id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
89,946,047 | Pursuant to last order, the contemnor has not filed the affidavit and seeks further time to file the same.It is argued that chargesheet in RC-10S/2018, categorically reveals that timely treatment was provided to Surender Singh @ Pappu.From CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 4 of 22 03.04.2018 till his death, Surender Singh @ Pappu was medically examined by Senior Doctors available at District Hospital, Unnao and Jail Hospital.The factum that Surender Singh @ Pappu died owing to the negligence of doctors is corroborated by the statement of Dr. Sushil Prakash Chaudhary who was examined as witness PW-41 by CBI.The abovenamed doctor was the head of the committee constituted by the then D.M. Unnao, namely, Sh.Ravi Kumar, who conducted inquiry in respect of the treatment administered to Surender Singh @ Pappu.He further argued that even if for the sake of argument, it is admitted that there was a false implication, even then the petitioner came into picture only after the object of conspiracy for false implication of Surender Singh @ Pappu was achieved.Investigation of the CBI shows that tehrir was prepared at the house of SI Kanta Prasad which is situated outside CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 5 of 22 the Police Station and the alleged illegal weapon/ katta was already recovered and then only tehrir alongwith katta and Surender Singh @ Pappu was produced before the petitioner for further proceedings.Further, petitioner was not the part of the proceedings which were conducted thereafter i.e. taking Surender Singh @ Pappu to hospital or to produce him before the ACJM-III, Unnao.The framing of joint charges and arraigning of the petitioner in RC-10S/2018 caused irreparable loss and severe prejudice to the petitioner.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 5 of 22Mr. Hari Haran further submits that it is evident that petitioner was never interrogated by CBI on the point of charge under Section 302 IPC and also was not given opportunity to explain his stand on the said charge.The SP passed this information to Ashok Bhaduria [accused 1 (A-1) in RC-9S/2018, who alongwith S.I. K.P. Singh reached at the spot of incident [SI K.P. Singh is accused (A-2) in RC-9S/2018].Despite the deceased being badly injured, he was brought to the Police Station and A-1 and A-2 were in direct mobile contact with the accused MLA till 21.43 hours.The statement CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 12 of 22 of PW-1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 03.04.2018 shows that the deceased was beaten and despite that, A-1 and A-2, (police officers) threw him in the car and brought to the Police Station.At the same time, A-6 (Bauwa in RC-10S/2018) was exhorting that the deceased should be further beaten up.PW-1 also states that her version of the case was not recorded by the police though she was at the Police Station at the same time when the deceased was being branded as accused.Even this document is falsified, as is clear from the evidence of PW-10 and Para viii of charge sheet mentioned above.Therefore, the fact that it was a part of conspiracy which involved death of the deceased, is something, which can only be tested during the trial.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 14 of 22CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 14 of 22Learned counsel further argued that medico-legal examination of Surender Singh @ Pappu was conducted on 03.04.2018 at 9.15 PM at District Hospital, Unnao by Dr. Prashant Upadhyay, EMO (PW-31 in RC- 10S/2018).This was done three hours after the police saw the injuries on the deceased.19 grave injuries were mentioned in the MLC.These were grave with regard to the size of the injuries and some of the injuries were sized at as deep as 15 cms to 31 cms.The MLC also recorded requirements of emergency stitches and immediate admission of the deceased in the hospital.On 03.04.2018 at 11.20 PM, Surender Singh @ Pappu was admitted in the District Hospital, Unnao.Learned counsel for CBI further submits that on 04.04.2018 at 10.15 AM, Case Crime No. 90/2018 (cross case of the same version) was registered at Police Station - Makhi for the offences punishable under Sections 147/323/504 IPC against Bauwa Singh, Vineet Mishra, Shailu Singh, Sonu Singh and others on the complaint of Smt. Asha Singh.This case should have been registered by the petitioner since PW-1 says that she was present on the previous day at the Police Station and tried to give her version of the incident which was not recorded.On 04.04.2018, between 4 PM to 6.30 PM, Case Diary (Internal Page 5) made by accused - SI K.P. CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 15 of 22 Singh shows that SI Sushil Kumar brought injured Surender Singh @ Pappu before Ld. ACJM-IV, Unnao, as IO requested him to send Surender Singh to judicial custody for 14 days which was allowed.After production of Surender Singh @ Pappu before the aforesaid Court, he was again brought back to District Hospital, Unnao where he was formally discharged at 6.30 PM.On 05.04.2018 at 4 PM, District Jail, Unnao sent requisition to Chief Medical Superintendent of District Hospital, Unnao for sending physician and surgeon to District Jail, Unnao for providing treatment to Surender Singh @ Pappu.Accordingly, Dr. Alok Pandey, Physician and Dr. S.N. Gupta, Surgeon were sent for the aforesaid purpose.On 08.04.2018 at 9.05 PM, Surender Singh @ Pappu was sent to District Hospital from District Jail, where he was admitted and given treatment by Dr. Gaurav Agrawal, Emergency Medical Officer (PW-32 in RC-10S/2018).% 04.09.2019 Crl.M.A. 33933/2019 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is, accordingly, disposed of.M.A.33932/2019 After hearing both the parties, the petition along with the pending application are dismissed.Detailed order shall follow.Vide order dated 02.09.2019, contempt notice was issued to the contemnor and was directed to file affidavit, explaining as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.Since the main petition has been dismissed, Registry is directed to register a separate contempt case with title "Court on its Own Motion vs. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra."Let needful be done within four weeks.Since the trial is to be concluded by the trial court as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court within 45 days, let the contempt petition be listed before the Roster Bench on 02.12.2019, as requested by the contemnor he being counsel for the complainant.Vide the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order on charge dated 13.08.2019, charges dated 13.08.2019 and related CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 1 of 22 proceedings thereto passed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 1 of 22Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 89/2018 dated 03.04.2018 was registered at PS - Makhi, District Unnao for the offences punishable under Sections 323/504/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 3/25 Arms Act against Surender Singh @ Pappu on the complaint of Tinku.Another FIR bearing No. 90/2018 dated 04.04.2018 was registered at aforementioned Police Station - Makhi for the offences punishable under Sections 147/323/504 IPC against Vineet Mishra @ Vinay Mishra, Birender Singh @ Bauwa Singh, Ram Sharam Singh @ Sonu Singh, Jaideep Singh @ Atul Singh Senger, Shashi Pratap Singh @ Suman Singh.Mr. Hari Haran, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the investigation of the CBI in RC-9S/2018, Surender Singh @ Pappu was implicated in a false case.It is an admitted CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 2 of 22 case of the petitioner, being a duty officer and also a wireless operator on 03.04.2018 at Police Station - Makhi that he never left the Police Station and has only prepared the seizure memo being part of his official duties.Petitioner was not in touch with other police officer who proceeded towards the spot, on the instructions of SP Unnao, through any mode of communication including mobile phone.Thus, petitioner has nothing to do with the beatings given to Surender Singh @ Pappu.This was the reason that the petitioner was not even arrested by CBI and without arrest, chargesheet was filed against him in RC-9S/2018, which relates to the falsification of records only.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 2 of 22It is submitted that on 13.04.2018, charges under Sections 147/148/149/323/504/506 and 302 IPC were framed in RC-10S/2018 against Vineet Mishra @ Vinay Mishra, Birendra Singh @ Bauwa Singh, Ram Sharan Singh @ Sonu Singh, Jai Deep Singh @ Atul Singh Sengar, Shashi Pratap Singh @ Suman Singh and Shailender Singh @ Shalu by the Court of Special Judge, CBI Lucknow.However, due to certain factors, both the above RCs alongwith other matters were transferred to Delhi in the Court of Sh.Dharmesh Sharma, District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.On 13.08.2019, CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 3 of 22 impugned orders were passed, whereby joint charges were framed in RC- 9S/2018 and RC-10S/2018 by the aforementioned Court.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 3 of 22CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 4 of 229. Learned senior counsel for petitioner further submits that the seizure memo alleged to be falsely prepared by the petitioner, is a wrong argument.The seizure memo is based on a pre-written document (tehrir) and no falsification can be attributed to petitioner.Further, being the duty officer, since an illegal weapon was seized, the petitioner was duty bound to prepare seizure memo in terms of Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C).Thus, ordering joint trial of both the aforementioned cases will cause prejudice to the defence of the petitioner, thus, he will lose his right to appeal, if convicted, by the Court of Sessions.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 11 of 22 Moreover, since no beatings were given to Surender Singh @ Pappu in the Police Station, therefore, petitioner cannot be tried for conspiracy under Section 120B and for murder under Section 302 IPC.Thus, the present petition deserves to be allowed.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 11 of 22PW-9, Raja Pratap Singh in RC- 9S/2018 stated in his statement dated 03.04.2018 that he wrote the FIR at the dictation of SI K.P. Singh (A-2) and another accused Tinku Singh.This shows that petitioner had concocted GD Entry on which heavy reliance is placed.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 12 of 22Learned counsel for the CBI further submits that other part of GD Entry, namely, recovery of Gun etc. from the deceased is also found to be false.On 03.04.2018, local police registered FIR against Surender Singh @ Pappu under Sections 323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act on the complaint of Tinku Singh showing that the deceased was actually produced by private persons (Tinku Singh, complainant, Bauwa Singh, Vineet, Suman CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 13 of 22 Singh and Sonu Singh) and handed over to police by aforementioned private persons alongwith Country Made Pistol with 4 Live Cartridges, allegedly belonging to the deceased.Accordingly, Surender Singh @ Pappu was sent for treatment to District Hospital, Unnao alongwith SI Sushil Kumar and Constable Pankaj Kumar.It is further argued that D-4 was the document created by accused - Amir Khan (petitioner in the present case) to show recovery of arms from the deceased.These arms were actually recovered from the house of A-2 i.e. SI K.P. Singh.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 13 of 22Learned counsel for CBI argued that Recovery Memo D-4 dated 03.04.2018 from the point of view of defence of the petitioner and testimony of PW-23 is not helpful because the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that Police Officer (PW-23) had also signed the recovery memo and was not made an accused.The argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is incorrect because document D-9 in RC-9S/2018 is the GD Entry recorded by the petitioner.The charge sheet has allegation of falsification of document.On 09.04.2018 at 3.40 AM, Surender Singh @ Pappu succumbed to injuries at District Hospital, Unnao.On 10.04.2018, post-mortem of Surender Singh @ Pappu was conducted by a panel of doctors.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 15 of 22Learned counsel for CBI submits that learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order based upon the material available on record and has taken the view that "there is prima facie case that a conspiracy was CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 16 of 22 hatched by the accused persons to silence the father of the prosecutrix and his family members by resorting to violence executed in a planned manner by forming an unlawful assembly, and then committing series of acts in a planned manner with continuity of action intricately connected by proximity to the place of occurrence, time and unity or community of purpose or design".Thus, there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 16 of 22I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in length and perused the material on record.Statement of PW-1, which is document 20 in RC- 9S/2018 establishes that the deceased was badly beaten and despite that A-1 and A2, police officers threw him into the car and took to the Police Station.At the same time, A-6 in RC-10S/2018 was exhorting that deceased should be further beaten up.The said PW also states that her version of case was not recorded by the police though she was at the Police Station at the same time when the deceased was branded as accused.PW-9, Raja Pratap Singh states that he wrote the FIR at the dictation of SI K.P. Singh (A-2) and another accused Tinku Singh.Accordingly, the FIR was registered.Consequently, the other part of GD Entry, namely, recovery of Gun etc. from the deceased is also found to be false.CRL.REV.P. 865/2019 Page 17 of 22 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,994,638 | However, he has arrived at the subjective satisfaction only on the ground that similarly placed accused person was granted the relief of bail by the Sessions Court.The bail order that has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority pertains to the year 2010 and it is seen that the bail order confines itself to the facts of that particular case.Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is not supported by any materials and it clearly reflects the non-application of mind.Consequently, the Detention Order stands vitiated.7.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.23/2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Madurai.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8/9 H.C.P(MD)No.398 of 2019 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
899,484 | ORDER R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Cri.Cases Nos. 549/88 and 560/88 are bail petitions respectively filed by Kadma alias Kadam Singh and Megha alias Megh Singh in connection with the same offence and have been taken up for analogous hearing.This order would dispose of all the three bail petitions.Sarvashri D. R. Sharma, A. K. Palua and N. M. Haswani, Advocates for the respective petitioners in the three bail petitions have been heard as also Shri P. D. Agrawal Panel Lawyer, for the State.Case Diary perused.Bail is not to be refused as a punitive measure, follows as a necessary corollary from the golden-rule-thread which runs throughout the web of criminal jurisprudence that the law presumes an accused to be innocent till guilt has been proved.The principles were reiterated and once again dealt with exhaustively and summed up precisely by the Apex Court in Babu Singh v. State of U.P. .It was stated that refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bifocal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected.Quoting an English decision, their Lordships said "It is very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail would appear to take the trial, and I think that in coming to a determination on that point three elements will generally be found the most important the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable, if convicted".IPC (kidnapping from lawful guardianship) only was registered and investigation started.P.C. and on the ground that the accused applicants were let out on bail because till then they were accused only of an offence under Section 365, IPC, but later on the offence was converted , into those under Sections 364,387 and 120B, I.P.C. These facts emerge from the copies of the orders dated 15-4-1988 and 30-4-1988 which have been placed on record The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed Kalyan Singh and Kadam Singh, accused-applicants, to surrender before the Court on 2-5-1988, which they did not do and have instead come up to this Court seeking concession of bail, now under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Accused-applicant Megh Singh was also apprehended His prayer for being enlarged on bail was turned down by the order dated 26-4-1988 (as mentioned in the order dated 30-4-1988 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior-Copy of order dated 26-4-1988 not produced), The Court of Sessions rejected the prayer for bail made by Kalyan Singh and Kadam Singh under Section 438, Cr.What is more forcefully contended on behalf of Kalyan Singh and Kadam Singh is that they have been granted liberty of bail under Section 439, Cr. | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,948,524 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.04 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.04 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act as against the petitioners.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, on receipt from the Social Welfare officer is the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.17.10.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav ToThe Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4979 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, aav Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4979 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.3113 of 2019 17.10.2019 | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,951,530 | The judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated 19 th January 2016, delivered in Sessions Case No. 184 of 2010 against her to convict her for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside.She stands::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2020 06:04:08 ::: 2 Cri.Appeal 60/2016 acquitted of the offences for which the charge was framed and she was tried.She is already on bail.Her bail bonds are to be continued for the period of six months in view of provision of Section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2020 06:04:08 :::The appeal of appellant No.1 Deepak S/o Pundalik Ingale is partly allowed.The judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting him for the offence punishable U/S. 302 read with S. 34 of I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside.He is to be released forthwith as he has already undergone the sentence.Bail bonds of Rs. 15000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) are to be obtained from him under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before his release.The other part of the sentence of payment of fine against him is maintained and as he has already undergone the sentence of more than ten years, it is presumed that he has undergone the sentence in lieu of fine.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2020 06:04:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2020 06:04:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2020 06:04:08 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,952,501 | All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that Mansingh Kaurav, ASI was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Ochhapur, District Sheopur and was on patrolling along with the police party.At about 6:00 PM when he reached near Village Bagcha, he heard the hue and cry of the villagers.They saw that the armed miscreants were forcibly taking a girl out of the village and two persons were trying to rescue her.The armed miscreants were assaulting the persons by the handle of the gun.The father of the girl was shouting that the armed miscreants are forcibly trying to take the girl with them.On this issue, the police party challenged the miscreants and asked them to leave the girl.After noticing the police party, the miscreants started firing at the police party, the police party in reply also fired at them.One of the miscreants sustained a gunshot and tried to take shelter in the village, whereas two miscreants ran towards the forest area.When the police went to the village, they found that one miscreant was lying dead in the courtyard of Ramdayal who was identified by the villagers as dacoit Gopal Kachhi and the villagers also informed that two miscreants who have ran away are Narayan and Suresh Adivasi (appellants).The villagers also informed that the dacoits have come to forcibly take away the girl and two persons who were trying to save the girl are Lalaram and Kashiram.Accordingly, Dehati Nalsi Ex.P/2 was written and the FIR was registered on the basis of Dehati Nalsi 3 CRA No.330/2005 which is Ex.In cross-examination, she has admitted that in Ex.D/1 she has not disclosed the name of the appellant.However she has identified them in the Dock.Basanta (PW-2) is the father of Badamibai (PW-1).He has also stated that Gopal Kachhi came to his house and he enquired about his daughter.Thereafter Gopal Kachhi entered inside the house and he took her outside the house and was trying to forcibly take her towards the forest.At the time when Gopal Kachhi had entered inside the house, the appellants were standing outside the house.When the accused persons and the deceased Gopal Kachhi were trying to take the girl forcibly, then this witness had raised an alarm and on hearing his alarm, the villagers came there to rescue the girl.At that time, the police party reached there who was informed that the accused are trying to forcibly take away his daughter.After noticing the police party, the dacoits started firing towards the police.The police personnel had asked the dacoits to leave the girl.In the exchange of gunshot fires, the dacoit Gopal Kachhi had died.In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that the appellants were standing outside the house and they had not entered in the house.However, they had come along with Gopal Kachhi.He further stated that on earlier occasion, the dacoit Halke had taken his daughter.Lalaram (PW-3) has stated that Gopal Kachhi was forcibly trying to take the girl and the father of her girl had raised an alarm and, therefore, they ran towards the place of incident.In order to rescue the girl, they had pelted stones on the dacoits.At that time, they noticed that the police party is on patrolling 6 CRA No.330/2005 and they were asked to save the girl from the dacoits.After noticing the police party, the dacoits had fired on the police party and in reply also, the police party had fired.The dacoits had left the girl Badamibai.(15/03/2018) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 9.3.2005 passed by Shri P.S. Patidar, Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Sheopur in Special Sessions Trial No.1/2004 by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 307 read with Section 34, 365, 366 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.1000/-, rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.1000/- and rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs.1000/-, with default imprisonment respectively.The police after arresting the appellants and concluding the investigation filed the charge sheet for offence punishable under Sections 365, 307, 34 of IPC, under Section 25/27 of Arms Act and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.The Trial Court by order dated 8.1.2004 framed charges under Section 307 or in the alternative 307/34, 365, 366 of IPC, under Section 25(1-B)(a), 25(1) of Arms Act and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Badamibai (PW-1), Basanta (PW-2), Lalaram (PW-3), Mansingh Kaurav (PW-4), Arvind (PW-5) and Vijay Singh (PW-6).The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 9.3.2005 convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 307/34, 365, 366 of IPC and acquitted the appellants for an offence under Section 25(1-B)(a), 27 of Arms Act and.However, no finding has been given with regard to offence under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. This lapse on the part of the Trial Court would not make much difference because the appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/34, 365, 366 of IPC.Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt whereas the counsel for the State has 4 CRA No.330/2005 supported the reasons assigned by the Trial Court.7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Badamibai (PW-1) is the girl who was rescued by the villagers from the dacoits.She has stated that dacoit Gopal Kachhi came to her house and enquired from her father about this witness.At that time, this witness was inside the house.It was replied by her father that his daughter is not in the house.The dacoit Gopal Kachhi forcibly entered inside the house and after catching hold of her hand, dragged out from the house and two other dacoits were standing outside the house.Thereafter the dacoit Gopal Kachhi and his companions started forcibly taking her towards the forest.After hearing her shouts, the villagers came rushing in order to save her.At the same time the police party was noticed and the police personnel were informed and they were told that the dacoits are forcibly trying to take the girl.This witness has further stated that she has identified the two persons who were standing outside the house and the accused persons present in the Court are the same persons who had come along with the dacoit Gopal Kachhi and were trying to forcibly take her to the forest area.She has further stated that after noticing the police party, the appellants ran away whereas Gopal Kachhi died because of gunshot.In the exchange of gunshot fire, the dacoit Gopal Kachhi had died.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that after the incident, he has seen the appellants for the first time in the Court.Mansingh Kaurav (PW-4) has stated that on 23.1.2003 he was on patrolling along with the police party.At about 5:45 PM he reached Village Bagcha, where he heard the noise of the villagers.After hearing the noise, they went towards the village.Basanta Adivasi raised an alarm and requested for help and informed that the dacoits are trying to forcibly take his daughter towards the forest.He challenged the dacoits and asked them to leave the girl.The dacoits after leaving the girl started firing on the police party and the police party in its self- defence also returned the gunshot fires.Two dacoits succeeded in running away, whereas one dacoit was seen rushing towards the village and he was limping.Thereafter one dacoit was found dead in the village and was identified as Gopal Kachhi.The identification memo is Ex.The names of the appellants who had succeeded in running away were told by the villagers.Dehati Nalsi Ex.P/2 was prepared on the spot and he had recorded the statements of the witnesses.Arvind (PW-5) and Vijay Singh (PW-6) are the members 7 CRA No.330/2005 of the police party and they have also supported the prosecution case.All the witnesses were not cross-examined in detail.Only two or three questions were put to them.All those questions were basically to the identity of the appellants.All the witnesses have identified the appellants in the Dock.The Dock identification is the substantive piece of evidence.All the witnesses in one voice have narrated the incident and the counsel for the appellants could not point out any contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses.Thus, it is clear that in an encounter, one dacoit known as Gopal Kachhi lost his life whereas the appellants who were accompanying the dacoit Gopal Kachhi had succeeded in running away.The appellants were later on arrested.Considering the evidence which has come on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the involvement of the appellants in making an attempt to abduct Badamibai (PW-1).Although, the witnesses have admitted in the cross-examination that the appellants had not entered inside the house and in fact it was Gopal Kachhi who forcibly entered inside the house of Basanta (PW-2) and dragged Badamibai (PW-1) out of the house but all the witnesses have specifically stated that the appellants were standing outside the house of Basanta (PW-2) at the relevant 8 CRA No.330/2005 time.Badamibai (PW-1) has also stated that they had also tried to drag her towards the forest area.It is well established principle of law that the Dock identification of the accused is the substantive piece of evidence.The witnesses have specifically stated that they had seen the appellants for the first time after the incident.There is nothing on record which may indicate that the witnesses had any opportunity to see the appellants prior to the dock identification.Mansingh Kaurav (PW-4) has specifically stated that the villagers had informed the names of the appellants.In the present case, one dacoit had died in the police encounter and the name of the appellants were disclosed by the villagers on the spot itself.Thus, if the police had not conducted any test identification parade, then it would not make any difference because the identity of the appellants was already disclosed by the villagers and secondly, it is well established principle of law that the identification of the accused during the investigation is one of the steps of investigation and it is for the police to get itself confirmed that the person who has been taken into custody is the same person who was involved in the commission of offence.Identification of an accused in the test identification parade conducted by the police is not a substantive piece of evidence.The substantive piece of evidence is the identification of the accused in the dock and it can be relied upon where the dock identification was not 9 CRA No.330/2005 preceded by the test identification parade by the police during the investigation.Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had gone to Village Bagcha along with the dacoit Gopal Kachhi who tried to forcibly took Badamibai (PW-1) to the forest which was resisted by the villagers and fortunately, the police party, which was on patrolling also reached the spot.The dacoits including the appellants, were challenged by the police and in reply the dacoits opened fire on the police party and when the gunshots were fired in reply, Gopal Kachhi died in the encounter.Therefore, no question arises warranting any interference on the question of sentence.Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated 9.3.2005 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Sheopur in Special Sessions Trial No.1/2004 is hereby affirmed.The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. | ['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,957,518 | CRL.M.C. 3932/2011 Page 3 of 3This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused for quashing of the FIR No. 93/2000 under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at Delhi Cantt.Police Station and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom pending in Court also.The FIR was registered on CRL.M.C. 3932/2011 Page 1 of 3 the complaint of respondent no. 2 who though was not an eye-witness of the accident but was told by the deceased husband after the accident that the accident between his scooter and the motorcycle of the petitioner had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner herein.CRL.M.C. 3932/2011 Page 1 of 3In this background the petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC and his trial is going on in Court but now the petitioner and the widow and daughter of the deceased have arrived at a settlement and they have been paid ` 1,25,000/- as compensation.The respondent no. 2 complainant and respondent no. 3, daughter of the complainant, stated in Court that they have no objection if this petition is allowed on account of the parties reaching an amicable settlement and also agreed to have received a payment of ` 1,25,000/- from the petitioner in terms of the settlement which amount already stands deposited with the trial Court and agreed to be released to the complainant.The criminal case was registered on the complaint of the wife of the deceased that she was told by her deceased husband that the accident was caused by the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle and now that there has been an amicable CRL.M.C. 3932/2011 Page 2 of 3 settlement between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased there is no likelihood of conviction of the accused petitioner.So no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the trial of the accused and it would be an abuse of the process of law if the trial of the petitioner is allowed to continue.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the FIR No. 93/2000 and the trial of the petitioner in respect of this FIR are quashed.CRL.M.C. 3932/2011 Page 2 of 3P.K. BHASIN, J NOVEMBER 19, 2012 CRL.M.C. 3932/2011 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,959,061 | (Per: Pritinker Diwaker, J) (26.7.2019) Heard Sri Narendra Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned counsel for the State.None for complainant-respondent no.2 though served.Present revision has been filed against the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2017, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisionist assailing the order dated 14.9.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur, arising out of Crime No.227 of 2017, under Sections 341,342,312,313,376 of IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sidhauli, District Sitapur.3. Facts of the instant case, in brief, are that on 2.6.2017, FIR was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix, alleging in it that when her daughter had gone to fetch water from the hand pump, she was taken by the wife of one Chander to the house of the revisionist; the door was bolted from outside and then the revisionist committed rape on the prosecutrix.After about half an hour, door was opened by the wife of Chander, who asked the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to any one.It is stated that thereafter, whenever her daughter used to fetch water, the revisionist used to commit rape on her and when 17 days prior to 2.2.2017, prosecutrix disclosed the fact to the revisionist that she is pregnant, the revisionist with the help of one Harish Chandra gave certain medicines to the prosecutrix, resulting her abortion.She states that since then the prosecutrix was subjected to threat by the accused persons.Based on this FIR, offence under Sections 341,342,312,313,376,504,506 of IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act was registered against the revisionist and other accused persons.The revisionist filed an application before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''Act of 2015') for grant of bail, which was rejected on the ground that if the revisionist is released on bail, he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.The order passed by the Principal Magistrate was assailed by the revisionist by way of filing an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sitapur, which has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 25.10.2017, mainly on the ground that the revisionist has committed a serious offence of rape and, if he is released on bail, this would defeat the ends of justice. | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
89,959,649 | This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 27/2/19 passed in special S.T.No.111/2017 by Special Jude (Atrocities) Gwalior M.P. whereby the appellant-Raghuveer Singh Rawat has been convicted as under:I.A.No. 1969/19, 1st application u/S. 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant-Raghuveer Singh Rawat is taken up and considered.Prosecution story found to be proved is that when the husband of prosecutrix was away, the appellant taking advantage of prosecutrix being alone, sent objectionable massages on her mobile phone and asked the prosecutrix to come behind the house so that he can satisfy his sexual desire.It is further alleged that on 7/3/17 at 6 am when the prosecutrix was at the hand-pump, the appellant came and caught hold of her hand.The prosecutrix screamed which brought Rajabeti (PW-3) (the mother-in-law of prosecutrix) at the site which impelled the appellant to flee. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,720,265 | Shri S.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant.Prosecutrix, her father Rajkumar Vishwakarma and her mother Anita Vishwakarma are present in person and they have been identified by Shri S.C. Chaturvedi, Advocate.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.332/2019 registered at Police Station Koh-e-Fiza, Bhopal for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.The allegation of prosecution is that the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was found to be disappeared on 14.5.2019 from her house, report of which has been lodged by her brother.In the report name of the applicant and one Leelabai has been mentioned as suspected persons.On that basis the aforesaid crime was registered for the offence punishable under sections 363/34 of IPC against the applicant and co-accused person.On 6.6.2019 prosecutrix was recovered.Her statements under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded.The statements of her family members were also recorded.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.Learned counsel for the objector has not opposed the bail application and has no objection if the bail is granted to the applicant.Prosecutrix, her father Rajkumar Vishwakarma and her mother Anita Vishwakarma who are present in person have stated that marriage of the prosecutrix has been solemnized with applicant.The prosecutrix has also filed an affidavit, wherein she has stated the same version.CC as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE SKM Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 05/09/2019 05:05:11 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
867,204 | 700 employees work in this Mega Mal and lakhs of customers visit every day to purchase consumer goods.Apart from running the vessel business in the building in question, the petitioners and others are engaged in several other business in Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar.This street leads to the Mambalam Railway Station and the width thereof is 30 ft.During day time, the street is busy and filled up with dense population for shopping.Though hundreds of persons are employed in the shop, persons from neighbouring shops were examined as witnesses.The petitioners apprehend arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 304(A) an 506(ii) IPC.The petitioners are the proprietors of "Saravana Vessel Stores" situated in a 5 storeyed building at Ranganathan Street.Three fourth of "Lucky Plaza", a neighbouring building, is also connected to the main building of Saravana Vessel Stores.On the fateful day i.e., 01.09.2008, in the early hours, a fire broke out from the 5th floor of Saravana Vessel Stores and shortly thereafter, fire engulfed the other floors also.Fortunately, because of the reason that it is early morning, business has not been commenced, however, some of the employees were inside the premises.On noticing the fire, those employees rushed out through the roof and, after receiving information, police and fire personnel reached the scene of occurrence and made a hectic attempt to put off the fire.After the fire was put off, it came to light that two of the employees were charred to death and under such circumstances, the present case has been taken on file by the respondent police.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that all safety measures have been adopted while constructing the 5 storeyed building of Saravana Vessel Stores and the fire broke out accidentally, for which, negligence could only be attributed to the petitioners.If at all, the petitioners can be said to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part-A IPC.He states that merely because of the death of two employees, the offence has been modified from 304 Part-A to 304 Part-I IPC.Merely because of the reason that a fire broke out and two persons died, the case has been looked at with extraordinary sensation and since Saravana Vessel Stores appears to be a famous Super Market, press people have also blown out of proportion the gravity of the offence; otherwise, it would have been treated as an ordinary accident.By submitting that the petitioners are the aged persons and income tax assesses, learned Senior Counsel states that the building in question has been constructed only after obtaining due approval from the CMDA and licence & permission from the authorities concerned including the Corporation of Chennai to run the store; and pleads that the relief sought for may be granted.Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that Saravana Vessel Stores is situated in a narrow street called Ranganathan Street, well known for ceaseless business activities always busy with human and vehicular movements and since Saravana Vessel Stores offer attractive rebates, discount etc., lakhs of customers visit the shop every day.He also submits that, with great difficulty, the police and the fire brigade extinguished the fire and, during the course of investigation, the Supervisor and Manager of the Store were arrested and it came to light that the following are the reasons for the fire accident:i) Emergency gate was not provided in the buildingii) There are no safety measures such as fire fighting materials for protection of the building from fire are not providediii) There is no direct entrance for the "Lucky Plaza" from Ranganathan Streetiv) The watchmen were permitted to stay in that building during night hours by the owners of the shop, even though there is no sufficient protection in that building in order to escape from the fire or other accidents"Referring to such aspects and stating that the case has been altered as one under Sec.304 (I) IPC and investigation is at progress, it is submitted that it is not desirable at this point of time to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners.I have perused the materials available on record.The scene of occurrence is a Mega Mal called Saravana Vessel Stores.Even as per the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, 700 employees work in the said stores and every day, several lakhs of people visit this shop situated in a narrow street of 30 ft.It is fortunate that the accident took place in the early hours and if such an accident had happened during the day time, when the general public were shopping, undoubtedly, the lives of thousands of people were at stake.No doubt, the present incident is a replica of Kumbakonam school children death case by fire.In such a serious cases, apart from the owners of the building, other accused including Government Officials who are responsible for granting approval for construction of such buildings should also be brought within the circle of investigation by taking them as accused in the case.It is pathetic to note that the investigation has not been proceeded in a right manner by probing into the involvement of the Government Officials concerned.I am hopeful that at least during the course of investigation, the persons concerned, in particular, CMDA and Corporation authorities and other Government Officials in-charge who have given permits/licence and those officials, who are in-charge of periodical inspection, are taken as accused in this case.The arrested accused are none else than the Manager and the Supervisor of the Saravana Vessel Stores.When the employees of the Stores are in judicial custody, I am of the view that the main accused, who are the petitioners herein and also the owners of the building, cannot be granted the relief prayed for especially on the third day of the occurrence.As it has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the investigation is at the preliminary stage and the petitioners are absconding, I am of the considered view it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Hence the petition is dismissed.sr TOThe Commissioner of Police,Chennai City | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,722,608 | % (ORAL) Petitioner is facing trial in CC No.33/12, CBI Vs.Om Prakash Dhakolia for the offences under Sections120B/420/468/471 of the IPC read with Section 13 (i) (d) & 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 and vide impugned order of 11th February, 2015, his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling of Investigating Officer (PW-21) has been declined by the trial court while noting that Investigating Officer (PW-21) is a formal witness.On behalf of respondent-CBI, it is submitted that the Investigating Officer (PW-21) was discharged in pre-lunch session when counsel for Crl.In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and impugned order of 11th February, 2015 dismissing petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed subject to cost of `25,000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within a week and upon placing on record its original receipt before the trial court, one effective opportunity be given to petitioner to cross-examine Investigating Officer (PW-21).This petition and applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.Trial court be apprised of this order forthwith. | ['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,729,403 | Page 1 of 4The first respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.277 of 2017 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 353 of IPC.This FIR was registered based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, who is the Health Supervisor, working in the Collector's Office at Vellore.The case of the prosecution is that the District Collector was visiting various places in order to inspect and take precautionary action to prevent Dengue fever.It is alleged that, when the District Collector visited the house of the petitioner, the petitioner prevented the officials from conducting the inspection and abused them in filthy language.29.07.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ssrhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 4 Crl.Page 3 of 4M.P.No.9915 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.14882 of 2017 29.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 4Page 4 of 4This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.277 of 2017 pending on the file of the 1st respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 4 Crl.O.P.No.25821 of 2017The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire complaint is motivated and it has been given only to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, who is the grand daughter of the Ex-Counselor in that locality.The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint does not even say what was the abusive language that was used and in what manner the petitioner had prevented the authorities from carrying on with their work.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that, investigation is still pending.http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 4 Crl.O.P.No.25821 of 2017Page 2 of 4The FIR has been registered for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC.In order to attract the said offence, the complaint should contain the minimum particulars regarding the words used by the petitioner, when the petitioner is alleged to have abused the officials.That apart this must have happened in the public place.Both the particulars are absent and therefore no offence is made out to attract Section 294(b) of IPC.Insofar as the offence under Section 353 of IPC is concerned, there are absolutely no allegations with regard to any criminal forces or assault committed by the petitioner and therefore the offence under Section 353 of IPC is also not attracted in this case, going by the allegations made in the complaint.In view of the above, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the FIR registered by the respondent police and accordingly the FIR in Crime No.277 of 2017, pending on the file of the 1st respondent is hereby quashed.In the result this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.O.P.No.25821 of 2017 N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J ssrThe Inspector of Police, Sathuvacheri Police Station, Vellore, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.25821 of 2017 and Crl. | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,742,921 | Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the complainant.This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.10/2015 by which the charge under Sections 420 and 422 of IPC has been framed.The applicant has also not clarified under what circumstances and for what reasons he had given the cheques to Rahul Rai, whereas, the complainant has prima facie established 4 MCrC.No.2945/2017 that Rahul Rai was working as his representative and thus the cheques were given to him.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The High Court having affirmed that order, the matter was brought up to this Court. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,746,423 | He has been falsely implicated.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicantRamchandra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
865,652 | Along with the orders of detention, petitioners were also served with the grounds on which basis the detaining authority formed the subjective satisfaction for detaining them.From perusal of the grounds it appears that petitioner Balram Gupta was serving as Junior Engineer in mechanical branch of Jal Nigam, Banda.Petitioner Mustaq Ali was working as contractor in the same Branch of Jal Nigam.M. A. Khan was Executive Engineer in the Mechanical Branch of Jal Nigam, Banda.He was transferred on 29-10-1997 from Banda to the head office of Jal Nigam, U. P., Lucknow, but he continued to stay at-Banda and was trying to get his transfer cancelled.From the grounds, it appears that there was bungling of about Rs. Fifty lakhs of government money during the period Shri M. A. Khan was posted at Banda.Unauthorised payments were made to petitioner Mushtaq Ali though he had not done any work.Deceased Prem Singh on transfer joined as Executive Engineer in place of Shri M. A. Khan.He noticed large scale bungling of government money by his predecessor in league with petitioner Balram Gupta and Mushtaq Ali.All the three pressurised Prem Singh not to inquire into the matter of alleged embezzlement of government money but Prem Singh continued to discharge his duties faithfully and honestly.Then he was threatened for life.Prem Singh felt so much harassed that he, at one point of time, decided to resign from the post and proceeded on leave.However, on persuasion of his wife and considering the future of his children, he resumed his duties.It is further stated that in the night of 4/5-2-1998, between 9.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m., the accused persons assembled at the residence of Shri M. A. Khan, Executive Engineer and hatched up a conspiracy to kill Prem Singh.Petitioner Balram Gupta went to Prem Singh and brought him from his house to Jeep No. U.S.G. 2987 which belonged to the Executive Engineer M. A. Khan and Santosh Kumar, son of Chunnoo was its driver.Shri Prem Singh was brought under the pretext that there is an urgent telephone call from his family and some one in his family has fallen ill.Prem Singh was brought to Railway crossing on that Jeep.Petitioner Mushtaq Ali pierced a screw driver in his stomach and he was killed.The undisputed facts are that the incident took place in the night of 4/5-2-1998, at 1.00 p.m. The body of the deceased was found in the morning, at about 7.00 a. m. No body had witnessed the occurrence.JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J.In both the aforesaid petitions questions of fact and law are similar and both the petitions can be decided by a common judgment against which learned counsel for the parties have no objection.Writ Petition No. 20786 of 1998 shall be the leading case.Petitioners have also challenged the legality of their continued detention.Thereafter, body of the deceased Prem Singh was tied in a woollen shawl and was put on the railway track with the design that it will be cut into pieces by a passing train and it shall be treated as a case of accident.Body of late Prem Singh was found in the morning of 5-2-1998, at 7.00 A. M. The body was identified and a case was registered as case crime No. 20 of 1998, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. No body was named in the First Information Report.A special police team was deputed to investigate this offence.On 9-2-1998, Executive Engineer M. A. Khan, petitioner Mushtaq Ali, Siraj Khan, petitioner Balram Gupta and driver Santosh Kumar were arrested.The screw driver which was used in committing the offence and blood-stained clothes of the deceased were also recovered.By this statement, entire conspiracy and manner in which the offence was committed, was disclosed.In the grounds, it is further alleged that the petitioners along with other accused persons, on 22-2-1998, harassed aforesaid Santosh Kumar and he was given a beating and was also abused.Santosh Kumar, was medically examined and then a case crime No. 125 of 1998, under Sections 147/504/506, IPC and 3(1)(10) of S.C. S.T. Act was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Banda.It is stated that in view of this occurrence Santosh Kumar was shifted from the district Jail, Banda to Children Hospital, Banda for security reasons.The detaining authority has mentioned in the grounds that on account of the murder of Prem Singh, the officers and employees from different departments of the district approached the detaining authority on 6-2-1998 and apprised him of their fear and feeling of insecurity.They also threatened to boycott the Parliamentary Elections.The detaining authority has said that in view of the aforesaid reaction among the employees, maintenance of public order and law and order was seriously threatened.It is also said that by the aforesaid occurrence of murder of the Executive Engineer, persons employed in technical services in the entire State, Officers and employees of other departments and the public at large fell in a grip of fear and terror.It is also said that petitioners are trying for bail and if they are released on bail, they may again indulge in similar activities which shall be prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order.Petitioners were also informed that against the order of detention, under the Act they have a right to make a representation to the Central Government and State Government which may be sent through the Superintendent, District Jail, at the earliest.They were also informed that their matter will be referred to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act within three weeks and they may submit their representation within that period.They were also informed that they have right of personal hearing under Section 11 of the Act and if they so desire, this may also be specifically stated in an application submitted through the jail superintendent.Case of the petitioners was referred to the Advisory Board on 1-4-1998, under Section 10 of the Act. The Advisory Board heard petitioners personally on 13-4-1998 and gave its opinion on 22-4-1998 that there was sufficient cause to detain the petitioners.The representation dated 4-4-1998 of the petitioners received by the Central Government on 6-4-1998, were processed for consideration and by a communication dated 20-4-1998 certain information (parawise comments on the representation and opinion of the Advisory Board) was required from the State Government.In these petitions counter affidavits have been filed by Shri S. B. Singh, Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Banda on behalf of respondent No. 1, by Shri Chandra Narain Dubey, the then District Magistrate, Banda, as respondent No. 2, Shri R. S. Agarwal, Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Home and Confidential Department, on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Bina Prasad, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4, Union of India.We-have heard Shri D. S. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri A. K. Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri N. K. Sharma, holding brief of Shri A. K. Gaur, and Shri S.C. Mishra on behalf of respondent No. 4 in the above writ petitions.That before the detaining authority State Government and the Central Government relevant materials (which shall be mentioned at the relevant places, if necessary) were not placed and the impugned orders have been passed mechanically on the basis of non-existent facts and the impugned orders stand vitiated.Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl.The First Information Report was lodged against unknown persons.They were arrested along with incriminating articles and sent to judicial custody.The detaining authority formed its subjective satisfaction on the basis of the representation of the officers and employees made before him on 6-2-1998, who expressed their fear and sense of insecurity and also threatened to boycott the Parliamentary Elections.No body can dispute that the sentiments of the offices and employees may have been affected and they may also have feeling of insecurity, but there is nothing to indicate that people living in the locality where the murder was committed, were prevented from following their usual avocations of life. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,959,081 | The Petitioners 2 to 5 are the partners of the firm and they are accused 2 to 5 respectively.Accused Nos.6 and 7 in this case viz., M/s.Sri Lakshmi Agencies and M/s.Raja Agencies were not having any licence to sell potassium chloride for industrial use.3.The allegation in the complaint registered against the petitioners herein is that the 1st accused firm was utilizing fertilizer grade potassium chloride smuggled from Tamil Nadu and purchased at subsidized cost, as raw material, instead of purchasing at the rate meant for industrial purpose and this was in violation of the Clause 25(1) and (2) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, which insists for obtaining permission or licence from the Government of India, for industrial use of fertilizer and procurement of fertilizer grade as raw material for industrial use.The subsidized cost of the fertilizer gradehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Potassium Chloride is Rs.5,400/- per M.T and the actual cost of the Potassium Chloride meant for industrial purpose is Rs.30,000/- M.T. It is further alleged that the company was purchasing their raw material at a cost of Rs.5,400/- per M.T., thereby enjoying the Government subsidy of Rs.24,600/- per M.T., by mere procurement of raw material alone thus causing loss to the Govt. of India.The potassium chloride imported by the authorised companies was being distributed through licensed Fertilizer dealers and then to retailers, who ultimately sell the Muriate of Potash (MOP) to the farmers.The Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings pending in Calendar Case No.284/2010 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Karaikal.2.The averments made in the petition are that the first accused is a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s.Kumaran Chemicals and it is producing pottasium chlorate, which is used as raw material for manufacturing match boxes and crackers for industrial purpose.Investigation revealed that during the period from 2004 to 2007, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5, all partners of A-1 firm entered into criminal conspiracy to purchase only the subsidized MOP as raw material for the company to wrongfully gain the benefit of subsidy of the Govt. of India in producing Potassium Chlorate. A-1 to A-5 willfully violated Clause 25(1) and (2) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, by sale/use of fertilizer for industrial use without having any licence for the same as required under Clause 8 and 9 of the Order.Having found that the acts of the accused persons, prima facie, constitute offences punishable under Section 120 B r/w 420 I.P.C and Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Clause 25(1) and (2) of the Fertilizerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 (Control) Order, 1985, charge sheet has also been filed in the said case before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal, on 26.08.2010 and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.284 of 2010 and it is pending for trial.The learned counsel for the petitioners herein contends that,(a) the charges against the petitioners are baseless and not supported by any material to warrant any prosecution as against the petitioners.(b) According to the prosecution, from March 2007, the first petitioner firm has been purchasing potassium chlorate from dealers who are licensed to trade for industrial purposes or from M/s. Indian Potash Limited, which is authorized to deal industrial grade potassium chlorate.The sample which was drawn by the respondent on 06-10-http://www.judis.nic.in 6 2009 has also been subjected to test and it has been found that it is industrial grade potassium chlorate and hence, the CBI has also stated that it has no objection for the said material being released to the first petitioner.Merely because, Petitioners 2 to 5 are Partners of the first Petitioner’s firm, they cannot be arrayed as Accused and proceeded against them for the impugned offences.On the other hand, the prosecution submits counter and stated that there is sufficient material, both oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges against the petitioners as alleged in the charge sheet.The statement of witnesses and the documents submitted by the prosecution would prove that the first petitioner firm purchased agricultural grade potassium chlorate from A6 and A7 during the relevant period.The Petitioners/Accused has no receipts or invoices for the raw material from any of the industrial supplier during 2004-http://www.judis.nic.in 7 2007 and hence the charge.The Petitioners 2 to 5 are the partners of the first Petitioner and they were conducting the business of the Partnership firm at the time of the commission of the offence and were also parties to the criminal conspiracy involved in this case.6.The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner mainly contended that there is no evidence of the present petitioners having connection in day-to-day affairs of the first Petitioner firm and therefore, they have no connection with the alleged offence said to have been committed by the Petitioners/Accused punishable under the above Section.Only under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them.Further, it is contended that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner firm utilized the muriate of potash for producing potassium chloride.Hence, the petitioner seeks to entertain the petition.7.Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI, submitted that the Petitioners have failed to submit the authentication to show that they have purchased the raw material namely, muriate of potashhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 only from authorized industrial dealer.On the other hand, the prosecution has submitted documents to show that the Petitioners procured the agricultural grade potassium chlorate from A6 and A7 during the relevant period.On hearing both sides and going through the final report, it is seen that the petitioner is alleged to have procured fertilizer muriate of potash illegally for industrial purpose from A6 & A7 during April 2004 to Feb. 2007 and manufactured potassium chlorate.The Petitioners have not denied that they are not manufacturing potassium chlorate during the relevant period.Admittedly, without raw material they cannot manufacture potassium chlorate.They ought to have purchased the raw material of potassium chloride either from Indian Potash Ltd. or other fertilizer companies who are authorized to sell the potassium chloride for industrial purpose.At this stage, the Petitioner is alleged to have failed to submit any relevant document to show that they purchased potassium chloride from authorized industrial dealer only.On the other hand, the list of documents submitted by the Prosecution along with the charge sheet would reveal that the Petitioner procured potassium chloride from the dealers A6 & A7 whohttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 are allegedly not having any authorization to sell the same for industrial purpose.Thus, it can be found out only during trial on production of evidence, as to whether the charge against the petitioner/accused is made out or not.Under the said circumstances, the relief sought for in the present petition can be granted.”On careful perusal of the material placed before this court and final report filed by the respondent along with the oral and documentary evidence annexed therewith, the same would disclose a prima facie case and availability of sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner to proceed further.Quashing of a charge is an exception to rule of continuous prosecution.In the light of the above said discussion, taking into consideration the materials available on record and documents submitted by the prosecution, at this stage, it appears that there is sufficient ground made out for proceeding with the case against the petitioners and as such, it will not be appropriate to entertain the petition at this stage.The point is answered accordingly.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.19.12.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Vs/nvsrihttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 S.BASKARAN,J., vs/nvsri1.The Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI EOW Chennai.2.The Special Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Order made in Crl.O.P.No.9081 of 2011 19.12.2017http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,995,783 | in brief are that on 18.05.2010, at about 03:00 P.M., some cattles were grazing crop of the complainant.He pushed them out but they entered in the field of the petitioner/Girwarsingh.Annoyed by this, making allegations that the complianant has thrown the cattles in their field intentionally, the petitioners Mehtab, Kalusingh and Girwarsingh hurled abuses asking as to why he had pushed the cattles in their field.They started beating him by wooden sticks.When his son Jagdish tried to intervene, they also beat him up by wooden stick.The police registered crime.On medical examination, a fracture was found to the complainant Ramratan.After usual investigation, the police filed charge-sheet.High Court of M.P. Bench at Indore CRR No.2906/2018The petitioners were charged U/s 323/34, and 325/34 of IPC.They abjured their guilt.After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court held them guilty and punished as stated in para 1 above.He further submitted that both the parties are of the same village, there was a petty dispute between them regarding their agriculture fields, no lethal or deadly weapons were used in the incident, the petitioners were not taken any undue advantage of the situation, they are first offender and have no criminal history, the incident happened all of a sudden only on a petty issue, due to entry of the cattle on their fields.Therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone and fine imposed upon them may be enhanced to a reasonable amount.High Court of M.P. Bench at Indore CRR No.2906/2018With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed off. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,054,523 | Case of the prosecution is that on the day of Nagpanchami,the snake charmer, Prakash who was allegedly carrying some snakes along with his two sons on motorcycle was stopped by two motorcyclists and when he did not stop, they tried to snatch his bag on the running motorcycle, which made the motorcycle of snake charmer disbalanced.He fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in his death.This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioner wants to invoke the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the supplementary chargesheet filed against him under section 304 IPC.After receiving the information, police registered the case against Aniket and Ajay, investigated the same and filed chargesheet on 28.3.2017 without reserving any right for further investigation.The incident was reported to the police and was registered at crime No.127/2017 at Police Station Malharganj, Indore.The police started investigation and filed charge-sheet against Aniket and Ajay.After enquiry, learned SDM concluded that Aniket and Ajay pushed the motorcycle of the deceased, they beat him and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.10240/2018 (Abhishek Hardia Vs.State of M.P.) -1- tried to snatch his bag, thereafter the present applicant Abhishek also reached on the spot and gave a kick on his chest.Snake charmer, Prakash fell down on the spot and died.After receiving this enquiry report, the police again investigated the case and filed supplementary chargesheet on 9.9.2017 against the applicant and trial court has framed the charges against him under section 304 IPC.During investigation, the police found two eye witnesses of the incident, Dinesh and Sanjay.Police recorded their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 31.8.2016 and on 29.3.2017 but on both the occasions, they did not name the applicant as an offender.SDM himself recorded the statement of both these eye witnesses.They did not name the applicant, but surprisingly it is mentioned in para Nos. 2 and 5 of the report of the SDM that there was some scuffle between snake charmer, Aniket and Ajay.Abhishek also came on spot and kicked on the chest of the deceased, resulting in his death.How the SDM got the information about the name of the applicant-Abhishek is not clear from the report.Learned SDM has duly recorded the statement of about 10 witnesses but none of them has named the applicant-Abhishek as assailant.In this fourth statement, for the first time Sanjay named the present applicant stating that he came on another motorcycle and tried to snatch the bag from the snake charmer, but according to him at the same time two HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.10240/2018 (Abhishek Hardia Vs.State of M.P.) -1- police personnel also reached on the spot and they intervened and separated the persons embroiled in the fight.Though he named Abhishek but not alleged that he kicked the deceased.Here also Dinesh did not name the present applicant.This is the only basis for filing chargesheet against the applicant but no explanation is given by the prosecution even after obtaining several opportunities as to what are the grounds except stated hereinabove, to implead the present applicant not named by the witness Sanju thrice and not named by the other eye witness Dinesh in any of his four statements.Admittedly, the applicant was not known to the witnesses and no Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) was conducted during investigation.If the total evidence is that which is discussed hereinabove, then the method and manner adopted by the investigating agency in this case becomes suspicious and such negligent attitude is certainly not appreciable.The prosecution has come with two eye witnesses Sanjay and Dinesh and as stated above, they have never named the applicant.How the SDM came to know the name of the applicant is not clear from its report and how and on what basis the supplementary chargesheet is filed is not clear from the supplementary chargesheet itself.Even at the fourth occasion, Sanjay has only stated that Abhishek reached on the spot and he was trying to snatch the bag from the snake charmer.C No.10240/2018 (Abhishek Hardia Vs. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,092,982 | The instant appeal preferred by the State under Section 377 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent has been contested by him.Briefly stated, the allegations against the respondent in the charge-sheet were that on 16.08.2012 at around 8:30 p.m. after kidnapping the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged around 16 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents from House No.548, Naraina Village, New Delhi, he committed rape upon her at Amritsar.On 16.08.2012, 'X' left her house at 8.30 p.m. to return shortly but did not come back.Her parents searched her at various places but in vain.Finally, her father Crl.A.1200/2013 Page 1 of 5 lodged complaint (Ex.PW-3/A) and the Investigating Officer registered FIR under Section 363 IPC.After the prosecutrix and the appellant returned to Delhi, 'X' was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.Section 366/376 IPC were added.The accused was arrested.Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court.A.1200/2013 Page 1 of 5In her Court statement as PW-2, the prosecutrix exonerated the appellant completely for kidnapping her or to have established physical relations with her against her wishes.She was categorical to say that on 16.08.2012 at around 7/7:30 p.m. she had met the appellant.They Crl.A.1200/2013 Page 2 of 5 both wanted to marry.Thereafter, from the house of her friend Aditi, they hired an auto-rikshaw and went to Bus Terminal.From there, they boarded a bus to Amritsar and reached there the next day at around 11:00 a.m. or 11:30 a.m. They stayed in a hotel for two days where physical relations were established with her consent.On 19.08.2012, she got a call from her father who assured to perform their marriage.On return to Delhi on 20.08.2012, she went to her mausi's house.A.1200/2013 Page 5 of 5The prosecution examined four witnesses including the prosecutrix and her parents.Thereafter, the appellant opted to plead guilty to the charge.After considering the evidence on record and the plea of guilt, the Trial Court by the impugned order convicted the appellant for commission of offences under Section 363/366/376 IPC in Sessions Case No.69/13, arising from the FIR No.129/12 registered at Police Station Naraina.By an order dated 18.02.2013, the appellant was sentenced to undergo sentence for the period already spent by him in custody.Aggrieved by the said orders, State has filed the instant appeal for its enhancement.Her father brought her back and the appellant to the Police Station.In the cross-examination she disclosed that the statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was under pressure from her parents.A.1200/2013 Page 2 of 5Both the appellant and the prosecutrix were in love and wanted to perform marriage.For that purpose in mind, they had gone together to Amritsar where physical relations took place.The prosecutrix was a student of X th standard whereas the appellant aged around 20 years was a student of XI th standard.The appellant suffered conviction as 'X' was below 16 years on the day of incident and her consent for physical relations with the appellant was of no relevance.A.1200/2013 Page 3 of 5Conflicting versions about the exact age of the prosecutrix have emerged on record.Her date of birth (22.02.97) in school record was admittedly on the basis of an affidavit furnished by her father.Admittedly, no birth certificate of the prosecutrix showing her exact age was produced at the time of seeking her admission in the said school.In the document (Ex.PW2/D1), 'X' claimed that she was of 18 years as she had failed in VIIIth and Xth standards.PW-3 (Subodh Kumar), her father, did not give her exact age in the complaint (Ex.PW-3/A).The exact age of the prosecutrix on the basis of cogent material has not been established to conclude that she was definitely below 16 years on the day of incident.The Trial Court while awarding lesser sentence has noted adequate and special reasons.The appellant aged around 20 years had remained in custody for about six months; he was a student of XIth standard.His further detention in jail with other criminals was to affect his career adversely. 'X' herself was a consenting party throughout.A.1200/2013 Page 4 of 5 where she had claimed to have attained majority and expressed her willingness to marry the appellant.The Trial Court apparently was of the view that the appellant's release from custody would enable both lovers to unite together.In Ravinder vs.State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2015 SC 1369, the Supreme Court held that under proviso to Section 376 (2) IPC, the legislature has empowered the Court to award lesser sentence where 'adequate and special reasons' exist.In the said case after taking into consideration various circumstances whereby the prosecutrix and the accused had entered into a compromise and the prosecutrix did not want to proceed with the case against the accused and wanted it to close, lenient view was taken and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant therein.A.1200/2013 Page 4 of 5In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded by the Trial Court.The appeal is dismissed.Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith along with the copy of the order.Intimation be sent to Superintendent Jail also.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 24, 2015/sa Crl.A.1200/2013 Page 5 of 5 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,162,733 | Heard with the aid of case diary.This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as the applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.47/2017 registered at Police Station Barela Distt-Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 294, 506, 354, 323, 34 of I.P.C.As per prosecution story, on 30.01.2017, complainant lodged the report at Police Station Barela, Distt-Jabalpur averring that on 31.01.2017 when she was returning from fair (Mela) near Samadhi Road, on the way, applicants along with another co-accused came in a Skoda Car and abused her.Applicant Musahid Ali caught her hand and dragged her inside the car.When she tried to get off the car, the accused tried to tear off her clothes and both the applicants assaulted her.They also threatened to kill her.On that report police registered crime No.47/17 for the offences punishable under Section 354, 354B, 323, 506, 34 of IPC against applicant.The applicants are apprehend their arrest in the crime.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent.They have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the offence.complainant is indulged in prostitution.Earlier police also registered crime No. 733/16 against the complainant and others in this regard.Complainant has lodged false report to blackmail applicants.Custodial interrogations of applicants are not required.In the event of arrest, their reputation will be ruined.So they be released on anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.So they not be released on anticipatory bail.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and allegations levelled against the applicants in the FIR, in the considered opinion of this court, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, therefore, the application is rejected.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,212,162 | As against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge-I dealing with the MCOP cases), at Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.651 of 2010, dated 13.03.2014, the Insurance Company has come out with an Appeal in C.M.A.No.65 of 2015, questioning the liability fixed on the owner of the vehicle, and to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner of the vehicle and to recover the same from him.2.The facts leading to the filing of the Claim Petition are as follows:-On 17.12.2018, at about 11.00 Hrs., when the 1 st Respondent herein, was crossing the Road at K.H.Road, near Noor Hotel from North to South, the 2nd Respondent’s vehicle, namely HERO HONDA SPLENDER , bearing Registration No.TN 02 E 3404 came from the East – West direction very rashly and negligently and hit the 1st Respondent herein, resultantly he felt unconscious and sustained grievous injuries.Further, the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent act of the vehicle by its rider.The 2nd Respondent herein, being the owner, and the Appellant herein, being the Insurer of the Motor-cycle,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 both are jointly and severally liable to-pay the compensation.3.The Claim Petition was opposed by the Appellant herein/Insurance Company, contending that the accident was caused by the careless and negligent act of the Claimant and the 2nd Respondent herein,/ the Claimant is called upon for strict proof of the allegations relating to the nature of injury, period of treatment, loss of income, medical expenses incurred, transportation charges, extra nourishment, disability and loss occurred to him, the Claimant and the 2nd Respondent herein, alone are responsible for the accident and the claims made under various ‘Heads’ by way of compensation are excessive.It is further contended that the second respondent herein allowed one M. Ranjith, son of Mahendran residing at No.20/35A, Ramanathan Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai-23, to ride the vehicle without driving license and he was a minor at the time of accident ie.,on 17.12.2008 and dashed against the Claimant who sustained injuries.Furthermore, as the second respondent allowed the minor to ride his own vehicle who was not possessing valid driving license and caused injuries to the claimant and the second respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy, he alone is responsible to pay the compensation to the claimant and sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.4.The 2nd Respondent herein, remained absent and was set ex- parte for not contesting the Claim Petition.5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the Claimant, two witnesses were examined and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 were marked.On the side of the Insurance Company/Appellant herein, two witnesses were examined, and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 were marked.6.The Tribunal, after taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidences adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the rider of the motor-cycle was solely responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- with interest @http://www.judis.nic.in 5 7.5% p.a.from the date of numbering of petition, i.e., 03.03.2010, with cost.Further, the Tribunal directed that the Insurance Company/Appellant herein, to pay the compensation and recover the same from the 2nd Respondent herein.7.I heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent/Claimant.The Award of the Tribunal below is fair and just and sought for dismissal of the Appeal.10.The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Claimant has also brought to the notice of this Court that in the Judgment reported in 2011 (1) TNMAC 641 (SC) and the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2018 (3) SCC 208 to the effect that even the vehicle driven by a Minor,who does not possess valid authorisation caused the accident due to rash and negligent act, and even the insurer succeeds in establishing its defense that the rider of the vehicle was not qualified to ride and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the Tribunal or the Court can direct Insurance Company to pay the Award amount and in turn, recover the same from the owner of the motor-cycle.In the said decisions, it was held that even if the accident caused by a Minor who was not authorized to drive the vehicle, the Insurance Company was held liable to satisfy the Award and to recover the amount from the owner of the motor-cycle.Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for the accident and the Appellant being the Insurer of the subject vehicle is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, does not call for any interference with regard to negligence and liability.13.The Tribunal awarded the compensation towards various heads which are as follows:1.Permanent Disability at 50% x Rs.2000 Rs.1,00,000http://www.judis.nic.in 10Loss of income at Rs.4500 x 6 months Rs. 27,000Transportation charges Rs. 10,000Extra-nourishment Rs. 15,000Medical expenses Rs. 10,000Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000 TOTAL Rs. 1,87,00014.The Tribunal below, on perusal of the pleadings of respective parties, oral and documentary evidences adduced in the case, and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motor-cycle, bearing Registration No. TN 02 E 3404, which was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company and the rider of the motor-cycle alone is solely responsible for the same and awarded just compensation.The Tribunal below rightly held that the Second Respondent herein being the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation and held that the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the Claimant and is entitled to recover the same from the Second Respondent herein.In the event of such deposit, the Claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire sum without there being a formal application for permission.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,761,917 | 4.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that PW1 Alphonsal is the sister of the appellants and the appellants are native of Mulluvilai Village.PW1 was married to the deceased Wilson twenty years prior to the occurrence and after the marriage they lived in the village of the deceased and thereafter, they sold the property and settled down at Mulluvilai Village near the house of the appellants.The appellants / accused with an intention to vacate the deceased from the village, created problems and assaulted the deceased on 10.04.2004 at about 5.00pm.In the course of the incident, Alphonsal [PW1] wife of the deceased has also sustained injury and PW2 and PW3 daughters of the deceased have also witnessed the occurrence.PW1 along with deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Arumanai by her relative one Devaraj and the Doctor [PW11] treated PW1 and referred her to Kanyakumari Medical College Hospital for further treatment.The deceased was reported dead.On the intimation from the Government Hospital, the Sub Inspector 3/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 of Police, Janaki [PW15] went to the Government Hospital, Arumanai at about 7.30 pm on 10.04.2004 and recorded the statement from PW1 in ExP1, returned to Arumanai Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 449, 302 and 307 IPC.One Shanmugamani, Inspector of Police, Thiruvettaru Police Station, additional charge of Arumanai Police station and another Inspector of Police one Jacob have conducted investigation in this case.But, unfortunately both of the aforesaid Inspectors of Police were no more during the trial.Therefore, the investigation conducted in this case was explained by Janaki [PW15], Sub Inspector of Police, who is aware of the handwriting of those Inspectors of Police.5.According to PW15, the Inspector Shanmugamani, in charge Inspector at that time conducted an inquest, visited the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar [ExP6] and rough sketch [ExP21] in this case.This appeal is filed as against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in S.C.No.29 of 2005 by 1/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.2.The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.29 of 2005, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil and the accused No.1 was tried for the commission of offence under Sections 449, 302, 307 r/w 34 IPC and accused No.2 was tried for the commission of offence under Sections 449, 302 r/w 34, 307 and 324 IPC and in conclusion of the trial, the trial Court by judgment dated 10.02.2005, convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants as follows:Accused Section Sentence of Fine amount of Law imprisonment Accused 449 Rigorous Rs.5,000/- default, No.1 IPC imprisonment six months rigorous for three years imprisonment 304 Part Rigorous Rs.5,000/- default, I IPC imprisonment three years for ten years rigorous imprisonment Accused 449 IPC Rigorous Rs.5,000/- default, No.2 imprisonment six months rigorous for three years imprisonment 307 IPC Rigorous Rs.25,000/-Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed this present criminal appeal.The arrest was effected by the Inspector of Police Jacob on 14.04.2004 and the final report was filed by the Inspector of Police on 04.06.2004 before the learned Judicial 4/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 Magistrate No.Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.29 of 2005 and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.6.During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined, 25 documents were marked and 7 material objects were produced.7.The eye witnesses PW1 to PW3 are wife and daughters of the deceased respectively.Among them, eye witness PW1 is an injured witness; PW4 is the neighbour, who took the deceased to the Government Hospital at Arumanai and PW6 and PW8 are the witnesses for the arrest and recovery of MO1 and MO2 from the accused; PW9 is the mahazar witness for the observation mahazar [ExP6], rough sketch [ExP7] and the sample earths [MO6 and MO7]; PW11 is the Doctor, who treated PW1 and also conducted the postmortem of the deceased; PW15 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case in this case.5/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 20158.The incriminating materials were placed before the accused under Section 313 CrPC and the accused had denied the same, however, no witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the accused.But they stated before the trial Court that the deceased was moving close with one Seenu, a drunkard and also took him to his house.Since the deceased is having four unmarried daughters, the accused objected to for entertaining the said Seenu in the deceased's house and due to which, the deceased had assaulted them on the date of occurrence.The accused have also sustained injuries in this case and PW11 is the Doctor, who treated them at Government Hospital at Arumanai and he also issued wound certificates ExP14 and ExP15 for the injuries sustained by accused No.1 and accused No.2 respectively.9.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found these appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.As against the conviction and sentence imposed, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.6/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 201510.Heard Mr.Muthu Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for appellant No.2/ accused No.2 and Mr. Venkatesan, learned Counsel appearing for appellant No.1/accused No.1 and Mr.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (CrlSide) appearing for the State.11.The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the presence of Seenu at the time of occurrence in the occurrence place and the injuries sustained by the said Seenu were deliberately omitted by the prosecution in the complaint ExP1 itself.It is further submitted that as per the evidence of the Doctor [PW11], the deceased could not have caused any injuries to the accused, after the injury sustained by him and therefore, it is clear that the deceased is the aggressor.12.According to the learned Counsel, PW2 has deposed that the Police came to her house and recorded a statement from her, which was also attested by her uncle Rajan and this complaint is deliberately suppressed by the prosecution and the said Rajan has also not been examined.7/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 201513.The learned Counsel would further submit that the Sub Inspector of Police Janaki, who registered the FIR in this case has issued the passport [ExP18] to the Head Constable [PW14], wherein she has mentioned the case as Crime No.103 of 2004 under Section 174 CrPC.Therefore, this is the first information about the incident and there is no case registered under Section 302 IPC at the first instance.14.The learned Counsel submitted that the arrest and recovery was made on 14.04.2004, whereas, the Doctor [PW11] in his evidence admitted that the weapons MO.1 and MO.2 were shown to him by the Investigation Officer, on questioning the possibility of the injury on 11.04.2004 itself.Further, PW1 also stated in her evidence that the weapons were shown to her.Therefore, the arrest and recovery as projected by the prosecution is found to be false.He further submitted that both the accused sustained seven injuries on their heads.These injuries sustained by the accused were not explained by the prosecution.But the prosecution has concocted in ExP1 8/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 complaint that the deceased assaulted the accused with a Vettu Kathi.But this weapon said to have been used by the deceased, has not been recovered by the prosecution and placed before the Court.Even there are contradictions between the evidence of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the place from where the weapon was taken by the the deceased.16.According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Doctor [PW11] during the cross examination deposed that it is not possible for the deceased to cause injuries on the accused, after suffering the injuries mentioned in the postmortem certificate.The accused are the aggressors in this case and the accused have also admitted in their statement under Section 313 CrpC about the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.19.With regard to the injuries sustained by the accused, the learned Government Advocate submitted that admittedly both the accused have sustained injuries and 10/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 the same was also admitted by PW 1 to PW3 and the Doctor [PW11] also deposed both the accused were brought to the hospital and on examination, the Doctor [PW11] has opined that the injuries sustained by the accused are simple in nature.He also relied on the decision in the case, Amar Malla v. State of Tripura, (2002) 7 SCC 91, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:"9...From the nature of injuries said to have been received by these accused persons, it would appear that the same were simple and minor ones.It is well settled that merely because the prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the accused persons, ipso facto the same cannot be taken to be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case, especially when the same has been supported by eyewitnesses, including injured ones as well, and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence as well as objective finding of the investigating officer."http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015One is as important as the other.this conduct of the Investigating Officer or other hostile witnesses cannot be a ground for discarding the evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 whose presence on the spot is established beyond reasonable doubt.They have suffered injuries and their evidence is corroborated 19/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.In any case, Investigating Officer is not at all material witness for the purpose of establishing whether accused or the complainant party was the aggressor.Not only that, accused have examined the defence witnesses for establishing their say.Hence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be a ground for holding that injured witnesses should not be believed.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the appeal.28.Admittedly, the appellants are brothers and also brothers of PW1 Alphonsal.PW1 and the deceased are having four daughters namely, PW2, PW3 and two others.These appellants raised certain objections with regard to 20/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 PW1 family residing at Mulluvilai Village, went to the house of the deceased on 10.04.2004 around 5.00pm with weapons and also assaulted the deceased.When PW1 has attempted to prevent the attack, she also suffered injury, her deceased husband also attacked the accused and on hearing the noise, when the neighbours rushed to their house, the appellants/accused fled away from the place of the occurrence with the weapons.He also conducted autopsy for the deceased Wilson.As per the postmortem certificate, the deceased died to haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him on his vital organs.30.PW1, PW2 and PW3 eye witnesses to the occurrence have stated about the manner of the occurrence and among them, PW1 is an injured eye witness.The accused/appellants also admitted their presence in the place of occurrence, when they were questioned under 21/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 Section 313 CrPC and according to them, the deceased was moving closely with one Seenu and the said Seenu visited the house of the deceased often.Since PW1 and the deceased are having four unmarried daughters, the accused being the maternal uncles, objected to the visit of the said Seenu.On the date of occurrence also the said Seenu was available in the house of the deceased and he also sustained injuries in the course of the incident.The Doctor [PW11] has also examined the said Seenu, who was brought along with the deceased.Though the said Seenu is an injured eye witness in this case, he was not examined by the prosecution.Moreover, his presence at the place of occurrence and that he also sustained injury, during the course of incident are not mentioned in the complaint [ExP1] and therefore, there is an attempt made by the the prosecution to suppress the presence of the said Seenu in the place of occurrence.31.Apart from the deceased and PW1, the accused have also sustained injuries.The Doctor [PW11], who treated PW1, has also treated the accused, but on 14.04.2004 at about 12.30pm.These appellants /accused 22/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 were produced before the Doctor [PW11] by the Head Constable 1350 and 1026 of Arumanai Poilce Station with a memo.The Doctor [PW11] noted down the following injuries from the accused No.1 Christudhas as recorded in ExP14:“1.An infected incised injury of size 4 cm X 1.5 cm X 1 cm present in the right side of forehead.Oblique in direction surrounding tissue edematous, Reddish.2.An infected incised injury of size 2cm X 5 cm X 05.cm in the left side occipital area of scalp.Oblique in direction.2.An infected incised injury of size 2cm X 1cm X 1cm in the left side of parietal area of scalp.Oblique in direction.Surrounding tissue and the wound edeatous, Reddish colour.3.An infected incised injury of size 2 cm X 1cm X.5cm in the right parietal area of scalp.Oblique in direction.The wound and 23/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 surrounding tissue edematous and Reddish colour.4.An infected incised injury of size 2cm X 1cmX1cm behind the right ear.Oblique in direction surrounding tissue and wound edematous and Reddish colour.5.An dried infected abrasion of size 4cm X 2cm present in the outer aspect of lower part of left forearm.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 Investigation Officer examined the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence.The Investigation Officer has also recovered the earth with and without blood from the place of occurrence in the presence of PW9 in ExP7, but this weapon said to have been used by the deceased to assault the accused, has not been recovered from the place of occurrence.34.The Doctor [PW11], who conducted autopsy admitted in his evidence that the injury sustained by the deceased is grievous in nature and after sustaining such an injury, the deceased could not have caused the injury on the accused as alleged by the prosecution.This evidence of the Doctor [PW11] demolishes the theory of the prosecution that the accused are the aggressors in this case.35.On receipt of the intimation from the 25/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 Government Hospital, Arumanai Police Station, the Sub Inspector of Police [PW15] went to the said Government Hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 on 10.04.2014 at about 7.30pm, returned to Arumanai Police Station and registered the case in Crime No.103 of 2004 at 8.30pm.The Sub Inspector of Police [PW15] has also issued a passport [EXP18] to the Constable [PW14] to take care of the corpus lying in the mortuary at the Government Hospital and completed the process of the postmortem.This ExP18 was issued by Janaki, Sub Inspector of Police of Arumanai Police Station, wherein it is mentioned as follows “10/04/2004 20/30 ePh; cld; g[wg;gl;L brd;W mUkid P.S.Crime No. 103/04 u/s 174 CrPC tHf;fpy; ,we;J nghd tpy;rd; vd;gtuJ cliy gpnuj ghpnrhjid mjpfhhpahf mUkid kUj;Jtkidapy; Koj;J cj;ju[[go ele;J tut[k;/ Sd/- XXXX / 10.04.2004 Sub Inspector of Police, Arumanai PS, Kanniyakumari District.”36.The learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded 26/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 that the early information in this case is suspicious death and later, as an afterthought, the case has been foisted as against these appellants, as it is a case of murder.But, this complaint, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, has been suppressed by the prosecution and the said Rajan, who signed in that statement, was also not examined by the prosecution.37.Similarly, the deceased and PW1 were taken to the hospital by their relative one Devaraj, he was also not examined by the prosecution.The said Devaraj is also an attestor to the complaint [ExP1].Though the occurrence has taken place at about 5.00pm, and the place of occurrence is also surrounded by several houses, no independent witness near the place of occurrence was examined in this case.27/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015But according to the Doctor [PW11], who treated PW1 that the injury No.1 and 2 sustained by PW1 are different in nature and could have been caused by different weapons and therefore, there is contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence.39.These appellants/accused are said to have been arrested on 14.04.2004 at about 8.00am in the presence of PW6 and PW8 and pursuant to their confession statements, the weapon MOs.1 and 2 were recovered under a cover of mahazar ExP4 and ExP5 respectively.But the Doctor [PW11], who conducted the autopsy admitted in his evidence that the Inspector of Police has shown the weapons MO.1 and MO. 2 on the date of postmortem on 11.04.2014 itself and therefore, the weapons MOs.1 and 2 were very much available with the Investigation Officer on the date of postmortem on 11.04.2014 itself.This evidence of the Doctor [PW11] is also strengthened by the evidence of PW1 that on the next day at about 1.00pm, Police came to her 28/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.40.PW6 and PW 8 are the witnesses to the arrest of the accused and recovery.According to PW6, the accused were apprehended at Devicode Junction in Kerala.According to him, it is a bus stop, where the accused were standing in front of a petty shop and the respondent Police went in an Ambassador car and apprehended them and recorded their statement in front of that petty shop.According to PW8 the other recovery witness, it is not a bus stop, where the accused were arrested and they went in a Police van and the statement was recorded inside the van and therefore, there are material contradictions between the evidence of PW6 and PW8 with regard to the place of arrest, the vehicle used and the manner in which, the statement was recorded from the accused.Out of those witnesses, PW6 is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased Wilson.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 Officer, who effected the arrest could not be examined during the trial.The investigation was conducted by one Shanmugamani, Inspector of Police and one Jacob another Inspector of Police, they both died during the trial and therefore, they could not be examined during the trial.42.The arrest was effected by the Inspector of Police Jacob.But, PW15 who was examined on the role played by the Inspector of Police Jacob, was not aware of the period the Inspector of Police Jacob served in Arumanai Police Station.In the absence of the Investigation Officer, who effected the arrest in this case, coupled with the contradictions between the arrest and recovery witnesses PW6 and PW8 and also based on the evidence of PW11 Postmortem Doctor and PW1 the defacto complainant, the arrest and recovery in this case have not been proved by the prosecution.43.As discussed above, the genesis to the case itself is doubtful.At the same time, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR has also issued a passport to the 30/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 Head Constable [PW14] in ExP18, wherein it is mentioned as Crime No.103 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Section 174 CrPC, the arrest and recovery has not been established by the prosecution and there are contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence and therefore it is not safe to sustain the conviction as against these appellants.44.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, vide impugned judgment dated 10.02.2015, in S.C.No.29 of 2005 are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded.The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, unless their custody is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.31/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 32/33http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 B.PUGALENDHI, J., dsk Crl.A(MD)No.111 of 2015 20.07.2020 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,764,130 | Heard on I.A. No.14213/11, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay preferring this appeal.As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 12 days.Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26/04/11 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.368/10, whereby respondent no. 2 Monu alias Pradeep Rajak has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Shakunbai lodged a report that on 26/03/2010 prosecutrix had gone to Bhitoni for appearing in an examination.When in the evening she did not return, then on 27/03/2010 missing report was lodged at police station Shahpura on which crime No. 06/2010 was registered.During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered, her statement was recorded, crime was registered against respondent no.2 and after investigation charge-sheet was filed.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the trial Court was perused.After taking into consideration the entire evidence on record , it was found by the trial Court that prosecution had deliberately suppressed the documents regarding age of the prosecutrix.As per the evidence of Dr. Bhavna Mishra (PW9), who had examined the prosecutrix, she was 17 year old.To confirm her age, she had advised for ossification test but the prosecution did not get the same conducted.In such circumstances, it was held by the trial Court that the prosecutrix was not below 18 years of age.Trial Court also found that as per the evidence of Ku.Diksha (PW2), Ku.Roshni (PW3), Shakun Bai (PW5) and maternal uncle of prosecutrix Ramesh Kumar (PW4), the prosecutrix was seen going on a Motorcycle with respondent no.2 from a busy thoroughfare without offering any resistance.It was also found from the cross- examination of prosecutrix (PW1) that she had extensively traveled with respondent no.2 to Nagpurgaon and Lahatgaon at her own accord and had not disclosed about the incident to anybody despite having sufficient opportunity.Besides this, medical evidence revealed that the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse and no external or internal injury was noticed on her body.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,773,542 | ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.There are certain special features in this case which need to be recorded in order to decide this matter.The Petitioner was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, Gujarat.In 2007, Nirmala Bai, the mother of the deceased, filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.115 of 2007, before this Court praying for an inquiry into the incident by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), and while the same was pending, the prosecution, upon completion of investigation, added Sections 302, 364, 307, 333, 334, 427, 365, 368, 193, 197, 201, 120-B, 471 read with Section 34 I.P.C., together with Section 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, as also Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, against 12 police officers, including the Petitioner.One of the strange features of this case, therefore, is that in the case which was registered against the victim, 12 police officers, including the Petitioner, came to be arraigned as accused in what was alleged to be a fake encounter.However, the fact remains that F.I.R. No.115 of 2006 was lodged with the Ambaji Police Station on 28th December, 2006, resulting in the arrest of the Petitioner by the C.I.D. crime, on 3rd May, 2010, and the filing of charge-sheet on 30th July, 2010, within 90 days of his arrest.While considering the writ petition filed by the mother of the deceased (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.115 of 2007), this Court, by its judgment and order 8th April, 2011, refused to accept the investigation conducted and completed by the State C.I.D. and directed as follows :In view of the above discussion, the Police Authorities of the Gujarat State are directed to handover all the records of the present case to the CBI within two weeks from this date and the CBI shall investigate all aspects of the case relating to the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati and file a report to the concerned court/special court having jurisdiction within a period of six months from the date of taking over of the investigation from the state Police Authorities.We also direct the Police Authorities of the state of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh to cooperate with the CBI Authorities in conducting the investigation.”We have intentionally quoted the aforesaid direction of this Court, since the main plank of the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner in this Special Leave Petition depends on an interpretation thereof.On 31st May, 2011, the C.B.I. applied before the Court of Sessions Judge Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat, in Sessions Case No.58 of 2010, inter alia, for the following directions :“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that keeping in view the orders dated 08.04.2011 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the articles submitted by the Gujarat Police as per the list enclosed (as desired by this Hon’ble Court) along with the Charge Sheet No.50/2010 dated 30.07.2010 vide CC No.1439/10 dated 30.07.2010 and supplementary Charge Sheets in case FIR No.115/2006 dated 28.12.2006 of PS Ambaji, District Banaskantha may be released and handed over to the CBI for the purpose of fresh investigation.It is further prayed that in the light of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, no further proceeding may be allowed in the case till the investigation of CBI is finalized.And for this the applicant shall ever pray.”Since the investigation was not completed and the Petitioner had been in custody for a long time, an application for bail was moved on his behalf in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Palanpur, on 16th August, 2011, who rejected the same on the ground that the application ought to have been moved before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta, and not before the Sessions Court.The Petitioner then moved the Gujarat High Court by way of Special Criminal Application No.2698 of 2011, for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7th October, 2011, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, rejecting his prayer for bail.Another application for regular bail, being Criminal Misc.Application No.04 of 2012, was also filed on behalf of the Petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Palanpur, on 2nd January, 2012, on the limited ground of delay in the trial.On 9th April, 2012, the Petitioner’s Criminal Misc.Application No.4729 of 2012, challenging the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge dated 27th February, 2012, was dismissed by the High Court.It is against the said order that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.Mr. Sushil Kumar made it clear that he was basing his submissions mainly on the ground available under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the fact that the trial had been delayed for a long period during which the Petitioner has remained in custody.Mr. Tankha pointed out that it was also significant that the prayer for default bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. had been made on behalf of the Petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No.115 of 2006, of Ambaji Police Station dated 28th December, 2006, and not in connection with F.I.R. No.RC-3(S)/2011/Mumbai dated 9th April, 2011, filed by the C.B.I.Mr. Tankha, therefore, contended that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner was entirely misconceived and was liable to be dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,776,927 | Prosecution story in short is that accused persons Firoz Khan, Ruda Khan alias Luda Khan and Lakhan Kushwah were accused of committing murder of Baijad son of Shahzad Khan in the intervening night of 21st-22 nd January, 2006 at the house of Lakhan Kushwah alongwith absconding co-accused Chaiya Khan and Shekhu alias Iqabal and further with an intention to remove the evidence, they had thrown the dead body of deceased Baijad on the plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger.They were charged under the provisions of Section 302 in the alternative under Section 302/34 in the alternative under Sections 302/149, 148, 201 of IPC and Section 25 (1) (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act.On 22.01.2006, PW16 Kuldeep Singh Senger saw a person lying in his plot boundary situated at Gol Pahadiya behind Ganesh Temple adjacent to Raja Gas Godown when he had called his neighbourers.They discovered that the body was lying in a blood pool and there were several stab wounds of a knife on the chest, stomach and region of the ear.The body was medium built, single frame having whitish colour and aged about 35 years.Body was not recognized immediately, but when trail of blood was traced, then it was traced upto the 3 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 house of Lakhan Kushwah.Lakhan Kushwah was not found at his residence, but his room was open and blood stains were found in his room.On the basis of such exploration, Kuldeep Singh Senger (PW16) alongwith his neighbourer Prem Singh Parmar had lodged a report at 08.45 A.M. at Police Station Janakganj, which is Ex.Station House Officer, Janakganj, Ravi Garg (PW17) started investigation on the same day and at about 10.40 AM prepared spot map (Ex.P/2) in front of Kuldeep Singh Senger (PW16) and Prem Singh Parmar (PW1).Blood spots were traced, blood stain soil and knitting rope of the Cot containing blood stains were sealed and seizure memo (Ex.P/5) was prepared.Another spot map, where the dead body was lying, was prepared as Ex.Naksha Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/4 in front of Kuldeep Singh Singer (PW16) and his neighbourers.Fourteen wounds were found on the dead body in the stomach and chest region caused by sharp cutting weapon.On the basis of examination of the body because of circumcision of the private part, it was reported to be that of a Muslim gentleman.Statements of mother of the deceased Anisa Begum (PW2), brother Rinku (PW3), brother-in-law Ishaq Khan (PW14) were recorded, which reveal that on 21.01.2006 at about 5.00 PM, Firoz Khan, Ruda Khan and Chaiya Khan had taken the deceased with them and thereafter on 23.01.2006, the dead body of the deceased was found.PW2 Anisa Begum revealed in her police case diary statement that her son had informed her about his dispute with the accused party.FIR (Ex.P/13) was recorded against unknown persons at the instance of Kuldeep Singh Senger (PW16) who is a Primary 8 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 School Teacher and has mentioned in his statement that when he noticed a body on his plot, he had given intimation to the neighbourers, and several people had collected at the place, he had telephoned the Police, the Police had come on the scene of occurrence, then at the insistence of the Police, he had gone to the Police Station alongwith his uncle Prem Singh and FIR (Ex.P/13) was recorded.This witness was declared hostile and he clearly deposed that he did not know Lakhan Kushwah.He denied his case diary statement.He submitted that he had not seen the person whose dead body was lying on the vacant plot.He denied that they had seen any trail of blood from the place where the body was lying to nobody's house.He also 9 Cri.On the same day at about 11.00 AM, there was verbal duel between Baijad and Chaiya.Then she submitted that on the same day at about 4.00 PM on Saturday, first Ruda visited her house, then Firoz came to call Baijad and they had informed Baijad that Chaiya is calling him.Then Baijad had gone with them.He had returned back about 6.00 PM and had again left saying that his friends are sitting at Chungi and he is going to his maternal uncle Munna's place.He did not return in the night and she was waiting for him.She thought that since Baijad had gone to her maternal uncle's place, therefore, he must have stayed there and he will come back.He further admitted that when his brother-in-law had read news about death of his brother, then only he had come to know that since when his brother was missing from the house.He further admitted that he had seen his brother going alongwith the accused persons from Chungi because he works at Chungi.On the contrary, he has mentioned in his examination-in-chief that three persons had taken his brother Baijad in a taxi from his residence.He has further denied that he had not given this intimation to the Police that last he had seen his brother going alongwith the accused from Chungi.Thus, this story of PW3 Rinku that he had seen his brother going in a taxi with the accused persons at Chungi from his own shop is an improvisation from the statement recorded in Ex.He has admitted in his cross-examination that when he had gone alongwith Janakganj Police to see the dead body, he had not informed the Police that his brother was, for the last time, taken by the accused persons.He has admitted that newspaper publication was made in relation to an unknown body.He had recorded thereafter statements of Devendra Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Son of Laxmi Narayan, Smt. Sadhna Singh Parmar, Jugal Kishore, Vinod Kumar, Smt. Ganga Bai Batham and Kuldeep Singh Senger as they were given to the Police.He admitted that he gathered information about Ruda 14 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 from an informant whose name is not known to him and in regard to whom he had not prepared any Panchnama.Learned Sessions Court has dealt with different aspects of circumstantial evidence and has recorded a finding that the statements of PW2 Anisa Begum, PW3 Rinku and PW14 Ishaq Khan though have contradictions, but looking to their job profile and the fact that they belong to lower strata of the society, such contradictions cannot be ignored.In fact, all the 12 aspects to connect the accused persons with the crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence, namely, accused persons having taken Baijad on 21.01.2006, dispute of Baijad with them, recovery of blood soaked body from the plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger, blood trail from the house of Lakhan Kushwah to that of plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger, availability of blood stains in the room of Lakhan and on the Cot of Lakhan and the corroboration of blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found in the house of Lakhan and in the Cot found in the house of Lakhan, absconding act of Firoz, matching of blood group of the blood stains found on the body of the deceased and one recovered from the room and Cot in the room of Lakhan and recovery of weapons from Ruda, Firoz and Lakhan on their identification, at the most points out guilt of Lakhan against whom the appeal has already been withdrawn.The fact of the matter is that PW2 Anisa Begum has categorically mentioned that her son was taken by Firoz and Ruda and thereafter he had returned back home and thereafter had left the home on his own at 6.00 PM to visit his maternal uncle Munna.Learned Sessions Judge has also not taken into consideration any fact of the blood stains on the weapons 15 Cri.(Delivered on 3rd April, 2018) Per Vivek Agarwal, J.These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants under the provisions of Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') after being convicted by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior, in Sessions Case No.104/2006 vide judgment dated 14.03.2007 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing them for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-.They have also been convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced for 07 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine for each of the offences separately, they were to undergo two years rigorous 2 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 imprisonment.On 24.03.2018, when both these appeals have been heard, another connected Criminal Appeal No.299/2007 filed on behalf of accused Lakhan Kushwah Son of Balkishan Kushwah has been withdrawn by his counsel and the same has been dismissed by recording separate ordersheet as withdrawn.Therefore, this order deals with only two criminal appeals respectively filed by Ruda Khan alias Luda Khan son of Shri Nanhe Khan and Firoz Khan son of Shri Ahmed Khan.Body was sent for post-mortem to identify the person, whose body was found, photograph (Ex.P/9) was taken and was published in the newspaper.On 23.01.2006, the dead body was identified by the paternal uncle of deceased Sher Khan as that of Baijad Khan son of Shahzad Khan, aged about 25 years.Post-mortem report (Ex.P/33) was obtained, which disclosed 19 ante-mortem wounds on the body and attributed shock and excessive loss of 4 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 blood as the cause of death, which was termed to be homicidal.Arms, namely, katar and knife were recovered on their identification vide Ex.P/23 and Ex.P/24 respectively and similarly on 02.02.2006, accused Lakhan Kushwah was arrested and on his identification, a knife in the shape of Katar was recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P/22).After making such recovery, reports (Exs.P/31 and 32) were obtained from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory.As per Ex.P/31, no poison was found in the viscera of the deceased.As per report (Ex.P/32), human blood was found on the shoes and clothes of the deceased from E-1 to E-6 grouping of which was AB.Similarly, blood group of the stains found on the rope of the Cot and blood stains soil recovered from the house of Lakhan Kushwah was also found to be of blood group AB.It was also reported that except Article-B soil, blood stains were found on the clothes and weapons of Firoz and Ruda so also on Lakhan, but such marks were disintegrated and blood was insufficient on the clothes of Firoz and Ruda so that grouping could not be done.After investigation, chargesheet was filed.It has been further held that as far as recovery of clothes and weapon is concerned, the report of FSL did not show matching of the blood group on the clothes of the accused and the weapon so recovered from the accused with that of the deceased and the evidence of blood group is not conclusive to connect the blood stains with the deceased.In absence of such evidence, this could not be a circumstance, on the basis of which any inference can be drawn.In his cross-examination, he has categorically mentioned that around 200-250 people had accumulated at the scene of crime; when the Police had arrived, the Police had obtained signatures on several blank papers and the Police had not read over anything to him and had written words on their own.Nearly after half an hour, the Police had come when the Police had sent him to the Police Station for lodging of FIR.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 admitted that certain blank papers were signed in the Police Station.PW2 Smt. Anisa Begum deposed that she had 05 children, out of which one was Baijad Khan, who has been murdered.She deposed that at about 6.00 AM, Chaiya and Firoz had visited her house to call Baijad.She further identified Firoz and Ruda alias Luda and deposed that they had hurled abuses at her residence and threatened that if money is demanded, then they shall kill Baijad.She had visited the house of Firoz on 2-3 occasions, but his mother informed her that Firoz was out to Dabra.Then she read about dead body in the newspaper and had gone to see the dead body, where she identified the dead body.She further submitted that her son Baijad has been murdered by Chaiya, Firoz and Shekhu because they had threatened him.She admitted that the news was published in the newspaper after his murder that he was involved in many cases of burglary at Jaipur and Gwalior, but submitted that this news was published by Shekhu and Chaiya.She admitted her relationship with Ruda 10 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 that he is maternal nephew of her brother-in-law Sher Khan.She admitted that her son had come back in the evening at 6.00 PM.She further admitted that her son was sentenced for 10 years' imprisonment in a case under Section 307 of IPC.Rinku (PW3), brother of Baijad, deposed that in the evening Firoz, Ruda and Chaiya had taken Baijad in a taxi and thereafter his brother never returned back.This is contradictory to the statements given by PW2 Anisa Begum, the mother of Baijad.He has admitted that Luda is maternal nephew of his paternal uncle Sher Khan (PW12).There was no dispute with Luda.In fact, the dispute was with Chaiya.He has also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no enmity with Firoz and he was visiting their house regularly.No.285/2007 & 478/2007PW10 and PW15 namely, Guddu alias Dinesh and Devendra Pachori are witnesses of the seizure.PW10 Guddu has been declared hostile and did not recognize the accused persons Firoz and Luda.He denied that he had signed on Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16 at the instance of the Police and he had no information as to what is written in it.He further admitted that his signatures were obtained close to Gas Godown by the Police.He had not visited the Police Station.He denied giving any information by accused Luda Khan that Luda, Firoz, Chaiya, Lakhan Kushwah and another accomplice had killed Baijad inside the house of Lakhan Kushwah.He has specifically denied that no such information was given to the Police by Luda Khan.He further denied that no seizure was made of the Katar from Jinnaton-ki-Pahadia at the instance of Luda Khan.Similarly, he denied that Firoz Khan had given any statement that alongwith Chaiya, Lakhan Kushwah and Luda, they had murdered Baijad Khan and had thrown the dead body on a vacant plot.Similarly, PW15 Devendra Pachori has though admitted that Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16 were recorded in front of him, but in cross-examination, he admitted that accused persons were tortured and beaten when such statements were given.He further denied to visit Jinnaton-Ki-Pahadia for the purpose of seizure.He admitted that he is a milkman who often visits the Police Station and the localities adjacent to the Police Station to distribute milk.He further admitted that he had never read this Panchnama and was not mindful of the fact that on which papers his signatures were obtained.No.285/2007 & 478/2007PW18 Dr. J.N. Soni, Professor of Forensic Medicine Department, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior had conducted post- mortem on 23.01.2006 at 12.10 Noon.He had found as many as 19 injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was excessive bleeding and shock.He further admitted that he was not shown any of the weapons recovered to corroborate the nature of the injuries and whether such injuries could have been caused by such weapon or not.PW17 Ravi Garg is the Investigating Officer of the matter and he was posted as SHO on the relevant date.He admitted to have prepared memo Ex.P/21 and Ex.P/21 is the memorandum of Lakhan Kushwah and 13 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 Ex.Similarly, Ex.P/15 is the memorandum under Section 27 of Firoz Khan and Ex.P/16 is the memorandum under Section 27 of accused Ruda Khan alias Luda Khan.He admitted that he had not taken help of Dog Squad or the Sniffing Dog to ascertain identity of the accused and to trace the blood trail.He further admitted that the place from where knife was recovered is an open place.He also admitted that in Ex.He has further admitted that PW3 Rinku while giving his case-diary statement (Ex.P/2) had not informed him that he had gathered information from the newspaper about recovery of blood stains from the house of Lakhan.He had also not informed about threat from the accused demanding money, failing which they will commit murder of Baijad Khan.He further admitted that PW3 Rinku in his case-diary statement (Ex.D/2) neither informed about any threat nor his spotting Baijad with Chaiya and Firoz at 6.00 PM.PW3 Rinku had also not given statement that he had last seen Baijad with the accused persons or had seen Baijad going with the accused in a taxi towards Bahodapur.He admitted that even PW3 Rinku had not given statement that when the accused had taken his brother.On that day, Firoz and Chaiya had visited their house and had threatened on the issue of demand of money.This statement contradicts the testimony of PW3 Rinku.He also admitted that the place, from where knife was recovered at the instance of Firoz, was an open space and he has not mentioned in his seizure memo as to how he had sealed and wrapped the knife.Similar facts have been admitted in relation to accused Ruda.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 recovered from Ruda Khan vide seizure memo Ex.P/23 and Firoz Khan vide seizure memo Ex.These recoveries were made in presence of PW14 Ishaq Khan and PW12 Sher Khan, who are respectively brother-in-law and paternal uncle of the deceased and cannot be termed as independent witnesses.This recovery was made from an open space at Jinnaton-ki-Pahadia, Bahodapur and these weapons were not sealed properly as has been admitted by PW17 Ravi Garg, Investigation Officer of the case.FSL reports Exs.P/31 and P/32 reveal that blood stains on Article-K Katar seized from Ruda and Article-I knife seized from Firoz contained some rust like brown material, but such spots on the recovered arms were disintegrated and were not sufficient to form any opinion and, therefore, no information was given as to whether they contained the blood group of the deceased or not.One of the witnesses to the seizure PW12 Sher Khan was declared hostile.He denied seizure of any knife from accused Firoz Khan or from Ruda Khan.He further admitted that the Police had obtained his signatures on the blank papers.The fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence is that the onus of proof is entirely on the prosecution and a man must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be legally guilty beyond doubt and if there is any doubt at all he must be given benefit of doubt and acquitted although greatest suspicion may exist against him.The first circumstance, which has been pointed out by the learned Sessions Court that accused Firoz, Ruda alias Luda had taken Baijad on 21.01.2006, is not solely reliable inasmuch as, as per the evidence of PW2 Anisa Begum, he had returned back 16 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 home at about 6.00 PM, after being taken.There is no independent evidence to corroborate the statement of PW2 Anisa Begum that there was past dispute between the accused persons.In fact, she has admitted that there was no dispute with Ruda Khan and Firoz Khan and the dispute was only with Chaiya Khan.Therefore, this circumstance as is evident from the evidence of PW2 Anisa Begum, appears to have been overlooked.It is true that the dead body of Baijad was found on the plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger on 22.01.2006 and there was a trail of blood spots from the plot of Kuldeep Singh Senger to the house of Lakhan Kushwah and the house of Lakhan was open and the blood stains were found on the Cot, but that does not point out the guilt of the present appellants, namely, Ruda Khan alias Luda Khan and Firoz Khan.Merely because Firoz and Lakhan were absconding cannot by implication be permitted to indict Firoz and Ruda because there was neither any blood trial nor there was matching of blood group on the clothes recovered from Firoz an Ruda and so also from the knife and Katar recovered from Firoz and Ruda alias Luda Khan.Merely presence of blood stains on the Cot can at best be used as evidence against Lakhan and not against Firoz and Ruda.As per FSL report, if blood group AB was found on the clothes and shoes of the deceased so also from the room and Cot lying in the house of Lakhan that itself is not sufficient to indict the present appellants inasmuch as the blood group was disintegrated and the weapons namely knife and Katar, recovered from an open area, were not properly sealed and in view of the statement given by PW12 Sher Khan, such recovery 17 Cri.No.285/2007 & 478/2007 from the open space also becomes doubtful and further no finger print matching was carried out and the theory of last seen has to be discarded in view of the evidence given by PW2 Anisa Begum and PW17 Ravi Garg, IO, contradicting the statement given by PW3 Rinku in regard to last seen.Therefore, the totality of the evidence available in the matter is not sufficient to hold that there was a group rivalry between the deceased and Ruda Khan and Firoz Khan.No motive has been attached to Ruda and Firoz in regard to whom PW2 Anisa Begum has deposed to have had normal relationship and rivalry being only with absconding accused Chaiya.It is also informed that appellant Firoz Khan was also on bail vide order dated 11.04.2008 till April 2017 and thereafter is lodged in jail in another case.In view of the aforesaid since the appellants have been acquitted in the present case, they be released forthwith from jail, if they are not required in any other case, and their bail bonds be discharged. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,797,632 | S CRM No. 7743 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 12, 2018 in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No. 338 of 2018 dated July 25, 2018 under Sections 147/148/149/307/436/427 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Altab Hossain @ Altaf Hossain and others ... Petitioners.The petition is not pressed as regards the first petitioner as he has already been arrested.The petitioners claim that there was a clash between two factions of a political party resulting in a degree of violence and arson.The petitioners claim that some of the houses of the petitioners were also torched.In addition, the petitioner nos. 2 to 26 will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,804,675 | And In the matter of: Ayati Ghosh .......Petitioner Mr. Saurav Chatterjee, Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee, Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra ...For the petitioner.Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that learned Sessions Judge did not consider the injury report as well as the incriminating materials collected during investigation of the case against the opposite party no. 1 and thereby committed gross miscarriage of justice by allowing his anticipatory bail prayer.Secondly, the opposite party no. 1 along with one Advocate of the locality has been threatening the defacto complainant and her family members for a considerable period of time and that is why several cases have been filed against them.Therefore, considering their post bail conduct, the anticipatory bail granted by learned Sessions Judge ought to be cancelled. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
