeraj, Sonu and Vikas were present in the court.He also deposed, inter alia, that there was a long cut of two/ three inches on the shirt of the deceased Jitender.(xiv) In his further cross-examination on 01st March 2013, PW- 13 Yogender Kumar clarified that Brijesh Tiwari (PW-6) had met them at 3 PM, and that his statement had not been recorded by the IO (i.e. PW-13's) in his presence.He further reiterated the fact that the deceased Jitender, as well as Mool Chand (PW-4) had one injury each, the former having been injured on his chest.The suggestion that Sonu and J-1 had not made any disclosure statements was denied.He also deposed that the chopper had a sharp blade on one side, and that no fingerprints had been taken from the knife or from the chopper.The suggestion that the knife and chopper were planted on Neeraj and J-2 was denied.(xv) PW-15, HC Shri Bhagwan, deposed, in his examination- in-chief, on 7th July 2011, that, on the night between 18th and 19th March, 2009, he had been informed, regarding the aforementioned incident, by Insp.Mahender Kumar (PW-31), HC Rajesh Kumar (PW-29) and Ct.He correctly identified Sonu, who was present in the court.(xvi) In cross examination, PW-15 HC Shri Bhagwan confirmed that the disclosure statement of Sonu had been recorded at about 5 AM.(xvii) PW-16, Ms. Sunaina Sharma, learned MM, was examined, in chief, on 8th December, 2011, when she confirmed having conducted the TIP of Sonu and J-1 on 26th March 2009, and to their having been correctly identified by the witnesses.She was not cross-examined.(xviii) PW-17, V.K.Gulia, learned MM, was also examined, in chief, on 8th December, 2011, when he confirmed the statements, explanations, refusals, etc. which were exhibited.He was not cross-examined.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 24 of 79(xix) PW-18, ASI Ram Tirath was examined, in chief, on 27th February 2012, when he confirmed the apprehending of Neeraj, J-2 and Vikas on 30th March, 2009 under Section 41(1) of the Cr.PC., their interrogation, and the recording of disclosure statements made by them.He also stated that Neeraj and Vikas had been correctly identified by the witness in the court.(xxi) PW-20, Ct.He confirmed having gone to the Shamshan Ghat at about 3 PM on 16 March 2009, having met Brijesh Tiwari (PW-6) there, as well as to having been informed, by Brijesh Tiwari, regarding the incident of stabbing and the subsequent taking away, by the Police, of the victim, to the hospital.He further deposed regarding the subsequent events that transpired in the hospital, already referred to hereinabove.He further stated that Insp.Mahender Kumar (PW-31) had recorded the statement of Mool Chand (PW-4) and that, after preparing Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 25 of 79 rukka, he was sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR.He stated that, on reaching the police station, he handed over the rukka to HC Basti Ram (PW-2), who made enquiries and got the FIR registered.He stated that, thereafter, he returned to the spot of occurrence with the FIR, which he handed over to Insp.Mahender Kumar (PW-31), and that, thereafter, photographs were taken, samples resumed etc. He confirmed that his statement had, thereafter, been recorded by the IO, and further stated that, later, on 2nd April, 2009, Neeraj, J-2 and Vikas had been produced before the learned MM, Karkardooma, where they were interrogated and arrested, and their disclosure statements recorded.In his further examination- in-chief, on 1st March 2013, PW-20, Ct.Mohd. Javed, identified the bunch of keys which had been seized from the spot of occurrence (exhibited as Ex P-4/C collectively), the clothes of Mool Chand (PW-4) (exhibited as Ex. P-4/B), the safety thread of the mobile phone of Mool Chand, and the blood stained earth recovered from the spot of occurrence.Nothing substantial was elicited, from him, in cross examination.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 25 of 79(xxii) PW-21, Insp.Narender Singh, in his examination-in- chief on 25th March 2013, confirmed that, on 30th March 2009, he, along with ASI Ram Tirath (PW-18) and Ct.Gajender, had apprehended and interrogated three boys, who confessed to having committed robbery, at Kalyan Puri, on 16th March 2009 and that, on enquiry, it was revealed that they were wanted in Crl.He further stated that he arrested the accused under Section 41(1) of the Cr.P.C. and recorded their disclosure statements, which were exhibited as Ex. PW-23/A to C. He further stated that the said accused had been produced, before the learned MM, on the next date, i.e. 31st March, 2009 and that, on 1stApril 2009, Insp.Mahender Singh (PW-31) had recorded his statement.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 26 of 79(xxiii) In cross-examination, PW-21 confirmed that personal search of J-2, Neeraj and Vikas was conducted on the spot on 1st April 2009, but that nothing was recovered therefrom.He also confirmed that their disclosure statements were recorded on the spot.(xxiv) PW-23, Ct.He confirmed that, on 30th March 2009, he, alongwith SI Narender Kumar (PW-21) and ASI Ram Tirath and Ct.Gajender had over powered three boys who, on enquiry, disclosed their names to be Neeraj, J-2 and Vikas.He correctly identified Neeraj and Vikas, who were present in court.He further confirmed that, on inquiry, the said three accused had disclosed the incident of robbery and stabbing, on 16th March 2009, in the process whereof they had looted Mool Chand (PW-4) and the deceased Jitender.He further confirmed that, on enquiry, it had been ascertained that FIR No. 51/09 u/s 302/307/397/396 IPC was already registered against the said Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 27 of 79 accused at PS Kalyanpuri and that SI Narender (PW21) arrested the three accused u/s 41(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. He also confirmed that, on inquiry, the accused confessed their guilt, and gave disclosure statements, as already stated hereinabove.Yogender (PW-13), who were led, by Neeraj and J-2, to the place of occurrence of the crime, as well as to the place where the weapons had been hidden.He confirmed that the chopper had a handle 12.5cms long and was itself 41 cms in length and 28.5cms in width, with the blade itself being 6.3cms wide.Similarly, the length of the knife was confirmed as 30 Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 28 of 79 cms, with blade 19.5 cms, and handle 10.5 cms in length.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 28 of 79(xxvii) PW-26, HC Sherpal Singh, PW-27 Ct. Jitender and PW-28 Ct.Nothing further, of substance, emerges from their depositions.He confirmed having proceeded, with Inspector Mahender Kumar (PW-31), Ct.Javed (PW-20) and Ct.Yogender (PW13), on 16th March 2009, to the store at the Shamshan Ghat and to having met the store keeper Brijesh Tiwari (PW-6), who informed them that the injured assaulted persons had been taken to hospital in the PCR van.He also recited the happenings at the hospital, consequent to their reaching there, being handed over the MLC by SI Harpal Singh (PW-12), and described the particulars of the injuries suffered by the deceased Jitender and Mool Chand, as well as the clothes worn by them.He also went on to refer to their having proceeded back to the site of occurrence with Mool Chand, Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 29 of 79 recovery of the mobile safety thread and bunch of keys therefrom, as also to the recording of the statement of Mool Chand by the IO, who thereafter, prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct.Javed and proceeded to the Police Station for getting the case registered.He referred to the seizure of the items found there, along with the clothes of Mool Chand, as also to having met Suraj Pal and the recording of his statement by the IO.Recording of the supplementary statement of Mool Chand, by the IO, on the next morning, was also referred to by him.He also went on to depose regarding the proceedings on 17th and 18th March 2009, which have already been described hereinabove.(xxix) PW-31, Insp.To the extent it is relevant, PW-31 stated, in examination-in-chief, which took place on 05th May 2015 and Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 30 of 79 06th June 2015 that (a) on 16th March 2009, he had gone, with HC Rajesh (PW-29), Ct.Javed (PW-20) and Ct.Yogender (PW-13) to the Shamshan Ghat, Gazipur where the store keeper Brijesh Tiwari (PW-6), informed them regarding the injuries that had been inflicted on Jitender and Mool Chand and the fact that they had been taken to hospital, by the PCR, (b) in the hospital, he met SI Harpal who handed him the MLC of the deceased Jitender and Mool Chand as also a parcel containing blood stained clothes of Jitender, (c) he, thereafter, inspected the dead body of Jitender and found a stab wound on his chest,Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 30 of 79(d) he proceeded, later, with Mool Chand, and his staff to the Shamshan Ghat, Ghazipur, from where a mobile safety strip, bunch of keys and blood stained earth were recovered, (e) he, thereafter, recorded the statement of Mool Chand on the basis whereof, he prepared rukka (Ex. PW31/B), which was sent, through Ct.Javed (PW-20) to the police station for registration of FIR, (f) after registration of the case, Ct.Javed (PW-20) returned to the spot with the computerized copy of the FIR (Ex PW2/A), (g) the clothes worn by Mool Chand were also taken into custody and sealed, (h) in the meantime, Suraj Pal came there on a motorcycle and informed that he was an eye witness to the incident, whereafter his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC was recorded by him, i.e. Insp.Mahender Singh, (i) as Suraj Pal disclosed that there were five assailants, Sections 396/397 IPC were added in the case, (j) the case property/exhibits were later deposited with MHC(M), (k) on the Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 31 of 79 next date i.e. 17th March 2009, he went to the mortuary of LBS hospital where he prepared the inquest papers and got the dead body of Jitender identified by his relatives, (l) the postmortem of the dead body was conducted, (m) on the next date i.e. 18 th March 2009, acting on secret information, he, along with his staff, reached near the toilet block at Kalyanpuri, where they apprehended one person, who was revealed to be J-1, from whom one Nokia 3500 was recovered, (n) (J-1 confessed that he had murdered Jitender and injured Mool Chand with the help of Sonu, J-2, Neeraj and Vikas), (o) J-1 was thereafter arrested by him and his personal search was conducted, (p) disclosure statement of J-1 (Ex.PW-13/D) was recorded, (q) on the basis of information given by J-1 in his disclosure statement, he along with HC Shri Bhagwan (PW-15) went to Kondli Village, and thereafter, to Noida, where they apprehended Sonu and interrogated him, (r) one Nokia 1650 mobile phone was recovered from Sonu, who was arrested by him (i.e. Insp.Mahender Kumar), (s) Sonu confessed to having murdered Jitender and injured Mool Chand with his associates, (t) a detailed disclosure statement of Sonu, (Ex.Mahender Kumar (PW-31) stated that he had recorded the statement of Mool Chand (PW-4) at the spot of occurrence and had written the rukka by 4 PM, and that he had also recorded the statement of Suraj Pal (PW- 8), at about 6 PM.He denied the suggestion that J-1and Sonu did not make any disclosure statements, or that their signatures had been obtained on blank papers.He reiterated the fact that, on 02nd April 2009, disclosure statements of J-2, Neeraj and Vikas Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 34 of 79 were recorded by SI Harpal Singh (PW-12) after making their formal arrest, and he further stated, in cross-examination, that he had taken out the knife from under the ground at the instance of the accused persons.He also accepted that he had no proof to show that, on 16th March 2009 at 2 PM, Vikas was in Aligarh.In his further cross-examination on 29th March 2006, DW-1 Om Prakash produced the invitation card and photographs pertaining to the marriage of Vikas with his daughter Amita, and denied the suggestion that they were fabricated.He reiterated that he had no documentary proof of the presence of Vikas at Aligarh on 16th March 2009 at 2 PM.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 35 of 79DW-2 Vinod Kumar, who was cited by Neeraj as his defence witness, stated, in his examination-in-chief on 09th March 2006, that he was the neighbor of Neeraj and that he had been falsely implicated in the matter.The robbery of Jitender and Mool Chand, and the killing of Jitender, in the course thereof, by Neeraj, also stand established by the discovery of the safety thread of the mobile phone, which belonged to Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 49 of 79 Mool Chand (PW-4), and key ring belonging to deceased Jitender, found at the spot of occurrence which had blood marks on them, which stand proved by the Seizure Memo, dated 16 th March 2009 (Ex PW-4/C) read with the evidence of Inspector Rajesh (PW-11), Ct.Though it is true that PW-6 Brijesh Tiwari later turned hostile, during the recording of his evidence before the learned ASJ, and stated that he had never given the statement on 16th April, 2009, no credence, in our opinion, can be given to the said resiling, by PW-6, in view of the fact that the recording, of his statement, by the IO (PW-31) was vouchsafed by Ct.Yogender Kumar (PW-13) (in his cross-examination on 4th October 2013), and in the examination-in-chief of SI Harpal Singh (PW-12) on 7th March 2011, Ct.Mohd. Javed (PW-20) on 16th July 2012 and HC Rajesh (PW-29) on 14th January 2015 respectively.The post mortem report (Ex. PW7/A) prepared by Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW-7), clearly recorded the presence, on deceased Jitender's body, of a deep incised stab wound of 6.6x0.4 cms, over the right side of his chest, read with the subsequent opinion dated 08th May 2009 (Ex.PW-7/C), obtained from Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW-7), which clarified that the knife seized Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 50 of 79 from Neeraj could have caused the said injury.The mobile phones stolen from Jitender and Mool Chand were subsequently recovered from J-1 (vide Seizure Memo dated 18th March 2009 exhibited as Ex PW-13/B) and from Sonu (vide Seizure Memo dated 19th March 2009 exhibited as Ex PW-15/C) respectively.The said seizures/recoveries were proved by Ct.Yogender Kumar (PW-13), HC Shri Bhagwan (PW-15) and Ct.These depositions, too, could not be disturbed in cross-examination.The fact of Sonu having made a disclosure statement, exhibited as Ex PW-15/E, was also confirmed by PW-15 HC Shri Bhagwan who, in cross examination, further clarified that the said statement had been recorded at about 5 AM.The apprehending of Neeraj, J-2 and Vikas, on 30th March 2009, their interrogation, and the disclosure statements made by them, was also confirmed by PW-18 ASI Ram Tirath and PW-20 Ct.Mohd. Javed, in their examinations-in-chief on 27th February 2012 and 16th July 2012 respectively.The suggestion, to the contrary, made to them in cross-He further confirmed having obtained the subsequent opinion from Dr. Arvind Kumar, pursuant to collection of the post mortem report.The above material, read with the factors taken into account by the learned ASJ and enumerated in para 34 ibid, in our view, are more than sufficient to establish the fact that, on 16th March 2009, Jitender and Mool Chand were ambushed by Neeraj, Sonu, Vikas and the two juveniles, and robbed of their mobile phones and the cash contained in their pockets, in the course of which Mool Chand sustained a simple injury on his thigh and Jitender lost his life.Intimation be sent to Superintendent Jail.C. HARI SHANKAR (JUDGE) S.P. GARG (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 19th 2018 neelam Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 79 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 79 of 79(i) Neeraj was convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34, Section 307 read with Section 34, Section 396 and Section 397 of the IPC.He was sentenced, (a) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/, with default sentence of one year RI, under Section (u/s) 307 r/w 34 IPC and (b) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/, with default sentence of one year RI, u/s 396 r/w 397 IPC.The appellants have moved this court, by way of appeals, against the judgment, dated 16th July 2016, and sentence order dated 27th July 2016, of the learned ASJ.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 5 of 79As the aforementioned facts, and the statement of Mool Chand (PW-4), disclosed commission of offences under Sections 302, 307, 397 and 394 read with Section 34 IPC, Inspector Mahender Kumar (PW-31) reached the police station with Constable Javed (PW-20) where an FIR (Ex. PW-2/A) was registered under the said provisions.Site plan (Ex. PW-19/A) was prepared, and photographs, of the spot of occurrence, were taken.A mobile safety thread, and a key ring, found at the spot, were seized vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex. PW-4/C.He vouchsafed the version of the incident as explained by Mool Chand (PW-4) in his Section 161 statement except for the fact that he referred to five assailants, not four.The statement of Suraj Pal may be loosely translated, from the vernacular, as under:I state that I have given the above address and am in private service.Today i.e. on 16.3.09, at about 2 PM, when I was riding my motorcycle, on the way to visit my friend's house in Kheda Colony, on the road behind Gazipur Khatta, I saw, near the Khatta, 5 boys, about 20 to 25 years of age, wheatish in complexion and of medium height, belabouring two men.Three boys had surrounded and held the said two men from the rear and the remaining two boys attacked them with knives from the front.I accelerated my motorcycle and fled from there in fear.I did not find any policeman, or police vehicle, on the way; therefore, I was unable to inform the police.Now, when I was returning, I saw you.I stopped and asked you, and learnt, from you, that one of the two men who had been stabbed had died.I then told you that I had seen the incident with my own eyes and could identify all the five boys if they were brought before me.You questioned me and took my statement.The post-mortem report, prepared by Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW-7), Jr. Specialist, Department of Forensic Medicine, LBS Hospital, reads thus:Alleged H/O stab injury on 16/3/09 for which he was taken to LBS Hospital where he was declared brought dead vide MLC No. 1647/09 dated 16/3/09 at 3:00 p.m. VI.Tattoo mark J.S. Tomar' present over right forearm.Blood stain present over clothes.Clothes are removed and preserved.EXTERNAL EXAMINATION Incised stab wound flesh, of size 6.6cm x 0.4 cm and cavity deep present over right side of chest, obliquely placed.Upper angle of wound is acute and lower angle is blunt.Upper angle is 4 cm away from midline while lower angle is 1 cm away from midline.Wound is 9cm below clavicle.Direction of wound is inward, upward, and backward.Entered the right chest cavity after cutting third and fourth ribs at Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 8 of 79 costochondral junction.The right chest cavity full of blood and blood clots.At bronchus, pulmonary vessels, of right side are cut at hilum.Nick present over descending aorta.Total depth of wound is about 10.3 cm.right lung collapsed.Court on 4th April 2009, for some other work.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 10 of 79 on the chest of deceased Jitender could have been caused by the knife seized from Neeraj.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 10 of 79The charge sheet concluded by stating that J-1 and J-2, being juveniles, were being separately proceeded against, before the learned Juvenile Justice Board-II, and the charge sheet, in respect of the other three accused in the crime, viz. Neeraj, Sonu and Vikas, was being filed before the learned MM.Consequent to filing thereof, copies of the charge sheet were supplied, by the learned MM, to the appellants.Thereafter, after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Vide order dated 09th October 2009, the learned ASJ framed charges against Neeraj, Sonu and Vikas under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 397/34 and 412/34 of the IPC.The prosecution examined 32 witnesses (PWs).The evidence of the relevant witnesses may be briefly dealt with as under:(i) PW-1, Dr. Shalini Gupta, CMO, LBS Hospital, deposed, in her examination-in-chief, on 30th November 2009, that, on 16th March 2009, she had examined the body of Jitender as well Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 11 of 79 as Mool Chand.She stated that, while Jitender was brought dead, Mool Chand was referred to SR Surgery for further treatment.' In cross examination, she acknowledged that she had prepared the MLCs of deceased Jitender and that of the Mool Chand (PW-4), exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B respectively, and that she had mentioned simple blunt on the MLC of Mool Chand because his wounds were lacerated.(v) PW-6, Brijesh Tiwari, when examined, in chief, on 06th April 2010, deposed that, (a) about a year back at 2.30 to 3.00 P.M, one person wearing blood stained clothes had come to him and asked him for help, stating that some persons had snatched money from his brother, (b) he asked him for his mobile phone so that he could call 100, (c) he i.e. Brijesh Tiwari, handed over his mobile phone to the said person, who dialed 100, (d) the police team came to the shop, talked to that person and took them to the hospital and (e) his i.e. Brijesh Tiwari's statement were recorded by the police.In cross examination, Brijesh Tiwari (PW-6) denied having made the statement, dated 16th Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 15 of 79 March 2009, marked X-1' and referred to in para 10 (ibid).He denied the suggestion that he had changed his story, to one person instead of two persons, deliberately in order to give benefit to the accused and that he was intentionally suppressing the fact of involvement of two persons.On that day, Insp.Mahender Kumar of PS Kalyanpuri gave me request to conduct postmortem on the body of Jitender Kumar s/o Sh.Kunwar Pal Singh, 25 years old, male with alleged history of stab injury.On general observation, I found a dead body of a young adult male wearing pant, underwear, pair of socks and shoes.Rigor mortis was present all over the body.Hypostasis was present over the back and fixed.On external examination, I found a incised stab wound fresh size 6.6 cm x 0.4 cm x cavity deep was present over right side of chest, obliquely placed.Upper angle of the wound was acute and lower angle Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 16 of 79 was blunt.Upper angle was 4 cm away from midline while lower one was 1 cm away from midline.Wound was 9 cm below clavicle.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 16 of 79On internal examination, internal visceral organs were pale.Injuries over lungs as described above.After postmortem examination, I opined that time since death was about 18-24 hours and cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injury to right lung and its vessels produced by single edged sharp cutting/stabbing.The postmortem report is in my hand which is Ex.PW7/A bearing my signature at point A.On dated 06.05.2009, an application for subsequent opinion in above said case along with a sealed parcel was given to me by Insp.Mahender Kumar of PS Kalyanpuri.On 08.05.2009, I examined the sealed parcel which was containing one knife having wooden handle.One edge of knife was sharp and other was blunt.Blade of knife was 28.6 cm long and knife was heavy.At 10.3 cm length of blade, width at point was 6.2 cm.The diagram and description of the weapon was prepared on separate sheet which is Ex.PW7/B bearing my signature at point A. After going through postmortem report and examination of weapon, I opined that injury no. 1 present in my PM report Ex.PW7/A could be caused by weapon Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 17 of 79 under examination (knife).The subsequent opinion is in my hand which is Ex.PW7/C bearing my signature at point A.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 17 of 79He testified to having been informed of the death of Jitender, by the police, on his way back and, thereupon, having described the incident to them.According to him, the robbers were of wheatish complexion, aged 20 to 25 years.One of Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 18 of 79 them was heavily built whereas the remaining 3-4 were thin.On being shown the accused, who were present in the Court, Suraj Pal asserted, twice, that none of the robbers, whom he had seen on 13th March, 2009 was present in the Court.In view of the fact that he appeared to be resiling from his earlier statement, the learned APP for the State requested for permission to cross examine Suraj Pal, which was allowed.Despite having been shown his statement, allegedly recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 5th April 2009, he denied having stated that two of the robbers had inflicted knife blows on the two persons being robbed.On a suggestion being put, to him, that the accused person standing in the dock was Neeraj, and was the same person whom he had identified on 5th April 2009 in the Police Station, he immediately answered in the affirmative and then volunteered that he could not pay attention towards the accused as there was a crowd in the court and another matter was being heard.Similarly, he identified the other two accused persons standing in the dock as Sonu and the Vikas, who had committed the alleged offence with Neeraj, and stated that he had not been able to identify them earlier due to the presence of a crowd in the court.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 18 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 19 of 79He further stated that he had witnessed the incident of robbery on 16th March 2009, from a distance of half a kilometer.He also stated that, on the said date, the statement of Mool Chand (PW-4) was recorded first and his statement was recorded later by Insp.Mahender Kumar (PW-31).In his further cross-examination by defence counsel, PW-8 Suraj Pal again stated, that on that date, he could not identify all the accused persons.The suggestion, that he had identified the accused during cross- examination by the APP without understanding the question, was denied.(xiii) PW-13 was further recalled for examination-in-chief on 4th October 2012, when he identified the mobile phones recovered from J-1 and Sonu, as well as the chopper and knife recovered at the instance of Neeraj and J-2 when they were Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 22 of 79 exhibited.Yogender (PW-13), and had joined the investigation with them.He also testified to their having apprehended Sonu, at the instance of J-1, and to the recovery of the Nokia 1650 mobile phone from Sonu and to his subsequent arrest vide arrest memo exhibited as Ex.PW-15/A Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 23 of 79 read with the deposition of Ct.Yogender Kumar (PW-13) in his cross examination and the examination-in-chief of Head Constable Shri Bagwan (PW-15), testifying to such arrest.The seizure memo of the mobile recovered from Sonu was exhibited as Ex. PW-15/C. He further stated that Sonu had made a disclosure statement, which was exhibited as Ex PW-15/E read with examination in chief of HC Shri Bagwan (PW-15), who testified to the making of the statement.In cross- examination, he confirmed that the disclosure statements of the said accused had been recorded at PS Majnu Ka Tila.The suggestion that the accused had not made any disclosure statements was denied.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 27 of 79(xxv) PW-24, Ct.Pradeep Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, conducted on 13th January 2015, confirmed having deposited the sealed samples in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Rohini and handed over the receipt of acknowledgment, thereof, to the MHC (M).(xxvi) PW-25, Ct.Amrik Singh, during his examination-in- chief, on 13th January 2015, confirmed that he joined the inspection alongwith Insp.Mahender Singh (PW-31), HC Rajesh (PW-29) and Ct.The width of the blade of the knife was stated to be 4.8cms.In cross-examination by the learned amicus curiae, PW-25 clarified that blood was visible on the chopper and knife, which were rusted.He also referred to the arrest of J-1 and Sonu and the disclosure statements given by them.He went on to refer to the proceedings on 02nd April 2009 at the Karkardooma Court, where Neeraj, J-1 and Vikas were produced before the learned MM and were formally arrested by him.He referred to their disclosure statements as well as to the identification of the items of offence and other items seized from the spot of occurrence.In cross-examination by learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused, he confirmed the above facts, including the recording of statements of J-2 and Sonu.PW-15/E) was recorded by him, (u) on 23rd March 2009, he moved an application before the learned MM for fixing the date of TIP whereon the learned MM fixed the date for TIP proceedings as 26th March 2009, (v) on the said date, Mool Chand correctly identified J-1 and Sonu, which was recorded in the TIP proceedings, (w) on 31st March 2009, he received information Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 32 of 79 that Neeraj, J-2 and Vikas had been arrested under Section 41(1)(a) Cr.PC., by PS Civil Lines, (x) he, thereafter, moved an application for production warrants of the said three accused persons in the concerned Court where they were produced, (y) on 02nd April 2009, J-2, Neeraj and Vikas were produced before the learned MM Karkardooma Court, (z) SI Harpal Singh (PW-Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 31 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 32 of 7912), attended the Court on the said date, along with HC Rajesh (PW-29) and Ct.Javed (PW-20), (aa) SI Harpal (PW12) interrogated and arrested J-2, Neeraj and Vikas, (ab) their disclosure statements were recorded and they were remanded to JC, (ac) on his (i.e. Mahender Singh's) application, the said three accused were later remanded to JC, (ad) on the next date i.e. 05th April 2009, J-2 and Neeraj led him, along with HC Rajesh (PW-29), Ct.Yogender (PW-13) and Ct.Amrik Singh (PW-25) to the place of incident, as well as the place where the weapons of offence were concealed, (ae) from the said spot, one chopper of length 41 cms with blade length 28.5 cms and one knife of length 31 cms with blade length 19.5 cms and handle 10.5 cms, were recovered and sketches made thereof, (af) statements of the witnesses were recorded by him, (ag) on the next date, the said two accused persons i.e. Neeraj and J-2 were remanded to JC by the concerned Court, (ah) though the date of TIP was fixed for Neeraj, J-2 and Vikas, they refused to participate therein, (ai) during investigation, he collected the post mortem report and relevant medical papers including the MLC of deceased Jitender and Mool Chand, (aj) on the basis of Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 33 of 79 the application (Ex. PW-31/M), moved by him, a subsequent opinion was obtained from the autopsy surgeon after examining the weapon of offence, which was exhibited as Ex. PW7/C, (ak) subsequently, the charge sheets of J-1 and J-2 were prepared and submitted before the learned Juvenile Court, (al) the sealed samples were sent on 25th May 2009 by the MHC(M) to the FSL Rohini, (am) after recording of statements of the witnesses and completion of investigation, challan was prepared and filed, (an) the FSL report and serological report, both dated 29 th October 2009, were exhibited as Ex. PW31/N and Ex PW31/O, (ao) he correctly' identified Sonu and Neeraj who were present in the Court, (ap) he also identified the key bunch, mobile threads, mobile phone, clothes worn by Mool Chand and earth and road material recovered from the site of occurrence of the crime, from the samples, as returned by the FSL, and (aq) the chopper and the knife were identified by him as being the ones which were recovered Neeraj and J-2 respectively.(xxx) In his cross-examination by learned amicus curiae on 08th September 2015, Insp.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 33 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 34 of 79All the five accused i.e. Neeraj, Sonu, the two juveniles and Vikas, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., either baldly denied all allegations put to them, or professed complete ignorance.Three defence witnesses, i.e. Om Prakash (DW-1), Vinod Kumar (DW-2) and Smt. Angoori (DW-3) were cited by Vikas, Neeraj and Sonu respectively.He asserted that Vikas had been falsely implicated in this matter.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 35 of 79 said fact for the first time before the learned ASJ.In his cross-examination by learned APP, he admitted that he did not know the whereabouts of Neeraj at 2 PM on 16 th March 2009, and that he had not made any complaint to the authorities regarding the false implication of Neeraj, which he was alleging, for the first time, before the learned ASJ.DW-3 Smt. Angoori, who was cited by Sonu as his defence witness, stated,in her examination-in-chief on 09th March 2016, that she was the mother of Sonu and that her son had been lifted by the police authorities at about 9 PM on 17th March 2016, and that he had been falsely implicated.In cross-examination by learned APP, she admitted that she had not made any complaint to any authority regarding the alleged false implication of her son and had only visited Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 36 of 79 the Police Station.She asserted that, on 16th March 2009 at 2 PM, Sonu was with her at her house preparing for the function to be held at the house, of her daughter, and that it was wrong to suggest that he was, at the said time and date, present at the main road behind Gazipur, or that he had committed any offence of robbery or murder.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 36 of 79The disclosure statements of the accused were recorded twice, first by PW-21 Insp.The fact of the said disclosure statements having been given by Neeraj and Vikas was also confirmed from PW-23 Ct.Hemender, in the course of recording of his evidence during trial.Further, PW-31 Insp.Mahender Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that, acting on secret information, he managed to trace J-1 and recover the Nokia 3500 mobile phone, belonging to the deceased Jitender, from him, and thereafter, on the basis of information provided by J-1, to have been able to trace and apprehend Sonu, from whom he recovered the Nokia 1650 mobile phone belonging to Mool Chand.On 5th April, 2009, acting on the information received by the accused, Inspector Mahender Kumar (PW-31), led by Neeraj and J-2 had, along with HC Rajesh (PW-29), Ct.Yogender (PW13) and Ct.Amrik Singh (PW-25) went to the place of incident, as well as the place where the weapons of offence were concealed, and, from the said site, the weapons of offence were actually recovered (Ex.PW- 13/L) Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 37 of 79 Submissions made before the learned ASJ and the impugned judgmentCrl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 37 of 79Before the learned ASJ, learned APP, appearing for the prosecution, relied entirely on the testimony of PW-4 Mool Chand which, he argued, was completely reliable and concluded the case against the accused.In Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 38 of 79 the circumstances, the learned amicus curiae submitted, before the learned ASJ, that the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden, cast on it, to prove that the offence had been committed by the accused.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 38 of 79The learned ASJ, however, upheld the case of the prosecution and rejected the version put forth by the defence, reasoning as under:(iii) Though there were certain differences, in the version of the incident, as explained by PW-4 Mool Chand, in his Section 161 statement (Ex PW-4/A), as compared to his deposition in cross examination, these contradictions were not so major as to justify discarding of his testimony.PW-4 had specified the roles of each of the accused, stating, particularly, that it was Neeraj who had inflicted the fatal knife/topper blow upon the deceased Jitender, Sonu who had caught hold of the deceased while the said blow was being inflicted, J-2 who had tried to kill him while J-1 held him from the back and that Vikas had taken money out of the pocket of the deceased Jitender.Further, the Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 39 of 79 discrepancies and contradictions, if any, were also attributable to the immense shock and fear which PW-4 must have been experiencing at the time of recording of his statement by the police.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 39 of 79(iv) The fact that Brijesh Tiwari's call to 100 was made from his mobile phone stood proved.The testimony of ASI Jamaluddin (PW-10), the PCR official, showed that there were two injured persons at the store and that both of them had been taken to hospital.The fact that PW-4 and the deceased were victims of the offence, thereby, stood proved.Further, as PW-4 and the deceased Jitender were contemporaneously examined at the hospital, the presence of PW-4 at the scene of the crime could not be doubted.PW-4 had also explained his having initially attributed the act to four, and later to five, assailants, to fear and nervousness.(v) The overwriting on the Section 161 statement of PW-4 did not result in discrediting the same.The statement had been written by the I/O, and not by PW-4 himself.No question had been put, to the IO (PW-31), regarding the overwriting.(vi) The attempt to wish away the involvement of PW-4, on the ground that the injury suffered by him had been noted as simple blunt in his MLC (Ex PW-1/B), had been explained by the concerned Doctor (PW-1), who clarified that she had referred to the injury as simple blunt on the basis of the type of the wound, which was lacerated.The mental condition of PW-4 had to be borne in mind, in this connection.(viii) There was no reason for PW-4 to spare the actual culprits and falsely implicate any of the accused, as he had no enmity with any of them.(ix) As the incident had taken place in broad daylight, the identification, by PW-4, of the assailants, could not be doubted.(x) The FSL report (Ex PW-31/N), and the serological report (Ex PW-31/O) proved that blood had been detected on most of the exhibits, and that it was human blood.(xi) The testimony of PW-4 was, therefore, truthful and reliable.Yogender Kumar, PW-25 Amrik Singh and PW-29 HC Rajesh had all deposed about the recovery of the chopper at the instance of Neeraj pursuant to disclosure statement Ex PW-12/D,(b) the chopper had been recovered, on 5th April 2009, from a place at some distance from the scene of the crime, near a wall of the Veterinary Hospital, and was dug out of the ground, Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 42 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 42 of 79(c) cross examination of PW-13 Ct.Yogender Kumar had disclosed that (i) they had reached the Shamshan Ghat on 5thApril 2009 at 3/3:35 PM, (ii) their Gypsy had stopped around 200 m from the spot, (iii) the knife was not rusted, (iv) the weapons were not visible on the ground, (v) PW-13 could not notice blood on the knife or chopper as there was mud on them and (vi) no fingerprints were taken,(d) cross-examination of PW-25 Ct.Amrik Singh had disclosed that the IO had requested some public persons to join the proceedings but that none had agreed, the IO had dug out the sand with his own hands, the chopper and knife were lying horizontally in the sand about 2-3 inches deep, there was sand on these weapons when they were taken out, the weapons were rusted, blood was seen on the weapons and sketches were prepared at about 1 PM,(e) cross examination of PW-29 HC Rajesh disclosed that the vehicle had been stopped 300 m from the spot, the chopper was recovered first, there was sand and garbage on the chopper, there were some spots on it which appeared to be blood spots, the chopper was rusted and was not wrapped in any cloth and that he had prepared sketches of the chopper and knife at the directions of the IO, Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 43 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 43 of 79(f) cross-examination of PW-31 Insp.Mahender Kumar revealed that there were sand marks and blood marks on the weapons, some sand was present on the blade and that he had taken out the knives from under the ground at the instance of the accused,(g) there was nothing, therefore, in the cross- examination of the concerned officials, which could help the accused; some minor contradictions regarding the time of reaching the Shamshan Ghat, and the presence/absence of blood spots did not make the recovery of the weapons doubtful, and(xv) In the circumstances, it was held that the recovery of the chopper, and the fact that it was the weapon by which the fatal blow was administered to the deceased Jitender, stood proved.In view of the refusal, by the accused, to participate in the TIP, they could not object to such identification.Reliance was placed, for the said purpose, on Munna vs State, 106 (2003) DLT 592 (SC).Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 44 of 79(xvii) The evidence of the defence witnesses did not exculpate any of the accused in any manner.(xviii) The incident of robbery of the deceased Jitender and Mool Chand, and the murder of Jitender, thereby, stood proved.The involvement of the five accused, and their particular roles in the incident, also stood established.Proceeding, thereafter, to the question of the offences which could be said to have been committed by each of the accused, the learned ASJ held thus:(i) The fact of Jitender having died a homicidal death, and of Neeraj being the perpetrator of the fatal injury, using a chopper, stood proved.The chopper was 41.4 cm in total length, with its blade being 28.6 cm long and 6.3 cm wide.The injury was inflicted on the chest of Jitender, and had been opined to be sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.The five accused had surrounded Jitender with the intention of robbing him and, when he resisted, Neeraj inflicted the fatal wound on him.(ii) The invocation, against Sonu and Vikas, of Section 34 of the IPC, was also upheld by the learned ASJ.The circumstances invoked, by the learned ASJ, for the said Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 45 of 79 purpose, in the case of Sonu, were the fact that he knew that Neeraj was carrying a chopper, and that he had held the deceased Jitender when Neeraj inflicted the fatal chopper blow.These facts, it was held, were sufficient to indicate common intention, of Sonu, with Neeraj, to murder Jitender.Insofar as Vikas is concerned, the learned ASJ upheld the invocation, against him, of Section 34 of the IPC, on the ground that (a) his presence at the scene of the crime was established, (b) it could not be said that he had no knowledge that a person would be killed while committing robbery, (c) the fact that Neeraj was carrying a chopper was within his knowledge, (d) common intention to kill the deceased Jitender was, therefore, attributable to all the accused, including Vikas, (e) the fact that he had taken money out of pocket of the deceased Jitender indicated his participation and common intention and (f) no advantage could be gained, by him, by the fact that he had emerged, with the two juvenile offenders, later, as it was a single transaction.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 45 of 79(iii) In view of the fact that the five persons had conjointly robbed the victims, dacoity stood committed and, in the course of commission of such dacoity, one of the victims had been killed.The offence under Section 396 IPC was, therefore, clearly made out against all the accused.(iv) In view of the above, the need to convict the accused under Section 412/34 IPC was not felt.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 46 of 79Vide subsequent order, dated 27th July 2016, the learned ASJ returned common findings, in respect of all the three accused, i.e. Neeraj, Sonu and Vikas.The learned ASJ held that, while, undoubtedly, the three accused were young, belonged to poor families, and were victims of circumstances, resulting in their first conviction, these circumstances, when weighed against the fact that five persons had killed one person just to rob his money and belongings, injured another with the same objective, and that their acts had ruined the family of the deceased, wiping out the only earning family member, and that the killing of deceased was entirely unnecessary, as they could have easily taken his money and belongings without taking his life, were insufficient to spare the appellants from the offence of rigorous imprisonment for life, though the case did not warrant imposition of death penalty.The appellants are in appeal, before us, thereagainst.Analysis and Findings:We have taken pains to set out the evidence in the case, hereinabove, in such exhaustive detail only so that the factual ground may be cleared at the outset.We have no doubt, whatsoever, regarding the events that took place on the fateful afternoon of 16th March 2009, and we entirely agree with the findings of the learned Crl.The fact that Neeraj and Sonu may have initially accosted them and Vikas and the two juveniles may have entered the scene a few minutes thereafter, in our opinion, does not make any difference to their culpability or to the legal consequences of the events that followed.It is clear that the knife assault on Jitender, by Neeraj, took place when Jitender and Mool Chand tried to resist the attempt at robbery being committed upon them.Sonu then held the arms of Jitender while Neeraj inflicted, on the right side of his chest, the blow using the chopper.Almost immediately thereafter, Mool Chand was also assaulted, when J-1 held his hands and J-2 attempted to stab him, which Mool Chand, fortunately, evaded, resulting in an injury on his left thigh.Similarly, the role of Vikas clearly appears to have been limited to the extent of purloining money from the pockets of Jitender and Mool Chand.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 47 of 79Though the learned ASJ has, in the impugned judgment, recounted most of the evidence that would support the above factual narrative, a brief re-appraisal thereof would not be out of place.The fact of Jitender and Mool Chand having been assaulted by Neeraj, Sonu, the two juveniles and Vikas stands established by several undisputable facts in the case.The wounds sustained by Jitender and Mool Chand stand proved by their MLC's (Ex.PW-1/A) and (Ex.PW1/B) as well as the evidence of Dr. Shalini Gupta (PW-1), who Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 48 of 79 had prepared the said MLCs, as also by the evidence of PW-13 Ct Yogender Kumar.Mool Chand (PW-4) recounted all the events, in expansive detail, in his statement, dated 16th March 2009, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C (Ex. PW-4/A).We are not inclined to attach much importance to the overwriting of 7, towards the beginning of the said statement by 6, for the two reasons correctly adduced by the learned ASJ, i.e. firstly, that the statement had been written not by Mool Chand but by Insp.Mahender Kumar (PW-31), who was never questioned in this regard and secondly, that the said over-writing did not, in any manner, detract from the overall effect of the statement, which was otherwise sufficiently clear in all material particulars.Mohd. Javed (PW-20) and Insp.Mahinder Kumar (PW-31).The fact that PW-4 Mool Chand was injured, and that the deceased Jitender had suffered a grievous knife wound in the chest, rendering him unconscious, was also vouchsafed by the statement, dated 16 th April 2009, of Brijesh Tiwari (PW-6) recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, read with the cross examination of Ct.Mohd. Javed (PW-20), and their deposition, in examination-in-chief, to the said effect, also withstood cross- examination.On the basis of the disclosure statement of J-1, Sonu was arrested, on 19th March 2009, from Noida, vide Arrest Memo exhibited as Ex. PW-15/A. The recording of disclosure statement, by J-1, and the subsequent arrest of Sonu on the basis of the information provided by J-1, were also confirmed by PW-13 in his cross- examination.Sonu and J-1 were identified, by Mool Chand, in the TIPs held on 26th March 2009, the proceedings of which of were exhibited as Ex. PW-4/E (with the identification proceedings exhibited as Ex. PW-16/C and Ex. PW-4/D, which were proved by PW-16 Ms. Sunaina Sharma, the learned MM.The remaining three accused, i.e. J-2, Neeraj and Vikas, were identified by PW-4 Mool Chand in the ED lock-up at the Karkardooma Court on 4th April, 2009, as corroborated by the evidence of the IO Mahender Kumar (PW-31).The reason cited, in the TIP proceedings of Neeraj (Ex PW-17/G-I), Vikas (Ex PW-17/D-F) and J-2 (Ex PW-17/A-C) for refusing to participate in the TIP was that their faces had been shown to Mool Chand in the Police Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 51 of 79 Station.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 48 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 49 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 50 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 51 of 79Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 52 of 79He also confirmed that Mool Chand had identified J-1 and Sonu in the TIP proceedings on 26th March 2009, and that, on 31st March 2009, he had received information regarding the apprehension and arrest, of Neeraj, J-2 and Vikas under Section 41(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., by Police Station Civil Lines.He further testified that, on 5th April, 2009, Neeraj and J- 2 had led him, along with HC Rajesh (PW-29), Ct.Yogender (PW13) and Ct.Amrik Singh (PW-25) to the place of incident, as well as the place where the weapons of offence were concealed, and that from the said site, the weapons of offence were actually recovered.A holistic appreciation of all the evidence referred to hereinabove can lead to no other conclusion, at least so far as the occurrence of the robbery of Mool Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 53 of 79 Chand and Jitender and killing of Jitender and the involvement, therein, of the five assailants, is concerned.Crl.A. Nos. 1151/2016, 104/2017 & 82/2017 Page 53 of 79An impassioned plea has been made, before us, by learned counsel for the appellants, to the effect that the evidence, on the basis of which they have been dragged into the offence, were totally insufficient to sustain the case against them.Learned counsel for Vikas insists, additionally, that he was a stranger to the occurrence and impresses, on us, in this regard, the fact that Mool Chand (PW-4) initially referred to there being only four assailants and, later, amended his statement to increase the number of assailants to five.The conviction, of Vikas, under Sections 302/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC, is set aside.His conviction under Section 396 IPC is, however, affirmed.The sentence awarded to Vikas is reduced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs 5000/-; default sentence being one month, simple imprisonment.(iv) The appellants, who are in custody, shall serve the remainder of the sentences, as awarded by the learned ASJ, and as affirmed/modified hereinabove.These appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,617,051 | In the present case, name of the deceased is Jaipal Singh.The appellant Jagdish and deceased Jaipal Singh were having adjacent agricultural fields and there was some dispute between them regarding the bund/boundary of the same.It is further not disputed that in the village in question, there were number of blue bulls and quite often they used to damage the standing crops of the agriculturists.On 20.08.1987 at about 07.00 am, when the complainant party including Jaipal Singh were working in their agricultural field, accused-appellant Jagdish and other accused persons namely Dharampal Giri, Murti Giri, Mantoori Giri, Vinod Giri and Govind Giri reached there.There was some hot talks between them and accused-appellant Jagdish levelled allegations against the complainant-party that they have removed the fencing of the field as a result of which blue bulls have damaged his field.Both the parties abused each other and it was objected by the deceased Jaipal Singh and it is said that during this, accused-appellant Jagdish gave a blow of spear near the neck of the deceased.The other accused persons also assaulted the complainant party by a club.Number of villagers reached there and then it was noticed that after sustaining injury, Jaipal Singh had expired.On 20.08.1987 itself, at 10.35 am, on the basis of written report Ex.Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J (25.09.2019)This appeal arises out of the impugned judgement and order dated 09.01.1989 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 781 of 1987 (State Vs.Jagdish and Others), convicting the accused-appellant no. 1 Jagdish under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.Ka.3, lodged by Kanchhid Singh (nephew of the deceased, not examined), FIR, Ex.Ka.4 was registered against the accused-persons under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 of I.P.C. Injured Gopichand (PW-3) was medically examined vide Ex.Ka.2 on 20.08.1987 by Dr. Jagpal Singh (PW-5) and the following two injuries were found on his body:"(i) stab wound elliptical 2 x .3 cm x 1.5 cm deep on face right side with the parallel of jaw of mandible 4 cm right of centre of chin.Margins of the wound sharp.(ii) stab wound with sharp margins over right side of neck 4 cm above from nose.Size .5 x .3 cm x 1.5 cm deep elliptical.Traumatic swelling over neck right side 10 x 8 cm."Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.Ka.6 on 20.08.1987 and the body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Lal vide Ex.Autopsy Surgeon has found following single injury on the body of the deceased:Punctured wound (incised) on neck Rt.side 1 cm x ½ cm direction towards left and back 1 cm above right clavicle medial end, depth 3 cm transverse"The cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injury.While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against the accused-appellant Jagdish under Sections 148, 302, 307/149, 323/149 of I.P.C., against accused Dharampal, charge was framed under Section 148, 302/149, 307/149, whereas against rest of the accused persons, charges were framed under Sections 147, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 of I.P.C.So as to hold the accused-persons guilty, prosecution has examined seven witnesses.Statements of the accused-persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication.By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has convicted accused-appellant Jagdish as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of this judgment, whereas accused Dharampal was convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. The other accused-persons have been acquitted by the trial judge.During the pendency of present appeal, accused Dharampal has expired and, therefore, appeal in his respect is dismissed as having become abated.The present appeal confines only in respect of accused-appellant Jagdish.9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits:(ii) that FIR has not been proved by the prosecution and the Investigating Officer has not been examined.(iii) that there are material contradictions in the statements of Sohan Singh (PW-1), Dayachand (PW-2) and Gopichand (PW-3).(iv) that first informant Kanchhid Singh has not been examined by the prosecution to prove the FIR.(i) that even if Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution, no prejudice has been caused to the defence.He submits that the FIR has been proved by adducing secondary evidence.He further submits that scribe of the FIR Momraj (PW-6) has duly proved the FIR.(ii) that non-examination of first informant Kanchhid Singh has also not caused any prejudice to the defence as the FIR has been proved by Momraj (PW-6).(iii) that there are as many as three eye witnesses including injured Gopichand and all the three eye witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case.(iv) that the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.Sohan Singh (PW-1) is a father of first informant Kanchhid Singh.He is also the uncle of Gopichand (PW-3), injured eye witness.He states that first informant Kanchhid Singh is missing since February-March and his whereabouts is not known.The field of accused-appellant Jagdish and other accused persons were adjacent and on the date of incident at about 6:00 am when he was working in his field along with deceased Jaipal Singh, Gopichand (PW-3) and other persons, the accused persons reached there and started abusing them.He states that they were making allegation against them that on account of removing/damaging the fencing of the field, blue bulls have damaged the field of accused appellant Jagdish.Both the parties started abusing each other and then accused Jagdish, who was carrying spear with him caused injury to Jaipal Singh, whereas the other accused persons, who were having clubs, have also caused injury to Gopichand and others.He states that after sustaining injury, Jaipal Singh died at the place of incident itself.In the lengthy cross-examination, this witness remained firm and has reiterated as to the manner in which the incident occurred.Dayachand (PW-2) is another eye witness to the incident.His statement is almost identical to that of Sohan Singh (PW-1).He too has categorically stated as to the manner in which the incident occurred and appellant Jagdish caused spear injury to the deceased.He has also admitted the fact that blue bulls used to damage the field of agriculturists and the accused appellant made allegation against the complainant party that his field has been damaged by the blue bulls on account of removing of fencing by the complainant party.Gopichand (PW-3) is an injured eye witness to the incident.His statement is somehow similar to Sohan Singh (PW-1) and Dayachand (PW-2) and he has also supported the prosecution case.In the cross-examination, this witness also remained firm and nothing could be elicited from him.Dr. R.K. Lal (PW-4) conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found injury near the neck of the deceased as mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of this judgement.Dr. Jagpal Singh (PW-5) medically examined injured Gopichand.Momraj (PW-6), scribe of the FIR, has stated that the report was prepared as was dictated to him by Kanchhid Singh.He states that written report Ex.Ka.3 was prepared by him.Bhan Singh (PW-7), is a police constable, investigated the matter and also proved the signature of Investigating Officer.He has also proved the GD entry and the FIR.Close scrutiny of evidence makes it clear that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and likewise the informant Kanchhid Singh has also not been produced in the court as a witness.It is not disputed that the incident occurred at 07:00 am on 20.08.1987 and at 10:30 am, FIR was lodged.The distance between police station and place of occurrence is about 9 kms., thus, for all practical purposes, it can be said that a very prompt FIR was lodged.In the eventuality of depositing the said amount by the appellant before the trial Court, it would be the duty of the trial Court to disburse the said amount in favour of wife of the deceased.In case, the appellant fails to deposit the said amount, he shall further undergo Jail sentence of one year and the court below shall proceed against him in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in Kumaran Vs.The appellant is reported to be on bail.He be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.The appeal is partly allowed.A copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary compliance. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,621,388 | Arguments heard.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.224/14 registered at Police Station Tyonda, District Vidisha, (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 456 & 506 of IPC.Incident occurred at 2.30 a.m. in the midnight and on 26.06.2014, FIR was lodged at about 10:00 a.m. in the morning by prosecutrix who is a married woman aged about 24 years.Allegations were made that applicant armed with knife has committed house tress-pass and thereafter she was subjected to rape by him.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that prior to this incident, one FIR was lodged on 24.06.2014 by the wife of present applicant against the husband of prosecutrix by alleging the same facts and crime no. 220/14 was registered for the offences punishable u/S 376, 456 and 506 of IPC.It is also submitted by Shri Shah that to counter blast this false FIR was lodged by the wife of the culprit of Crime No. 220/14 against the applicant.It is also 2 M.Cr.2 M.Cr.C. No. 10814/2014 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,621,923 | By way of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.09.2014 passed by learned Special Judge-II, CBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby the application moved by the petitioner for cessation of proceedings against him, has been dismissed.Filtering unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted along with Mr. Dalip Singh Judev as co-accused.The allegations as per the case set-up in the charge-sheet are that in a sting operation conducted on 05.11.2003 at Room No.822, Hotel Taj Maan Singh, New Delhi, accused Dalip Singh Judev (hereinafter referred to as accused A-1), who was the then Crl.M.C. No.4648/2014 Page 1 of 11 Union Minster of State for Environment and Forest received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs) with regard to mining project in the State of Chattisgarh and Orissa, in the presence of the present petitioner who was working as Additional Private Secretary to A-1 at the relevant time.Some more persons were also charge-sheeted besides them but their role is not relevant to be discussed as they are not relevant for deciding the present petition.M.C. No.4648/2014 Page 1 of 11The trial court record reveals that the petitioner (who is an accused No.2 before the Court below) was charged along with A-1for the offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) read with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, PC Act).I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special PP for the CBI.I have also perused the material on record.M.C. No.4648/2014 Page 10 of 11 passed by learned Special Judge-II, CBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi.Consequently, the present petition without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.M.C. No.4648/2014 Page 10 of 11 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,624,575 | SL No.15 AP CRM 4517 of 2020 With CRAN 2669 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Pukhuria Police Station Case No.150/18 dated 06.05.2018 under Sections 364/302/201/120b of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act.And In the matter of: Jhariruddin @ Babu & Anr.....Petitioners.Mr. Saryati Datta ...for the Petitioners.Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ...for the State.The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.The matter has a checkered history.An entirely different set of persons were originally shown as accused and even threatened to be taken into custody.Following an anticipatory bail application filed by the original accused persons and supported by the mother and the brother of the victim, a special investigation team was constituted by this court which culminated in the arrest of the present petitioners.The sequence of events appears to be different in the two statements, but the substance is that the victim was called by, inter alia, these two petitioners and the victim died in course of the relevant night and these petitioners informed the brother of the victim of the incident without indicating these petitioners' role therein.It is possible that statements recorded after several months may differ in degrees or in the manner of description.It is the substance of the statement which is of essence, unless the differences are such that a subsequent statement completely contradicts the original statement.In any event, those are matters to be gone into at the trial.The State says that apart from the mother and the brother of the victim naming these petitioners, the petitioners failed to indicate any alibi at the time of the incident.The State says that the call records of these petitioners reveal their presence at the place of occurrence and it is beyond doubt that these petitioners made calls 3 to the victim and the victim's brother about the times when the victim's brother refers to the same.Considering the material available against the petitioners prior to these petitioners' arrest, it cannot be said that the petitioners were picked up without any basis.The prayer for bail is refused.CRM 4517 of 2020 and CRAN 2669 of 2020 are disposed of.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J.) | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,749,162 | 2 Leelabai is mother of accused no.1/appellant.It appears that appellant Atul was trying to allure customer of Vilas which Vilas did not like and on his expressing displeasure, appellant Vilas followed and beat him.Other accused also joined appellant.When Janardhan, father of Vilas tried to rescue Vilas, he was also beaten.In that, appellant Atul and accused Waman lifted Janardhan and fell him down on road, with the result, Janardhan sustained bleeding injuries to his head.Janardhan, in an unconscious condition, was removed initially to Civil Hospital, Gadchiroli where ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 ::: 3 doctor advised Vilas to have CT-Scan done on Janardhan.are that Vilas son of Janardan Chafle was engaged in sale-purchase business of paddy.ig Appellant Atul was working in the shop of original accused no.3 Waman and accused no. 4 Santoshi.Original accused no.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 :::After CT-Scan at a private hospital, Janardhan was brought back to Civil Hospital.At about 07.00 pm Janardhan was declared dead.Vilas lodged report with Police Station, Dhanora against accused on which Crime No. 1/2006 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused persons including appellant.ASI Pathan (PW 8) held inquest on ig deceased Janardhan and issued requisition for the purpose of post-mortem on the body of Janardhan.Dr Choudhary (PW 7) carried post-mortem on the body of Janardhan on 12.1.2006 and he opined that death occurred due to head injury.PSO Kosurkar (PW 10) visited spot of occurrence and recorded panchanama (exhibit 25) in presence of panchas.He also recorded statements of witnesses.At the instance of appellant, bamboo stick was recovered while accused no. 2 Leelabai led the police to recovery of stone used as weapon of offence.After ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 ::: 4 investigation was over, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli against all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned Magistrate then committed case to the Court of Sessions for trial according to law.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 :::It was read over and explained to accused in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Defence of the appellant was that of total denial.Prosecution examined Vilas and Yeshwant (PWs 1 and 2 - sons of deceased Janardhan) and one Prakash Kolte (PW 6) to prove the incident.Besides panchas, Dr Chaudhary was examined to prove memorandum of PM report.ASI Pathan, ASI Bawanwade and PSO Kosurkar were also examined.Learned Sessions Judge held accused nos. 2 to 4 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for the period of their detention.Learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 ::: 5 Sessions Judge held accused no.1/appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and upon conviction, sentenced him as aforesaid.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 :::I have heard Mr M.N. Khan, learned counsel for appellant and Ms Rachana Wasnik, learned APP for State.It is submitted on behalf of the appellant (convict) that the learned trial Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant for want of evidence beyond all reasonable doubts to prove the charge.According to learned Advocate for appellant, the trial Court ought to have held that the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 :::I have carefully considered the evidence on record in the light of submission advanced.P.W.1 Vilas, PW 2 Yashwant and PW 6 Prakash were eye witnesses.From their evidence, it appeared that deceased Janardhan had intended to rescue Vilas from being assaulted by appellant Atul.Janardhan (deceased) had run to rescue Vilas.The role attributed to accused was that they started pelting stones and used iron bars.It appeared from cross-examination of PW 2 Yashwant that construction of the house was in progress.Therefore, it must be inferred that iron rods and stones were readily available at construction site.According to eye witness Prakash (PW 6), there was scuffle between Vilas and Janardhan on one hand and Atul on the other side over rate of paddy.It is also in evidence of Yashwant (PW 2) that Janardhan (deceased) was operated for urine-stone.Considering the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6 in juxtaposition to medical evidence of P.W. 7 Dr Vinod injuries observed in column no. 17 of post-mortem notes were possible by violent contact and violent fall and abrasions were simple injuries, it appears that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 ::: 7 appellant Atul had not come prepared with weapons.The alleged weapon like iron bar, stones pelted were readily available on the construction site.Intention to commit murder of Janardhan cannot be attributed to Atul (appellant).There is reason to believe that he acted without premeditation and did not behave in cruel and unusual manner although it must be observed that Atul must be attributed with knowledge under the circumstances that he was likely to cause death of Janardhan although he had no requisite intention to commit murder.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 :::In the result, appeal is dismissed.A.P. BHANGALE, J hsj ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:13:48 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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. |
174,919,642 | We further find this victim disclosed to his attending Doctor, the name of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 as his assailants.Having regard to above, while we allow the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner nos. 4, Sk.Nasir Ali and 5, Janibabu, the same in respect of the petitioner nos. 1, Sukumar Santra, 2, Biswajit Jana and 3, Sk.Mabud Ali stands rejected.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
174,923,867 | Police Station Case No. 9 of 2016 was filed on 12th January, 2016 by the petitioners and the present case is nothing but counter blast to such case filed.The dispute arose between the two groups regarding engagement in the government scheme.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3 | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
174,926 | JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under Section 364 cf the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C.) for having abducted Bimla Devi, his wife from village Kadipur Delhi with the intention to murder her.The learned Additional Sessions Judge.Delhi, by his order dated 4th October, 1980 acquitted him.as according to him there was no satisfactory evidence to connect the accused with the crime.The accused was working in Indian Army as sepoy.Bimla was not pulling on well with her in-laws though there is no indication in the prosecution case that her relations with the respondent were also strained.On the other band it is clear that she had no grievance against the respondent On 15th March, 1976, Bimla bad run away from her in-laws house and lodged a report with Police Station Bahadurgarh in which she complaint that she was beaten by her in-laws and here life was in danger.On 30th June, 1976, the respondent, who was on leave from the Army came to the village Kadipur Delhi, to take his wife Bimla along with him.lt is stated that the respondent had taken leave from the Army and during those days Bimla was living with her parents.On 30th June, 1976, when he come to the parents house of Bimla he rook away Bimla with him.Thereafter, the brother of Bimla received letter Ex. Public Witness -2/A to P. W.-2/D written on various dates from the respondent.These letters are admitted to be in the hand-writing of the respondent.Two months thereafter the parents af Bimla received information from Village Chara where the respondent was residing to the effect that Bimla was dead.The parents went to village Chara where they were hand over a letter Ex. P. W. 2/F written by the accused regarding the death of Bimla.Thereafter, on 6th September, 1976, Prempal Singh went to Pathankot where the respondent was posted and there the respondent is said to have made an extrajudicial confession before P. W. 5, Major B- S. Bajwa which is marked as Ex P. W.-5/A in which he is stated to have confessed that while he was traveling with Bimla in a train, be made her drunk and give her some sleeping pills and when she became almost unconscious he pushed her out of the running, train in between Ludhiana and Jalandhar.We may note that the report in this case was lodged on 3-4-1977, that is almost after seven months of the alleged incident.(4) The entire prosecution case rests on the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the respondent before P. W. 5, Mjr, Bajwa and also letters Ex. P. W. -2/A to Public Witness -2/F admittedly written by the accused.The Trial Court after carefully considering the evidence dismissed the case and acquitted the accused on the ground that there was delay in the lodging of F.I R. It was also felt that no case under Section 3641P.C. is made out as the evidence does not indicate that Bimla was abducted with intent to murder The Trial Court further felt that extra judicial confession alleged to have been made before P. W.-5 Mjr.Bajwa was that Bimla escaped from railway station Jalandhar after taking away Rs. 500.00 from the pocket of the respondent and that he did not report the matter because he felt that it would humiliate him, According to him he came back to his father who lodged a report There is no indication in the testimony of P. W. -2, brother of Bimla, that any other statement was made before P. W. -5, Mjr Bajwa by the accused According to P W.-5 he made Prempal Singh to sit in another room and then talked to the accused in privacy. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
174,926,071 | Shri Raman Patel with Shri Arun Parouha, Advocate for the appellants.Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Panel Lawyer for the State.Heard on I.A. No. 15567/2014, which is sixth application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence for limited period of three months and grant of temporary bail to appellant No. 2 Suresh.All the previous applications were dismissed as withdrawn.Appellant No. 2 Suresh has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 304-II/34 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years.Learned counsel for appellant No. 2 has submitted that the wife of appellant No. 2 has left the house and has performed marriage with another person.Appellant No. 2 has three minor children and the father of the appellant is old aged and sick person and nobody is at home to take care of them, therefore, jail sentence of appellant No. 2 be suspended for a limited period of three months and he be released on temporary bail.In support of aforesaid contentions a certificate (Document No. 2) issued by Gram Panchayat Doli and medical certificate (Document No.3) with respect to illness of the father of appellant No. 2, has been filed.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Considering the aforesaid facts put forth by the learned counsel for appellant No. 2 and the documents attached with the application, on humanitarian ground I.A. No. 15567/2014 is allowed.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,749,267 | The trial, however, shall continue against the other accused in accordance with law.No other directions are required to be issued.The petition as well as Crl. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
174,927,821 | ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) ( Mir Dara Sheko, J. ) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
174,933,415 | Item No. 88And In the matter of: Sabya Sachi Mondal Petitioner- versus -State of West Bengal.Opposite Party Mr. Sandip Chakraborty Mr. Manoj Malhotra For the Petitioner Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Raiganj Police Station Case No.790 of 2012 dated 03.09.2012 under sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The Petitioner stands on the same footing as the truck owner, Bikash Santra.Hence, we see no reason for his custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
175,638,696 | If the compromise isentertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand.The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by theaccused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law."This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registeredin Crime No.174 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent Police.2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.174 of 2016 for theoffence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 336, 323, 506(i) IPC r/w 4 ofTamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the petitionersherein and for quashing the same, the petitioners and defacto complainantsare before this Court on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing,Mr.Tirunavukkarasu, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Mallankinaru PoliceStation, Virudhunagar District is present.The petitioners and the defactocomplainants are present and their identifications were also verified by thisCourt, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by thelearned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through the respondent police,namely, Mr.Tirunavukkarasu, the Special Sub the Inspector of Police,Mallankinaru Police Station, Virudhunagar District.Learned counsel appearingfor the parties also endorsed the identity of their respective parties.4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed thisquash petition along with a joint memo of compromise, dated 13.04.2018,wherein, it is stated as follows:The respondents 2 & 3 are the neighbours of thepetitioners.After registration of the FIR the parties herein have settledthe dispute amicably.At the intervention of the elders from the bothfamilies and elders of the village, the petitioners as well as therespondents 2 and3 have settled their difference of opinion.The 2nd and 3rd respondents have no objection to quash FIR inCrime No.174 of 2016.?5.In Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and othersvs.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016,this Court considered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in this regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjaband another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and othersvs.Therefore, the proceedings in CrimeNo.174 of 2016 pending on the file of the first respondent Police in respectof the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 are hereby quashed.7.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed accordingly on thebasis of the compromise entered into between the parties.The jointcompromise memo dated 13.04.2018 shall form part of this order.8.At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, thepetitioners themselves voluntarily came forward to contribute some amount tothe Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench.After making payment, acopy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar (Administration),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Note to office:Registry is directed tomark a copy of this order to the Registrar (Administration),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.1.The Inspector of Police, Mallankinaru Police Station, Virudhunagar District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,563,920 | The detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in fourcases.In between09.07.2014 and 22.07.2014, there were 9 clear working and 4 GovernmentHolidays.2) The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.3) The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.M.P.No.29/2014dated 10.06.2014, by the 2nd respondent/District Collector and DistrictMagistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli, has sought for a Writof Habeas Corpus. | ['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,756,452 | The prosecution story is that on 21.8.50, the accused Bhamra of Barkhera was returning to his village by the way which passes by the side of the field of the deceased Bhagirath of Banana.Bhagirath was ploughing his field at the time and the accused, on seeing him, called him for a chat.Both of them sat on the boundary line of the field and the accused offered him Supari.The accused remonstrated with the deceased for ill-treating his-own wife, whereupon the parties flared up.Ultimately a scuffle ensued.In that scuffle the accused struck the victim with a stone on his head with the result that ho sustained a fracture of his skull to which he succumbed three days later.At the time of the incident Ratiram, p.w. 1, and Lalchand p.w. 3, were working in their respective fields close to the field of the deceased.Lalchand was the first man to see the scuffle.He ran to the field of the deceased and shouted for Ratiram.Both of them came to the spot and the accused, on seeing these persons ran away.The victim and the accused were taken to the village.As both parties had received injuries, it was not thought advisable to make a report to the Police but three days later, the condition of Bhagirath became very serious and so a report was made to the Police through Bansilal, p.w. 7, and a Hakim was also sent for to examine the victim.The same day Bhagirath expired.He hold an inquest on the body of Bhagirath and prepared an inquest report.The dead body was sent to Bhopal for post mortem.The doctor found that there were two fractures on skull which ultimately proved fatal.The accused appeared in the Station House on 27.8.50, of his own accord and was arrested.On being examined by the Addl.Sessions Judge the accused stated that he did not strike the deceased at all.But on the contrary, he was him half beaten by him.JUDGMENT Radke, A.J.C.This is a convict's appeal from jail.On receipt of the information the Station Moharrir Abdul Aziz Khan, p.w. 12, came to the village, as the Station House Officer was out on tour.The Addl.He accordingly recorded the conviction under the latter section and sentenced the accused to 3 years' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to a further term of imprisonment for six months.It is against this conviction and sentence that the accused has come up in appeal.The fine, if paid, shall be refunded. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
175,666,419 | CRL.M.C. 155/2019 Page 3 of 3(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.203/2016, under Sections 377/232/506 of IPC, registered at police station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 9th January, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice."In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.Accordingly, FIR No.203/2016, under Sections 377/232/506 of CRL.M.C. 155/2019 Page 2 of 3 IPC, registered at police station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioner.CRL.M.C. 155/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition is accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 02, 2019 v CRL.M.C. 155/2019 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,566,845 | 4.The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit.Hence, there was no delay in considering the representation.Thus, he prayed for confirmation of the impugned detention order.5.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.Further, the core ground taken by the detaining authority that bails are generally granted by the competent courts, after the lapse of time, cannot be accepted for the reason that no bailhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 application is pending or filed and on that score also, the impugned detention order has to be set aside.Therefore also, the impugned order has to be set aside.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 T.RAJA, J. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
175,678,588 | The deceased Subhashini was the daughter of P.W.1 Sakunthala and P.W.2 Narayanasamy.The arranged marriage of A-1 and Subhashini took place on 18.10.1989 as per the customary practice, and they were carrying on the matrimonial life in Door No. 22, Valluvan Street, Purasawakkam, Madras.At the time of marriage 10 sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles were given to her.The accused demanded Rs. 6,000/- and silver lamp at the time of the marriage.The very next day to the marriage, Subhashini came to her parents and reported that her husband A-1 did not like her because she was blackish in colour.After a short interval, she came and reported that her husband was having illicit intimacy with his elder brother's wife Chandrika.P.W.1 pacified her daughter and sent her back.The accused began to treat her cruelly, since she came to know about the illicit intimacy of the first accused.Again, they unlawfully made a demand of Rs. 6,000/- for purchase of machinery.When the same was informed by the said Subhashini, P.Ws.1 and 2 informed that they could not meet the demand.No one of the accused came to see the child.After five months, only on the assurance that they would not harass, Subhashini was sent to her matrimonial home.Despite the assurance, they continued to exert cruel treatment on Subhashini.On 18.3.1995 A-1 poured hot milk on the body of Subhashini.Subhashini came to her mother's house and reported the same.The parents pacified her and sent her back to the matrimonial home.The accused developed aversion against the deceased.The first accused expressed his desire to to for a bigamous marriage, and he told Subhashini that she should agree to that course, and after the said marriage, she should continue to live jointly along with all.Subhashini who could not tolerate the cruel treatment and the pressure exerted, fell down from the running electric train on 11.4.95 and committed suicide.The Railway Police Egmore registered a case in Crime No. 346/95 under S. 174 of Cr.P.C. The matter was referred to P.W.7 Sethu Ramakrishnan, Tahsildar, Tondiarpet, who made an enquiry as to the cause of death and gave Ex.P7 inquest report.The F.I.R. given to the Railway Police referred to above was marked as Ex.On receipt of Ex.P4 requisition, P.W.6 Dr. Manohar conducted autopsy on the dead body of Subhashini on 11.4.95 at 2.30 P.M. He found as many as 10 injuries on the body of the deceased.The Doctor issued Ex.P6 postmortem certificate and opined that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.(b) On 5.2.1996, P.W.1 gave a report to P.W.9 Inspector of Veperry Police Station, on the basis of which a case was registered in Crime No. 329 of 1996 under Ss 498 and 306 of I.P.C. P.W.9 prepared Ex.P8 express F.I.R. and sent the same to the higher authorities.P.W.10 Kasi Pandian, Assistant Commissioner, Kilpauk Range took up the investigation and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.He enquired P.W.7 Tahsildar and Doctors and recorded their statements.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.The appellants in both these appeals who were ranked as A-1 to A-3 respectively have brought forth the appeals challenging the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, made in S.C.No.266 of 1996 finding them guilty under S. 498A of I.P.C. and sentencing A-1 to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default to undergo S.I. for 6 months and sentencing A-2 and A-3 to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to undergo S.I. for nine months, while the criminal revision case has been brought forth by P.W.1 complainant against the said judgment of the Court below acquitting A-1 to A-3 under S. 304B IPC and imposing only a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on A-2 and A-3 for the offence under S. 498A IPC.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.In order to prove the charges levelled against the appellants/accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 9 exhibits.No M.Os. were marked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances in the evidence under S. 313 of Cr.P.C., they flatly denied the same as false.2 defence witnesses were examined and two documents were marked.The trial Court after considering the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials found that the facts and circumstances do not warrant for a conviction under S. 304(b) of IPC, but the appellants/accused were liable to be convicted under S. 498A of IPC and awarded punishment as above.Hence, both these appeals have come.Aggrieved over the acquittal of the accused under S. 304(b) IPC and the imposition of fine alone on A-2 and A-3, P.W.1 has brought forth the revision.The learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) were heard.Admittedly, the marriage of the first accused with the deceased Subhashini took place on 18.10.1989 as per the customary practice, and she was also given 10 sovereigns of gold and household articles, and they were carrying on the matrimonial life.It is not in dispute that the second and third accused were also living together.According to the prosecution, in between 18.10.1989 and 9.4.1995, there were number of occasions by which demands were made for purchase of machinery, and thereby the accused were exerting cruelty.The lower Court in extenso has considered the entire aspect of the matter and has found that there was nothing to show that there were any harassment or cruelty for getting any movable or immovable properties, as found in the definition of cruelty.But, the lower Court has found that there were occasions where cruelty was exerted, and the same was the sole reason for the said Subhashini committing suicide on the particular date.It is not in dispute that they have got a male child, and only for a some time she was living in her mother's house, but at the relevant period, she was living with her husband/A-1 and other accused.It is not the case of the defence that she was suffering from insanity or mental retardness.Hence, the husband/A-1 was to answer the circumstances, which led the deceased to commit suicide.On the day of committing suicide, a case was registered under S. 174 of Cr.P.C., and the matter was entrusted to P.W.7 Tahsildar, who made a thorough enquiry and filed his report under Ex.P7, wherein he has categorically found out that the said Subhashini committed suicide not due to any dowry harassment, but there were circumstances to indicate that she committed suicide because of the cruel treatment meted to her.P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.5, an independent witness all have categorically spoken to the effect that cruelty was meted to her.On one occasion, A-1 husband poured hot milk on his wife Subhashini.P.Ws.1 and 2 would state that there was occasion for Subhashini to stay in her mother's house, as her husband A-1 had illicit intimacy with his elder brother's wife Chandrika.Apart from that, there were occasions, in which the husband told her that he has desire to bigamous marriage, and she must be amenable for this, and after the marriage, she should live along with all jointly.This action of cruel treatment by A-1 could not be tolerated by the deceased, and hence, there was reason for the lady committing suicide.Under such circumstances, without any hesitation, the Court has to hold that it was the cruel treatment meted out by A-1, and because of that she has committed suicide on the particular day. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,640,669 | Item No. 29And In the matter of: Gita Saha & Ors.The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Arnab Saha For the Petitioners Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Jaigaon Police Station Case No. 253 of 2013 dated 07.11.2013 under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The Petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law and the other Petitioners are the sisters-in-law of the victim.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,836,460 | Put up on 6th February, 1984 for appearance of the accused and for supplying copies to them."The learned counsel for the petitioners have assailed both the aforesaid orders on the following grounds :Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar.1984 Cri. | ['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,649,646 | C.R.M. 11069 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 21, 2010 And In re.: Sri Prem Kumar Srivastav Mr. Milan Mukherjee Mr. Suman De ...For the petitioners 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 Howrah G.R.P. Case No. 79 of 2010 dated 07.4.2010 under Sections 566/468/471/474/419/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and for the State.In case he surrenders, his prayer for bail will be considered in accordance with law.( Banerjee, J.) akb ( Raghunath Ray, J.) | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
183,650,879 | This petition has been filed praying to direct the learned JudicialMagistrate Court No.V, Tirunelveli, to add the respondents 4 & 5 an accusedand also to include the penal provisions of 294(b) and 307 IPC in C.C.No.146of 2011 and to proceed further in accordance with law.(1)Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence,it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused hascommitted any offence for which such person could be tried together with theaccused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which heappears to have committed."Hence, at this stage, there isno need to grant the prayer as sought for in the criminal original petitionand the same is closed.1.The Inspector of Police, Manoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 307 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. |
18,365,169 | Accordingly, application is dismissed as withdrawn. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,836,559 | The prosecution case, in a nut-shell, as projected by its witnesses, runs thus:-PW-1 went to the village of his daughter and brought his grand daughter, the victim girl, to his village for the festival celebrations at the temple.On the occurrence day, ie., on 15.02.2002, by 8 P.M., PW-1 and PW-2 had gone to the temple to attend the festival celebrations while the wife and younger daughter of PW-1 were at a neighbour's residence watching television and the victim girl was sleeping on a cot in front of the residence.At 11 p.m., when PW-1 and his son returned back, they found the victim missing.After conveying the same to his wife and daughter, who were watching Television programmes at the neighbour's residence, they went in search of the victim.On hearing the noise of the victim from the direction where the residence of one Pappammal is situated, they rushed towards that side by flashing torch light and found the deceased running away from that place towards east and the victim with bleeding injuries on navel and private parts.On enquiring her as to what happened, the victim stated that the accused bit on her umbilicus and thereafter did something near the private part.The accused was apprehended by the villagers and was kept in confinement.The victim was rushed to a Homeopathy Doctor/PW6 available in the village, who, after giving first aid, advised PW-1 to take her to the Government Hospital at Trichengode.(Delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.) The appellant, who is aged about 26, a married man and father of a child, faced a charge of having committed rape on a tender child aged about 4 year.As per the charge, on 15.02.2002 at 11 P.M., the appellant has taken away the victim girl, who was sleeping in front of the house of PW-1 on a cot, to a nearby neighbour's house and at the low-lying area there, committed rape on her causing bleeding injuries on the private part and umbilicus; thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 10, marked Exs.P1 to P17 and produced MOs.On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.Aggrieved over such order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.Since it was late night by then, on the next day, the victim was taken to the Government Hospital, Trichengode.It was stated to him that the child was subjected to rape at 11 p.m. on the previous day.He issued the wound certificate Ex.P5, wherein, the following injuries have been noticed:-" Injuries :(1) Bite mark 3 cm below the umbilicus (2) Contusion injury 3 x 3 cm with bite mark in both Labia Majora (3) Laceration of skin posterior aspect of labia (4) Perineal laceration of size 2 cm.both sides (5) Laceration and tear of Rectal muscle of 3 cm in length.Blood clots present in the vagina."PW-10 is the Inspector of Police, Trichengode Police Station.On receipt of the complaint given by PW-1 on 16.02.2002 at 11 A.M., he registered a case in Crime No.162 of 2002 for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Ex.P16 is the printed F.I.R. The Inspector recorded the statement of the accused and pursuant thereto, MOs-2 to 4 viz., bloodstained shirt, lungi and underwear of the accused, were recovered under Ex.As there were injuries on the accused, the Inspector sent him to the Government Hospital, Trichengode, along with police memo for medical examination and treatment.Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared rough sketch Ex.P17, observation mahazar Ex.P2 attested by PW-4, recovered bloodstained earth MO-5 and the bloodstained gown/MO1 of the victim under Ex.P3 mahazar and examined the witnesses present there.After treatment, the accused was brought to the police station, whereupon, he was sent to judicial custody.A requisition under Ex.P7 was given to the court to send the accused to the Hospital for virility test.PW-8 is the Doctor, who, after examining the accused, has issued Ex.P6 certificate to the effect that the accused was a virile person.Though PW-3, the victim girl, who was aged about 5 at the time of trial, was examined by the court, on ascertaining her capability to give evidence, the trial court found that she was not competent to tender evidence.The Investigating Officer despatched the Material Objects to the Court for receiving report from the Analyst.PW-9, the court clerk, on receipt of the Material Objects, forwarded the same to the Forensic Lab.P11 to 15 are chemical analysis and serologist's reports.On 13.02.2002, the Investigating Officer received the virility test report.On 22.02.2002, he recorded the statement of the victim and on 26.03.2002, he recorded the statement of the Doctor who examined the victim girl.No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the defence.On hearing the arguments advanced by both sides and considering the materials placed, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned; hence, the present Appeal.It is the admitted case of the prosecution that on hearing the cry of PW-3, PWs-1 and 2 and others went to the scene of occurrence and found the victim with bleeding injuries.Apart from the narration of the victim girl and the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused soon after he was apprehended, there is nothing to connect the appellant with the crime.Though the Medical Officer has given a description about the injuries noticed on the private part of the victim, the opinion given by her would only show that a grievous injury has been caused and thereby, the act of rape is not substantiated in clear terms.Though it is simply stated that those injuries would have been caused only during the course of rape, such an imprecise statement cannot be taken as an acceptable opinion in the eye of law.Merely because of the reason that the accused has stated that he committed rape, he cannot be convicted for such a grave offence of this nature unless the prosecution has substantiated its case by producing sufficient and acceptable materials.According to the counsel, at any rate, since the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubts, the appellant/accused may be acquitted by granting benefit of doubt in his favour.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, on the date of occurrence, at 11 p.m., at the time when the family members of the victim were not in the house, the accused, using such opportunity, took away the child to a nearby place and committed the offence.Only on hearing the noise of the victim, the prosecution witnesses reached the scene of occurrence and found the victim with bleeding injuries and the accused running away from the scene place.Immediately thereafter, the accused was chased and apprehended by the villagers and at the time of preferring complaint, he was handed over to the police.The witnesses could identify the victim as well as the accused with the help of a torch light.The evidence of PWs-1 and 2 has been corroborated by PWs-4 and 5, who are independent witnesses.Since it is a remote village, the victim could not be taken immediately to the Government Hospital in the nearby town and a complaint also could not be lodged at once for want of transport facilities.Looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, as spoken to by PW-7, the Medical Officer, having regard to the extra judicial confession given by the accused to the villagers as soon as he was apprehended, the case of rape as put forth by the prosecution is well substantiated.According to him, in view of the heinous offence committed and the same having been proved by the prosecution as against the accused beyond any scope for doubt, this is a fit case to confirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below.We have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions advanced on either side.No doubt, the appellant has committed a heinous and grave crime on a tender girl child, who was aged about 4 year at that time.The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 11 P.M. on the fateful day.By 8 P.M., PWs-1 and 2 left the child sleeping on a cot in front of the residence while the daughter and wife of PW-1 had gone to a nearby house for watching T.V. Programme.Finding that the victim girl was left alone and sleeping outside the residence and using such opportunity, the accused took away the child to a nearby place and committed the offence.PWs-1 and 2 narrated the occurrence in a natural manner viz., at the time when they returned back, they found the child missing and they were searching for her with the help of a torch light and after hearing the cry of the child, reached the scene of occurrence and found her with bleeding injuries.At that time, they saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence and when the victim was questioned initially, she has stated that the accused bit at her umbilicus and had done something near the private part.Soon after the apprehension of the accused by the villagers, he had confessed the act committed by him and further stated that he was fond of girls and therefore, he carried away the child to commit such act.Thus, it is clear that the occurrence took place at about mid-night time and the witnesses were hurrying from one place to another for medical treatment of the victim and immediately after admitting the child at the Government Hospital, PW-1 returned to the village and went to the police station to lodge a complaint.Therefore, the delay occurred in lodging the complaint cannot be said to be a serious lapse so as to affect the prosecution case.Insofar as the commission of the offence and causation of injuries on the victim by the accused are concerned, we again point out that such aspect has been proved not only through the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 but also through Pws-4 and 5, who are independent witnesses in the village.They have also accompanied PWs-1 and 2 in searching the child and found the victim with injuries and the accused running away from the scene of occurrence.In that regard, the prosecution version is both truthful and credible.We are clearly of the view that the appellant had taken away the victim with a view to outrage her modesty and further sexually and indecently assaulted her, resulting in grievous injuries.Now, the moot question which squarely falls for our consideration relates to the correct and appropriate sections of the Penal Code under which the appellant is required to be convicted with reference to the offence he had committed.Accordingly, we modify the order of conviction passed by the trial court from Section 376 IPC.to Sections 326 and 354 IPC.Coming to the sentence to be imposed, considering the fact that the sexual offence has been committed against a hapless child by the accused, a married man and father of a child, and noticing the manner in which the offence has been committed viz., causation of grievous injuries at private parts and inflicting bite injury at umbilicus, we impose 10 (ten) year R.I. for the offence under Section 326 IPC and 2 (two) year R.I. under Section 354 IPC.and we order the sentences to run concurrently.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court against the accused under section 376 (2) (f) IPC.ToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,099,994 | Shri A.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.This is first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.22/2017, registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 506B/34 of IPC.As per prosecution case, on 16.1.2017 at about 5 pm, due to the dispute in relation to the business of cable disc connection, the applicant and co-accused persons armed with firearms made open fire on complainant Pankaj Sikarwar, due to which he sustained injuries and was admitted in Sahara Hospital.Complainant made written complaint before Police Station Hajira, on the basis of that report the FIR for commission of offence under Sections 307, 506- B, 34 IPC has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the business partner of Manoj Rajput and on account of business rivalry between the complainant and Manoj Rajput, a false case was got registered against the applicant.The complainant party have caused fire injury to Manoj Rajput and the case was got registered against the complainant party at the crime No. 23/2017 at police station Hazira.For escaping from FIR lodged against them, the complainant lodged a false report against the applicant.The co-accused Manoj Rajput has already been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2017 passed in M.Cr.Case of the present applicant is similar to the case of co-accused Manoj Rajput, therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail.This application was filed on the ground that during the hearing of the application material documents regarding the injury sustained by the complainant Pankaj Sikarwar was not placed in case diary but now these documents are available in the diary and the applicant has a criminal past and there are as many as 13 criminal cases were registered against the applicant.In these circumstances, learned counsel for the State prays for rejection of the application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.After considering the submissions made by the parties and looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Consequently, the present application filed by the applicant- Raman Chauhan under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.(SUNIL KUMAR AWASTHI) JUDGE neetu | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,107,982 | Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the order of conviction passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.131 of 2007 dated 28-11-2007, convicting the appellant under Section 304 (2) IPC and imposed a sentence of four years RI.For appellant :: Mr. M. Devaraj For respondent :: Mr. P. Govinddarajan, Addl.P.PJUDMENT The conviction and sentence dated 28-11-2007 passed in Sessions Case No.131 of 2007 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Salem are being challenged in the present criminal appeal.The epitome of the case of the prosecution is that on 19-03-2007 at about 3:30 p.m., cortege of one Gnanaprakasam has proceeded in Koneripatty Colony, Thammampatti Road and due to previous animosity, the accused has attacked the deceased by name, Soundararajan by using a stone and due to his overt acts the deceased has sustained fatal injuries and subsequently, passed away.On receipt of Ex-P1, the Investigating Officer viz., P.W.1, has taken up investigation examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased and accordingly, Doctor Ashok Kumar(P.W.8) has conducted post mortem and he found the following external and internal injuries on the body of the deceased.The Trial Court after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has framed a charge against the accused under Section 302, IPC and the same has been read over and explained to him.The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 have been examined and Exs-P1 to P8 and M.O.1, have been marked.When the accused has been questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., as respects incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.On the side of the accused, Exs-D1 to D3, have been marked.The Trial Court after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record has found the accused guilty under Section 304(2), IPC and sentenced him to undergo four years RI.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the present criminal appeal has been preferrred at the instance of the accused, as appellant.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has raised the following points so as to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.