86,805,113 | rt The facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent no. 2 has a ou saving bank account in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Rewa and from his account on 29/11/2006, Rs. 25,000/- and on 8/12/2006, Rs. C 50,000/- were withdrawn by third person with the connivance of the h bank employees.The matter was reported to the Senior Officer of the ig Bank and in the inquiry it was found that with the connivance of the H bank employees namely Roshanlal Mishra and Shivanand Shukla the aforesaid amount was withdrawn by one Chakradhar Tiwari and his father Sashikant Tiwari and later on, they deposited the aforesaid amount.Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and crime no. 721/2006 has been registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 read with section 34 of IPC and after the investigation, I.O has filed the charge sheet against Chakradhar Tiwari.Later on, applicant filed the complaint before the JMFC, Rewa stating that I.O., bank employees including the respondent no.2 and father of Chakradhar Tiwari to save the other employees of the Bank and father of Chakradhar Tiwari deposited the aforesaid amount in the Bank and made efforts to destroy the evidence of the case with a view to screen sh the actual culprits of the offence.The learned trial Court took the cognizance against the applicant under section 201 of IPC which is e ad under challenge.Hence, the proceedings relating to the prosecution of the applicant so far as it related to offence u/s 201 of IPC be quashed.a opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and prayed hy for rejection of the petition.P.C is allowed and the proceedings against the applicant pending ig before the JMFC, Rewa, in Criminal Case No.2587/2009 for the offence H punishable u/s 201 of IPC stands quashed and the proceedings for rest of the accused persons will not be effected by this order.With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE navin H ig h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,643,346 | Criminal Bail Application stands disposed off.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) 5 of 5::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:21:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:21:41 ::: | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,652,639 | Heard on bail application.This is the 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.670/2014 registered at Police Station Ashoknagar, District Ashoknagar for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC.As per prosecution case, the incident has occurred on 05-10-2014 at about 10:30 am when applicant and other co- accused persons forcibly entered into the house of complainant and assaulted him by Lathi and Luhangi.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that except the offence under Section 452 of IPC all other offences are bailable one.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
436,570 | In 1954 Soundararajan and Co. Ltd., filed O. S. No. 1594 of 1954 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, to recover a sum or Rs. 13d8-2-6 with interest and costs from Sankarapandia Nadar.In an affidavit filed by the manager of Messrs. Soundararajan and Ca.Alter having obtained an adjournment of the suit from the City Civil Court on this ground Sankarapandia Nadar filed I. P. Ill of 1955 before this Court on 29-11-1955 to get himself adjudicated insolvent, and this was done on the same day.After he was adjudicated insolvent Sankarapandia Nadar was examined on oath by the Official Assignee.lie then stated "For the last four months 'I have been living in Madras.I now live in No. 5 Cuddappah Rangiah Chetti St." On 4-1-1956 Messrs. Soundararajan and Co. Ltd., filed Appln.By an order made on 7th February 1956 I annulled the order o-f adjudication holding that certain material allegations on the basis of which Sankarapandia Nadar had obtained his adjudication were false.The respondent submitted an explanation in which he stated that he did not intentionally give false evidence and explained.I had been carrying on business at No. 11 (now No, B-55) Rajagopala Naidu Street, Washermanpet, Madras and though the business was closed, the premises to question continued to be in my possession till 29-12-1954 when possession was delivered in execution through Court.... The petition for adjudication was filed in November 1955 well within one year of the vacating the premises.He then added that there was no motive for him to make a statement and that if it be held that the statement before the Official Assignee is inaccurate he might be excused.He went on As my wife fell ill and I had also frequently to come to Madras in connection with her illness and the litigation which was pending in Madras and the affairs of the business which had been closed, I had taken a room in No. 5 Cuddapah Rangiah Chetti St., Madras, on rent.My wife had to be admitted in the Opthahnic hospital as an inpatient and finding the Nadar's mansion which provides boarding and lodging more convenient I was also frequently staying in Nadar's mansion. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,657,261 | The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :P.W.1's sister Nazibunnessa, since deceased, got married with the appellant about 19 years ago and she started living in the village at the appellant's house.Thereafter, appellant developed an illicit relation with a maid- servant named Rajidan Khatun.P.W.1, on coming to know about such illicit relation informed his sister.Nazibunnessa then came from the native village and started living with the appellant at Telenipara P.S. Bhadreswar, Hoogly.On witnessing the illicit relation between her husband (appellant) and Rajidan Khatun she raised objection for which she was severely assaulted by the appellant.The appellant even did not provide food properly to his wife Nazibunnessa and the children.Such conduct of the appellant was reported to the appellant's father, brother and others but to no any effect.Appellant's torture and assault upon the deceased wife continued.On January 11, 1994 at about 8.30 p.m appellant severely assaulted deceased wife Nazibunnessa and left home for his duty.in the night, P.W.1 heard heart rendering crying voice of his sister coming out from her room.He then woke up and found door of the room of his sister was closed from inside and smoke was coming out from there.He called local people and after pushing the door they found his sister in flame writhing in pain.They then poured water to put off the flame but she succumbed to the burn injuries.On getting information P.W.7 arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of PW1 and forwarded the same through police driver Abdul Kuddus to the P.S. for starting a case.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:MumtazKhan With The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta.CRA No. 110 of 2003 Md. Sarfulla Vs.The State of West Bengal.By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 08 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer 02 years simple imprisonment for committing the offence under Section 306 IPC and for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default simple imprisonment for two years for committing the offence under Section 498 A of the IPC while acquitting the remaining accused persons from the charges under section 498A/306 I.P.C. Accused Rajidan Khatoon died during trial.On receipt of the same, the duty officer, ASI, Subrata Sengupta started Bhadreswar P.S. case No. 7/94 dated January 12,1994 under section 498A/306 IPC against the appellant,his father Dil Mohammad, Mohammad Islam, Hasmulla, Kasmuddin, Rojina Khatoon, Julekha Khatoon and Rojaddin.P.W.7 himself took up investigation of the case.On the same day he made inquest over the dead body of the victim in presence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 and prepared inquest report (Ext.3/4), prepared rough sketch map with index of the P.O.(Ext.5), seized burnt articles by seizure list (Ext.2/4), sent the dead body of the victim for postmortem examination,collected P.M. report and thereafter on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the FIR named accused persons.On February 15, 2000 charges under Sections 498A/306 IPC were framed against the appellant and seven other charge-sheeted accused persons namely Dil Mohammad, Md. Islam, Kashmuddin, Hasmullah, Rajidan Khatoon, Julekha and Rajadin and on their pleading not guilty trial commenced.In order to prove it's case prosecution examined 7 witnesses and also produced and proved certain documents like FIR, rough sketch map with index, inquest report, seizure list etc. and thereafter on completion of trial and after examination of the appellant and other accused persons the learned trial judge passed the impugned judgment.It was submitted by Mr. Debabrata Acharya, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of PW 1 with regard to torture and assault upon the victim for opposing the illicit relation of the appellant went on unchallenged as no cross-examination was made by the defence on that score and there was also nothing on record to disbelieve the story of PW1 with regard to torture and assault and deprivation of food to the victim.According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond doubt.We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and gone through the evidence and materials on record to consider the propriety of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Court below.Learned Court below after over all assessment of the evidence on record particularly that of PW1, the de-facto complainant, PW2, another brother of the victim and the Investigating Officer arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the charges under Sections 498A/306 IPC against the appellant but failed to prove the charges against the rest and accordingly passed the impugned judgment.Section 498A IPC provides for punishment to the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman who subjects such woman to cruelty.It is evident from the evidence on record that sister of P.W.1 namely deceased Nazibunessa was married with the appellant about 19 years ago and of that wedlock one son and one daughter were born to them.It was also evident that after marriage deceased Nazibunessa lived initially in the village at the house of the appellant but subsequently she came to reside with the appellant at his house at Talenepara.It is also not in dispute that Nazibunessa died due to burn injuries at the house of the appellant at Talenepara.With regard to the allegation of cruelty upon the victim it is a specific allegation of the prosecution that for raising objection towards the illicit relation of the appellant with a woman named Rajidan Khatun, who was staying and working in their house as maidservant she was tortured and assaulted and was not provided food properly.PW 1 is the brother of the deceased and the complainant of this case.He has specifically stated on oath that his sister Najibunnessa (deceased) got married with the appellant about 19 years ago and was residing with him (appellant) in his house.Out of their wedlock one son aged about 12 years and one daughter aged about 10 years were born and initially his sister namely the victim stayed at the village with the children.He further deposed that one Rajidan Khatun used to prepare meal for the appellant and illicit relation grew between the appellant and Rajidan Khatun, he then asked the appellant to rectify but he did not hear him, thereafter when his sister raised objection then the appellant assaulted her and did not provide any food to her and to her children.Even para people tried to make him normal and asked him not to ill-treat his wife (victim) and to keep off from the illicit relation but he did not pay any heed and his illegal activities continued.The matter was then informed to the father and brother of the appellant but that too failed to yield any fruitful result and that on January 11, 1994 at about 08.30 p.m. also the appellant severely assaulted his sister (victim) and went away for duty.Thereafter at 12/12.30 in the night he heard crying sound "ah..ah..ah" from inside the room of his sister and after opening the door they found her burning inside the room.They also got smell of kerosene oil and ultimately his sister succumbed to the injuries.He was cross- examined by the defence but his evidence with regard to the cruelty upon the victim by the appellant went on unchallenged as no question over the torture and assault upon the victim by the appellant for opposing his illicit relation was put to him by the defence.He too has deposed that after marriage his sister lived with the appellant.Thereafter, appellant developed illicit relation with a maidservant named Rajidan and when his sister objected she was tortured and assaulted by the appellant and her such ill-treatment continued.He was also cross-examined by the defence but failed to impeach his credibility.PW3, PW4 and PW5 though admitted the death of the victim but did not say anything with regard to the cruelty made out to the victim at the hand of her husband.PW5 and PW6 are the official witnesses.Admittedly the victim died due to burning at her matrimonial home.It is true that PW1 and PW 2 are the brothers of the victim but their specific allegation against the appellant subjecting their sister to cruelty for opposing his illicit relation with the maidservant went on unchallenged.So only because they are the brothers of the victim and no GDE or FIR was lodged to this effect their specific avernment on oath cannot be brushed aside and disbelieved.The evidence on record unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant in subjecting his wife to cruelty for opposing his illicit relation with the maidservant.Learned Court below taking into account the entire circumstances and the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the evidence on record clearly point towards the guilt of the appellant in the commission of the offence under Section 498A IPC.Now with regard to the question of abetment of suicide, we find from the evidence on record that victim died due to burn injuries and at that point of time the appellant was not present and she was alone in the house.Admittedly, marriage between the appellant and the victim took place 19 years ago and of their wedlock two children were born to them.According to PW 1, on the relevant night at about 8.30 p.m. his sister was severely assaulted by the appellant and thereafter went away for duty and at about 12/12.30 p.m. on hearing crying sound of his sister when he along with others went to her room they found her burning inside the room and accordingly they poured water on her person to put out the flame and gradually all her sound and movements stopped.They also got smell of kerosene oil.But PW2 has deposed that on relevant date sister had altercation with her husband and at around 12/12.30 in the night she died.There is no whisper how they came to learn that on the relevant night there was a quarrel between the victim and the appellant and/or that the victim was severely assaulted by the appellant.Section 306 IPC provides punishment to the person who abets the commission of suicide.The only allegation is that on the relevant night at about 8.30 P.M. there was quarrel between the appellant and the victim and thereafter appellant went out for his work and at about 12.30 in the night victim was found in flames.There was no evidence on record about what was the issue of quarrel between the husband and wife on the relevant night and how victim got burnt.True that victim did not like her husband having extramarital affair with the maid servant and as such when she raised objection she was subjected to cruelty.But the evidence on record shows that the maidservant was staying in their house for about 2 years and the reported illicit relation with maidservant grew long before date of death of the victim.So from the above it can be inferred that it was not the immoral act of the appellant which instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide.After carefully assessing the evidence on record, we do not find any direct evidence to show that the appellant had instigated or provoked the victim to commit suicide.Accordingly, the commission of the offence under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegation of assault of the victim is not sustainable.The appellant deserves to be acquitted of the said charge.The learned court below did not take into consideration the above fact of this case to apply the settled principle of law. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,660,591 | The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, due to a land dispute.When the defacto complainant was returning back to his village on 27.04.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., he is said to have been restrained by the petitioners and was attempted to be attacked with a sickle.The defacto complainant is said to have run away from the place of occurrence and in the course of attack he sustained cut injuries on his fingers, wrist, head and shoulder.http://www.judis.nic.in 3The respondent police have filed a final report for an offence under Sections 341 and 307 of IPC and insofar as these offences are concerned, there are prima facie materials and there are no grounds to interfere with the final report regarding these offences.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are absolutely no materials to add the offence under the SC/ST Act, against the petitioners.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.http://www.judis.nic.in 5Even the defacto complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C has not stated anything about the petitioners being aware about the community and therefore attacked him and took away his property.All the witnesses only speak about the incident, wherein the defacto complainant was attacked with deadly weapons by the petitioners and none of the witnesses speak about any utterance about the caste or the knowledge of the petitioners that the defacto complainant belongs to the Adi Dravidar community.In the result, the proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2018, on the file of the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District is quashed, insofar as the offence under Section 3(2) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,660,757 | Being aggrieved by the finding regarding negligence fixed on the driver of the Van, bearing Registration No.2. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:Respondents 1 and 2/claimants, aged 57 and 50 years, claiming themselves to be the brother and sister of the deceased, have stated that on 15.08.2000, about 15.15 Hours, when their sister/deceased was walking on Metturpalayam to Nellidurai Road, near Amman Virunthinar Mandapam, in front of Sukku Coffee Shop, Mettupalayam, a van bearing Registration No.TN 45 0126, owned by the third respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the same direction, dashed against their sister, Marakkal and though she was given intensive treatment in Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, she died.It is the case of the respondent/claimant that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 55 years and as a coolie, earned Rs.3,000/- per month.FIR was lodged and that a case in Cr.No.524 of 2000 has also been registered against the driver of the Van, under Section 304(A) IPC., on the file of the Mettupalayam Police Station.Claiming themselves to be the legal representatives and dependent on the income of the deceased, the respondents/claimants have preferred a claim petition for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.The owner of the van remained ex parte, before the Tribunal.Disputing the manner of accident, the appellant-Insurance Company inter alia contended that the accident has occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, who without noticing the van, coming on the road, had suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident and therefore, they submitted that the award should be apportioned, if it is proved that the Insurance Policy of the said van was valid and effective at the time of accident.They also submitted that the respondents/claimants have to prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.In addition to the above, the Company also submitted that the driver of the van did not have any valid and effective driving licence to drive the particular type of vehicle, which was involved in the accident.The abovesaid act is in violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.Without prejudice to the above, they also disputed the age, avocation, income of the deceased and the compensation claimed under various heads.The appellant-Insurance Company also filed an additional counter affidavit, contending inter alia that the deceased was aged more than 60 years and not 55 years, at the time of accident, as alleged in the claim petition and that the deceased was not a coolie, but a beggar and used to get only Rs.30/- per day.It is also their contention that as the respondents/claimants are not dependents of the deceased, they are not entitled to make a claim for compensation.Before the Tribunal, bother of the deceased examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the manner of accident.PW.2, is said to be the eye-witness.P1 FIR, Ex.2 Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, Ex.P3 Post-Mortem Certificate and Ex.P4 Legal Heir Certificate were marked on the side of the respondents/claimants.No oral and documentary evidence has been let in on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van, owned by the third respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.The Tribunal, on the basis of the entry in Ex.P3 Post-Mortem Certificate, has determined the age of the deceased, as 55 years and in the absence of any proof, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- .Having regard to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied '11' multiplier and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, computed the dependency compensation at Rs.1,76,000/-.In addition to the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses.Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.Inviting the attention of this Court to the contents of Ex.P1 FIR, should be rejected or for the matter, the claim petition should be dismissed on the ground of contradictory facts.He further submitted that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would not lend any support to the appellant, as there is sufficient evidence available on record, to prove the relationship and dependency.For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed sustain the award.12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.Alexander, who was a Ward Member, Thekampatti Panchayat.According to him, the deceased and the first respondent, Rangammal were beggars.On 15.08.2000, when he was walking on the left side of Mettupalayam to Nellidurai Road, near Amman Virunthinor Mandapam, in front of Sukku Coffee Shop, Mettupalayam, a van bearing Registration No.TN 45 0126, owned by the third respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and as a result of which, she was thrown away.Thereafter, the van was stopped and she died on the spot.They have only contended that the respondents/claimants have to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and that the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased, who had unmindfully, crossed the road and hence, they prayed for apportionment of negligence and consequential liability.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, when the appellant-Insurance Company themselves have come forward to apply the theory of contributory negligence, the accident stands automatically proved and it is only the manner of accident, which is disputed.Except the contradiction in the avocation of the deceased, it is not open to the appellant to contend as if the vehicle was not involved in the accident.Before the Tribunal, PW.1 has reiterated the manner of accident.No documentary proof can be expected for engagement of a labourer.In National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Rattani reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 103 (SC), the accident took place, when the deceased Sunil Kumar alongwith other injured persons, were travelling as members of a marriage party in a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. HR-39-9869, which was a goods vehicle.The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement.There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement.There will be no order as to costs.During the pendency of the claim petition, she also passed away.Though a dispute as regards the relationship, has been raised by way of grounds in this appeal, perusal of oral testimony of the first respondent/claimant, does not reflect as to whether there was any doubt over the relationship.It is also to be noted that Ex.P4, Legal Heir Certificate has been filed to prove that the deceased was the elder sister of the respondents/claimants.Merely because, a third party informant states that the deceased was a beggar, that cannot be simply be accepted, as regards avocation.As the right of action created by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles, in every way new the right given to the legal representatives under the Act to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is equally new and an enlarged one.New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies.The deceased was unmarried and he had adopted a son, appellant No.3 therein.The maintainability of a claim petition, on behalf of the brothers, adopted son and other relatives, was one of the issues before the Tribunal.So saying, the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition, was set aside and that the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal, to proceed with the claim petition on merits.In Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C., v. Venkataramappa K.S., reported in III (2003) ACC 457 (DB), the deceased was an agricultural labourer and there was no class I heirs.A claim for compensation was made by the married sisters and brother.Before the Tribunal, an objection was raised by the Transport Corporation that the claimants were not the dependents on the deceased and therefore, they are not entitled to make a claim for compensation.However, the Tribunal has computed the dependency compensation, in addition to the compensation awarded under the conventional damages.Aggrieved by the same, the State Transport Corporation preferred an appeal to the High Court, reiterating the said averments.The High Court framed the following questions for consideration, "(1) Whether the brothers and sisters of the deceased can maintain a claim petition even though they were not depending upon the income of the deceased for their maintenance?Each case has to be considered on its own merits.In the case on hand, the Tribunal has observed that it is not uncommon that unmarried brothers and sisters would live under one roof, as a joint family and in such circumstances, one may be dependent on the income on the other.The Tribunal, on the premise that prior to death, even if the deceased was engaged as a labourer, she would have earned atleast Rs.2,000/- per month and accordingly, fixed the monthly income.After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal and living expenses, applied multiplier '11' applicable to the age of the deceased, 55 years, as evidenced from Ex.P4 Post-Mortem Certificate and arrived at the dependency compensation at Rs.1,76,000/-.It is to be noted that after 1/3rd deduction, the contribution to the family works out to Rs.44.44/- per day.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the respondents/claimants, being the brother and sister of the deceased, are not entitled to maintain a claim petition for the loss of estate and that they are entitled only to compensation under 'No Fault Liability' is not accepted and this Court is of the considered view that as the respondents/claimants were aged 57 and 50 years respectively at the time of accident and considering the fact that the deceased was unmarried and aged 55 years at the time of accident, one would have dependent on the income of the other and therefore, they are entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the respondents/claimants are entitled to the compensation only under 'No Fault Liability' is rejected.Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that in addition to loss of dependency, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for Funeral Expenses.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.No costs.V) at Coimbatore.skmC.M.A.No.1788 of 200621.12.2010 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
436,632 | She therefore knocked the door when she heard that Ranjana was weeping and suspected that there was some quarrel between the accused and Ranjana so she asked the accused to open the door.The accused opened the window.At that time, she saw Ranjana was burning and accused was standing near her.She thereafter called people from the Society.She broke open the door and extinguished the fire by pouring water on the person of Ranjana.The accused left the house.According to her, the accused thereafter left the house under the pretext of informing the police.JUDGMENT V.M. Kanade, J.The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court u/s.498 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of fine to undergo RI for a period of 15 months.He was also convicted for offence punishable u/s.306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer RI for 15 months.Similarly, he was convicted u/s.323 and sentenced to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for 20 days and lastly he was convicted u/s.504 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer RI for 20 days.The sentence was to run concurrently.A letter to that effect is written by the Superintendent, Thane Central Jail to the Asstt.Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bom bay.The said letter is taken on record.By the said judgment and order, the appellant was convicted u/s.498A, 306, 323, 504 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for three years on the first two counts and RI for six months of the last two counts.Further, a fine of Rs.2,000/-was imposed on the first two counts and in default to suffer RI for a period of 15 days and a fine of Rs.500/- on the last two cous and in default further RI for 20 days was imposed.The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant and the deceased were residing at Sai Kunj Co-operative Housing Society.The prosecution case is that the accused used to harass the deceased everyday and used to assault her after consuming liquor.On the date of the incident when the deceased caught or in the morning at 6'O clock, her husband picked up quarrel with her and thereafter caught her hair and assaulted her.At about 7.00 a.m, she poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire.One Hasmita who was her neighbour came near her house at about 7.00 a.m and heard that someone was weeping inside the house.She therefore, asked the accused to open the house and told him that if he did not open the door, she would raise shouts and call the other people from the building.The accused opened one of the windows and she witnessed that deceased Ranjna was burning as she had caught fire and that the accused was standing near her.She therefore, called a few people to break open the door.As the accused informed her that his wife had locked the door from inside, and he was not aware when she had kept the keys.The door was broken open by the neighbours and the child shifted in another room and they extinguished the fire.The accused on the pretext of making a telephone call to the police went out of the house.However, he did not return back.Deceased Ranjana was taken to the hospital where her dying declaration was recorded.She died on the next day.The accused was thereafter arrested.The statement of witnesses were recorded.The charge-sheet was filed against the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charge.3.The trial Court after perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted the accused.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the prosecution have not proved that the accused had committed an offence punishable u/s.498A of the IPC.He submitted that there was no evidence to show that the accused had harassed or tortured the deceased and had driven her to a point where she had no other alternative but to commit suicide.He submitted that assuming that there was ill-treatment at the hands of the accused.Each and every ill-treatment by the husband could not be said to fall under the category of cruelty and harassment as envisaged u/s.498A of the IPC.He submitted that the only evidence that has been brought on record was that the accused used to consume alcohol and abuse the deceased.He submitted that there was no demand of dowry made at any time.The learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 3019 in the case of Ravindra Bidlan and Ors.State of Maharashtra (Respondents).The learned counsel submitted that none of the witnesses which were examined have stated that the accused had treated her with such cruelty as would compel her to commit suicide.He also relied on the judgment of Orissa High Court reported in 1995 Cr.L.J. 174 in the case of Keshab Chandra Panda Vs.State in support of his submission.He submitted that the deceased had no reason to commit suicide as the quarrel had taken place at 6.00 a.m. and after one hour, she poured kerosene on herself.He submitted that she had sufficient time to cool down and it cannot be said that she was compelled to commit suicide after the incident which had taken place at 6.00 a.m.The learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of section 306 of the IPC was not attracted and had infact induced or had abated the deceased in committing suicide.He submitted that the dying declaration which was recorded did not have an endorsement of a Doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to record the said statement.He further submitted that the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination had admitted that he was not in a position to depose as to whether the patient was in a position to sign or not and that he had not mentioned in the dying declaration where the thumb impression which was obtained on the statement was of the right hand or the left hand.He submitted that therefore, no reliance to be placed on such dying declaration.He submitted that from the conduct of the accused clearly showed that he had not taken any steps to save his wife.He submitted that even assuming that the wife had locked the door from inside and therefore, he was unable to come out.Even then it was open for the accused to have called for help from his neighbours which was not done and on the contrary, the accused was a new spectator while his wife was burning in the passage which went to the bed-room.The learned APP submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased was corroborated by the other two witnesses.The accused was residing with his wife and child in Sai Kunj Apartment on the second floor.The accused owned a rickshaw and used to ply the rickshaw during day time.According to the prosecution witnesses PW no. 2 Hasmita on 29th December 2001 at about 7.00 a.m. she had gone to the house of the deceased Ranjana to inform her that she should fill up the water from the tap.However, she found that her door was closed.He subsequently came to know that she had committed suicide on account of the harassment and severe beating at the hands of the accused.PW no. 3 Sanjay Palande has stated that on the date of the incident, he noticed that certain people had entered in the Court yard of the apartment and smoke was coming out of the house of the accused.He therefore, went to the second floor and saw Pathak, Dnyaneshwar Kale, Hasmita Pathak and her mother had assembled there.He went towards the room of the accused.He saw that Ranjana was burning and the accused was standing near her.He and the other thereafter broke open the door.None of these witnesses have deposed that he had seen or heard that the accused had harassed his wife or had assaulted her or had demanded dowry from her.In fact, it is not the prosecution case that the accused had ever demanded any dowry.Apart from the evidence of these two witnesses, the prosecution has relied on the dying declaration.It was recorded at the hospital.In the dying declaration, the deceased has stated that she was staying along with her husband and son was aged three years in the said Sai Kunj society since 2 years and that her father-in-law had purchased the said flat in her husbands name and had also purchased an autorickshaw for him.She has stated that six months before the date of incident, her husband had become addicted to drinking liquor and he used to come home after consuming liquor and used to pick up quarrel every now and then and used to abuse her and beat her.On the date of the incident when she got up in the morning at 6.00 a.m, her husband started abusing her.She therefore, enquired with him as to why he was abusing her, her husband became angry at the reply given by her and he caught her hair and assaulted her.Thereafter at 7.00 a.m, she poured kerosene on herself as she was frustrated because of the constant abuse and assault by her husband and set herself on fire.She has stated that the front door of the flat was closed from inside.She has further stated that the people came and extinguished the fire.This dying declaration is recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police and the thumb impression of the deceased has been taken on the said dying declaration.The Investigating Officer however in his cross-examination was not in a position to point out as to whether the thumb impression was of the right hand or the left hand.The Investigating Officer also has not stated or has not given an endorsement that the thump impression of the deceased was being taken because she was unable to sign.No serious efforts have been taken to bring the Special Executive Magistrate so that the dying declaration could be recorded in his presence.In view of this, it is difficult to rely on the said dying declaration. | ['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. |
43,665 | (a) P.W.35 was carrying on his brick chamber in front of which thedeceased Dhanasekaran was also having his brick chamber.Three months prior tothe occurrence, P.W.7 complained to the deceased that A-1 Subramani @ Subri beathim.On hearing this, the deceased asked A-1 to tender apology.P.W.30, a carbroker, transacted car purchase for A-1 under the agreement Ex.P.W.36 wasusing the same.While it was being actually taken for sand theft, it wasrecovered by P.W.6 Tahsildar.The same was also handed over to P.W.39, the SubInspector of Police, Eral, who registered a case in Crime No.286 of 2005 asfound in Ex.P22, the FIR.(b) While the matter stood thus, on the date of occurrence, i.e.,3.9.2005, the deceased who was working in his brick chamber, left the same atabout 10.45 P.M., towards his house in his M.O.1, motorbike.At about 11.45P.M., P.W.10, who was going along with his friend in a motorbike, found thedeceased in the company of all the three accused.Thereafter, at about 12.15A.M., P.Ws.11 to 14 have seen all the three accused and also the deceasedtravelling in a motorbike together.The deceased did not come home.(c) On 4.9.2005 at about 7.30 A.M. on the western side of Tuticorin -Tirunelveli Main Road the dead body of the deceased was found by P.W.17, theVillage Menial, who informed to P.W.16, the Village Administrative Officer.Onverification, P.W.16 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1,the complaint, to P.W.40, the Sub Inspector of Police, who in turn registered acase in Crime No.674 of 2005 under Section 302 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P23,was despatched to the Court through a Constable.(d) P.W.45, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, on receipt of the copyof the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection andprepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, FastTrack Court No.I, Tuticorin, made in S.C. No.129 of 2007 whereby theaccused/appellant stood charged under Sections 342, 392 read with 396, 364 readwith 34 and 302 read with 34 of IPC, tried, found guilty under Sections 392, 364read with 34 and 302 read with 34 of IPC and awarded 10 years RigorousImprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence under Section392 IPC, 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- anddefault sentence under Sec.364 read with 34 of IPC and life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 read with 34 ofIPC.2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated asfollows:Healso recovered M.Os.13 to 15 from the place of occurrence.Then he conductedinquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars andprepared an inquest report, Ex.The dead body was sent to the GovernmentHospital for the purpose of autopsy.(e) P.W.33, the Medical Officer, attached to the Department of ForensicMedicine, Thoothukudi Government Medical College, Thoothukudi, on receipt of therequisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dhanasekaran and has issued apostmortem certificate, Ex.P21, with his opinion that the deceased would appearto have died of shock and haemorrhage due to heavy cut injury to neck.Hegave a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded.The admissiblepart is marked as Ex.P6, pursuant to which he produced M.O.17, cash ofRs.15,000/-, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex.M.O.16, cellphone, M.O.18, motorbike, M.O.19, towel, and M.O.1, motorbike, produced by him,were also recovered under a cover of mahazar.Following the same, the presentappellant was arrested on 18.9.2005, when he came forward to give a confessionalstatement.The same was recorded.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P26.Following the same, he produced M.O.2, cell phone, M.O.23, shirt, and M.O.24,lunghi, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.On the same day, A-2 wasarrested when he gave a confessional statement.The same was recorded.All ofthem were sent for judicial remand.(g) The test identification parade was conducted pursuant to therequisition made, as per the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate by P.W..32,Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti.The identification parade proceedings aremarked as Ex.P.W.46, the Inspector of Police of that Circle, took upfurther investigation and on completion of the same, filed the final report.3.Before the matter was committed, one of the accused namely A-1, died andso far as A-2 was concerned, he also absconded.Then the case was split up inrespect of A-3, the present appellant.The case was committed to Court ofSessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate thecharges, the prosecution examined 46 witnesses and also relied on 37 exhibitsand 30 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the appellant was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesseswhich he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trialCourt heard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that theprosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found himguilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence this appeal atthe instance of the appellant.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned CounselMr.S.Muthalraj has made the following submissions which, according to him, wouldsuffice to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.(i) The case of the prosecution was that on 3.9.2005 during night hours,A-1 to A-3 have abducted the deceased and also caused his death, and it was alsoa murder for gain.Even as per the prosecution case, A-1 and A-2 had a grudge,and they were on inimical terms since they had got sufficient motive.But,insofar as A-3, who is the present appellant, no motive was attributed at all.Except this, there was nothing available to the prosecution toattribute anything against him, and hence it was a case where A-3 had no motive.(ii) Apart from the above, it was a murder for gain.But, nothing hasbeen recovered from him.No cash was recovered from him.Thus the prosecution could not establish the factthat the appellant had got anything to do or role to play in the alleged murderfor gain.5.The learned Counsel would further submit that as far as the last seentheory is concerned, P.W.10 to 14 have nowhere stated that the accused travelledalong with the deceased in a motorbike; that they have categorically stated thathe also went in another motorbike and thus it would be quite clear that the lastseen theory cannot be applied to him.6.Added further the learned Counsel that all the witnesses have seen themin a junction which was actually proceeding between Tirunelveli and Tiruchendurnear a Chemical Factory; but the place where the dead body was found is actuallysituated at Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Main Road and thus the last seen theorycannot be applied to the present facts of the case; that under thecircumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home either theinvolvement or the guilt of the accused/appellant; but the trial Court has takenan erroneous view and found him guilty, and hence the judgment of the trialCourt has got to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all theabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Following the inquest made and the preparation of the inquest reportby the Investigator, P.W.45, the dead body was subjected to postmortem byP.W.33, the Medical Officer.The Doctor has given a categorical opinion beforethe trial Court as a witness and also through the contents found in thepostmortem certificate, that he died out of shock and haemorrhage due to heavycut injury to neck.Thus the prosecution has proved the fact that he died outof homicidal violence as rightly recorded by the learned Judge of the trialCourt.9.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theappellant/accused, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.P.W.10 has spoken to the factthat at about 11.45 P.M., he saw all the accused persons going in a motorbikealong with the deceased; that they were all travelling in two motorbikes, andall the three accused persons and the deceased were actually found.I, Kovilpatti, examined as P.W.32, andthe identification parade proceedings have been marked as Ex.They were all actually recovered from the presentappellant.It was the appellant who at the time of arrest, gave a confessionalstatement voluntarily, and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The arrest, confession and also recovery of theseitems which belonged to the deceased and are found to be in the custody of theappellant would also be pointing to the nexus of the appellant with the crime.Thus it can be well stated that the last seen theory and also the recovery ofthe above material objects which were actually in the custody of theappellant/accused and produced pursuant to his confessional statement, wouldsuffice pointing to the guilt of the accused.12.The contention put forth by the appellant's side that no specificmotive is attributed cannot be countenanced, and the appellant was actuallyemployed during the relevant time under A-1, and apart from that, no cash oranything has been recovered from him, though it was a case of murder for gaincannot be countenanced.In the instant case, cash of Rs.15,000/- was actuallyrecovered from A-1 at the time of his arrest and pursuant to the confessionalstatement made by him.Now the contention put forth by the learned Counsel forthe appellant do not carry merit whatsoever.In the case on hand, though theprosecution rested its case on the circumstantial evidence, the above twocircumstances, in the considered opinion of the Court, are so strong enoughpointing to the involvement of the appellant/accused in the murder in question.2.The Inspector of Police Pudukottai Police Station Tuticorin District (Crime No.674 of 2005)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,723,939 | Issue notice.Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State.Petitioner as well as complainant/respondent No.2 are present in person, and are identified by IO/ SI Ram Kumar, Police Station Parliament Street.Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to make a reasonable offer of compensation towards interest and costs to the complainant.To this end, the petitioner has today handed over a banker's cheque drawn on State Bank of India bearing No.612627 dated 15th September, 2014 in the sum of Rs.8,91,698/- towards simple interest calculated at 8% per annum from 7th February, 2012 to 29th July, 2014, along with proof of payment of TDS to the tune of Rs.99077/- on the said amount which has been duly deposited by the petitioner in the State Bank of India.In addition, the petitioner has today also handed over a bankers cheque for Rs.2,25,000/- bearing No.612752 dated 25th September, 2014 drawn on State Bank of India along with proof of deposit of Rs.25,000/- as TDS.With the receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the complainant states that nothing further is due to him and that he has no further grievance with the petitioner.This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 0123/2014 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Parliament Street on 29th May, 2014 on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter.It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be filed by the CRL.M.C. 4069/2014 Page 1 of 7 complainant alleging violation of certain terms of agreement entered into between the parties towards sale and purchase of properties.It is further alleged that the petitioner had cheated the complainant, inter alia, by fabricating documents.CRL.M.C. 4069/2014 Page 1 of 7On 8th September, 2014, counsel for the petitioner had handed over a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 2nd September, 2014 bearing No. 612427 drawn on State Bank of India to the complainant in Court, as the final instalment towards reimbursement of the complainant's principal.Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court.Here charge is proved under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and CRL.M.C. 4069/2014 Page 6 of 7 conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."CRL.M.C. 4069/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus since the petitioner and complainant have amicably settled the matter and where the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished.Consequently, FIR No. 0123/2014 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Parliament Street on 29th May, 2014 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