(a) The accused has sustained some injuries and the same have not been explained by the prosecution;(b) The complaint alleged to have been given by the defacto complainant has been registered by P.W.9 and his specific evidence is that he prepared the FIR and the same has been marked as Ex-P6 and in between Exs-P6 and P1, some contradictions are available and the same have not been explained on the side of the prosecution and therefore, Ex-P1 is nothing but a fabricated document;(c) The prosecution has not clearly established the scene of occurrence;(d) The prosecution has not adduced proper evidence with regard to recovery of M.O.1 from the place of occurrence;(e) The accused at the time of answering questions under Section 313, Cr.P.C.,.has given proper explanation as to how he has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence and the Trial Court has failed to look into it.All of them have consistently stated in their evidence about the overt acts alleged to have been made by the accused on the person of the deceased and further, the Investigating Officer has clearly explained as to how the accused has sustained injuries.The Trial Court after considering the overall evidence available on record has rightly found the deceased guilty under Section 304(2), IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court do not warrant intereference.The entire case of the prosecution is based upon Ex-P1, complaint, wherein it has been clearly stated about the cortege which has taken place at the time of occurrence.Further, in Ex-P1, it has been clearly stated about the overt acts alleged to have been committed by the accused on the person of the deceased.The author of Ex-P1 is the son of the deceased, examined as P.W.1 and Jecintha Mary, who is the sister of the deceased is examined as P.W.2 and both of them have consistently stated that in the place of occurrence, the accused has attacked on the person of the deceased by using a stone.Apart from their evidence, the prosecution has chosen to examine two independent witnesses viz., Kristhu Raja and Devaprakasam as P.Ws.4 and 5 and both of them have clearly adduced evidence to the effect that the accused has attacked the deceased by using a stone.The Post-mortem Doctor has been examined as P.W.7 and he opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased would be possible, if he has been attacked by stone.Therefore, from a cumulative reading of the evidence given by P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 coupled with Exs-P1, complaint and P5, post-mortem certificate, it is needless to say that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused even without a speck of doubt.The first and foremost contention put-forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that the accused has sustained injuries and the same have not been explained on the side of the prosecution.At this juncture, the Court has to look into the evidence given by P.W.10, Investigation Officer.Even during the course of chief examination, P.W.10 has given proper explanation to the effect that after the occurrence, the accused has scampered from the place of occurrence and after some distance, he stumbled down and due to that he sustained injuries.Since, P.W.10, has given proper explanation with regard to injuries sustained by the accused, the first and foremost contention putforth on the side of the accused is sans merit.The second contention putforth on the side of the appellant-accused is that in between Exs-P1 and P6, some contradictions are available.Ofcourse, it is true that some materials which are not found in Ex-P1, have been mentioned in ExP6 and the same would not militate the contention of the prosecution and therefore, the second contention putforth on the side of the accused also goes out without merit.The third contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused is that the prosecution has not established the scene of occurrence properly.In fact, on the side of the prosecution, a rough sketch has been marked as Ex-P7, wherein it has been clearly stated that the entire occurrence has taken place in the midst of Thammampatty road.Therefore, it is very clear that the prosecution has clearly established the scene of occurrence and on that score, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected.The fourth contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused is that the prosecution has failed to adduce proper evidence with regard to recovery of M.O.1, stone.On the side of the prosecution, one Kailasam has been examined as P.W.6 with regard to recovery of M.O.1, from the place of occurrence.Of course, it is true that some flimsy contradictions are available with regard to recovery of M.O.1 and that itself would not pave the way for coming to a conclusion that the entire case of the prosecution is false.Therefore, the fourth contention putforth on the appellant/accused also goes out without merit.It is true that at the time of posing questions under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused has given some explanation with regard to occurrence.Since on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1,2, 4 and 5 have given proper evidence with regard to the manner of occurrence, the explanation given by the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., cannot be accepted.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has also contended to the effect that P.W.7, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has opined that if the accused has fallen down he would have suffered injuries sustained by him and therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed in.It is true that P.W.7 has given such kind of opinion.It is an admitted fact that P.W.7 is a Doctor who conducted autopsy and he has expressed only his opinion and the same cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the contentions putforth on the side of the appellant/accused are of no use.It is seen from the records that at the time of committing offence, the accused has attained the age of 31, and for flimsy reason, the entire occurrence has taken place.The Trial Court has awarded sentence of four years' RI under Section 304(2), IPC.Considering the age of the appellant/accused and also considering the reason for occurrence, this Court is of the view to modify the substantial sentence to the extent mentioned below:In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed, in part.The conviction passed in S.C.No.131 of 2007 dated 28-11-2007, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem is confirmed.However, the quantum of sentence is modified as follows:The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo three years' R.I., instead of four years.25-09-2015glpIndex: yes/noToThe Inspector of PoliceThambampatti Police Station Salem District.The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem A. SELVAM,J.glpCriminal Appeal No.1068 of 200725-09-2015 | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,841,160 | JUDGMENT Mack, J.Appellant, a cooly aged 32, has been found guilty under S. 302, Penal Code of the murder of a woman, Bhudevamma by inflicting on her a single stab in the abdomen when she intervened when the appellant was stabbing her brother Venkayya (P. W. 1).He has also been found guilty under Section 324, Penal Cede, in respect of injuries he inflicted en Venkayya, although charged in that connection of attempting to murder him under Section 307, Penal Code.He has been sentenced to transportation for life and to two years rigorous Imprisonment respectively.Appellant and P. W. 1 lived very close to each other in Guntur Town.P. W. 1 had a bunk or petty shop by the road-side.There is evidence of some previous ill-feeling between them over the purchase of a house, which was ultimately bought by P. w. 1 in competition with the appellant.P. W. 1 says he filed a complaint against the appellant about a year before this offence, which was dismissed.The prosecution case based on the evidence of P. W. 1 and two eye-witnesses P. Ws. 2 and 3, whom the trial Court believed, was that between 6-30 and 7 P.M., on 19-4-1950, P. W. 1 was sitting on a bench near his shop.Appellant suddenly came near him with a knife and started stabbing him.When his sister, who was sitting at the shop counter came up to intervene, he stabbed her in the stomach.Appellant then ran away.Bhudevamma and P. W. 1 were both taken to the Central Crime Station, where two statements Exs. P-1 and P-2 v/ere recorded from them.The injuries on P.W. 1 may well have had fatal consequences.He was stabbed twice in the chest and once in the abdomen.Bhudevamma had a penetrating wound, not so deep, viz., 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the left side of the chest which unfortunately, however, punctured the stomach.In consequence of this, she died in the hospital the following night. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,119,348 | CRL.M.C. 2881/2019 Page 3 of 3(ORAL) CRL.M.A.11598/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.CRL.M.C. 2881/2019 Quashing of FIR No.205/2017, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC and under Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of IPC, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 20th May, 2019 of second respondent.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice;"Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of 10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund CRL.M.C. 2881/2019 Page 2 of 3 within four weeks from today.Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No.205/2017, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC and under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of IPC, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.CRL.M.C. 2881/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition is accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 27, 2019 v CRL.M.C. 2881/2019 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,125,415 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.27985/2020 (Vijay s/o Premlal More (Bhil) Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 06.10.2020 Mr. Ravi Ray Batham, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Sameer Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.Mr. Nahar Singh Jhala, learned counsel for the objector / complainant / victim / prosecutrix.They are heard.As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix regarding abduction, inducement and commission of rape on the pretext of marriage, the case has been registered against the present applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a youth aged about 21 years and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was having love affair with the applicant and she had gone with him on her own accord and also solemnized marriage with him.The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.However, the applicant is at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail after recording Court statement of the victim / prosecutrix.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=dbcd6478673ed1cb472bfe4ff530b412bf73787574d3713fa86db0de124035d6, cn=Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2020.10.07 10:30:11 +05'30' | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,127,783 | Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.Let record of the trial court be called for.Heard on I.A. No.366/2020, first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant.This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 30.01.2020 passed in S.T.No.200289/2014 by The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena (M.P.) whereby the appellant has been convicted as under with default stipulation:-Fine amount has already been deposited.Hearing of appeal shall take some time.Even otherwise, appellant has strong case on merits also.Hence, he prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.396/2020 (JITENDRA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) the prayer made by counsel for the appellant and has prayed for dismissal of the application.It is directed jail sentence of appellant will remain under suspension on his furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance before Office of this Court on 23.10.2020 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) Judge vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2020.01.16 16:59:15 +05'30' | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,132,668 | AB Court 28 C.R.M. 773 of 2018 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Behala P.S. Case No.20 of 2018 dated 13.1.2018 under Sections 323/354/ 354B/307/448/114 of the Indian Penal Code And In the matter of : Annapurna Chatterjee & Ors....Petitioners.Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Prasanta Kr.Das ...for the Petitioners.Over such issue a criminal case was registered against the said husband and his associates.Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.We have considered the materials on record and we find that there are case and counter case over the dispute between the petitioner no.1 and her husband relating to dispossession of the said petitioner from her matrimonial home.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3 | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,140,401 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent Police to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.04.2015 and investigate the same.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.3.It is the case of the petitioner that he was abducted and assaulted by the accused.Based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 20.04.2015, the Sub Inspector of Police has registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 365, 342, 323, 387 and 506(ii) IPC and the investigation was taken up.It was represented that the Sub Inspector of Police went on leave and thereafter, the Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation and filed the final report leaving out Sections 387, 365 and 342 IPC against the accused.Therefore, the petitioner wants an FIR registered against the Inspector of Police and the Doctor, who has given the Wound Certificate.The case of the petitioner is that the date i.e.,31.12.2012 given in the Wound Certificate is a deliberate entry that has been made by the Doctor in collusion with the Inspector of Police.Therefore, the date of mentioning as 31.12.2013 must be on account of inadvertence and not a deliberate act.4.On an such frivolous allegations, if FIR is registered against Government Doctor and Inspector of Police, it will affect the administration of Criminal justice.The officials are protected against prosecution while discharging their official duties both under the Police Act as well under the Code of Criminal Procedure.Hence, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner as aforesaid.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pollachi.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH, J.mpsCrl.O.P.No.13631 of 201508.06.2015 | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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. |
184,147,448 | The investigation of the said crime was handed over to P.W.8 A.P.I.The post mortem on the dead body of deceased Ashwini was performed by P.W.1 Dr.Shahane who noticed an incise wound over left side of neck 3" x 1/2".He also noticed that the dead body was damaged by aquatic animals.He, therefore, opined that cause of death did not appear due to drowning.P.W.2 Gorakh, a witness to the scene of the offence panchnama has admitted that the Well in which the dead body of deceased Ashwini was found floating is not a constructed Well.He has admitted that he did not notice as to whether steps had been created for entering inside the Well.He has also acknowledged that one orange coloured cap, used in Winter, was found at a distance of 5 feet from the Well.We may at this juncture briefly make a reference to the evidence of P.W.4 Henumant, uncle of deceased Ashwini who admits that the Well was not constructed above the water level.She states that during marriage it was decided that dowry of Rs.30,000/- would be paid to accused Ramesh and from the said amount, an amount of Rs.20,000/- had been paid to Ramesh and balance of Rs.10,000/-remained to be paid.After marriage, Ashwini went to reside with her husband and returned to her maternal home after four days of her marriage and resided there for a day.After about 8 to 10 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 5 days she returned back to her parents' house and informed P.W.5 Jijabai that she was sent to bring Rs.10,000/-.P.W.5 Jijabai noticed that Ashwini was weeping at that time.She informed Jijabai that she was assaulted by her husband and his parents.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::Jijabai accordingly advised her that at present she was not having the money and the amount would be paid subsequently.She then states that mother-in-law of Ashwini came to her house at about 2.00 p.m. and she asked Ashwini as to why she had come to her parents' house and what type of harassment was caused to her.She accordingly gave Ashwini 2 to 4 slaps.The mother-in-law of Ashwini informed Jijabai that she had come to fetch Ashwini.Jijabai told her that Ashwini was not ready to go with her mother-in-law but she sent her at about 5.00 p.m. On 16.12.2005, accused No.1 and accused No.3 had come to her house along with one person and they had asked Jijabai if Ashwini had come to her house.Jijabai answered in the negative.She noticed that both of them appeared to be frightened and they returned immediately.On that day Jijabai along with Rahibai went to Muluk to the house of the accused.Jijabai also informed her that such trivial matters were likely to crop up in her married life and advised her to ignore such things.She has admitted as true that when she had first gone to Muluk for searching for Ashwini, the accused had also searched for Ashwini but Ashwini was not found and later on in the same Well her dead body was noticed.She states that she was at Muluk till the dead body was brought to Muluk.She has admitted that after the funeral she had gone to village Neknoor.Omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that amount of Rs.30,000/- was agreed to be given as dowry and Rs.20,000/- had been paid.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::Omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that she ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 7 had agreed to pay the remaining amount.Omission has been duly proved that she had not stated that when the dead body of deceased Ashwini was removed from the Well, the accused were not present and were absconding.Similarly, omission has been proved that she had not stated in her report that Ashwini was not prepared to go with her mother-in-law but Jijabai had sent her with her mother-in-law.Shri Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for appellant No.1 Smt.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for appellant Nos.2 and 3 Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ DATE : 8th December 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.)The appellants who stand convicted for offences punishable under Section 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accused No.2 stands additionally convicted for ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 2 offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::5,000/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3,000/- each with a default condition of undergoing further rigorous imprisonment for three months in the event of non-payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default stipulation of undergoing further simple imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each with a default condition of undergoing further simple imprisonment for six months in the event of non-payment of fine and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each with a default condition of undergoing further simple imprisonment for one month in the event of non-payment of fine, with a direction that the substantive sentences against the respective accused shall run concurrently, by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Beed, by judgment dated 20.2.2008, in Sessions Case No.17/2007, by this appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence.Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of the appeal may briefly be stated thus.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::On the basis of the said complaint, P.W.6 A.S.I.Further to the completion of investigation a charge-sheet against the accused came to be filed.On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, trial Court vide Exh.7 framed a charge against the accused.The appellants denied their guilt and claimed to be tried.Prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses.The trial Court ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 4 accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforestated.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::All the three appellants were present in the house and the accused informed her that Ashwini was missing.Accordingly, search was taken.Accused had also searched for Ashwini and had also inspected the Well of one Vishnu Kumbhar.Since whereabouts of Ashwini were not traced, P.W.5 Jijabai returned home on the next day ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 6 morning.She states that on 20.12.2005 she had received a message on phone and learnt that the dead body of Ashwini was found in the Well of one Vishnu.She along with her relatives reached to village Muluk at about 10.00 to 10.30 a.m. She proceeded to the Well and noticed the dead body of Ashwini flaoting on water.The dead body was removed from the Well by the villagers.According to her the accused were not present and were absconding.She noticed that the aquatic animals had damaged the dead body.In cross-examination she has admitted as true that when Ashwini had come on the second occasion, Jijabai had told her that Ashwini should not complaint about such trivial cause as she was a newly married girl.Similarly, she had not stated in her report that the accused were noticed to be frightened when they had come to her.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::Prosecution has examined P.W.4 Hanumant, uncle of deceased Ashwini.He states that Ashwini, after her marriage used to come to her parents' house after interval of about 4 months.He states that on 16.12.2005 she had come to the house of her parents and at that time he was standing outside the house.Ashwini started weeping and told P.W.4 Hanumant that she was subjected to cruelty and was beaten.She further stated that she had not been provided food and also informed him that her husband was demanding the remaining amount of dowry of Rs.10,000/-.He states that Ashwini was advised by P.W.5 Jijabai, her brother Navnath and by P.W.4 Hanumant to keep quiet.He states that mother-in-law of Ashwini had come to her house and had asked him whether Ashwini had come to his house. Mother-in-law then went inside the house and slapped Ashwini.He states ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 8 that Ashwini started weeping and was sent with her mother-in-law at about 5.00 p.m. He then states that after two days the accused had come to his village and had asked him whether Ashwini had come to his house.Mother of Ashwini had replied that she had not come to her house.The accused informed mother of Ashwini that since last two days Ashwini was missing.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::He states that thereafter he had gone along with P.W.5 Jijabai to village Muluk and had joined the search of the accused but could not trace Ashwini.He states that he had received a phone message that the dead body of Ashwini was found in the Well at village Muluk and accordingly he had gone there.He states in examination-in-chief that the Well had no parapet wall and the electric motor was installed in the Well.In cross-examination he has admitted that the Well was not constructed above the water level.Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his statement that when Ashwini had come to his house he was standing outside and Ashwini had started weeping and had informed him that the accused were not providing her food.In face of the evidence of P.W.4 Hanumant and P.W.5 Jijabai, we are constrained to observe that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the accused had subjected deceased Ashwini to such harassment or cruelty as would have driven Ashwini to commit suicide.P.W.4 Hanumant speaks about ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 9 an incident on 16th while P.W.5 Jijabai speaks about the incident prior to 16th.In fact, P.W.5 Jijabai states that on 16th, the accused had come and had informed her that Ashwini was missing.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::Moreover, omission has been duly proved that Jijabai had not stated that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was decided to be paid to the accused as dowry and Rs.20,000/- had been paid to the accused.If that be the case, the entire edifice of the prosecution that the accused were harassing deceased Ashwini on account of non-payment of the remaining dowry amount falls to the ground.In the light of such discrepant evidence, therefore, according to us no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the testimony of these two witnesses.The next question arises is whether the accused had committed murder of deceased Ashwini by inflicting an incise wound on her neck.Evidence of P.W.1 Dr.Shahane is material on this point.Shahane refers to finding an incise wound on the left side of the neck 3" x 1/2".According to him cause of death is due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to Hypovolumic shock secondary to injury over neck.He has further opined that victim ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 10 could have died 72 hours before the dead body was examined by him.In cross-examination he has admitted as correct that because of decomposition, the wound became invisible and because of that it becomes difficult to opine as whether the injury was an abrasion, contused laceration or incise wound.He has further admitted that if a person falls in the Well and before his body comes into contact with water he may die and in that case water may not enter his body.He has further admitted that in the event the water which is entered the body in a state of decomposition the water may not be present in the body.He has further agreed that if the body is taken out of water after a lapse of time there may not be symptoms of death due to drowning.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::Cardiac respiratory arrest may appear to a person because of fall, getting water in body through the mouth and nostrils or stoppage of heart." He further agrees, " I agree that if a person while falling in the Well for his neck came in touch with sharp rock, such injury may cause.I do agree that because the body was decomposed and maggots eat some parts of body it was not in my competence to give opinion about the cause of death" (Emphasis supplied).::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::Thus, perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 Dr.Shahane clearly indicates that he could not positively state as to the cause of death i.e. deceased Ashwini died as a result of the injury to the neck or whether she died as a result of drowning.P.W.1 Dr.Shahane in no uncertain terms states that death by drowning could not be ruled out.In such circumstances, therefore, according to us the possibility that deceased Ashwini may have committed suicide or may have accidentally fallen in the Well as the Well has no parapet, cannot be ruled out.In such situation, therefore, according to us the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.In the earlier part of the judgment we have held that there is no evidence in respect of harassment or cruelty to Ashwini on account of failure to pay the agreed amount of dowry and, therefore, according to us the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance of motive for the accused to have committed the crime.There is absolutely no evidence worth the name to arrive at a conclusion that it was the appellants and the appellants alone who had committed the crime of deceased Ashwini.In such situation, therefore, the conviction of the appellants is wholly unsustainable and the appeal deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: 12 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and conviction of accused No.2 Sakharbai w/o Narayan Dhagare for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged and convicted.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::Accused No.1 Narayan Vithoba Dhagare is said to be on bail and his bail bonds stand cancelled.Fine, if paid by the appellants be refunded to them.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 :::::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 17:00:45 ::: | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,841,482 | This criminal original petition has been filed invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in PRC No.14 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur based on a private complaint preferred by the respondent herein under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The facts leading to the filing of the present criminal original petition can be stated thus:-The following are the allegations found in the complaint.While so, the petitioner herein/accused, the then Village Administrative Officer of Veerakkalputhur, illegally entered the name of Papa, the mother of the petitioner, as the owner of the said land in all the revenue records like Chitta, Adangal, etc. When the respondent herein/complainant came to know the said fact, he along with one Ganamurthy went to the residence of the petitioner herein/accused and met him on 30.04.2006 at about 7.00 a.m. During the said meeting, the respondent herein/complainant questioned the petitioner herein/accused as to the propriety of his act of making false entries in the revenue records in the name of his mother.The petitioner/accused who did not deny the said allegation, simply offered a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the said land.As the respondent/complainant declined the offer and demanded at least Rs.15,00,000/- as consideration for the said land, the petitioner/accused humiliated and insulted the respondent herein /complainant referring to his caste in the presence of others."b) The above said complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur and after recording sworn statements of the respondent herein/complainant, his son Ganamurthy and one Ayyadurai, summons were issued to the petitioner herein/accused.The above said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate taking the complaint on file as PRC No.14 of 2006 is sought to be quashed in this petition, invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on various grounds set out in the criminal original petition.This court heard the submissions made by Mr.K.V.Karunakaran and that of Mr.ii) the date, month and year of the commission of offences punishable under Indian Penal Code alleged in the complaint were not furnished by the respondent herein/complainant and hence the cognizance of the said offences was irregular;iii) the offence punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 allegedly committed on 30.04.2006 should not have been clubbed with the offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which according to the materials found in the complaint should have been committed, if at all they were true, between 09.05.2003 and 30.04.2006 (and) | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,151,187 | Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP.JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) %The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order on sentence of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 06.07.2009 and 11.07.2009 respectively in which the present appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.The prosecution case was that during the late evening of 21.04.2006 CRL.A. 623/2009 Page 1 an altercation took place between the four accused - Sumit, Gopinath, Satyam @ Sachin, Amit and the deceased.The accused as well as the deceased used to sell chicken at Block No. 17, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi.It was alleged that two days prior to the incident, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had visited the premises and impounded certain articles which belonged to both the parties.Apparently, both the parties went together and got the articles released.Subsequently, alleged the prosecution, in the evening of 21.04.2006, the quarrel occurred.The accused alleged that Naresh, the deceased had wrongly kept a wooden log piece which belonged to them.The quarrel took a sudden turn and it was alleged that in the course of the altercation, Amit took out a knife and delivered a knife blow to Naresh.It was also alleged that the co-accused, Satyam @ Sachin assisted in the attack and caught hold of the deceased.The prosecution alleged that the incident was witnessed by Naresh's brother - Sanjay, PW-17 and Rakesh, PW-11, his brother-in-law.After receiving information, the police carried-on the investigation, during the course of which the accused were arrested.One of them, i.e. Sumit, being a juvenile, was sent to the competent authority, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).During the course of trial, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of 19 witnesses, besides other evidence, such as the Postmortem Report, Seizure Memos, knife - Ex.PW-1 etc. After consideration of these, the Trial Court returned the finding of guilty as far as two appellants before this Court is concerned; Gopinath, the co-accused was acquitted.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants, after making submissions, conceded that the basic facts pertaining to the sequence of CRL.A. 623/2009 Page 2 events, i.e. the seizure of items, their release on the fateful night and the reporting to the police leading to the arrest of accused, are not disputed.He, however, contended that the conviction recorded under Section 302 IPC was not justified.Learned counsel emphasized the fact that all the ingredients spelt-out in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, i.e. a sudden quarrel resulting in an attack, are attracted, and thus it should have resulted in a conviction under Section 304 IPC.Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the facts of this case disclose sudden quarrel.We have heard the appellants on the question of sentence.The appeal is allowed in the above terms. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
184,151,933 | Issue notice.Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, accepts notice.The complainant is also present in person.A copy of the said Settlement dated 19.11.2013 entered into before the Judge In charge, Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari, Delhi, has also been annexed to this petition.A copy of the Decree of Dissolution has also been annexed.Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor .ASI Ashok Kumar, Complainant in person.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.14026/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.271/2013, registered at police station Janak Puri under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC on 24.08.2013 at the instance of complainant / second respondent Lalita Jain; on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.The Investigating Officer ASI Ashok Kumar identifies the petitioners as well Crl.M.C. No.4078/2014 Page 1 of 8 as the complainant in Court today.M.C. No.4078/2014 Page 1 of 8In addition, the complainant also instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act; and the first petitioner moved a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and also another petition under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Matrimonial Court.Ultimately, whilst considering an application for anticipatory bail, being Bail Appln.No.8867, moved by the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid FIR, the matter was referred by the court below for mediation, and ultimately, on 19.11.2013, the parties negotiated an overall settlement with respect to all the aforesaid matters.M.C. No.4078/2014 Page 7 of 8I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the same has arisen primarily out of a matrimonial dispute where the concerned parties have obtained a divorce by mutual consent and settled their all disputes amicably; and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing the chances of eventual conviction.Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.271/2013, registered at police station Janak Puri under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 dr Crl. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,777,367 | (a) P.Ws.1 and 2 are the daughter and son of the deceased Ramasamy.P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased Ramasamy.P.W.4 is the husband of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is the younger brother of P.W.3, i.e. brother-in-law of the deceased.The deceased was residing with his wife and children at Errapatti and P.W.1 was residing at Bettagoundanur.The father of the deceased Ramasamy had two wives and the deceased was the son born through first wife and the accused are the sons through the second wife.But, P.W.3 was pacified by P.W.1 and she returned back to the house of the deceased.Few days thereafter, P.W.1 also came and stayed with her parents.(b) While so, on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 21.4.88 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased was sitting in front of the house along with P.W.3, his wife, P.W.1, daughter and other children and a lantern light was burning in front of the house of the deceased.During the quarrel, A-3 fisted on the face of the deceased and on seeing this, P.W.2, son of the deceased, went and brought P.Ws.4, 5 and others.In the meantime, the respondent/A-1 and A-2 came to the scene and assaulted the deceased on his left forearm with a stick.At that time, the respondent/A-1 took the rice pounder lying on the pial of the house and beat the deceased on his head three times and on receipt of the same, the deceased ran from the place and he was chased by the respondent/A-1, who assaulted him on various parts of his body.The deceased fell down unconscious.When P.W.4, husband of P.W.1 intervened, he was attacked by the respondent/A-1 by inflicting an injury with the koduval on his left wrist and A-2 bit him and assaulted him with the rice pounder on his back, shoulder, etc. A-2 also assaulted P.W.5 on his back, when he intervened.There was a skirmish at the spot between the witnesses and the accused.The prosecution witnesses, on seeing the deceased lying unconscious, placed him in a cot.The accused ran away from the scene and the villagers gathered.The deceased was taken to the hospital, but on the way at Perumpalai, he breathed his last and hence, the body was brought back to the house.(c) Thereafter, P.W.1 and others went to Perumpalai Police Station, Pennagaram Circle, taking the dead body with them and on seeing the crowd, P.W.11 enquired and P.W.1 gave an oral statement, which was reduced into writing.The said statement is Ex.At about 8.00 a.m. on 22.4.88, P.W.11 registered a case in Crime No.78 of 1988 for offences under Sections 302, 323, 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and prepared express F.I.R., Ex.He sent the same to Court and copies to higher officials.The injured were sent to hospital with a police memo.(d) One Rajan, Inspector of Police (L & O), Pennagaram, conducted investigation in the case and since he died during trial, P.W.12, Inspector of Police, who knew him, was examined in Court and he had given evidence about the investigation conducted by said Rajan.On receipt of information over phone at about 12.30 p.m. on 22.4.88, Inspector Rajan proceeded to police station, obtained a copy of the F.I.R. and took up investigation.He conducted inquest over the dead body of Ramasamy between 1.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. in the presence of witnesses and prepared inquest report, Ex.He examined the witnesses present at the time of inquest and thereafter, sent the dead body to the hospital through a police constable with a requisition, Ex.P.19, to conduct autopsy.(e) On receipt of the requisition and the dead body at about 5.50 p.m. on 22.4.88, one Dr.C.Santha, Civil Assistant Surgeon commenced post-mortem on the dead body of Ramasamy at 10.00 a.m. on 23.4.88 and found the following external injuries:-Fracture left upper arm (Humerus bone)A laceration 1 x 1 cm.On the forehead.A laceration 4 x 3 x 1 cm.Below and behind the left ear.Multiple irregular lacerations over the back of the scalp.Fracture left 4 - 7 ribs.Hyoid intact."The doctor issued Ex.P.22, post-mortem certificate, opining as to the cause of death that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries about 32 hours prior to autopsy.(f) The Inspector of Police, continuing with the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, observed the spot and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.3 and rough sketch, Ex.P.20, in the presence of witnesses.He also recovered blood-stained earth and sample earth, M.Os.10 and 11 under Ex.P.2 mahazar and the lantern lamp, M.O.4, under Ex.P.4 mahazar.The doctor has issued Ex.P.10, copy of accident register and opined that wound No.1 is grievous and other injuries are simple in nature.Since P.W.8, Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order) of the said Police Station was on other duty, the police constable took up the investigation and after some time, P.W.8 continued with the investigation and examined witnesses.P.W.8 was transferred and later, he came to know that the said case was closed as mistake of fact.P.9 is the copy of the F.I.R. in the said case.(i) The prosecution witnesses, viz., P.Ws.4 to 6 and one Kulandai Goundar appeared before the doctor, P.W.10, on 22.4.88, along with the police memo and the doctor, on examining them, found lacerations and abrasions on their person and he opined that the said injuries are simple in nature.The doctor issued Exs.P.13 to P.16, wound certificates, in respect of the injuries found on them.(j) On 26.4.88, P.W.12 on taking up investigation in the case, examined the post-mortem doctor, Santha and obtained the post-mortem certificate, Ex.He examined a police constable and recorded his statement.(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, dated 19.1.2005 made in S.C.No.74 of 1990, acquitting the respondent/A-1 from the charge of murder.The charge against the respondent/A-1, is that he along with A-2 and A-3, due to a dispute regarding partition of a property, on 21.4.1988, at about 8.30 p.m., with an intention to cause the death of the deceased Ramasamy, inflicted injuries on him with a rice pounder and the deceased succumbed to the injuries while he was taken to the hospital, and thereby committed the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.The second charge is that during the course of same transaction, the respondent/A-1 and other accused inflicted injuries on P.W.4, when he intervenued and thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. There are other charges framed, which need not be stated hereunder, as they were framed against other deceased accused.The case of the prosecution, as unfurled by the oral and documentary evidence, is stated as hereunder:The above mahazars were attested P.W.6 and another.On 23.4.88, he examined P.Ws.3 to 5 and others and recorded their statements.(g) A-1 and A-3, who also suffered injuries during the occurrence, appeared before the doctor, P.W.9, who examined them and on the person of A-3, he noticed the following injuries:-Incised wound of 4 cm.X 2 cm.X thoracic cavity.Right infra axillary region.Hissing sound heard with each respiration.The muscles acts as valve and furrow emphysema present.Incised wound of 2 cm.X 1/2 cm.X 1/2 cm.Right lateral.Incised wound of 1 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep over the left eyebrow.Incised wound of 5 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep right frontal region.Incised wound of 5 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep left parietal region.Incised wound of 4 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep mid occipital region.Similarly, the doctor examined A-1 and one Muthammal and found simple injuries on their person such as contusions, abrasions, etc. and issued Exs.P.11 and P.12, copies of accident register.(h) In the meanwhile, a police constable attached to Pennagaram Police Station received an intimation and the statement of A-3 on 22.4.88 at about 11.30 a.m. from the police constable attached to Outpost police station at Salem hospital and on the basis of the statement, he registered a case in Crime No.79 of 1988 for offences under Sections 324, 323 IPC.On interrogation, they gave voluntary confession statements in the presence of P.W.6 and another.Thereafter, they were brought to the police station at 12.00 noon and later, sent to Court for judicial remand.The seized material objects were sent to Court with a requisition to forward them for chemical analysis and the Court, by forwarding the same, received Exs.P.7 and P.8, the chemical analyst report and serologist report respectively.He examined the doctors, P.Ws.9 and 10, who treated the accused and the witnesses respectively and obtained the wound certificates and the copies of the accident register in respect of the injuries found on them.On completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed the final report on 8.3.89 for offences under Sections 302, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.(k) The case was committed to Court of Sessions, which was taken up in Sessions Case No.74 of 1990 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri and charges were framed by the learned Sessions Judge against the respondent/A-1 and other accused and since the respondent/A-1 denied the complicity of the offence, the case was taken up for trial.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the respondent/A-1, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.22 and produced M.Os.1 to 11, as referred to above.After the completion of evidence on the side of prosecution, the respondent/A-1 was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials appearing against him and he denied them as false and pleaded not guilty.No witness nor any documentary evidence was produced on his side.(l) The trial Court, on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary and upon hearing the submissions of both sides finding that the prosecution failed in proving the guilt of the respondent/A-1 beyond all reasonable doubts, acquitted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. by giving him benefit of doubt.Hence, the present appeal by the State against the acquittal.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/A-1 while sustaining the reasons given by the learned trial Judge, submits that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubts and the learned trial Judge finding various discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, disbelieved the same by giving benefit of doubt to the respondent/A-1 and thus, acquitted him and hence, no interference is called for.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of both sides and perused the entire materials placed on record.It is not in dispute that the deceased Ramasamy died on account of homicidal violence.Though the doctor who conducted post-mortem was not examined by the prosecution, the post-mortem report has been marked as Ex.P.22, which clearly shows that the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained.Hence, there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the deceased died due to homicidal violence.But, the questions that are to be decided is whether the said injuries sustained by the deceased were inflicted by the respondent/A-1 joining with other deceased accused and whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.Before proceeding to analyse the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in an appeal against acquittal, though this Court, being an appellate Court, can exercise jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence and arrive at a decision on the acceptability or otherwise of the judgment passed by the trial Court, the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible, one in favour of the accused and the other in favour of the prosecution, the appellate Court must only take the view in favour of the accused and cannot and shall not substitute its views by holding that the other view in favour of the prosecution could have been taken by the trial Court for the purpose of setting aside the acquittal.In fact, the innocence of the accused is strengthened by such acquittal and the appellate Court must always be slow in interfering and dislodging with the findings of the trial Court.The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that P.Ws.1 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and according to them, due to a land dispute between the deceased and the accused, on the date of occurrence, at about 8.30 p.m., it was A-3, who came to the house of the deceased and picked up quarrel to hand over the land to him, which, when refused, ended in a skirmish.All the witnesses had spoken on similar lines.But, it is the case of the accused that it was P.W.1 and other witnesses who beat the deceased and caused his death, and it is their further case that in the melee, they also sustained injuries at the hands of the deceased, for which, a complaint has been preferred and it was registered in Crime No.79 of 1988, which is marked as Ex.But, however, after investigation, the said case was closed as mistake of fact.The further case is that A-3 has preferred a private complaint against the prosection witnesses and others, which was committed to Court of Sessions in S.C.No.164 of 2001 and after the trial, the case ended in acquittal.Now, let us see the incongruous circumstances, which led the learned trial Judge to arrive at a finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.The first incongruity noted by the learned Judge is the non-examination of the doctor, who did post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Ramasamy.P.22, issued by one Dr.Santha, who was alleged to have conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Ramasamy, through P.W.12, the investigating officer.The learned trial Judge observed that the prosecution failed in examining the said doctor in order to substantiate the cause of death or as to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased.The trial Court also observed that inspite of issuing warrant to produce the witness before the Court, the prosecution did not do so nor the prosecution has made an attempt to produce any other doctor, who knows the hand-writing and signature of Dr.Santha, in order to prove the authenticity of the post-mortem certificate, Ex.The next circumstance is the non-examination of independent witnesses in Court.Admittedly, this is a case where there was a clash between two groups and in the said clash, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in his death.It is also not disputed that there was a counter-complaint by the accused.In such view of the situation, a duty is cast upon the prosecution to substantiate their case by examining some independent witnesses by way of corroboration to the eye witnesses.Even according to the prosecution, there were some other witnesses who also witnessed the occurrence and they have been examined during the course of investigation and we are at a loss of understand as to why the prosecution did not make any attempt to produce some independent witnesses in Court, which would have obviously strengthened the case of the prosecution by way of corroboration.Though it is well settled that the evidence of eye witnesses cannot be brushed aside as that of interested witnesses, in view of non-availability of any independent witness, in a case of this nature where both parties have grudges against each other in respect of a land dispute, the prosecution ought to have examined at least one independent witness in Court to prove its case, more particularly, when some of the independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution during investigation.Therefore, we are convinced that the learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 as interested witnesses.The next discrepancy which created a suspicion in the mind of the trial Court is that there was a delay in the first information report reaching the hands of the learned Magistrate.As per the evidence of P.W.1, in the melee, her father, the deceased, on receipt of head injuries, fell down and became unconscious and after the accused ran away from the scene on seeing the deceased lying down unconscious, the witnesses took him to the hospital, but on the way, he breathed his last.The first information report, Ex.P.1, was lodged at the police station at 5.00 a.m. and on the basis of which, a case was registered at 8.00 a.m. However, it has reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 9.00 p.m. The explanation given by the prosecution is that the superior officers were on other duty at Chennai and hence, on receiving instructions from the higher authorities, he sent the express F.I.R. to the Inspector of Police, one Rajan, attached Pennagaram (L & O) Police Station.This explanation cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the said Inspector took up investigation even at 12.30 p.m. on that day and he was not at all cross-examined on the aspect of delay in sending the F.I.R. to Court, which throws a serious doubt as to the coming into existence of the first information statement itself in the time and manner suggested by the prosecution.That apart, as already stated and with the risk of repetition, as per the evidence of P.W.8, there was counter-complaint given by A-3 in respect of the same occurrence against the prosecution witnesses, which was received by P.W.8 at about 11.30 a.m. on 22.4.88 along with an intimation from the outpost police station at Salem Government Hospital.The said complaint was registered and investigation was conducted by P.W.8 and in the said complaint, the witnesses herein were accused of assaulting the deceased Ramasamy and when the accused intervened, they were attacked by the witnesses.But, subsequently, the case has been referred as mistake of fact.It is an admitted fact that the accused have also sustained injuries and in fact, the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1, complaint, also show that in the melee, the deceased Ramasamy attacked A-3 on his head with a koduval lying on the pial of the house, which is corroborated with the accident register copy, Ex.P.10, in which the doctor has opined that wound No.1 found on the person of A-3 is grievous in nature.In view of the above suspicious features, we cannot but hold that the present first information statement, Ex.P.1, could have been prepared after much deliberation, after the receipt of the counter-complaint.Further, according to P.W.12, in his cross-examination, he came to know about the reference of the counter-case of the accused only from one Rajendran and he, himself, did not know whether the said reference has been intimated to the accused and any final report has been filed before the Court to that effect.In the absence any definite evidence as to the reference of the case as mistake of fact and in the absence of any final report having been filed before Court to that effect, a doubt is cast upon the prosecution as to the genesis of its case against the accused.The learned trial Judge also noticed that the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though recorded on the very next day, i.e., on 23.4.88, the same were received by the learned Magistrate much later and hence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the said statements should have been concocted ones prepared after much deliberation.In view of the above irreconcilable factors, which had thrown a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case, we cannot but hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned trial Judge was justified in acquitting the respondent/A-1/accused.It is seen that the said case had been committed to Court of Sessions in S.C.No.164 of 2001 and trial was proceeded against some of the witnesses in this case, but the same ended in acquittal.for which, a complaint , The evidence of P.W.1, daughter of the deceased, concisely is that due to a land dispute, there was a quarrel between the deceased, her father and the accused and on the date of occurrence, at about 8.30 p.m. she, the deceased and P.W.3, wife of the deceased, were sitting in front of the house and at that time, A-3 came and shouted at the deceased to relinquish the land to him, for which the deceased refused and a quarrel ensued between them, during which A-3 fisted on the face of the deceased and the deceased pushed him down.It is her further evidence that thereafter, A-2 and A-1 came there and assaulted the deceased with rice pounders and the deceased also inflicted injuries on A-3 with a koduval lying on the pial of the house.The other witnesses, viz., P.Ws.2 to 5 and others intervened and they were also attacked by the accused party.P.Ws.2 to 5 also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 about the time and manner in which the occurrence had taken place.But, however, we find some contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1, the complaint given by her at the earliest point of time, with regard to the overt acts attributed to the accused is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5, A-2 interfered and beat the deceased on his left forehand with a rice pounder and the deceased shouted and took an aruval from the house, inflicted injuries on him.Thereafter, the respondent/A-1 took another rice pounder from the pial of the house and beat the deceased on his head and when the deceased ran from the place, the respondent/A-1 chased and beat him on his head, neck, etc., on receipt of which the deceased fell down unconscious.On seeing this, the witnesses party and the accused party came to the scene of occurrence.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that A-1 though some witnesses have been examined during investigation and their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. P.W.1, in her evidence, stated that the occurrence was also witnessed by five other witnesses and the prosecution has also named some of the witnesses, who, on hearing the shouts, came to the scene of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence.But, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, none of the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in support of the evidence of eye witnesses, who are none other than the close relatives of the deceased. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,765,018 | DATED : 16th APRIL 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:-VINAY JOSHI, J. )1. Heard finally with consent of the parties.2. RULE.Rule made returnable forthwith.This criminal writ petition, in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed for quashing FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 against petitioner registered with Police Station Alipur, Distt.::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:27:36 :::At the instance of report lodged by victim (lady) aged about 35 years, crime is registered against petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n), 417 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.State has opposed petition by stating that petitioner gave false promise to marry and under such pretext, has sexually exploited informant (i.e. respondent No.2-widow).Though notice was served on respondent No. 2 (informant), she is absent.It is pertinent to note that respondent no. 2 is well grown up lady aged about 35 years which has to be taken into account.Informant is a widow aged about 35 years.Petitioner is residing in her neighborhood and due to proximity, love relationship had developed in between them.Informant stated that when petitioner said that he would marry her, she herself asked the petitioner as to how he can marry since he is already married.Thereafter, petitioner allegedly assured that he would maintain her and continued physical relationship.Informant delivered a baby and thereafter she filed report, since petitioner refused to maintain them.Though notice was served on respondent No. 2::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:27:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:27:36 :::Judgment 3 wp211.2019.odtAfter taking contents of FIR at its face value, it reveals that neither there are allegations of force or compulsion nor there is promise of marriage since informant (widow) herself was aware that petitioner was already married and he cannot marry her.Continuation of proceedings in absence of satisfying material to constitute offence would be nothing but abuse of process of law.In view of that, we find it appropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court.Hence, we allow this writ petition and hereby quash and set aside Crime/FIR No. 386/2018 registered with Alipur Police Station at the instance of report of respondent no. 2-widow.Rule is made absolute accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 18:27:36 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,780,063 | Heard through video conferencing.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.Applicant has been arrested on 29.05.2020 in connection with Crime No.128/2020 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Damoh (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506-B of Indian Penal Code.As per prosecution story, on 23.02.2020, applicant alongwith three other accused persons assaulted the complainant with bricks and stones, due to which he sustained grievous injuries.Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any crime.The father of complainant on basis of information gathered from one Shankar Choubey has lodged dehati nalishi and FIR.In the FIR and dehati nalishi allegation is made against Sonu and Monty.On basis of aforesaid submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Counsel appearing for the State Government opposed the bail application.It is submitted by him that complainant and victim namely Gopal was unconscious when FIR and dehati nalishi was recorded.In the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., Gopal has made allegations that Yashwant was present there and he is the person, who assaulted the complainant from behind with stones. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,878,997 | Thereafter, the witnesses have informed that applicant took that pistol from the bag and ran away.3 M.Cr.Otherwise, investigation against the applicant shall be hampered.Consequently, I.A.No.2253/15 is hereby dismissed.Also I.A.No.8315/15 is hereby allowed and interim stay dated 26.03.2015 is hereby vacated.Case be listed for final hearing in due course. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,791,472 | This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Accused No.1 against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, passed in S.C.No.303 of 2009 by judgment dated 31.05.2010, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I at Chennai-1), convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under section 120-B of IPC, to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment andfor the offence u/s. 489 (B) of IPC, to undergo 6 years rigorous imprisonmenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/2 Crl.A.82/2012 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J., jrs and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.In support of his submission, he has furnished the Death Certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Kanakkampalayam village, Udumalapet Taluk, Thirupur District dated 16.08.2017, pertaining to the said deceased appellant.3.Recording the said submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the charges against the deceased appellant/A-1 stands abated and consequently, the criminal appeal stands dismissed as abated.27.08.2019 Internet : Yes jrs ToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I at Chennai-1).2.The Inspector of Police,CB CID, Counterfeit Wing, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A.No.82/2012http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,944,926 | (Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderdated 23.06.2014 passed in P.D.No.15/2014 by the detaining authority, who hasbeen arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by nameBalamurugan and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty.2.The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein itis stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:(i)Crime No.327 of 2012 on the file of Kadayam Police Stationregistered under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.(ii)Crime No.373 of 2012 on the file of Kadayam Police Stationregistered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code @ Sections 457 and 392read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.(iii)Crime No.273 of 2012 on the file of Alwarkurichy Police Stationregistered under Sections 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.(iv)Crime No.92 of 2014 on the file of Kadayam Police Stationregistered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.(v)Crime No.289 of 2014 on the file of Marthandam Police Stationregistered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ Sections 302 and 392read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 16.05.2014, one Jobin,Son of Lucas, Ottrivilai, Thickurichy has given a complaint against thedetenu and the same has been registered in Crime No.325 of 2014 underSections 392 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code on the file of MarthandamPolice Station and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act14 of 1982 against the detenu.4.The detaining authority viz., the second respondent herein afterperusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connecteddocuments has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenuis a professional offender and ultimately invoked Act 14 of 1982 against himand thereby branded him as 'Goonda' by way of passing the impugned detentionorder and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition hasbeen filed by the detenu himself as petitioner.5.On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed,wherein it has been contended inter alia to the effect that all the avermentsmade in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended thaton the side of the petitioner/detenu two representations have been given andthe same have not been considered without delay and therefore the detentionorder in question is liable to be quashed.7.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted,wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representationin between Column Nos.7 and 9, three clear working days are available and inbetween Column Nos.12 and 13, two clear working days are available and withregard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 and 9, nine clearworking days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, four clearworking days are available and no explanation has been given on the side ofthe respondents with regard to such huge delay and that itself would affectthe rights of the petitioner/detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of theConstitution of India and therefore the detention order in question is liableto be quashed.8.In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detentionorder dated 23.06.2014 passed in P.D.No.15/2014 by the secondrespondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondentsare directed to set the detenu viz., Balamurugan, Son of Madasamy at libertyforthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with anyother case.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.ORDER MADE INH.C.P(MD)No.789 of 201419.11.2014 | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,779,709 | ORDER Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Allegations of patricide were levelled against Raj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the accused).It was alleged that he along with his mother Smt Chandra Wati were responsible for homicidal death of Ramesh Kumar, (hereinafter referred to as the deceased).The accused faced trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC).Learned Additional Sessions Judge found accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.On getting such information DD entry No. 24A was registered and a copy was given to ASI Raghbir Singh who reached at the spot.There he learnt that deceased Ramesh Kumar had been taken to hospital in injured condition; Accordingly, he went to Hindu Rao Hospital he obtained MLC.The attending doctor had recorded a dying declaration of the injured in the MLC.The injured was declared to be in a fit condition to make a statement.Accordingly, his statement was recorded by the Police officer.As per the statement recorded, the deceased was a tailor by profession and was married to Smt. Chandra Wati.His brother-in-law's wife Prem Wati used to visit their house sometimes.Chandra Wati and the accused suspected illicit relation betweens the deceased and the said Prem Wati.On the fateful day, he was present at his house.The accused alleged that he (deceased) was spending his entire earning on Prem Wati, but his family members were being harassed, and additionally he returned home daily consuming liquor.This resulted in a quarrel.Accused brought a knife from inside the house and told the deceased that he would teach him a lesson and attacked the deceased.Chandra Wati and his daughter Seema tried to intervene, but the accused gave blows on various parts of the body of the deceased.In the meantime PCR van came and the deceased was admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital.FIR No. 122/91 was registered under Section 307 IPC and an another statement in the nature of dying declaration was recorded by the SDM at about 12 noon.However, after the death of the deceased on 15.4.1991 the case was converted into under Section 302 IPC.Prosecution examined 23 witnesses to further its case.Urmila (PW3) and Seema (PW6) were two daughters of the deceased, who claimed to be eye witnesses.One Surinder Kumar (PW11) also claimed to be an eye witness.As noted above, three dying declarations were pressed into service.One is MLC recorded by the doctor (Ex.PW21/A).Out of the other two, one (Ex.PW16/B) was recorded by ASI Raghbir Singh (PW16), and the other (Ex.PW10/A) recorded by the SDM (PW10).Two witnesses were examined by the accused persons to prove their innocence.During trial Urmila (PW3), Seema (PW6) and Constable Surender Kumar (PW11) resoled from the version recorded during investigation but learned Trial Judge leaving out evidence of these witnesses, considered the three dying declarations.The declaration made before the doctor (PW21) and that before SDM (PW10) were disbelieved.However, reliance was placed on the evidence of PW16 and placing reliance on the dying declaration (Ex.PW16/B) the accused was found guilty.Reference was made to the quarrel that took place and assault made by the accused with the knife brought from the house after the quarrel started.As indicated above he was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.However, it was held that the prosecution has not been able to make out a case against Chandra Wati and she was given the benefit of doubt.In support of the appeal learned counsel for the accused submitted that the trial court should not have believed any one of the three dying declarations more particularly when entirely different versions have been indicated in the so-called dying declarations.The MLC was recorded on 6.4.1991 at 00.20 hours.Statement recorded by the police was at 12 noon and by the SDM it was recorded later. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,058,448 | JUDGMENT P.K. Misra, J.The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 18.2.2004, passed by the Respondent No.2, in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as "the Act".It is alleged that the detenu and his three associates criminally intimidated the public and vendors in Chidambaram Chinnakadai Street junction and had used dangerous weapons.On the basis of the complaint filed, a case in Chidambaram Town Police Station Crime No.171/2004 was registered under Sections 392, 506(ii) r/w.The District Magistrate referred to earlier involvement of the detenu in Chidambaram Town P.S Cr.No.334/1998 dated 17.10.1998 under section 395 r/w.149 IPC, Annamalai Nagar P.S. Cr.No.349/1998 dated 19.10.1998 under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 302 r/w. 149 IPC and Chidambaram Town P.S. Cr.No.1169/2003 dated 17.10.2003 under Section 147, 148, 324, 307, 395, 506(ii) IPC r/w. 9(b)(1) of Explosive Act, 25(1)(b), 27(1) Arms Act of 1959 and 4(1), 5 of Explosive Substances Act.In paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, it was indicated :- | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,202,765 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Chharch District Shivpuri (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 25/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 458, 323 and 324,34 of IPC and added Section 307 of IPC.Prosecution story in short is that a complaint was lodged against the unknown persons to the effect that on 28/05/2018 some unknown persons entered into house of the complainant in the night and assaulted her by axe resulting in amputation of hands and legs.Thereafter, report has been lodged.Counsel for the applicant submits that he has falsely been implicated due to previous enmity and name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR and on the statement of co-accused Ramavtar recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, applicant has been made co-accused.It is submitted that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant, investigation is THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 MCRC 30538/2018 (Rameshwar Singh Yadav Vs The State of Madhya pradesh) complete and no further custodial interrogation is required in the matter.There is no criminal antecedents against the applicant.It is submitted that applicant is ready to abide the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) with two solvent local sureties each of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.7.The applicant shall appear and mark his attendance before the trial court concerned/committal court every month till conclusion of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to this Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) JUDGE Prachi PRACHI Digitally signed by PRACHI MISHRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF M.P.BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=cc727abda3453804cde48b1afcb3 MISHRA 67afdaf978aea111b1ff29eae55fd213bc09, serialNumber=c1f6c7b3b2d7fcd42440840 cf9e7a7c177e01eabe96dbba40d811ecec6 e23bc5, cn=PRACHI MISHRA Date: 2018.08.07 15:27:43 +05'30' | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,230,361 | In Re: Tufan Bagdi & Others .. Petitioners.Mr. Samiran Mondal .. For the Petitioners.The application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,783,036 | 1. Rule.Heard finally by consent of the parties.The applicant is sister of one person by name Rajesh Ramteke.The said Rajesh Ramteke got married to one lady by name Vaishali.The applicant is resident of Delhi.On the basis of charge-sheet, it appears that relations between the said Rajesh and Vaishali were not good and one finds allegations ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 ::: 2 against said Rajesh and his relatives including the applicant that Rajesh, applicant and other relatives used to inflict cruelty upon said Vaishali.It is seen that the First Information Report came to be filed by father of said Vaishali namely Ramdas and that is how the investigation was initiated.The said F.I.R.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 :::mainly deals with inflicting cruelty upon Vaishali.It is also stated in the F.I.R. that all these relatives including the applicant were responsible for the death of said Vaishali.Said Vaishali was in the house on 15.06.2008 and according to the prosecution, through witness by name Mangala, it is sought to be suggested that the said Rajesh caused death of Vaishali by hanging her to rope.The investigating agency has filed charge-sheet under Section 302, 408 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The applicant filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Trial No. 401/2008 for discharge from the the said trial pending before the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Additional Sessions Judge').The said application came to be rejected and that is how the applicant has filed present application.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 :::I have heard learned Advocates for both the sides.The learned Advocate Mr. Daga submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in not discharging the applicant at least with reference to charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as according to the learned Advocate Mr. Daga, there is no material whatsoever disclosed in the charge-sheet that the applicant was responsible for murder of said Vaishali.He prayed that the applicant be discharged from the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned A.P.P. Mr. Yengal appearing on behalf of the State tried to support the view taken by learned Additional Sessions Judge by submitting that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the entire record and has given prima facie finding and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the said order.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 :::I have considered the entire charge-sheet and on consideration of the same, I am inclined to accept the arguments advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Daga that there is no material whatsoever even prima facie to come to the conclusion that the applicant has committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Said Vaishali is alive till afternoon of 15.06.2008 and Mangala, one of the witnesses, has seen Vaishali alive till about 1.30 p.m. Mangala happens to be the neighbour of said Rajesh as well as Vaishali and she had noticed quarrel between Rajesh and Vaishali in the afternoon at about 1.30 p.m. She treated the said quarrel as quarrel between husband and wife and did not pay any serious attention to it.Said Rajesh is said to have told Mangala that Vaishali has managed to get herself strangulated.It is at that point of time the said lady reached the house of Rajesh and noticed that Vaishali was hanging.If the statement of Managal is perused, it is clear that on 15.06.2008, the present applicant was not in the house and, therefore, she will not be able to point out any overt act to the applicant with reference to the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned A.P.P. Mr. Yengal, on the basis of the charge-sheet could ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 ::: 5 not place before the Court any material even pirma facie to show that the applicant is remotely concerned with the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, I am inclined to observe that the applicant is entitled to get order of discharge so far as charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 :::I have perused impugned the judgment.There is some reference to charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and some discussion is made by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the following terms "So after recording oral evidence and the facts would be more clear and at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of conviction of Accused No. 4 also fro the offence under Section 302 or 306 of I.P.C. If the prosecution will succeed to prove after having produced oral evidence, the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.then certainly Accused No. 4 will be liable as an abettor.So the application for discharge is not tenable & liable to be considered at this stage."After having considered the charge-sheet, I am ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 ::: 6 unable to understand what was the occasion for learned Additional Sessions Judge to make at aforesaid comment.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 :::When an application for discharge was made, it was necessary for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to peruse entire charge-sheet and ascertain whether the case is made out against the applicant and if yes for what offence.What is to happen after recording of evidence was something, which was not required to be mentioned by learned Additional Sessions Judge.Thus, this is a case where the one can observe that learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply is mind properly on the application for discharge which came to be filed before him.In substance, the applicant has been able to make out a case for discharge and no charge can be framed against her so far as Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is concerned and that is how she is required to be discharged so far as Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Is concerned.For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 :::The applicant is discharged so far as Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned from Sessions Trial No. 401/2008 presently pending on the file of learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nagpur which is arising out of First Information Report No. 194/2008 of Gittikhadan Police Station, Dist.Rule made absolute accordingly.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:56:56 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,378,143 | The crime was registered at C.R. No.73/2001 under Sections302, 304-B, 498-A read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code on the basisof F.I.R. Exh.62 lodged by P.W.4 Ananda Patange, resident of Kondhur,at Police Station Kallamnuri.As per the F.I.R., deceased Indubai wassister of P.W.4 Ananda.Her marriage was solemnised with accusedno.1 Ramrao, residing at Nandapur, Taluka Kalamnuri on 13.5.1996.Accused no.2 Rangrao and accused no.3 Santosh are brothers ofaccused no.1 and accused no.4 Kishan and accused no.5 Vithabai aretheir parents.They were residing together and were doingagricultural work.Indubai was given good treatment for first sixmonths, but thereafter all the accused started ill-treating her andassaulting her for petty reasons.They started demanding from herdowry of Rs.1 lac for purchasing a field.When Indubai visited hermaternal house, she disclosed these facts to her maternal relatives.She also wrote some letters, however, since her parents were poor,they were unable to meet the demand.In order to preserve themarried life of Indubai, her maternal relatives persuaded her toresume co-habitation. P.W.4 Ananda and his father had persuaded allthe accused that they should not assault and ill-treat Indubai.However, ill-treatment to Indubai continued.When Indubai waspregnant for two months, she was not provided food and was::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 3assaulted and she was told that if dowry of Rs.1 lac would be paid,then only she would be maintained.On 26.4.2001, there wasmarriage of P.W.4 Ananda, which was attended by Indubai.That time,she told her maternal relatives that she was subjected to unbearableharassment and they should pay Rs.1 lac to them, as she was unableto bear the ill-treatment.Still, they persuaded Indubai to resume co-habitation and sent her back to her matrimonial house.On 19.5.2001at 3.00 p.m., one neighbourer Deorao gave a message that accusedno.1 Ramrao had called them in their field.Hence, P.W.4 Ananda andhis cousin Waman went to the field of the accused at 4.00 p.m.Ramrao told P.W.4 Ananda that Indubai was not taking meals, as shehad sulked. P.W.4 Ananda noticed that there were signs of injuries onher neck and Indubai was not talking.She was unconscious.Therewere also injury marks on her person.All the accused were presentthere.They did not allow them to minutely observe body of Indubai.Then, she was put in auto-rickshaw and she was brought to Dr. Kandiat Hingoli.Dr. Kandi advised them to take her to Civil Hospital.Theytook Indubai to Civil Hospital, Hingoli but doctors from Hingoli advisedthem to take her to Civil Hospital, Nanded.When they reached nearArdhapur, they realised that Indubai must have died.When she wastaken to the Civil Hospital, Nanded, she was examined and declareddead.P.W.4 Ananda noticed injuries of assault on her neck, back, ribsand elbow.He accordingly lodged F.I.R. on 21.5.2000 at 4.10 p.m.P.W.14 P.I. Todase conducted the investigation.The chits purported to be written by deceased to hermaternal relatives were seized and school notebook of Indubai as aspecimen handwriting was also seized.Chits and the notebook weresent to handwriting expert.The handwriting expert supported theprosecution case.The accused came to be arrested.Viscera wasforwarded to Chemical Analyst.Dr Sudhir - casepapers Exh.93 maintained by him.P.W.2 Nandabai, wife of brother-in-law of deceased Indubai, whohas given a statement before the police and before learned JudicialMagistrate, First Class under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Exh.50 that accusedno.1 had committed murder of Indubai by throttling.She turnedhostile.The evidence of P.W.4 Ananda shows that he is material witnesson the point of murder of Indubai.As per his evidence, on 19.5.2001,he received message from the accused at 3.00 p.m. that accused no.1Ramrao had called him to his house.He and Deorao went to thehouse of accused.Ramrao told them that Indubai was sulking and wasnot talking.Then he, Waman and accused no.1 Ramrao went toNandapur at 4.00 p.m. He found Indubai sleeping on a wooden cot.She was not talking and was unconscious.He stated that accusedno.1 Ramrao and in-laws of Indubai did not allow him to closelyobserve Indubai's body.She was carried in auto-rickshaw fromNandapur to Hingoli.They first went to the hospital of Dr. Kandi, buthe did not examine her.P.W.4 Ananda stated that he had seen marks::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 10on throat and marks of violence on her body.Dr. Kandi saw her froma distance and proposed them to take her to government hospital.She was brought to Government Hospital, Hingoli.He stated that there were marks of violenceon her throat, rib cage and shoulder.Those were superficialin nature.In further cross-examination, he admitted that there wereno contusions on the neck showing thumb marks or finger marks onthe neck.He had opened the respiratory track.Proof on subjecting Indubai to cruelty :P.W.4 Ananda (brother) and P.W.12 Sambharrao (father) are themain witnesses to the charge of Section 498-A read with Sec.34 ofIndian Penal Code.As per admitted facts, Indubai married to accusedno.1 Ramrao on 13.5.1996 and thereafter started co-habiting withhim.The other accused were also residing with them.P.W.4 Anandahas stated that dowry of Rs.91,000/- was settled before marriage.Rs.66,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and Rs.25,000/- couldnot be paid due to poverty.Indubai was treated well for a period ofsix months after marriage, but thereafter her husband and in-lawsstarted ill-treating on petty grounds.They were asking her to bringRs.1 lac for purchasing land and were beating her on that count.Whenever she was visiting her maternal house, she was narratingthese instances of ill-treatment to them.She had also written lettersto them, but still they persuaded her to resume co-habitation andpersuaded the accused not to beat her.Still, the ill-treatment wascontinued and Indubai was not provided food, even when she waspregnant.He deposed that lastly on 26.4.2001, Indubai attended hismarriage and that time she again narrated to them about ill-treatmentby her husband and family members.The handwriting is proved by P.W.12 Sambharrao.This is an appeal by the State aggrieved by the judgment ofacquittal of accused nos.1 to 5 for offences under Sections 498-A,::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::The facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be stated asfollows:He drew spotpanchnama and inquest panchnama.He also got autopsy done on thedead body.P.W.3 Dr. Suryakant in his post mortem notes recordedcause of death by throttling.The statements of material witnesses::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 4were recorded.On completion of investigation, thecharge-sheet was submitted in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The Charge was framed at Exh.10 under Section 498-A, 302, 304-Bread with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code in the alternative, 302 read withSection 109 of Indian Penal Code.The accused pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses.The accused havedenied that Indubai died of throttling.The defence has examinedMedical Officer from Hingoli, who has stated that Indubai hadsuspected meningitis and he had reported the matter to police andforwarded the patient to Civil Hospital, Nanded.After considering the matter on merits, the learned AdditionalSessions Judge acquitted all the accused of all the charges.Hence thisappeal.Mr S.J. Salgare, learned A.P.P. for the State argued that there isreliable evidence of relatives of Indubai that the accused hadsubjected her to dowry demands and ill-treatment.She had writtenletters, which are proved through examination of handwriting expert.She had from time to time given information about her ill-treatment toher maternal relatives, lastly on 26.4.2001 at the time of marriage of::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 5her brother P.W.4 Ananda.Within 15 to 18 days thereafter she hasmet with a death.He relied on the evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Suryakantand the post mortem notes showing that scratches were found on theneck and two contusions were found in scapula and lumber region andthe doctor has given opinion that Indubai met with a death due toasphyxia due to throttling.The accused can be held guilty under Section 304-B ofIndian Penal Code for dowry death.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Per contra, learned Advocate Mr Abhay Ostwal has argued thatin case of throttling, the death is instantaneous and Indubai could nothave survived for such a long time.He also argued that the allegations about dowry demands and ill-treatment are vague, not supported with any circumstantial evidenceand are unreliable.There were no previous complaints.There isdelay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. The letters sent by Indubai arenot proved to be in her handwriting.Her specimen handwriting is notproved by examining the witness.P.W.4 Ananda brother of deceasedand accused no.1 Ramrao both were together in taking Indubai to CivilHospital, Hingoli and thereafter to Civil Hospital, Nanded.Theaccused have given intimation about ill health of Indubai to theinformant.The conduct of the accused rules out the possibility that::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 6they had subjected her to ill-treatment.Hence, the learned trial Judgehas rightly acquitted the accused and no interference is called for.Hehas relied on number of rulings on the point of proof of handwritingevidence and scope of appellate Court in interfering with thejudgment of acquittal.On the basis of evidence on record, the pointsfor our consideration with our findings are as follows:::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::and physical and mental ill-treatment? .. Proved(IV) Whether accused nos.1 to 5 in furtherance of their common intention caused dowry death of Indubai ? .. Not proved(V) What order ? .. Accused 1 to 5 are held guilty under Section 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 7::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::- REASONS -The prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses and producednumber of documents, which may be conveniently grouped as follows:(I) Custodial death P.W.4 Ananda, brother of deceased.P.W.3 Dr. Suryakant and provisional death certificate Exh.55Post Mortem notes Exh.56 showing death by throttling.There is counter evidence by defence D.W.!.(II) Evidence of ill-treatment, dowry demand :P.W.4 Ananda, brother of the deceased P.W.12 Sambharrao, father of the deceased P.W.9 Bhagwan, a neighbour of P.W.12 Sambharrao P.W.10 Uttam, a neighbourer P.W.11 Subhash, a neighbourer::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 8(III) Evidence of written complaints by Indubai :::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::P.W.4 Ananda, brother of the deceased P.W.12 Sambharrao, father of the deceased P.W.13 Sahebrao, seizure of note book admitted handwriting Article 11 (panchnama Exh.82) Seizure of three post cards and one letter on a paper, panchnama Exh.67 proved by P.W.6 Laxman P.W.5 Sanjay handwriting expert - his opinion Exh.65 and the xerox copies of disputed document produced at A-1, A-2, A-3 and Articles A-3 A-4, A-6 to A-11(IV) Panchas and other evidence:P.W.1 Baburao - spot panch - panchnama at Exh.46 P.W.7 Sahebrao - panch to inquest panchnama Exh.70 P.W.8 Madhav - discovery of rope used for assault by accused no.1 Ramrao (Panchnama at Exh.74) P.W.14 Investigating Officer P.I. Shriram TodseP.W.2 Nandabai, wife of brother-in-law of the deceased wasposed as eye witness, but she declined to support the prosecution.Inthe cross-examination by learned Advocate for the accused, she hascompletely admitted the defence story.It is a cryptic statement nonetheless Nandabai hadstated before Magistrate that accused no.1 Ramrao, husband ofIndubai had committed her murder by throttling and she hadwitnessed the incident on the date of incident at 10.00 a.m. at her::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 9matrimonial house.Her evidence before this Court is totallycontradictory to it.Besides, she had filed civil suit for partition.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Certified copy of the plaint therein also discloses that on 19.5.2001(this certified copy ought to have been exhibited, but it is notexhibited), accused no.1 Ramrao had ill-treated and assaulted Indubaiand committed her murder.We also find that there were certain letters written by Nandabaito her parents.Those were not got proved through Nandabai.We findthat the evidence of Nandabai will have to be discarded altogether.Her statement under Section 164 or the plaint filed by her in the suitdisclosing certain material facts about the murder cannot be used assubstantive peace of evidence as she is not supporting theprosecution.The doctor fromGovernment Hospital, Hingoli referred her to Government Hospital,Nanded.At 7.00 p.m., they left Hingoli for proceeding to Nanded by aprivate jeep.P.W.4 Ananda, contrary to his previous statement statedthat Indubai was dead at Nandapur and he felt so while leavingNandapur, but his previous statement disclosed that he had statedthat when they reached near Ardhapur, Indubai showed symptoms ofher death.When Indubai was taken to the Civil Hospital at 9.00 p.m.,she was declared dead.He stated that he was not awarewhether Indubai was examined or not in Civil Hospital, Hingoli, but headmitted that they had reached Civil Hospital, Hingoli at 5.45 p.m.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::He stated that in the hospital at Nanded, he had seen thedead body of a woman.There were marks of violence on the rightside of neck, right ear and right scapular region and blood was oozingfrom the mouth.In the cross-examination, it was brought on record that he wasreturning after attending a movie, but that is not much relevant.The main evidence is of P.W.3 Medical Officer Dr. Suryakant.Healong with Dr. Paliwal conducted post mortem on the dead body on20.5.2001 at 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. He noticed following facts :::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Appeal No.423/2002 111) Rigor mortis present2) Following three surface wounds :(I) two contusions on left scapula admeasuring 2 cms in circumference one below the other (II) A contusion on right lumber region admeasuring 4 cm x 2 cm rectangular in shape (III) Scratches on neck.There were two finger nail marks in the center over the marks in the center over thyroid cartilage.There were two nail marks on (1) left side and (2) nail marks on right side below the above scratches.Subcutaneous tissue was found congested.He stated that all the three injuries were ante mortem and therewas congestion in brain, serous pleura, both lungs, pericardium, largevessels, esophagus, stomach and its contents, small intestine, largeintestine, liver, pancreas, spleen and kidney.He had preserved theviscera but Chemical Analyst's report disclosed that there was nopoisoning.He, therefore, confirmed his opinion that probable cause ofdeath was due to asphyxia due to throttling.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Appeal No.423/2002 12Paliwal initially denied, but after referring to Dr. Modi'sjurisprudence, agreed that throttling means constriction produced bythe pressure of the fingers and palms on the throat.He found no fractureof hyoid bone.No fracture of larynx, trachea and thyroid cartilages.He admitted that no damage to the trachea and larynx.He had statedthat walls of thorax ribs cartilages were found intact.He admittedthat in case of epileptic attack, there is arrest of breathing and oozingof froth but such froth is not reddish in colour.He admitted that incase of throttling, the death is instant (this opinion does not seem tobe sound).Throttling may cause obstruction in supply of oxygen,which can cause internal damage and the death may be delayed, butlearned A.P.P. has not cross-examined him on this point.In the present case, P.W.4 Ananda was along with Indubai rightfrom 4.00 to 9.00 p.m. Indubai was unconscious, but alive.She wasbrought to Civil Hospital, Hingoli.She was examined there and D.W.1Dr.Sudhir Bhagat had attended to her.His evidence that he hadexamined her and prepared case papers and given treatment doesnot appear to be correct.As per case papers, Indubai was in thehospital from 5.50 to 6.00 p.m. It is impossible for D.W.1 Dr. Bhagatto examine her, note down all the symptoms including vitalparameters and then provide her medical treatment in the form ofI.V.fluid, injectable ampicillin, gentamicin, Soda Bicarb Oxygen::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 13inhalation Dexamethazone etc. as deposed by him.Dr Bhagat hasproduced case papers running into six pages.We find that hisevidence is not reliable and trustworthy regarding the treatment givenby him and preparation of case papers as time of ten minutes is tooshort for writing such lengthy symptoms and treatment, but he hasproduced copy of his intimation letter to the Police about bringingIndubai Ramrao Chavan in unconscious condition to the police stationand referring her to expert management.We find the evidence of Dr.Bhagat reliable to the extent that when Indubai was brought to him,she was unconscious and serious, but alive.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::The evidence of Dr. Suryakant discloses that besides scratcheson the neck, no other symptoms causing internal damage to therespiratory system were noted by him.The death was not instant.There was no internal damage to larynx, trachea, hyoid bone andthyroid cartilage, bronchus walls of thorax and ribs.The evidence ofdoctor that there was froth oozing from the mouth and scratches werefound on the neck is insufficient to hold that deceased Indubai metwith a homicidal death by throttling.P.W.3 Dr. Suryakant's admissionthat the death could have been instant, either favours the prosecutionor throws doubt about his expert knowledge.There are three contusions noticed on the body, two are circular(with diameter of 2 cm) and one is rectangular 4 x 2 cm.The opinion of Dr.Suryakant that these contusions were possible by rope Article 10 isnot medically sound and cannot be believed.Learned A.P.P. MrSalgare relied on :::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Appeal No.423/2002 141) Appasaheb and anr.State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721 ( Para 11 with regard to definition of dowry)2) Hira Lal and ors.State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003)8 SCC 80 (Expression "soon before" before her death)3) Satvir Singh and Ors.State of Punjab and anr.(2001) 8 SCC 633 (with regard to presumption under Sec113-A of the Evidence Act )4) K. Prema S. Rao & anr.Yadla Shrinivasa Rao & anr.(2003) 1 SCC 217 (with regard to the interpretation of provisions of Section 304-B IPC - dowry death)5) Magan Bihari Lal Vs.The corrororation is required for such opinion) In the present case, the evidence on record creates a doubtwhether deceased Indubai met with unnatural death or not.There is apossibility that she might have died naturally.In the light of thispossibility, no presumption of dowry death can be drawn though theallegations of ill-treatment for dowry are established.We find thatthere is no reliable and trustworthy evidence to show that deceasedIndubai met with a homicidal death.In the light of these facts, theconviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is certainly notsustainable.Points no.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Appeal No.423/2002 15She deposed about unbearablebeatings on account of non-payment of Rs.1 lac.Still, P.W.4 Anandaand family members of Indubai persuaded her to resume co-habitationand on 19.5.2001 they received news about her death.The cross-examination of P.W.4 Ananda shows that there is noreference in his F.I.R. Exh.62 about agreement to pay dowry ofRs.91,000/-, payment of dowry amount of Rs.66,000/- and outstanding::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 16amount of Rs.25,000/-.His evidence regarding ill-treatment is veryvague.He admitted that no demand of Rs.1 lac was made directlyfrom them, but through Indubai.Such demand was made for the firsttime on 26.12.2000 and Indubai intimated to them by a letter.He didnot make enquiry about the details of the land to be purchased.Hisevidence shows that Indubai's cousin Ranjana was also residing inNandapur.They did not make any enquiry with her.Unfortunately,though he had carried handwritten letter of Indubai, the same was notshown to him and was not got it proved.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::20. P.W.12 Sambharrao is father of deceased Indubai.He hasdeposed about dowry demands and ill-treatment as per evidence ofP.W.4 Ananda.His evidence is again vague with regard to allegationsof beating.That time,the accused had assured that they would not ill-treat Indubai, butagain there was demand of Rs.1 lac and ill-treatment on account ofnot meeting the demand.He has proved the handwriting of Indubai in two letters and onechit.One letter is dated 17.4.1999, another is dated 26.12.2000 andthe chit was brought by his son Ananda.These muddemal articles 3,5 and 6 were shown to him and he identified them, but those were notexhibited at that time.In cross-examination, he deposed that at the time ofmarriage, one Vijayrao Deshmukh was mediator.Amount ofRs.66,000/- was paid fifteen days before the marriage.He had not::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Hedeposed that on 26.4.2001, for the first time he learnt about demandof dowry of Rs.1 lac.He admitted that the two letters did not discloseabout demand of Rs.1 lac for purchasing a land.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::With regard to the letters Exh.97, 98 and 99 there is evidence ofhandwriting expert Sanjay Hathkar.He had compared these lettersalong with notebook, but there is no evidence that the notebookcontained specimen handwriting of Indubai.Neither P.W.4 nor P.W.12have deposed to prove admitted handwriting of Indubai in the saidnotebook.Therefore, the evidence of handwriting expert is of no use.However, there is categorical evidence of P.W.12 that he had receivedtwo letters sent by post.It is addressed to P.W.12 Sambharrao.It shows thatIndubai reported about use of very bad language by her mother-in-lawand lot of harassment and beating to her.The husband wasdemanding Rs.1 lac and as she could not bring the money, herhusband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law were assaulting her.Herbrother-in-law was calling her as 'wife'.Father-in-law was alsoscolding her and due to ill-treatment her brain was not working andher father should pay the money immediately and the ill-treatmentwas unbearable to her.Letter Exh.98 is also received by P.W.12 Sambharrao.It bearsstamps dated 10.1.2000 and 18.1.2000 (of Kondhur the place ofP.W.12 Sambharrao).In this letter also there is complaint that shewas subjected to heavy ill-treatment.Her brother-in-law did not allowher to sleep throughout the night and her bedding was torn by him.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Appeal No.423/2002 18Her husband was instigating him to assault her and used to say thathis wife was dead for him.All persons were scolding her and weresaying that she was curse to their family, nobody was supporting her.She could not conceive how she could reside in such house.Shewarned that her maternal relatives should not visit their house.Herfather-in-law was telling her husband to leave her to her maternalhouse.She warned that if something would happen to her, her fathershould not spare anybody.These letters are sent by post, whereasletter Exh.99 stands on a different footing, as it is brought by handdelivery.P.W.4 Ananda has not proved this letter.Therefore,evidence of P.W.12 that this letter was sent by post to him cannot bebelieved.However, as far as postal letters are concerned, those arerelevant as per Section 32 (2) of the Evidence Act. Illustration (g) toSection 32 reads as follows:"(g) The question is, whether A, a person who cannot be found, wrote a letter on a certain day.He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day, and bearing the Lahore post-mark of that day.The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under section 32, clause (2)."::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Appeal No.423/2002 19 Thus, the postal endorsements on the post cards ensure thecommunication as those cannot be manipulated and those wereactually written.He being father must be aware of her handwriting.These two lettersclearly disclosed that deceased Indubai was subjected to ill-treatmentby all the accused for non-payment of money.There is no specificreference of amount in one letter but there is reference that the ill-treatment and beatings was on account of non-payment of dowry.We, therefore, find that these letters corroborate the evidence ofP.W.4 Ananda and P.W.12 Sambharrao on the point of ill-treatment.Besides, there is evidence of P.W.9 Bhagwan, P.W.10 Uttam andP.W.11 Subhash, neighbours who have deposed about payment ofdowry of Rs.25,000/- in their presence.We, therefore, hold thataccused nos.1 to 4 had subjected Indubai to cruelty and, therefore,they are guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A readwith Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.Learned Advocate Mr Abhay Ostwalfor the appellant relied upon following rulings :1) State of U.P. Vs.Ram Sajivan and ors., (2010) SCC 529 (Paragraphs 47 to 59)2) Mohammed Ankoos and ors.Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 ( Paragraphs 15 and 37 )3) Ghurey Lal Vs.State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 ( Paragraph 3 and 69 to 73)::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: Cri.Appeal No.423/2002 20::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::4) Tota Singh and anr.State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529 ( Paragraph 6)5) Sheo Swarup and ors.Kind Emperor AIR 1934 (Privy Council 227 (2)6) Zwinglee Ariel Vs.State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 15 ( Paragraph 9)7) State of Goa Vs.Sanjay Thakran and anr.(2007) 3 SCC 755 ( Paragraph 16) In all these cases, it is laid down that though the appellate Courthas vast powers to reappreciate the entire evidence, the findingrecorded by the trial Judge in case of acquittal should be consideredand when two views are probable, the one in favour of the accusedshould be preferred.The finding of the trial Court of acquittal shouldnot be set aside without compelling reasons.In this case, we find thatthe learned trial Judge has not considered the letters written by thedeceased to her father, which are admissible in evidence in view ofpostal endorsements thereon and identification of the handwriting byher father.Those letters are written by the deceased, just within ashort period before her death.If these letters would have beenconsidered, there was no scope for acquitting the accused of offencepunishable under Section 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code.Hence, thefinding of the learned trial Judge to the extent of acquittal underSection 498-A of Indian Penal Code needs to be interfered.In theresult the appeal deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 :::Appeal No.423/2002 21Accused nos.1 to 4 are held guilty for offence punishable underSection 498-A read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and notguilty under Section 302 read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.Theyshall be heard on the point of sentence.Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send intimation to theconcerned Police Station to keep the accused present before thisCourt on 16th January 2018, for hearing them on the point ofsentence.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 02:15:31 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 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. |
178,441,346 | Allowed md.CRM No. 5525 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 31.7.2018 in connection with Bhimpur Police Station Case No. 146 of 2018 dated 24.07.2018 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Nishikanta Biswas ... Petitioner Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. N.P. Agarwala, Advocate Ms. Subhashree Patel, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Bhimpur Police Station Case No. 146 of 2018 dated 24.07.2018 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner claims that the alleged victim cried foul only because the petitioner and the victim may have been caught in the act by the relatives of the victim.The State refers to the medical report.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,868,766 | Shri R. R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.In view of the aforesaid, the application deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner- Prakash Chandra S/o Motilalji Udiwal, shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Police Officer and further subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and shall not, in any manner, try to influence the witness.C. c. as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Vacation Judge Pankaj/- | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