437,364 | A. No.240/97 Page 1 of 21accused Bobby Khanna (since deceased) were held guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the same date, that is, on 15.03.1997, whereby both the accused, namely, Bobby Khanna (since deceased) and Mohd. Yunus (the present appellant) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- each and, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each.It is relevant to note that both Bobby Khanna (since deceased) and the present appellant (Mohd Yunus) were faced with the following charge:-"That on 17/12/91 at about 9.15 PM, in House No.D-86, Ganesh Nagar Complex, Pandav Nagar, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Trilokpuri, in furtherance of common intention of you both, committed the murder of Chanda, by causing her death and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC and within my cognizance.""That on 17.12.1991 at about 9.15 p.m. in House No.D-86, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar within the jurisdiction of P.S. Trilokpuri, you both in furtherance of your common intention committed rape on the person of deceased Chanda and, thereby you both committed an offence punishable U/s 376/34 IPC and within my cognizance."Both the accused were acquitted of the charge under Sections 376/34 IPC.However, as mentioned above, they were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC for committing the murder of Chanda in furtherance of their common intention.However, during the pendency of the said appeals, co-convict Bobby Khanna died on 17.05.2006 and by virtue of the order dated 22.07.2010, on information of his Crl. A. No.240/97 Page 2 of 21 death being received by this court, Criminal Appeal No.249/1997 was declared as having abated insofar as Late Bobby Khanna was concerned.A. No.240/97 Page 2 of 21The facts as narrated by the prosecution are that in the night intervening 17th and 18th December 1991, PW-19 (Inspector V.K. Gupta) was posted as the Station House Officer at Police Station Trilokpuri.On that day, the Duty Officer received a call from the Police Control Room that a quarrel had taken place in the area of Pandav Nagar and in this connection, D.D. No.49-B was recorded.Sub- Inspector Ajay Gupta was handed over the said D.D. for necessary action.On his departure to the said spot, D.D. No.56-B was recorded.In the meanwhile, the Duty Constable from the hospital also informed the Police Station wherefrom the said Sub-Inspector Ajay Gupta came to know that the accused (Mohd Yunus and Bobby Khanna) as well as the deceased Chanda had been removed to hospital.The said Sub-Inspector Ajay Gupta, alongwith Sub-Inspector Ajay Kumar, reached SDN Hospital after leaving Constable Harish to guard the spot.Both the accused were found unfit for making any statement.In the hospital, they found some relatives of the accused persons and one Shamshuddin (PW-6), who is the complainant.When he knocked at the door and also asked for the door to be opened, nobody did so.Thereafter, he climbed onto the roof of the adjacent house and from there he saw that one person from the roof of Chanda's house had jumped.Later on, he came to know that the name of that person was Mohd. Yunus.He came down the stairs and entered Chanda's room and found that she was lying naked in an unconscious condition.A. No.240/97 Page 3 of 21According to him, her Salwar and Shirt were torn and blood stained.Her brazier was also lying torn in the said room.One underwear of a male was also found lying in the room.As per the statement, Chanda was unconscious at that time and that both the persons, after seeing him, tried to run away from the stairs.According to him, one person, namely, Mohd. Yunus (the present appellant) tried to flee from the roof top of the house and, in doing so, he jumped and fell down and was thereafter apprehended with the help of the public.As per the said statement, the other person also tried to run away using the stairs, but he fell down.Thereafter, PW-6 (Shamshuddin), as stated in the complaint, opened the door of Chanda's room and his wife Naseem came inside the room and put clothes on the person of Chanda.According to him, Chanda was not dead at that point of time.Thereafter, the said Inspector V.K. Gupta prepared the site plan (Exhibit PW-19/B).The crime team was called and the said crime team gave its report (Exhibit PW-19/C).A. No.240/97 Page 4 of 21Subsequently, the clothes of the deceased alongwith certain other articles, such as an empty bottle of country made liquor, blood stained bed sheets, gadda, match box, a cap of a liquor bottle were seized as per Seizure Memo (Exhibit PW- 12/A).The clothes of the accused persons were seized as per Seizure Memos (Exhibit PW-12/B and 12/C).According to PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi), on the fateful day, at about 6/7 p.m., she was cutting vegetables in her house when she heard the call bell ringing and saw two persons standing on the ground floor of the house.She also stated that she was a tenant in the first floor and her land lady (Chanda) used to reside in the ground floor.According to her, the two persons had asked her to open the door but that she had objected as it was 7.00 p.m. in the evening.The two persons insisted that they had come to see Chanda Baji (sister).She then stated that those two persons were the accused present in court.She further stated that the said two persons told her that they had come to collect their passports from Chanda and on their insistence she opened the door and thereupon they met with Chanda and talked with her.15. PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) further stated that on suspicion, she called the neighbour, namely, Bibia, who was Chanda's sister's daughter and that she had informed the said Bibia that two persons were in Chanda's room.As per her testimony in examination-in-chief, PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) stated that thereafter she left her house and did not know what happened subsequently.According to her, she left her house to meet her sister at Shakarpur at about 7.00 p.m. and returned the next morning when she came to know that Chanda had been murdered.Thus, according to this witness, the accused had come to see Chanda at 7.00 p.m. At first, she was not opening the door, but on their insistence, she opened the door and thereafter, they met with Chanda and had a conversation with Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 9 of 21 her.She became suspicious and informed Chanda's sister's daughter Bibia about the said visit by the said two persons.Thereafter, she left her house at about 7.00 p.m. and only retuned the next morning to find out that Chanda had been murdered.In her cross-examination, she revealed that at the time when the accused paid a visit to Chanda, the latter was under the influence of liquor and that she did not know whether Chanda was conscious or not, but she was talking with the accused.She further stated that she had seen Chanda consuming liquor on several occasions.She further revealed that she had gone to the house of Baby on foot with her three children and from outside Baby's house, she hired a three wheeler scooter rickshaw and left for her sister's house.She also made it clear that her husband went directly to her sister's house and did not visit their house at night.She then stated that she had seen "Yusuf" (the name of the appellant is actually "Yunus") at Chanda's house only once about 3-4 months prior to the incident and on that occasion he had come during the day and on that occasion he had stayed there hardly for 5-10 minutes.PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) further revealed in cross-examination that her statement was recorded not in front of her house in the gali, but in the police station and at that point of time both the accused persons were present there.The learned counsel for the defence had confronted PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) with various portions of her statement (Exhibit PW-7/DA) inasmuch as what she had stated before court was at complete variance with her said statement before the police.She, alongwith Baby, returned to Chanda's house whereupon both the persons fled therefrom.Thereafter, Baby went back to her house and she (Shakuntala Devi) bolted the door from inside and went to her room on the first floor.After a short while, someone knocked at the door from outside and she (Shakuntala Devi) came out of her room and saw that Chanda had opened the door and both the persons again went into Chanda's room and sat there.When she (Shakuntala Devi) asked them to go away from there, they threatened to kill her.She (Shakuntala Devi) closed the door of her room and went "again" to Baby to inform her and after telling her everything, went to her "father's" house at Laxmi Nagar.Furthermore, PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) stated that it was about 7.30 p.m. when Chanda's tenant came to her house and told that she should immediately accompany her to Chanda's house as 'Ishu' had come and, at that point of time, PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) pointed towards "accused Yusuf" (sic, possibly referring to the appellant Mohd. Yunus).22. PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) further stated that she then called her mother and father from Trilokpuri and the three of them went to Chanda's house.According to her, the house was bolted from inside and someone asked as to who they were.A. No.240/97 Page 13 of 21Then, her father went inside the house from the adjoining house and he opened the door of Chanda's house.She saw Bobby Khanna lying on the floor and "Ishu" (Yusuf) jumped from the back wall and that he was apprehended by her father.Bobby Khanna was also apprehended and Chanda was lying on the bed.She was bleeding and lying unconscious.Her clothes were blood-stained.She further stated that she reached Chanda's house around 6.30 p.m. and at that time Chanda was alone and was not drunk.In fact, according to PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), Chanda was sleeping at that time and that Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 14 of 21 she had no conversation with her and that she returned to her house after advising the lady tenant to close the door from inside.She then stated that at around 8.30 p.m., she had gone to call her parents and that her parents came to Chanda's house by rickshaw.She further stated that when they reached Chanda's house, there was no crowd.Advocates who appeared in this case:Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes BADAR DURREZ AHMEDThis appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.03.1997 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara in Sessions Case No.79/1996 arising out of FIR No.741/1991 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at Police Station Trilokpuri, whereby the present appellant Mohd. Yunus and the co-Both the convicts had filed separate appeals.The statement of PW-6 (Shamshuddin) was recorded, wherein he stated that on 17.12.1991, when he was at his house, his daughter PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), who was residing at Ganesh Nagar, came to his house and informed him that two persons had entered the house of Chanda Mausi and they had closed the door of the room from inside and some sounds of beating were heard from inside the room.Thereupon, PW-6 (Shamshuddin) alongwith his wife PW-22 (Naseem) and his daughter PW-1 (Shamim) arrived at his sister-in-law (Chanda's) house at about 9.15 p.m. at D-86, Ganesh Nagar Complex and found the door of Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 3 of 21 the room to be closed.According to the statement of PW-6 (Shamshuddin), he heard some sounds of beating coming from inside the room.The police is said to have arrived at the spot and they removed the injured Chanda as well as both the accused persons to the hospital.After recording the aforesaid statement of Shamshuddin, PW-19 (Inspector V.K. Gupta) made his endorsement (Exhibit PW-19/A) and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case through Constable Satender Kumar and Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 4 of 21 after registration of the case, he received a carbon copy of the FIR (Exhibit PW- 16/A and Ruqqa at the spot.Thereafter, further investigation was conducted, including the interrogation of the accused persons, who had, in the meanwhile, regained consciousness.The charge-sheet was filed in court and after committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges as mentioned above under Sections 302/34 and 376/34 IPC against both the accused persons.The accused pleaded not guilty and consequently, the trial ensued.The prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses.The evidence against the accused persons were put to them and their statements under Section 313, CrPC were recorded.No defence evidence was led.As mentioned above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 376/34 IPC while convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.A. No.240/97 Page 5 of 21The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.The key witness being PW-7 (Smt Shakuntala Devi), who was Chanda's tenant and was residing in the first floor of the said premises in which Chanda herself was residing on the ground floor.She is also the person who reported this fact to PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), who, in turn, is stated to have also arrived at Chanda's house, whereupon the accused persons ran away.It is then alleged on the part of the prosecution that PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) left her house and returned only next morning to learn that Chanda had been murdered.As per the prosecution, PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) had sent a person by the name of Vakeel to Chanda's house to know about her safety and when he reported that there were sounds of beating coming from the room, she went to her father PW-6 (Shamshuddin) who was in his house.Thereupon, as per the prosecution, PW-6 (Shamshuddin) alongwith his wife PW-22 (Naseem) and PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) went to Chanda's house when they saw the scene as narrated in the statement of PW-6 (Samsuddin) which we have already referred to, in detail, above.The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the testimonies of PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), PW-3 Dr L.K. Barua (the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on Chanda's dead body), PW-4 Dr Rajiv Grover (the person who proved the MLCs in respect of Bobby Khanna and Chanda, being Exhibits PW-4/A and 4/B, respectively), PW-5 Dr J.S. Purty (who proved the reports being Exhibits PW-5/A and PW-5/B, PW-6 Shamshuddin (who is the father of PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) and who is said to have arrived at the scene alongwith his wife and daughter), PW-7 Smt Shakuntala Devi (Chanda's tenant, Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 6 of 21 who resided in the first floor), PW-9 Mehmood Khan (Chanda's brother), PW-21 ASI Kundan Lal (who is the police officer who removed all the three persons - the two accused and Chanda - to SDN Hospital), PW-22 Naseem (who is Chanda's sister and wife of PW-6 (Shamshuddin) and PW-1 Shamim @ Baby's mother), as also the other witnesses.He contended that the key witnesses PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), PW-6 (Shamshuddin), PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) and PW-22 (Naseem) have made contradictory statements and have thoroughly discredited themselves.He also submitted that the conduct of PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), PW- 6 (Shamshuddin) and PW-22 (Naseem) is highly unnatural and this further casts serious doubts with regard to their presence at the scene.According to the learned counsel, PW-6 (Shamshuddin) and his wife and daughter did not, at all, see the appellant jumping from the roof, nor did they see Chanda lying unconscious in the room, nor were the three persons, namely, the deceased Chanda and the two accused persons, removed to hospital in their presence.It was further contended that PW-21 (ASI Kundan Lal) completely demolishes the testimony of PW-6 (Shamshuddin), PW-22 (Naseem) and PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby).It was also contended that in his Section 313 CrPC Statement, the appellant Mohd Yunus has clearly stated that he was picked up from the market and taken to the police station and from there to the hospital.According to the learned counsel, this explanation is also probable and that the appellant had been picked up by the police merely on suspicion and had been falsely implicated in this case.A. No.240/97 Page 6 of 21Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish any motive for the alleged crime.According to Mr Narang, this establishes the presence of the accused and, in particular, the present appellant at the spot.Apart from this, there is the testimony of PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi), who is stated to have last seen Chanda alive in the company of the accused, including the present appellant.Furthermore, according to Mr Narang, PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), PW-6 (Shamshuddin) and PW-22 (Naseem), all arrived at the scene simultaneously and found Chanda to be unconscious in her room and PW-6 (Shamshuddin) had even seen the appellant Mohd. Yunus jumping from the roof and the co-convict Bobby Khanna lying on the floor of the room.Thus, according to the learned counsel for the State, the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.Thereafter, she went upstairs in her room and did not hear the conversation between Chanda and the said two persons.A. No.240/97 Page 8 of 21It was full of improvements and a completely different story had been set up.Interestingly, she stated in her cross-examination that "as far as she could recollect this incident took place during summer season".It is pertinent to note that the date of the offence, as per the charge is 17.12.1991 which happens to be during the winter season.A. No.240/97 Page 9 of 21A. No.240/97 Page 10 of 21In her statement (Exhibit PW-7/DA), she had stated that on 17.12.1991 in the evening at about 7.00 p.m., when she was present at her house, upon hearing a "knock" at the door, she had come down and unbolted the door and found two persons standing who entered the house and went to the room of Chanda.At that time, Chanda was in a drunken state and she was in an inebriated condition.PW- 7 (Shakuntala Devi) asked them to go from there whereupon they told her that they were Chanda's brothers and they would not leave.They forcibly sat there and threatened her.Immediately thereafter, she (Shakuntala Devi) went to Chanda's niece's house who was residing a little ahead of Hanuman Temple and she apprised her of the facts.It is further stated that today (18.12.1991, i.e., the date on which her statement was recorded) when she returned to her house, she found the police officer alongwith other people and both the persons, who had come at night, namely, Mohd. Yunus and Bobby Khanna, whose names were known later on.She also stated that she came to know from the police officer that Chanda had been killed by these two persons at night.A. No.240/97 Page 11 of 21It is apparent that her statement (Exhibit PW-7/DA) recorded under Section 161 CrPC is at complete variance with her testimony in court.First of all, in her testimony in court, she had taken the name of Chanda's niece as Bibia, whereas in Exhibit PW-7/DA, she has referred to her as Baby.Secondly, in court, she has testified that the accused persons rang the door bell, whereas in Exhibit PW- 7/DA, she has stated that the accused had knocked on the door.Thirdly, in Exhibit PW-7/DA, she has stated that the two persons forcibly entered the room, whereas she has not so stated in court.Fourthly, she stated in Exhibit PW-7/DA that she had gone to Baby's house twice, whereas in her testimony before court, she has stated that she went to Baby's house once.Fifthly, she has stated in Exhibit PW-7/DA that from Baby's house, she had gone to her father's house at Laxmi Nagar, whereas in her testimony before court, she has stated that she had gone to her sister's house at Shakarpur.Apart from these specific variations, the entire story, as appearing in Exhibit PW-7/DA and in her testimony before court, is completely different.In view of the foregoing, not much, if at all any, credence can be placed on the testimony of PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi).Now, let us examine the testimonies of PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), PW-6 (Shamshuddin) and PW-22 (Naseem).PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), in her examination-in-chief, has stated that on the date of the incident at about 6.00 p.m., she had gone to Chanda's house to bring some articles and at that point of time, she saw both the accused persons outside the house on the road.She met Chanda and brought one blanket and one attach case as her husband was to go out of station.We can notice, at this juncture itself, that this is at variance with the Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 12 of 21 prosecution case because the prosecution case is that PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) had gone to Chanda's house only after she had been called by PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi).It was also stated by PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) that Chanda was completely intoxicated and inebriated as she had consumed liquor.This fact is not mentioned by PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby).Even the medical report suggests that Chanda had consumed liquor.A. No.240/97 Page 12 of 21She then stated that she went alone to Chanda's house and, on seeing her, both the accused persons ran away from there.So, she returned to her house.She then stated that she had gone to Trilokpuri to call her mother and then sent a boy named Vakeel to Chanda's house and he returned and told her that Chanda was being beaten by someone and that the door of Chanda's house was closed.According to her, she again sent him to Chanda's house and Vakeel once again returned and told her that the persons inside Chanda's house, who were beating her, were sharpening something.At this juncture, we may point out that the said boy named Vakeel has not been produced by the prosecution.The clothes of Bobby Khanna were also blood-stained.In cross-examination, PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) has stated that Chanda was her mother's sister and that she used to live separately and the distance between Chanda's house and the house of PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) was about 15-20 minutes on foot.She stated that she had gone to Chanda's house on the day of occurrence at about 5.00 p.m. and the tenant was also in the house alongwith a couple of children.She, however, did not remember their names.She stated that she stayed there for 5-10 minutes.With regard to Chanda's drinking habits, she stated that Chanda used to consume liquor sometimes, though, according to her, she was not a habitual drinker and that, importantly, on the day of occurrence, she had not consumed any liquor.She further stated that she had come to know of the name of "Yusuf" earlier, but had seen him for the first time on that day at about 9- 9.15 p.m. She further stated that the lady tenant had come to her house and told her that "she should come quickly as Yusuf had come".She stated that she went with the said tenant on foot.It has further been elicited from her that her father PW-6 (Shamshuddin) lived far away and that it took about half an hour to reach his house by rickshaw.The lady tenant was also not there as the assailants had threatened her to leave the place.According to PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) had told her about this at about 8.00 p.m. when she was at home.It has also been elicited from her in cross-examination that between her visit of 6.30 p.m. and the visit alongwith her parents, she had not gone to Chanda's house and that it was only the boy Vakeel who had been sent to Chanda's house twice.A. No.240/97 Page 14 of 21It is also to be noted that PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) made no mention of the visit of Shamim @ Baby at about 5.00 p.m. PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), as mentioned above, stated that the lady tenant, namely, PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) had told her at about 8.00 p.m. that the assailants had threatened her to leave the place.This is also at variance with the testimony of PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi).First of all, PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) did not testify about this aspect of the matter.Secondly, PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) could not have told anything to Shamim @ Baby at 8.00 p.m., as, according to PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) herself, she had left for her sister's place / father's place at 7.00 p.m. itself.It is also to be noted that while PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi) stated that Chanda had consumed liquor and was intoxicated, PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) has stated just the converse.A. No.240/97 Page 15 of 21Continuing with the testimony of PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), we find that she has stated in her cross-examination that she did not know if the door of Chanda's room, which opened onto the road, was bolted from inside or not.Then she positively stated that it was bolted from outside.However, she corrected this by stating that the door was bolted from inside and not from outside.She stated that her father had gone inside the room after taking a ladder from a neighbor and opened the door from inside.She further stated that when her father shouted "chor-chor"(thief-thief), then some people from the neighborhood came to the spot and "Yusuf" had jumped from the back of the house.She, however, admitted that she was standing outside on the road and that she could not see the rear portion of Chanda's house and that she had not seen "Yusuf" jumping as alleged earlier.Furthermore, PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) stated that Chanda was bleeding from her mouth and that she was not in her senses.She further stated that she and her mother went inside and thereafter people from the neighbourhood entered Chanda's house and that the police came after about 10-15 minutes.The police first did their paper work and then took Chanda to hospital.27. PW-6 (Shamshuddin), in his examination-in-chief, stated that on 17.12.1991, his daughter (Shamim) had come to his house and told him that some persons had entered the house of Chanda Mausi.Thereafter, he, alongwith his wife PW-22 (Naseem) and the daughter PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby) went there at about 8.30 - 9.00 p.m. According to him, he knocked on the door of Chanda's house, but there was no response.Consequently, he went to the roof of the house Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 16 of 21 from the neighbour's house and when he reached the roof, he saw one person jumping down from the roof of Chanda's house.That person, according to PW-6 (Shamshuddin), was the present appellant Mohd. Yunus.He stated that when he shouted, people collected from the gali and then he also came downstairs and arrived at Chanda's room and found that Bobby Khanna was lying in an intoxicated condition and was not even capable of moving.Chanda was lying naked and his wife put clothes on the body of Chanda.He, thereafter, described the various articles that were lying in the room and stated that someone had called the police which reached the spot and Chanda was taken to hospital in his presence and thereafter, he went to hospital at 4.00 a.m. in the morning and that his statement was recorded by the police in hospital.A. No.240/97 Page 16 of 21In cross-examination, he stated that he did not accompany the police alongwith the deceased to hospital and that the public persons had apprehended the accused persons.He contradicted his statement in examination-in-chief by saying that his statement was recorded at the spot by the police.Interestingly, PW-6 (Shamshuddin) stated that he did not call any of his relatives after the accused were apprehended and, even more interestingly, PW-6 (Shamshuddin) had stated in his cross-examination as under:-"I had not seen anything as I had reached when the accused had already been apprehended.Public persons who had apprehended the accused, their statements were not recorded by the I.O. The articles were seized in my presence on the next morning.I was called only once by my daughter.I went to the hospital on the next day to see the deceased."These statements elicited from PW-6 (Shamshuddin) during his cross- examination completely defeat the prosecution case that PW-6 (Shamshuddin) Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 17 of 21 had arrived at Chanda's house prior to the removal of Chanda and the two accused to hospital by the police.In fact, the testimonies of PW-1, PW-6 and PW-22 do not inspire any confidence whatsoever with regard to their having arrived at Chanda's house prior to her removal to hospital by the police.The conduct of PW-1, PW-6 and PW-22 is also quite unnatural in the sense that they did not inform any of their other relatives and that, according to them, after Chanda was removed to hospital, they did not immediately follow her to hospital, but went to their home and it is only much later, that is, on the next day, early in the morning at 4.00 a.m. that PW-6 (Shamshuddin) is said to have gone to the hospital.It is interesting that in his cross-examination, he stated that after having arrived at Chanda's house, he remained inside the room for about one and a half hours whereafter the police arrived at the spot and the body of Chanda was removed by the police at about 9.30 or 10.00 p.m. He further stated that he left the spot after about 5 minutes of the removal of the dead body for hospital by bus.Incredibly, he arrived at the hospital much later at 4.00 a.m. in the next morning as per his own testimony.This gap of time is clearly unexplained and inexplicable.A. No.240/97 Page 17 of 21Another reason as to why PW-6 (Shamshuddin) cannot, at all, be believed when he says that he had arrived at Chanda's house prior to the removal of Chanda's body to hospital, is that inasmuch as the MLC (Exhibit PW-4/B) of SDN Hospital, Shahdara in respect of Chanda indicates that at the time she was brought to the said hospital, her name was unknown, her parentage was unknown, her religion was unknown and her residence was also unknown.If what has been Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 18 of 21 stated by PW-6 (Shamshuddin) were to be true, then surely, he would have told the police the name and parentage of Chanda as she was a relative of his, in fact, a close relative inasmuch as she was his wife PW-22 (Naseem's) sister.Consequently, the religion would also have been known, as they were Muslims.Most importantly, the MLC also records the residence of Chanda as unknown.This is a clear indication that Chanda's body was not picked up from her house, but from somewhere else.A. No.240/97 Page 18 of 21We may also point out that PW-22 (Naseem), who is Shamshuddin's wife and Chanda's sister, has given a completely different set of timings which are not in accord with the timings given by her husband PW-6 (Shamshuddin).According to her, the police arrived at Chanda's house between 8.30 or 9.00 p.m. and that the police stayed at the spot for about 5 minutes and then removed Chanda and both the accused persons, in a van, to the hospital.Interestingly, an indication of her unnatural conduct is the following statement made by her:-"Neither I nor my husband nor my daughter accompanied the police to the hospital.My two brothers were residing in Trilokpuri in those days.I did not inform my brothers about the incident on that night."She further stated that:-"We came to know about the death of Chanda at about 7 or 8 AM on the following day.The dead body of Chanda was lying in the P.S. at about 8 AM.I did not go to the P.S. My husband and my brothers had gone to the P.S."While it is an admitted position that Chanda was the sister of PW-22 (Naseem) and was, therefore, a Muslim, it is indeed curious that PW-22 (Naseem) Crl.A. No.240/97 Page 19 of 21 has stated that when the dead body was "cremated", her husband (Jalil) was not present there.A. No.240/97 Page 19 of 21Finally, let us consider the testimony of PW-21 (ASI Kundan Lal) who is admittedly the person who took the injured to hospital.As per the examination- in-chief of PW-21 (ASI Kundan Lal), an information had been received through wireless that an incident had taken place at Pandav Nagar.He immediately reached the spot where several persons had collected.The members of public, who had gathered there, produced three persons out of which one was a woman and all the three were under the influence of liquor.He immediately removed all the three persons to SDN Hospital where the doctor had declared the lady as having been brought dead and the other two male persons were admitted in hospital in a drunken state.In the course of cross-examination, PW-21 (ASI Kundan Lal) stated that he did not see any bleeding on any of the three persons and did not remember as to what clothes were worn by the lady and that she was being lifted by public persons and was conscious and was speaking, but he did not ask her about anything.He also stated that nobody from the public told him that they were related to the lady.The testimony of PW-21 (ASI Kundan Lal) clearly negates the testimony of PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), PW-6 (Shamshuddin) and PW-22 (Naseem).Apart from all this, the prosecution has also not been able to bring out or even suggest what may have been the motive in this case.Thus, we are left with a case in which the key witnesses PW-7 (Shakuntala Devi), PW-1 (Shamim @ Baby), PW-6 (Shamshuddin) and PW-22 (Naseem) cannot be believed.Their Crl. A. No.240/97 Page 20 of 21 conduct is also highly unnatural and for this reason also, no reliance can be placed on their testimonies.In the absence of the testimonies of these witnesses and in the absence of any motive and any other evidence incriminating the present appellant, there is no question of convicting the present appellant in respect of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in convicting the present appellant, has seriously erred in law and / or on facts.A. No.240/97 Page 20 of 21The impugned judgment and / or order on sentence are set aside.The present appellant had been released on bail and his sentence had been suspended.The appeal is allowed.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J October 05, 2011 dutt Crl. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
43,741,792 | It is undisputed that deceased Nanhe Bai was the wife of appellant Rakesh Mehtara and deceased Lalit and Roshni aged about 5 years and 3 years were the son and daughter of the appellant respectively.It is also undisputed that Dal Singh (PW/1), Munni Bai (PW/2) and Manohar Singh (PW/3) are the father, mother and brother of Nanhe Bai respectively.In brief the prosecution case is that Darshan Singh (PW/6) was resident of Village Dahalwada and worked as public health guard.On 18.10.2005, at 9 am when he was returning to his house from the village, he got information that appellant Rakesh's house had caught fire.So he went to appellant's house where he saw Nanhe Bai and her children Lalit and Roshni lying in the courtyard in a burnt state.On that, he took them to Community Health Centre, Bareli by Sarpanch's tractor trolley but Roshni died on the way.He took dead body of Roshni and injured Nanhe Bai and Lalit to Community Health Centre Bareli, where Dr. Mahendra Jain (PW/5) examined Nanhe Bai and Lalit and gave report (Ex.P-5 & P-6) and also sent a letter (Ex.P/4) to the Station House Officer, P.S. Bareli to the effect that Nanhe Bai and Lalit were brought to the hospital in injured state and they sustained injuries due to burning from kerosene.Darshan (PW/6) also lodged the report of incident at Police Station Bareli.On that, Head Constable Meharban Singh (PW/11) registered inquest report No.0/05 (Ex.P/7) under Section 174 of CrPC and sent it for original registration to Police Station Badi.On the information Pradeep Kumar Kaurav (PW/4) Nayab Tahsildar, Bareli also went to CHC Bareli and recorded the dying declaration of deceased Nanhi Bai (Ex.P/3) in which Nanhe Bai stated that appellant Rakesh and his father Nanheveer set her ablaze after pouring kerosene.At that time, her children were also with her so they also got 3 burnt.Head Constable Anantram prepared the inquest report (Ex.P/8) of dead body of deceased Roshni and Dr. R.G. Malani (PW/7) conducted postmortem of dead body of Roshni at CHC Bareli and gave postmortem report (Ex.P/12).Dr. Mahendra Jain (PW/5) after primary treatment referred Nanhe Bai and Lalit to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where Lalit died on 19.10.2005 during treatment.On that merg No.0326/05 (Ex.P/22) was registered at Police Chowki Kohefiza of P.S. Hamidia and Head Constable Sarjerao Bhosle prepared inquest memo (Ex.P/24) of dead body of Lalit and sent his dead body for postmortem along with application (Ex.P/5).So Merg No.0331/2005 (Ex.P/26) under Section 174 of CrPC was also registered at Police Chowki Kohefiza of P.S. Hamidia and Executive Magistrate, Saroj Agnivanshi prepared inquest memo (Ex.P/1) of her dead body.Dr. Jayanti Yadav (PW/12) and Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (PW/14) conducted the postmortem of dead body of Nanhe Bai and Lalit and gave the postmortem report (Ex.P/20 & Ex.P/21) respectively.On receiving the inquest report (Ex.P/7) of deceased Roshni from P.S. Bareli and inquest report (Ex.P/22) and (Ex.P/26) of deceased Lalit and Nanhi Bai from P.S. Hamidia for original registration, inquest Nos. 19/05, 20/05 & 21/05 (Ex.P/13 to Ex.P/15) were registered at Police Station Badi.SDOP Bareli, Neeraj Soni (PW/10) inquired that inquest and during inquiry he recorded the statements of Dal Singh (PW/1), Munni Bai (PW/2), Manohar Singh (PW/3).They informed Neeraj Soni (PW/10) that appellant Rakesh Mehtara who was resident of Village Dahalwada married with deceased Nanhi Bai seven-eight years before the incident.Appellant Rakesh and co-accused Nanheveer demanded dowry and appellant Rakesh used to beat her due to which Nanhi Bai often lived with her parents at village Bharkachh.One month before the incident, she had come to her matrimonial house.On 18/10/2005, appellant Rakesh and co- accused Nanheveer set her ablaze after pouring kerosene and murdered her 4 and her children Roshni and Lalit.On that Neeraj Soni (PW/10) registered Crime No.219/2005 (Ex.P/17) and investigated the matter and during investigation he recorded the statements of Dal Singh (PW/1), Munni Bai (PW/2), Manohar Singh (PW/3) and Darshan (PW/6) and on 07.11.2005 arrested co-accused Nanheveer and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/18).He also sent viscera of deceased Nanhe Bai to FSL Sagar along with draft (Ex.P/19) for chemical examination.Darshan Singh (PW/6) clearly deposed that on the date of incident at 9 AM when he was returning to his house from Village Dahalwada got information that Rakesh's house had caught fire.So he went to appellant's house where he saw that Nanhe Bai and her children Lalit and Roshni were lying in the courtyard in burnt state.At that time her children were also in her lap so they also got burnt.She further stated that till 6 months prior to the incident she had been living in her parental house.They also deposed that on the information that Nanhe Bai had sustained burn injury, they reached Bareli Hospital, where they saw Nanhe Bai in an injured state, at that time, she told that appellant and co-accused set ablaze her after pouring kerosene due to which she and her children Lalit and Roshni sustained burn injuries.Although, appellant and co-accused Nanheveer took the defence that at the time of incident appellant Rakesh and co-accused Nanhevir were not at home and had gone to village Chainpur and Gaganwada for beating drums of Narmada yatra of Member of Parliament of the area and deceased Nanhe Bai set herself ablaze after pouring kerosene and committed suicide.She also burnt her children Roshni and Lalit.Before his death, Lalit clearly stated this fact in front of Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW/4) & Shalakram (PW/5) who reached on the spot at the time of incident.Reserved on : 05.05.2018 Delivered on : 11.05.2018 Per Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Raisen in Sessions Trial No.31/2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge found appellant Rakesh guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.Altogether there were two accused and earlier co-accused Nanheveer, father of the present appellant Rakesh also filed this appeal along with present appellant Rakesh but Nanhever died on 21/03/16 during the 2 pendency of the appeal due to which against him appeal stands abated.So this appeal was considered only against appellant Rakesh.On 30/12/2005, Hanumat Singh (PW/8) also arrested appellant Rakesh and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/10).After investigation, police filed charge sheet against the appellant and co-accused Nanheveer before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bareli, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raisen.On that, S.T.No.31/2006 was registered.Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge Raisen, framed the charge against the appellant and co-accused for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and tried the case.The appellant and co- accused abjured their guilt and took the defence that at the time of incident appellant Rakesh and co-accused Nanheveer were not at home.They had gone to village Chainpur and Gaganwada for beating drums of Narmada yatra of Member of Parliament of the area.Deceased Nanhe Bai set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene and committed suicide.She also burnt her children Roshni and Lalit due to which they also sustained burn injury and died.Before his death, Lalit clearly stated that fact in front of Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW/4) & Shalakram (PW/5) who reached on the spot at the time of incident.Police wrongly implicated the appellant in the crime and also produced Anokhelal (DW/1), Sahab Singh (DW/2), Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW/4) & Shalakram (PW/5) in their defence.However, after trial learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant and co-accused Nanheveer guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.Being aggrieved from that judgment, appellant and co-accused filed this Criminal Appeal.Learned trial court only on the basis of dying declaration of deceased Nanhe Bai wrongly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence while from the statements of Anokhelal (DW/1), Sahab Singh (DW/2), Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW/4) & Shalakram (PW/5) who had reached on the spot soon after the incident clearly proved that at the time of incident appellant and co-accused Nanheveer were not in the house, deceased Nanhe Bai after pouring kerosene on herself set herself ablaze and committed suicide and she also set ablaze her children Roshni and Lalit and Lalit narrated that fact to Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW/4) & Shalakram (PW/5) on the spot but police did not record the statements of these witnesses.Pradeep Kumar Kaurav (PW/4) also recorded the dying declaration of deceased Lalit to that effect which was suppressed by the prosecution.Even otherwise Pradeep Kumar Kaurav (PW/4) Nayab Tahsildar, Bareli who allegedly recorded the dying declaration of deceased Nanhi Bai (Ex.P/3) did not depose before the trial Court about the name and act of the appellant/accused, which resulted in the murder, in the words spoken by the deceased.So the dying declaration had not at all been proved according to law.Learned Trial Court without appreciating all these facts wrongly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence.Hence, counsel prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the said offences.This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the counsels of both the parties.There is no ambiguity in the prosecution evidence on the point that on 18.10.2005 at around 9 AM deceased Nanhe Bai, Lalit and Roshni sustained burn injuries at appellant Rakesh's house situated at Village Dahalwada due to burning from kerosene which later led to their death.On that, he took them to Community Health Centre, Bareli by Sarpanch's tractor trolley but Roshni died on the way.In this regard his statement is also supported from the inquest report (Ex.P/7) lodged by him at P.S. Bareli which was also proved by Meharban Singh (PW/11) and on the point prosecution story is also supported from the statement of Dr. Mahendra Jain (PW/5) who examined Nanhe Bai and Lalit at CHC Bareli and gave MLC report (Ex.P/5) & (Ex.P/6) respectively to the effect that they sustained burn injuries due to kerosene burn and the statement of Dr. R.G. Malani (PW/7) who conducted postmortem of the dead body of Roshni at CHC Bareli and gave postmortem report (Ex.P/12) and the statements of Dr. Jayanti Yadav (PW/12) and Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (PW/14) who conducted the postmortem of dead body of Nanhe Bai and Lalit and gave the postmortem report (Ex.P/20 & Ex.P/21) respectively in which it is mentioned that Roshni, Lalit and Nanhe Bai died due to burn injuries.On this point, appellant has not given any significant challenge to the statements of above mentioned witnesses.So there is no 7 reason to believe their statements in this regard.Even defence witnesses Anokhelal (DW/1), Sahab Singh (DW/2), Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW/4) & Shalakram (PW/5) also admitted in their statements that on the date of incident when they reached appellant Rakesh's house they saw Nanhe Bai and her children Roshni and Lalit lying down in an injured state, they had sustained burn injuries.So from the prosecution evidence, it is clearly proved that on 18.10.2005 at 9 AM Nanhe Bai wife of the appellant, and her children Lalit and Roshni sustained burn injury at the house of the appellant situated at Village Dehalwada and due to those burn injuries Roshni died on the same day i.e., 18.10.2005, Lalit died on 19.10.2005 while Nanhe Bai died on 22.10.2005 and those burn injuries were caused due to kerosene.On the point that on 18.10.2005, appellant and co-accused Nanheveer set ablaze deceased Nanhe Bai, Lalit and Roshni after pouring kerosene, although, there is no eye witness of the incident but Pradeep Kumar Kaurav (PW/4) who recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/3) of Nanhe Bai in this regard clearly deposed that on 18.10.2005 he was posted as Nayab Tahsildar, Bareli.That day, on receiving information from the police, he reached CHC, Bareli and recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/3) of Nanhe Bai at 11.45 AM.He further deposed that before recording the dying declaration of Nanhe Bai, he took certification from the doctor that Nanhe Bai is in fit condition to give statement and thereafter took her dying declaration in question answer form and got her thumb impression on dying declaration (Ex.P/3).He further stated that after recording her dying declaration, he again took certification from the doctor to the effect that, Nanhe Bai was in fit state during recording the dying declaration.In this regard, his statement is also corroborated by the statement of Dr. Mahendra Jain (PW/5) who also deposed that on 18.10.2005 Nayab Tahsildar, P.K. Kaurav (PW/4) recorded 8 the dying declaration of Nanhe Bai (Ex.P/3) and he gave certification on it.In the dying declaration of Nanhe Bai (Ex.P/3), it is mentioned that Nanhe Bai stated that father of her children assaulted her and her children and when she stopped him, father of her children and also his father set her ablaze after pouring kerosene.Her husband and father in law set her ablaze.But at the instance of people, her parents sent her to her matrimonial house.This dying declaration (Ex.P/3) is also corroborated from her oral dying declaration which was given by her in front of her parents Dal Singh (PW/1), Munni Bai (PW/2) and brother Manohar Singh (PW/3).Police wrongly implicated the appellant in the crime.But in this regard defence of the appellant and the statements of his defence witnesses do not appear to be trustworthy.Sahab Singh (DW/2) deposed that on the date of incident he had called co-accused Nanheveer to his house for beating drum.When Nanheveer was beating drum in the village, her daughter in law (Nanhe Bai) set herself ablaze.At the time of incident appellant Rakesh and co-accused were not on the spot.Appellant Rakesh had gone to field for cutting grass and Nanheveer was beating drum in the village.Other defences witnesses Anokhelal (DW/1), Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW4) & Shalakram (DW/5) also deposed that on the date of incident appellant Rakesh had gone to field for cutting grass and Nanheveer had gone to beat drums.But in this regard the statements of these witnesses do not match with statement of appellant.When learned trial court entered the appellant in to the defence under section 233 of Cr.P.C. appellant Rakesh stated that on the date of incident he and his father (Nanheveer) had gone to village Chainpur and Gaganwada for beating drums of Narmada yatra of Member of Parliament of the area, where Guddu informed him that deceased Nanhe Bai set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene and Nanheveer also in his defence stated that on the date of incident he had gone to village Chainpur for beating drums of Narmada yatra of Member of Parliament of the area.On the way Anokhe Lal (DW/1) met him and informed him that Nanhe Bai had set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene.So the statements of defences witnesses Anokhelal (DW/1), Sahab Singh (DW/2), Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW4) & Shalakram (DW/5) that on the date of incident appellant Rakesh had gone to field for cutting grass and Nanheveer was beating drum in the village become doubtful and cannot be believed.Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW4) & Shalakram (DW/5) also deposed that Nanhe Bai set herself ablaze and on receiving that information when they reached the spot, they saw Nanhe Bai lying in injured state.At that time, son of Nanhe Bai said that mother (Nanhe Bai) burnt him.But 10 defence witnesses Anokhelal (DW/1) and Sahab Singh (DW/2) stated that when they reached the spot, Lalit was unconscious.Darshan Singh (PW/6) who took Nanhe Bai and her children from the spot to hospital has also stated that when he reached the spot, Nanhe Bai and her children were not speaking but only screaming.So statements of Theu (DW/3), Kalyan Singh Rajput (DW/4) and Shalakram (DW/5) that when they reached the spot Lalit told them that mother (Nanhe Bai) had burnt him do not appear to be correct.It appears that these witnesses gave false statements in this regard only to protect appellant.Learned trial court rightly disbelieved the statements of defence witnesses.Appellant neither gave any suggestion to Pradeep Kumar Kaurav (PW/4) that he also recorded the dying declaration of deceased Lalit at CHC Bareli nor did he produce any evidence showing that Pradeep Kumar Kaurav (PW/4) also recorded the dying declaration of deceased Lalit at CHC Bareli.Appellant did not even give any suggestion to Dr Mahendra Jain (PW/5) and Neeraj Soni (PW/10) who investigated the crime that Pradeep Kumar Kaurav (PW/4) also recorded the dying declaration of deceased Lalit at CHC Bareli.So the argument of learned counsel of appellant that police suppressed the dying declaration of deceased Lalit also do not appear to be correct.Even in this case the oral dying declaration of Nanhe Bai was also proved by her parents Dal Singh (PW/1), Munni Bai (PW/2) and her brother Manohar Singh (PW/3), who clearly deposed that on the information when they reached CHC Bareli they found Nanhe Bai in injured state and she clearly stated to them that appellant and Nanhevir set her ablaze after pouring kerosene due to which she, Lalit and Roshni were burnt.There is no contradiction in their statements in this regard.Even, from the record it appears that appellant also filed an application before the trial court stating that the thumb impression on dying declaration of Nanhe Bai (Ex.P/3) was not hers and that of her mother Munni Bai (PW/2).On that, learned Trial Court by order dated 25/02/08 directed the prosecution to get the thumb impression examined marked on dying declaration (Ex.P/3) by handwriting expert.The handwriting expert after comparing the standard thumb impression of Munni Bai (PW/2) with the thumb impression marked on dying declaration (Ex.P/3) gave report (Ex.D/1) to the effect that the standard thumb impression of Munni Bai (PW/3) did not match with the thumb impression, marked on Nanhe Bai's dying declaration.This fact also strengthens the statement of Pradeep Kumar Kaurav (PW/4) that he took Nanhe Bai's thumb impression on dying declaration (Ex.P/3) after recording her statement.Appellant in the cross-examination of Dal Singh (PW/1), 12 Munni Bai (PW/2) and Manohar Singh (PW/3) even gave suggestion to them that the character of Nanhe Bai was not good which also shows the motive of the appellant to murder Nanhe Bai.Had appellant not set Nanhe Bai ablaze why would Nanhe Bai who was his wife, give false dying declaration against him.There is no ambiguity in the dying declaration (Ex.P/3) of Nanhe Bai in which it is clearly mentioned that father of her children assaulted her and her children and when she stopped him, father of her children and also his father set her ablaze after pouring kerosene.Her husband and father in law set her ablaze.At that time her children were also in her lap so they also got burnt.Further, that dying declaration was also supported from the statement of Dal Singh (PW/1), Munni Bai (PW/2) and Manohar Singh (PW/3).There is no ambiguity in their statements on the point that in the hospital Nanhe Bai told them that appellant and Nanhevir set her ablaze after pouring kerosene due to which she, Lalit and Roshni were burnt.So there is no reason to disbelieve Nanhe Bai's dying declaration in this regard.It is well settled that the from dying declaration, after its careful scrutiny, if the Court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment to form such dying declaration the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajju @ Karan Singh vs State of M.P reported in (2012) 4 SCC 327 held that "the law is very clear that if the dying declaration has been recorded in accordance with law, is reliable and gives a cogent and possible explanation of the occurrence of the events, then the dying declaration can certainly be relied upon by the Court and could form the sole piece of evidence resulting in the conviction of the accused".In this case also, there is no ambiguity in the dying declaration so there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of Nanhe Bai (Ex.P/3).In the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in relying Nanhe Bai dying declaration and finding the appellant guilty for murdering Nanhe Bai and her children Roshni and Lalit, so there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court.Although, it appears from the record that learned trial court found the appellant guilty for murdering Nanhe Bai, Rakesh and Lalit but learned Trial Court only awarded sentence on one count but prosecution did not file any appeal in that regard.Hence, appeal filed by the appellant/accused stands dismissed.The appellant, who is in the custody, shall serve the remaining part of the sentence, in accordance with law.The period already undergone shall be set off from the period of substantive jail sentence.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. | ['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. |
43,750,235 | </span></span></span></font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"> </span></span></span>C.C. as per rules.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <br> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="3">(</font></font><font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4">Tarun Kumar Kaushal)</font></font></font></font></p> <p style="text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4"> Judge</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-US"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font style="font-size: 6pt" size="1"><span style="background: transparent">tarun</span></font></font></p> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font><p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> <span lang="en-US"><span style="background: transparent">This is an application for bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 306, 201, 182ka, 186/34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.91/2014 registered at police station Gadhwa, District Singrauli.</span></span></font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> According to prosecution on 15/10/2013 Archana committed suicide by hanging herself feeling harassed by quarrel and treatment given to her by petitioners and other family members.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> Learned counsel for petitioners submits that FIR in this case lodged after about more than a period of 6-7 months ie on 05/06/2014 and all family members have been implicated in this case.Co-accused father and brother of deceased have been released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C on 01/08/2014 in M.Cr.Petitioners are brother and servant having no criminal past.They are apprehending their arrest in this case along with other family members.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> Learned counsel for State submits that allegations are equally serious against present petitioners.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have been implicated on the basis of vague allegation and presumption.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font size="3"><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"> Without commenting on merits of the case, on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to grant bail to the petitioners</span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">.</span></span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"> </span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Petitioner no.1 Anil Kumar Upadhyay </b></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">and</span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b> petitioner no.2 Chotelal Baiga </b></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">are</span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b> </b></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial.In the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of </span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Rs.30,000/-each </b></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">with a separate surety of like amount </span></span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">to the satisfaction of arresting officer.Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply on the petitioners during currency of bail. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,983,810 | JUDGMENT A.D. Koshal, J.For the abduction and murder of Inder Singh, a resident of village Lataur to Police Station Mulepur of Dist.The prosecution case may be stated thus:- About a decade prior to the 21st July 1969 when Inder Singh is said So have been murdered, one Harbans Kaur started living with him along with her two sons Kashmir Singh and Chanan Singh and a daughter named Gurmit Kaur (P.W. 6), the father of these three children being a deserted husband.Soon afterwards she contracted a Karewa marriage with the deceased who in turn made over possession of his land measuring about 125 bighas to her two sons who started cultivating the same.Sometime in the year 1967 the deceased fell out with Harbans Kaur and her sons and shifted his residence to the house of Gurbachan Singh accused who was his distant collateral.On the 12th December 1967 the deceased executed a will bequeathing his property to Gurbachan Singh accused and had the same registered.He also filed a suit for possession of his land against Kashmir Singh and Chanan Singh which was decreed on the 27th February 1969 by the trial court and on the 23rd March 1969 by the appellate court.He obtained actual possession of the land on the 6th July 1969 (vide Ex. D-5).A couple of days later Gurbachan Singh accused arranged a liquor party to celebrate the happy occasion of recovery of possession of the land by the deceased from his step-sons.The party was attended by the three accused as well as by Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) who was on visiting terms with them.On that day the three accused and Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) hurled abuses at Gurmit Kaur (P.W. 6) who raised an alarm.The deceased, who happened to come on the scene, did not relish the behavior of the accused and their friend and declared that he would cancel the will above-mentioned.On the same day he shifted his residence back to his own house.Three or four days later Baldev Singh accused went to the village Chaurwala where Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) resided and took him to his father's well where the other two accused were already present.A conspiracy was hatched to kill Inder Singh so that he would not be able to revoke the will.Gurbachan Singh accused declared that he would bear all the necessary expenses.After the conspiracy was hatched, i.e., on the 21st July 1969, another case filed by the deceased against his step-sons, in which he had claimed Rs. 4,000 as mesno profits of the land above-mentioned, was to be taken up for hearing by a court at Bassi.The deceased came out of his house to go to Bassi and found that the three accused and Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) were present nearby with a tractor and a trolly which belonged to the accused and which they used to park in their cattle-shed adjoining the house of the deceased.Gurbachan Singh accused took Inder Singh to the trolly and made him sit therein.Hardev Singh accused drove the tractor which was attached to the trolly and the rest of the party gave company to the deceased.On the way Gurbachan Singh accused got down at village Sadhugarh, while the rest of the party travelled in the tractor and the trolly towards Bassi.On reaching village Bhat Majra Hardev Singh diverted the tractor towards a Katcha path leading to Sirhind and after covering a short distance stopped the machine, came down from his seat and entered the trolly.At that juncture Baldev Singh accused picked up a brick which had been lying in the trolly all the time and therewith gave a blow on the left ear of the deceased whom he caught hold of by the neck and on whose chest he then jumped.Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) and Hardev Singh accused caught the deceased by his legs and the latter died on the spot.The dead body was covered with a tarpaulin which was lying in the trolly.Hardev Singh took the tractor and the trolly towards a rivulet known as Landra Nadi, Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) and the two sons of Gurbachan Singh dug a pit in the bed of the Nadi and buried the dead body.All three of them then returned to Lataur from where Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) went away to his own village.Patiala and for doing away with his dead-body, three other residents of the same village, namely, Gurbachan Singh aged 55, his son Baldev Singh aged 30, and the latter's brother Hardev Singh aged 27, were tried by Shri Jagwant Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, for offences under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 120B read with Section 302 and Section 201, of the Indian Penal Code.Two of the accused, namely, Hardev Singh and Ms father were acquitted of all the charges.Their co-accused Baldev Singh was, however, found guilty of murdering Inder Singh in furtherance of the common intention of himself and others and was convicted of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The charges under Section 864 and Section 201 of the Code were also found proved against him and he was convicted thereof.The sentences awarded to him were life imprisonment on the first count, rigorous imprisonment for five years on the second and rigorous imprisonment for three years on the third, all of them having been directed to run concurrently.His appeal was rejected by a Judgment dated the 8th of October 1971 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and it is that judgment which is challenged before us in the present appeal.Three or four days after the occurrence the villagers took notice of the absence of Inder Singh, Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) got funky and contacted Gurbachan Singh accused with a request that the latter should save him as promised.Gurbachan Singh left the village and returned a couple of hours later.He then told his two sons and Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) that he had lodged a first information report at police station Mulepur against the step-sons of the deceased.Such a report actually purports to have been lodged by him on the 26th July 1969 in the form of Ex. P.N.In the meantime the wife of the deceased had made an application dated 14th July 1969 to the Chief Minister, Punjab, which was ultimately passed on to the Patiala police who recorded the statement of Harbans Kaur and on the basis thereof registered a case on the 1st August, 1969 against the three accused as well as Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.On coming to know that he had been named as one of the culprits, Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) went to police station Sirhind on the 4th August 1969 and made enquiries if he was wanted for Inder Singh's murder.He was told that this was so and was arrested.His statement (Ex. D.A. ) was recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector Dalip Singh of police station Mulepur (P.W. 11), on the same day.On the 13th August 1969 Gurmel Singh accused was granted pardon and became an approver.His detailed statement (Ex. P. B.) was recorded the next Class, Patiala (P.W. 3)(sic).Baldev Singh accused was arrested on the 4th August 1969 from the bus stand at Sirhind and made a disclosure (Ex. PE) to the effect that he had buried the dead body of Inder Singh in the bed of Landra Nadi, The police took him to the rivulet where he dug out earth from a part of the bed and uncovered the dead body which the police secured and had photographed by Madan Gopal (P.W. 2).The autopsy was carried out by Dr. B. N. Soni, Medical Officer, A. P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura (P.W. 1) on the 4th August 1969 from 5.30 p.m. onwards.The visible injuries were two in number which the doctor has described thus:The pinna of the left ear was contused and lacerated and the left side of the face showed some bluish marks.The left side of the front of chest showed bluish marks in an area of 6" x 5"; on dissection there were signs of effused blood into the subcutaneous tissues and muscle fibres.Decomposition had set in.The left mandible was found fractured and so were five ribs on each side.In the opinion of the doctor, death had resulted from shock produced by the multiple fractures.According to him, the time-gap between the injuries and the death was unascertainable while that between the death and the autopsy was about two weeks.3. 14 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case.Fauja Singh (P.W. 10) also stated that at the bus stand at village Sadhugarh, Gurbachan Singh accused had got down from the trolly in which the other travellers were Baldev Singh, Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) and the deceased and which was being towed by a tractor driven by Hardev Singh accused.The main evidence against the accused, however, consisted of the testimony of the approver, namely, Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8), and of the circumstance of the recovery of the dead body at the instance of Baldev Singh accused.The defence consisted of a total denial of the allegations made against the accused by the prosecution.They claimed that they had been falsely implicated by Chanan Singh, Kashmir Singh, Gurmit Kaur and their mother Harbans Kaur and that the dead body had been recovered at the instance of Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8).The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that although the deposition of the approver was corroborated in material particulars in so far as Baldev Singh accused was concerned, such corroboration was lacking in the case of the other two accused, who, in fact, had really not played any prominent part in the alleged abduction and murder.He noted the fact that the medical evidence conformed to the story given by the approver and attached importance to the recovery of the dead body which was found to have resulted from the disclosure made by Baldev Singh accused.Similar were the views expressed by the High Court who considered the story given by the approver to be reliable in so far as Baldev Singh accused was concerned.Before us it has been strenuously urged on behalf of the appellant that the testimony of Gurmel Singh (P.W. 8) not only bristles with inherent improbabilities but must also be rejected for the reason that the approver had been changing his stand from time to time and cannot on that account be regarded as a reliable witness.After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length we find the contention, by and large, to be acceptable.Besides, he belongs to a different village and it is not his case that he and the accused were so thick with each other that he would die for them and they for him.The only assertion about his relations with them is that he was on visiting terms with them, which is a state of affairs such as would not normally prompt the accused to take him into confidence about such a serious matter as murder.Nor was he promised any remuneration.Why then would he put his neck into the noose? The natural conduct on his part when he was asked to be a party to the murder at the time of the alleged conspiracy would be to disclaim all interest therein or in any case to keep quiet, go back home and not react favourably to any further attempt to rope him in.His stand that he was a willing party to the conspiracy as also to the abduction and murder appears highly unnatural to us.And then what part did he actually take in the abduction and the murder? He says that he was called by the accused and travelled along with them in the trolly and all that he did was that he caught hold of the legs of the deceased after the latter had received fatal injuries at the hands of the appellant.Why the legs were so caught is not stated and appears to be something really funny and incredible.The third improbability in the approver's evidence consists of his visit to the police station at Sirhind.He says that he got frightened by the rumour that he had been named as one of the culprits who had abducted and murdered Inder Singh and that, therefore, he contacted the police in order to find out whether there was any truth in the rumour.This conduct on bis part is wholly unnatural.The rumour would have persuaded him to make himself scarce rather than to go to the police which was the very thing he was afraid of.In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,983,913 | JUDGMENT Jaspal Singh, J.