178,736,170 | This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions :-The applicant shall mark his presence in the concerned police (Dhamnod, District Dhar) once in a week on every Monday of the month between 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon unless required to attend the office of the Investigating Officer on that day. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,788,793 | Ishwar d hurt to Sh.Sohan Lal.(1) This and connected matters raise common points of law and will be decided by the same order.issued notice to the State as well as the accused Jai Bhagwan.In the connected matters also the Magistrates having acquitted the accused on the same ground Delhi Administration has filed appeals again st the order of release and acquittal and that is why all these matters have been heard together.The accused was charge sheeted for an offence for driving the truck rashly/negligently and causing death of Sh.Subash Chander, Ram Kumar and Chandan Devi and grevious hurt to Sh. | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,993,252 | JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.Appellant Basant has been convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code for treating his wife Jaswantabai with cruelty and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.Smt. Jaswantabai and appellant Basant have filed a petition stating therein that they want to compromise this matter.Section 498A, IPC is non-compoundable and, therefore, permission to compound the offence cannot be given.The police had filed a charge-sheet under Section 307, IPC against Jaswantabai on the ground that she jumped into the Well with her two minor child ren.She has been acquitted of that charge.In this charge-sheet the husband was also impleaded as accused.The wife has not made any complaint against her husband.She has also not appeared as a witness against him.Therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding the cruelty to the wife by the husband, there can be no conviction under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code..This appeal is allowed. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,325,954 | C.R.M. 5146 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13/07/2018 in connection with Rejinagar P.S. No. 110 of 2018 dated 15/05/2018 under Sections gd 341/325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Arijil Sk & Ors.....petitioners.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Rejinagar P.S. No. 110 of 2018 dated 15/05/2018 under Sections 341/325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim to have been falsely implicated in the criminal case on the day of the recently concluded panchayat elections.Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties of 2 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,993,274 | After Bhopal gas disaster in December, 1984, the Central Government passed an Act known as "Bhoal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, giving to the Central Government exclusive right to represent and act in place of every person, who has made or is entitled to make a claim, for all persons connected with such claim.Thereafter Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration & Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985 was framed under the said Act and accordingly the Welfare Commissioner was appointed to decide and disburse the individual claims arising out of such disaster.The State Bank of India was nominated as the Bank and the custodian of the amount paid by the Union Carbide and to be disbursed to the Bhopal Gas victims.On 4.12.1992 an account is opened vide Account No.8692256 in their Branch in the name of Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal Gas Victims, Bhopal.It was mutually agreed that the Welfare Commissioner was required to supply to the Bank the name and specimen signatures of the officers/Dy.Commissioner posted at different Wards and on the basis of their specimen signatures, the cheques were required to be cleared.It was also agreed and made a practice that a requisition slip was sent for issuance of Cheque Book by every Ward and the Cheque Book was issued.It was also instructed by the Bank that in order to protect the money of the gas victims, every cheque issued towards payment of compensation or pro-rata compensation was required to have the name of the Bank and the Account Number of the Bank where the beneficiary was holding his account.The said process was adopted in order to secure that no amount is wrongly paid or utilized by a person not entitled to claim the compensation.It was also mandatory on the part of the Bank to submit scrolls and cheques and date wise monthly statement promptly.It was also agreed that all the cheques, which were required to be cleared through the Bank could be stopped if the Bank was not satisfied about the identity of the person receiving the payment and if the cheques were not properly filled in.This process was followed by the Bank from last 15 years.On 18.5.2005, in Ward No.20, one Deputy Commissioner, Vishnu Kumar Soni was appointed and posted and accordingly, the specimen signature of the said officer was conveyed to the Bank on 18.5.05 itself and acknowledged by the Bank.One of the employee of the office of Welfare Commissioner, namely, Shoeb Khan has stolen the Cheque Book, issued by the Bank containing 100 cheques and the cheque book was missing from Ward No. 20 and in the meanwhile Vishnu Kumar Soni, Dy.Commissioner of the said Ward was transferred and Pradeep Mittal was sent to the said Ward on 14.11.2005 and since he was already posted earlier in Ward No.19 (B) and his specimen signatures were already with the Bank, the formal communication was made to the Bank on 18.11.2005 regarding the change of authorised signatory of the said Ward.In the month of March, 2007 when the reconciliation of of the account was done by the Welfare Commissioner, it was discovered that the said Cheque Book was found missing and 10 cheques were cleared from the said account.The details of the said cheques and the amount and its respective date of clearance are given as under :-Bank permitted the withdrawal of such huge amount of Rs.72,77,156/-, the Welfare Commissioner approached the Bank and enquired about the details of the same and then it came to their notice that the 10 cheques were cleared from the Standard Chartered Bank Branch of Bhopal.It is further found that the said cheques did not bear the signatures of Vishnu Kumar Soni and the signatures were fabricated on those cheques.About 10 cheques could not have been cleared because they did not have the name of the Bank of the beneficiary/payee and 3 of the cheques did not even have the account numbers of the Bank.The amount mentioned in the cheques was never disbursed to an individual during last 15 years, when the claims were originally settled and since 2004, when the pro-rata compensation was ordered by the Apex Court, the amount disbursed to an individual never exceeded the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in 04 category and Rs.3,00,000/- in 01 category, but the officers of the Bank completely failed to follow the procedure agreed between the two and have not even checked and verified the signatures of the signing authority and the terms and conditions of the opening of the accounts.The signatures made on the said cheques presented for clearance were not tallied with the originals and the mandatory process of tallying the signatures of the cheques was ignored.The cheques did not carry the name of the Account Holder's Bank and the Account Number against the terms and conditions of the agreement and against the Central Government Account Receipt & Payment and Central Treasury Rules and no monitoring was done as to see the amount mentioned on the cheques.No cheque of Rs.9,85,000/- was issued to any person as compensation.As per agreement, the signing authority i.e. Dy.Commissioner was only authorized to issue the cheques from the particular Ward till he remained posted and the cheques signed by him could be realized for a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of the said cheque.The Bank was duly informed on 14.11.05 that Ward No. 20 Dy.Commissioner's officer Pradeep Mittal was authorized to issue the cheque on and after 14.11.05, whereas the cheques were cleared on 11.1.06, 22.2.06, 18.3.06 and 22.3.06, which were alleged to have been signed by Vishnu Kumar Soni and whereas, the cheques issued on 13.6.05 and 23.6.05 and 25.11.05 were also not signed by Vishnu Kumar Soni and the signatures made on the same were clearly forged one.On a complaint made by the complainant the police investigated the mater and filed a charge-sheet against Shoeb Khan, Sheeba, Abdul Haneef Khan, Smt. Anwar Fatma, Nasir Khan and Santosh Mathur.Thereafter supplementary challan was filed on 26.2.2009 against the present applicants employees of the Bank.Their cheques bearing numbers 351301 to 351400 have been stolen but this fact was not known even to them for two years and only on 7.3.2007 they received information about the stealing of cheque leaves by Smt. Maya Vishwal.He further submitted that there is no evidence so as to hold the applicant guilty of the alleged offence.Initially the present petitioners were witnesses and thereafter without there being any material on record, they have been implicated in the alleged offence whereas there is not even negligence on the part of the petitioners much less any criminality and they cannot be prosecuted in the alleged offence.It is further submitted that the FIR does not disclose necessary ingredients of the offence with which the petitioners are being charged and this is a fit case for quashment of charges framed against the petitioners.He further submits that material that has been collected and filed along with the charge-sheet does not show that there is any criminality involved.It is lastly submitted that Shoeb Khan from whom and his family property worth around Rs.40 lacs has been seized, nowhere says that he was naming any of the present petitioners or that they had helped him in any manner.With aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel prays for quashment of order dated 23.2.2010 as well as charges framed against the present petitioners. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 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. |
199,339,589 | Charge NumberRank of Accused Penal Provision1Charge No.1Accused Nos.1 to 4148 of IPC2Charge No.2Accused Nos.1 to 4 449 of IPC3Charge No.3Accused Nos.1 and 2302 of IPC4Charge No.4Accused Nos.3 and 4302 r/w.149 of IPCBy judgment dated 10.07.2014, the trial court acquitted all the accused from all the charges.Challenging the said acquittal, the appellant, who is the son of the deceased, has come up with this appeal.Accused Nos.1 to 4He was residing at Mariamman Koil Street, Ko.The accused are also the residents of the same locality.The son of the 2nd accused and the son of the deceased were roaming around as spendthrifts.The 2nd accused tried to separate them.But, P.W.1, the son of the deceased continued the friendship.The 2nd accused quarreled with P.W.1 for the same.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.(b) It is further alleged that on 12.08.2012, around 10 p.m., the deceased alone was at his house.All these four accused came to the place of occurrence.All were armed with iron rods and wooden logs.They trespassed into the house of the deceased.On reaching the deceased, the 1st accused attacked the deceased with iron pipe on the left side of his head.The 2nd accused attacked him with iron pipe near his left eyebrow.The accused 3 and 4 facilitated the accused 1 and 2 who attacked the deceased.Then, all the four accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.(c) P.W.1 cried for help.The neighbours rushed to the house of the deceased.The deceased, who sustained injuries, fainted.Immediately, P.W.1, rushed him to the Government Hospital at Ulundurpet.After first aid treatment, he was taken to Munniyambakkam Government Hospital from where he was taken to Jipmer Hospital, Puducherry.(d) On receiving intimation from the hospital, P.W.15, the then Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalampettai Police Station, rushed to Ulundurpet Government Hospital, then to Munniyambakkam Government Hospital and finally to Jipmer Hospital.Since the deceased was taking treatment and the doctors were attending on him, P.W.15 recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the police station at 06.30 p.m. on 13.08.2012, he registered a case in Cr.No.108/2012 under Sections 147, 148, 457 and 307 of IPC Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.He went to the place of occurrence and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and few more witnesses.On the same day, he arrested the 2nd accused at 08.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden an iron pipe and took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced the same.P.W.16 recovered the same under a Mahazar.Then, he forwarded the 2nd accused to court for judicial custody and also handed over the material object to court.a. Abdominal Wall Intact b. Peritoneum Intact c. Stomach and content Mucosa membrane hemorrhage.Contain 75 ml of white colour semi digested fluid with no peculiar smell.d. Small Intestine Intact e. Large Intestine Intact f. Liver & Gall Bladder Enlarged 02 Kg.(g) P.W.16 during the course of investigation, arrested the accused 1 and 3 on 20.08.2012 at 8.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness.On such arrest, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden an iron pipe.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the same.P.W.16 recovered the same under a Mahazar.The 3rd accused gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a wooden log.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the wooden log.P.W.16 recovered the same under a Mahazar.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused 1 and 3 to court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to court.He collected the medical records, examined the doctors.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment.The accused denied the same.The respondents 2 to 5 were accused in S.C.No.103 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.The final report was filed by the 1st respondent.The trial court framed as many as 4 charges as detailed below :Accused Nos.1 to 4Accused Nos.1 and 2Accused Nos.3 and 42. Seeking relief to file an appeal, the petitioner/appellant has filed Crl.The Registry has, however, received the appeal also and numbered it.Therefore, we have heard the Leave Application as well as the Appeal together.(f) On 14.08.2012 at 07.00 a.m., again he visited the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.11 and other witnesses.On 17.08.2012 at 06.00 p.m., the deceased succumbed to the injuries.Therefore, P.W.16 altered the case into 302 of IPC and submitted an Alteration report to the court.On 18.08.2012, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.He found the following injuries:''1. Partially healed abrasion of size 2 x 1 c.m. present just over right later aspect of eye brow;Laceration of size 2 x 1 x soft tissue deep found over the inner aspect of the right side of lower lip just in front of right lower canine and lateral incisor;Partially healed abrasion of size 3 x 2 c.m. present immediately below the left knee;Bed sores are present in the following parts of the body, covered with a thin layer of yellowish green pus:On the lower and inner quadrant of the right buttock 5 x 3 cms.On the lower and inner quadrant of the left buttock 5 x 4 cms.Internal Examination :Head (Scalp, skull, brain, meninges) Brain - M.1400 gms.F:1275 and Blood Vessels.a. Scalp - Intact b. Skull - Intact c. Meninges - Pale d. Brain showed diffuse cerebral edema and congested.e. Sub Archnoid Hemorrhage present over the posterior aspect of both lobes of cerebellum and left occipital lobe.f. Both side lateral ventricular hemorrhage seen.g. Brain stem hemorrhage seen h. Fourth ventricular hemorrhage seen.' Neck structures (Skin, Muscles, Hyoid, Thyroid cartilage, larynx, trachea, bronchi, etc) : Intact and healthy.Mucosa membrane - NAD.Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage intact.a. Chest Wall Intact b. Pleural Cavity Intact c. Mediastinum NAD d. Oesophagus Intact e. Bronchi Mucosa congested f. Lungs Right(360-570gms) Congested Left (325-480 gms) g. Heart and Pericardium Intact, all chambers empty.h. Blood Vessels Intact i Diaphragm Intact and healthy Abdomen and Pelvis:NAD g. Spleen Congested h. Pancreas NAD i. Kidneys, Uterus and Left Kidney -NAD Right- Adrenals showing single cyst in lower pole of size 1 x 1 c.m. Normal.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 19 documents and 3 material objects were also marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1-the son of the deceased and P.W.2-the wife of the deceased have been examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence.They have stated about the motive and they have also stated that all these four accused trespassed into the house of the deceased and the accused 1 and 2 gave one blow each with iron pipes which resulted in the death of the deceased. P.W.3 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch at the place of occurrence.P.W.4 has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.P.W.5 has spoken about the arrest of the accused 1 and 3, the disclosure statement made by them and the consequential recovery of the material objects.P.Ws.6 and 7 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.8 has spoken about the arrest of the 2nd accused, the disclosure statement made by him and the consequential recovery of the material object.P.Ws.9 and 10 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.11 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at the Government Hospital, Ulundurpet.According to him, on 13.08.2012 at 01.15 a.m., the deceased was brought to the Government Hospital, Ulundurpet for treatment.At that time, the deceased was conscious.He told that six known persons attacked him with hands, legs and stones at 10.00 p.m. on 12.08.2012 at his house.He found the following injuries:a. A contusion measuring 6 x 6 c.m. above the left eyebrow;b. An abrasion measuring 2 x 2 c.m. on the left eyebrow;c. He was unable to move his hands and legs; and d. a lacerated injury measuring 5 x 5 c.m.on the right foot.P.11 is the Accident Register.He has further stated that he forwarded the deceased for further treatment.P.W.12 Head Constable of Mangalam Pettai Police Station has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical analysis as directed by the Investigating Officer.P.W.13 has stated that he took the dead body of the deceased to hospital for postmortem as directed by the Investigating Officer.P.W.14 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding cause of death.P.W.16 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed by him.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence was a total denial.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on their side.Having considered all the above, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not come forward with clean hands.It was, on that ground, the trial court acquitted the accused.Aggrieved over the same, P.W.1 the son of the deceased is before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/1st respondent and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5/accused 2 to 5 and we have also perused the records carefully.P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that these four accused alone trespassed into the house, out of whom, the accused 1 and 2 attacked the deceased with iron pipes.P.W.1 had taken the deceased immediately to the Government Hospital, Ulundurpet.According to P.W.11, at that time, the deceased was fully conscious.He told P.W.11 that he attacked by six known persons with hands, legs, stick and stone at 10.00 p.m. on 12.08.2012 at his residence.But, according to the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 4, four persons trespassed into the house, out of whom, only two persons attacked the deceased.So far as the weapons used in the commission of the crime are concerned, the deceased had stated that he was attacked with stick, stone, hands and legs.According to the deceased, iron pipes were not at all used.But P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that the deceased was attacked by the accused 1 and 2 only by iron pipes.They have not stated that the deceased was attacked with stick, stone, hands and legs as it was told by the deceased.At the earliest statement of the deceased to the doctor, being a dying declaration, needs to be given weightage of.If that is done, then, the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be givan any weightage of.The trial court has rightly rejected the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 on this score.Further, apart from that, P.W.1 during cross-examination has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was sleeping inside the house.On hearing the alarm raised by his father, his mother came and opened the door.Thereafter only, he went into the house and found these accused.Further, during cross-examination, he has stated that the accused 1, 3 and 4 attacked the deceased with wooden reapers.In Ex.P.1, he has stated that the 1st accused attacked the deceased with iron pipe.The 2nd accused attacked him with wooden log and the accused 3 and 4 also attacked him with wooden logs.As we have already pointed out, in his deposition, he has stated that the accused 1 and 2 attacked the deceased with iron pipes and the accused 3 and 4 did not attack the deceased.He has not stated any explanation for this contradiction.This contradiction, in our considered view, is a material contradiction which creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution.Similarly, P.W.2 has stated that the 1st accused attacked the deceased with iron pipe. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,342,189 | The Managing Trustee alone has got the powers to appoint any employee of her choice and to withdraw any power or revoke any appointment of any employee or attorney; to buy or take on lease or exchange or gift/any immovable property for the Trust and to put up buildings or structures on the said property or under the control and possession of the Trust.He is the person empowered incidental, conductive and convenient of the object of the Trust employees.Choice of the appointment, exchange, gift of the properties powers are given only to the Managing Trustee and he is not having any specific powers to run the Trust.The petitioners are the Accused in Crime No. 679/2012 dated 06.08.2012 on the file of the first respondent and they have come forward with this petition to quash the FIR against them.The second respondent is the defacto complainant.The allegations in the complaint runs as follows:- The defacto complainant along with other workers are engaged in construction work and that the construction work was undertaken by one Mr.Rajkumar who is the contractor and first accused and the actual construction is undertaken by Mr.Sudanandan, the mason (Maistry) the 2nd accused.The building was constructed as per the direction of the contractors and the mason who are the named accused and they were raising cement pillars and on 06.08.2012, the contractors and mason directed the defacto complainant to construct Arch and the defacto complainant and others protested that the Pillars themselves were wet and therefore if arch is constructed then it will lead to destruction and therefore requested that the arch can be constructed after 10 days for which the contractor and mason overruled their objections and informed them that they will take care of whatever harm that comes in the way and pursuant to the direction of the contractor and mason, they were scaffolding the pillar and at that juncture the pillar as well as the scaffolding gave way and fell down and in the said accident 9 workers lost their lives and 3 persons were seriously injured as a result of which the defacto complainant gave a complaint to the first respondent, who had registered the FIR in Crime No.679 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 338, 304(2) IPC and one person died subsequently and the first petitioner being the trustee of the Institution, was arrested on 09.08.2012 for the above said incident.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the name of the petitioners is not find a place in the FIR and the statements recorded by the police will reveal only about the designation of the petitioners and nothing has been mentioned about the occurrence as well as the participation of the accused at the time of occurrence.Therefore, the petitioners have not committed any of the offence much less the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.The learned counsel further contended that as on date investigation reveals only against the other accused and not against the present petitioners except one or two references has been made regarding the designation.Except this, they have not mentioned anything about the petitioners.The learned counsel further contended that at the time of enlarging the petitioners on bail it has been already held that the petitioners were not incharge of the construction of the particular institution which is come under the trust in which the first petitioner is the Chairman and the second petitioner is one of the Directors.Further, on the medical ground also the petitioners cannot go in to the ordeal of trial.Further, as directed by this Court, a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioners before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur towards ex gratia amount at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- each in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased persons and Rs.50,000/- each to the injured victims.Under such circumstances, the FIR against the petitioners has to be quashed.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent contended that only after receiving the report investigation has been started.Since the building has been constructed with the consent and knowledge of the Trustees one cannot say without the knowledge of the trustees the building has been constructed.The Engineer and the supervisor gave statement stating that the Chairman has requested them to complete the construction of Arch immediately and that is the reason the workers were doing non-stop work without giving time for the curing.The other aspects can be considered only after filing of the final report.Hence, he prays that the petition has to be dismissed.The next contention of the Additional Public Prosecutor is that the first Accused Maria Wilson has given a confession statement under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of one Arumugam, Village Administrative Officer, Kunnam and the Revenue Inspector, Sunguvarchatram and the said statement is sufficient to hold that the prima facie case has been made out.While considering the said statement it is seen that he has stated that he has informed his father-in-law Jeppiar about the proposed construction of Indoor Stadium for Basket Ball Game.In another so called confession statement given by the second Accused viz., Arul Jaya Abrose, he has stated that he has been working at Sathyabama Engineering College at Kunnam Village, as Civil Engineer along with the other Civil Engineer Mr.Rajkumar the first Accused Maria Willson, Jeppiar and his wife Remibai are the Trustees of the Jeppiar Remibai Trust.The fist Accused is the Managing Trustee and he has been administrating the College.The said college has proposed to construct an Indoor Stadium for Basket Ball and for the said construction 40 persons have been working for the said construction work.Since the Management has insisted to complete the construction expeditiously on or before 15th September, 2012 which is the first Annual Day of the said College, the workers have been working on day and night basis.The other accused viz., P.Annadurai in his statement has stated that he is the supervisor for the said construction.Therefore, constructing the building continuously will not constitute the offence.Therefore, I am of the view that as on date except the statement of three persons viz., son-in-law, and other two persons who are working as Civil Engineers nothing has been made against the present petitioners.Therefore, on the facts and on the basis of the statement of witnesses, no incriminating circumstances have been made out against the petitioners.Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.From the statement of the witnesses FIR has been registered on 6.8.2012 at about 3.30 p.m. while the Orissa workers were doing the building construction and the construction work was going on in the premises of Jeppiar Institute of Technology.At that time, a pillar fallen which resulted in six persons who were standing behind the pillar died on the spot and six other persons sustained injuries and they were immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and on the enroute to the hospital, one person died.Thereafter, complaint was lodged by one Bijimadili, aged 26 years.In this complaint the name of the petitioners was not mentioned.Jeppiar Remibai Educational Trust is the trust in which Maria Wilson is the Managing Trustee, Dr.Various types of powers have been given to the Managing Trustee.As per Clause 18 of the Trust Deed, other two trustees who are the petitioners herein are entitled to call a meeting of the Board for the consideration of any specific subject to be mentioned by the trustees convening the meeting of the Board.There will be a notice of at least 14 days for every meeting so convened and in that meeting the present petitioners can participate.Except this no duties have been allocated to the petitioners.From this it is very clear that as per the Trust Deed the Managing Trustee alone is empowered to to put up buildings or structures on the said property or under the control and possession of the Trust.The other two trustees are not empowered to play any role prima facie except to participate in the Board Meeting.So far as the occurrence is concerned, on 6.8.2012, while the workers were doing construction work, at about 3.30 p.m. due to sudden collapse the pillar has fallen which resulted in 6 persons working in the premises died on the spot and 6 other persons sustained injuries and while they were taken to hospital, one of them died on the enroute to the hospital.Even in this aspect, they have not mentioned about the role played by the petitioners.As already stated above, the petitioners name is not find a place in the FIR.Further, in the inquest report also nothing has been stated about the petitioners and in the statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. one Bijimadili has stated that "Management has directed them to complete the construction work expeditiously":VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETEDFurther bald allegation has been made that the management alone has insisted to complete the construction expeditiously.He has stated that:VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETEDIn the statement recorded from one Kasiram Paithana has stated that:VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETEDIn the statement recorded from one Ravichandran, he has stated that:VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETEDThe statements of Jawagar and other persons also has been recorded.On careful reading of the statement it is clear that it is an hearsay statement made by same person against the present petitioners.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the present petitioners are only Trustees.It appears that FIR has been registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 304(ii) of IPC for vicarious liability.Since the petitioners are Trustees as per the principle the Trustees of the Trust are not liable for vicarious liability.Hence, the charges against the petitioners has to be quashed.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that these aspects can be considered only at the time of trial and not at this stage.Hence, he prays that the petition has to be dismissed.Hence the FIR against the petitioners has to be quashed.In the said case a portion of the building collapsed while classes were being held in the school resulting in the death of 35 girl students and a middle aged woman and 16 students sustained grievous injuries and 142 students sustained simple injuries.A cow and two calves died, and one cow injured.Based on the report of the Executive Engineer a charge sheet was filed against the respondent under Sections 304-A, 336, 338, 288 and 290 read with 109 IPC.The learned Magistrate convicted the respondent for the rash and negligent act.On appeal the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent.The State preferred an Appeal against the acquittal before this Court and this Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.The relevant portion of the judgement runs as hereunder:-" The prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that the school building collapsed causing the death of several persons and injuries to several others by the rash and negligent act of the respondent.It is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent himself constructed the building.It is not disputed that he sought the assistance of the masons and the masons constructed the building.If the masons had not done the work properly and if they had been negligent in not mixing the lime and mortar in proper proportions, the respondent could not be liable for the negligence of those persons who actually constructed the building, who are supposed to be skilled.The respondent is a layman.Even at the time of granting bail this Court has observed as follows:-Again, when the matter was taken up yesterday i.e. on 30.08.2012, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner produced evidence to the effect that an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- as directed by this Court, has been deposited before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.Admittedly, the petitioner is a Trustee and also a Chairman of various Institutions.In collapsing of wall which caused the death of 10 persons, the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC.It is not disputed that he sought the assistance of the masons and the masons constructed the building.If the masons had not done the work properly and if they had been negligent in not mixing the lime and mortar in proper proportions, the respondent could not be liable for the negligence of those persons who actually constructed the building, who are supposed to be skilled.The respondent is a layman.He therefore, cannot be held liable for the negligence of the persons who actually constructed the building, which negligence is the Causa Causons for the collapse of the building. "Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the same sureties already executed by the petitioner and on further condition that the petitioner shall stay at Nagercoil and report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. "From this, it is very clear that the said Judgment squarely applies for the present facts of the case also.The construction work has been done by the mason and it has been supervised by the skilled persons viz., two Civil Engineers who are also arrayed as accused in this case.The owner of the building is not responsible for the negligence on the part of the skilled workers under whose supervision the building has been constructed.The Civil Engineers and other supervising staff alone are responsible for the rash and negligence.This Court at the time of granting regular bail to the first petitioner has recorded that the first petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- as directed by this Court towards ex gratia amount at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- each in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased persons and Rs.50,000/- each to the injured victims will prove the gesture shown by the trustees towards the legal heirs of the deceased workers and the injured persons.The incident must have been happened only because of the negligence on the part of the workers and certainly there is no negligence on the part of the trustees.The Investigating Officer has very fairly recorded the Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. without any embellishment.Otherwise the officer could have written the statements suit for his convenience also to be noted.Already this Court at the time of granting bail to the petitioners also considered this aspect elaborately.Considering all these aspects, the FIR in Cr.No.679/2012 dated 06.08.2012 on the file of the first respondent as against the petitioners alone is quashed.The respondent is at liberty to proceed with the investigation in so far as the other accused are concerned and file final report as per law.FIR against the petitioners.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 are closed. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,935,043 | The first petitioner is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law and the third petitioner is the sister-in- law and the fourth petitioner is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant.The marriage of the defacto complainant and the first accused was solemnized on 20.05.1999 at the instance of the third petitioner and her husband.Initially, their marriage was performed in the registrar' office.Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised as per customs and rites in AsthaLakshmi Temple at Besant Nagar.After the marriage they lived together in Kothari apartments at Thiruvanmiyur near the house of the third accused and thereafter, the defacto complainant and first accused left to London and they were blessed with a female child.This criminal original petition has been filed to call for the entire records comprised in C.C.No.416 of 2013 pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.While they were in abroad, there were frequent quarrel between 2/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.18196 of 2013 them.Hence, the defacto complaint lodged a complaint before the respondent police and a case was registered in crime No.4 of 2012 for the offences under section 498-A, 406 read with 34 of IPC.After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.416 of 2013 for the offences under sections 498-A, 420, 406 read with 34 of IPC on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.However, A1 has withdrawn the quash petition.There is no allegation against the petitioners in the charge sheet and they have been implicated in this case with an ulterior motive.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also conceded that there is no allegation made out against the petitioners in the charge sheet.Though notice has been served on the second respondent and her 3/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.18196 of 2013 name printed in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of the second respondent.A bare perusal of the charge sheet itself reveals that there is no allegation made out against the petitioners.In the absence of any materials implicating the petitioners in the case, the petitioners cannot be forced to face the ordeal of trial.Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.416 of 2013 is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.416 of 2013 is quashed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.01.2020 vrc Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To 4/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.18196 of 2013The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.5/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.18196 of 2013 M.DHANDAPANI, J.vrc Crl.O.P.No.18196 of 2013 03.01.2020 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,351,358 | DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENTBy the impugned judgment the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and also found to be::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: 2 APEAL530.17.odt guilty for the offence under Section 4 read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act" for short).::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::The said report recites that Renuka is having two daughters and one son.The younger daughter, the victim, is aged about Six years and takes education in 1st standard.The appellant, who is a journalist and neighbour, many a time used to take the victim along with him on bicycle.It is further reported that on the day of the incident i.e. Saturday, when Renuka was busy in her household work, the appellant took the victim along with him and failed to return for quite considerable time.Therefore, Renuka went to the house of the appellant and asked his wife to make a phone call.It is further stated in the report that on phone, she had a talk with her daughter and she informed that she is drinking Lassi along with the appellant.After that telephonic talk also, for a considerable time, the appellant failed to return to the house along with daughter.At that time, the appellant's wife informed her that the appellant and her daughter are in police station.Therefore, Renuka came to police station.There it was informed to Renuka that the appellant tried to commit rape on her daughter.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::After registration of the offence PI Bobade (PW7) immediately went to the spot of the incident and prepared the spot panchanama.The spot was shown by PW2 Vinod Munginwar.He seized the clothes of the victim under seizure panchanama (Exh.23).The clothes of the accused were also seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.24).Further investigation of the crime was carried out by PI Sarjerao Gaikwad (PW8).For his conviction under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Judge of the Court below directed that the appellant should suffer rigorous imprisonment for Five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.The appellant's sentence for his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code is rigorous imprisonment for Seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.The appellant is also directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 4 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act.I have heard Mr. Pravin P. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. S. V. Kolhe, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.Both the learned counsel took me minutely through the notes of evidence and other record.3. PW7 Girish Bobade, Police Inspector at the relevant time of Police Station Arni, registered the offence bearing Crime::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: 3 APEAL530.17.odt No.86/2013 on the basis of the report lodged by Renuka (PW1), the mother of the victim.He recorded the statement of victim girl in presence of her mother.Also he took steps for recording the statements of the eye- witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.After completion of the investigation, he filed charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No. 113/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 370(4), 376(2)(I) and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 4 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act.The learned Judge of the Court below framed the Charge for the offences punishable under Section 376(2) read with Section 511, under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. The appellant denied the Charge and claimed for his trial.The prosecution has examined in all Nine witnesses.The Court below, after a full::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: 5 APEAL530.17.odt dressed trial found the appellant guilty for the offences for which he was charged.Hence, this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::The primary submission of Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is falsely implicated in the crime.He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed.Per contra, Smt. Kohe, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::After hearing the respective counsel, following points do arise for my consideration in this appeal :1] Whether the prosecution has proved its case to bring home the Charge for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code ?2] Whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the appellant could be punished for making an attempt to commit offence under Section 18 of the POCSO Act ?Since, the evidence of the prosecution for deciding the aforesaid points is interlinked, I propose to take both the points for discussion simultaneously.As per the prosecution case and evidence of PW1 Renuka and PW3 victim, the appellant is their neighbour.Even this fact is admitted by the appellant during the course when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Judge of the Court below.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::As per the prosecution, at the time of incident, the victim was taking education in 1st standard in a school namely Shri Mahant Dattaram Bharti Marathi Primary School, Arni.To prove the said fact, the prosecution has examined PW5 Ashok Muneshwar, the Head Master of the school.His evidence would show that in 2013, the victim was taking education in 1st standard.This particular piece of evidence is not at all challenged by the defence.His evidence is challenged on this point that he has not brought the original admission and discharge register with him.Making capital of this, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before this Court that the evidence of this witness is required to be discarded.To the extent of prooving Exh.28, the learned counsel for the appellant is having point in his favour.Since, the original was not brought before the Court from which entries were taken in Exh.28, the date of birth of the victim as 22.11.2006 as shown in Exh.28 is not conclusively proved.Be that as it may.However, the evidence of PW5 Ashok Muneshar, the Head Master, is not at all challenged by the defence::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: 8 APEAL530.17.odt that at the relevant time, the victim was taking education in 1 st Standard.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::Thus, the difference in between Exh.28 and Exh.38 is of one day.At no point of time Exh.38 was challenged by the defence.Thus, the victim on the date of the incident was six years old girl.Definitions - (1) ....(d) "child" means any person below the age of eighteen years ;Thus, it is crystal clear that the victim was a "Child" within the meaning of the POCSO Act.The appellant was also charged for the offence::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: 9 APEAL530.17.odt punishable under Section 376(2) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.At no point of time it was the prosecution case that the appellant has committed rape on a minor girl.If the evidence of the prosecution is properly scanned, then it is clear that the appellant was in the process of committing rape on victim, however, he was unsuccessful due to timely intervention of PW2 Vinod Munginwar and PW4 Umesh Sonone.PW2 Vinod runs a pan kiosk at Mahur chowk at Arni.PW4 Umesh is his friend.PW2 Vinod's evidence states that when Umesh had gone to ease himself, after his return he told that one girl is crying near the tree of Babhali and one person is with her.He, therefore, went to the spot along with Umesh and Ishwar to notice that the victim was lying on the ground and her undergarments were removed.The clothes of the appellant were also removed and his private part was in his hand and he was trying to sleep on the person of the victim.Therefore, they caught hold on the spot itself and brought him along with the victim in the police station.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::Evidence of PW2 Vinod is challenged that he is an interested witness.Through his evidence, it is brought on record that the appellant, a news reporter, used to publish various anti social activities in the newspaper.It is also brought on record that::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: 10 APEAL530.17.odt on dry days, liquor was flowing in Arni city.It is also brought on record that he is acquainted with the owner of Sakshi Bar and he is having cordial relation with one Lohiya, who runs satta business.By these admissions, it is tried to be submitted before me that this witness is unreliable witness and his evidence is required to be discarded.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::I could not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.It was always open for the defence to place on record the publication of news items published by the appellant about illegal activities of various persons in the society.Mere acquaintance can never debar any person to make statements on oath.In this case, we cannot forget that this witness runs a pan kiosk.So, if he is having acquaintance with many other persons may be having tainted past history, cannot discredit his evidence.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::Evidence of PW4 Umesh was challenged that he was angry because of publication of news item by the appellant against him.Here also, though there was an opportunity for the defence to confront the news item to the witness, the said was not done.Therefore, denial by PW4 Umesh in his cross-examination that he was angry because of publication of news, assumes its own importance.Exh.53 is the medical certificate of the victim.It is proved by Dr. Madhuri Patil (PW9).The said shows no injuries on the person of the victim.Exh.41 is the spot panchanama, a contemporaneous::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: 12 APEAL530.17.odt document.The recitals of Exh.41 shows that the spot of incident is a secluded place.The sketch map is also appearing in the spot panchanama, which shows that it is well inside from Yavatmal bye- pass and it is 100 feet away from one Hasmukh Patel's shop.From the sketch map, it is clear that the spot of incident is not surrounded by any house or any shop.On the contrary, it appears that after some distance, there is a funeral ground.Therefore, I have no hesitation to record a finding that the spot of incident is a secluded place.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::From the unchallenged evidence of PW2 Vinod, the appellant was caught on the spot itself by him with the help of Umesh and one Ishwar.Presence of the appellant with a small girl at such a secluded place, that too in half naked position, speaks volumes about him and his acts and intention.There was no reason for him to remove his or victim's clothes at a secluded place.The appellant is also charged for the offence punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under :370. - Trafficking of person - (1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by -::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::(4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.(5)Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: 14 APEAL530.17.odt which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::Accordingly, a notice was given to the appellant.The Registry has received reply to the said notice from the appellant.It is taken on record and marked as "Document-X" for the purposes of identification.Same is the submission before me by the learned counsel for the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::That leads me to pass the following order :The criminal appeal is dismissed with a modification in the sentence for the offence punishable under section 370 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::Diwale::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2019 23:46:54 ::: | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,352,826 | Consequently, while quashing the order-dated 15.10.2014, respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.No costs.(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,353,517 | Pending trial, Gajini Mohamed (A-3), Gulan Thasthagir (A-8) andKamarudeen (A9) died.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside thejudgment dated 06.07.2017 in C.A.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the learnedPrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner in C.C.No.99 of 2012 onthe file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, dated30.08.20162. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.This revision petitioner is directed against the Judgment made inC.A.