(1) On May 27, 1993 Bimla Devi filed a complaint against Ishwar Singh the then Station House Officer, Police Station Jahangir Puri and some other police officials of that Police Station.The complainant alleged commission of offences under Sections 343, 354, 357, 376, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Section 34, of the Code was also invoked.The learned trial Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant and her other witnesses, summoned all the accused persons excepting are R.C.Sharma.The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, heard arguments on charge and holding that there was no "incriminating evidence" against the Station House Officer Ishwar Singh and that the complainant had not "Specifically narrated any incident in the complaint involving Ishwar Singh in assaulting her or outraging her modesty or in her wrongful confinement...." discharged him.(2) Let is first have a look at the complaint filed by Bimla Devi, the present petitioner.It alleges that on February 9, 1993 at about 11 a.m. Sub Inspector Inderpal alongwith one Constable Ramesh came to her parental house, took away her brother Ashok Kumar after hurling abuses at her "in most filthy language".This, however, was just the beginning of her long ordeal.Allegedly during this period the "accused persons" beat her, snatched her hair, subjected her to assault and criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty, made her naked and raped her in the presence of her brother.She further claims that at the time of her release on February 11, 1993 she was threatened by the "accused persons" that on her lodging a report against them she would not only be implicated "in some heinous crime" but would also be killed and that on her release on the night of February 11, 1993 though she alongwith her husband did go to Police Post Majnu Ka Pilla to lodge a report against the officials of Police Station Jahangirpuri, she was turned away.The other witnesses examined were her sister-in-law Rekha.Sita Devi mother of Ashok Kumar, Bishan Dass, Vinod Kumar, Raghbir Singh and Anil Kumar.(4) The statement of the complainant Bimla Devi (CW-1) makes a sad reading.She speaks of Inderpal, and other Police officials having taken away her brother Ashok Kumar on February 9, 1993 to the Police Station and of her own visit to the Police Station on that very day alongwith her sister-in-law Rekha with a view to serve him meals.This, however, is not all.She tells us that on February 10, 1993 inderpal dragged her upto the room where her brother Ashok was confined, directed her to open his fly-buttons and when she refused she was beaten, made naked as also her brother and on refusal by her brother to rape her as directed, her body was violated by Inderpal himself.To add to the agony, the Station House Officer threatened that in case of her disclosing to anyone about her having been raped her family members would be wiped out.(5) Coming to Rekha who is the sister-in-law of the complainant and by now the widow of Ashok Kumar, she lends full support to the version of the complainant with regard to the detention of her husband and her subsequent visit to the Police Station alongwith the complainant.According to her whereas she herself was pushed out by Ishwar Singh, Bimla was caught hold of by him and given beatings.She tells us that she had again gone to the Police Station on February 10, 1993 and had seen Inderpal pushing her naked husband towards Bimla who too had no clothes on and giving them beatings.(6) Sita Devi, the mother-in-law of the complainant too speaks of the detention of Bimla Devi by Ishwar Singh, S.H.O., and of her having been beaten and dragged by him.According to her Ishwar Singh did not release the complainant till 9 p.m. of February 11, 1993 despite his having been approached by others too.Not only that, As per her, Ishwar Singh had threatened her with dire consequences in case of her making any complaint to anyone.(7) That the Station House Officer had been approached to release the complainant and further that he had abused and insulted them finds support from the statement of CW-4 Bishan Dass also.(8) The statement of CW-5 Vinod Kumar also needs to be noticed in some detail.As per him when the complainant alongwith her sister-in-law came to the Police Station on February 9, the sister-in-law was beaten and pushed out of the Police Station by Inderpal while the complainant was beaten by S.H.O. Ishwar Singh and that it was on the orders of S.H.O. Ishwar Singh that the Complainant and Ashok Kumar were made naked.According to him she was raped by Inderpal on the 10th in his presence and on the 11th Ishwar Singh had threatened the complainant that in case of her lodging a report against them, she and her family members would meet with dire consequences.(9) As already noticed above the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discharged Station House Officer Ishwar Singh on the ground that she did not find "any incriminating evidence" against him.She observed that the complainant had "not specifically narrated any incident in the complaint involving Inspector Ishwar Singh in assaulting her or outraging her modesty or in her wrongful confinement or his convenience (sic)" and that "the name of Ishwar Singh was introduced, for the first time, by the complainant in her statement made in Court on 26.6.93 i.e. after two and half month of the filing of the complaint for the obvious reason that her brother was previously lifted by police station Jahangir Puri for investigation in a murder case and then he was taken away by the police of Gurgaon where he died in custody." The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that there was delay in lodging the complaint and that the same had not been explained and, therefore, the allegations have to be viewed "with suspicion".(10) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly appreciated the evidence on the record nor did she look into the matter in right perspective.Ofcourse, the impugned order won full-throated approval from the learned counsel appearing for Ishwar Singh.This being the position, the Sessions Court can proceed not only against the accused originally committed but also against other persons appearing to be guilty from the material on record and that material, in a complaint case, would not only be the complaint itself but also the statements on oath (of any) under Section 202 and the documents submitted, if any, I have been constrained to reiterate this well-entrenched legal position because the tenor of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that much was sought to be made of the allegations contained in the complaint only as if the statements recorded on oath were not of much consequence. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,839,473 | Case diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 22.08.2017 by Police Station Pichhore, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 99/2012 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and u/s 25/27 of the Arms Act.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.Applicant initially filed M.Cr.C. 7798/2012 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the prosecution in question in which this court restrained the respondent from taking any coercive steps against the applicant and therefore, investigation came to standstill.More so, since the applicant has recently been arrested his release would be at the cost of delaying the trial further and therefore , for the time being present bail application stands rejected with liberty to come again after examination of main witnesses or if the trial gets delayed. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,394,791 | Mr. Rishi Shrivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The facts of the case reveal that one Dariyaogiri Goswami who is also represented before this Court by Shri Rishi Shrivastava, advocate has filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging commission of cognizable offences by the present applicant and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter.A petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was preferred before this Court i.e. M.Cr.8366/2015 and a prayer was made for quashment of Criminal Complaint No.0/2013 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, -2- Bagli Distt. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,396,004 | C.C. as per rules.(G.S. Solanki) JUDGE ravidays by ordinary mode as well as by RAD mode.Notice be made returnable within two weeks.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with criminal complaint case No.183/12 pending before JMFC, Lakhnadon, Seoni, Satna for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 506-B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are falsely implicated in the case.Learned Magistrate directed the police to register the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the applicants.The matter is still to be inquired.Applicants are Sarpanch and Up- Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jogigupha.They are permanent residents of Lakhnadon.Applicants are reputed person of the society and they are ready to co- operate in further investigation.In the event of arrest their reputation will be tarnished therefore, he prays for ad-anticipatory bail to them.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.On due consideration of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to grant ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants.The application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/concerned Magistrate.This order shall remain in force till disposal of the main application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Call for the case diary. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,398,176 | P.W.1 is the victim in this case.The appellant and P.W.1 are resident of same village, and P.W.1 belongs to a schedule caste Harijan community, the appellant belongs to a backward class community.In the year 2001, one day at about 7.00 p.m., while P.W.1 was returning from his work, the appellant waylaid her and forcibly took her and raped her.Thereafter, he promised to marry P.W.1, and he had sexual intercourse with her and P.W.1, got pregnant.After coming to know about it, A1 along with his sister/A2 and some other relatives of A1, took her to a private hospital and aborted her pregnancy and the appellant asked her to stay in his sister's house at Chenguchi for 10 days, when P.W.1 asked the appellant to marry her, he refused, then P.W.1, informed the same to her relatives.Thereafter, she has lodged a complaint before the respondent police.3. P.W.12, Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 376, 417, 506(ii) IPC and prepared First information Report, Ex.P.14 and sent the same for further investigation.P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the First Information Report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2, and Rough Sketch, Ex.The first accused in S.C.No.185 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge(Principal Sessions Judge) Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram, is the appellant herein.Totally, there are two accused.A1 stood charged for the offences under Sections 376, 506(ii), 417 r/w.34 IPC and 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 and A2 stood charged for an offence under Section 417 r/w.34 IPC.Pending trial, the second accused, who is sister of the first accused died, and A1 alone faced the trial.By judgment, dated 19.01.2007, the trial court convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 417 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and convicted him under Section 376 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, also convicted him under Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and acquitted the appellant/accused under Section 506(ii) IPC.P.9, in the presence of the witnesses and recorded the statements of the witnesses.On 06.02.2002, at about 6.00 p.m., arrested the appellant and sent the appellant and P.W.1 for medical examination.Then, he altered the First Information Report including offence under Section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST (P.A) Act, and the alteration report, Ex.4. P.W.13, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of the alteration report, commenced investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.3 and drew a Rough Sketch, Ex.P.15 and recorded the statements of the witnesses.He also obtained community certificate for the accused as well as P.W.1 from the revenue authorities.5. P.W.7, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital,Villupuram, examined the appellant and has given certificate that he is potent.P.W.10, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Villupuram, examined P.W.1 and has given a report (Ex.P.8) and he was of the opinion that the age of P.W.1 would be above 20-21 years.Then P.W.13, recorded the statements of the Doctor and other witnesses and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned in the first paragraph of the judgment and the accused denied the same.In order to prove its case , on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited.According to her, she belongs to schedule caste community and the appellant belongs to backward community, and when she was returning back from her work, the accused waylaid her and forcibly took her and raped her and thereafter, the appellant promised to marry her, and she got pregnant, then the accused took her to a private hospital for abortion, subsequently, when P.W.1 asked the appellant to marry her, he refused to marry her, and then she lodged the complaint.With the help of an advocate and some other people belonging to their community, went to the police station and lodged the complaint.According to her, P.W.1 told her that when she was three months pregnant, the accused took her to a private hospital and aborted the fetus.P.W.4 also belongs to the same village.P.W.5 is the witness to the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch.P.W.6 is the Head Constable, who took the accused for medical examination.P.W.7, Doctor, examined the appellant.P.W.8 is the Tahsildar, issued community certificate for the appellant.P.W.9, Head Constable, who submitted the First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ulundurpet.P.W.10, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Villupuram, examined P.W.1 and has given report Ex.P.W.12, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the case and sent the same to the jurisdictional magistrate and also to his higher officials.P.W.13, Deputy Superintendent of Police, continued the investigation and recorded the statements of the Doctor and other witnesses and after completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not chose to examine any witness or mark any documents.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.We have heard Mr.S.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs.M.F.Shabana, learned Gov.(Crl.Side) appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.14. P.W.1 is the prosecutrix in this case.According to her, initially, the appellant forcibly took her and raped her.When she questioned the appellant, he promised that he will marry her, and also threatened her, believing his words, she continued to have sexual intercourse with the appellant and she got pregnant.At that time, the appellant once again promised her that he will marry her, and along with her sister, and others, he took her to a private hospital, where she had undergone abortion.Then, P.W.1 was taken to the house of the appellant's sister and she was staying there for 10 days, thereafter, he refused to marry her.But, in the cross examination, she has stated that at the first instance, the accused has told her that he will marry her and believing his words, she had intercourse with him frequently and then she became pregnant, and she was contradicted that at the first instance the appellant did not forcibly raped her.In her cross examination she further stated that the appellant/accused never refused to marry her and his relatives also never refused for their marriage.Thereafter, after one year she has given a complaint on 06.02.2002, with the help of one Elango , who belongs to her community.P.W.10, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Villupuram, examined P.W.1, to whom P.W.1 has stated that she was forced to abort her pregnancy.P.W.13 investigating officer also in his cross-examination has stated that P.W.1 told the doctor that she has voluntarily undergone abortion and from the evidence of P.W.4, who is known to the accused as well as P.W.1, in his cross examination has stated that P.W.1 told him that he had intercourse with the appellant/accused and thereafter she got pregnant and both of them were living like husband and wife.According to her, she was aware about the intimacy between the accused and P.W.1 and P.W.1 herself told her that she got pregnant and from the above evidence, it could be seen that P.W.1 is only a consenting party and the appellant did not had sexual intercourse with P.W.1 against her will.It is also clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that the prominent reason which lead her in agreeing for the sexual intimacy with the appellant is that he promised P.W.1 to marry her.The next question is whether there is any fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the appellant to have a sexual intercourse and made a false promise to marry P.W.1, and on that promise, P.W.1 agreed to have a sexual intimacy with him.But, there is no evidence from which it can be convincingly inferred against the appellant.Even P.W.1 admitted in her cross examination that the appellant never refused to marry her and her relatives also did not oppose for their marriage.In the above circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove none of the ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating, which is punishable under Section 417 IPC.Apart from that even though the occurrence took place in the year 2001, P.W.1 did not take any steps to give a complaint and she has given a complaint only on 06.02.2002, nearly one year after the occurrence, that too at the instance of some of the community people, hence, the delay in filing the complaint also creates doubt in the prosecution case.From the above circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 376 IPC and 417 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt.Since the charge under Sections 376 and 417 IPC are not proved, the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act is also liable to be set aside.In the above circumstances, since the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant/accused, beyond any reasonable doubt, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.185 of 2004 are set aside.The appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused is directed to be refunded.Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused, shall stand cancelled.The Special Judge, (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., mrp Crl.A.No.399 of 200721.02.2017 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,398,201 | The deceased was being brought up by P.W.3 and he was studying in a local school in VI standard.A1 belongs to Pennikkal Village.A2 is his associate.Out of the said illicit relationship between P.W.3 and A1, PW.3 became pregnant.But, P.W.3 did not want to continue the same, as it, according to her, would have brought shame to her family.Therefore, she informed P.W.8, who is the paternal uncle of her husband to help her to terminate the pregnancy.P.W.8 took her to one Dr.Three months prior to the occurrence in this case, Dr.Shankar terminated the pregnancy by giving injection.Since P.W.3 had terminated the pregnancy, it is alleged that A1 decided to take revenge on her by killing her son.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.It is alleged that on 06.11.2007 at 07.00 a.m., the deceased had gone to his school.Then, both A1 and A2 killed the deceased.According to the charge, A2 held the deceased and A1 strangulated him to death.After causing the death of the deceased, it is alleged that with a view to erase the evidence, they took the dead body of the deceased and buried the same near Kundal Lake by digging a pit and thereafter, they left the place of occurrence.Since the deceased had not returned home, she went in search of him, but, she was not able to find him anywhere.According to her, she went to the police station for giving a complaint in respect of the same, but, since she was informed to come with any one of the VIPs of the village, she did not go to the police station again.She continued to search for the child.On 21.07.2011, a skull and few bones of a human being with a khaki trousers and a blue colour shirt with VI standard Text Book were found near Kundal Lake.On getting information, the then Village Administrative Officer, Bairamangalam Village, rushed to the place of occurrence, where, in the land comprised in S.No.257, he found a skull of a human being and the VI standard text book wherein the name of the deceased was found.The name of the assailant was then shown as "unknown".P.13 is the FIR.She forwarded both Ex.P.1-complaint and Ex.P.W.11 thereafter handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.5. P.W.13, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.He visited the place of occurrence at 06.00 a.m. on 22.11.2007 and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P.14) in the presence P.W.1 and another witness.He also recovered M.O.1 to M.O.3 under a mahazar (Ex.P.3) in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness.Thereafter, he made a request to the Doctor attached to Government Hospital at Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District, to come to the place occurrence to conduct postmortem.He dug out the skeletal remains found at the place of occurrence and placed them before the Doctor for postmortem.P.W.6-Doctor conducted autopsy on the skeletal remains and preserved the skull and the other skeletal remains for the purpose of further examination.But, from the skeletal remains P.W.6 could not give any opinion regarding the cause of death.He forwarded all the material objects to the court.In the mean time, P.W.13 got transferred and P.W.17, the successor of P.W.13, took up the case for further investigation.He has stated that on 06.11.2007 at about 05.30 p.m. when he was sitting in a tea shop belonging to one Mr.Venkatasappa at Pennigal Village, he found A1 and A2 taking the deceased towards Kundal Lake.He has further stated that on 21.11.2007, he came to know that the skeletal remains were found at the place of occurrence.P.W.8 is the younger paternal uncle of P.W.3 He has stated about the illicit relationship between A1 and P.W.3 and the fact that out of such illicit relationship P.W.3 had become pregnant.He has further stated that he only took her to P.W.3 to Dr.[Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU.J.,] The appellant is the 1st Accused in S.C.No.90 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.One Mr.Gopal @ Rajagopal was the 2nd Accused.The trial court framed as many as three charges against the accused.By judgement dated 10.08.2012, the trail court convicted A1 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five months for offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 201 of IPC.Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.However, A2 was acquitted from both the charges.Challenging the said conviction and the sentence, A1 is, now, before this court with this criminal appeal.P.W.3's husband was one Mr.Ramachandran.He suspected that the skeletal remains found there were that of the deceased.Therefore, he rushed to Kelamangalam Police Station and made a complaint on 21.11.2007 at 05.00 p.m. P.W.11, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kelamangalam Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.174 of 2007 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.P.W.13, in the course of investigation, collected the photograph of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Forensic Lab through court.The skull was also sent for superimposition test.The superimposition report revealed that the skull tallied with that of the photograph of the deceased.Thus, he ascertained that the skeletal remains were that of the deceased.It was further ascertained by the mother and the other relatives of the deceased who identified that the trousers and shirt and the book found near the skeletal remains were that of the deceased.On 24.11.2007, at 09.00 a.m. it is alleged that A1 surrendered before P.W.2 and gave a voluntary confession admitting his guilt.It is further alleged that P.W.2 reduced the same into writing and produced the accused along with the extra confession statement of A1 to the Inspector of Police.During the course of investigation, P.W.13 arrested A2 and recorded his confession statement.But, no discovery of fact was made out of his confession.He examined many more witnesses and recorded their statements.He also examined the Doctor who conducted autopsy and other official witnesses, collected medical records and expert opinion and on completing the investigation, he laid the final report against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed as many as three charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the same, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined, 18 documents and 4 materials objects were marked.P.W.2, who was examined to speak about the extra judicial confession allegedly given by A1, has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased.She has spoken about the missing of the deceased from 06.11.2007 onwards.She has further stated that from the shirt and trousers and the text book found at the place of occurrence, she identified the skeletal remains as that of the deceased.P.W. 6 Doctor has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him on the skeletal remains.He has further stated that he was not able to find out the cause for the death.P.W.2 is the stock witness for the prosecution.Shankar and the Doctor terminated the pregnancy.P.W.9, the Head Clerk of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, has stated that on the orders of the learned Magistrate, he forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of examination.P.W.10 has stated that he led the Doctor (P.W.) to the place of occurrence as required by P.W.13, the investigating officer.P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.12 , an expert in Forensic Science Lab, has stated that the skull found at the place of occurrence tallied with that of the photograph of the deceased on superimposition test.P.W.13 has stated about the substantial portion of the investigation done by him in this case.P.W.14, P.W.15 and P.W.16 turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.17 has spoken about the further investigation done by him and the filing of final report against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor did they mark any document.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted A1 alone under sections 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly punished him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.A2 was acquitted by the trial court.That is how, A1 alone is now before this court with this criminal appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and also perused the records carefully.It is the further evidence of P.W.8 that P.W.3 had become pregnant on account of the illicit relationship with A1 and he only took her to the Doctor for termination of pregnancy.But, P.W.3 has not stated so.At any rate, in our considered view, the motive for the occurrence has not been established by the prosecution.The prosecution has established that in superimposition examination the skull found at the place of occurrence tallied with that of the photograph of the deceased.Thus, it has been proved that the skeletal remains were that of the deceased.This has been further proved by means of shirt and trousers and the text book found at the place of occurrence.But the prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death.In a case where the accused is facing a charge of murder, essentially, the prosecution is bound to prove that the case of the deceased was a homicide.Here, in this case, the same has not been proved for want of medical evidence.P.W.7 has stated that on 06.11.2007, at about 05.30 p.m. when he was sitting in the tea shop belonging to one Mr.Venkatesappa, he found A1 and A2 taking the child- the deceased, towards Kundal Lake.He has admitted during cross examination that on 07.11.2007 itself he came to know that the deceased was missing and P.W.3 was searching for him.Even then, he did not inform P.W.3 that he had seen A1 and A2 taking the deceased towards Kundal Lake.Absolutely there is no explanation as to why he did not disclose this vital information to P.W.3 or anybody else for such a long time.He has stated that for the first time he disclosed the said information only on 24.11.2007 when he was examined by the police.He has further stated that on 21.11.2007 itself the skeletal remains were found at the place occurrence by one Ms.Even then, he did not disclose anything about the above vital fact to anybody.From this fact, it is crystal clear that there is no truth in the evidence of this witness.Except the above, there is no other incriminating evidence as against the appellant/A1 to connect him with the death of the deceased.Thus, the prosecution, in our considered view, has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant/A1 is also entitled for acquittal.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/A1 by judgement dated 10.08.2012 in S.C.No.90 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, is hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted from both the charges.Fine, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,983,983 | The complainant was a member of the said body.Consequently, the article had caused immense harm to the reputation of the complainant and he has been lowered down in the estimate of his relations, friends and' acquaintances as well as in the eyes of the public.It was also alleged that like him, the other members of that body have also been injured.He filed a petition in revision against that order of the learned Magistrate but it was also dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Dehradun.Aggrieved by the order of the two-Courts below, Shri Tek Chand has filed the present revision petition in this Court. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,624,977 | JUDGMENT Santosh Hegde, J.Originally, alongwith the appellants, two other persons were charged for anoffence under Sections 396 and 436 IPC as also under Section27 of the Arms Act, and all the said accused persons weresentenced to life imprisonment under Section 396 IPC, for 10years under Section 436 read with 34 IPC and for 5 years underSection 27 of the Arms Act, and the sentences were directed torun concurrently.During the course of the trial, learnedSessions Judge felt that there was sufficient material to try 3other persons, namely, Brij Lal, Parash Singh and Hari ShankarSingh, accordingly invoking the provisions of Section 319 ofthe Cr.P.C. They were also directed to face trial under theabovesaid charges.The prosecution case in brief is that on theintervening night of 27th and 28th May, 1990, the appellantsalong with other named accused persons and some othersbarged into the house of Kapil Muni Singh with an intention ofcausing dacoity and in the said process, caused the death ofKapil Muni Singh and his son Sheo Mandir Singh by assaultingthem and ultimately setting fire to the Dalan in which thedeceased were sleeping.On receiving a message of the crime,the Investigating Officer, Narendra Paswan, PW-7, who wasthen the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police StationKargahar, came to the spot and recorded the complaint made byUrmila Devi, wife of deceased Sheo Mandir Singh at about3.30 or 4 in the morning of 28.5.1990 which is marked as Ex.1and thereafter proceeded to hold the spot Mahazar.In Ex.1, thenames of A-1 to A-5 were specifically mentioned while others'names were not mentioned.After investigation, as stated above,a chargesheet as against A-1 to A-5 was filed for the offencealready referred to hereinabove and thereafter the court on itsown invoking the power under Section 319 included A-6 to A-8as the persons against whom there was material to make themface trial.The prosecution during the course of trial, has reliedupon the evidence of PW-6, wife of the deceased Sheo MandirSingh as the sole eye-witness to the incident while it reliedupon PW-1, Devender Singh, the brother of the deceased KapilMuni Singh and Ram Charitra Paswan, PW-5 among others ascorroborating witnesses.It also relied on the factthat some of the accused persons were absconding andaccordingly based its conviction.The appeal filed against thesaid judgment by the convicted accused persons came to bedismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CriminalAppeal NO. 335/94 confirming the conviction and sentenceimposed on those accused.From amongst the 5 convicted accused persons, only 3 ofthem have chosen to prefer appeal; they are A-1 Bal KeshwarLal, A-4 Jiut Lal (who are appellants in Crl.A. No. 182/2000)and A-5 Sumesh Lal (who is appellant in Crl.A. No. 181/2000).We have heard Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, learnedcounsel for appellant in Crl.A. No. 181/2000 and Ms. MinakshiVij, learned counsel appearing as an amicus curiae in Crl.It was contended on behalf of the appellants thatthe courts below erred in placing reliance on the evidence ledon behalf of the prosecution inasmuch as the incident inquestion had occurred in the dead of night without there beingany light to identify the assailants and the appellants as well asthe other convicted accused persons being the neighbours ofKapil Muni Singh, the deceased, and who were not on goodterms, were falsely implicated in the murder because of someill-will between them.It was also stated that on the very sameday, there was a dacoity in the village which took place notonly in the house of the deceased but also in the house of theconvicted accused persons and the prosecution witnessesthough have not witnessed the incident in question have falselyimplicated almost all members of the family though some of theaccused persons were not even residing in the same village.It isalso contended that there is material to show that PW-6 couldnot have identified the accused persons and that she admittedlybeing a person who is mentally disabled, could not haveidentified these assailants either at the time of the incident or atthe time of the trial and on her own could not have given theevidence without she being tutored to say so.It is alsocontended that the first information report reached the courtonly on 29.5.1990 i.e. nearly a day and a half after the incidentand that there has been no explanation whatsoever in regard tothis delay.It was further contended that the superiors of PW-7had initiated departmental proceedings against him on theground that he had not conducted proper investigation in thiscase, therefore, the courts below could not have placed any reliance on the prosecution case to base a conviction.We have perused the judgments of the courts below andheard the learned counsel.Assuming for argument's sake thatthe evidence of all other prosecution witnesses who support the prosecution case, is doubtful in view of the contradictionsfound in their evidence, in our opinion, if the evidence of PW-6is acceptable as competent and truthful, there is no need to lookfor any other evidence to prove the guilt of the convictedaccused persons.The challenge to PW-6's evidence wasconsidered by the learned Sessions Judge who in the course ofhis evidence, stated that she has identified these 5 convictedaccused persons clearly both in the complaint as well as in herevidence before the court.She had stated that the said 5 accusedpersons with fire-arms, namely, Katta and pistol along withsome other unknown criminals, about 10 in numbers, raided herhouse and set the Dalan ablaze in which her father-in-law andhusband were sleeping and they were charred to death.Shestated in her examination that she could identify the accusedpersons in view of the flames of fire that were glowing pursuantto burning of Dalan.She had also stated that when her father-in-law asked her for some water before he died, she wasprevented from doing so by the accused persons by sarcasticallystating that they would rather urinate in his mouth.She had alsostated that there was earlier misunderstanding between theconvicted accused persons and her family due to the formerentertaining criminals in their house.Learned Judge has notedin the course of his judgment that though searching cross-examination was made of this witness, nothing was pointed outto falsify her evidence.He has also discarded the defencecharge that the witness was in any way shaky during the courseof her examination.Certain trivial discrepancies in her evidencelike the existence of enmity between her family and the familyof the convicted accused was rightly ignored by the trial courtby holding that they are not material contradictions.He notedthe fact that PW-6 had admitted in her evidence that one or twomonths after the incident in question that she did lose hermental balance but she was treated at the hospital at Ranchi.Inthis background the learned Sessions Judge chose to placereliance on her evidence.The High Court has concurred withthis conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge.Before us thelearned counsel appearing for the appellants also challenged herevidence on the ground that she was a person of unstable mind,admittedly having suffered certain mental illness, hence, herevidence could not be accepted.It is possible that having seen the gruesome incidentin which she lost her husband and father-in-law, she could havesuffered a shock which might have given rise to certainpsychological problems and this could have happened onlyafter the incident in question but after that it has come inevidence that after she was treated in the hospital, she wasrelieved of any such problem.Having perused the evidenceboth in-chief as well as in cross, we have no hesitation inaccepting the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that she wascompetent to give evidence in the court and that her evidence istrustworthy enough to be relied upon and inspite of the lengthycross-examination, nothing material to discard her evidence hasbeen made out.The next ground of attack on the evidence ofPW-6 is that she could not have identified the accused personsin the dead of night but then it is seen from her evidence thatshe had known these accused persons, they being herneighbours, and she had seen their faces in the light of burningflames of Dalan as also she had heard them when she wasprevented from providing water to her father-in-law.Therefore,there was every opportunity for PW-6 to identify at least thoseaccused whom she had named in her complaint.Theinconsistencies pointed out in her examination are, in ouropinion, and so pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge aretrivial and are not so grave or substantial as to create any doubtin our minds to discard her evidence.Having come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW-6is reliable and trustworthy and having taken note of the fact thatthe learned Sessions Judge who had an opportunity of seeingthe witness in the box and who chose to accept her evidencewhich was confirmed by the High Court, we do not find anyreason to reject the same.Accordingly, these appeals fails and the same arehereby dismissed. | ['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
162,506,439 | The petitioner is the brothel keeper.ap C.R.M. 1005 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.02.2016 in connection with Mahisadal Police Station Case No. 283 dated 24.08.2015 under Sections 366/366A/368/370/370A/372/373/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.And In re.: Rabeya Begum. .Her husband, who was also running the said business with her has been granted bail by this Court.She is in custody for 75 days.All the girls recovered, were adult.The Officer-in-charge of Mahisadal Police Station is directed to take immediate steps in accordance with the provision of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, if not taken as yet.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (C.S. Karnan, J.) | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
16,251,439 | This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.343/2015 registered at P.S., Dehat, Bhind District Bhind under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 294, 506- B of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the applicant is that he alongwith co-accused armed with Lathi abused the complainant.When complainant gone in house the applicant and co-accused gave beating by means of Lathi.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant have not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated.The prayer is opposed by learned Govt. Advocate.Case-diary perused.The complainant, his wife Kumbedibai and son Pradeep have sustained simple injuries.Taking into consideration the 2 M.Cr.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge Patil | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,625,170 | JUDGMENT M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, the respondent herein, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, against the petitioner, Sardar Amrik Singh Lyallpuri, and two others, namely, Shri Ram Singh and Shri Niranjan Das, alleging that they had committed offences under sections 219, 416, 417, 467, 471 and 472 read with sections 34 and 107 IPC.It was stated in the complaint that Niranjan Das had filed a suit against Ravi Dutt Sharma in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, claiming possession of the suit property under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and that although defendant Ravi Dutt Sharma had not been served with the suit notice, Sardar Amrik Singh Lyallpuri had engaged an Advocate, Shri Harbaksh Snigh, representing to the said advocate that he was Ravi Dutt Sharma, the defendant in the suit.A. Vakalatnama purporting to have been signed by Ravi Dutt Sharma was filed by Shri Harbaksh Singh, Advocate, and a written statement-also purporting to have been signed by Ravi Dutt Sharma was also filed by the said advocate in the suit.The complainant Ravi Dutt Sharma, on coming to know of the above faces, inspected the suit records and discovered that a false endorsement had been made by the Process Server Rain Singh on the summons issued to the defendant to the effect that the defendant had refused to accept the summons.The learned Magistrate took the complaint on his file and proceeded to examine the complainant Ravi Dutt Sharma and Shri Harbaksh Singh, Advocate, on oath.After thus recording their statements, the learned Magistrate passed the following order :-"PRESENT: Complainant in person.Arguments heard.From the perusal of preliminary evidence adduced by the complaintant including the statement of Public Witness .2 Harbux Singh, I find that there arc sufficient grounds to proceed against accused No. 1, Amrik Singh only u/s. 468/471 IPC.No prima facie case to any other offence whatsover against the remaining accused is made out since there is no evidence appearing against them.Accused Amrik Singh be summoned u/s. 468/471 Indian Penal Code for 2-5-1973 on P.F."On receipt of these summons, the petitioner, Amrik Singh Lyallpuri, filed a revision petition in the Court of Session and challenged the order of the learned Magistrate on the following grounds, namely :- (i) that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint ; (ii) that there was no prima fade evidence for issuing process against the petitioner; (iii) that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order ; and (iv) that the learned Magistrate was precluded from talcing cognizance of the complaint by virtue of section 195(1)(c) Cr.THElearned Additional Sessions Judge rejected all these conditions and dismissed the revision petition.The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present revision petition in this Court.According to the complaint filed by Ravi Dutt Sharma, the Vakalatnama and the written statement which were filed by Sardar Harbaksh Singh Advocate in the suit had been forged in Delhi and were also filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi.The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, had, therefore the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint.The averments in the complaint and the statements made by the complainant as well as Sardar Harbaksh Singh before the learned Magistrate disclosed a prima jacie case against the petitioner under sections 468 and 471 IPC.The fourth contntion, however, requires serious consideration.(3) The Vakalatnama and the written statement which are alleged to be forged documents were documents which were produced in a proceeding in a court.P.C. directing the issue of summons only against the petitioner under sections 468 and 471 IPC.Inasmuch as he had held that there was no prima fade case made out against the other accused and did not issue any summons against them, it must be presumed that he had dismissed the complaint so far as the other accused were concerned.Therefore, what the learned Magistrate had done was that he recorded the statements of the complainant and another witness under section 200 Cr.P.C., dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. against two of the accused and passed an order under section 204 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner Amrik Singh Lyallpuri. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
162,517,464 | Heard on the question of admission.After receipt of the record it be listed for admission.Also heard on I.A. No. 12188/14, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant/accused.The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.06.2014 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2014 affirming the judgment dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla in Criminal Case No. 423/2009 convicting the accused under Sections 279,337 (7 counts),304-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 304-A I.P.C. till arising of Court with fine of Rs. 500/-, Rs.300 (each count) and Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation mentioned in the impugned judgment.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during the course of trial and he has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him.The applicant has already deposited the amount of fine as Cr.No.1225/2014 imposed by the learned trial Court.Disposal of this revision will take time.On these grounds, he prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.I.A. No. 12188/14 stands disposed of.(M.K. Mudgal) Judge b | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
162,517,580 | (The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice) The petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation alleging that respondent No.11, M/s.MIOT International Hospital constructed buildings of 10 floors from close to the Adyar river without proper sanctions.In the recent floods of 1st Week of December, 2015, the alleged encroachment by MIOT Hospital was breached, power failure occurred and there were various complications causing death of 18 patients.It is further alleged that no proper action has been taken by the police as improper case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.The petitioner claims that the deaths were actually in the range of 75 persons and there has been suppression of facts by the Management of MIOT Hospital and the respondents' officials have colluded with the same.No action has been taken, despite encroachment of water bodies in Adyar river.The relief prayed for is as under:''It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction directing the respondents 1 to 8 to take immediate steps to demolish the unauthorised encroachment upon Adyar River by the constructing a car park and all other violations in the construction of 11th respondent MIOT International Hospital and to further direct the respondent authorities 3 to 7 to cancel all the permissions granted to the 11th respondent and thus render justice.''Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents.The Corporation of Chennai/6th respondent has stated that it has not granted any permission to the 11th respondent, but that the planning permission was granted by CMDA/5th respondent which also issued the completion certificate.The area is merged with the Greater Chennai Corporation only on 20.05.2011, while the planning permission was granted earlier.The allegation about the encroachment through construction of a car park is stated to be under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department/7th respondent.The 8th respondent/District Collector has filed a separate affidavit to the effect that on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur dated 08.02.2016, it is found that the construction of the hospital within the land comprised in S.Nos.2/2, 3/1A, 1B and 1C of Manapakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, was in the land measuring 2.47.5 hec classified as Ryotwari lands registered in the name of MIOT International Hospitals and these are patta lands, for which patta has been issued.The lands are not water course poramboke lands as alleged, nor was there any encroachment in the survey numbers as alleged by the petitioner.We may note in this behalf, the petitioner relied upon a communication of the Tahsildar dated 11.04.2008, eight year old letter sent to the Executive Engineer, which only talks about some encroachment of 0.01 cents in the process of construction of a bridge, which appears to have no connection with the present proceedings.The most crucial affidavit is of the CMDA/5th respondent.Completion certificates have been issued from time to time dependant on the buildings constructed.It is also averred that the Public Works Department had on 01.07.2009 granted permission to construct a culvert with covered top across Ramapuram Drain, crossing at S.No.81, Ramapuram Village of Ambattur Taluk, on payment of annual track rent of Rs.1,18,680/- subject to certain conditions.In Chennai, the tidal influence in Cooum river is stated to be up to Chetpet Railway Bridge and in Adyar River upto Saidapet bridge.The areas upto that point are classified as CRZ-II having regulation to a width of 100 meters on either side of the rivers.We may note that there has been no encroachment found even qua the car park.The aforesaid makes it abundantly clear that all requisite permission for constructions have been taken by the 11th respondent and the building is inconformity with no violations, and thus the allegations of the petitioner are based on surmises and conjectures.The aforesaid would put an end to the matter, but for the fact that the petitioner has made interim prayer quite different from the main petition.Whereas, the interim prayer is to direct the police authorities to initiate criminal action against the 11th respondent/hospital and also against respondents 4 to 8/officials for abetting the wilfully negligent action of the hospital, which resulted in deaths of certain patients.In the given facts of the case, we may also note the stand of the respondents in respect of the aforesaid.Once again, the allegation that the petitioner is not correct in that he mentions that there are 75 persons who may have died.It may be stated that affidavit filed on behalf of the 9th and 10th respondents/police authorities in this behalf states that a case has been registered under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC in Crime No.555 of 2015, at St.Thomas Mount Traffic Investigation Police Station.Another case has also been registered under Sections 279 and 338 IPC in P.S. Crime No.287 of 2015, which was altered to one including 304 -A IPC.Post mortems have been conducted in the Government Hospitals on 14 dead bodies of patients who were stated to be under treatment at critical care unit of MIOT hospital.Five more persons died during the same period and those dead bodies were handed over to the respective relatives and thus, the allegation that 75 persons died is stated to be purely imaginary.The investigation process is stated to be still on to find out if any criminal negligence tantamounting to culpable homicide is made out.Thus, it has been averred that once the investigation is complete, the final report will be filed before the Judicial Magistrate.We are informed by the learned Government Pleader on instructions that the investigation process may take about six weeks more.We may notice that one case has been investigated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mount Range, St.The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. | ['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,625,189 | 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on a complaint made to the Bank Authorities by one Sri Shyam Narayan Maurya, a holder of the Saving Bank account in question against the petitioner who is an class IV employee of the respondent-Bank of Baroda in respect with fraudulent withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 1,99,000/- from his Saving Account No. 8774 on various occasions on various occasions in cash received by the petitioner or subordinate staff or transferred to the saving Bank Account No. 8950 which is standing in the name of Smt. Phulwasi Devi wife of Ram Shankar Kushwaha.On the aforesaid complaint, respondent No. 1-Manager, Branch Nichi Bagh, Bank of Baroda, Varanasi lodged a first information report dated 30.6.1984 against the petitioner Rama Shankar Kushwaha and others upon which case crime No. 106 of 1984 Under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at police station chowk District Varanasi.Sri Shyam Naraya Maurya filed Civil Suit No. 430 of 1984 (Shyam Narain Maurya v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.).It has been stated that during investigation of the case Sri Shyam Narain Maurya had given a written statement to the Investigating Officer that he had not withdrawn any amount from his account since opening of the same and never indented for any Chequebook.On interrogation it was revealed by the petitioner that Shyam Narayan Maurya happened to be a close relative and the petitioner was also a introducer of his account.It was also found that the petitioner had got opened a current account in the name of M/S Sanjay Pharmacuticuls with four partners including his brother Mr. Ram Briksh Kushwaha, wife Smt. Phulwasi Devi, his minor son and Mr. Shyam Narayan Maurya.JUDGMENT V.C. Misra, J.Lard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.B. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kirtika Singh and Mr. U.P. Singh, Learned Advocates for the respondents-Bank.This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry in pursuance to the order/charge sheet dated 3.1.2004 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) as well as notice in respect with preliminary departmental inquiry dated 7.1.2004 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) until the final conclusion of the Criminal Case No. 6178 of 1985 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Crime No. 106 of 1984 or impugned Charge sheet dated 3.1.2004 and the order dated 7.1.2004, Annexure No. 7 and 8 to the writ petition respectively be quashed.After completion of the investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet on 30.3.1985 against the petitioner, his wife Smt. Phulwasi Devi and others in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi upon which a criminal case No. 6178 of 1985 has been registered.The criminal case remained pending and after lapse of about ten years on 13.5.1991 the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked by the respondents Bank on the ground that since Bank had to pay the full salary to the petitioner in terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 11 June, 2000 as per the partial modification of paragraph 557 of the Shastry Award and paragraph 17.14 of the Desai Award (copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to counter affidavit) because if suspension continued beyond a period of one year the employee became entitled for payment of full salary admissible to him and as such respondent Bank though it to be more prudent to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner and take work from him since paying him full salary without taking any work from him was not in the interest of Bank and State Exchequer.It was also provided in the revocation order of the petitioner that the revocation of suspension shall be without prejudice to bank's right to take departmental action or any action against the petitioner, if so deemed fit, prior/after criminal case is concluded (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).The said criminal proceedings are still continuing in pending criminal case No. 6178 of 1985 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.It is contended that on 3.1.2004 the respondents-Bank issued a charge sheet (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) to the petitioner and initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice-dated 7.1.2004 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) and appointed an inquiry officer for departmental proceedings.The petitioner being aggrieved by this impugned order/notice dated 3.1.2004 and 7.1.2004 has filed the instant writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that although there is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings (proceedings in criminal case before the criminal court and departmental disciplinary proceedings) against the employee/petitioner but the present case is one of the cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting till disposal of the criminal case, since the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry arise out of the same incident and on the same set of facts which are the subject matter of the criminal trial and in case of acquittal in criminal case based on the same allegations it would be a circumstances to be considered in the departmental proceedings and that the evidence in the departmental proceeding is not the same as of the criminal trial as the evidence in departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act and as such the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the petitioner in his defence at the trial in criminal case.The respondents-Bank filed its counter affidavit alongwith stay vacation application.No order as to costs. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
944,823 | It was then agreed by the parties to release the audio cassettes of the said Bengali serial on the basis of payment of royalty by O.Ps.in proportion to the sale of such audio cassettes.A contract was entered upon by the parties to the proceeding on 10.3.2000, for the aforesaid purpose.The O. P. paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance against royalty.It is further alleged, in the meantime two years already elapsed and the petitioners often enquired about the sale of audio cassettes of their serial and also for further payment and statement of accounts.But O. P., sat tight over the matter and did not make any payment towards further royalty.JUDGMENT Joytosh Banerjee, J.The instant hearing arises out of an application under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Shortly put, the case of the petitioners are that they run a business of production of Bengali Films and Television Serials for a long period of 22 years.The O. P. No. 1 runs a small audio cassette company.When the complainant/O. P. came to know about the launching of a new venture in the name of "Tok Jhal Misti" a 500 episode Bengali mega serial to be made by the petitioners, he approached the petitioners to procure the rights of release of audio cassettes on usual business terms.All on a sudden the petitioners got a notice of a criminal proceeding initiated by the O. P. under Sections 420, 120B, Indian Penal Code before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta with a copy of the complaint.It is contended that since the audio Dat Master of Bengali Television Serial, "Tok Jhal Misti" in respect of eight songs had already been supplied to O. P. No. 1 as per terms of the contract, agreed upon between the parties, there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to cheat, as they duly performed their part of contractual obligation.It is further alleged that the criminal proceeding which was initiated against the petitioners is absolutely frivolous, bad in law and in the aforesaid background the petitioners through the instant application, have prayed for quashing the complaint case being No. C/1642/02 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta.Only point for my consideration is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, should the proceeding of the complaint case as mentioned above, be quashed or not ?It transpires from the copy of the petition of complaint, which is part of the record, that the complainant, the partner of Asha Audio Co., made the specific allegation that they agreed to release the songs of T. V. Serial 'Tok Jhal Misti' under their logo and on 1.3.2000, the accused No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant towards advance against royalty.The specific allegation of the complainant in respect of the offence of cheating is that for the purpose of manufacturing audio cassettes and C. Ds.the spool/ Dat Master of the songs were urgently required and on many occasions the complainant demanded from the accused persons to hand over the Dat Master/spool.But that was not done by the accused even after issuance of a registered letter, which was returned with a postal endorsement 'Not claimed'.In that background the complainant was compelled to go to the house of the accused persons and demanded the refund of the money paid.The accused persons on that occasion flatly refused to return the said amount and denied the entire transaction.It was alleged in the petition of complaint that had it been known to the complainant that the accused persons would not hand over the spool/Dat Master of 8 songs of the T. V. Serial, "Tok Jhal Misti' the complainant would not have made the payment of Rs. 10,000/-.Learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted, that a civil dispute has been brought before a Criminal Court, as there is nothing to show that there was any criminal intent, when the accused received the payment of ten thousand rupees from the complainant O. P. No. 1 as advance against royalty for releasing eight songs of Bengali Tele Serial, Tok Jhal Misti'.It is further contended that Dat Master, containing eight songs of the said Bengali serial was received by the complainant as disclosed by the letter marked annexure-A. Learned Counsel for the O. P. No. 1, on the other hand has contended, that the accused petitioners made certain representations, on the basis of which the O. P. No. 1 paid Rs. 10,000/- towards advance royalty.But the petitioners even at the time of such payment had no intention to part with DAT containing eight songs of the aforesaid serial.According to the case of the petitioners of the instant proceeding, on 1.3.2000, there was a contract between the parties wherein the complainant O. P. No. 1 agreed to act as an agent to the petitioners and would release audio cassettes of the aforesaid Bengali serial in respect of eight songs and would share a percentage of the sale proceeds of audio cassettes as commission and the complainant O. P. No. 1 paid Rs. 10,000/- as advance against royalty.It is further alleged that for the purpose of manufacturing audio cassettes and CDs, the spool/Dat Master were urgently required and accordingly on many occasions the petitioners demanded to the accused persons to hand over the Dat Master/spool.But the accused persons were delaying in handing over those articles on some flimsy grounds.Then on 21.8.2001, by a registered letter petitioners demanded the aforesaid articles.The registered letter sent in that connection, returned with a postal endorsement 'Not claimed', it is also alleged that on 20.3.2002, the petitioners were compelled to visit the house of the accused persons for demanding the money but they refused to refund the same and denied the entire transaction.In this background, it is explicit that as per allegation raised in the complaint, money i.e. Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the accused persons, with a clear assurance that concerned spool/Dat Master of eight songs of the serial would be handed over to the complainant within few months (of the payment of money) and the whole project would be completed within two years of such payment.The petitioners through the instant proceeding did not dispute the payment of money by the complainant, O. P. No. 1 or the allegation raised in the petition of complaint, about the time within which spool/Dat Master of eight songs would be handed over to the complainant O. P., or time within which the entire project would be completed.But through the revisional application, the petitioners took the plea that on receiving a notice from the complainant the petitioners then and there sent the Dat Master of the audio cassettes of the Bengali serial containing eight songs and on receipt of such materials the partner of Asha Audio Smt. Mahua Lahiri issued a letter dated 10.12.2000, acknowledging the receipt of such articles (marked annexure-A to the petition).Complainant/O. P. No. 1, by his affidavit-in-reply, has stated that the said Mahua Lahiri (alleged writer of the letter) is his wife and she has not written any such letter dated 10.12.2000, acknowledging the receipt of Dat Master of audio cassettes of Bengali serial 'Tok Jhal Misti'.He has further asserted that the said annexure 'A' being the purported copy of the said letter, is a fake and forged letter/of the said letter.The complainant had affirmed that fact on oath.The two witnesses produced by the complainant before the Magistrate have supported that case.On the basis of the statement on oath of the complainant read along with the evidence of the two witnesses thus recorded and the materials available before the Magistrate to get himself satisfied that cognizance should be taken and process issued, the Magistrate was satisfied that an offence had been disclosed and accordingly the summons had been issued.The High Court was persuaded to take the view that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court only on the basis of the additional materials produced by the respondents.The materials thus produced have not been admitted or accepted by the appellant.The truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint is a matter for proof. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,483,388 | Further order that out of recovery of fine 50% money shall be given to the brother of deceased Om Prakash @ Sonu and all the sentence shall run concurrently.Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Om Prakash @ Sonu lodged the FIR by giving written report with the allegation that his sister Lokesh aged about 24 years was married with appellant Neeraj five years back of the incident as per Hindu rites and rutuals.During marriage, he has given sufficient dowry according to his financial capacity, but appellant's family was not satisfied with dowry.Thereafter appellant Neeraj, his elder brother Mahendra, his wife Usha, mother-in-law Radha and father-in-law Dungar Singh used to harassment and torture to his sister by demanding motorcycle as additional dowry.Due to poor financial condition of the complainant's family they, were unable to fulfill their demand of motorcycle.Due to this appellant's family used to harass and assaulted her on two occasion due to nonfulmilment of demand of motorcycle they ompel his sister to leave the matrimonial home.Appellant had taken her back to his house after persuasion, but they continued to stick with their demand of motorcycle and often beat to his sister.On the fateful night of 20/21.09.2012 some unknown time her husband Neeraj, Mahendra, Usha, Radha and Dungar Singh had committed murder to his sister by hanging.The dead body was lying at the house of his brother-in-law in village Gataura and all family members including husband of the deceased fled away.On this allegation FIR Ext Ka-4 was lodged at police station Bilari by the complainant on 21.09.2012 at 04.30 p.m., as a case crime no. 481 of 2012, under sections 498A, 304B IPC and ¾ D.P. Act. The distance of the police station is 15 Kms.Before the investigation of the case inquest was done by P.W. 7 Abhay Kumar Singh in presence of inquest witness.Inquest report was prepared by P.W. 7 Abhay Kumar Singh, Tehsildar, and cause of death could not be ascertained so as per opinion of Panch, the dead body was sent to the district hospital for autopsy of deceased Smt. Lokesh.The prosecution also examined P.W. 4 Pankaj Kumar Pandey, First Investigating Officer, who has clearly stated that he prepared site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses present at the spot.Particularly he has clearly denied that the family members of the appellant was present at that time.In the statement he has also stated that he also recorded the statement of neighbours of the appellant.This jail appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Moradabad, in S.T. No. 70 of 2013 (State Vs.P.W. 3 Dr. S.K. Chaudhary has conducted the postmortem of dead body of the deceased on 22.09.2012 at 12.30 p.m. at District Hospital Moradabad, and prepared postmortem report Ext Ka-3, in which doctor found the age of the deceased was about 24 years and the eye and mouth of the decease was closed, bleed from both intestine.Face congested.Following antemortem injury were found on the person of deceased:-Abraded contusion 15cm x 3cm front of neck extending to left side of neck 4cm below chin, 5cm below left year and 9cm below right ear of lobule subcutaneous tissue under injury mark ecchymosed.Abraded contusion 7cm x 3 cm back of middle of left side of chest.Hyoid Bone fractured.Larynx and Vocal Cords congested.Both lungs congested.Stomach (wall condition, Contents & smell) 200 grms pasty food material .Small intestine chyme & gasses was presemt.Cause of death due to Asphyxia as a result of antimortem strangulation.Time of death about 1 and ½ day old.The post-mortem report is on record and marked as Ext. Ka-3Primary investigation of this case was conducted by Pankaj Kumar Pandey.He also recorded the statement of complainant Om Prakash.Second investigating officer is P.W. 6 R.S. Gautam.During investigation he recorded the statement of other witnesses and after completing all formalities of the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the appellant Neeraj under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act., who proved the charge sheet Ext. Ka-7 and exonerated the other accused namely; Mahendra, Dungar Singh, Radha and Usha.After completion of investigation charge-sheet submitted by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, had taken cognizance on the charge sheet on 17.01.2013 and the case was committed before the court of session where it is registered as S.T. No. 75 of 2013 and the case was transferred for trial to the court of Additional District Judged Moradabad.On 29.06.2013 the charge against the appellant was framed under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act and alternative charge under section 302 IPC was also framed and charge read over and explained to the appellant, and claimed to be tried.To substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in all.P.W 1 complainant Om Prakash @ Sonu, who is real brother of the deceased, who proved the written report as Ext. Ka-1 and Inquest report as Ext. Ka-2, P.W. 2 Smt. Sonam @ Renu, sister in-law of the deceased, P.W. 3 Dr. S.K. Chaudhary, who proved the post mortem report as Ext. Ka-3 and P.W. 4 HCP Jai Singh, who proved the chick FIR Ext. Ka-4 and GD entry Sl.After conclusion of the evidence of prosecution, statement of appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which accused denied all the charges and stated that the witnesses wrongly stated before the court and also stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the deceased Lokesh committed suicide on account of depression.In defence, no evidence was recorded on behalf of appellant.After conclusion of the trial learned trial court acquitted the appellant under section 302 IPC and convicted him under sections 498A, 304B and Section ¾ D.P. Act as aforesaid.Being aggrieved by the judgement and order of conviction dated 17.07.2018, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA and perused the material available on record.Next submitted that the information of this incident has given by him to the parent of the deceased and thereafter the family member of parental house of the deceased arrived at his house and he was also present at the time of last rutuals of the deceased.It is also submitted that during autopsy no grievious injury was found on the person of deceased and also stated that the prosecution has clearly failed to establish that the death of deceased- Lokesh was subject to cruelty and harassment by the appellant.The prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is very poor person and languishing in jail at the commencement of trial.Apart from arguing on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant further contended although there is no evidence against appellant if court comes to the conclusion about guilt of appellant then a lenient view should be taken in sentencing him and his sentence should be reduced to minimum prescribed under section 304B IPC that is to say, seven years.Per contra learned AGA contended that victim was died inside her matrimonial home.Prosecution clearly established by cogent and credible evidence that deceased was died within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to mental and physical harassment and tortured by making demand of additional dowry.Prosecution is able to prove his case beyond shadow of doubt and appeal of appellant is liable to be dismissed.A report was obtained from the District Jail Superintendent, Moradabad dated 11.02.2019 which shows that during trial the appellant was in jail from 25.11.2012 to 16.07.2018 (5 years 7 months and 22 days) and from 17.07.2018 to till date the appellant is detained in district Jail Moradabad.Once the said ingredients were satisfied it will be called dowry death and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence.In this case prosecution examined P.W. 1 Om Prakash, as in his deposition he has stated that her sister Lokesh was married with appellant Neeraj about 5 years ago before the incident.His parent gave sufficient dowry in marriage as according to his status, but sometime after marriage her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage.Family members of the appellant always taunted to the deceased Lokesh for being less dowry and started demand of motorcycle.He further stated that due to poor condition of his family he could not fulfill the demand of her in-laws.His sister was previously ousted from her matrimonial home for not giving motorcycle, thereafter, on being convinced in punchayat she was taken back to her matrimonial house, still they continued their demand of motorcycle.All her family members (in-laws) tortured her, but family members of the complainant kept patience.On intervening night of 20/21.09.2012 a call came from village Gataura and it was informed that his sister was killed by members of his matrimonial house.On telephonic information, complainant and other family members reached at the matrimonial house of his sister.The death of the deceased was not possible by hanging and strangulation, so as per the doctor, the case was homicidal not suicidal.Beside the injury on the neck two other injuries have also found antemortem injury on the body of the deceased.P.W. 6, Second Investigating Officer R.S. Gautam has stated that nothing any other important found in the statements of the witnesses and this witness only proved the charge-sheet against the appellant under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act only against the appellant.On perusal of the entire record, it is reveals that the death of the deceased was done within 7 years of the marriage . | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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. |
94,488,658 | This petition is directed against the order dated 15th October, 2012 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Satara, externing the petitioner from the limits of Satara District for a period of 2 years and also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 22 nd March, 2013 confirming the externment order.This petition has been heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties.Hence, Rule made returnable forthwith.Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the respondents.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been served with any show cause notice and has been denied an opportunity to defend himself in the externment proceedings initiated against him.He further argued that mother of the petitioner had informed the inquiry officer, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Satara about his inability to attend the proceedings due to mental 2/16 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 ::: wp1666-13J illness of the petitioner but that was ignored by the inquiry officer as well as the externing authority and inquiry was held without hearing the petitioner.He has further submitted that the petitioner has been externed under Section 57(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, but requirement of sub-section 1(a) has not at all been fulfilled in this case.He has, therefore, submitted that the entire proceedings have been vitiated due to non observance of principles of natural justice and non fulfillment of the basic requirement of law and as such, both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 :::With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, we have carefully gone through the memo of the petition and documents annexed to it, including the impugned orders and we are of the opinion that there is great substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and no merit in the arguments canvassed by learned A.P.P. for the State.It is seen from the first impugned order dated 15 th October, 2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Satara that neither the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for the purpose of inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer in the externment proceedings bearing No.1/12 moved at the instance of Police Inspector, Satara City police station could be served upon the petitioner nor the further show cause notice dated 24 th August, 2012 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Satara was served upon the petitioner.It is further seen from the first impugned order that the mother of the petitioner had informed the inquiry officer that the petitioner who was mentally ill was undergoing treatment for his mental ailment and that she would produce him before the inquiry officer after he got cured of 4/16 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 ::: wp1666-13J his illness and yet the inquiry officer, for strange reasons, proceeded with the inquiry in absence of the petitioner.It appears that he proceeded on the ground that medical certificate was not produced.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 :::But, if that was not produced, nothing prevented him from obtaining the same from medical authorities.After all, he was an officer in power and so, it was quite easy for him to get the information verified from the Government hospitals in the District.But, apparently, for no reason, such a verification was carried out by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Satara.On the contrary, Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara served the show cause notice upon the petitioner by registered post.This course adopted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Satara even after having been informed about the mental illness of the petitioner is beyond our understanding and we disapprove of it strongly.These were not civil proceedings and so, he ought to have verified the correctness of the information received and only after satisfying himself about the falsehood of the information that he could have proceeded against the petitioner in his absence after recording his satisfaction.Having not done so, the whole inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer against the petitioner has been vitiated in this case.The Sub-Divisional Police Officer after conducting such a one sided inquiry, submitted his report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 5/16 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 ::: wp1666-13J Satara, the authority having power and competence to pass the externment order as per the provisions of the Act. The report was submitted on 13th June, 2012 and it recommended externment of the petitioner.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 :::In response thereto, Yuvraj Ramchandra Jadhav, the brother of the petitioner remained present before the externing authority on 14 th September, 2012 and he submitted his written explanation.These facts are mentioned in this first impugned order itself.This order then notes that the explanation given by said Yuvraj indicates that the petitioner is fully aware of the externment proceedings and the show cause notices and that he has also been afforded an opportunity of presenting his case consistent with the principles of natural justice.Thereafter, the impugned order mentions that the petitioner has failed to submit any medical certificate in support of his plea of mental illness and since there has been a proper service of notice upon the petitioner and the petitioner has remained absent during the hearing granted to 6/16 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 ::: wp1666-13J him, it could be taken that the allegations made against him and mentioned in the show cause notices have been accepted by him.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 :::It is, therefore, in the nature of a public trust to be held and operated for and on behalf of public to subserve the public or societal interest.There are other reasons as well why we find the impugned order as absolutely illegal.They are stated briefly in the paras next 11/16 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 ::: wp1666-13J following.For this reason also, the whole 13/16 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 ::: wp1666-13J externment proceedings have stood vitiated.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 :::This inter-play between these various factors has not been seen by the appellate authority.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:19:49 ::: | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,488,727 | The applicants sought the relief of bail in connection with Crime No.76 of 2018, registered in Police Station, Chaklamba, District Beed, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short).::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 :::2 ba1076-2018On the basis of the report filed by the informant, the above numbered crime came to be registered.According to him, the names of the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous rivalry.Nothing has been recovered from the possession of these applicants.They have been connected with this crime simply on suspicion.They are ready to keep themselves away from village Taklewadi, Taluka Georai till the trial is over.The learned counsel, therefore, prays ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 ::: 3 ba1076-2018that the applicants may be released on bail with necessary conditions.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 :::The learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the application.He submits that there is specific mention in the FIR that the applicants and accused No.2 Mahadeo were seen near the spot of incident in the night of the incident.This evidence shows a strong prima facie case against the applicants.The applicants are not entitled to get the relief of bail.He, therefore, prays that the application may be rejected.The informant states that the present applicants and accused No.2 Mahadeo obstructed him when he was trying to plough the agricultural land by means of a tractor on 9th May, 2018 between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. However, Laxmi Khandu Datal and Gangubai Bandu Datal, the sisters-in-law of the informant, who were present in the agricultural land at the relevant time, state that only accused No.2 Mahadeo had obstructed the tractor.As such, prima facie, the version of the ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 ::: 4 ba1076-2018informant that the present applicants also obstructed him when he was trying to plough the agricultural land by means of a tractor is not supported by the statements of eye witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 :::So far as the incident in which the deceased Krushna was assaulted is concerned, the informant states that after he heard the cries of somebody at about 12.30 in the night, he got up from the sleep and saw from the roof of the house, where he was sleeping, that accused No.2 Mahadeo and present applicant No.1 Laxman were near the lane by the side of his house, while applicant Nos.2 and 3 were found on the road.After some time, his brothers Khandu and Bandu came to him and informed that Krushna was assaulted by means of some dangerous weapon, causing him bleeding injuries.From this statement, at the most, it can be said that accused No.2 Mahadeo and applicant Laxman were together near the spot where the deceased Krushna was sleeping.There are statements of the witnesses showing that accused No. 2 Mahadeo was in front of the house of the informant with scythe in the evening of the incident.With the specific statement of the informant that applicant No.1 Laxman was with accused No.2 Mahadeo near the spot of incident, I am not inclined to grant the relief of bail to applicant No.1 Laxman.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 :::So far as applicant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it is not even stated by the informant that they were near the spot of incident.Nothing has been recovered from them, which would incriminate them in this case.In the circumstances, I think fit to extend the relief of bail to applicant Nos.2 and 3 with certain conditions.The observations made in this order, being prima facie in nature, would have limited effect for deciding the present application only and would not influence any other proceeding arising out of the present crime.In the result, I pass the following order :-(i) The application of applicant No.1 Laxman Vitthal Datal for bail is rejected.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 :::Datal and Ramdas Vitthal Datal respectively shall be released on their executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount, on the following conditions:-(c) Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 shall not enter the revenue limits of village Taklewadi, Taluka Georai, District Beed till the trial is over.(iii) The bail bonds shall be furnished before the Committal/Trial Court.(iv) The application is disposed of accordingly.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGEnpj/ba1076-2018 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2018 02:18:38 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,497,687 | Heard on admission.Perused the impugned judgment.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record of the trial Court be called for.Also, heard on I.A.No. 3139/2016 filed by the appellant/ accused under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, District Morena in S.T. no.197/2009 vide judgment dated 18.03.2016 convicting the appellant/accused and sentencing him as below:-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.The appellant has already deposited the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court.Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of early disposal of this appeal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned P.P. has opposed the application.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,499,830 | Shri Sampoorn Tiwari, learned counsel, for the complainant/objector.Heard arguments.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.21/2017 registered at Police Station Barela of Jabalpur district against him for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and later added 305 of the IPC.According to the prosecution, on 12.01.2017 complainant Shashikant lodged an FIR stating that an unknown person has kidnapped his son Sushat (since dead) aged 17 years and 3 months.Later, his dead body is recovered from the river and it is sent for postmortem.According to the postmortem report, he died of drowning.In the course of investigation, the police recovered his mobile-phone and pen-drive in which he has recorded a statement showing the reasons for committing suicide.According to the prosecution, he has stated in his statement that the applicant is a golden representative of E-viz Computer Company Ltd., Bhopal and he used to pester him to buy a plan of the company worth Rs.13,000/- (thirteen thousand) by borrowing the money from his friends.Unable to bear his constant mental harassment, he committed suicide.Thereupon, the police have made the applicant an accused of the case and registered a case against him under Section 305 IPC in addition to the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.He submits that this Court has granted many opportunities to the prosecution to submit a genuine transcription of his statement recorded in his mobile-phone and pen- drive, but the prosecution failed to submit it.He submits that as per the postmortem report, the deceased died of drowning.Therefore, it cannot be said for want of evidence that the deceased committed suicide.He submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Jabalpur city and that he has no criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the objector and the learned Panel Lawyer have strongly opposed the prayer.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE sp/- | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,508,595 | The factual matrix that emerges from the record is that the marriage of deceased Suman was solemnized with the appellant - Tilak Rathore on 30.04.1998 and after about six months, on 11.01.1999, she was found to be hanging from the ceiling fan.An information with this respect was recorded vide DD No.7A (Ex.PW- 9/A).Sub-Inspector Ravi Kumar alongwith constable Maman Singh went to the spot and found from the window of the room that one lady was hanging with ceiling fan with a rope.The said room was bolted from inside.SDM was informed by Sub-Inspector Ravi Kumar.Door of the room was forcibly opened and place of occurrence was photographed and the spot was inspected by the crime team.Dead body was brought down from the ceiling fan, inquest proceedings were completed by the SDM and accordingly FIR (Ex.PW-8/A) was registered.SDM recorded the statements of the parents of deceased.It was stated that the deceased was being harassed and tortured by both Crl.There is no mention of demand for dowry, nor is there mention of any physical beating in the FIR.While recording FIR it was stated by father of the deceased that before marriage Rs.25,000/- was demanded from the side of the groom and the same was fulfilled.At the time of marriage a demand of Rs.25,000/- was made by the husband of appellant - Sangeeta and the said amount was paid by him to the appellant-Sangeeta.Apart from that, he also gave dowry articles in the marriage.After 2-3 months before the death of his daughter, the appellants started harassing her and she occasionally complained to him that the appellants were demanding money and other dowry articles and used to give beating to Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 5 of 11 her.He has specifically deposed that the appellant - Tilak Rathore used to give beating to his daughter and the appellant - Sangeeta used to harass and torture his daughter.Further, he deposed that about one week before the death of his daughter, he went to the house of his daughter when his daughter informed him while weeping, that both the appellants and other members of the family were harassing her and she compelled him to take her to his house.On 11.01.1999, some persons came to his house and informed about the death of his daughter.He further deposed that at about 8 AM, he went there and found that his daughter was hanging from the ceiling fan and was dead.He also gave his statement before the SDM (Ex.PW-1/A) and identified the dead body of his daughter.Coming to the facts of the present case, PW-1 has specifically stated in his statement recorded before the court that after 2-3 months before the death of his daughter the appellants started harassing her and she usually complained to him that the appellants were demanding money and other dowry articles and used to give beating to her.He has specifically deposed that the appellant - Tilak Rathore used to give beating to his daughter and the appellant - Sangeeta used to harass and torture his daughter.Further, he deposed that about one week before the death of his daughter, he went to the house of his daughter when his daughter told him while weeping, that both the appellants and other members of the family were harassing her and she compelled him to take her to his house.The instant appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/306/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.), and order on sentence dated 07.07.2000, whereby the appellant - Tilak Rathore has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 1 of 11 payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 306 IPC.As regards appellant - Sangeeta is concerned, she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The appellant - Sangeeta was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 306 IPC.A. No. 422/2000 Page 1 of 11A. No. 422/2000 Page 2 of 11 the appellants due to which the deceased had committed suicide.Appellant - Tilak Rathore was arrested and appellant - Sangeeta was formally arrested, as she had obtained anticipatory bail in the case.A. No. 422/2000 Page 2 of 11After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.Charge under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against both the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses.They are father of deceased-Nanhe Rathore (PW-1); mother of the deceased-Smt.Sheela (PW-2); Constable Hans Raj (PW-3); Mr. Attar Singh Dabas, SDM (PW-4); Dr. L.C. Gupta, Police Mortuary (PW-5), Sub-Inspector Mohar Singh, Crime Team (PW-6); Constable Maman Singh (PW-7); Head Constable Bishamber Singh (PW-8), and Sub-Inspector Ravi Kumar (PW-9).The statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the appellants have examined two witnesses in their defence, i.e., Mr. Ramesh Chand (DW-1) and Ms.Manju (DW-2).After considering the facts, evidence led and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty for an offence punishable under Section 498-A/306/34 of IPC vide judgment and order on sentence, as mentioned above.The appellants have filed the instant appeal challenging the Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 3 of 11 aforesaid judgment on conviction as well as order on sentence.A. No. 422/2000 Page 3 of 11GROUNDS OF CHALLENGEThere are material contradictions between the main witnesses i.e., father and mother of the deceased.It is further urged that PW-1 and PW2 have made two inconsistent statements regarding giving sum of Rs.25,000/-.All the allegations regarding demand for dowry and physical beating were leveled in the court despite the fact that there is no specific allegation in the FIR.It is further contended that the witnesses produced on behalf of the appellants have clearly stated that they never saw and heard about demand for dowry or beating or deceased being turned out of the house of the appellants, but the learned trial court had rejected their evidence.No cruelty has been proved as there is no specific allegation of demand for dowry, therefore the question of presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act will not arise.In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1138-39/2016, titled as K.V. Prakash Babu vs. State of Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 4 of 11Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the deceased Suman had died otherwise than under normal circumstances in her matrimonial home and that too within seven years of her marriage; the deceased was being harassed and tortured by both the appellants; there was demand of Rs.25,000/- from the side of in-laws at the time of marriage and that was given by the father of the deceased.Therefore, the judgment and order on sentence as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality.Arguments advanced by both the sides were heard and the evidence as well as material placed on record has been gone into.He deposed in his deposition that a sum of Rs.25,000/- before marriage of his daughter, was given in the hands of Hargovind, i.e., husband of the appellant - Sangeeta.A. No. 422/2000 Page 5 of 11Testimony of PW1 has duly been corroborated by Smt. Sheela (PW-2), the mother of the deceased.PW2 has deposed that they had given Rs.25,000/- in cash and other articles in marriage of her daughter.For 3-4 months her daughter was kept properly but thereafter, both the appellants started harassing and torturing her daughter and also started giving beating to her.They used to ask her daughter to bring money from her parents and they also taunted her by saying that her parents have not given anything in the marriage.She further deposed that about 10-12 days before the death of her daughter, her father went to the house of her daughter, where she told her father to take her from there to his house as the appellants were Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 6 of 11 harassing and torturing her.She further deposed that her daughter told about the fact that the appellant-Tilak used to go to appellant-Sangeeta first after coming from his office.A. No. 422/2000 Page 6 of 11Testimony of above two witnesses has been corroborated by Dr. L.C. Gupta, (PW-5) who had conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased Suman.He deposed that the deceased was averagely built and nourished, rigor mortis was present.Post Mortem staining was present as bilateral globins and stockings.Ligature material, a rope in two layer with running noose was present around neck in its upper part, was cut from opposite side of noose and preserved for CFSL Purpose.He has given the cause of death as being 'asphyxia resulting from hanging'.Time since death was opined to be 36 hours prior to post mortem examination.From the aforesaid narrations of depositions of material witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, it is apparent that there was a demand of Rs.25,000/- at the time of marriage from the appellant's side, which was given by the father of the deceased and for proving a case under Section 498-A such a demand shall suffice immaterial as to whom the dowry demand was paid to.It has also come in their testimony that the deceased was constantly taunted and harassed on account of demand of dowry and she was also given beatings by the appellants in that regard.Therefore, the offence under Section 498-A is proved against the appellants.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar ChopraA. No. 422/2000 Page 7 of 11Mother of the deceased (PW-2) has also corroborated the statement of Nanhey (PW-1) while deposing that for 3-4 months her Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 8 of 11 daughter was kept properly but thereafter, appellant - Tilak and Sangeeta started harassing and torturing her daughter and also started giving beatings to her.They used to ask her daughter to bring money from her parents and they also taunted her by saying that her parents had not given anything in the marriage.She further deposed that about 10-12 days before the death of her daughter, her father went to the house of her daughter, where she told her father to take her from there to his house as the appellants were harassing and torturing her.A. No. 422/2000 Page 8 of 11Dr. L.C. Gupta, (PW-5), who had conducted the post mortem of the deceased, has also given the cause of death as being 'asphyxia resulting from hanging', which itself confirms the unnatural death of the victim.Though minor contradictions in the depositions are highlighted on behalf of the appellants, they are not material to the facts of the present case and are not sufficient to demolish the prosecution case regarding harassment of the deceased on account of bringing insufficient dowry and demand for dowry.More so, this court is conscious of the fact that the death of the victim was unnatural and such death had occurred within seven years of her marriage and that too in her matrimonial home.It is also a fact that appellant - Sangeeta was also residing alongwith the family of appellant - Tilak.Therefore, Section 34 also applies to the facts of the present case.A cumulative consideration of the evidence regarding demand Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 9 of 11 for dowry at the time of marriage satisfies the ingredients of charge qua the appellants.Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.The testimony of parents of the deceased i.e. PW1 and PW2 clearly proves that the deceased was constantly harassed and meted out with cruelty on account of demand of dowry.They have specifically stated that about a week prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased informed them that the appellants were harassing and torturing her which was on account of demand of dowry.It was due to such a harassment and torture which led to the taking of extreme step of ending her life by the deceased and the evidence and material brought on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellants within the four corners of Section 306 of IPC.A. No. 422/2000 Page 9 of 11In the light of the aforesaid discussions, facts and circumstances of this case, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 05.07.2000 thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/306/34 of IPC.Resultantly, finding no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, the impugned judgment dated 05.07.2000 is upheld.So far as order on sentence is concerned, this court finds the nominal roll of the appellant - Tilak Rathore on record which shows that he has undergone a period of 1 year, 8 months and 23 days with remission of 15 days.Considering the fact that the incident in question is of the year 1999 and the appellants have faced the agony of trial for about 18 years, and the fact that the appellant-Tilak Rathore had Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 10 of 11 already served a sentence of more than 1 year 8 months and the fact that the appellant-Sangeeta who has also been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A/306/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 306 IPC, therefore in the considered opinion of this court it would be appropriate to reduce the period of sentence imposed upon the appellant-Tilak Rathore to the period of three years for the office under Section 306 of IPC.Accordingly, the order on sentence dated 07.07.2000 is modified to the extent indicated above.A. No. 422/2000 Page 10 of 11In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is disposed of while upholding the judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 498-A/306/34 of IPC, however, modifying the order on sentence thereby reducing the sentence of the appellant-Tilak Rathore to the period of 3 years for the offence under Section 306 IPC.The appellants are 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.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JANAUARY 20, 2017 pkb Crl.A. No. 422/2000 Page 11 of 11A. No. 422/2000 Page 11 of 11 | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,451 | ORDER Dipak Misra, J.Individual liberty is a priceless treasure and no one would like to lose it for all the wealth in the world.But the core question that arises for consideration in this application for cancellation of bail is whether the adroit efforts an ingenious attempts of an accused, to obtain liberty, be ignored at the cost of impropriety.To elaborate whether an accused should be conferred allowances to make false declaration and get the concession of bail and whether he should be exonerated solely on the foundation that he has enjoyed liberty for some length of time.The essential facts which require to be stated for disposal of this application for cancellation of bail are that the respondent No. 2, Brijkishore Kateha, an accused in Crime No. 62/ 96 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC) which has eventually given rise to the Sessions Trial No. 103/96 before the learned Sessions Judge, Panna, moved an application before this Court forming thesubject-matter of M.Cr.C. No. 6495/96 which was rejected by order dated 12-2-1997 by Rajeev Gupta, J. Thereafter, the second bail application was filed by the respondent No. 2 along with some other accused persons which formed the subject-matter of M.Cr.The matter was placed before the learned Judge who had rejected the earlier application.As the learned Judge directed, the matter to be placed before the regular Bench, it came to be listed before S. P. Khare, J. who by order dated 4-3-98 rejected the prayer for bail.It is to be noted that the said bail application was heard along with M.Cr.Though the second application for bail had not met with success the respondent No. 2 with unsurpassable will and indomitable aspiration made his third journey to this Court in M.Cr.In the said application for bail it was mentioned that it was the second bail application filed by the accused.It was also set forth therein that his previous bail application forming subject-matter of M.Cr.As the prayer in the aforesaid application was negatived by Rajeev Gupta, J. the matter was placed before him.Quite apart from this other grounds taken in the application for cancellation of bail have been refuted and the depositions of certain witnesses during trial have been highlighted.Mr. S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants, has raised a singular contention that the order of bail having been obtained by misrepresentation of an essential fact amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and on that count alone bail granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 should be cancelled.The respondent shall surrender forthwith. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
94,516,411 | Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for an adjournment.The case is adjourned.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.A. No.771/2015 11/12/2015 Learned counsel for the appellant prays listing of the matter after vacation.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.A. No.941/2015 11/12/2015 At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.A. No.961/2015 11/12/2015 At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.R. No.1039/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.Heard on I.A.No.9538/2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence pending the revision.The applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced for two years RI with fine of Rs.400/- failing which sentence of four months RI.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued before this Court that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the crime and there are lots of contradictions and omissions in respect of the evidence.It has also been argued that the final hearing of the revision will take long time.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, the period of sentence, nature of the case and the fact that this revision is not likely to be heard and disposed off at an early date, it is directed that on deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with separate surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05/04/2016 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, the accused be released on bail and the substantive sentence under revision shall remain suspended.With the aforesaid, I.A.No.9538/2015 stands allowed.The revision is admitted for final hearing.List the same in due course.Office to requisition the record of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.R. No.1182/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.Heard on I.A.No.10617/2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence pending the revision.The applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced for one year RI with fine of Rs.100/- failing which sentence of one month RI.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued before this Court that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the crime and there are lots of contradictions and omissions in respect of the evidence.It has also been argued that the final hearing of the revision will take long time.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, the period of sentence, nature of the case and the fact that this revision is not likely to be heard and disposed off at an early date, it is directed that on deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with separate surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05/04/2016 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, the accused be released on bail and the substantive sentence under revision shall remain suspended.With the aforesaid, I.A.No.10617/2015 stands allowed.The revision is admitted for final hearing.List the same in due course.Office to requisition the record of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.A. No.1144/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.Heard on I.A.No.10604/2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence pending the appeal.The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 R/w Sec.323/34 of IPC and sentenced for one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- failing which sentence of one month RI.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the crime and there are lots of contradictions and omissions in respect of the evidence.It has also been argued that the final hearing of the appeal will take long time.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, the period of sentence, nature of the case and the fact that this appeal is not likely to be heard and disposed off at an early date, it is directed that on deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with separate surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 06/04/2016 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, the accused be released on bail and the substantive sentence under appeal shall remain suspended.With the aforesaid, I.A.No.10604/2015 stands allowed.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.List the same in due course.Office to requisition the record of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.A. No.1128/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.Heard on I.A.No.10443/2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence pending the appeal.The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 326/149 and 323/149 of IPC and sentenced for two years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- failing which sentence of six months RI.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the crime and there are lots of contradictions and omissions in respect of the evidence.It has also been argued that the final hearing of the appeal will take long time.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, the period of sentence, nature of the case and the fact that this appeal is not likely to be heard and disposed off at an early date, it is directed that on deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with separate surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04/04/2016 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, the accused be released on bail and the substantive sentence under appeal shall remain suspended.With the aforesaid, I.A.No.10604/2015 stands allowed.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.List the same in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.R. No.1108/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.Heard on I.A.No.10082/2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence pending the revision.The applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 332 of IPC and sentenced for 1 year RI with fine of Rs.100/- failing which sentence of 1 month RI.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued before this Court that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the crime and there are lots of contradictions and omissions in respect of the evidence.It has also been argued that the final hearing of the revision will take long time and the applicant was on bail during the trial On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, the period of sentence, nature of the case and the fact that this revision is not likely to be heard and disposed off at an early date, it is directed that on deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with separate surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04/04/2016 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, the accused be released on bail and the substantive sentence under revision shall remain suspended.With the aforesaid, I.A.No.10082/2015 stands allowed.The revision is admitted for final hearing.List the same in due course.Office is directed to requisition the record.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.A. No.1142/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.Heard on I.A.No.10581/2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence pending the appeal.The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced for 3 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- failing which sentence of 6 months months RI.It has been argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime and he is an innocent person.It has also been argued that the trial Court has in fact, relied upon the seizure witnesses whereas it was a fabricated case, slapped by the police upon the appellant.It has been argued that there are lots of contradictions and omissions in respect of evidence and final hearing of the appeal will take long time.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, the period of sentence, nature of the case and the fact that this appeal is not likely to be heard and disposed off at an early date, it is directed that on deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with separate surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04/04/2016 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, the accused be released on bail and the substantive sentence under appeal shall remain suspended.With the aforesaid, I.A.No.10581/2015 stands allowed.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.List the same in due course.Office to requisition the record of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.A. No.1084/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Cr.A. No.1137/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.A. No.1141/2015 11/12/2015 Parties through their counsel.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej No.11/12/2015 Shri List the matter on /. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,109,273 | This is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.253/2014 registered at Police Station Deolaundh District Shahdol (M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(dha) and 506B/34 of IPC.After hearing the rival submissions and going through the case diary statements and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants.Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants be released from custody subject to their furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) each with separate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the concerned court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this behalf by the court concerned during trial.C. stands disposed of.Certified copy on payment of usual charges.(S.K. SETH) JUDGE | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,191,145 | The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant Rajendra is the husband of deceased Sushila Bai.Appellant Mohan Lal and Shakuntala Bai are parents of Rajendra.The death of Sushila Bai occurred on 24-592, otherwise than under normal circumstances.It is alleged by the prosecution that after the marriage of Sushila Bai with appellant-Rajendra and before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand for dowry.Whenever the deceased used to go to her parental home, she used to inform her parents and brothers regarding the harassment and demand of dowry.The deceased also wrote two letters to her parents wherein she complained about the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the appellants.A few days before her death, Narayan (PW-6), the father of Sushila Bai had gone to see her at her marital home, where she expressed him an apprehension that she may be killed and requested him to take her to parental home.Thereupon, the father of the deceased filed an application under Section 97, Cr. P. C. for issuance of search warrant wherein he stated that the deceased is being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and relatives of her husband for or in connection with demand for dowry.On this application, a search warrant was issued by S.D.M., Bagli, on 20-5-92 for the production of deceased.On 24-5-92, the deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, Harda for treatment of vomitting and diarrhoea.During treatment she breathed her last.Dr. Singhal informed to the S.H.O. of P. S., Harda regarding the death of Sushila Bai.A Marg was registered at the police station.Inquest was conducted on the dead body of Sushila Bai.The body was sent for post-mortem examination.The post-mortem examination was conducted by a panel of doctors comprising Dr. Ravi Garg (PW-4) and Dr. R. K. Patel, who opined that the cause of death of Sushila Bai was asphexia caused by poisoning.Her viscera was preserved.An offence was registered at P. S., Harda.JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J.During investigation, spot-map was prepared.Copies of search warrant, two letters written by deceased to her parents, affidavits and application under Section 91, Cr. P. C, were recovered from Santosh (PW- 10), the brother of the deceased.After usual investigation a challan was filed against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 306, IPC.Charges for the aforesaid offences were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant.The appellants abjured the guilt.Their defence was to the effect that the deceased was leading a happy life with them.They examined two witnesses in support of their case.Having concluded the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, however, found them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced them, as indicated above.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, the appellants have come up in this appeal.9A. I have heard Shri H. S. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Divesh Jain, learned Panel lawyer appearing for the State and perused the record of the trial Court.Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants led me through the record and contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in accepting the prosecution evidence.10A. On the other hand, Shri Divesh Jain, learned State counsel has supported the judgment recorded by the learned trial Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above.The deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, Harda for the treatment of vomitting and diarrhoea and during her treatment she died in the hospital.It is not disputed that death of Sushila Bai occured due to poisoning.Dr. Ravi Garg (PW-4), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sushila Bai, has stated that on postmortem examination, he found the face, nails and tongue of the deceased blue.Her lungs, liver, spleen and kidney were congested.He preserved viscera of the deceased.In his opinion, the death of Sushila Bai occurred due to asphexia, as a result of poisoning.From the evidence of Dr. Ravi Garg (PW-4) it is quite clear that Sushila Bai died due to consumption of poison, therefore, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the death of Sushila Bai occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance.The next question which arises for determination is as to whether the death of deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage ?Santosh (PW-1), brother of deceased has stated that the marriage of Sushila Bai was solemnized about a year before the incident.The evidence of Santosh (PW-1) has been corroborated by Babulal (PW-2) and Rajendra Soni (PW-3), brothers of deceased, Kamla Bai (PW-5), mother of deceased and Narayan (PW-6), father of the deceased.Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examinations to discredit them.From the report of Dr. Garg, post-mortem examination report, Ex. P-9 and the evidence of the parents and brothers of deceased it is well established that the death of Sushila Bai occurred within the period of one year of her marriage.This brings us to the crucial question as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry ?It is not disputed before me that the appellant Rajendra is the husband, appellant Mohan Lal is the father-in-law and appellant Shakuntala Bai is the mother-in-law of deceased.Thus, they are husband and near relatives of deceased.Narayan (PW-6), who is father of the deceased, has stated that after the marriage Sushila Bai came to her parental home 2-3 times and every time complained that the accused persons had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of cooler, fan and television as dowry.She also expressed an apprehension that in case, demand is not fulfilled, she may be finished in her marital home.The witness has further stated that about a week before the death of Sushila Bai, he along with his wife Kamla Bai had gone to the house of appellants.On that date 'also the deceased was beaten by the appellants.At that occasion also, the deceased expressed her apprehension that she may be killed.Kamla Bai (PW-5), mother of the deceased has also corroborated the testimony of her husband.The evidence of parents of the deceased has been further corroborated by the evidence of Santosh (PW-1) and Rajendra Soni (PW-3), who have stated that whenever deceased visited them after her marriage, she used to complain regarding harassment appellants for or in connection with demand for cooler, fan and television in the form of dowry.Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to doubt their testimony.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as stated in the Court and in their case diary statements.In the Court, they have stated that the deceased complained about the demand for cooler, fan and television while in their case diary statements, recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. they did not specify the articles which were demanded by the appellants.These contradictions of omissions cannot be said to be material as in the case diary statements also the prosecution witnesses have specifically stated regarding the demand for dowry.It is not very material that the items were not specified in the case diary statements.On careful scrutiny of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, I find that their evidence is natural and inspires confidence and cannot be said to be concocted or embellished to any extent.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Babulal (PW-2) who is none but the uncle of the mother of deceased, has not stated regarding the demand of dowry by the appellants, therefore, the evidence of parents and brothers of the deceased is suspicious and untrustworthy.This witness has been declared hostile.He was confronted with his case diary statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. wherein he stated regarding the demand for dowry.Simply because Babulal has not supported the prosecution case regarding the demand of dowry, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be discarded.It is not necessary that the deceased should have complained to him also regarding demand for dowry as he was a remote relative.The evidence of Narayan (PW-6), father of the deceased is further corroborated by the copy of the application filed by him before the S.D.M., Bagli, (Ex. P-10) wherein he has stated regarding cruelty or harassment meted out by appellants to the deceased for or in connection with demand of dowry.A search warrant for the production of deceased Sushila Bai was issued on 205-92, i.e. only four days before her death otherwise than under normal circumstances.The version of the parents and brothers of the deceased is further corroborated by the letters Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2 alleged to have been written by the deceased to her parents.He has further stated that both these letters are in the handwriting of deceased and they bear her signatures.Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the said letters were handed over to the police after about a fortnight of the incident.These documents have been fabricated after the incident just to involve the appellants in the crime.The contention cannot be accepted.Merely because the letters were handed over to the police after some time, it cannot be inferred that they are fabricated.The mental agony of the brothers and parents of deceased, who lost their dear one, can well be understood.In the state of mental agony if there was some delay in handing over the letters to the police, their genuineness cannot be doubted.The deceased was none but the sister of Santosh (PW-1) and it is quite natural for him to identify the writing and signature of her sister.Santosh (PW-1) has stated that the letters were sent by the deceased by post.Narayan (PW-6) has also stated that the letters Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2 are in the handwriting of his daughter.Both these letters were received by post in envelopes Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4, which bear the seal of the concerned post office, therefore, their genuineness cannot be questioned.Thus, from the statements of parents and brothers of the deceased and from the contents of the application filed for issuance of search warrant and from the letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 written by the deceased to her parents, it is well established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants.It has also been well established by the prosecution that the cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand for dowry.The evidence of Narayan (PW-6), Kamla Bai (PW-5), Santosh (PW-1) and Rajendra Soni (PW-3) clearly establishes that the appellants subjected the deceased Sushila Bai to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry.The deceased used to tell them regarding demand of cooler, fan and television, made by the appellants from her.Their evidence is worthy of credence and supported by the letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 and the application for search warrant.