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge,Ramanathapuram confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court passed in C.C.No.99 of 2012 dated 30.08.2016 holding the (Asan aliyar) revision petitioner hereinguilty for offence under Section 471 of IPC, imposing fine of Rs.5,000/-.In default 3 months Simple Imprisonment.Thajma beebi is the Defacto complainant.Noor Mohamed(A4) along with Thaslin and others, though knowing fully well that theproperty belongs to Thajmabeebi, conspired to grab it by impersonation andfabrication of documents.To wit, on 26.02.2002 they created sale deed infavour of Gajendiran a friend of Noor Mohamed by impersonating and forgingThajmabeebi.Not stopping with the act of forgery and impersonation.NoorMohammed (A4) created document of sale deed, showing Thaslin (A1) the owner of the property and Asan Aliyar (A2) the purchaser.The said sale deed wasregistered as Document No.711 of 2003 and patta was transferred in the nameof the second accused.After so creating a sham and nominal document oftitle in the name of second accused, the fourth accused created document asif the second accused sold the property to one Gajinin Mohammed who is none else than son of fourth accused.Patta was also got transferred in the name of GajaniMohammed.Later, Gajini Mohammed sold the property to Panjaraj (A3) binami to fourth accused, under Document No.5318 of 2007 and got the pattatransferred in the name of Panjaraj.A suit was by filed by Panjaraj against Thajmabeebi in O.S.No.109 of2008 at District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram based on above said forgeddocument got registered as genuine in order to cheat the defacto complainantThajmabeebi.Meanwhile, the defacto complainant has alienated the propertyfor valuable consideration to one Rama Subramaniam under sale deed Document No.2394 of 2008 he was shown as one of the defendant in the above suit.Whenshe attempt to give complaint on coming to know about the fabrication ofdocuments and fraudulent act of the accused persons, Noor Mohammed, his Son Gajini Mohammed and Panjaraj came to her house on 15.06.2008 at 8.00 a.m. and threatened her to kill.They wielded arrival and caused intimidation tocause death.Hence case against them was registered and tried.The ranking of the accused persons were rearranged.The remaining accused were tried for the following charges :- A-1 (Thasleen) and A-2 (Asan Aliyar) were tried for offences underSections 120(b) r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC.A-3 (Panjaraj) was triedfor offence under Sections 120(b) r/w. 420, 419, 465, 468, 506(ii) r/w.34IPC. A-4 (Noor Mohamed) was tried for offence under Sections 120(b) r/w with419, 420, 465,471,506(ii)IPC,120(b) r/w 109, 34 IPC and A-5 (Sekaran) foroffences under Sections 120(b) r/w 420, 419, 465, 468 r/w 34 IPC.Before the trial Court, prosecution examined 11 witnesses, 12exhibits were marked on the side of the prosecution.Gajendiran who was shown as an accused in the FIR, found innocent during the course of investigation.P.C was recordedbefore the Magistrate and marked as Ex.The trial Court has held that prosecution has not proved anyconspiracy between the accused persons in respect of the sale deed dated07.01.2002 alleged to have executed by Gajendiran (P.W.5) infavour of NoorMohammed (A-4).Further the trial Court has also held that from Ex.Therefore held the conspiracy charge againstthe Accused Nos.1 to 6 nor proved.From the report of the finger print expert P.W.7, the trial Courthas concluded that Ex.P.9 the sale deed dated 26.02.2002 executed in the name of Thajmabeebi in favour of Gajendiran is not executed by Thajmabeebi.Thefinger prints in Ex.P.9 does not tally with the admitted finger prints ofThajmabeebi (P.W.1) and Gajendiran (P.W.5).Therefore the fifth and sixthAccused who have falsely identified the parties to the document Ex.P.9 asThajmabeebi and Gajendiran were held guilty of offence under Sections 419 and465 IPC.A1 her brother though knowing fully wellthat the property belongs to her sister P.W.1, by false representation thatit belongs to him, had sold it to A.2 through the sale deed is Ex.Thepatta for the property Ex.P.13 still stood in the name of P.W.1, Ex.A.2 beinga real estate broker might have known the patta still in the name of P.W.1despite that, he has knowingly purchased the property of P.W.1 from AccusedNo.1 who was not the real title holder.Also the trial Court has furthersold the property to Gajini Mohammed (deceased).Gajini Mohammed in turn has sold to Panjaraj (A-3).The trial Court has disbelieves the prosecution case that, when 2ndAccused came to know that the title to his sale deed Ex.P.5 is defectiveand there are other claimants to the 77 cents of land, 4th Accused offeredhis 58 cents of land in exchange of this 77 cents disputed land and got thesale deed registered in favour of his son Gajini Mohammed (deceased ?Accused).Therefore while holding A .2 that he purchased the property fromAccused No.1 with knowledge about the fabrication of the deed and has in turnsold it to Gajini Mohammed under Ex.P.6 on 04.06.2006, the trial Courtexonerated A4(Noor Mohammed) for offence under Section 471 IPC but held Accused No.2 (Asan Aliyar), Gajini Mohammed (deceased) and Panjaraj (A-3)as guilty of offence under Section 471 IPC.The trial Court has also recorded that Thajma Beevi(PW1) has soldher property to P.W.4 Ramasubramanian before she lodged the complaint Ex.She admits when she sold the property the patta was in the name of A.3(Panjaraj).In the suit filed by Panjaraj against her and P.W.4Ramasubramanian, Panjaraj has executed a release deed dated 03.03.2017 in her favour.Panjaraj has pleaded that he purchased the property withoutknowledge of defect in title.Therefore the court has held A2 to 6 notguilty of offence under Section 420 IPC.He hadknowledge his father Kamarudeen (deceased ? Accused) had settled the property to P.W.1 under Ex.Inspite of the knowledge, he has sold the property to2nd Accused as if he is the title holder of the property.Therefore trialCourt held A1 guilty of offence under Section 417 IPC though no charge wasframed against 1st Accused for this offence.As far as the allegation that on 15.06.2008 the accused personswielding aruval and threatened dire consequences from the charge underSection 506(ii) of IPC the trial Court disbelieve it and acquitted all theaccused since P.W.1 evidence was totally contradict to other prosecutionwitnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 in this regard.Considering the defence documents and the testimony of D.W.1 (4th Accused) the trial Court acquitted A-4 from all charges accepting his pleathat P.W.1 has falsely roped him in this case due to previous enemity andmisunderstanding in money transaction.The lower appellate Court an appeal had reiterated the finding ofthe trial Court and confirmed it by dismissing C.A.No.11 of 2016 filed byPanjaraj (A-3) Sekaran (A-4) and Murugan (A-6) and C.A.No.13 of 2016 filed byAsan Aliyar (A-2).The contention of the revision petitioner (Asan Aliyar ? A2) isthat, according to the prosecution Noor Mohammed (A-4) was the perpetrator ofthe conspiracy of impersonation, cheating and forging, but he was not foundguilty by both Courts.The charge of conspiracy impersonation and cheatingfound not proved against this revision petitioner.The reason stated in thejudgment to hold this revision petitioner for offence under Section 471 IPCis that he being a real estate broker he must know that patta for theproperty stands in the name of P.W.1, despite the knowledge he had purchased the property from A1 and later sold in Gajini Mohammed (deceased), so as tomake it appear as if the transactions are genuine.These finding based onsurmise and conjectures, hence perverse.According to the revision petitioner, he purchased the propertyfrom Thaslin (A-1) s/o.Kamarudeen vided Ex.Later hesold it to Gajini Mohammed vide Ex.He purchased theproperty from Thaslin (A-1) bonafidely.The title to the property is tracedthrough Kamarudeen who is the father of his vendor.She has lodged complaint alleging conspiracy,forgery, impersonation and cheating belatedly long after the revisionpetitioner sold the property to Gajini Mohammed.The Court having held thatNoor Mohammed (A-4) had no role in this case, as a corollary ought to haveheld that Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are bonafide transaction.Having held the chargeunder Section 420 IPC not proved against the Accused, the Court below oughtto have held the transaction under Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are bonafide transactionbelieving that 1st Accused had title over the property, the revisionpetitioner has purchased the property from 1st Accused under Ex.P.5 and soldit to Gajini Mohammed vide sale deed Ex.Without any mens rea to commit offences alleged.The evidence of P.W.1 in tainted with motive and contradiction, hercomplaint focused on Noor Mohammed (A-4) alleging conspiracy and forgery held to be false.While so the other allegations attributed to the revisionpetitioner falls to ground since the case of the prosecution against thisrevision petitioner is that he accommodated and aided Noor Mohammed (A-4) to fabricate documents and to use it as genuine.When the said charge is foundnot proved, charge under Section 471 IPC independently against the revisionpetitioner has no legs to stand.20. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.This factis not disputed.In the said sale deed A5 and A6 has signed as witnesses seeing the execution.Based on the finger print expertreport Ex.P.10, the Court has held that the finger prints found in the saidsale deed does not tally with the P.W.1 and P.W.5, the alleged sale deeddocument No.39 of 2002, purported to have executed by P.W.5 to Noor Mohammed (A-4) not produced.Therefore A4 and Gajendiran are not guilty.A5 and A6who are the signatories to the sale deed document No.1341 of 2000 aswitnesses identified the execution and claimant were alone found guilty underSection 465 IPC.It is to be noted that the revision petitioner is no way connectedwith the above said transaction.His role in the scheme of alleged crimecomes into picture on 04.03.2003 when he purchased the property from 1stAccused Thaslim under sale deed Ex.When the Courts below have accepted the plea of 1st Accused that he bonafidely believed that he is entitled to ashare in his father's Kamarudeen property and sold it to second accused, theCourt cannot presume 2nd Accused knowingly purchased the property from 1st Accused just because 2nd Accused is a real estate brokerby profession.The Courts below on appreciation of facts has ruled out conspiracyand intention of cheating.Also held that 1st Accused has bonafidelybelieved that he has share in his father's property and sold it to 2ndAccused.1) The document must be a forged document2) It must have been made to use dishonestly or fraudulently as genuine3) The person who use the said document must have reasons to believe orknowledge that the said document is a forged document.A condition precedent for the offence under section 471 isforgery.A precedent for forgery is making false documents.As far as Ex.P5and Exp.6 are two documents which are claimed to be documents intended to commit fraud with dishonest or fraudulent intention.The allegation of theprosecution in this regard lacks evidence.While the trial court as well asthe appellate Court acquitted the accused/revision petitioner for offencesunder section 468 of IPC, then the ingredients for offence under Section 471of IPC namely reason to believe or knowledge to believe the documents Ex.P.5and Ex.P.6 are forged documents fails to sustain.The knowledge or reasonto believe the documents as valid cannot be drawn on presumption based onthe fact that the revision petitioner doing real estate business so he madehave knowledge that his sale deed Ex.P.5 is a forged document, since pattafor the said property is not in the name of his seller.This petitioner has purchased the property from A1 who had tracedthe property from his father Kamrudeen( initially arrayed as A9).P.5 and 6 were made dishonestly with theintention of cheating and the same was used as genuine document with theknowledge that they are forged documents, the Court below ought not to haveheld that the revision petitioner was guilty of offence under Section 471of IPC.As pointed out earlier when material evidence placed before theCourt does not disclose the fact that the revision petitioner had knowledgeabout the title of his vendor or he had reason to believe that the sale deedexecuted by his vendor was not a valid document.In the absence of provenmens rea , the trial court ought not have convicted the revision petitionerunder section 471 of IPC.Moreso, when the trial court had categoricallyheld that this petitioner is not involved in any conspiracy to cheat orfabricate false documents.For the above stated reasons, the revision petition is allowedfor the infirmity and illegality found in the judgements of the courtsbelow, they are liable to be set aside.In the result, the Criminal RevisionPetition is allowed and the judgment of the trial court in C.C No.99 of2012 confirmed by the trial court in C.A.No. 13 of 2016 is hereby set aside.The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted.Bail bond if any executed byhim, shall stand cancelled and fine amount, if any, paid by him is ordered tobe refunded forthwith.The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram DistrictThe Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram DistrictThe Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram DistrictThe Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.The Record Keeper Vernacular Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
199,354,614 | And In the matter of : Sri Shib Shankar Mondal & Anr. ... Petitioners.Mr. D. Aditya Mr. Amit Kumar Ghosh... for the petitioners.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and the application is, thus, dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,950,928 | The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009(Order of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.) The detenu himself is the petitioner, who has been branded as 'Goonda' anddetained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activitiesof Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral TrafficOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil NaduAct 14 of 1982) by the impugned order of detention dated 3.3.2008 passed by thesecond respondent herein.The petitioner has five adverse cases apart from the ground case tohis credit, all on the file of Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District.Thefirst adverse case is in respect of Crime No.94 of 1998 for the offence underSections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The second, third andfourth adverse cases are in respect of Crime Nos.456 of 2003, 611 of 2006 & 376of 2006 for the offence under Sections 399 & 402 IPC and the fifth adverse caseis in respect of Crime No.377 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 341, 392r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC.So far as the ground case is concerned, a complaint waslodged by one Malaichamy, S/o Rasu Thevar stating that on 27.2.2008 at about8.00 hours, while the complainant was riding his bicycle near SivalingamTheatre, Othakadai, the petitioner waylaid and intimidated him at knife pointand robbed a cash of Rs.150/- from him.The petitioner showed the knife towardspublic and threatened those who tried to catch him.On seeing this, the publicran helter-skelter in panic causing severe traffic jam in that area.Theplatform vendors ran out of fear and an atmosphere of fear, danger and terrorprevailed in the minds of the public.The said complaint was registered inCrime No.79 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397, 506(ii)IPC.As the sponsoring authority had come across similar activities of thepetitioner, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he hadbrought to the notice of the detaining authority by filing an affidavit.Afterapplying his mind to the materials placed before him, the detaining authority bythe impugned order dated 3.3.2008 has detained the petitioner.The detention order is questioned by the petitioner on the followinggrounds:-Thereafter, the representationwas received by the Collectorate on 25.3.2008 and remarks were called for fromthe sponsoring authority on 27.3.2008 and they were received on the same day.For all the above reasons, the habeas corpus petition fails and it is,accordingly, dismissed.The District Collector & District Magistrate Madurai District MaduraiThe Inspector of Police Othakadai Police Station Madurai DistrictThe Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,951,053 | It has also been alleged that on the night of the incident itself the in-laws Ratanlal and Shantabai insulted the deceased and Ravindra due to which she committed suicide.The room was closed.It was opened with the help of the tenant.It was found that Usha was lying unconscious on the bed.She was rushed to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead.Some times she was driven away from the house.Four years back a girl was born to her.When she was pregnant he accompanied by Shri Savliaji Rathore had gone to the house of Ratanlal.At that time Ratanlal has abused him and tried to beat him.Then he went to the house of Ratanlal with the other persons of the community i.e. Laxminarayan Rathore electrician.He also does not remember the dates of giving the money to Usha on different occasions.He says that he did not give any notice about the mal treatment to Usha by the accused persons.Jitendra (P.W. 5) states that Usha was a girl of hot temperament and always used to fight.She never used to listen to her in-laws.Ex. P-4 is a letter which he has written to Usha.He used to call Ravi as 'Dada' and when Usha did not listen to him, he used to say that he will not call Usha and perform a second marriage.In cross-examination this witness states that he was in correspondence with Usha and he.knows her writing.He says that the writing (Ex. P-1) is not written by Usha and writing in Ex. P-2 is also not of Usha.The Court questioned him the basis of his statement, whereupon he says that on the basis of his memory he makes the statement.Then he says that he had received many letters from Usha, therefore, he knows her handwriting.He further states that when the door was forced open, he along with his father, Ravi and Ratanlal had entered the house and found Usha lying.They immediately lifted her and put her in a rickshaw and went to the hospital.He was also one of those who had lifted Usha.At the time of the incident, there was no bleeding from the mouth of Usha and there was no haematoma (Gumad) on her head.There was no injury on her body.Ravi and Shantabai had gone to the hospital and Ratanlal had gone on scooter (Hero Honda), they had left the house open.There was nothing in the house when they lifted Usha from the matresses and there was no paper around it.JUDGMENT A.G. Qureshi, J.This Judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1992 and Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1992 filed by Ratanlal and Shantabai and Ravindra separately aggrieved by the Judgment, dated, 9-6-1992, passed by the Addl.Whereby the appellants have been convicted for committing the offences under Sections 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to 10 years R.I. for committing the offence under Section 304B and 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 306, I.P.C. and failing to pay the fine, sentence of one month's S.I. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.The facts leading to this appeal in short are that the police Jiwajigang submitted a charge-sheet before the competent Magistrate against the present appellants under Section 304B and 306, I.P.C. who committed the case to the court of session.In the sessions court charges under Section 304B and 306, I.P.C. were framed against the appellants, who abjured guilt.After the trial, the lower court convicted and sentenced the appellants as above.Hence this appeal.According to the prosecution story, the accused Ravindra was married to the deceased Usha on 8-12-1982 according to Hindu rites.At the time of the marriage, a demand of dowry was made and a dowry of Rs. 30,000/- was settled and the marriage was performed.After the marriage for demanding more dowry, the deceased was being harassed and thereupon she on 5/9/1989 consumed poisonous substance due to which she expired.A report was sent by the compounder to the Police Station, Jiwajigang on telephone, where upon Murg No. 19 of 1989 was registered.During the investigation, the Police found that the accused-appellants are responsible for committing the offence under Sections 304B and 306, I.P.C. Therefore, they registered the offence and after completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet.In this respect the evidence of Jitendra (P.W. 5) is very important.Jitendra (P.W. 5) has stated that the marriage was performed in the summer.Mangilal and Ramgopal.At the behest of these persons, Ratanlal has sent the girl with him.After the delivery Usha had gone back to her in-laws with her husband Ravindra.Thereafter also the in-laws used to taunt the girl that she had not brought anything and if she did not bring any money, they would drive her away or kill her.After the death of Usha they came to know that the in-laws had beaten his daughter due to which she committed suicide.He also proves Ex. P-2, a letter written by her daughter.In cross-examination, he states that instead of going to the house of the accused persons, he had gone to the house of Mangilal because he has intimate relations with him.He denies the suggestion that the younger son of Mangilal used to go to the house of the accused persons and the accused did not object of Usha's going to the house of Mangilal.He also denies the suggestion that in-laws used to object going of Usha to the house of Mangilal.He also denies that the in-laws had complained to him that Usha goes to the house of Mangilal despite their objection to it.As regards the letter Ex. P-1 he says that he did not bring the letter with him but the Police had asked for that letter which he produced before the police after one or two months of this incident.In para 8, he says that the cards of marriage of Usha were printed but he has not brought any feard with him.The person, who was the mediator in marriage was Kedarsingh Tomar, who was the tenant of the accused persons.It was only after two or three years of the marriage that Usha told them that she had been driven out of the home.He also admits that four persons who had gone to the house of the accused with him for conciliation are all alive.In para 14 he denies that letter (Ex. P-1) was with him when he gave the statement to the Police.In para.17 he states that he never wrote a letter to any of the accused complaining about the mal-treat-ment.On seeking letter Ex. D-2 in para.18 he states that despite the mal-treatment of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons he had offered to marry his second daughter with the son of Ratanlal named Pappu.He admits that letter Ex. D-3 bears the signature of his daughter Kalpana but he cannot say whether Kalpana has written the letter (Ex. D-3).He admits that although the signatures on Ex. P-1 is of Usha but she never made similar signatures.On Ex. P-1 the signatures are in English and in short.Laxmibai (P.W. 2) makes the similar statement about the marriage of Usha and payment of dowry and the casual demands by the in-laws of Usha.Contrary to the statement of Ghanshyam, she says that she had given goods worth about Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- after the delivery of the girl to Usha.In para.2 of the cross-examination, she admits that the accused used to complain about the character of Usha.Her daughter had told her that fact also that her in-laws object her going to the house of Mangilal still she goes there.She further says that Usha had told her that the in-laws object to the visit of the son of Mangilal to her.She also admits that accused Ravindra used to treat her and her husband as his own mother and father prior to one year of the statement.Usha also used to say that she will stay with her in-laws and she will stay with the in-laws in whatever way they keep her.She never visited the house of the accused persons.Shankarlal Rayakwar (P.W. 3) gives the statement about the marriage of Usha and he states that he had given Rs. 6,000/- to Usha which she wanted for the marriage of her sister-in-law.The statement of this witness has been recorded two months after the incident by the police.In cross-examination he states about the maltreatment of Usha that she never made any complaint to the in-laws or to anyone.This witness is the maternal uncle of the deceased.He never heard about any quarrel between her and her inlaws.He had written a letter to Usha because Usha asked him about the date of marriage of sister-in-law.When the house was left open Mangilal had gone to the house and he was coming and going from the house.Usha used to visit the house of Mangilal despite the objection from her in-laws.Mangilal's son used to come to the house of Usha.Usha never complained about the maltreatment by the in-laws.Kaluran (P.W. 6) is the Panch witness.In his statement he states that when the Panchnama of the dead body was made, there were no injuries on the body of Usha and Usha used to go to the house of Mangilal all alone.Rameshwar (P.W. 7) is the Panch witness for the seizure of Ex. P. According to this witness, Ex. P-1 was seized at the police station at midnight.The Police told him that the paper was found in the house of the deceased.Dilip (P.W. 8) also said that the seizure memo was made at the Police Station Ex. P-7 spot map was also prepared at the Police Station.Mangilal (P.W. 9) states that Usha used to complain about her in-laws but he never paid any attention.He never asked as to why she was complaining.She never complained about her in-law, directly but she used to complain about her problem in her husband's house.Then he says that she used to complain some trouble in the susral.He also came forward with the letter that one boy had given a letter to him.He states that he never disclosed this fact to anyone that Usha used to complain.This is the total material evidence on record except the medical evidence.Now from the aforesaid evidence, two plausible reasons are on record for the suicide of Usha one that she was ill treated by her in-laws and the other that she was visiting the house of Mangilal at Ujjain and one of his sons used to visit her, which was objected by in-laws but she continued to meet the son of Mangilal and go to his house.Although the father of the girl Ghanshyam has denied the suggestion of the defence but Laxmibai mother of the deceased has admitted in para.He did not write a letter about this fact to any of the inlaws of Usha.Even though they have not been able to produce one letter of Usha but they said about the maltreatment to her.The most significant fact which makes the version of these witnesses highly unreliable is that the father of Usha had to admit in cross-examination when confronted with the letter written by him (Ex. D-2) that he had offered to get his second daughter married to the second son of Ratanlal.If actually the treatment of the inlaws of Usha would have been bad, then knowing fully well that the accused persons are greedy persons and torturing his daughter for Dehej, he would not have offered his second daughter in marriage to the younger brother of the accused Ravindra.This offer is very significant and makes the testimony of Ghanshyam and Laxmibai highly doubtful.In the light of the aforesaid evidence of the testimony of Ghanshyam and Laxmibai, if we see the evidence of Ravindra, we find that there were cordial relations in the family and no dispute took place because of the dowry.The only dispute was about the visit of Usha to the house of Mangilal and Mangilal's son coming to Usha.Jitendra (P.W. 5) is an independent witness.The lower Court has rejected the testimony of Jitendra mainly on the ground that all the facts narrated by Jitendra were not narrated by him in his Police statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code.If the statement during investigation recorded under Section 161 have to be looked into, they have to be first confronted with any material statement or material omission and then that has to be proved by the officer who recorded the statement; then only such statement can be made use of by the Court.As such, the learned lower Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of Jitendra on this ground.On the other hand, the mother and father of the deceased are definitely interested witness.Such a statement not made in the proximity of the incident is not of any use to the prosecution.As regards the letter (Ex. P-2) which is alleged to have been written by Usha and found in her room.Rameshchandra Dube (P.W. 14) admits that when he went to the house there was no one in the house.The doors were open and he seized the letter from there.Jitendra (P.W. 5) states that when Usha was rushed to the hospital, there was no letter in the room but Mangilal had come to the house.As such, the recovery of Ex. P-2 is highly doubtful.Now the handwriting expert says that the writing on Exs. P-2 and P-1 are of the same person.To prove the handwriting of Usha, Exs. P-1, P-10 and P-11 have been produced as standard writing.P.W. 15 Deva-datta Tripathi admitted that he cannot say definitely that Ex. P-11 is of Usha.As regards Ex. P-10, Tripathi (P.W. 15) states that someone handed Ex. P-10 to him but he does not know the name of that person.This is also very strange circumstance, wherein the Police takes a letter as standard handwriting from someone whom the Police does not know.Ghanshyam-das has stated that he produced Ex. P-1 after one or two months of the incident.He disowned his police statement (Ex. D-1) A to A in this behalf.As -such, the seizure of Ex. P-1 also becomes doubtful and further more Ghanshyam is not in a position to recognise the handwriting of Kalpana, whereas he states that Ex. P-1 is in the handwriting of Usha.These discrepancies have been explained by the lower Court by saying that there could be no doubt that Ex. P-1 having been sent but this does not prove that the letter was written in the handwriting of Usha and the seizure of Exs. P-1, P-2, P-10 and P-11 being highly suspicious, no reliance can be placed on the seizure of these letters by the police and as such there is no reliable evidence to show that the letter (Ex. P-2) was written by Usha.On the other hand, Jitendra (P.W. 5) who was in regular correspondence with Usha, states that Exs. P-1 and P-2 are not in the handwriting of Usha.The contents of Ex. P-2 also makes the letter highly doubtful where it has been written that she was beaten and blood was oozing from her nose.Dr. R. K. Dhavan (P.W. 4) in paras.2 and 4 of his statement has admitted that there were no injuries on her body.Kaluram (P.W. 6) makes a similar statement, who is the Panch witness of the dead body.Deodatta Tripathi (P.W. 15) also does not any that he found any injury on the body of Usha.Jitendra (P.W. 5) also says that there were no injuries on the body of Usha.The lower Court has relied on the Panchnama itself treating it as substantive piece of evidence, whereas it is the statement of the witness which is the substantive piece of evidence and not the Panchnama, unless the contents of the Panchnama are proved in the Court.As such, the contents of Ex. P-2 makes the letter very doubtful.Further more, the recovery itself is very strange.When the house was open, the police should have sealed the house and recovered the letter and other articles in the presence of the Panchas but the police entered the open house without its occupant, without giving their search, without seeking permission of the owner of the house and made the seizure memo, which is not supported by the independent panchas or the independent evidence.To conclude, from the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that the prosecution has not been able to prove by means of cogent and reliable evidence that the death of Usha was caused within 7 years of her marriage and as such no presumption can be drawn against the accused on that ground.The allegation against the accused about harassment to Usha and demand of dowry are also not conclusively proved in view of the aforesaid discussion.The letter Ex. P-2 has been seized in the suspicious circumstances and the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that it was written by Usha herself.There is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons either abetted or incited Usha for committing suicide.In the instant case, it may also be pointed that no independent witness except Jitendra of the locality has been produced by the prosecution to prove cruel treatment to Usha as alleged by the parents of the deceased by the inlaws on the deceased.Even those witnesses, who have been named by Ghanshyam have not been examined to prove the allegations of beating and torture.In Mahaveersingh v. State of M. P., 1987 MPLJ 403, it was held that though the parents have been examined to bring out the allegations of cruel treatment to deceased on non-fulfilment of demands made by the accused, it failed to examine any witness of the locality in the matter of alleged beating and torture.There were no ante mortem injuries found in the autopesy.The report of death was immediately lodged by the accused.In the aforesaid circumstances, the accused could not be held responsible for abetting or inciting the suicide or the suicide being caused due to cruelty and maltreatment or demand of dowry.In the instant case also the accused persons when found Usha unconscious, they immediately rushed her to the hospital.No injuries were found on her body by the doctor and the Panchas and no independent witnesses have been examined to prove the cruel treatment.Had there been a guilty mind the accused persons could not have rushed Usha to the hospital leaving the house open, not caring for anything but rushing her to the hospital.In the result, the appeals of the appellants are allowed. | ['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. |
195,122,898 | Shri Suresh Agarwal, counsel for the complainant.With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally.This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.458/2016 registered by police station Narwar, District Shivpuri under Section 306 of IPC.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application are that on 04.11.2016 FIR was registered against the applicants for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.It is mentioned in the FIR that an information was received on 15.09.2016 to the effect that the deceased Madhav has committed suicide by hanging himself.It was mentioned in the information/complaint that on 14.09.2016 Bablu Rawat had stolen petrol from the moter-cycle of his elder brother Madhav, as a result of which, Madhav Rawat after consuming the liquor was abusing Bablu Rawat and others, and at that time the applicants assaulted his elder brother Madhav.The dispute was pacified but at about 1:30 in the afternoon his elder brother Madhav committed suicide by hanging himself.The statement of the witnesses were recorded and on the basis of the statement of all the witnesses, police registered the FIR on 04.11.2016 for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.C. No.13831/2016 2 This petition was filed for quashing of the FIR. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,951,259 | JUDGMENT S.K. Tiwari, J.This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence, dated 14th August.1997, recorded by Id. 3rd.302/149, 307/149, 326/149 and 324/149 IPC for having committed the offences of riot, murder by Intentionally causing the death of Sk.Mobarak Ali in furtherance of common object of an unlawful assembly, attempt to commit murder of Jahanara Begum and voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Jahanara Begum and etc. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges.The accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr PC on the same day.for recording defence witnesses.On that day no defence witnesses were present.The case was thereafter taken upon on 4th August.and one D.W. was partly examined.His examination-in-chief was deferred and the ease was fixed for 14th August.On 14th August, 1997 when the case was called, the accused persons were present but the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the defence lawyer were absent.An application was filled on behalf of the accused persons for grant of adjournment to produce other defence witnesses.In the light of the aforesaid infirmities, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court cannot be allowed by stand.The appeal is, therefore, allowed.Since the appellant remained on bail during the trial, the learned trial court shall enlarge him on bail, if he furnishes fresh bail and bonds on the same terms and conditions as prevailed earlier.V. Nand, J. | ['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. |
195,138,411 | Police machinery was set in motion on receipt of an information regarding stabbing of one person, namely, Ram Chander on 22 nd January, 2004 on the basis of which DD No. 16A, Ex. PW22/A was recorded in the Police Station, Patel Nagar.The said DD was handed over to SI Suresh Kumar who along with Constable Suresh Kumar reached the place of occurrence at Jhuggi No. WZ 157/207, Gali No. 1, Prem Nagar, Patel Nagar, Delhi.On reaching there, he came to know that Ram Chander was removed to hospital in PCR.No eye witness was available at the spot.After leaving Constable Suresh Kumar at the spot, SI Suresh Kumar went to DDU Hospital.In the Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 2 of 54 meanwhile, Constable Kishan Singh reached DDU Hospital and handed over DD No.44B, Ex. PW 22/B mentioning about the death of Ram Chander to SI Suresh Kumar.Inspector Ram Sewak, SHO, Police Station, Patel Nagar also reached the DDU Hospital on being apprised about both the DD entries.SI Krishan Kumar collected the MLC of deceased Ram Chander on which the doctor had mentioned brought dead to casualty.On inspection of dead body, one stab injury on left side of the chest of the deceased was noticed.PW2/A was recorded.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 2 of 54The Crime Team and the photographer arrived at the spot and photographs were taken.Site Plan of the scene of occurrence was prepared at the instance of Ramadheen @ Molla.Blood lying in the Jhuggi, earth control, blood stained stones were lifted from the spot and were seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW-3/B to Ex.PW3/D. Post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Ram Chander was conducted by Dr. M.M.Narnaware who gave his report Ex.PW12/A. After post mortem, the dead body of deceased Ram Chander was handed over to his brother and wife, vide handing over memo Ex. PW3/F.It is further the case of the prosecution that on 1 st February, 2004, accused Suraj was apprehended from the gate of Railway Station, Patel Nagar at the identification of complainant Ramadheen.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 3 of 54 He was arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/G. On 13th April, 2004 accused Prakash Kumar @ Pakka and accused Prakash Raj @ Pintu were apprehended on the basis of secret information from Punjabi Basti, Baljit Nagar, Delhi.Both of them were interrogated and their disclosure statements Ex. PW-3/P and Ex. PW-3/Q were recorded.However, Vikram @Vakhat Ram could not be arrested and he was declared proclaimed offender.He got scared and to save himself he went to hide himself in another room.After changing his clothes he came out and found his brother unconscious.His wife was also present and he asked his wife to tie the wound with the help of chunni.His friend Sonu was also present there and he asked him to take his brother to hospital.He also called the police at 100 number.Police came and took his brother to hospital.Her husband was removed to hospital from the spot and he died in the hospital.However, he admitted that at the instance of his elder brother he removed injured to hospital- meaning thereby he is not denying his presence at the spot, but for reasons best known to him he is trying to suppress the genesis of the case.It has further come in evidence of PW-3 Ramadheen that the police came to the spot and lifted the earth control (blood) etc. from the spot and the seizure memos Ex. PW-3/B, PW-3/C & PW-3/D bears his signatures.One spindle shaped penetrating wound seen on lateral aspect of left side of chest, located at 9.5 cm from left nipple and 12.5 cm from axilla.The margins are clean cut and well defined.Both the angles are acute.PW-16 Constable Ajit Singh, PW-26 SI Sudesh Pal were also present.PW-3 Ramadheen also reached the spot and he identified both the accused.ASI Sudesh Pal also identified Crl.She further deposed that accused Jai Kishan used to come to street to tease girls, which was objected by her deceased husband.Even two days prior to the incident all the four accused had extended threats to kill her husband by saying "Kaam Tamam kar denge".Under the circumstances, the accused do not get any benefit from these DDs.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.The brother of the deceased filed a complaint petition with regard to the incident.The appellant absconded.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.These appeals have been preferred under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 assailing the order dated 26th August, 2010 vide which the appellants Prakash Kumar @ Pakka, Suraj Kumar Thakur and Jai Kishan @ Jacky were held guilty for offences under Section 302/34 IPC while co-accused Prakash Raj @ Pintu was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt.Vide order dated 30th August, 2010, all the appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.Ramadheen @ Molla, elder brother of the deceased met the police officials in the hospital and SI Suresh Kumar recorded his statement Ex. PW3/A, which became bedrock of investigation.FIR Ex.Both the accused were arrested.Both the accused pointed out the place of incident.In pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the accused Prakash Kumar @ Pakka, one button actuated knife was recovered from the bushes near Railway line, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/U. The case properties were deposited in Malkhana.Subsequent opinion of the Doctor regarding weapon of offence was obtained.Search for remaining accused were made but they could not be arrested as such charge sheet was submitted against three accused, namely, Suraj Kumar, Prakash @ Pakka and Prakash Raj @ Pintu.All the accused pleaded not guilty to the Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 4 of 54 charge and claimed trial.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 4 of 54In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 27 witnesses.All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused pleaded their innocence and alleged false implication in the case.Prakash @ Pakka and Prakash Raj @ Pintu examined DW-1 Constable Lachha Ram who proved the DD No. 421 dated 9 th April, 2004, DD No. 464 dated 10th April, 2004, DD No.465 dated 10th April, 2004 and DD No. 503 dated 11th April, 2004(Ex.DW1/A to DW1/D).Accused Suraj examined DW-2 Sh.Subhash Kumar, his father, who deposed that he was lifted by Delhi Police on 30 th January, 2004 from the house at about 11:00 pm by SI Babu Lal.He was taken to police station at Patel Nagar and was detained there for 2-3 days.Thereafter his son was forced to surrender in the police station Patel Nagar and only thereafter he was allowed to leave the police station.After hearing learned counsel for the parties vide impugned order, accused Prakash @ Pukka, Suraj Thakur and Jai Kishan @ Jacky were held guilty for offence under Section 302/34 IPC while accused Prakash Raj @ Pintoo was acquitted granting him benefit of doubt.The said order of conviction has been assailed by all the three convicted appellants by filing the present appeal.We have heard Mr. Ajay M. Lal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr.G.S. Sharma, counsel for the appellants and Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP.PW-6 Seema, wife of the deceased has admitted that she was not present at the place of incident and her testimony was only hearsay.PW-3 Ramadheen is the complainant, however his testimony has not even been relied upon by the learned trial court regarding main incident of stabbing but was referred to on collateral points.Testimony of PW-7 Rekha also suffered from material improvements.According to her, her statement was recorded at 4:15 pm even before the injured was taken to hospital and before the statement of her husband was recorded.If that be so, FIR should have been recorded immediately on her statement but it was recorded only after 7:00 pm.On the statement of Ramadheen, in fact, none of the witnesses were present at the spot.Otherwise they being close relatives of the deceased would have been the first persons to take him to the hospital but as per MLC, the deceased was brought to the hospital by the police officials.Even PW-23 deposed that injured was lying on the road and they removed him to hospital.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 5 of 54It was further submitted that the prosecution heavily relied upon motive to commit the crime by alleging that the accused persons used to indulge in indecent activities and used to tease girls, which was objected to by the deceased and his brother.However, no other person of the locality has been examined to prove this fact.There is no complaint by any mohalla person regarding this fact.Moreover, different versions are forthcoming inasmuch as according to wife of the deceased, the relations of deceased with the accused persons were Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 6 of 54 cordial and they even used to visit her house whereas PW-7 Rekha at the outset of her examination-in-chief deposed that their relations were strained.However, the appellants examined DW-1 Constable Lachha Ram, who brought DDs to prove that the accused were arrested under Section 41(3)/109 Cr.P.C. in Rajasthan.They were produced before the SDM, Police Station Sumer Pur, who had released them on executing a personal bond for six months.Subsequently, on 11 th April, 2004, they were again called in police station Sumer Pur and were handed over to SI Kishan from police station, Patel Nagar, Delhi.In view of this documentary evidence, the oral testimony of the witnesses that the accused were arrested from Punjabi Basti, Baljit Nagar, Delhi stands falsified and therefore, the subsequent recovery of knife allegedly at the instance of accused Prakash @ Pakka also does not deserve any credence.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 27th April, 2004 and at that point of time there was no mention of any order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and in fact, no request was made throughout the proceedings and no order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. was passed by the trial court.As such, the evidence led against the other accused persons could not be read against this appellant inasmuch as the provisions of Section 299 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with.Even though this accused was arrested in the year 2005, charge was framed only on 15th July, 2008 by observing that non framing of the charge against this accused was just an irregularity.After the arrest of the accused the material witnesses were not recalled for the purpose of examination qua this accused and as such their testimony cannot be read in evidence against him which form the basis of his conviction.As such, it was submitted that his conviction is also liable to be set aside on this ground.Reliance was placed on Jayender Vishnu Thakur Vs.State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2009) 7Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 7 of 54State of Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 8 of 54 Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532; Mookkiah and Anr.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 8 of 54Mere fact that witnesses did not accompany the deceased to hospital is no ground to doubt their presence at the spot.Reliance was placed on Abu Thakur and Ors.Further the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses find due corroboration from the medical evidence.After the arrest of the accused when knife was recovered, it was sent to the doctor and subsequent opinion was received that the injuries were possible by the recovered weapon.Further, human blood was found on the concrete material and stones at the Railway line which is another incriminating piece of evidence against the accused persons.Prosecution has also proved motive to commit the crime inasmuch as the deceased and his family members used to object to the indecent activities of the accused persons whereby they used to tease girls of the locality and the accused persons had even earlier threatened the deceased and on the fateful day, they came armed with knife and gave knife blow on the left side of the chest of the deceased which proved fatal.The deceased was unarmed and the accused persons took undue advantage.That being so, the offence under Section 302 IPC was squarely made out against them.Reliance Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.All the accused shared common intention, as such were rightly held guilty under Sections 302/34 IPC.As regards accused Jaikishan, it was submitted that charge was framed against him on 15th July, 2008 which was never challenged by the accused as such the same attained finality.The prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-3 Ramadheen and PW-7 Rekha after the arrest of this accused.However, sincere efforts were made to trace these witnesses even through DCP but the witnesses could not be traced.Under the circumstances, their testimonies were rightly relied upon by learned trial court under Section 299 Cr.P.C. qua this accused.We have given our considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.As regards the actual incident, prosecution case rests on the testimonies of PW-3 Ramadheen, PW-4 Sonu, PW-6 Seema and PW-7 Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 10 of 54 Rekha.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 10 of 54PW-3 Ramadheen @Molla testified that he was doing cobblers job.On the date of incident he returned from his job and was taking bath outside his house.He asked his deceased brother to bring food for him.His brother came back and told him that accused Prakash @ Pakka, Pintu, Suraj, Jai Kishan and Vikram were coming to beat him.Thereafter all the three accused started beating his brother and in the meantime, accused Prakash @ Pakka asked accused Suraj to take out a knife .Suraj took out a knife from his pocket and thereafter churi was taken by accused Prakash @ Pakka and he gave that churi blow on the left side of chest of his brother Ram Chander.Later on, he also reached hospital.On enquiry he was informed that his brother had already expired.Police met him in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW 3/A. In cross-examination, he deposed that incident took place at Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 11 of 54 about 3:45 p.m. He was taking bath at a distance of 2-3 paces from the Jhuggi.He denied the suggestion that since he was taking bath he had not seen accused Prakash @ Pakka giving churi blow on the chest of his brother - Ram Chander.He was confronted with some of the portions of the statement Ex.PW3/A, where some of the facts as deposed in the Court did not find mention.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 11 of 54PW4 Sonu is the friend of PW3 Ramadheen.This witness, however, did not support the case of the prosecution in as much as he deposed that after finishing his work, he was coming to his house and saw Ram Chander having a stab injury lying on his bed inside the house.At the instance of his elder brother he took him to the hospital.Since the witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor and in cross- examination, he denied having made any statement to the police to the effect that on 22.01.2004 at about 3:45 p.m., he was present at the Jhuggi or that accused Prakash @ Pakka, Jai Kishan and Suraj entered the Jhuggi or that accused Suraj gave knife to Prakash @ Pakka and Prakash @ Pakka inflicted knife injuries on the chest of Ram Chander.PW6 Smt. Seema is the wife of the deceased and has deposed Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 12 of 54 that her husband was stabbed by Prakash @ Pakka and Suraj and one more person.These boys used to come to the street and used to tease girls to which her husband raised objection.On this the accused persons extended threats to kill her husband.In cross- examination, she admitted that she was not present at Jhuggi No. WZ 157/207, Prem Nagar, Gali No.1, Delhi and did not witness the occurrence.The incident was narrated to her by her sister-in-law.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 12 of 54PW7 Rekha is the wife of complainant PW3 Ramadheen.It has come her deposition that the accused Prakash @ Pakka and Suraj used to come in the street and used to tease girls.Even 3-4 days prior to the date of the incident both of them came to the street.Her brother-in-law Ram Chander asked them not to visit the street and not to tease the girls, on which they left from the spot and next day again came along with three more persons.Ram Chander again raised objection on which all the five boys extended threat to him by saying Tu kaun hota hai tera kaam tamam kar denge.Then, they left from there and again came on the next day.Accused Prakash @ Pakka, Suraj and Jai Kishan entered the Jhuggi.Accused Prakash @ Pakka asked Jai Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 13 of 54 Kishan and Suraj to catch hold of the hands of her brother-in-law - Ram Chander and asked Suraj to give him a knife.Thereupon Suraj gave him a knife and Prakash @ Pakka inflicted knife blow on the chest of Ram Chander.At that time her husband was taking bath and due to the incident she, her husband and Sonu ran from there.Accused Prakash @ Pakka followed her husband, then she, her husband and Sonu hide themselves to save themselves from accused persons.Later on, Ram Chander was removed to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 13 of 54Testimonies of all these witnesses have been assailed by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that PW4 - Sonu has not supported the case of the prosecution.Remaining witnesses are relations of deceased.PW6 Seema has admitted that she was not present in the Jhuggi at the time of incident and her testimony is only hear say based on information given to her by the Bhabi of her husband.As far as the complainant - Ramadheen is concerned, he also could not have witnessed the incident in as much as per his own version, he was taking bath at a distance of 2-3 paces away from the Jhuggi.Testimony of PW7 Rekha suffers from improvement.As such, Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 14 of 54 no credence can be given to her testimony.Moreover, the conduct of the witnesses reflects that they were not present at the spot in as much as had they been present over there, they would have removed the injured to hospital, but as per the MLC and testimony of police officials injured were removed to hospital by police officials.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 14 of 54As regards the fact that PW4 Sonu did not support the case of prosecution, firstly, it may be mentioned that it is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him hostile and cross examine him.The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.Vide Bhagwan Singh Vs.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 15 of 54 injuries by deposing that he did not witness the incident.Moreover the presence of the witness at the spot stands proved in view of the fact that it was he who had informed the PCR and also asked PW-4 Sonu to take his brother to hospital.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 19 of 54Even PW-7 Rekha has admitted that at the time of the incident Seema was not present in the house.Even if the testimony of PW-6 Seema is not to be considered being hearsay and witnessing the occurrence by PW-3 Ramadheen is not proved beyond doubt, even then there is the testimony of PW-7 Rekha.This witness has given a vivid narration of the entire incident by deposing that the accused persons used to tease girls in the street which was objected to by her husband Ramadheen and her brother-in- law who used to ask them not to visit the street and to tease girls.This Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.On the day of the incident the accused persons came to the jhuggi.Accused Prakash @ Pakka asked Jai Kishan and Suraj to catch hold of her Dewar.Prakash @ Pakka also asked Suraj to give knife to him .Thereupon Suraj gave him knife and Prakash @ Pakka inflicted knife blow on the left side of the chest of deceased Ram Chander.She became scared and she along with her husband ran away from the spot.Her testimony has been assailed on the ground that in cross examination she has deposed that her statement was recorded in the night as well as on the next date of incident and that her statement was recorded even prior to taking the injured to hospital and even before the statement of her husband was recorded.It was submitted that if that had been the case why the FIR was not recorded on her statement.It has come in evidence that the witness is illiterate and as such may not be intelligent enough in narrating the sequence of events which had taken place.However, she had been very specific in assigning the role of each and every accused by deposing that on the asking of Prakash @ Pakka, Suraj and Jai Kishan caught hold of the hands of Ram Chander.Suraj gave knife to Prakash @ Pakka who Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 21 of 54 inflicted the same on the left side chest of Ram Chander.She reiterated in cross examination that accused Suraj gave knife to Pakka and stabbed her brother-in-law.However, accused Prakash Raj started visiting the locality just about three days prior to the incident.The suggestions given to the witness reflects that accused Prakash Raj is not even disputing his presence at the spot in asmuch as it was suggested to her that when the "marpit incident" started then she came to the spot.While denying the suggestion she reiterated that she was already present at the spot.The facts unfolded by this witness are found to be consistent.Even after noticing that the real brother has sustained such serious injuries, Ramadheen did not took him to hospital rather asked PW4 - Sonu to take him to hospital.In Rana Partap and Ors.State of Haryana, 1983 (3) SCC 327, Honble Supreme Court observed that every witness, who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way.Some become hysteric and start wailing.Some start shouting for help.Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible.Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going the extent of counter-attacking the assailants.Every one reacts in his own special Crl.PW-22 Inspector Suresh Kumar and PW-27 Inspector Ram Sewak have also deposed that blood lying in the Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 31 of 54 Jhuggi, earth control and blood stained stones were lifted and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B, PW-3/C and PW-3/D. During the course of investigation, the same were sent to FSL and the report Ex. PY was given by Sh.V. Sankaranarayanan, Senior Scientific Assistant, Biology, opining that blood was detected on blood stained concrete material and piece of stone.It was further opined that origin of blood was "Human".Although, on blood stained concrete material, blood group could not be given, however, blood sample of the deceased was taken which was opined to be of AB group and on the piece of stone also human blood of AB group was opined.This is also an incriminating piece of evidence against the accused persons.In DDU Hospital PW-5 Dr. Nishu Dhawan examined the patient vide MLC Ex. PW-5/A and found:-"stab injury of size about 3 x 0.5 cm cavity deep on left seventh inter central space mid axillary line and Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 32 of 54 opined that the person was brought dead."Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 32 of 54Thereafter, post mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. M.M. Narware whose report was proved by PW-12 Dr. L.K. Barua as the doctor had since expired.On post mortem examination, the doctor found the following injuries on the person of Ram Chander:-Size was 2.5 cms x1cm x cavity deep.In the course of injury, it penetrated the chest wall, entered the left thorasic cavity then pierced the left lung.It was opined that injury number 1 was, in ordinary cause of nature, sufficient to cause death.The other incriminating piece of evidence against accused Prakash @ Pakka is the recovery of weapon of offence at his instance.It has come in the testimony of PW-27 Inspector Ram Sewak that on 13th April, 2004, accused Prakash @ Pakka and accused Prakash Raj @ Pintu were apprehended on the basis of secret information from Punjabi Basti, Baljit Nagar.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 33 of 54 accused Prakash @ Pakka as he had arrested him earlier in another case.Both the accused made disclosure statements Ex. PW-3/Q and PW-3/P and they also pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex. PW-3/R and Ex. PW-3/S. Pursuant to his disclosure statement accused Prakash Kumar @ Pakka led them to the bushes near Railway line and pointed out the bushes and got recovered one button actuated knife.Thereafter, remaining proceedings viz. preparation of sketch of knife Ex. PW-3/T, converting it into a cloth parcel and sealing the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/U were conducted.Site plan of the place of recovery of knife, Ex. PW-27/D was also prepared.The recovery was effected in the presence of PW-3 Ramadheen and this witness has supported the case of prosecution regarding recovery of knife at the instance of accused Prakash @ Pakka from the bushes near his jhuggi and significantly, his testimony was not challenged in cross-examination.That being so, the same goes un-rebutted, unchallenged and unshattered.Moreover, all the police officials referred above also corroborated testimony of each other regarding recovery of knife at the instance of accused Prakash @ Pakka.Ramadheen has identified the knife to be the same with which injuries were inflicted on the person of his brother.During the course of investigation, the knife was sent to FSL from where report Ex. PX was received.The blood, however, could not be detected on the same.This time gap was sufficient for non-detection of blood on the knife.In Mookkiah (supra) also the articles were allegedly blood stained but no blood was found by FSL.It was explained that since these objects were lying on the earth and Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 35 of 54 due to efflux of time, no blood was found.It was held that recovery itself cannot be doubted when articles concerned were duly received in presence of witness.Subsequent opinion was also sought from the doctor and Dr. M.M. Narware gave his opinion Ex. PW-28/A opining that the injuries as per post mortem report could have been caused from the weapon, which was produced before him.Under these circumstances, even if PW-4 Sonu did not support the case of prosecution, PW-6 Seema is not an eye witness of the incident and to some extent it cannot be said with certainty that PW-3 Ramadheen who although was present at the spot had actually witnessed the incident but PW-7 Smt. Rekha has proved the case of prosecution.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 33 of 54Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 34 of 54Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 35 of 54Motive to commit the crime is also duly proved.PW3 Ramadheen and PW7 Rekha have deposed that accused Prakash @ Pakka and Suraj used to come in their street and used to do indecent activities, and tease the girls.Even 3-4 days prior to the incident they had come in the street, which was objected by PW3 Ramadheen and his deceased brother Ram Chander.Deceased Ram Chander had asked them not to visit the street, not to tease the girls and not to keep ill will against the women of the locality.At that time they had left from Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 36 of 54 there.Rekha has further deposed that on the next day these two accused came along with three more persons.Deceased Ram Chander again objected to their act.All the boys extended threats to him by saying "Tu Kaun hota hai tera kaam tamam kar denge".PW6 - Seema has also deposed that accused Prakash @ Pakka, Suraj and one more person used to come to their street and used to tease the girls.Her deceased husband had raised objection not to tease them.The fact that accused used to indulge in indecent activities in the area prior to the incident is not even disputed by the accused persons in as much as a categorical suggestion was given to PW7 Rekha and she deposed:-Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.As such, since objections were Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 38 of 54 witnesses to prove the incident, motive assumes a secondary role.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 38 of 54P.C. in Rajasthan and they were produced before the SDM, Police Station Sumer Pur where they were released on executing personal bond for six months.Subsequently, on 11th April, 2004 they were again called in Police Station Sumer Pur and were handed over to SI Krishan from Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 44 of 54 taking the benefit of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the conditions precedent therein must be duly established and the prosecution which proposes to utilize the said statement as evidence in trial must, therefore, prove about the existence of pre-conditions before tendering the evidence.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 44 of 54A proclamation under Section 82 of the Code was thereafter issued on 9 th February, 1993 declaring the appellant as a proclaimed offender.Subsequently the said proclamation was also published in different newspapers.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was initially submitted against 12 persons on 27th August, 1993 wherein eight persons including the appellant, were shown to be absconding.The Investigating Officer of the case informed the designated Judge, TADA Court at Mumbai vide Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.The State of Maharashtra filed writ application before the High Court of Delhi for securing the presence of the appellants in the case pending in the State of Maharashtra including the case in question, which was dismissed.On 11th July, 1995 an application under Section 83 of the Code was filed by the IO wherein, it was admitted that the appellant had not been absconding.An application was moved by the State of Maharashtra to the designated Judge, TADA, Delhi for transfer of the appellant to Maharashtra which was declined.During the period 6th November, 1995 to 22nd January, 1997, ten witnesses were examined who had expired.Applications were filed by the public prosecutor for exhibiting the deposition of witnesses who had since expired, which was allowed.The appellant challenged the order.That being so, since, this jurisdictional fact was not proved, therefore, the prosecution could not take the shelter of Section 299 of the Code.However, things are entirely different in the instant case.Thereafter, proceedings under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him.Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after recording the statement of process server, and after satisfying himself, declared the appellant (Jaikishan) and Vikram to be proclaimed offenders.Since there were three more accused, trial proceeded.After this accused was arrested, supplementary charge sheet was filed against him.Charge was framed.Most of the witnesses were recalled for further examination.However, as regards PW-3 and PW-7, the judgment records that summons sent to these witnesses were received back un-executed with report that premises were found locked.Prosecution also moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to Crl.A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A.1194/2010 Page 47 of 54 summon these witness once again.P.C. qua this accused could have been considered and was rightly considered by the learned trial court.Crl. A. 1432-33/2010 & Crl.A-1s wife A-2 brought knife and gave it to A-1 who then stabbed the complainant.As a result whereof he fell down with bleeding injury and was taken to hospital where he died subsequently.A1 was arrested and at his instance knife was recovered. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
195,140,229 | 14.06.2004 passed by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial 28/2003, by and under which, the ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 ::: apeal418.04.J.odt 2 appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') is convicted for offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.2] Heard Shri Ranjit Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Gangane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::It is apparent from the evidence of P.W.2 Laxman s/o Chokhaji Bhagat and P.W.3 Smt. Suman w/o Shatrughna Bhagat that they have not witnessed the actual incident.The other witness examined by the prosecution to throw light on the incident is P.W.4 Dilip s/o Keshav Manik, who did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.In the cross-examination conducted by the ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 ::: apeal418.04.J.odt 3 learned A.P.P., P.W.4 Dilip has supported the prosecution to a certain extent.However, even if the evidence of Dilip is considered holistically, despite he being a hostile witness, it is apparent that he is not an eye witness to the actual incident.4] The injury certificate Exh.61 would reveal that the injuries suffered are simple.The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the injuries are simple is unexceptionable.5] On a holistic appreciation of evidence on record, the finding that the accused assaulted P.W.1 Raju does not suffer from any serious error or infirmity.I have closely scrutinized the evidence of injured P.W.1 Raju, who has no reason to falsely implicate the accused and to exculpate the guilty.Concededly, the incident occurred in the court-yard of the accused.I have no hesitation in upholding the finding of conviction.6] However, although the age of the accused is recorded to as 22 by the learned Sessions Judge, the case papers would show that the accused was not more than 20 at the time of the ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 ::: apeal418.04.J.odt 4 incident.In order to satisfy the conscious of the court, the learned counsel has produced before me the driving licence of the accused, who incidentally is also present in the court since non-bailable warrant was directed to be issued.The accused appeared suo motu although the non-bailable warrant and prayed for recall of the non-bailable warrant which is yet to be executed.Be that as it may, it is indubitable that the accused was less than 20 years old as on the date of the incident.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::6. Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age.--(1) When any person ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 ::: apeal418.04.J.odt 6 under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him under section 3 or section 4, and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::(2) For the purpose of satisfying itself whether it would not be desirable to deal under section 3 or section 4 with an offender referred to in sub-section (1) the Court shall not for a report from the probation officer and consider the report, if any, and any other information available to it relating to the character and physical and mental condition of the offender.10] The enunciation of law, consistent with the dictum in Ram Prakash v. The State of H.P. reported in AIR 1973 SC 780 is also discernible in the judgments of the Apex Court in Musakhan and others vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1976 SC 2566 and the relevant observations read thus:The only evidence of his participation in the incident at the Bharat Lodge consists of P.W. 1 Prakash and P.W. 16 Vishwanath.So far as P.W. 16 is concerned his evidence has been rejected as he was not able to identify the ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 ::: apeal418.04.J.odt 7 appellant at a test identification parade.Further more, in view of the evidence of P.W. 16 extracted above, it would appear that he does not mention A-4 as one of the persons who had taken part in removing the cash box from the counter.In these circumstances, therefore, A-4 can only be convicted at the most under Sections 149/425, I.P.C. As this appellant does not appear to have taken any part either in the raid which was made at the Engineering College hostel or at the chawl he can only be responsible for the mischief which was caused at the Bharat Lodge.As his conviction under Sections 395/149 fails, the appellant can only be convicted under Sections 149/425, I.P.C. The other convictions and sentences recorded against him are set aside.The Probation of Offenders Act is a social legislation which is meant to reform juvenile offenders so as to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals by providing an educative and reformative treatment to them by the Government.Unfortunately, though the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act are mandatory, the Courts do not appear to make wise use of these provisions which is necessary to protect our younger generation from becoming professional criminals and, therefore, a menace to the society.It may be that the appellant A-4 was not dealt with under the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act because of the charge under Section 395, I.P.C. but that charge having failed, there is no impediment now in his being dealt with under the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In these circumstances, therefore, we would set aside the convictions and sentences imposed on A-4 Musa Khan and direct that he be released on his entering into a bond with two sureties of Rs. 500/- each for a period of one year in order to keep the peace and be of good behavior.The appellant will report to the Probation Officer appointed within the jurisdiction of the place where he resides.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::11] I am satisfied that the accused was only 20 years old as on the date of the incident.I am also satisfied that having regard to the circumstances, the character of the accused and the nature of offence and the backdrop in which the alleged incident took place, the accused deserves to be granted the benefit of section 3 and 4 of the Act.12] In the result, I pass the following order:[iii] The accused shall furnish the bond in the trial court.::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::13] The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.JUDGENSN ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:34 ::: | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,385,515 | As per prosecution story, complainant-Kavita hurled filthy abuses by the applicant and was assaulted.When her brother- Jitendra intervened, the applicant caused knife injuries to him and, thereafter, father of complainant namely; Parasram tried to intervene, but was pushed by the applicant.Parasram fell on the ground, as a result, fainted and subsequently died.The case initially registered was under Section 324 IPC along with other sections and was enhanced with additional section 304 IPC added against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.He also submits that the deceased-Parasram died due to 'cardio respiratory failure' which is natural death and there is no injury on his body.He also submits that that the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.48738 OF 2018 (Kalu vs State of Madhya Pradesh) complainant has received simple injuries which is not dangerous to life.The conclusion of trial will take a long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the bail application and submits that seven criminal cases were registered against him, including the present case.Hence, the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the deceased-Parasram died natural death, but without making any opinion on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant-Kalu is allowed.Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2018.12.04 18:53:06 +05'30' | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
943,949 | Tar Babu and Indrasen are sons of Damroo, Balwan is son of Hira Lal and Sheo Ram is grandson of Gajodhar.According to the prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses of fact, a plot of land known as Pandeywala field, situated in village Jonia aforesaid, belonged to one Dhani Ram of the said village.From the first wife of Dhani Ram was born a daughter Sukhdei, who is married in district Jalaun.After the death of his first wife Dhani Ram re-married with Saraswati "Kunwar.No issue was born from this wedlock.The landed property of Dhani Ram including the plot in question devolved upon Saraswati Kunwar after his death.After the death of Saraswati Kunwar the said property was inherited by Sukhdei, who entered into possession over the plot in question also.The accused persons had got a sale deed of this plot executed by Saraswati Kunwar although their name was neither mutated on account of objection by Sukhdei nor possession delivered to them.On the other hand, the name of Sukhadei was mutated after the death of Saraswati Kunwar.For the purposes of looking after her property including the plot in question Sukhdei executed a Mukhtar-nama in favour of Ram Asrey (P.W. 4), the son of first informant Bharosa Singh (P.W. 1).The cultivation on Behalf of Sukhdei was accordingly done by Ram Asrey.On 21-6-1975 at about 5p.m. P.W. 1 Bharosa, P.W. 4, Ram Asrey along with Ram Adhar, went to the Pandeywala field to plough the same.While Ram Asrey was ploughing the field the eight accused persons arrived there hurling abuses.Out of them, Indrasen and Sheo Ram were armed with guns, Tar Babu and Balwan with country made pistol, Damroo and Hira Lal with 'Kanta' Gajodhar with Farsa and Hanuman with a lathi.On arrival at the field they tried to stop Ram Asrey from tilling the land but he did not stop doing so.On this Indrasen and Sheo Ram fired shots with their guns causing injuries to Ram Asrey.On the alarm raised by him, and the two other persons in the field, Sheo Narain, Lal Singh, Ramraj Jimi Pal, Rarn Sajiwan.X-ray.2 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation on left side thigh back side.3 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation on left side hip internal side.All-injuries were caused by blunt object.On internal examination the plura was found to be red and congested, left cavity contained 12 ounces and right cavity one ounce blood.Right lung was congested and perforated.One pellet was found therein.Death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries in the chest.He died in the hospital next morning.In Baijnath Mahton v. State of Bihar, the accused, two deceased persons in the case and the material witness belonged to the same village, a piece of land was the subject matter of dispute between one of the accused (appellant No. 1) and the prosecution party.On the day of occurrence, P.W. 3 and his men of the prosecution party were engaged in agricultural operation in that land, while the accused persons came armed with Tangi, Spade and Sticks and started beating them.JUDGMENT A.B. Srivastava, J.This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 26-10-1979 of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, whereby by he convicted the appellants Balwan Singh, Tar Babu alias Pratap Singh, Indrasen, Sheo Ram Damroo, Gajodhar and Hira Lal and sentenced each of them under SECTION 302/149, I.P.C. to imprisonment for life, 307/149, I.P.C. to five years' R.I. and SECTION 148, I.P.C. to R.I. for two years, while acquitting their co-accused Hanuman.Parties to this litigation including the deceased Lal Singh belong to village Jonia within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gajner, district Kanpur.All the accused persons hail from a common ancestor.Three of them, Hira Lal, Damroo and Gajodhar are real brothers.Mahadeo Ram Bali, Gambhir Singh, Munna Singh and Inderjeet also reached there and tried to intervene, whereupon all accused persons attacked and caused injuries to all these persons as well as Bharosey and Ram Adhar by their respective weapons.The incident and the cries of the victims attracted Chhiddu Majran alias Chhedi Lal (P.W. 2), Sheo Narain, Umrao Singh and several others, who rushed towards the scene of occurrence and challenged the assailants who thereupon fled.All the thirteen injured persons on the informant side were taken from the spot to the UHM Hospital, Kanpur, where they were medically examined from 10.40p.m.on 21-6-1975 up to 4.50 a.m. on 22-6-1975, by Dr. R. S. Pandey (P.W. 9), who prepared injury reports Exhibits Ka 10 to Ka 21 and also provided treatment.The following chart will show the injuries found on the person of each of the injured.Jimi Pal 1 Multiple lacerated wound l/4 cm x 1/4 depth under observation in an area of 15 cm x 17 cm and left side abdomen lower side, at right side abdomen from 1 cm from midline.Advised X-ray blackening, tattooing and scorching present.2 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation in an area of 22 cm x 22 cm x 22 cm , on upper 2/3rd right thigh of front of lateral space.Advised X-ray, Blackening, tattooing and scorching present.3- Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4cm depth under observation on left side, forearm.Dorsal aspect.13.5 cm from elbow.Advised X-ray.Opinion: Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 caused by projected type of fire arm and injury No. 3 by blunt object.Ramraj Singh 1 Three lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation in an area of 10 cm x 8 cm on right side abdomen 3 cm right to umbilicus.X-ray.2 Lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on left side abdomen.2 cm from umbilicus at 4 O'clock position.X-ray.3 Three lacerated wounds 1/4 cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation on penis, upper side.X-ray.4 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on left side thigh.X-ray.5 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right side thigh.X-ray.6 Multiple lacerated wound on left side leg and knee 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation.X-ray.7 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation on left region.X-ray.All injuries caused by projected type of fire arm.Ram Sajinder Singh 1 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x l/4 cm x depth under observation on right side face.2 cm below right lower eye lid.X-ray.2 Two lacerated wounds 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm depth under observation on left side face, one left side and one 6 cm below left eye.X-ray.3 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm depth under observation on left upper arm.8 cm from shoulder Adv.X-ray.4 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm depth under observation on left side forearm.7 cm from wrist.5 Lacerated wound l/4cm x l/4cm depth under observation on middle right palmar side.X-ray.6 Two lacerated wounds 1 /4 cm x 1 /4 cm depth under observation on left illiac forsa 8 cm from left illiac spine.X-ray.7 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1 /4 cm depth under observation on right side thigh from and anterior medial and lateral region.X-ray.8 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4cm depth under observation on left side thigh.Lateral side.X-ray.9 Lacerated wound on right side on front region l/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation.4 cm from Tibia.All injuries caused by projected type of fire arm.Ram Bali Singh 1- Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right side chest 8 cm below right nipple.X-ray.2 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right side abdomen 6 cm from umbilicus on 9 O'clock position.X-ray.3 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1 /4 cm depth under observation on right side upper thigh on upper 1/3rd.X-ray.4 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on left hand.Palmar and Dorsal side.X-ray.5 Lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation on right side wrist.X-ray.6 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right side, ring finger 2.5 cm below base of ring finger.Injuries caused by projected type of fire arm.Bharosey Singh 1 Swelling 8 cm x 8 cm on left side hand Dorsal side.X-ray.2- Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x scalp on top of head.3 Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1'/2 cm on right side elbow.4 Swelling 10 cm x 6 cm on middle of leg.Frontal side left side.5 Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on right side back above scapular region.Injuries caused by blunt object.Mahadeo Singh 1 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right side neck, 5 cm from right ear.X-ray.2 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on left side head on occipital region.12 cm from left ear.3 Nine lacerated wounds 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right side back from upper to lower side.X-ray.4 Two lacerated wounds 1 /4 cm x 1 /4 cm x depth under observation on right side buttock.5 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm depth under observation on left side buttock.6 Lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation on right side thigh.Left side middle region.X-ray.Injury caused by projected type of fire arm.Lal Singh 1 Incised wound 7cm x 2.5 cm x depth under observation on left side chest 7cm below nipple.X-ray.2 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right side chest left side 20.5 cm from right side nipple.X-ray.3 Incised wound 4cm x 2cm x muscle deep on right side, 11 cm from right elbow, right side forearm.4 Lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm x scalp U shaped on left side head on occipital right side.5 Incised wound 2 cm x 1/4 cm x muscle left side thumb at base of left side thumb.Dorsal side.6 Incised wound I cm x 1/4 cm x muscle deep on middle of little finger dorsal side.7 Incised wound 8cm x 2cm x muscle deep a right side leg middle region and 15 cm from right knee.8 Two multiple lacerated wounds 1 /4 cm x 1/4 cm depth under observation on left side buttock.Blackening tattooing scorching present in area of 16 cm x 18 cm.X-ray.9 Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm on muscle medial side of left knee.10- Incised wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm x muscle on posterior medial space on lower 1/3rd thigh.Injuries Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 caused by sharp object.No. 8 by projected type firearm and rest by blunt object.Ram Adhar Singh 1-Two lacerated wounds l/4 cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation on left side chest in area of 8 cm, 3cm from left nipple.X-ray.2 Three lacerated wounds 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on left upper arm on middle of upper arm 10 cm left tip of shoulder.X-ray.3 Two lacerated wounds 1 /4 cm x 1 /4 cm x depth under observation on left side elbow.X-ray.4 Three lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1 /4 cm x depth under observation outer side.Abdomen 12cm x 7cm x 5cm left to umbilicus.X-ray.5 Multiple contusion on whole back 10 cm x 2 cm to 8 cm x 2 cm.Injury No. 5 caused by blunt object rest by projected type of fire arm.Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 under observation and No. 5 simple.Sheo Narain Singh 1 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on top of forehead 6 cm from middle of eye brow.X-ray.2 TWO lacerated wounds 1 /4 cm x 1 /4 cm x depth under observation on right side face.2 cm from right, lat.angle of eye and one 2.5 cm from right lat.angle of mouth.3 Incised wound 4.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle on left side forearm outer aspect 6 cm from elbow.4 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1 /4 cm x depth under observation on left side thigh all over Adv.X-ray.5 Multiple lacerated wound on right side thigh.1/4 cm x 1/4 cm depth under observation.X-ray.6 Multiple lacerated wound on left side leg.1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation.X-ray.Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 caused by projected type of fire arm, No. 3 sharp object..Ram Asrey Singh 1 Two lacerated wounds 1/4 cm x l/4cm x depth under observation on right side face one on chin and one 1 cm from right angle of mouth.X-ray.2Six lacerated wound l/4cm x l/4cm x depth under observation on left side chest.X-ray.3 Three lacerated wound on right side chin.1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observa-tion.2 cm sternal region.X-ray 4- Seven lacerated wounds on right side abdomen 1/4cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation.X-ray.5 Nine lacerated wounds on left side abdomen l/4cm x l/4cm x depth under observation.X-ray.6 Multiple lacerated wound on side buttock.X-ray.7 Five lacerated wounds 1/4 cm x 1 / 4 cm depth under observation on left side thigh.X-ray.8 Multiple lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation right side thigh.X-ray.9 Eight lacerated wounds 1/4 cm 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right knee.X-ray.Injuries caused by projected type of fire arm.Munna Singh 1 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on right side thigh.X-ray 1.5 cm from other knee.2 Lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4cm x depth under observation on right side knee.On medial aspect.X-ray.3 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm depth under observation on right side muscle.X-ray.Injuries caused by blunt object.Gambhir Singh 1 Lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4cm depth under observation on sternal region on middle side 3.5 from above sternal.X-ray.2 Two lacerated wounds 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation left side thigh both on upper 1/3rd of thigh frontal and lateral side.One 11.5cm from left illiac spine and other 15.5cm from left illiac spine.X-ray.3 Lacerated wound 1/4cm x 1/4cm on depth under observation on medial side of thigh right side 14cm from right knee.X-ray.Indrajeet Singh 1 Lacerated wound 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x depth under observation on middle right leg medial aspect.Injuries of all the above injured persons were of 6 to 12 hours duration.A written report Exhibit Ka 1 regarding this incident was thereafter prepared by informant Bharosa Singh and lodged at the Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur the same day at 11.15 a.m. The chik F.I.R. was registered by Om Prakash Saxena (P.W. 6) then Head Contable, P. S. Kotwali.The papers were sent to Police Station, Gajner on 22-6-1975 itself where it was recorded in the General Diary at 6.10 p.m. by K. P. Pandey (P.W. 3) then Head Constable writer at the said Police Station.Investigation of the case was taken up by S. I. Balbir Singh Chauhan (since dead).Meanwhile inquest of the dead body of Lal Singh was made by S.I. of Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur, and the dead body was sent to the mortuary for post-mortem examination through Constable Surat Singh and Sheo Bahadur Singh.1 Stitched wound 3" long on the parietal and occipital region.6" above the left ear.When stitches removed wound, was bone deep.2 Stitched wound 2%" long on the front of chest left side.Chest cavity deep.3 Stitched wound 1" long on the back of thumb.Bone deep.4 Stitched wound 2/2" long inner side of left knee.Bone deep.5 Stitched wound 3" long front of right leg.Bone deep.6 Stitched wound 2 1/2" long on the back of forearm in the middle.Bone deep.7 Gun shot qua wound 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on the right flank on the 10th rib.8 Stitched wound 3 1/2" long on the back of left knee.9 Multiple gun shot wounds on the left buttock in an area 8" x 9".10 Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2" muscle deep on the left little finger.The Investigating Officer who visited the spot of occurrence prepared a site plan Exhibit Ka 6 of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses and laid charge-sheet against the accused persons.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty on the charges framed against them and denied the correctness of the prosecution version regarding this incident barring the presence and participation of four of the accused-appellants Hira Lal, Damroo Sheo Ram Singh and Gajodhar who were also injured in this incident.They set up a counter-version regarding the informant party being aggressor, and injuries to the persons on the informant side including fatal injuries to the deceased Lal Singh being caused in exercise of right of private defence of person and property by the accused party.According to the defence version as contained in the statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. appellant Sheo Narain Singh and cross F.I.R. Exhibit Kha 1 lodged by appellant Hira Lal on 23-6-1975 at 9.15 p.m., a sale deed dated 21-2-1971 in respect of the plot in question was executed by Sarswati Kunwar in favour of appellants Hanuman, Balwan Singh Indrasen, Gajodhar and non-appellant Ram Swarup, brother of, Hanu-rnan, Bharat Singh son of Hira Lal and Suraj Singh father of appellant Sheo Ram, and possession was also delivered.Smt. Sukhdei fictitiously claiming to be daughter of Dhani Ram the husband of Saraswati Kunwar made a dispute on which proceedings underSection 148, Cr.P.C. were started and upholding the possession of the vendees the plot was released in their favour from attachment.On 21-6-S975 between 4 and 5 p.m. 35 persons of the informant party, including deceased Lal Singh and the 12 injuried persons, forming an unlawful assembly reached the said plot to take forcible possession, while Hira Lal Gajodhar and Damroo was ploughing the said field for sowing paddy.Ram Asrey, deceased Lai Singh, Babu Singh and Jimipal were armed with 'Katta' Bans Gopal with a gun, Kallu with a 'Barchhi' and Bachani with a lathi.They assaulted Hira Lal, Gajodhar and Damroo, causing serious injuries to them.On hearing noise appellant Sheo Ram came from his house with a gun and challenged, whereupon the assailants beat him also and Bans Gopal fired at him by his gun.Sheo Ram thereupon started firing with his gun in exercise of private defence of person and propery.Hira Lal and others used sickle 'Khurpi' etc. in their self-defence.On behalf of the defence D.W. 1 Subedar has been examined to state on the point of possession of the appellants over the plot purchased from Sarswati Kunwar, and also about the defence version of the incident in which according to him on being attacked by the people of the informant party appellant Sheo Ram made 3-4 fires from his gun, Hira Lal, Gajodhar and Damroo were using a small 'danda', sickle and a 'khurpi' in their defence.He himself snatched the 'Barchhi' of Kallu Singh and separated the warring functions with the help of it.After the incident left 14-15 persons lying injuried on the ground which included Ram Asrey and deceased Lal Singh.The D.W. 2 B. M. Pandey, Orthopaedic Surgeon, U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur is the next defence witness who had examined the injuries of the four injured accused persons with the following result.1 Lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm scalp one right partial region 5.5 cm above right eye brows.2 Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over upper 1 / 3rd left arm 3 cm below elbow postero medial aspect.Associated swelling 6 cm x 8 cm.4 Liner abrasion 10cm over medial aspect of left thigh.5 Incised wound 3 cm x 25 cm present over R. C. region.6 Cuntused swelling 15 cm x 8cm over right supra spirious region.7 Contused swelling left global region 6 cm x 6 cm.Injuries Nos. 1,4, 6, 7 caused by hard and blunt Nos. 2, 3, 5 by sharp edged weapon.Damroo 1 Lacerated wound 4 cm x 5 cm x scalp parietal region 7 cm above left ear.2 Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x .5 cm x scalp 3.5 cm behind left ear.3 Lacerated wound 3 cm x .5 cm x scalp over mid pareital region.2 cm from root of nose.5 Lacerated wound 6 cm x .5 cm x scalp deep over occipital.6 Multiple contusions varying from 5 cm to 15 cm raised margine 6 in number left side chest.22/6 7 C/o pain over upper portion of neck.Injuries caused by hard and blunt object.Shiv Ram Singh 1 - Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm scalp left parietal region, 12cm above left ear.2 Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep over frontal region 7 cm above root of nose.3 Contused swelling out aspect left thigh 8 cm x 2 cm middle.4 Contused swelling right hand over dorsem 4th mate carpel.Gajodhar 1 Lacerated wound 5.5cm x 1cm x 6 bone deep over vertex.2 Lacerated wound 9 cm x 2 cm x bone .deep over occipital region.5 Contusion 8 cm x 3 cm vertical mid scapular region.6 Contusion 13 cm x 4cm transversely placed middle of back.All injuries were simple and about 3/4 days old.The prosecution in this case produced Bharosa Singh (P.W. 1), Cheddu Maharaj alias Chhedi Lal (P.W. 2), Ram Asrey (P.W. 4), and Ram Sajiwan (P.W. 5) as eye witnesses, to prove its allegations.Rest of the witnesses P.W. 3, K. P. Pandey writer of G.D. entry of Gajner, P.W. 6 Om Prakash Saxena writer of the chik F.I.R. at Police Station Kotwali, P.W. 7 Rameshwar Dayal Yadav, gave secondary evidence about investigation, Dr. G. C. Gupta who conducted post-mortem examination and Dr. R. S. Pandey who examined the injury including the deceased while he was still alive, are formal witnesses.The learned trial Court on a consideration of the evidence on record held the informant party to be in possession over the plot in question and further held the prosecution version regarding the incident established beyond reasonable doubts are rejecting the defence version regarding possession, causing injuries and death in self-defence, convicted and sentenced all the seven accused appellants, as stated above, while acquitting accused Hanuman giving benefit of doubt.Learned counsel S/Shri P. N. Mishra and G. S. Chaturvedi appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned A.G. A. appearing on behalf of the respondent have been heard at sufficient length.We have also been taken through the evidence on record.As would appear from the facts of both the parties' versions narrated above, there is no dispute between them about the date tirne and place of occurrence as well as the factum of injuries to 13 persons on the informant side, including the fatal injuries to deceased Lal Singh, as well as injuries to four of the appellants Hira Lal, Damroo Sheo Ram and Gajodhar is not disputed.The version of the eye witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 3 to 5) regarding injuries having been caused in this incident to 13 persons, whose injury reports are Exhibits Ka 9 to Ka 21, as well as the death of Lal Singh the next morning on account of the injuries received in this incident is not challenged.The same is also proved by the medical evidence consisting of the testimony of P.W. 8, Dr. G. C. Gupta and P.W. 9, Dr. R. S. Pandey.That injuries as mentioned in Exhibit Kha 2 to Kha 5, already narrated above, occurred to appellants Hira Lal, Damroo, Sheo Ram and Gajodhar, besides being proved by the testimony of D.W. 1 Subedar and D.W. 2 Dr. B. M. Pandey, are also impliedly admitted by the informant P.W. 1, Bharosa Singh who stated in paragraph 16 of his statement that injuries might have been-received by these accused persons in view of the fact that hurt might have been caused to them in self-defence by deceased Lal Singh.The parties are at issue on the points as to whether it was the informant party or the accused persons who were entitled to, and in, possession of the plot known as Pandeywala field, whether it was the accused party consisting of the seven appellants and one more person, who were aggressors an attacked and assaulted the people on the informant side including deceased Lai Singh, to prevent them from ploughing the said field and with intention to cause hurt and death, and injury to four of the accused-appellants were caused during the incident as aforesaid, in exercise of right of private defence by the informant party, or whether the informant party itself were aggressors and attacked and caused hurt to the four appellants to prevent them ploughing the said field and the fatal injuries to deceased Lal Singh and injuries to 12 others on the informant side were caused by these four appellants in private defence of person and property.The first question requiring consideration thus would be about the possession of the plot known as Pandeywala field.Admittedly, as said above the said plot belonged to late Dhani Ram.After his death it was inherited by his widow Sarswati Kunwar.The appellants have filled Exhibit Kha 13, a copy of sale deed executed by Saraswati Kunwar on 24-2-1971 in favour of Ram Swarup, Hanuman, Bharat Singh, Suraj Singh and appellants Balwan Singh, Indrasen and Gajodhar Singh.D.W. 1, Subedar Singh has stated that the vendees which included the appellants and their family members have been in possession over the plot in question since the execution of the sale deed aforesaid.The defence has also filed documents relating to proceedings underSection 145, Cr.P.C. between Sukhdei, claiming to be the daughter of Dhani Ram and the accused party in respect of this plot.Exhibit Kha 26 is the judgment dated 17-9-1971 of the Munsif, Kanpur in reference underSection 146, Cr.P.C. arising out of the aforesaid proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. whereby he held the accused party to be in possession over this plot on 5-4-1971 the date of preliminary order and within two months before the same.And, by order dated 4-10-1971 of the S.D.M., Akbarpur, District Kanpur, Exhibit Kha 27 the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. terminated in favour of the accused, persons and Smt. Sukhdei Kunwar was restrained from disturbing their possession.By means of Exhibit Kha 28 the report of P. S. Gajner, district Kanpur, the said plot was released from attachment in favour of the accused persons through Smt. Vishnu Devi, the widow of Ram Swarup one of the vendees.Exhibit Kha 16 Khasra of irrigation 1380 F records Hira Lal over plots Nos. 227, 228, 229, 232 in the Khariff and Smt. Saraswati Kunwar in the Rabi season.Khasra 1381 records over the aforesaid plots Hira Lal in Kharif.Indrasen and one Babu Lal in Rabi; Khasra irrigation 1382F records Indeasen and Hira Lal showing both Rabi and Kharif Khasra 1383 F says that in.Kharif no one irrigated these plots whereas in Rabi it was irrigated by Indrasen and Hira Lal.Exhibit Kha 31 is a certified copy of grounds of revision in Revision No. 159/LR/ 75-76 in the Board of Revenue, ULP.Lucknow indicating that by a judgment dated 9-4-1975 of the Naib Tehsildar mutation was ordered in favour of Smt. Sukhdei as heir of Smt. Saraswati Kunwar.The appeal against the same was dismissed on 13-2-1976 by the Additional Collector, Kanpur, against which the revision was filed by Indrasen, Harnam Singh and appellants Balwan Singh and Hira Lal.Exhibit Kha 32 is the memo of revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division in Revision No. 64 of 1978 indicating that the mutation application of the vendees on the basis of the sale deed of Sarswati Kunwar was rejected by the Naib Tehsildar on 6-6-1976, appeal against the same was dismissed by the S.D.O. on 24-2-1978 against which, the revision was filed before the Commissioner.In oral evidence the P.W. 1 Bhorosa Singh stated that after the death of Sarswati Kunwar the plot in question as well as other plots were inherited by Sukhdei Kunwar.The accused persons though had got a sale deed executed by Sarswati Kunwar, neither they entered into possession nor their names were mutated.The P.W. 4, Ram Asrey, son of P.W. I, Bharosa Singh stated that Smt. Sukhdei has all along been owner and in possession of the plot in question, the accused persons were never in possession over the same.years before the occurrence.On 31-5-1974 Smt. Sukhdei executed a Mukhtarnama Exhibit Ka3 in his favour authorising him to carry on her cultivation and also are performing the acts .necessary in connection with litigation relating to the posts.According to him he cultivated the plots of Sukhdei on 'batai'.In the above state of oral and documentary evidence, therefore, two things are clear.That there was a dispute between Sukhdei and the accused persons regarding title to the plot in question, Sukhdei claiming to have inherited the same from her step mother Sarswati Kunwar, and the appellants on the basis of a sale deed by Saraswati Kunwar.On the other hand, copy of plaint and judgment dated 19-9-1977 of the Court of Additional Munsif, Kanpur Exhibit Ka30 shows that in the said suit as injunction was issued to Smt. Shukh-dei Ram Asrey.Ram Adhar and others from interfering with the possession of the appellants and other co-vendees.Irrespective of the dispute regarding title, therefore, we find the accused appellants to have produced sufficient material on record to indicate their possession over the plot in question, in respect of which this incident occurred.This brings us to the question regarding the genesis beginning, and the details of the incident, in which as already said above people of both sides participated and received injuries.The number of injured from the side of prosecution being 13 including one dead, and the injured from the accused appellants side being four.In this regard, although the witnesses examined by the two sides and the documents relied, repeat their respective version, when analysed critically in the light of the various circumstances including the details and nature of the injuries, it would be found that the version of both the parties is only partly correct.It is in the evidence of the P.W. 1 Bharosa Singh that being power of attorney-holder of Sukhdei Kunwar, entrusted also with cultivating her plots, he along with his son Ram Asrey (P.W. 4) and Ram Adhar and gone to plough the plot in question.While Ram Asrey was in the process of ploughing and the two others were standing there, the seven appellants along with Hanuman (since acquitted by the trial Court) came there duly armed and tried to prevent Ram Asrey from ploughing, when he did not pay any heed Indrasen and Sheo Ram fired shots with their guns hitting Ram Asrey.On the alarm raised Sheo Narain, Lal Singh, Ram Raj, Jimipal, Sajiwan, Mahadei, Ram Bali, Gambhir Singh, Munna Singh, Indra-jeet Singh came running to intervene.Indrasen and Sheo Ram with guns, Tar Babu and Balwan with country-made pistols kept on firing and others attacked with their weapons with the result that all these persons fell, seriously injured.Lal Singh was attacked and injured also by 'kanta' and 'barchi'.P.W. 1 also stated that whatever injuries were passed in this incident to four of the appellants were caused in self-defence by deceased Lal Singh.The testimony of Subedar, D.W. 1 and the version in the cross F.I.R. lodged by appellant Hira Lal on the other hand is to the effect that, while appellants Hira Lal, Gajodhar and Damroo were ploughing the said field, Ram Asrey and others of the informant party 30-35 in number, came there and a quarrel started.The members of the informant party including deceased Lal Singh attacked and caused injuries to Hira Lal, Gajodhar, Damroo and Sheo Rarn.Sheo Ram who brought a gun from his home tired-and caused injuries to the peopleon the informant party whereafter the quarrel subsided, leaving 14-15 persons including deceased Lal Singh lying injured.The real clue to what happened on the spot, however, will be found on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid oral testimony as well as the injuries caused to the persons on the two sides.The fact that as many as 13 persons on the informant side received injuries, five of them by fire arms, two both by' fire arm and blunt objects, one by fire arm, blunt object as well as a sharp object, another by tire arm and sharp object and four by blunt objects is eloquently indicative to the fact that the number of persons responsible for these injuries were much more than four contended by the defence, and weapons were also besides fire arms, sharp edged weapons like 'Kanta', 'Farsa' and lathi and not.merely a gun, a sickle, a khurpi and a small stick as suggested by the defence.Similarly the fact of three of the appellants Damroo, Sheo Ram and Gajodhar receiving injuries caused by hard and blunt objects and Hira Lal receiving injuries caused by blunt object as well as sharp edged weapon, goes to indicate that even some of the members of the informant party were armed with sharp edged and blunt objects and injuries to these persons were caused by more than one person from amongst the members of the informant party.On alarm when the other injured persons of the prosecution side came to intervene, all the accused persons with their weapons attacked them also resulting into injuries to ail the thirteen persons on the informant side including the informant himself and one of them Lai Singh fatally.Lal Singh according to him had received injuries both by 'kanta' and 'barchhis' and died in the hospital next morning.Cross-examined he stated that the quarrel and the marpit started on the plot in question.The marpit took in all 2-3 minutes.He does not remember as to from amongst the villagers who took injured persons to hospital on cots.He disowned the recital in the F.I.R. that non-appellant accused Hanuman was armed with a lathi.The P.W. 2 Chhiddu Mahraj alias Chhedi Lal stated that he was in his chak situated near the plot in question, which Rarn Asrey was ploughing in the presence of informant Bharosa and Ram Adhar.The accused persons Sheo Raj and Indrasen with gun, Balwan and Tar Babu with pistol, Hira Lal and Damroo with Farsa, Gajodhar with a 'kanta' and Human with a Ballam fitted in lathi reached there and prevented Ram Adhar from plouging the said plot.When he did not stop, they abused him and Sheo Ram and Indrasden fired with their guns.On alarm being raised the other injured! persons, about 10-12 persons, working in the fields nearby including the ten persons injured besides Bharosa Ram Asrey and Ram Adhar in this incident, rushed there and tried to intervene, whereupon the accused persons attacked them also with their weapons causing injuries.Some of them who had lathis used the same in their defence resulting into injuries to the persons on the accused side.After the accused persons fled, a number of villagers came there and took the seriously injured on cots and others on foot to the hospital.Cross-examined he stated that these ten injured persons came from different directions and 3-4 of them had lathis.He further stated that in all 8-9 shots were fired by those accused who had fire arms.Further he stated that none from the prosecution side had any sharp edged weapon.P.W. 4 Ram Asrey, yet other eye witnesses and injured also stated about his ploughing the plot in question in the presence of Bharosa and Ram Adhar when the accused persons with the weapons, stated above, came there and first prevented from ploughing and two of them Indrasen and Sheo Ram fired with guns resulting into injuries to him..A number of persons rushed towards the scene of occurrence on hearing alarm and those trying to intervene, including deceased Lai Singh, were attacked by the accused persons with their respective weapons causing serious injuries.Deceased Lal Singh had received injuries by gun, 'Kanta', 'Farsa' and 'Ballam'.Cross-examined, he stated that in all 10-12 shots were fired by the other accused persons.The assult by 'kanta', 'ballam', and other weapons occurred after start of the firing.The P.W. 5 Ram Sajiwan, also an injured, stated that he was ploughing his field near the plot in question when this incident took place.On seeing the assault on Ram Asrey he along with the other persons in the vicinity rushed towards the scene of occurrence and intervened, on which they were also attacked by the accused persons resulting into injuries in all to 13 persons.' Injuries to deceased Lal Singh were caused by 'Farsa', 'Kanta' and gun.The D. W. 1 Subedar, the only witness of fact examined on behalf of the defence, stated that while he was present near temple situated near the plot in question, intervened by two other plots, he saw appellants Hira Lal, Gajodhar and Damroo ploughing the said plot.He further saw Ram Asrey and other 30-35 persons coming towards the said plot, within a short time they reached near the said plot.When the quarrel started he saw Sheo Ram going towards the scene of occurrence.On the alarm raised by Hira Lal and Gajodhar he and Mata Prasad reached there and saw Ram Asrey and others beating Sheo Ram, Gajodhar, Hira Lal, Damroo had already been injured.Amongst the assailants were, Ram Asrey, Jimi Pal, Lal Singh, Kallu Singh, Mahabir, Ram Nath, Mundey Singh etc. 30-35 persons in all.On being injured, Sheo Ram fired 3-4 shots towards the assailants, snatching the 'barchhi' of Kallu Singh he separated those fighting by it.Hira Lal, Gajodhar and Damroo were using small sticks, sickle and "Khurpi' in defence.After firing shots by Sheo Ram, the quarrel ceased and Ram Asrey and others ran away.Then he said that 14-15 persons lay injured on the spot after the incident, which included Ram Asrey and deceased Lal Singh.Further he stated that Balwan, Tar Baboo, Indrasen and Hanuman were not present on the spot.Cross-examined, he stated that when his attention was first attracted, both sides were indulging in marpit.He did not use 'barchhi' for causing injury to anybody rather only separated those fighting.Further he stated that amongst the 35 persons, only 10-20 were attacking the other side by 'Kanta' Lathi and 'ballam'.The above would go to show that although the two sides have tried to stick to their guns, by repeating more or less their respective version contain in their F.I.R. regarding other side being rank aggressor, the oral evidence when analysed in the light of the attending circumstances will reveal that in their zeal they both have attempted to side track their own role in this entire incident and minimise the number of participants from their own side.The number of injuries to the two sides is itself indicative of the fact that the contention of the first informant, that they were initially three in number and it swell to 13, when ten others from the surrounding plots came to their rescue, and the version of the accused party that they were in all three persons when the incident started, and were joined by one more person to make the total four are not correct.To the injured, on the informant side, the total number of injuries caused, according to the medical reports, were 43 gun shot wounds, 8 sharp edged weapons injuries and 18 blunt weapon injuries, one of which to Ram Adhar was contusions all over back.This will take the number of blunt weapons injuries to about 30, making a total of 80 injuries in all.Such large number of injuries could not be caused by mere four persons who themselves were under attack.As already stated above 30 blunt weapon injuries could not be caused by small stick used in self-defence, nor eight incised wounds of the size found, could be caused by Khurpi or sickle.The number of fire arm injuries 43 covering eight injured persons, viewed in the light of the seat of injuries, rules out the possibility of all these having been caused by one weapon or by one person who himself was under attack.In fact the number of injuries, number of persons injured and location of injuries, goes to corroborate the version of prosecution witnesses that there were four persons armed with fire arms who fire shouts towards them causing these injuries.The resultant position is that the presence and participation of all the eight accused persons including non-appellant Hanuman (since acquitted) in this incident is fully proved by the direct supported medical evidence and cirumstances.It has been laid down in Brathi v. State of Punjab, that where the evidence examined by the appellate court unmistakably proves that the appellant was guilty under Section 34 having shared common intention with other accused who were acquitted, and that the acquittal was bad, there is nothing to prevent the appellate court from expressing the view and giving finding and determining the guilt of the appellant before it, on the basis of that finding.In view of this legal proposition the fact of acquittal of the accused Hanuman by the trial court is immaterial in the context of all the facts found above indicating participation of one of the members of accused side with lathi, a fact also clearly mentioned in the F.I.R.Likewise 29 injuries in all, three by sharp object and 26 by blunt weapons, having been caused to four of the accused persons, is idicative of the fact that all these injuries could not have been caused by one person, deceased Lal Singh as stated by P.W. 1 Bharosa Singh or by only some lathi bearing persons from amongst those on the informant side as stated by P.W. 2 Chhiddu Majraj.The reason being that at least three of the injuries to the accused Hira Lal were incised wounds.It is highly improbable that three incised wounds and 26 blunt object injuries could be caused only by a few persons bearing lathi and themselves being under attack.Clearly therefore, the participants in this incident from the informant side were all the 13 injured persons including deceased Lai Singh.Of course the absence of any gun shot injury to any of the accused persons shows that no one from the informant side was armed with fire arm and the version of the defence to that effect is not correct.Analysed in the back drop of the above found facts relating to the possession of the accused party over the plot known as Pande-Wala-Field, despite there being a dispute of title between them on the one hand, and Smt. Sukhdei Kunwar and her attorney Ram Ashrey, P.W. 4 and his father informant Bharosa Singh on the other, and the factum of injuries being caused to the persons of both sides in an incident of fighting in and around the said plot the fact emerging from the testimony of the eye witnesses examined by the two sides, will make it clear that neither party has come forward with full facts regarding the genesis of this incident and the details thereof.Although both sides have claimed to have been ploughing the plot in dispute when the incident of Marpit (fighting) took place there is nothing in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer after inspecting the place of occurrence, to show that any portion of the said plot was found by him to have been actually ploughed.If as contended by the two sides the field was being ploughed since quite some time before the fighting started, a seizeable portion of the plot would have been tilled and the Investigating Officer would have marked such portions having been actually ploughed.Its absence goes to indicate that the incident did not occur in a bid to plough the field by one party or the other, rather it occurred on account of the rival parties claiming entitlement to the said plot having assembled there, the informant party to assert, and the accused party to protect, its possession.Since quite a few of them had gone armed with weapons like lathi, Kanta, Farsa and the like and some on the accused side also with fire arms, when the two sides came face to face, fighting started, in which both the sides caused injuries by blunt and sharp edged weapons to the people on the other side, and those amongst accused armed with fire-arms and also fired shots with the same at the informant party.Under these circumstances while a right of private defence of property against forcible trespass accrued to the accused appellants, no such right accrued to the informant or those accompanying him.As already discussed above, the evidence on record coupled with the circumstances shows beyond reasonable doubt that there was laid rival claims to the Pandey Wala Plot by the two sides, although the possession at the relevant time was with the accused party.There had also been a series of litigations between the parties about the said i plot.With this background, the members of both the parties fully armed, reached at the said plot to assert their possession, and if necessary to resort to use of force.In such situation when they came to accost each other, fighting ensued, in which lathis Kanta, and Pharsa were used by the participants of i both sides, resulting into injuries by suchi weapons to eight persons including fatal! injuries to Lal Singh on the informant side, and injuries to four amongst accused persons.Those amongst the accused perons armed with fire arms also fired with the same at the! informant party resulting into gun shoti injuries to eight of them.As found above, the accused party was in possession over the plot in question in view of the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and informant party in spite of there being mutation in favour of Smt. Sukhdei Kunwar, had no right try to forcibly take possession over the same.The accused party, thus was entitled to repel the attempt of the informant party to trespass over the said plot by using necessary forces and causing injuries to achieve the said object.However, in the situation obtaining on the spot, as evident from the material on record consisting of oral testimony, the medical evidence and the circumstances, there could neither be any occasion nor justification for the merciless assault on the members of the informant party, particularly the fatal injuries caused to deceased Lal Singh.As a perusal of the injury reports would show one of the injured on the pro-secution side Ram Adhar was given numerous lathi blows covering his entire back.This thus was a case of merciless beating.To deceased Lal Singh there were caused eight injuries, one of them on the chest was 7 cm x 2.5 cm x chest cavity, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.They attacked the two deceased persons who were working in the field as well as some of the other witnesses.The plea of the accused was that they were in possession of the said plot and on the day of occurrence the two deceased along with others came there two dispossess them and also inflicted injuries on two of the accused persons.As per medical evidence one of the accused was found to have some simple injuries and the other has lacerated wound on the head with slight fracture.The High Court after considering the evidence held that the accused had a right of private defence of property and the persons but ultimately held that they have exceeded the same and convicted the seven accused under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, I.P.C. Rejecing the argument that the accused cannot be expected to weigh the exercise of right of private defence in golden scales, on the above facts, the Supreme Court confirmed the view taken by the High Court.In Khuddu v. State of U.P., the deceased and P. Ws. were members of a Registered Cooperative Farm, Between the land of the Farm and the land claimed by the accused persons on the strength of allotment by the Gram Panchayat, there was no demarcation.There were strained relations between the members of the Co-operative Farm on the one hand and the accused on the other.Criminal cases under Sections 447, 436 and 379, I.P.C. were initated on the reports of some members and in a Civil Suit filed by the President of the Co-operative Farm ex parte decree had been passed, for setting aside which an application had been moved by the accused persons.On the day of occurrence, the deceased holding a gun and keeping a Rifle nearby, was present with two other persons near the field in which one Nageshar was driving tractor and two workers were clearing the bushes.Just then according to the prosecution, 20 to 25 people including the 11 accused appeared there armed with a Ballam, a Pharsa and Lathis and shouted that the deceased could be killed.They surrounded that the deceased and others and inflicating injuries on them.The deceased fired two shots from his gun due to which two of the accused persons receive injuries.The deceased who received serious injuries fell dead.Both sides lodged report with the police and according to the version of the accused the P.Ws and other injured persons came to the site with many others and tried to take forcible possession of the land from the accused who were in continuous possession, set fire to the huts and also fired shots causing injuries to two of them accused persons.The doctor, who conducted the post mortem found eight injuries most of which were lacerated or contused wounds.On internal examination fracture of skull was found, and death was attributed to shock and haemorrhage due to the skull injuries.The trial court convicted all the 11 accused for offences under Sections 302/149, 307, 436, 323, 147, 148, I.P.C. and the High Court maintained the same.On appeal the Supreme Court has held thus in paras 6 and 7 of the judgment.Admittedly there were civil and criminal proceedings between both the parties.The facts and circumstances go to show that both sides were armed and two of the accused received gun shot injuries.At any rate their plea also appears to be plausible.However, the accused while exercising the right of self defence have exceeded the same.The medical evidence shows that a number of injuries were inflicted on the deceased and on P.Ws.and also the other workers.Instead we convict them under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. and sentence each of them to undergo seven years R.I. the other conviction and sentences are confirmed.Accused appellants were in judicial custody for different periods, at the investigation stage, after committal of the case to the court of session, and after conviction till their release in pursuance of the order dated 29-10-1979 passed by this court.Considering these facts as well as circumstances in which the offence was committed and the nature of charge established, we feel that a sentence of fine Rs. 5000/- each shall meet the ends of justice in this case. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
943,992 | Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.872 of 1995 on the file of the Court ofChief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption ActCases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur are the appellants and they arecharged, convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 24.11.2005, the details ofwhich are as follows:"U/S 120(B) IPC - Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.U/S 167 IPC - Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.In the course of cross-examination, P.W.3admitted in respect of the work done under the Rural Development Scheme reportshould be submitted to the District Collector and monthly once meeting will beconducted to monitor the work and in that meeting, the Project Officer shouldattend and weekly inspection will be done by the Assistant Project Officer.P.W.3 further admitted that during his tenure, there was no report received fromSethur Town Panchayat complaining about any irregularity and he was not awarewhether any complaint has been received by the District Collector.The evidence of P.W.3 would disclose that in respect of the workcarried out of the funds received from the Project Officer approval of thePanchayat need not be obtained.In respect of the work done, intimation is to besent to the District Collector and monthly meeting will be held in which theProject Officer should participate and weekly once the Assistant Project Officershall also monitor the work.In the cross-examination itis submitted by P.W.26 that he is not having the Village accounts pertaining tothe persons residing at Sethur.A perusal of the evidence of P.W.26 would disclose that he has givenreport as to the non-availability of 55 persons at Sethur Village and it wasadmitted by him that he did not possess the village accounts pertaining to theresidents of the said village based on which, he has given the said report.P.W.28 was the Village Assistant of Sethur Mettupatti Village in theyear 1986 and he deposed that trees were planted in the year 1986 and thosetrees were destroyed.He deposed that while he was working as an Executive Officer, A2 wasemployed as Sanitary Supervisor.P.9and Ex.P.10 does not tally with the specimen signatures marked as S.31 to S.35.It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that P.W.30 even in his chiefexamination, deposed that the signature in Ex.P.9 is not his signature and hedid not give Ex.P.10 letter.U/S 409 IPC - Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- i/d 3months R.I.U/S 467 IPC - Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- i/d 3months R.I.U/S 477(A) IPC - Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- i/d 3months R.I.U/S 5(2) R/W 5(i)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act - RigorousImprisonment of 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- i/d 3 months R.I."The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of incarcerationundergone by the appellant/accused during the investigation, was ordered to beset-off in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appealis as follows:The first appellant/first accused was working as the Executive Officer ofSethur Town Panchayat and the second appellant/second accused was working asSanitary Supervisor in the said Town Panchayat and both are public servants.During the period between June and October, 1986 under Social Forestry Schemeplanting of Karuvelam Saplings in Purakudi Tank and Umayankulam Tank was takenup.P.W.33 examined P.W.1 - the sanctioning authority one Hansraj Verma,P.W.30, P.W.4, P.W.8, P.W.7, P.W.10 and P.W.9, the witnesses in whose namefabrication was done and misappropriation was made.P.W.33 also seized therelevant documents and also examined the first accused.P.W.33 during the courseof his investigation, found that A.2 also played his role in the commission ofoffences.P.W.33 made a requisition to the jurisdictional Court to record thestatement of accused No.1 under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code andaccordingly, his statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code wasrecorded and the same was marked as EX.68 and the file relating to the saidproceedings was marked as Ex.P.W.33 also collected the LTI's of thewitnesses and through the Court sent the same to the hand-writing expert alongwith the sample signatures of the accused.The Special Court for prevention of Corruption Act (Chief JudicialMagistrate), Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur on taking the final report on file,has framed necessary charges against both the accused and questioned them.Theaccused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them.The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 33and marked Exs.Both the accused were questioned under Sections313(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the incriminatingcircumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecutionand they denied it as false.On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was letin and no document was marked.The trial Court after consideration of the oral and documentaryevidence, had convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above and hence,this appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused made thefollowing submissions:The statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Codegiven by the accused No.1 marked as Ex.68 was retracted by him at the time ofexamination under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and thesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court.The nameof the second accused came to be implicated solely based on Ex.The questions arise for consideration are:With the permission of theCourt, the said witnesses were cross-examined by the prosecution and nothinguseful to the prosecution was elicited in their cross-examination.21. P.W.5, one of the beneficiaries deposed that about 16 years back, hewent for a job and he did not receive any salary and not affixed any LTI and thepolice obtained her LTI under Ex.P.18 and in cross-examination P.W.5 deposedthat even if her LTI is shown to her she cannot identify it.P.W.19 was the Village Administrative Officer of Sethur Town Panchayatat the relevant point of time and has spoken about the flow of water in a canaland issued a certificate under Ex.In the cross-examination, P.W.19deposed that he did not maintain any records with regard to work done and he hasno connection with the Social Forestry Scheme and he visited the social forestafter five years of its implementation.P.W.20 was the panchayat President of Sethur Town Panchayat and in thechief-examination he deposed that with regard to the planting of karuvelamsaplings no resolution was passed in the Town Panchayat.P.W.22 was the Secretary of a political party and in the cross-examination he deposed that there are karuvelam trees around the lake and thetrees planted in the year 1986 were cut and removed.P.W.26 was the Village Administrative Officer of Sethur between 1988to 1994 and in the chief-examination he deposed that as per the requisition madeby Vigilance and Anticorruption Police, Virudhunagar, he issued a certificatestating that 55 persons have not resided at Sethur.Though P.W.30 in chief examination did not support the caseof the prosecution, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, he was nottreated as hostile.On the other hand, he was cross examined by the accused.He deposed that the samplesignatures of P.W.30 were marked as S.31 to 35 and sample signatures of A2 weremarked as S.36 to S.38 and the signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.W.31 has deposed to the effect that the signature of P.W.30 in Ex.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction andsentence imposed against the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cumSpecial Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur in the judgment inC.C.No.872 of 1995 dated 24.11.2005 is set aside and both the accused areacquitted of the charges framed against them.The fine amount paid by theaccused are ordered to be refunded to them.Bail bonds executed by them at thetime of suspension of sentence, are terminated.1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Virudhunagar.3.The Public Prosecutor, The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,399,570 | Digitally signed by PRACHI KUNTE M Date: 2018.04.07 17:21:09 +05'30' Prachi of rt ou C h ig HIt is alleged that on the complaint of the complainant, above offence has been M registered against the applicant and he was taken into custody.of Thereafter, he was released on bail by the police.Later on, on 22.03.2018, on the basis of medical report, offence punishable under rt Section 326 of the I.P.C. has been added and the applicant apprehends ou his arrest under the added offence.H On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.It is further directed that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when required.sh He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-ad Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,406,239 | In view of the detentionorder passed by the first respondent dated 20.07.2012, the detenu had beenlodged in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is thatthere was no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging inactivities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the the petitionerhad submitted that the Detaining Authority concerned had stated, in the groundsof detention, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail,as an order had been passed, in a similar case, wherein bail had been granted.However, the relevant papers relating to the said case, stated to be similar innature, had not been furnished to the detenu except the bail order copy.Therefore, the impugned detention order passed against the detenu is arbitrary,illegal and void, as held in Rekha Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, (2011 (5) SCC 244)and in a recent decision, in Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs.State of Manipur,reported in 2012 (3) MLJ (Crl) 794 (SC).The learned counsel had pointed out that the DetainingAuthority concerned had mentioned about the similar case, in paragraph 6 of thegrounds of detention.The relevant paragraph of the grounds of detention readsas follows:-I am aware that Thiru.S.Seenivasan was produced before the JudicialMagistrate No.I, Tirunelveli on 11.7.2012 in connection with the cases inTirunelveli Medical College Hospital Police Station Crime Numbers 206/2012 undersection 147, 148, 452, 363, 392, 506(ii) Indian Penal Code read with 109 IndianPenal Code, 318/2012 under section 294(b), 323, 387, 506(ii) Indian Penal Codeand 325/2012 under section 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) Indian Penal Code andremanded at Central Prison, Palayamkottai on that day itself.He has not moved any bail application so far.In a similar case registered in Melapalayam Police Station Crime No.572/2011under Section 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code, bail was grantedto the accused Thiru.Mariappan, S/o.If Thiru. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,412,931 | Ka. 2) is as follows :Informant Swami Nath, P.W.-1 son of deceased moved written report (Ext. Ka-1) scribed by Jai Prakash Rai on 17.8.2001 at Police Station concerned mentioning therein that he was resident of village Karkatpur, Police Station Karimuddinpur, district Ghazipur.On 16.8.2001 at about 6 P.M. Ram Avtar Bhar was throwing dung in front of the house of the informant, on which informant's father Ram Dhari @ Sitavi (deceased) objected him then an altercation took place between them.Hearing the altercation accused Lahri, Bageshwar and Kashi armed with lathi and danda also reached there.They started abusing and beating Ram Dhari.Informant's father raised hue and cry then informant, his younger brother Shiv Shankar, mother Hansuria and one Vijai Raj Bhar reached at the place of occurrence.Accused persons also started beating them.Hearing the hue and cry other villagers also reached there and intervened in the matter.It is also mentioned in the written report (Ext. Ka-1) that due to beating by the accused persons informant and his father Ram Dhari, his brother Shiv Sewak, mother Hansuria and witnesses also received injuries.It was further mentioned that informant's father Ram Dhari received serious injuries.He was taken to the Community Health Centre, Muhammadabad, district Ghazipur and after first aid he was referred to the District Hospital, Ghazipur.Again Doctors of the District Hospital, Ghazipur referred the injured (deceased) to the Banaras Hindu University Hospital, Varanasi for better treatment.As per informant, since they were busy in the treatment and last rites of the deceased, they could not lodge the first information report on the day of incident and prayer was made to take action against the accused persons.On the basis of written report (Ext. Ka-1), chik FIR (Ext. Ka.-2) was registered on 17.8.2001 at 23.40 hrs.Injury report of deceased Ram Dhari prepared at Community Health Centre Muhammadabad, district Ghazipur is (Ext. Ka-6).Swami Nath and other injured Vijay Raj Bhar, Shiv Shankar were also medically examined at Community Health Centre, Muhammadabad on 18.8.2001 on the basis of majrubi chitthi of the police concerned.Injury reports are (Ext. Ka-14); (Ext. Ka-12) and (Ext. Ka-13) respectively.Since deceased Ram Dhari died during treatment on 17.8.2001, information was given by the Hospital concerned to the Police Station Lanka, Varanasi.Thereafter inquest report (Ext. Ka-8) and other police papers relating to inquest report were prepared on 17.8.2001 itself.Dead body was kept in sealed cloth and sent to the mortuary for post mortem examination.C.T. Scan report of deceased Ram Dhari was also prepared.Investigating Officer after interrogating the chik writer, the informant and the scribe at Police Station concerned itself proceeded to the place of occurrence and on pointing out of the informant (P.W.-1) he has prepared site plan (Ext. Ka.-4).7. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Ram Dhari was conducted on 17.8.2001 at 4.30 P.M. at mortury concerned.He was found aged about 45 years.He was of average body built.Eyes and mouth were closed.Rigor mortis were present on all over body.On internal examination of the body of the deceased following ante mortem injuries were found :Abraded contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the right side head 11 cm above the right eye brow 2 cm outer to mid line.On opening depressed, communicated fracture of frontal bone right side was found.Present criminal appeal No. 6430 of 2003 has been preferred by appellants Ram Avtar Bhar, Lahri and Bageshwar.Jail Appeal No. 5194 of 2005 has been preferred by appellant Ram Avtar Bhar and Jail Appeal No. 5201 of 2005 has been preferred by Bageshwar against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (IInd Fast Track Court), Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 2001 (State Vs.Ram Avtar and others) arising out of case crime no. 176 of 2001, under sections 304, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Karimuddinpur, District Ghazipur whereby appellants Ram Avtar Bhar, Lahri and Bageshwar have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 304 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo 10 years' R.I. along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and a default sentence of 1 year R.I.; under section 323 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo 1 year's R.I. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.After affording opportunity of hearing on punishment trial court also sentenced him for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC for a period of 10 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and and a default sentence of 1 year R.I.; under section 323 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo 1 year's R.I. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.Since Criminal Appeal and both the jail appeals arise out of same judgment and order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.Prosecution story, in brief, as unfolded in chik FIR (Ex.at police station concerned for the offence under Section 304, 323, 504 IPC against the accused appellants and G.D. entry was also made at the same time on the basis of Chik FIR.Both middle and frontal bone and right side parital bone found fractured.In the opinion of the Doctor cause of death was coma as a result of head injury.Injury report of Ram Dhari Rajbhar (deceased) examined at Community Health Centre, Muhammadabad, Ghazipur on 16.8.2001 at 8.45 PM.discloses following injuries:-Fresh abraded contusion swelling 15 cm x 6 cms on the right side of face including right side of forehead.Advised X-ray.Referred to District Hospital, Ghazipur for X-ray and management.Reddish and contused swelling 9 cm x 4 cm on the left side of head 7 cm above left ear.Advised X-ray.Reddish contusion 4 cm x 2.5 cm on right eye.Complaint of pain on whole chest.Complaint of pain on whole abdomen.Injury no. 3 was simple in nature and rest were kept under observation.Injured Swami Nath was medically examined at Community Health Centre, Muhammadabad, Ghazipur on 18.8.2001 at 3.45 PM.and following injuries were found on his body :Stitched wound 3 c.m.on top of skull, irregular surrounding, swelling, bluish in colour.2. Contusion on left arm 3 cm x 3 cm above 3.5 cm below left shoulder joint, colour bluish.Injured Vijay Rajbhar was medically examined at Community Health Centre, Muhammadabad, Ghazipur on 18.8.2001 at 3.00 PM.and following injuries were found on his body :Lacerated wound on palm side of left middle finger with surrounding, blue swelling, margin of wound was rectangular.Referred to District Hospital, Ghazipur for X-ray of left middle finger AP and later view.Wound is 2 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep.2. Pain and bluish swelling on left side of neck 2 inch above left colloar bone swelling in size of 3 cm x 3 cm.Swelling on left part of abdomen 2 cm x 2 cm above 10 cm from midline anteriorly.Injured Shiv Shankar was medically examined at Community Health Centre, Muhammadabad, Ghazipur on 18.8.2001 at 3.20 PM.and following injuries were found on his body :One lacerated wound on left forehead 2 cm x 1 cm above 2 cm left eye brow.Surrounding area swollen and blue.Margin of wound irregular.Swelling on left shoulder 5 cm x 4 cm colour bluish.Swelling on back of left front of abdomen 3 cm x 3 cm above 10 cm away from middle of back.Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses and after fulfilling entire formalities submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka 5) against the appellants for the offence under Section 304, 323, 504 IPC.Cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate and case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.Accused appeared.Prosecution opened its case describing all the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and proposed to be adduced against the accused.Trial Court also heard the accused side and framed charges on 15.1.2002 for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 504 IPC against the accused.Charges were read over to the accused persons to which they denied and pleading not guilty claimed trial.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.-1 Swami Nath; P.W.-2 Vijay Rajbhar; P.W.-3 Jai Prakash Rai; P.W.-4 Shiv Dayal Tiwari; P.W.-5 Pushkar Pratap Singh, Investigating Officer; P.W.-6 Dr. S.J. Verma, who has medically examined Ram Dhari Raj Bhar at C.H.C. Concerned; P.W.-7 Dr. S. K. Singh, who has conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased; P.W.-8 S.I. Rajesh Kumar, who has prepared inquest report and P.W.-9 Dr. K. K. Singh, who has medically examined the injured persons.It appears that after conclusion of the prosecution evidence Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution case.They also denied from the incident as alleged in the FIR and causing of injuries to the deceased and injured persons.As per their statements, FIR was lodged belatedly after consultation.Injury reports regarding injured were said to be forged and fake documents.All the accused have stated that they did not cause injuries to the deceased Ram Dhari, all the police papers are forged and fake documents.Witnesses examined in the matter have also made false statement.Prosecution was started due to enmity.They stated to file written statement in their defence.It appears that appellants did not adduce any evidence in their defence.Trial Court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as above, hence this appeal.I have heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R. K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.At this stage learned counsel for the appellants also argued that FIR in the present matter was lodged belatedly and no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution.There is contradiction in the statement of the eye account witnesses and the Doctors who have examined the deceased as well as who conducted the post mortem on the point of number of injuries.P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and other injured have not received injuries in the said incident.If they had received injuries in the said incident, there was ample opportunity to present themselves for medical examination at C.H.C., Muhamadabad; District Hospital, Ghazipur as well as Sir Sundar Lal Hospital, B.H.U. Varanasi at initial stage itself.Since injury reports in respect of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 relate to 18.8.2001, therefore, it indicates that injured have not received injuries during the said incident and injury reports are fake and forged documents.Material facts have been suppressed by the prosecution witnesses and due to that reason there are major contradiction in their statement and also in the statement of the Investigating Officer.Referring to the entire medical evidence it was also argued that in injury report of the deceased Ram Dhari Rajbhar prepared at C.H.C., Muhammadabad five injuries are shown but in the post mortem report Doctor concerned found only one injury.This fact also suggests that prosecution has suppressed origin and genesis of the incident.Since the Investigating Officer did not find cow dung at the gate of the informant's house and there was a road adjacent to the house of the informant thus motive taken by the prosecution is also not proved in the present matter.Incident did not take place, as alleged in the FIR.Referring to the findings of the trial court it is also argued that trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in correct perspective and thereby arrived at cursory and wrong conclusion.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also referred to the findings of the trial court in the impugned judgment and order about the guilt of the accused appellants and argued that no specific finding has been given regarding the guilt of accused appellant Ram Autar Rajbhar.This fact itself shows non application of judicial mind at the time of passing of the impugned order.Thus, prayer was made to allow the appeal and acquit the appellants.Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following case laws :(i) (1995) 3 SCC 603 (Lal Mandi Vs.State of West Bengal).State of Maharashtra.Per contra, learned A.G.A. argued that prosecution was able to prove motive, date, time and place of the incident, presence of the witnesses on the spot at the time of incident and also involvement of the accused appellants from its evidence beyond reasonable doubt.Deceased Ram Dhari Rajbhar died during treatment due to injuries sustained by him in the said incident which were caused by the accused appellants.There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order on the point of law and facts both.All the accused appellants were involved in committing the present offence.Medical evidence fully supports the oral version.Thus prayer was made to dismiss the appeal.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.As is clear from the record itself that FIR was lodged in the present matter on 17.8.2001 at 23.40 hrs.at Police Station Karimuddinpur, district Ghazipur.Incident is said to have taken place on 16.8.2001 at 06:00 P.M. Although P.W.-1, P.W.-2, deceased and one Vijay were said to have received injuries in the incident but medical examination of only Ram Dhari was done on 16.8.2001 in the night at C.H.C., Muhamadabad, Ghazipur.It has also come in the evidence that all the injured were present at C.H.C. concerned at the time of medical examination of deceased Ram Dhari.All the injured including other villagers have taken the deceased to the Banaras Hindu University Hospital, Varanasi in the night itself on a jeep but they did not get themselves medically examined there also.Treatment was continued at Banaras Hindu University Hospital, only in respect of the deceased Ram Dhari.Thereafter they performed last rites (funeral) of deceased and then they returned by a bus to their respective houses.On the way, informant and scribed Jai Prakash alighted from bus and went to the Police Station concerned in the night itself preparing the written report and lodged the FIR at 23.40 hrs.Trial Court was of the view that since reason assigned by the prosecution about the delay occurred in lodging FIR is natural, probable and satisfactory, therefore, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on this ground.If the finding recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order on point of delay in lodging the FIR is minutely analysed it emerges that although there is delay in lodging of the FIR but the reason given by the prosecution witnesses explaining the delay cannot be disbelieved.It is pertinent to mention here that accused appellants themselves in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses itself by placing suggestions have admitted that Ram Dhari received injuries on the date, time and place mentioned in the FIR.They only pleaded that incident took place in any other manner, appellants have not caused injuries to the deceased.If such is the position, findings recorded by the Trial Court about the existence of the FIR at the time mentioned in the chik FIR as well as explanation offered about the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be illegal.As far as motive is concerned, as per FIR appellant Ram Autar was throwing cow dung at the gate of the informant, when he was objected by the deceased (father of the informant), other accused appellants armed with lathi and danda came there and started beating him.On hue and cry of the deceased, witnesses also reached there and they were also beaten by the accused persons and due to which they also received injuries.If the facts mentioned in the FIR as well as statement made by the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are taken into consideration there was no previous enmity between the parties.Altercation took place between the deceased and accused appellant Ram Autar due to throwing of cow dung.P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 although have stated that accused appellant Ram Autar was throwing cow dung at the gate of the house of the informant but P.W.-5 Pushkar Pratap Singh the Investigating Officer when examined before the court has specifically stated that he did not find any evidence of throwing of cow dung at the gate of the house of the informant.Heap of cow dung were found besides the road side at three places on the ridge of field of Ram Cheej.Referring to the aforesaid facts, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that prosecution was not able to establish motive as cow dung was not found at the gate of the informant.If the statement of the P.W.-5 Pushkar Pratap Singh, Investigating Officer, is compared with the statement of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, certainly there is only oral statement of these witnesses that cow dung thrown by Ram Autar was lying at the gate of the informant at the time of inspection made by the Investigating Officer also.Since Investigating Officer in the site plan (Ext. Ka-4) has not shown cow dung at the gate of the informant instead three heap of cow dung were shown besides the road, therefore, in my opinion prosecution was not able to establish the motive part beyond reasonable doubt, although prosecution has come with specific motive.It is pertinent to mention that prosecution case is based on eye account witnesses, therefore, entire prosecution evidence cannot be thrown out merely on this basis that prosecution fails to establish the factum of throwing of cow dung at the gate of informant beyond reasonable doubt.Thus, in my opinion, other prosecution evidence has to be analysed.So far as medical evidence is concerned, deceased died during treatment on 17.8.2001 in the Banaras Hindu University Hospital, Varanasi.Doctor conducting the post mortem has clearly stated that the deceased died due to head injuries found on the body of the deceased.Deceased has been medically examined on 16.8.2001 at C.H.C., Muhammadabad, Ghazipur.P.W.-6 Dr. S. J. Verma has prepared the injury report (Ext. Ka-6) in which one abraded contusion in the right side of head and forehead, one reddish contusion swelling on the left side of head and one reddish contusion on the right hand have been found.Other two injuries are complaint of pain.If the injuries shown in the (Ext. Ka-6) are compared with the injuries shown in the post mortem report there is difference in number of injuries.Doctor conducting the post mortem has found only one injury in the right side, although middle, frontal and parietal bone were found fractured.If such is the position, injury no. 2 shown in the injury report (Ext. Ka-6) cannot be said to be false.Looking to the nature of injury shown in the post mortem report there is possibility that other injuries found in (Ext. Ka-6) had also come.If the aforesaid statement of P.W.-6 are taken into consideration then it appears that at the time of examination at C.H.C., Muhammadabad the injured (deceased) was conscious.Since he was immediately sent to the District Hospital, Ghazipur and thereafter on the same day he was sent to the Banaras Hindu University Hospital, Varanasi where he died during treatment in the night of 17.8.2001, opinion formed by the Trial Court on the point of medical examination cannot be termed to be illegal.It is also pertinent to mention here that appellants have also not denied that deceased did not receive injuries on the date, time and place of occurrence.They have only pleaded that incident took place in any other manner.Thus, in the opinion of Court, there is no contradiction in oral and medical evidence.Deceased died during treatment due to injuries sustained by him in the incident.Prosecution was able to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt.As far as injuries sustained by P.W.-1 Swami Nath; P.W.-2 Vijay Raj Bhar and Shiv Shankar are concerned they did not submit themselves for medical examination at C.H.C., Muhammadabad, district Ghazipur on 16.8.2001 nor medical examination was done at District Hospital, Ghazipur where they were present along with deceased.No medical examination was done at Banaras Hindu University Hospital in their respect.For the first time it appears that after registering the FIR they were sent for medical examination and thereafter injury reports were prepared.Colour of all the injuries found on the body of the injured were bluish.This witness has specifically stated the duration of the injuries as three days old.Trial Court while analysing this fact was of the opinion that since the condition of the deceased was precarious and injured were busy in his treatment, therefore, if they were not medically examined at initial stage, injury reports prepared in respect of injured cannot be doubted.Thus findings recorded by the Trial Court on the point of medical evidence cannot be said to be contrary to the evidence.So far as presence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 at the place of occurrence is concerned, at initial stage altercation took place between deceased and appellant Ram Autar.As per prosecution witnesses they reached after hearing the hue and cry.Defence suggestion is that woman belonging to the appellants side hearing the altercation between the deceased and appellant Ram Autar reached there, stones were pelted by both sides and in that recourse deceased received injuries.Appellants have not caused injuries to the deceased.If the medical evidence is compared with the statement/suggestion given by the appellants in the cross examination, plea of appellants cannot be accepted.Injuries found on the body of the deceased and injured could come with the weapon lathi and danda.Thus, presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 on the spot at the time of incident cannot be doubted.It is clarified at this stage itself that presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 on the spot at the time of occurrence, is not improbable and unnatural.They are natural and probable witnesses.Thus submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in this respect is not acceptable.Only requirement is that their statements must be scrutinised more carefully to find out the truth of the facts.If it is found acceptable and inspire confidence of the Court, their statements cannot be brush aside merely on this basis that they are close relatives of the deceased.Now coming to the role of the accused appellants played in the present matter, I have scrutinised the entire evidence including the observation of the Trial Court.Prosecution from the very beginning has come with the stand that deceased was objecting in throwing the dung by the appellant Ram Avtar Bhar at the gate of the informant and due to that reason some altercation took place between them.Thereafter accused appellants Bageshwar, Lahri @ Uma Shankar and co-accused Kashi armed with lathi and danda reached on the spot and started beating to the deceased.When witnesses reached there, aforesaid named accused also caused injuries to the witnesses.P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 both during the course of examination on oath have stated same facts.In the cross examination they have specifically stated that accused appellant Ram Avtar Bhar caused injuries with the brick piece.So far as the role assigned to the appellant Ram Avtar Bhar is concerned if the statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 is compared with the medical evidence, none of the injuries found on the body of the deceased as well as injuries sustained by injured person could come with the brick pieces.Statement of P.W.-6 Dr. S. J. Verma in this regard is mere opinion.In the examination in chief P.W.-6 himself has stated that injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by a blunt and hard object.Although brick piece is also a hard object but injuries found on the body of the deceased as well as injured could not be caused with the brick pieces.Both frontal, middle and parital bones were found fractured.Thus involvement of the accused appellant Ram Avtar Bhar in causing injuries to the deceased and injured appears doubtful and on that basis conviction of the accused appellant Ram Avtar Bhar for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained.If the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is minutely perused then also what actual role was played by accused appellant Ram Avtar Bhar in committing the present offence has not been analysed by the Trial Court, thus, conviction and sentence imposed upon accused appellant Ram Avtar Bhar for the offence under Section 304, 323 IPC taking recourse to the provisions of Section 34 IPC is palpably wrong.Although he was present on the spot at the time of incident and dispute between the parties arose on the altercation took place between the deceased and the accused appellant Ram Avtar Bhar yet he has not been assigned any weapon said to have been used in commission of crime.As far as role assigned to the accused appellant Bageshwar and Lahiri is concerned, prosecution from its evidence has established beyond reasonable doubt that on hearing altercation these two appellants and co-accused Kashi reached at the place of occurrence armed with lathi and danda and they started beating deceased.Although there is contradiction in the number of injuries shown in the injury report of deceased as well as post mortem report but keeping in view this fact that frontal, middle and parital bones of the head of the deceased were found fractured and cause of death of the deceased was ante-mortem head injuries, therefore, intention of the accused appellants Bageshwar and Lahiri can be gathered from the act committed by them on the spot itself.In the present matter accused appellants Bageshwar and Lahiri have been found guilty for the offence under Section 304 IPC.In the post mortem report, frontal and parietal bones as well as medial bone were found fractured.Cause of death of the deceased was due to aforesaid injuries and the contradiction, omissions occurred in the prosecution evidence like presence of the dung at the gate of informant, existence of the chak road in front of the house of the informant as well as heap of brick pieces itself are not sufficient to disbelieve the statement of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 on material points.It is clarified that if appellant Ram Avtar Bhar is still languishing in jail in this matter he be released forthwith from jail.Conviction and sentence of appellants Bageshwar and Lahri for the offence under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is hereby confirmed.Appellants Bageshar and Lahri, if not in jail in this matter, are hereby directed to surrender forthwith before the court concerned to serve out the remaining sentence.Personal bond of the accused-appellants Bageshwar and Lahri as well as sureties bonds are hereby canceled.Sureties are hereby discharged from their liabilities.Copy of this order along with lower court record be sent to court concerned forthwith for compliance.Compliance report be also sent to this Court.A copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent.Keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant Ram Avtar Bhar is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond of the sum of Rs. fifty thousand and two reliable sureties each in the like amount before Trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before Hon'ble Supreme Court.Office is directed to place a copy of the order on the record of Jail Appeal No. 5194 of 2005 and Jail Appeal No. 5201 of 2005 also. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,414,436 | Item No. 74And In the matter of: Lal Mohammad Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Jahangir Alam For the Petitioner Mr. Majnu Sk.For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ratua Police Station Case No. 94 of 2013 dated 24.02.2013 under sections 341/326/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.ALLOWED In these circumstances in the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the Petitioner shall report to the concerned Police station once a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,941,966 | of the case in short are that on 7.4.2012 the complainant K.P. Pandey being CEO reached for checking of mid day meal in the school of village Malwara.The applicant refused to get his inspection and he quarreled with the complainant and also threatened him.The complainant had lodged an FIR at Police Station Madiyado, District Damoh and therefore, a charge sheet under Section 353 and 506 (part-II) of the IPC was filed.After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the learned JMFC had framed the charges under Section 353 and 506(part-II) of the IPC.Similarly, it is alleged by the complainant that the applicant told him to leave the place, otherwise he would chop off his neck and thereafter, the applicant snatched a chair on which the complainant was required to sit.It would be apparent from the statement of the complainant and the statements of various witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that, at that time, the applicant had no weapon and he has not done anything for execution of alleged threat.Under such circumstances, alleged threat given by the applicant appears to be nothing but abuses told by him.The learned Additional Sessions Judge would have considered the criminal revision filed by the applicant in the present case.Consequently, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant namely Heeralal is hereby allowed.The order dated 6.7.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hata in Criminal Revision No.10/2013 as well as the order dated 27.5.2013 passed by the learned JMFC (Shri Veerendra Verma), Hata District Damoh in Criminal Case No.992/2012 are hereby set aside.The applicant is discharged from the charges under Sections 353 and 506 (part-II) of the IPC.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
899,433 | JUDGMENT J.B. Goel, J.This criminal revision is directed against order dated 5.10.1996 passed by the learned Addl.Session Judge (ASJ) whereby charges against all the petitioners under Section 147/149/323 IPC, under Section 452 against accused No. l to 4 and under Section 356 IPC against accused Davender have been framed in a complaint case.The learned MM vide his order dated 16.5.1994 had committed the complaint case to the learned Session Judge under Section 323 of the Code as a cross case arising out of Police case in FIR No. 121/92 of P.S. Mansarover Park, Delhi involving inter alia offence under Section 308/34 IPC had already been committed to that Court.Briefly, the facts are that one Vinod Kumar Jain had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate for proceeding under Sections 308/452/323/147/148/149/506 IPC against six accused/petitioners in connection with an occurrence which had taken place at about 10.15 P.M. on 9.7.1992 at the house of the complainant at 2892 Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.The learned MM recorded statements of some witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'), took cognizance of the complaint case and summoned all the six accused persons under Sections 323/147/149 IPC, accused No. l to 4 under Section 452 and accused Davender under Section 379 IPC: The accused appeared before the learned MM.In connection with the same occurrence a Police case (FIR No. 121/92) was also registered at P.S. Mansarover Park; after investigation a report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted by the Police and that case had already been committed to the Court of Sessions.On an application filed by the complainant the learned M.M. in exercise of power under Section 323 of the Code vide his order dated 16.5.1994 committed the complaint case also to the Court of Ld.A.S.J. to be tried along with police case.The accused-petitioners did not challenge that order.Thereafter, the learned A.S.J. after hearing the parties and on the basis of material available before him on committal of the complaint case vide detailed order dated 5.10.1996 held that offences as aforesaid are made out and ordered accordingly.The petitioners have filed this revision against that order. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 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.