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that only general allegations of demand of dowry were made against the husband and his family members and there is no clear and cogent evidence involving them in demand of dowry.In these circumstances, conviction of parents of the husband of the deceased would be improper.There is specific evidence that all the appellants demanded dowry.Thus, there is a re- liable evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, mal-treatment or harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry.The next question which remains to be determined is : whether cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased soon before her death ?The death of Sushila Bai occurred within one year of her marriage.Whenever she used to visit her parents, she used to complain them regarding the cruelty or harassment.The expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question.From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is clear that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death.Only about a week before her death the deceased was beaten by the appellants.This incident was seen by the parents of the deceased.An application for issuance of search warrant was filed soon before the death wherein the allegations of cruelty and harassment were made.Thus, there exists proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death.Even otherwise, the death occurred within one year of the marriage.Therefore, incident of cruelty cannot be said to be remote in time and stale.In the present case, wife died an unnatural death, evidence is showing that there was demand of dowry and cruelty on the part of the husband and in-laws of the deceased, therefore, the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act is also available.Frequent demands of dowry were made and threats were given to kill Sushila Bai, in case, the demands were not fulfilled.Therefore, presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act has to be drawn against the appellants.Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned trial Judge has wrongly discarded the defence evidence.In view of the defence evidence, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.The learned trial Judge has recorded the reasons for discarding the defence evidence. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,911,523 | 346 24.06.2015 BD.Court No.04 C.R.M. 3514 of 2015 Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Crim Procedure filed on 7th April, 2015 in connection with Bhaktin Police Station Case No. 74 of 2015 dated 22.01.2015 under Sect 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code.In re : Nitya Gopal Sarkar ..... petitioner.Mr. Anirban Banerjee .... for the petitioner.Therefore, the petitioner, namely Nitya Gopal Sarkar, released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees thousand) only with two sureties of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousa only each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, The application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Girish Chandra Gupta (Shib Sadhan Sadhu | ['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,119 | Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 1st May, 1984, by which they were held guilty of offences under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Accused Thakur Singh and Lala Ram were also sentenced to R.I. for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under S. 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.In order to appreciate the arguments raised by the appellants, it is necessary to keep in mind the prosecution version of the incident.Few days prior to the present occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between Padam Singh (deceased) and the accused persons.With the intervention of the father and brother of Padam Singh, the dispute was amicably settled.However, on 9th February, 1982, at about 4.15 p.m. as the story goes, when Padam Singh was passing through Gali No. 4, Than Singh Nagar, and was near the back portion of house of S. Gurbax Singh, the three accused caught hold of him, saying that earlier he was saved by his father and brother, but today, they would not leave him.At that time, Babu Ram, the father of Padam Singh, was 15 to 16 paces behind his son.He saw the accused Om Prakash catching hold of Padam Singh from behind while the other two accused took out daggers and started inflicting injuries on the front and back of his son.Padam Singh, on receipt of several injuries fell down on the ground.On seeing this, Babu Ram raised alarm, on hearing of which Pearey Lal, who was standing nearby, with the help of another by stander, Sua Lal, chased Thakur Singh and caught hold of him at some distance.Babu Ram, succeeded in apprehending Lala Ram whereas Prabhu Dayal caught hold of Om Prakash at the place of occurrence itself.After a few minutes, a police party headed by S.I. Dharam Pal reached there.Its sketch Ex. PW4/A was prepared and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/A. Similarly, after preparing the sketch of the handle of the knife, which handle was found at the spot, it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/C. The bloodstained clothes of the accused persons were also taken into possession.The scene of occurrence was got photographed.Along with the body, the weapons of offence were forwarded to the post-mortem doctor for his opinion.All the accused were arrested.The case property was sent to the Director, C.F.S.L. for his reports, where from the report Ex. PW 15/C was received.It is clear from the entry reproduced above that the substance of the first information report was not entered in the daily diary inasmuch as neither the names of the accused nor the names of the witnesses nor any other details in regard to the occurrence are given.Even P.W. 8 Jai Pal Singh in his opening words of cross-examination admits this fact.He says :-The last formality for preparing the Inquest Report was complete by 7.30 p.m. yet he remained at the spot from 4.35 p.m. to 1 a.m. in the night.Till then all the 4 witnesses also remained at the spot.This explanation to our mind is devoid of any substance as there is no corroboration from any quarter, particularly, when he failed to name the Police Officer through whom the truck was requisitioned or the reasons for its delayed delivery.If all of them had been arrested immediately after the incident and their search as well as clothes had been taken possession of, there was no necessity of keeping them for such a long time at the spot.According to the prosecution version, accused Om Prakash secured the deceased in his grip (koli bhar lee) from behind.Accused Thakur Singh was in front of Padam Singh while accused Lala Ram was at his back.Both the accused gave several dagger blows on the chest and back of Padam Singh.JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.By this judgment, we propose to dispose of two connected criminal appeals bearing No. 116/84 filed by Lala Ram and Om Prakash, and Criminal Appeal No. 131/84, filed by Thakur Singh.These appeals arise out the order of Shri T. S. Oberoi, Addl.All the three accused were produced before the Police.Sub-Inspector Dharam Pal recorded the statement (Ex. PW-3/A) of Shri Babu Lal underneath which he made his endorsement (Ex. PW-8/A) and sent the 'ruqa' to the Police Station for the registration of the case.P.W. 8, A.S.I. Jaipal Singh, Duty Officer, on the receipt of the report recorded the formal F.I.R. Ex. PW-8/B and sent the copy of the same to Dharam Pal for investigation.He also sent the special reports to higher authorities and the Ilaqa Magistrate for information.The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan (Ex. PW15/A) and took into possession blood, bloodstained earth from near the dead body and converted them into separate sealed parcels.Pearey Lal produced one 'Khanjar' (dagger) which had a broken tip.This dagger was alleged to have been thrown in a nearby drain by accused Thakur Singh.After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in Court.The prosecution in all examined 15 witnesses to prove their case whereas accused produced Shri R. K. Yadav, the then Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the special report was sent and a Head Constable from Police Station Patel Nagar, to produce the correct copies of the D.D. Reports concerning this case.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge relied upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the surrounding circumstances to base the conviction of the accused and sentenced them as stated above.Learned counsel for the accused persons have challenged the correctness of order of correctness of order of conviction and sentence on numerous grounds by pointing out various infirmities in the case as laid before the Court.The first and foremost submission is that the First Information Report in this case has not been recorded at the earliest available opportunity as disclosed by the witnesses.Constable Abdul Jabar.This time schedule stated to have been meticulously followed has been proved to be wrong thus giving rise to doubt the correctness of the prosecution version.It has come in the evidence of almost all the alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence that immediately after the accused persons inflicted the fatal blows on the person of Padam Singh, they (the accused) tried to run away from there.In that process, Thakur Singh accused threw away the dagger in the drain while a handle of the knife which had been wielded by Lala Ram was recovered from near the dead body.According to Babu Ram, when the Police came to the spot, they immediately took the handle of the dagger, and the 'Khol' into possession.Similarly, Pearey Lal, P.W. brought the dagger and handed over the same to the I.O. within two or three minutes of their arrival.It comes to that the weapons of offence were with the Police even before the statement of Babu Lal Ex. PW 3/A was recorded.The accused persons were also in the custody of the police.Rather this fact is mentioned in the statement Ex. PW 3/A of Babu Lal.Unfortunately, these very significant events do not find mention in the substance of the information Ex. PW 16/A which has been recorded in Rojnamacha maintained at the Police Station.Patel Nagar.What is its effect ?Section 154 of the Criminal P.C. lays down that."Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf."According to Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police Rules.Volume III, 1959 edition, the substance of the report is to be entered in the Daily Diary.The relevant part of the rule reads as under :-"Every information covered by S. 154, Criminal P.C., must be reduced to writing as provided in that section and substance thereof must be entered in the police station daily diary, which is the book provided for the purpose.It is only information which raises a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence within the jurisdiction of the police officer to whom it is given which compels action under S. 157, Criminal P.C."In this case, Ex. PW-16/A is the entry of the Daily Diary.This entry reads as under :-The next precaution which the prosecution was expected to comply with, was the sending of the special reports to the different higher police officers as well as Ilaqa Metropolitan Magistrate.Even this safeguard has not been taken.As stated earlier, the formal FIR, a copy of which is Ex. PW 8/B allegedly came into being at about 5.30 p.m. The time of its dispatch through Constable Abdul Jabar vide Ex. PW1/A is shown at 5.55 p.m. At about the same time, he left Police Station.According to him, he delivered the copy of the special report to the wife of the Metropolitan Magistrate at his residence, at about 6.40 p.m., and came back to the Police Station at about 8 or 8.30 p.m. The report was not delivered as tried to be made out by the prosecution.Admittedly in the Roznamacha, there is no entry showing the return of Abdul Jabar after delivering the copies of the special reports to the higher police officers and the Ilaqa Magistrate.P.W. 8 Jai Pal Singh admits that he had deputed Constable Abdul Jabar to deliver the copies of the FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate and other higher officers but his return is not mentioned in the Rojnamacha 'A' till 12 mid-night, so long as he remained on duty.In fact, according to him, Abdul Jabar is shown to have come back to the Police Station at 7.35 p.m. in connection with the checking of the crime as per DD No. 72-B near Vivek Cinema.It is also the case of the prosecution that special reports are sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate in a sealed envelope, Ex. PW 11/DA is the said envelope which admittedly was written in the hand of P.W. 8 Jai Pal Singh.This witness further admits that as and when the special report is delivered to the Metropolitan Magistrate, he (the Magistrate) is obliged to give the time and date of receipt under his signature.Envelope Ex. PW 11/DA bears the signature of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, but with a different date and time.The defense took precautions to examine Shri R. K. Yadav, the then Metropolitan Magistrate holding charge of Police Station, Patel Nagar.His evidence reads under :-As per the endorsement encircled red at point 'A', this FIR was received by me on 20-2-82 at 10 a.m. in my Court.In a judgment reported as Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court has adversely commented upon the delay in sending the special reports in these words :-"The extraordinary delay in sending the F.I.R. is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the First Information Report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence."This long delay in sending the report throws a reasonable doubt in our mind about the genuineness of time and date of the recording of the first information report.The testimony of PW Constable Abdul Jabar does not inspire confidence and is to be rejected.There is yet another circumstance which goes to the root of the matter and for which there is no worthwhile explanation from the side of the prosecution.Even this formality was not complied with, at the earliest.The I.O. tried to explain the delay by deposing that he had requisitioned the truck for removing the dead body but it reached quite late.The deceased fell down only after Om Prakash loosened his grip.The blade of one of the daggers was found stuck in the middle of the lower part of the back.Dr. Bharat Singh while conducting post-mortem on the body of Padam Singh besides other injuries noticed injury No. 8 as "an incised wound on the lumber area placed on the spine horizontally through which a broken knife was visible at the surface of the wound was 1 1/4 x 1 1/2 x ?.The wound was spindle shaped.Knife could be taken out with difficulty, its size and shape shown in the diagram."Accordingly to the opinion of the doctor, injuries Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature separately.The position of injury No. 8 is such that it was not possible for Lala Ram to have given this blow.According to Babu Ram, when Om Prakash caught hold of his son Padam Singh, the position was as under :-"The hands of my son were above the grip of Om Prakash who was clinching my son into his grip from his back having his arms around the body of my son."Padam Singh fell on the ground as soon as Om Prakash released his grip, so says P.W. 7 Sua Lal.He confirms this fact in his cross-examination by admitting that accused Om Prakash continued to hold Padam Singh in his grip so long as Padam Singh was inflicting knife injuries.Even though the case of P.W. 6 Prabhu Dayal in Court is that Om Prakash caught hold of Padam Singh from his waist but it is not so in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. It is the common case of the parties that Om Prakash did not receive any injury during this incident.The position of injury No. 8 is such that it could not have been caused if Om Prakash had caught hold of the deceased from his back.No injury was inflicted on the deceased after he fell on the ground.So the manner of causing of injury at the back is just not possible as has been deposed by the eye-witnesses.This is also a circumstance which throws doubt on the correctness of the prosecution version.To start with Babu Lal was hesitant to admit acquaintance or his association with any of the other three eye-witnesses but while under cross-examination, he had no option but to admit the following facts :-Pearey Lal resides in gali No. 11 and he is the brother-in-law of Sua Lal who lives in Gali No. 12, Prabhu Dayal is a resident of the same area and is known to the remaining eye-witnesses from before.All these persons have been appearing as witnesses and supporting each other in numerous criminal cases.On the morning of the date of the occurrence, they had attended the Court of Shri R. K. Yadav, at Tis Hazari in connection with a case of rioting.Babu Ram had also appeared as a PW along with Pearey Lal and Sua Lal, in a case lodged by Pearey Lal, under S. 324, I.P.C. He along with Prabhu Dayal was also a witness for Pearey Lal in a case under sections 448/380, I.P.C. Yet in another case, under S. 325, I.P.C., got registered by the mother of Pearey Lal, Prabhu Dayal was cited as a prosecution witness.From the above ad-misses admissions and the surrounding circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that each of the eye-witnesses was not only known to the others from before but they were the birds of the same feather, inasmuch as they were either appearing as witnesses or were facing charged together in numerous criminal cases.The possibility of their having joined hands in deposing against the accused persons cannot thus be ruled out.This finding finds corroboration from another angle.According to Pearey Lal, at the time of the occurrence, about 40 to 50 persons were present near the water tank from where he along with Sua Lal witnessed the occurrence.He stated that when he produced the dagger before the police, a large number of persons were present at the roof tops of the houses and also in the street.Similarly, Prabhu Dayal admitted that the lane No. 3, where the incident took place, was full of persons of the nearby houses at the time of the incident.It is the case of the prosecution that the I.O. immediately on reaching the place of occurrence interrupted a number of persons but did not record the statement of any of them.He only preferred to record the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses.It cannot be, that except for these witnesses, no other person of the lane had witnessed the actual stabbing.It is a strange coincidence that the incident was seen by Pearey Lal and Sua Lal from the right corner of the gali No. 3 whereas Prabhu Dayal happened to be present on the corner of the Gali at that very time.It is not satisfactorily explained why no effort was made to join the persons from the lane who happened to be present there and had seen the occurrence.Even no attempt was made to join any other witness at the time of taking of possession of the articles from the place of occurrence.This could only be possible, had the case property been retained and kept in safe custody.To our utter surprise, learned counsel for the State after making enquiries was constrained to admit that the case property has since been destroyed by the Police.The non-availability of these weapons of offence for examination by the Court will render it improbable to find out if they were capable of being used for causing the injuries alleged to have been found on the person of the deceased.The non-production of the weapon of offence in the present case to our mind may even be said to be fatal to the prosecution case.In a case reported as Mohd. Ibrahim v. State, , I. D. Dua, J. took strong exception to the destruction of the case property before disposal of the appeal or revision. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,120,844 | 25.11.2014 68 kc C.R.M. 13368 of 2014 Re: An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16th September, 2014 in connection with Contai Women Police Station Case no. 35 dated 4th September, 2014 under sections 406/418/354B/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 66A/67/67A of the Information Technology Act.In Re: Siddhartha Maity ........Petitioner.Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar, Mr. Biswajit Manna..................................For the petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,121,144 | Heard on admission.Consequently, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Barelal Omre is hereby dismissed at motion stage.However, it is made clear that if the applicant is aggrieved from the order of framing of charges then, he would be free to knock the doors of the Higher Court.C.C. as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,121,449 | Parties through their counsel.Learned Sr. Counsel has vehementally argued before this court that is is a second round of litigation and earlier this court while dealing with similar petition has remanded the matter back to the trial court for passing a fresh order in respect of framing of charges.The relevant paragraphs No. 7 to 27 of the Order passed by this court in Cr.R. No.1107/2015 and Cr.R. No.1126/2015 reads as under :-We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.It transpires from the record that pursuant to a report lodged by Shrichand Kalra Crime No.681/2009 was registered in Police Station, Palasia, Indore against the petitioners and 4 other persons with regard to offences under Section 420/467/468/409/120-B/201 IPC read with Section 13(1) (D) of 'the Act'.After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against them for the aforesaid offences.Following specific allegations have been made in the chargesheet against the petitioner Dharmendra Jain:" B vkjksi dk lfa {kIr fooj.k vkjksih fodkl vikVZesaV x`g&fuekZ.k lgdkjh laLFkk dk eSustj dh gSfl;r ij Fkk ftlds }kjk voS/k ykHk vtZu djus dh fu;r ls vius lg&vijk/kh fodkl tSu ls laLFkk dh djksMksa dh Hkwfe dks nksckj -2- Loa; dz; dh gS rkfd voS/k ykHk ys lds rFkk laLFkk dks voS/kgkfu igqWpkbZA laLFkk dk vfHkys[k okf"kZd lk/kkj.k lHkk izkslsfMax jftLVj vkfn xk;c dj lk{; foyksfir fd, gSa vkjskih dk vijkf/kd d`R; /kkjk 420@409@120@B@34@201 Hkk-n-fo- ,oa 13]1 (D) Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dh Js.kh esa LFkkfir ik;k tkrk gSA"From the record, it appears that certain other transactions with regard to sale/lease of the land belonging to 'the society' also took place, however, nothing specifically has been alleged by the prosecution against petitioner Dharmendra Jain with regard to those transactions, particularly, regarding sale deed dated 31.03.1998 of 3.5 Acres of land by Krishna Kant Nagar in favour of Devki Nandan Agrawal and lease of 9 Acres of land on 16.06.2003 by Krishna Kant Nagar in favour of Prominent Education Society and the sale of 3.35 acres of land on 18.07.2007 to Rajesh Bhagtariya.Further, perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner/Dharmendra Jain reveals that the transactions which took place in 1998 and 2003 have been mentioned as the acts forming charge of the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons including petitioners, though, nothing in that connection has been specifically alleged by the prosecution against petitioner Dharmendra Jain.Apart this, it is also found that reference in the charge regarding sale deed, said to have been executed by the petitioner Vikas Jain in favour of Dharmendra Jain, with regard to commercial plot admeasuring 2907 square feet and a land -3- admeasuring 1.87 Acres is apparently incorrect because these transactions have respectively been made on 21.06.2006 and 19.10.2007, while the dates mentioned in the charge are 29.09.2009 and 22.09.2009, respectively.As regards charges pertaining to Section 201, IPC regarding disappearance of evidence, the description in this respect in charge No.6 framed against petitioner Dharmendra Jain is quite vague because it does not say as to which year's register and with regard to which proceedings was eliminated or destroyed by the Dharmendra Jain and that how, in what capacity and during which period he was in power and possession of those documents. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,125,356 | This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.36 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.36 of 2019, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant.Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed.In the case at hand, though the petitioners are charged with for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant are neighbours and the dispute arose due to blockage of drainage water.Now the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant have amicably settled their dispute between themselves and both of them are living in peace and harmony. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,464,850 | Per: Virender Singh, J.After handing over the case to the CBI by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.752/2013 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and under Section 4 /3D (1)(2) of M.P.I.E. Act registered at Police Station- Sajapur District-Sajapur.The allegation against the petitioner is that in Head- Constable recruitment examination, he impersonated himself as Harendra and appeared in the examination.Earlier, when the case was registered, investigated by the police and the charge-sheet was filed, he was granted bail vide order dated 19.11.2013 passed in MCRC No.8996/2013 and he was facing the trial.Later, the case was handed over to the CBI who re-investigated the same and filed the charge-sheet, therefore, the petitioner was again taken into custody and has sent behind the Bar.Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that co-accused Harendra is absconding and trial is likely to take time and the petitioner has also no criminal record.Therefore, he may be released on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,465,756 | Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 1 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWALdigitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 1 of 22Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 05.04.2006, one Riyaz Mohammed (the complainant) lodged an E-FIR no. 10208/16, under Section 379 of the IPC regarding theft of his motorcycle (bearing no. DL-8SA-Z-7225).On 14.04.2016, Special Staff, North East apprehended the appellant with stolen vehicles and lodged DD no. 70B regarding the recovery of chassis bearing no. 18145 (which pertained to the aforesaid motorcycle) from the premises of the appellant.Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and sent to judicial custody.He was arrested in the present case from the concerned court, where he was produced on a production warrant, on the allegation that he had been habitually dealing in stolen property and there were a number of cases lodged against him.Further, at his instance, a number of parts of stolen vehicles were also recovered from his premises including the chassis and number plate of the aforesaid motorcycle.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses.It is the prosecutions case that the appellant was apprehended on 12.04.2016 at about 5:00 pm, by police officials, who were deployed at 66 Foota Road, new MCD Court, C Block, Yamuna Vihar, as he was found riding a stolen motorcycle (Bajaj Avenger).He did not have the Registration Certificate for the said vehicle and on verification from the control room, it was confirmed that the said Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 2 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL motorcycle was stolen.According to the prosecution, the appellant made a disclosure and at his instance, chassis and parts of several two- wheelers were recovered from his premises.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 2 of 22He correctly identified the appellant in open court.He stated that on 12.04.2016, at about 5:00 pm, he along with ASI Rakesh, HC Sunil, HC Vinay, HC Pramod, Ct.Bhullan Tyagi, Ct.Braham Pal, were checking vehicles at 66, Foota Road, near MCD Court, C Block, Yamuna Vihar.At about 5:30 pm, the appellant, driving an Avenger Bajaj bearing registration No. DL 6S AR 2221, was stopped and checked at the vehicle checking spot by them.He stated that he could not produce any document pertaining to his motorcycle or his Driving License.Thereafter, he checked the chassis number and engine number and the same were not found to be correct.He stated that the appellant had disclosed that about a week prior to that date, he had stolen the aforesaid motorcycle from the area of Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara.He stated that he verified the same from the control room by using Zipnet and found that the same was reported stolen and an E-FIR in that regard was lodged.Thereafter, the aforesaid motorcycle was seized under Section 102 of the Cr.PC.On being interrogated, the appellant disclosed his involvement in several cases along with his associate Sabir @ Kabootar.The appellant disclosed that Sabir used to sell stolen motorcycles to him.Further, he disclosed that some stolen two- wheelers and parts of two wheelers could be recovered from his house, Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 3 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL that is, H. No. 1009, Gali No. 33, Jafrabad, Delhi.The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded (Ex-PW4/A).Thereafter, at about 7 pm, he along with other police officials reached the house of the accused and the accused pointed out the hall of his house, where about ten-twelve number of motorcycles and scooties were kept.In addition, motorcycle parts, twenty registration plates of two wheelers, two engines of scooties, eight chassis of motorcycles, two chassis of scooties, some sheets, chains, mudguards etc. were also kept there.The aforesaid items were seized and seizure memos were prepared (Ex PW4/B-1, PW4/B-2, PW4/B-3, PW4/B-4, PW4/B-5).He stated that one registration plate bearing no. DL 8SZ 7225 and the chassis of motorcycle, which was reported stolen in present case, was also recovered at the instance of the accused, from his godown.The same were brought to PS Bhajan Pura and deposited with MHCM.He stated that he prepared kalandara (Ex PW4/C) against the accused, recorded DD No. 12A (Ex PW4/D) and statements of police officials in whose presence the recovery was effected; and prepared site plans of place of recovery (Ex PW4/E) and the place where accused was arrested (Ex PW4/F).Thereafter, the accused was detained in the lock up of the police station.He stated that on next day, the appellant was produced before the concerned court; he presented the kalandara and the accused was sent to judicial custody.He correctly identified the number plate and chassis of the vehicle in question in court.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 3 of 22In his cross examination, PW-4 stated that he had not informed the SHO, PS Bhajan Pura to use the barricades for vehicle checking, Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 4 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL as the same was not necessary and no written directions were given to him to check the vehicles at the material spot.He affirmed that he did not remember the number of vehicles checked by the police officials on the material date.He reiterated that the accused was stopped as he was not wearing a helmet and on being asked, he could not produce his Driving License.Further, he affirmed that he had not charged the accused under M.V. Act. He stated that he had asked four-five passers-by to join the proceedings, however, none agreed to do so.He stated that no notice was served upon them on their refusal to join the proceedings.He stated that he had visited the house of Sabir but he was not present there and no notice was served upon the family of Sabir.He stated that he made efforts to trace Sabir, however, his presence could not be procured.He stated that the house of the accused falls under the jurisdiction of PS Jafrabad, however, he did not take any assistance from them.He also did not make any departure and arrival entry at PS Jafrabad for going to the house of the accused for recovery.He stated that they had stayed at the place of recovery for about two hours.He stated that a police official of PS Jafrabad had joined them at the spot of recovery, however, he does not remember his name.He stated that he had not given any notice to the aforesaid police official from PS Jafrabad to join the recovery proceedings.He stated that the place of recovery was located in a thickly populated area.He affirmed that several persons had gathered at the time of recovery, however, nobody from the neighbourhood was called to join the proceedings.He stated that he had arranged one truck to take the recovered stolen articles from the house of the accused to PS Bhajan Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 5 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL Pura.He stated that he neither examined any of the neighbours with regards to ownership of the place of recovery nor did he take on record any documentary proof pertaining to the ownership of that place.He stated that he had not conducted TIP of the chassis of the two wheelers pertaining to the case in question.He denied the suggestion that the appellant was lifted from his house on 11.04.2016, at about 3 pm, while he was on his scooty no. DL 2SN 1571 and was falsely booked in several criminal cases under different police stations to work out the pending cases.He stated that on 12.04.2016, he was on duty as a Duty Officer at PS Bhajan Pura and at about 10:10 pm, SI Shahid Ali (PW-4) recorded DD No. 12A (Ex PW1/A), in his presence, about his arrival and recovery of items from the possession of the accused.He identified writing of PW-4 from a copy of the aforesaid DD.He also proved the E-FIR (Ex PW1/B) lodged by the complainant with PS Bhajan Pura.In his cross examination, he affirmed that the recovery items were not seen by him.Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 6 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWALdigitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 6 of 22He stated that on 14.04.2016, he was on duty as a Duty Constable at PS Bhajan Pura and at about 7:30 pm, he had received information from SI Shahid (PW-4), telephonically, about the recovery of chassis, number plate of the vehicle etc. from the possession of the appellant pertaining to three cases of their police station.He stated that he had recorded DD No. 70B (Ex.PW2/A), on the basis of information given by PW-4 and the same was assigned by him to MHC(R) for further action.In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the aforesaid DD is antedated and ante-timed.He also stated that he had no personal knowledge about the recovery of two wheelers, at the instance or from the possession of the accused.He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid DD was fabricated by him in connivance with PW-4 to work out the pending criminal cases of different police stations.He stated that he had purchased the aforesaid motorcycle second hand from a dealer and the said motorcycle was transferred in his name about two months back.He stated that on 03.042016, at about 9 pm, he had parked the aforesaid motorcycle near one marriage home in the area of Noor-e-Illahi and at about 10:00 pm, he found his motorcycle missing from the said area.Thereafter, he had called on Number 100 to report theft of his motorcycle.He stated that the PCR officials came and directed him to contact PS Bhajan Pura.After 1-2 days, he again Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 7 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL visited PS Bhajan Pura, as he was not carrying the Registration Certificate (RC) of his motorcycle earlier.Thereafter, on 05.04.2016, he lodged an E-FIR.He stated that during the course of investigation, the police had visited the place of theft at his instance and he handed over the RC (Ex PW3/A) and copy of his driving license (DL) (Ex PW3/B) to the police.He stated that in the month of April 2016, the police officials had told him about the recovery of the chassis of his motorcycle and he identified the same with the help of a serial number.He also identified the chassis of his motorcycle lying in the custody of MHC(M) in the court complex.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 7 of 22In his cross examination, he stated that neither recovery of the chassis of his motorcycle was done in his presence nor he is aware about the date of such recovery.He further stated that he is not aware from whose possession the chassis was recovered.He stated that one police official of PS Bhajan Pura had told him that the chassis of his motorcycle had been recovered.He identified the said chassis through its serial number with the help of copy of RC.He stated that he did not have the original RC of the motorcycle, as the same was lying in the storage compartment (dickey) when it was stolen.He denied the suggestion that the motorcycle did not belong to him or the same had been planted by the police to work out their pending cases.He stated that on 12.04.2016, he was posted in Special Staff North East District.He stated on that day at about 5 pm , SI Shahid, HC Vinay Kumar and Ct.Bhullan Tyagi and him were busy in vehicle checking at 66, Feeta Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 8 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL Road, near MCD Office, Yamuna Vihar.Thereafter, at about 5:30 pm, the accused (driving an Avenger Bajaj bearing registration No. DL 6S AR 2221) was stopped and checked at the vehicle checking spot.He stated that the accused could not produce documents of his motorcycle or his DL to SI Shahid Khan (PW-4).He stated that during interrogation, the motorcycle was found to be stolen and PW-4 had made an inquiry through Zipnet.Thereafter, the aforesaid motorcycle was seized by PW-4 under Section 102 of the Cr.PC.Upon further interrogation, it was disclosed by the accused that some stolen two wheelers and parts of two wheelers can be recovered from his house at Jafrabad, Delhi.The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by PW-4 (Ex-PW4/A).Thereafter, they reached the house of the accused and the accused led them to the hall of his house, where about 7-8 motorcycles and scooties along with parts of two wheelers were found.The aforesaid items were seized and seizure memos were prepared (Ex PW4/B-1, PW4/B-2, PW4/B-3, PW4/B-4, PW4/B-5).The accused had further stated that one Sabir used to sell stolen motorcycles to him.He stated that one registration plate bearing no. DL 8SZ 7225 and the chassis of motorcycle bearing no. 18145 was also recovered from the possession of the accused.He stated that all the recovered items were brought by a TATA vehicle, which was arranged by PW-4, at PS Bhajan Pura, where necessary formalities were completed.He stated that PW-4 prepared a kalandara against the accused (Ex PW4/C) and recorded DD no 12A (Ex PW4/D).Thereafter, site plan of the place of checking the vehicle and place of recovery were prepared.He stated that the case property was Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 9 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL deposited with MHCM and the concerned police stations were informed about the recoveries pertaining to their cases.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 8 of 22digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 9 of 22In his cross examination, he stated that he did not remember the number of vehicles checked by them at the vehicle checking spot till 5:30 pm.He affirmed that they had not maintained any record pertaining to checking of vehicles.He stated that no other person was present when they had stopped the accused at the vehicle checking spot.He affirmed that PW-4 had not taken any action against the accused under M.V. Act for not wearing a helmet and for non- production of DL.He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid proceedings under M.V. Act were not carried out, as the accused was not apprehended from the place and manner stated by him.He affirmed that neither any police official from PS Jafrabad was taken by PW-4 for recovery nor any arrival or departure entry was made at PS Jafrabad.He further stated that neither any neighbour was called to join recovery proceedings at the spot by PW-4 nor any witnesses from the locality were examined to verify the ownership of the place of recovery.He further stated that no documentary evidence was taken on record about the ownership of the house.He stated that the IO had arranged one private vehicle DCM to take the articles to the police station from the place of recovery, however, he did not remember the registration number of the aforesaid vehicle or the name of the driver.He denied the suggestion that the accused was lifted from his house along with scooty No. DL 2SN 1571 or the accused was falsely booked in this case to work out the pending cases.He denied the Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 10 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL suggestion that the accused had informed them that on 11.04.2016, he had purchased the aforesaid scooty from the registered owner or he had the sale letter in his possession but the registered owner could not transfer the title of the aforesaid scooty in his name.He affirmed that no inquiries were made by PW-4 from witnesses from when and whom the said scooty was purchased, as no one had met them to tell them that the two wheelers had been sold to the accused.He stated that on 05.04.2016, he had met the complainant Mohd Riyaz at the police station, as he had been assigned to take action pertaining to the FIR in question regarding theft of motorcycle (Hero Honda Passion Pro Grey Colour bearing no DL 8SAZ 7225).Thereafter, he visited the place of theft at the complainants instance i.e., place in front of H.No.C-150, Gali No. 11, C Block, North Ghonda and prepared an unscaled site plan (Ex PW8/A).He stated that he had also collected certificate for E-FIR (Ex PW8/1) and placed the same on file, which does not bear signatures of SHOP, E Police Station.He stated that the same had been taken out of the net and thereafter, he passed on information Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 11 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL through net to E SHO for the present case.He stated that on 14.04.2016, copy of DD No. 70B (Ex PW2/A) regarding the chassis and number plate of the stolen motorcycles recovered from the accused, was delivered to him by MHC(R).He stated that through the aforesaid DD, it came to his notice that chassis and number plate of stolen motorcycle of present case were recovered from the accused.He stated that he placed the aforesaid DD on file and thereafter, visited Special Staff, North East District and collected copy of kalandara (Ex. PW4/C), copy of DD No. 12A (Ex PW4/D), disclosure statement of the accused (Ex PW4/A), site plans (Ex PW4/F and PW4/E), five seizure memos (Ex PW4/B-1 to PW4/B-5) and placed the same on file.He stated that he had also interrogated Special Staff officials namely SI Shahid, Ct Bhullan, HC Vinay, ASI Rakesh under Section 161 of the Cr.PC.Thereafter, he stated that on 29.04.2016, the accused appeared before the concerned court and he had formally arrested him vide Arrest Memo (Ex PW7/A).He stated that he had interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex PW8/B).Thereafter, the accused was produced before court and he was sent to judicial custody on his written request.He stated that during the course of investigation, he had called the complainant, after 2-3 days from the arrest of the accused, to the PS and he had identified chassis with the help of photocopy of the RC (Ex PW3/A).He stated that he had also collected involvement list of 30 criminal cases of accused (Ex PW8/4).digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 11 of 22Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 12 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWALdigitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 12 of 22On cross examination, he stated that he had not obtained signatures of the complainant on the site plan.He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement had been made by the accused or that his signatures were obtained against his wishes by coercion.He denied the suggestion that the recovery of scooty and motorcycle had been planted against the accused by the police to work out their pending cases.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.He stated that he was lifted from his house on 11.04.2016, at about 3 pm, by three police officials.He stated that it was incorrect that the police team had asked him to produce documents of the motorcycle and he had failed to produce the same.He stated that it was incorrect that during interrogation, he had disclosed his involvement in a number of cases with his associate Sabir @ Kabooter, who used to allegedly sell him stolen motorcycles.He further stated that he did not make any disclosure statement to the police.He also stated that the IO obtained his signatures on a blank piece of paper and used the same to work out the pending cases.He stated that no recovery was effected from his house and the alleged recoveries had been planted on him.He stated that the stolen motorcycles and spare parts were lying at the office of Special Staff, North East, Yamuna Vihar.He stated that the IO, SI Shahid Ali had demanded a bribe of 3,00,000/- from him and when he refused to give the same, he was falsely implicated in the present case.Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 13 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL He stated that he was arrested by the IO before the concerned court, however, the disclosure statement was recorded by the IO himself and his signatures were obtained on it, without explaining the contents of the same.He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the witnesses have deposed against him as they are interested witnesses.He stated that on 11.04.2016, at about 3 pm, he was going to Jama Masjid from his house on his scooty bearing no DL 2SN 1571 with an aluminum nob in his bag and three police officials, who were dressed in civil uniform, came in front of his house and told him that some inquiry is to be conducted from him at the police station.Thereafter, they took him to the police station on his scooty with him sitting in the middle.Fifth, he contended that the prosecution had failed to establish the premises from where the recoveries were effected belonged to the appellant.VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 21.01.2017, whereby the Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma Courts has convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC).By an order dated 28.01.2017, which is also impugned in this appeal, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of seven years along with a fine of 40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 4 of 22digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 5 of 22He denied the suggestion that no writing work was done by PW-4 at the house of the accused as no recovery was effected from there.He denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely booked in kalandara proceedings to work out pending cases of other police stations.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 10 of 22He stated that his brother had visited the police station to inquire about his detention and the IO had demanded bribe of 3,00,000/- from him.Further, he stated that when he refused to give the same, the police officials falsely implicated him in a number of cases.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 13 of 22He stated that on 11.04.2016, he was going to Jama Masjid from his house on his scooty bearing no. DL-2SN-1571 with an aluminum nob in his bag.Thereafter, three police officials dressed in civil uniform came in front of his house, asked his name and informed him that some inquiry had to be conducted.Thereafter, he was taken to Yamuna Vihar Special Staff Office with his scooty, wherein they enquired about his previous cases and thereafter, PW-4 took him to the ACPs Office.He stated Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 14 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL that the ACP had inquired about his mobile number but he had left the same at his home.He stated that he made a call to his nephew from the mobile phone of the ACP.He stated that the ACP had asked him to call 2-3 persons along with his food.Thereafter, the ACP inquired as to how much he could arrange to pay SI Shahid, in the presence of his brother Khalil and nephew Tayab.He stated that again said, SI Shahid had inquired about his financial capacity to pay money, in the presence of the ACP.He stated that his brother and nephew refused to pay anything, as he was not indulged in any unlawful activity.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 14 of 22On cross examination, the accused stated that he was going to deliver aluminum nob to one Fayad Bhai at his shop in Gali Gadiya, Jama Masjid, however, he did not know the address of Fayad Bhai but knew his mobile number.He affirmed that he had not brought any document to prove that he was engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminum nob.He stated that at the time of incident, he was facing about fourteen cases before different courts and all the cases were pertaining to Sections 379 or 411 of the IPC.He stated that he had not been convicted in any of the cases but one case pertaining to PS Dariya Ganj was compromised.He stated that he had compounded three cases pertaining to PS Dariya Ganj and he had settled three-four cases by the way of plea bargaining.He stated that SI Shahid had inquired about his financial capacity and made a Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 15 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL demand for money but it was made while he was taken away in a corner.He stated that neither he informed the concerned ACP regarding the bribe demanded by PW-4 nor he made any complaint to higher authority against the false implication by PW-4 in the present case, as he was not given time to do so.He stated that he had been implicated in fifteen cases after being lifted from his house.He stated that neither he nor his family members have filed any civil or criminal case or complaint against PW-4 or police officials of the concerned PS or ACP regarding the aforesaid.He stated that he was earning 18,000-20,000 per month and SI Shahid had demanded 3,00,000 from him.He affirmed that he did not make any complaint against any demand.He stated that he had disclosed to the concerned MM that he had been falsely implicated in the present case but no application or written document was filed before the concerned court regarding the same.He denied the suggestion that he was habitually dealing in stolen articles as well as theft and a number of false cases had been lodged against him on account of his involvement in the present case.He denied the suggestion that he had concocted a false story of being lifted from his house or that he had levelled false allegations against the police officials for lodging the said case against him.denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 15 of 22Discussions and ConclusionMr. Saini, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the appellants conviction on multiple grounds.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 16 of 22Second, he submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case.digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 17 of 22A PCR had come to the spot and he had been asked to report the same at PS Bhajan Pura.He had stated that he visited the said Police Station but he did not have the Registration Certificate of his motorcycle.He again went to the said Police Station one or two days thereafter and on 05.04.2016, he lodged an e-FIR online.Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 18 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWALdigitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 18 of 22digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 20 of 22digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 21 of 22VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 08, 2021 RK Signature Not Verified digitally signed CRL A. 271/2017 Page 22 of 22 by:DUSHYANT RAWAL | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,469,095 | This is the first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with Crime No.308/2019 under Sections 307, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC registered at Police Station-Sailana, District-Ratlam.According to the prosecution case, on the date of the incident, petitioner Javed Khan along with his companions assaulted the complainant and his friends.Petitioner Javed wielded a sword and caused dangerous to life injuries on the head and face of Vijay @ Sonu.The bail is pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly on the ground that there are contradictions in the Police statements of the witnesses and the fact that life threatening injury was caused by the petitioner.He is in custody since 30.11.2019 and the trial will take a long time to conclude.Earlier three criminal cases under Indian Penal Code and six cases under the Gambling Act have been registered against him.In reply, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that in all three cases registered under Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has been acquitted.The judgments of acquittal have been demonstrated by the learned counsel.He is directed to file the same on record. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,469,125 | Item No. 104And In the matter of: Priya Das Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Somnath Majumder For the Petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ranaghat Police Station Case No. 427 of 2012 dated 17.08.2012 under sections 306/120(B) 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.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,847,467 | Filtering out the unnecessary details, the prosecution case in brief is that a report was lodged with the concerned Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur nagar stating that on 09.02.2009, the daughter of informant aged 16 years at 6:00 AM went near her house to attend the call of nature in the fields.When she was returning home after easing herself, on the way she met the accused Virendra who caught her and started sexually molesting her.When the girl raised alarm, many people reached on the spot, at which accused Virendra fled away.When the girl reached home, she sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set herself ablaze due to shame.The girl was badly burnt.Even thatch of the house was also burnt.On 09.02.2009, her dying declaration was recorded by Praveena Agrawal, PW-4, Additional City Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar between 10:55 PM to 11:05 PM.PW-8 Dr. Kanchan Lata Srivastava medically examined the victim.She did not find any mark of injury on her body, except the upper part of her face on the right side, whole body including the lower part was completely burnt.Foley catheter was found to collect urine.Since the lower part of the body was burnt, she could not be internally examined.Two slides were prepared and sent for pathological examination.The vaginal orifice was admitting one finger.Dr. R.K. Khanna, PW-11, conducted post-mortem report on the corpse of the deceased.He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-Ante-mortem Injuries:Superficial to deep burns of the entire body sparing only both soles.Hairs Synged.Burnt areas are partly healed at places interspersed with zones of flaques of pus and slough aloner.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in ST No. 967 of 2009 (State Vs.Virendra), arising out of Crime No. 72 of 2009 under Sections 354, 376, 306 IPC, Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the accused appellant was found guilty and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 354 IPC; seven years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine under Section 376 IPC and ten years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine under Section 306 IPC with default stipulation.On internal examination both the lungs were found congested and flaque of puss was found in both the lungs.The liver was congested.The pleura, spleen and Kidney were found congested.The doctor opined the cause of death septicemia as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries.He granted the fitness certificate before recording the dying declaration and thereafter, it was recorded.He proved his endorsement on the dying declaration.PW-5 SI Ram Jivan, who conducted investigation.This witness prepared the inquest report on 19.02.2009 at LLR Hospital in the presence of family members of the deceased, Panch were deputed.After preparing the inquest report, the body of deceased was sealed in cloth and sent for post-mortem through Constable Mohd. Ansar.When he reached the spot, he came to know that the victim was being taken to the hospital for treatment.He copied the FIR in the case diary.He recorded the statement of chik writer, victim, informant and mother of the victim in the case diary.After interrogating the victim Section 376 IPC was added.The accused was arrested on 10.02.2009 by the SO Rajpal.Statement of accused was recorded by this witness.The victim died on 19.02.2009 at LLR Hospital at 5:50 AM.Hence, Section 306 IPC was added.The dying declaration of the victim (deceased) was perused and copied in the case diary.On 20.02.2009, the medical report of victim was copied in the case diary.After that this witness was transferred.Thereafter, investigation was entrusted to PW-6, SI Rang Bihari Dwivedi perused the case diary scribed by his predecessor and thereafter, on 27.03.2009 he recorded the statement of eye-witness Guddi Devi, Shrawan and other witnesses.He further recorded the statement of Tarawati.PW-2 is Guddi Devi, who is said to be an eye-witness.PW-3 is Shrawan, who is also said to be the eye-witness.PW-9 is Savita, who is also said to be eye-witness.PW-10 is Tarawati who is also alleged to be an eye-witness.After 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, the prosecution closed its evidence.Statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the incident of rape.Further, incident was said not to have been known to the accused and he stated that he has been falsely implicated.However, the accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.I have heard Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.After hearing the learned counsel for parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused as narrated in para-1 of the judgment.The learned counsel for accused appellant has submitted that all the witnesses of fact were declared hostile.None has supported the prosecution case.Hence, the conviction of the accused is bad in the eyes of law.Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for State has submitted that the dying declaration has been rightly relied upon by the Trial Court.Hence, the appeal deserves rejection.Perusal of the chik report Ext. Ka-5 reveals that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 09.02.2009 at 6:00 AM; whereas the report was lodged on the same day at 13:30 hours, the police station being 12 kilometers away from the place of occurrence.Thus, the first information report is prompt.The first information report has been criticized by the learned counsel for appellant stating that in the FIR there is no allegation of rape against the accused.Hence, the prosecution case has no legs to stand because the whole prosecution case is based on nothing else but improvements.A perusal of the first information report shows that neither the father of deceased was a witness to the occurrence nor as per the FIR he had any conversation with his daughter except that it has been stated that she sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set herself ablaze.The appellant has been convicted under Section 354, 376 and Section 306 IPC.As far as the allegations of rape are concerned, although as per the first information report, there are no allegations of rape, but this is a strange case in which even the parents thought that their prestige and reputation was not valuable to them than the life of daughter.It appears that they failed to morally support their daughter.The victim of rape has not been supported by any of the eye-witnesses in as much as PW-1 has stated that the accused even did not molest his daughter.Although in the first information report he has stated that accused molested his daughter.But as I have said earlier, this witness has backed out even from the story of molestation.He was declared hostile by the prosecution and the ADGC proceeded to cross-examine him in which he admitted that during the treatment his daughter died.He had no conversation with his daughter.She was only demanding water.It is really painful to note that when daughter of this witness PW-1, Chhote Lal, was dying and begging for water from her father, even then he did not gather courage to support the first information report which was got written by him.Guddi Devi, PW-2 has stated that she knew accused Virendra.She did not see that accused caught hold of the deceased, made her fall in the fields and was molesting her.I do not understand how this witness has expected the Court to rely on her negative evidence.In fact, statement of this witness that she did not see the act of molestation speaks volume for itself.This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution, who was cross-examined by the ADGC.In cross-examination, this witness has gone to the extent of stating that the victim, her daughter, did not commit suicide but she died since thatch caught fire.Tarawati, PW-10, is also said to be the witness of the incident, who is the mother of the victim and has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was out of the house.When she returned home she saw the victim has set herself ablaze and had died.This witness was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution as well as the defence.When the defence cross-examined this witness, she stated that she did not know why the victim set herself ablaze.At that time, the injured was in complete sense.She was recognizing people and was mentally fit to depose.The doctor had given the certificate in the presence of this witness and signed in her presence.The victim had told this witness that Virendra had raped her.She narrated the whole incident to her mother when she returned home and due to shame she sprinkled kerosene oil on herself and set her ablaze.She had further stated to this witness that since she was raped, her father's reputation was ruined.After the statement was recorded, thumb impression of the victim was put on the dying declaration.This witness was put to the test of cross-examination in which she has specified that the doctor had given the fitness certificate prior to and after that her statement was recorded.The victim was lying down before and after her statement was recorded.This witness further clarifies that there was no police personnel when she went to record the statement.No police personnel was inside the room when the dying declaration was being recorded.Only the doctor was present.She had questioned the victim in Khariboli and the statement was recorded in the language in which the victim had given the answers.It took her about 10 minutes to record the statement.Since the victim was having trouble in her hand, she could not put signatures on the dying declaration.This witness thought that it was not necessary to mention this averment in the dying declaration.This witness PW-4 Praveena, the Additional City Magistrate, has further clarified that even the family members of the victim were not present when the dying declaration was being recorded.Her statement was recorded in the room where she was being treated.A strange suggestion was put to this witness which she denied and said that she did not write the dying declaration on the telling of the doctor.I fail to understand why the doctor would get a false dying declaration recorded when he has nothing to do with the matter.Dr. SB Mishra has certified that he granted the fitness certificate on the dying declaration before and after it was recorded.When the dying declaration was recorded, the victim was in complete sense, she had understanding about the place, time and the persons.She was mentally fit to give the statement.This witness was also put to the test of cross-examination in which he has stated that on the basis of questioning, he concluded that the injured was fit to give the dying declaration.But he did not get this fact recorded in the dying declaration.I do not think that there was any necessity of it being mentioned in the dying declaration as to how the doctor ascertained that the injured was fit before and after the recording of dying declaration.After all, the doctor is an expert.He is not a layman who has to explain each and every minute detail of how he came to a particular conclusion.Doctor SB Mishra, PW-12 has further stated in the cross-examination that throughout the recording of the statement, he was present.Nobody was present near the patient when the statement was being recorded.Only Doctor and Magistrate were present.He was not treating the patient and he did not know when the patient died after the statement was recorded.He has specified that he granted the certificate on the basis of his experience.I think that there could not be a better dying declaration than the present one.The present dying declaration has fulfilled all the requirements of law.This statement was recorded on the date of the occurrence itself.The special reasons have to rest on real special circumstances.In the present case, a young girl lost her life which is because of the accused who satisfied his lust on this young girl and she did not have the moral support and courage to face her family members and the society.In the above background of the case, the learned counsel for accused appellant has submitted that in 2012 when the statement of accused was recorded, he was 20 years of age, hence, at the time of occurrence he was a young lad of only 17 years.Hence, the sentence awarded to him under Section 306 IPC may be reduced.Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the manner in which the offence was committed, the age of the deceased and the age of the accused, I think the custodial sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC should be reduced to 8 years' rigorous imprisonment.In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of appellant under Section 354 IPC is set aside.The conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 376 IPC is confirmed. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,476,717 | 675 22.08.2014 AB C.R.M. 6475 of 2014 Re: An application for anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10th April, 2014 in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No. 137 of 2014 dated 1.3.2014 under Sections 498A/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In re : Kuddus Mondal ... Petitioner.Ms. Ranjana Talapatra ... for the Petitioner.Ms. Rita Dutta ... for the State.Heard the learned advocate of both the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.( Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. ) ( Sudip Ahluwalia, J. ) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,479,059 | The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant was living in his house along with his mother (deceased Munni Bai), younger mother Longabai, grandmother Kesharbai, two sisters and father Aman (appellant).There used to be quarrel between the appellant and his wife Munni Bai because the deceased used to 2 CRA No. 680/2008 visit her relatives without informing the appellant.On 01.08.2007, the deceased came to the house after visiting her relatives.Her son came to the house along with his sisters and he heard the cry of his mother.Thereafter, he witnessed that the appellant had been beating the deceased with bamboo stick and inflicted injury by knife.He and his chhoti-ma Longibai tried to save the deceased.The appellant had inflicted 2-3 blows by wooden bamboo stick to Longabai.The deceased died on the spot.The appellant went to the riverside.Due to fear, complaint (son of the appellant) reported the incident to Kotwar next day and the report was lodged report on the next day at 3:40 pm.The police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.Archana Bai (PW-1) is the daughter of the deceased.She deposed that, on the date of incident I returned back from school at around 4:00 - 5:00 pm.I had seen that my father (appellant) had inflicted injuries by knife at my mother.My father told me not to leave the house.We did not tell anybody due to fear.The appellant used to beat the deceased.At the time of incident my sister Sushma and brother Mahendra were also present.In the next morning the villagers came and police also arrived in the evening on the spot.Longibai (PW-2) is the second wife of the appellant.She deposed that the appellant had committed maar-peet with the deceased.He had inflicted injuries to the deceased by lathi and knife.At that time, I, Mahendra, Sushma, Archana and Kalpana were present.He had beaten the deceased from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm in the evening.I tried to save the deceased.Appellant had inflicted a blow on my waist.He had also inflicted a blow by burnt wood on my right elbow.The deceased died on the spot.4 CRA No. 680/2008Kesarbai (PW-3) is the mother of the appellant.He also deposed that I was at the field and when I came home, I noticed that deceased was lying dead.Mahendra (PW-4) is the son of the deceased.He deposed that on 01.08.2007, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased at around 5 O'clock in the evening.My father (appellant) inflicted injury to the deceased by knife.She also received injury on her legs and head.When I tried to save my mother the appellant inflicted blow by lathi on me.When I was going to inform the villagers, the appellant threatened me.Appellant had also beaten Longibai who tried to save the deceased.On the next morning we informed about the incident to the villagers.Village Kotwar came there.I lodged the report at police station which is Ex. P/2 and signed the same.Police prepared the spot map (Ex. P/3) and I signed the same.Patwari also prepared a spot map which is Ex. P/8 and I signed the same.Kanchhedi (PW-5) is the Kotwar.He deposed that on the next date of incident, Bahadur came to my village and informed that appellant had inflicted injury on the deceased.Thereafter, I went to the house of the appellant and mother of the appellant told me that the appellant had killed the deceased Munni Bai.I noticed the body of deceased.Thereafter, I along with Mahendra (PW-4) went to lodge the report at police station.Mahendra lodged the 5 CRA No. 680/2008 report.Police came there and prepared spot map (Ex. P/3) and I signed the same.Appellant abjured guilty and pleaded innocence during the trial.2 CRA No. 680/2008The Trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence of murder and awarded sentence of life along with fine of Rs. 500/-.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt.He further contended that even if the evidence of prosecution be accepted, the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 300 Part I of the IPC.3 CRA No. 680/2008Next day police came at the house.I was sent for medical examination.4 CRA No. 680/2008Police seized plain and red earth vide seizure memo Ex. P/9 and I signed the same.Appellant was arrested.5 CRA No. 680/2008Dr. K.K.Atthya (PW-7) performed autopsy of the deceased.(1) Multiple superficial skin deep, stabbed cutting wound of 1.5 x skindeep x 1 cm all over the body.(2) Lacerated wound of 2 cm x 2 cm x skin deep on the right ear with excessive bleeding and haematoma.(3) Contusion and injury mark on the chest of irregular shape.In paragraph 7, Dr. Atthya deposed that on internal examination of the person of the deceased, he noticed that the sternum was broken.4th to 7th ribs were also broken.Right lung was damaged.He further deposed that the injuries on the head, temporal region and the chest of the deceased were caused by hard and blunt object.The death of the deceased was caused due to injuries on the internal organs and shock.13. R.K.Gaikwad (PW-8) Investigation Officer deposed that 6 CRA No. 680/2008 Mahendra lodged the report at the police station on 02.08.2007 which is Ex. P/2 and I signed the same.I reached on the spot and prepared the spot map which is Ex. P/3 and signed the same.I also seized plain and red earth vide seizure memo Ex. P/9 and signed the same.On 02.08.2007, I recorded statements of Longibai, Archana and Mahendra.6 CRA No. 680/2008The son, sister and mother and second wife of the appellant have clearly deposed that they had seen the appellant beating the deceased.Appellant inflicted injuries by knife and bamboo stick.From the possession of the appellant, a knife and bamboo stick were seized.The ocular evidence has been supported by medical evidence i.e. from the evidence of Dr. K.K.Atthya (PW-7) who performed postmortem of the deceased.Hence, in our considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant has killed the deceased.Now the next question and the argument as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention.The act of appellant would not cover under Exceptions of Section 7 CRA No. 680/2008 300 of the IPC.There was no sudden fight.The appellant had inflicted number of injuries on the person of the deceased who was his wife.The doctor who performed postmortem deposed that three ribs of the deceased were broken.Right lung was also injured.There was also injury on the temporal region.7 CRA No. 680/2008Looking to the nature of injuries caused by the appellant, the intention and motive of the appellant was to kill the deceased because the deceased died on the spot.In our opinion, the Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded proper sentence to the appellant.We do not find any merit in this appeal.Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance along with the record. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,481,736 | Looking to minor nature of correction, prayer is accepted, she is allowed to cause necessary correction in the bail application, regarding date of arrest.With consent heard finally.This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant.His role is confined to move along with the prossecutrix and the main accused Halke.Charge-sheet has already been filed and confinement amounts to pretrial detention.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State on the basis of case diary opposed the bail application and prayed for dismissal of bail application.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.44055/2018 Heard the counsel for parties and perused the case diary.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. | ['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,484,462 | The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.5.2019 in Complaint Case No. 3554 of 2017 (Pramila Devi Vs.Manoj and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Bhaluwani, District Deoria whereby respondent no. 2 to 7 have been summoned for trial, on the complaint filed by the applicant.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has filed a complaint against respondent nos. 2 to 7 alleging that on 4.3.2017 at 8:00 am the respondent nos. 2 to 7 were taking away mustered crops of the complainant and when she objected they abused and gave beatings to her.It was alleged that the private respondents took away mustered worth Rs. 10,000/- of applicant and threatened to kill her.It was also alleged that the respondents have threatened the complainant that earlier they have killed her mother-in-law Lalmuni and in the similar manner they would kill the complainant. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,184,875 | 2. Facts giving rise to this case, as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows:"...on 27.11.91, information was received at Police Station Keshav Puram which was recorded vide D.D. No. 8-A. This information was made from publica call office informing the local police that H.No.C-1/89, Lawrence Road, Delhi, where they found that in the bed room of the aforesaid house, Kavita w/o Sanjay Tyagi had been burnt and she had been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital in burnt conditions but on account of the strike at Hindu Rao Hospital, she was not admitted there and was referred to J.P.N. Hospital.Accordingly, ASI went to J.P.N. Hospital where he collected the M.L.C. of the injured Kavita, the doctors declared Kavita as brought dead.Since the incident had taken place before seven years of marriage of Kavita, the S.D.M., Kotwali Sh.Dharmender Sharma then reached the hospital on 28.11.91, and a conducted an enquiry.On 28.11,91, the father of Kavita deceased namely Yashwant Singh then made a statement of the S.D.M. stating that his daughter Kavita was married according to Hindu rites on 23.5.91 to Sanjay Tyagi.Before marriage, there was no demand of dowry either by Sanjay Tyagi or his family members.However, despite there being no demand of dowry, he had spent an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the marriage of Kavita.A list of dowry articles was also prepared and this list was read over in the presence of the respectable persons of the Brathery.No signatures on the list was prepared.In the month of June, 1991, all of a sudden, Kavita came along to his house at Uttam Nagar and she narrated to her mother about the maltreatment by her in -laws who used to make demand for additional dowry.The complainant further stated that in order to maintain his honour and respect in the society, she persuaded Kavita and sent her back to her matrimonial home.Towards the end of June, he himself went to the matrimonial home of Kavita and tried to persuade the in-laws of Kavita.On account of this dispute, Kavita remained with her at her parental house during the month of July.There was intervention by the relatives in the month of August.Kavita was again sent to her matrimonial home.The complainant then went to meet Kavita in the first week of August at her matrimonial home when he noticed that the face of Kavita was swollen.She had been subjected to beating.Kavita had then narrated to him that Sanjay and other members of his family namely his brother Vinod and his mother-in-laws had given severe beating to her.They generally gave beating to Kavita.However, inspite of these beatings, he again persuaded Kavita to remain at her matrimonial home.However, during the following week, he sent his son to bring Kavita from her matrimonial home at her parental house at Uttam Nagar.After sometime, the mother-in-law of Kavita came to his house along with the some relatives and they insisted that Kavita be sent with them to her matrimonial home.In the month of September-October, Kavita remained at her matrimonial home on account of Diwali festival.However, one week after Diwali, his elder son Umesh went to bring Kavita and at that time, Kavita told Umesh that her in-laws wee making a demand for colour T.V., a motor cycle and a V.C.R. and in case, these articles were not brought by her from her parents, she would be beaten.Umesh in turn conveyed all these cruelties meted out to Kavita to his parents.The complainant immediately gave a ring at the in-laws house of Kavita as there is a telephone in the neighborhood where the matrimonial home of Kavita is situated.On the telephone, Sanjay did not speak anything.He then himself went to the matrimonial home of Kavita.There Kavita repeated all the demands as made by the in-laws to her father as well.He then persuaded Sanjay and his mother and also promised that since he was not financially sound, he would try to meet these demands slowly and slowly and he then returned to his house.2/3 days thereafter, Sanjay and his brother Vinod again came to Uttam Nagar and made a demand for all the three articles by stating that in case, he did not fulfill those demands, they would desert' Kavita for ever.He then repeated that he was not in a position to meet the unjustified demand and also asked them to leave Kavita at his parental house.On hearing this both the brothers Sanjay and Vinod then left for their house.He did not get in touch with any member of the family of Sanjay thereafter.He stated further that yesterday (his statement was recorded on 28.11.91), he came to know in the evening that Kavita had died.He suspected a foul play in the death of Kavita saying that he had every reason to suspect that in-laws of Kavita had conspired together to finish Kavita for ever.After the case was registered, the investigation was handed over to SI Satbir Singh.SI Satbir Singh then completed the inquest proceedings, inspected the scene of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and also go the scene of incident photographed.He also collected the post-mortem report in respect of post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kavita.He also sent the exhibits to the C.F.S.L. laboratory.Yashwant Singh Tyagi (PW-1), the father of the deceased, has strongly supported the prosecution's case to the effect that Kavita was harassed and physically abused over dowry and that he suspected that Kavita had been driven to commit suicide and that the death of Kavita was as a result of the witnesses' inability to satisfy the demand.He stated that in June, 1991 Kavita had told him that the accused persons were demanding dowry and harassing her on that account.The witness pacified his daughter and sent her back.In the last week of June 1991, he went to the house of the accused persons and explained to them his inability to meet the demand of colour television, VCR and Hero Honda Motor Cycle.In August, 1991 when he visited his daughter, he found that she had been beaten and bore finger marks upon her face.Upon enquiry Kavita told him that she was beaten on account of her inability to satisfy their dowry demands and that she had been threatened to be done away with.The accused persons had pressurised him and his family to send Kavita to the matrimonial house.Kavita returned to the matrimonial house on an assurance that she will be well treated.Umesh, her brother, visited Kavita where she narrated to him the beating that she had received at the hands of the accused over lack of dowry.This witness has also deposed to the effect that Sanjay and Vinod came to the house and told him that in the event their demands are not fulfillled, they would leave Kavita.On 27.11.1991 he received an information to the effect that his daughter had died.This statement is corroborated by PW-4 Brij Kishroe, PW-5 Umesh son of Yashwant Singh Tyagi and PW-6 Smt. Kamlesh wife of Yashwant Singh Tyagi, mother of the deceased.As regards the incident itself, the prosecution has examined PW-2 Bansi Lal Gupta, who deposes to the effect that on the fateful day he heard a noise from the house of the accused persons.He went there and found that some was coming from the kitchen and the doors of the house were closed.The crowed tried to break open the door of kitchen first but when they could not break, they broke open the glass of window and entered the kitchen through the said window.He saw the burnt body of the deceased, which was taken out from the said kitchen.6. PW-9 Joginder Kumar deposes to the effect that on 27.11.1991 he was present in his house when he was informed that a lady had burnt herself.He went to the spot and saw smoke coming out of the window of the kitchen.The door of the room was opened.When he reached there, he saw Kavita wife of the accused Sanjay in a burning condition in the room; a bed, pillow, fridge, stove, kitchen articles; the Roti on the stove were also lying in the said room.this witness was declared hostile and confronted with the previous statement exhibit porion B to B of Ex. PW-9/A where this witness had stated that the smell of kerosene oil was coming from the kitchen and the clothes.He was also confronted with portion C to C of Ex. PW-9/A where he had stated that it appeared that Kavita had poured kerosene oil over her and set herself on fire.7. PW-11 Manohar Lal deposes to the effect that on 27.11.1991 at about 2 p.m. he heard a noise and came to know that wife of accused Sanjay Tyagi got burnt.He went to the spot and found a crowd gathered there.A blanket had been put on Kavita when she was taken to the hospital in a taxi.PW-13 Constable Virender Singh deposes to the effect that on 27.11.1991 he had joined the investigation with the Investigating Officer and found Kavita in burnt condition in the kitchen of the house where the incident took place.Kavita was taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital where she could not be admitted on account of strike by the doctors and she was taken to the JPN Hospital where she was declared brought dead.He took the body to the mortuary for post-mortem and after the post-mortem delivered the same to the legal claimants.9. PW-15 Dr. Satish Kumar deposes to the effect that on 28.11.1991 he conducted post-mortem examination on the body of Kavita and gave a report Ex. PW-15/A. In his opinion the death was due to burn stocks from extensive burns hair on the head.10. PW-17 Constable Ramesh states that on 28th November, 1991 he was posted a Police Station Keshav Puram and joined the investigation with the Investigating Officer SI Satbir Singh.JUDGMENT R.S.Sodhi, J.These Criminal Appeal Nos. 39/1995 and 63/1995 seek to challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 2/1992 dated 10.2.1995 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Section 498-A/304-B/34, IPC and further vide a separate Order dated 13.2.1995 sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each under Section 304-B, IPC as also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and a fine of Rs.500/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 498-A,IPC.She further narrated on the question of demand of dowry.After collecting sufficient evidence, he arrested the accused persons.After completion of the investigation, the challan was completed and the accused persons were sent up for trial."The prosecution in order to prove the case examined as many as 28 witnesses.This witness went to the JPN Hospital after taking the copy of the FIR and record from the duty officer and handed over the same to the investigating Officer in the hospital.This witness came to the spot with the Investigating Officer from the hospital and the IO had lifted and seized stove and a steel Katora vide seizure memo Ex. PW-17/A.PW-19 Head Constable Jodh Singh deposes to the effect that while working as Malkhana Moharrar on 28.11.1991, 5/6 parcels were deposited with him.12. PW-20 ASI Sultan Singh is the one who along with Constable Virender Singh went to spot where the body of the lady was lying in burnt condition in the kitchen.He took the injured to the hospital where Kavita was received as having been brought dead.13.PW-27 SI Satbir Singh has stated that ASI Sultan Singh along with Constable Virender Singh reached H.No.C-1/89, Keshav Puram where they found the body in burnt condition.ASI Sultan Singh took the injured to the hospital.This witness deposes to the affect that post-mortem of the body was got conducted.SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and after recording statement of Yashwant Singh Tyagi case under Section 498-A/304-B/34, IPC was registered.This witness prepared the site plan Ex. PW-27/A and took into possession steel Katora and the stove.According to this witness there was a smell of kerosene in the stove as well as in the Katora.He recorded the statement of the witnesses.This witness obtained the CFSL report vide Ex.27/C, which report gave a finding that analysis of Ex. P2 show the presence of kerosene residue.The main thrust of the learned Counsel for the appellants is to the effect that the prosecution has not been able to rule out the possibility of an accident and, therefore, cannot attract the provisions of Section 304-B, IPC.Having heard learned Counsel and carefully perused the evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has ben able to establish its case firstly on the question of demand of dowry, which is proved by tendering into evidence of PWs 1,4,5 and 6, who categorically state that Kavita was being harassed on account of inadequacy of dowry and non-fulfilment of demands.On the question of whether Kavita died as a result of an accidental kitchen fire or she doused herself with kerosene and then set for to herself can only be deduced from circumstances.There is evidence on record to show that there was a stove on which Kavita was cooking.There is also evidence to show that the Lota was smelling of kerosene oil.It is also in evidence that the hair of Kavita had kerosene residue.There is nothing on record to suggest that the fire was accidental.The presence of kerosene in the hair of the deceased, the recovery of Lota smelling of kerosene and the recovery of a stove which did not show any sign of having burst are all points indicating that the fire was not accidental.It can safely be deduced that Kavita poured kerosene over herself and torched herself.This is further supported by the fact that the doors of room had to be broken open and nobody was present in the house when Kavita is said to have burnt.The chain of evidence and circumstances brought out by the prosecution lend assurance to the deduction that Kavita was harassed on account of dowry leading her to take this extreme step of committing suicide.Having examine of the evidence on record and also the judgment under challenge, I am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove it case and, therefore, the judgment under challenge does not suffer from any infirmity.In this view of the matter Criminal Appeal Nos. 39/1995 and 63/1995 are dismissed.Appeals dismissed. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,848,756 | A. No. 982/2011 Page 1 of 42From the said wedlock, a male child, namely, Goldy was born.3. Information regarding admission of the deceased was given to PP Tilak Vihar vide DD No.8 on which SI Lalan Prasad along with Head Constable Jai Ram reached DDU Hospital where SI Lalan Prasad collected MLC of the deceased and came to know that she was declared "brought dead".SI Lalan Prasad went to WZ 178, 80 Gaj Harijan Colony, Tilak Vihar.He also informed SDM Patel Nagar.SDM directed Tehsildar Sh.R.K. Saini who reached the spot and recorded the statement of Kranti-PW1 and Vinod-PW3, mother and brother of the deceased respectively.Thereafter, Mr. R.K. Saini went to the spot and conducted inquest proceedings.Direction was given Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 2 of 42 to the SHO to take action as per law.On the statement of Kranti , Ex.PW5/A, FIR 01/2010 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was recorded by Head Constable Hans Kumar on 01.01.2010 at about 10 a.m. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted.PW1 Kranti Devi is the mother of the deceased and is also the complainant.She has deposed that her daughter Darshna got married to the appellant about two years ago.At the time of her marriage, she had given a refrigerator, double bed, washing machine, cooler, dressing table, gas stove, clothes, utensils, sofa and jewellery of her own will.Rs.20,000/- was given in cash when son of Darshna was unwell.She further deposed that at the time of marriage, Rs.1 lac was demanded by the accused which she did not pay and the accused were threatening that they would kill her daughter if the amount was not given.After the marriage, accused Sushil Kumar, husband of the deceased; Mahender, father-in-law; Shanti Devi, mother-in-law; Babita, sister-in-law (jethani); Kake @ Virender, brother-in-law (jeth) and entire family of accused persons used to trouble and harass her for bringing insufficient dowry.Accused Sushil Kumar used to Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 15 of 42 beat her daughter and used to press her neck to strangulate her.He had once pushed her daughter from the stairs due to which her nose got injured.She further deposed that Sushil Kumar used to drink liquor daily and beat her daughter.All the accused persons and their family members used to harass her daughter and treat her with cruelty for getting their demand of Rs.1 lac fulfilled.On the fateful night, father of the accused, namely, Mahender had visited the house of Ravinder, cousin brother of the deceased and told him that Darshna was not responding.Ravinder went to the house of Darshna and found that she had expired and thereafter he took Darshna to DDU Hospital.She further stated that her daughter had been killed by strangulation due to non-payment of Rs.1 lac.She also had some injuries on her nose, cheek and rear portion of her head.PW5/A made by Kranti, mother of the deceased before the Tehsildar wherein she stated that her daughter Darshna got married to Sushil Kumar about 3 years ago.After marriage, Sushil used to harass her daughter after drinking liquor.Sushil, his parents and elder brother used to harass Darshna on account of dowry and used to beat her.Sushil Kumar did not permit Darshna to visit her parental home.She suspected that her daughter had died due to harassment meted out to her by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law Virender on account of dowry and she prayed for action against them.Thereafter, her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW1/D1 was recorded by the police wherein she stated that Sushil Kumar used to beat her daughter on account of dowry while her Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 23 of 42 mother-in-law Shanti and brother-in-law Virender used to maltreat her on account of dowry.They used to taunt her.One day prior to her death, Sushil had given beatings to Darshna.This fact was disclosed to her by her daughter on telephone.He had once thrown her from the stairs due to which her nose got injured.She further went on deposing that deceased had some injuries on her nose, cheek and rear portion of her head.She was confronted on material aspects with her earlier statement made before the Tehsildar and before the police.In Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 24 of 42 fact, at one stage she disowned having made any statement before Tehsildar, at other places, she deposed that her statement was recorded by police and one more person.Moreover, she herself admitted that various articles were given by her at the time of marriage "with her own consent".PW1 Kranti Devi, in her testimony, has deposed that a demand of Rs.1 lac was made at the time of marriage, which was not fulfilled.The Crl.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20th May, 2011 and order on sentence dated 23rd May, 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.66/2010 arising out of FIR No.01/2010 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC registered with PS Tilak Nagar whereby the appellant was held guilty of offence u/s 498A/304B IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine, SI for a Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 1 of 42 period of one month u/s 498A IPC.The accused was also sentenced to RI for a period of ten years u/s 304B IPC.Both the sentences were to run concurrently.During the course of investigation, accused Sushil Kumar, Virender @ Bijender and Shanti Devi were arrested.After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant and two other accused under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.The appellant and the co-accused were then committed to the Sessions Judge, where they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case.All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of prosecution.Two witnesses were examined in defence.The Additional Sessions Judge eventually came to the conclusion that so far as the appellant is concerned, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted him under Section 498A/304B IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinbefore while remaining two co-accused were acquitted on the Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 3 of 42 ground that allegations against them were general and unreliable.A. No. 982/2011 Page 2 of 42A. No. 982/2011 Page 3 of 42The Additional Sessions Judge based the conviction of the appellant primarily on the ground that evidence as to the harassment to the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry, was specific and consistent and there is reliable evidence to prove that deceased was harassed by the appellant in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.Challenging the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sh.Baldev Raj, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that FIR was registered on the statement of mother of the deceased made before the Tehsildar where general allegations of demand of dowry were made and a suspicion was raised that the deceased died due to harassment meted out to her by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law for dowry.However, the complainant disowned any statement made by her before the Tehsildar.Moreover Tehsildar was not even competent to conduct inquest proceedings.According to Tehsildar, he was instructed by the SDM to record the statement Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 4 of 42 and conduct the inquest proceedings.However, there is no such authorization on record.As such, he deserves to be released on the period already undergone.A. No. 982/2011 Page 4 of 42Moreover, the death had taken place within the matrimonial home.As such, it was for the accused to explain as to why the deceased committed suicide.As regards, certain variations in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it was submitted that complainant is a rustic illiterate lady, as such, certain variations have crept in her testimony.But on material aspects, her testimony goes unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.Under the circumstances, the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court.The Crl.The prosecution examined PW6 Dr. Narender Solanki, Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 13 of 42 Medical Officer at DDU Hospital who proved the MLC of the deceased Ex.PW6/A and as per this MLC, the deceased was brought dead with ligature marks.PW7 Dr. Sushil Kumar, Senior Resident at DDU Hospital conducted post mortem examination of the deceased on 1st January, 2010 and opined that cause of death was asphexia from ante mortem ligature hanging and the manner of death was suicidal.He further opined that the chunni which was seized from the spot vide Ex.PW12/B may be able to sustain the weight of deceased during hanging and the ligature mark present over the neck could be possible by the chunni.Under the circumstances, it also stands proved that the deceased committed suicide.Suicide committed by a woman comes within the purview of Section 304B IPC as it is also a case of death which does not occur under normal circumstances, as such, it is proved that the deceased died "otherwise than under normal circumstances".A. No. 982/2011 Page 13 of 42It is now to be seen whether the third ingredient is satisfied by looking at the evidence on record.In dowry death cases, in the absence of any direct evidence in the form of a dying declaration, the case has to be proved by other evidence like circumstantial evidence.A. No. 982/2011 Page 14 of 42 The closest people to the deceased are generally family members of the deceased and hence, their testimonies are heavily relied upon by the prosecution.A. No. 982/2011 Page 15 of 42PW2 Manoj Kumar is the brother of the deceased and has deposed that at the time of marriage, no demand was made by the accused persons.Various articles were given in marriage besides cash.After about 6 months of the marriage, all the family members started demanding dowry from his parents.However, no demand was made directly to him.Rs.6,000/- was paid by his parents to the Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 16 of 42 accused one month prior to the incident.His sister was not happy in her matrimonial home as she was being harassed for dowry.A. No. 982/2011 Page 16 of 42Additionally, he deposed that accused Sushil Kumar was a habitual drunkard.He used to drink liquor regularly and beat his sister and used to abuse her.No complaint was made by them during the lifetime of his sister as they wanted that the sister should live in her matrimonial home.His sister informed him that she was being maltreated for dowry.PW4-Ravinder is the cousin brother of the deceased and he was also the mediator between the appellants family and the deceaseds family in the marriage.This witness, however, turned hostile.He deposed that from the marriage till her death, deceased did not make any complaint to him against the accused persons.General allegations were made by her before the Tehsildar without specifying as to what was demanded by the accused persons.Thereafter, when her Crl. A. No. 982/2011 Page 17 of 42 statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police, she tried to improve her version by stating that demand of Rs.1 lac was made and in her deposition before the Court, she made various other allegations not only against the accused persons but also against the family members, as such, her testimony is wholly unreliable and cannot be made the basis for convicting the appellant.A. No. 982/2011 Page 17 of 42Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 18 of 42 also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.She did not make any complaint to the police as she wanted that her daughter should live in her matrimonial home.Six months prior to the incident, she had given a sum of Rs.8,000/- to her son-in-law.A. No. 982/2011 Page 23 of 42However, when she appeared in the witness box, material improvements were made by her wherein she has not only levelled allegations against the accused Sushil Kumar, mother-in-law Shanti Devi and Virender, brother-in-law but also levelled allegations against Mahender, father-in-law, Babita, co-sister (jethani) and Kake, another brother-in-law of the deceased for harassing her daughter for bringing insufficient dowry.She went on stating that accused Sushil used to press her neck to strangulate her.Moreover, in her initial statement made before the Tehsildar and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C recorded by police, she has levelled allegations only against Sushil Kumar, Bijender and Shanti Devi, husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased, however, in her deposition before the Court, she has tried to rope in all the family members by levelling allegations against the father-in-law, co-sister Babita (Jethani) and Kake, another brother-in-law of deceased.Further, according to her, deceased was having injuries on her nose, cheek and rear portion of head but neither in the MLC of the deceased nor in her post mortem report, there is any mention of any injury on the persons of deceased.Rather Dr. Sushil Kumar has given a Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 25 of 42 categorical finding that "manner of death was suicidal".A. No. 982/2011 Page 24 of 42She, being the mother of the deceased, was the best person to depose as to how her daughter was being kept at her matrimonial home.It has come in her statement that her daughter used to call her daily, sometimes in the evening and sometimes in the morning.She also used to call her daughter.Her children also used to visit the matrimonial house of her daughter quite frequently and they used to visit after every week or fortnight.Under these circumstances, what makes it suspicious is that the witness despite being a natural witness, made a substantial improvement in the version without there being any acceptable explanation in regard to the facts and matters which were in her knowledge.The Court would, therefore, look for independent corroboration to her version, which corroboration is not forthcoming.PW2 Manoj Kumar and PW3 Vinod Kumar, brothers of the deceased have categorically deposed that no demand was made by the accused persons at the time of marriage.According to them, after about six months of the marriage, all the family members of the Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 26 of 42 accused started demanding dowry from their parents.A general and vague allegation has been made without specifying as to what demand was made by the family members of the accused from their parents.According to them, one month prior to the incident, a sum of Rs.6000/- was paid by their parents to the accused.However, factum of this payment does not find corroboration from the testimony of PW1-Kranti.Statement of Om Prakash, father of the deceased although was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, this witness was dropped by the prosecution.Under the circumstances, in the absence of any deposition by PW1 Kranti regarding payment of Rs.6000/- and in the absence of examination of Om Prakash, it is not proved that any payment was made to the accused persons by the parents of the deceased.A. No. 982/2011 Page 26 of 42From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in particular, PW1, PW2 and PW3, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant and his family members towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased on account of dowry.A. No. 982/2011 Page 27 of 42A. No. 982/2011 Page 27 of 42This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case.Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B IPC.It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry.Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of the judgment.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE JULY 22, 2014 rs Crl.A. No. 982/2011 Page 42 of 42A. No. 982/2011 Page 42 of 42 | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,848,979 | According to the non-applicant No.2, he was member of "Shantata Committee" in 2009, that there were some altercations on 14th March, 2009 (Rangpanchami), that Pravin Bhimrao Duthade lodged report with Pusad City Police Station that Ansar and his brother Nisar had assaulted Pravin and on the basis of the report crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the persons named in the F.I.R. were arrested.On 16th March, 2009 at about 5.00 p.m. it was noticed that the workers of Bajrang Dal were standing near the house of Sk.The applicant was working as Police Inspector attached to Pusad City Police Station at that time and apprehending likelihood of breach of peace, the applicant and the staff accompanying him intervened and dispersed the mob.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:36:42 :::ORAL JUDGMENT :1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.2. RULE.Rule made returnable forthwith.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:36:42 :::Judgment 3 apl44.13.odt Smt. Khajabee Sheikh Iftekhar lodged report against Smt. Asha Raju, Ramsingh Suryawanshi and Ranjit Karele at about 5.10 p.m. for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.This report was filed without taking cognizance of it.Bhimrao Dhudhale filed complaint against Smt. Khajabee and Sk.Parvez Sk.This report was also filed without taking cognizance.The proceedings under Section 107 and 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were taken up to avoid breach of piece.Crime No.54 of 2009 was registered against Anilsingh Thakur, Govind Suryavanshi, Manoj Inkar, Vishal Pogade, Som Inkar and others.Crime No. 80 of 2009 was registered against Anil Thakur.On 16th March, 2009 to defuse the situation, rival groups were called to the Police Station.A meeting of Peace Committee was convened and preventive action was proposed.According to the non-applicant No.2 (complainant) when he went to the Police Station on being invited, he noticed that the applicant was abusing Ashabai Bhimrao Duthade and other ladies who accompanied her and was hurling abuses on the caste of ladies present in the Police Station.According to the non-applicant No.2 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:36:42 ::: Judgment 4 apl44.13.odt (complainant) he had reported the matter on 16th March, 2009 to Shri Kartik Oka who was working as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Pusad, however, as he had not taken any action, complaint came to be filed before the Magistrate praying that the present applicant and Kartik Oka be punished for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 294 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:36:42 :::The learned Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant and his witnesses, examined documents filed on record and by the order dated 25th September, 2012, recorded that prima-The applicant challenged the above order in revision which is dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order.The applicant being aggrieved by the above orders has filed this application.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:36:42 :::Judgment 5 apl44.13.odtShri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the complainant has filed complaint on 18th July, 2011 alleging that the offence is committed on 16th March, 2009 and in view of Section 161 (1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, it is barred by limitation and therefore, cognizance cannot be taken of it.It is submitted that even on the basis of the facts and evidence on record, the impugned orders directing issuance of process against the applicant are unsustainable.Shri Uday Dastane, advocate for the non-applicant No.2 has pointed out that the complaint was made to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer-Shri Kartik Oka on 16th March, 2009 itself making grievance against the applicant because of which the inquiry was also conducted.It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Pusad-Kartik Oka submitted his report dated 29th June, 2009 which shows the truthfulness of the accusations made by the non-applicant No.2 against the applicant.It is submitted that as the further steps are not taken, the non-applicant No.2 is constrained to file the complaint before the learned Magistrate.The learned advocate for the non-applicant No.2 has submitted that the bar of Section 161(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act will not apply as the acts of the applicant, ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:36:42 ::: Judgment 6 apl44.13.odt which constitute the offence of which the complaint is made, cannot be said to have been done in the course of his duty or in exercise of his authority.::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:36:42 :::It is prayed that the application be dismissed with costs.The point which arises for consideration is whether the bar of limitation as per Section 161 (1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is attracted.The incident regarding which the complaint is made is undisputedly dated 16th March, 2009 and the complaint is filed on 18th July, 2011 i.e. the complaint is admittedly filed after a period of 2 years and 5 months.Section 161 (1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 reads as follows :::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:36:42 :::Class, Pusad, on 25th September, 2012 in Regular Criminal Case No.172 of 2011, is set aside.ii) The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2012 on 27th December, 2012 is set aside.In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
118,491,862 | P.Ws.2 and 3, according to the prosecution case, intercepted and tried to rescue the injured.After the occurrence, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.(v) P.W.1 was immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Cuddalore.P.7 is the Accident Register.He referred her to the Government M.K.Medical College Hospital at Salem.P.W.9 Dr.S.Sivakumar, examined her at 12.15 p.m. on 03.09.2008 at Salem Government M.K.Medical College Hospital.P.6 is the Accident Register.According to these Doctors, the injury was simple in nature.(vii) At 5.30 a.m., P.W.13 visited the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and also a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness (Ex.P.2 - Observation Mahazaar and Ex.P.14 Rough Sketch).He recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He recovered M.Os.2 to 6 also from the place of occurrence in the presence of the same witnesses.Then, he conducted inquest on the bodies of both the deceased, in the presence of the Panchayatdars and other witnesses and forwarded the same for Post Mortem.P.15 and Ex.* O/D Neck: Neck structure normal IIYOID bone intact.* O/D thorax: No ribs fracture: Heard Normal in size.Chambers empty.Myocardium Normal.Coronaries Patent.Lungs C/S Pale.*O/D Abdomen: Stomach empty.J) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.282 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II, Salem.He stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 302 (2 counts), 324 and 506(ii) IPC.By judgment dated 11.01.2012, the trial Court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 449, 302 (2 counts) and 324 I.P.C. and acquitted him for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.For the offence under Section 449 IPC, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 6 months, for the offence under Section 302 (2 counts) IPC, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count, in default to undergo 1 year S.I. and for the offence under Section 324 IPC, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 6 months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.(i) There are two deceased in this case viz., Mr.Rajarathinam and Mr.Kathiravan was the son of Mr.They are hereinafter referred to as D1 and D2 respectively.(ii) For quite some time, there was money transaction between the accused and the deceased Rajarathinam.At that point of time, on account of the said transaction, there arose misunderstanding between them, which resulted in enmity between them.(iii) It is alleged that on account of the said fact, on 03.09.2008, at about 02.00 a.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the deceased with an iron pipe and attacked both the deceased indiscriminately with the same, resulting in the death of both the deceased instantaneously.When she tried to intervene, the accused attacked her with the iron pipe on her head and caused a simple injury.(vi) Earlier, from the place of occurrence, P.W.1 had gone straight to the Omalur Police Station and made a complaint at 04.00 .am.regarding the said occurrence.P.W.13, who is the then Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station, received the said complaint and registered a case in Crime No.1058 of 2008 under Sections 449, 302 and 324 IPC.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.He also examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements.(viii) P.W.11, Dr.G.Paneerselvam, conducted autopsy on the body of D1 on 03.09.2008 at 01.20 p.m. He found the following injuries on the body of D1 :-"Injuries:Lacerated wound over right side head with underlying deformity over the frontal bone measuring 5x4 cms x bone deep and it is situated 1 cm lateral to the rt.eye brow, 3 cms above Rt Zygomatic process.2. Laceration over lower part of Rt ear 3 x 0.5x Cartilage deeo with severance of underlying cartilage.Laceration over Rt Pinna 0.5x0.5x0.5cmLaceration over Rt Fronto Parietal Region 9x2x0.5 cms with compound communitted fracture of Rt.Fronto Parietal bone, brain scattered.6 cms above Extn Inj No.1 164 cms above Rt.Incised wound over Rt.side Chin 1.5x0.5x0.5 cms.* O/D Head: Scalp contusion over Bi Fronto Parietal region Cranial Vault: Compound communitted fracture of Rt.Fronto Parietal Tempro Occipital bone 18x10 cms Brain: An extensive sub dural and sub aranoid haemorrhage over both cerebral hemispheres of brain with contused laceration over Rt side temporal lobe 7x5x0.5 cms base of skull: Fracture extends from Rt.frontal bone to Rt.side Anterior Cranial Fossa to Rt.Middle cranial Fossa 12.5 cms long.* O/D Neck: Neck Structure normal IIyoid bone intact.* O/D Thorax: No ribs fracture: Heart: Normal in size Chambers empty Myocardium Normal Coronaries Patent Lungs C/S Pale.*O/D Abdomen: Stomach empty.No specific smell.Mucosa Pale Liver Spleen and Kidneys C/S Pale Bladder empty.Pelvis and Spinal Column Intact".P.8 is the Post mortem certificate.P.W.11 - Dr.G.Paneerselvam opined that the death would have been caused by a weapon like iron pipe.He further gave opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries.He found the following injuries:-Abrasions dark reddish brown in colour (a) 3x2 cms Angle of Rt Eye (b) 5x3 cms Rt Cheek (c) 3x2 cms Rt Temple (d) Contusion over utter and lower eye lids with deformity over rt.side forehead.* O/D : Scalp contusion over Bi Fronto Parietal and Temporal with both temporolise muscle contused region Cranial Vault: Communitted fracture of Rt.Fronto Parieto temprortal bone 18x10 cms Brain: An extensive sub dural and sub aranoid hemorrhage over both cerebral hemispheres of brain with contused laceration over rt.side fronto parietal lobe 15x7x0.5 cms.* Base of skull: intact.No specific smell.Mucosa Pale.Liver Spleen and kidneys C/S Pale Bladder empty.Pelvis and Spinal column intact".He gave an opinion that the said injury would have been caused by a weapon like an iron pipe and he further opined that the death was due to the shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries.(ix) During the course of investigation, on 03.09.2008, at 04.00 p.m., P.W.13, arrested the accused near the Panchayat Union School in the same village in the presence of two witnesses.On such arrest, he made a confession, in which he informed the place where he had hidden the iron pipe.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the said place and produced the iron pipe, blood stained white colour shirt, blood stained white colour baniyan, blood stained white colour dhoti (vide M.O.1, M.Os.12 to 14).On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the jurisdictional Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the Court.On a request made by him, the Material Objects were sent for chemical examination.The report reveals that there was human blood on the Material Objects including the Iron Pipe (M.O.1).On completing investigation, finally, he laid charge sheet against the accused.(x) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment.The accused denied the same.(xi) In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited, besides 21material objects.(xii) On the side of the accused, two documents viz., Ex.D.1, the signature of P.W.1 and Ex.D.2, the report made by her to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Omalur, were marked.The defence of the accused is one of total denial.(xiii)Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as stated in the first paragraph of the Judgment.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.In this case, P.W.1 is the injured eye witness.P.W.3 has also stated that he did not witness the occurrence, but he came to the place after the entire occurrence was over.He has not spoken about the presence of the accused.She has stated that it was this accused and this accused alone who attacked both the deceased as well as her with iron pipe and caused injuries.The question is whether to believe the evidence of P.W.1 in full, so as to sustain the conviction in the absence of any corroboration from any other independent source.In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant would make reliance on Ex.During cross-examination, she has admitted that the said report was made only by her to the Deputy Superintendent of Police.A perusal of Ex.D.2 would go to show that it contains totally a different story about the occurrence.Of course, Ex.Rightly, the accused has made use of Ex.D.2 to contradict P.W.1 during cross-examination.During such cross examination, P.W.1 has admitted that in Ex.D.2, she reported to the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the accused, who is a disabled man, unable to raise his hands, would not have committed murder at all.She has further alleged that her husband and her son were killed by one Ayyavu, Padmanabhan, Raj and Raja.More specifically she has stated that the accused did not attack either the deceased or herself.She has further stated in Ex.D.2 that she was in drowsy condition and without disclosing the contents of Ex.P.1, her signature alone was obtained.Thus, in Ex.D.2, she has disowned Ex.P.1, in which her version was that it was this accused and this accused alone who committed murder of D1 and D2 and caused injury on her.But, in Ex.D.2, she has stated that Ex.P.1 was not given by her and that both the deceased were not at all attacked by the accused and she has also not been attacked by the accused.As we have already pointed out, in Ex.D.2, she has stated the names of four other persons as assailants who committed murder of the deceased as well as caused injury on her. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,910,323 | ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:30:32 :::learned Judicial Magistrate First Class of dismissal of complaint anddecision of Sessions Court, Beed in Criminal Revision No.73 of 2015.The revision filed against the order of Magistrate is dismissed.It is the contention of theComplainant that the Accused of that matter, who are officers of theGovernment and Contractor etc. committed the offence of creation ofsome false record, they committed the offence of trespass and thecommitted the offences punishable under Sections 447, 420, 468,471, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code.His family owns land andsome portion of their land comes under the project of Satra-Potrastorage tank.The Magistrate has observed that there is necessity ofsanction as the main Accused are public servants.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:30:32 ::: 4::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:30:32 :::914 Cri Writ Petition 1060 of 2015.odt 4 On merits also, this Court has seen some record.However, in one proceeding, the said notification was set aside.Then in the year 2012, the acquisition was started and almost all the farmers had given willingness for acquisition.In the result, the petition stands dismissed. | ['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,912,571 | The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :-(A) Complainant (PW-1) Dinkar is residing at Korhale along with his family members and is working as a peon in Agricultural Department.Kusum is his wife, Santosh is his son, Ujwala, Kamal and Nirmala are the daughters of THE complainant.Nirmala is married and on 29th October, 2000 she had come to village Korhale for Diwali festival.The complainant owned and possessed the ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 5 agricultural land at village Korhale.At the time of incident, there was pulses (moog math) standing in the land of the complainant.On the day of incident, the complainant returned from his duty at about 6 p.m., at that time his daughter Ujwala informed him that the cattle of accused Dadu Waghmare were grazing in the field of complainant, and when she asked Dadu about the same, he got annoyed and abused, threatened and assaulted her.(B) It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant thereafter went to the house of Dadu and asked about the said incident of assault.At that time, Dadu got annoyed and assaulted Nirmala by an axe on her head.When complainant tried to rescue Nirmala, accused Dadu assaulted him from back side on his head, and at that time accused Rakhma and son of Dadu assaulted the wife of ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 6 complainant by stick on her head.Daughter Kusum was also assaulted by the accused on her head.Wife of accused Dadu also assaulted.All were injured and, therefore, they were taken to Pravara Hospital Loni by the son of complainant by Jeep.(C) It is the case of the prosecution that, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Jadhav, on the day of incident was on patrolling duty along with other police staff and at Babhaleshwar Outpost, he received telephonic message from PSO Rahata that incident of assault took place at village Korhale and four injured were admitted in the hospital.Immediately, after receipt of said information, he rushed to Pravara Hospital, Loni.He found complainant and others were admitted in the hospital in injured condition.Nirmala was serious, therefore after giving first aid, she was shifted to ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 7 Nashik for further treatment.In the hospital Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Jadhav recorded the statement of the complainant.On the basis of his statement, an offence bearing C.R. No.79 of 2000 was registered against the accused.Thereafter, the investigation was carried out.(D) It is the case of the prosecution that, in morning, the Deputy Superintendent of Police went to village Korhale and prepared spot panchanama in presence two panchas.From the spot, he seized soil mixed with blood, one stone stained with blood and one human tooth.Nirmala came to his house on the occasion of Diwali festival and on the date of incident she was at his house.Incident took place on 1st November, 2000 at about 6.30 p.m. He returned back from his duty.He knows accused.He is possessing ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 16 the agricultural field.When he reached to home his daughter Ujawala informed him that, accused no.1 - Dadu grazed cattle in his field.The crops of Math and Moog were standing in the field.He went to his field.His wife Kusum, elder daughter Nirmala and Kamal were present there.He made enquiry with them about the incident of grazing cattle by accused no.1 in the field.Thereafter, he told them to come along with him so as to return to his house.They proceeded towards his house.Dated: May 09, 2017 ...::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::591.03appeal+ 3 JUDGMENT :-Heard the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the original accused.Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2003 is filed by appellant/accused no.1, challenging the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 13th August, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.").Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2003 is filed by the appellant/State seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to original accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001 by the Sessions Jude, Kopargaon.Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2003 is ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 4 filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 13th August, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001, thereby acquitting the original accused nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323 read with section 34 of the I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::All these articles were seized under spot panchanama.On the same day, he recorded the statement of eye witnesses and on 2nd November, 2010 he arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 under arrest panchanama.On 3rd November, 2000, he visited Pravara Hospital and recorded the statement ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 8 of injured.At that time he also seized blood stained cloths of injured Dinkar, Kusum and Kamal in presence of panchas.(E) It is the case of the prosecution that, accused Dadu while in Police custody was interrogated by the Police.At that time, he gave confession that he is ready to produce the stick and axe.Accordingly his confession was recorded in presence of panchas.Thereafter the accused led the Police and panchas to one field and he produced the stick and axe, which he has concealed in the heap of Bajra Crops.There were blood stains on the said axe and stick produced by the accused.Both these articles were seized under panchanama in presence of panchas on the spot.On 7th November, 2000, Investigating Officer sent Head Constable Shinde for ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 9 recording the statement of injured Nirmala at Nashik.However, Head Constable Shinde reported that she is not in a position to give her statement and accordingly submitted his report.On 16th November, 2000 as the Investigating Officer Mr. Jadhav transferred, further investigation of the said crime was handed over to A.P.I. Pachpute.(F) It is the case of the prosecution that, A.P.I. Pachpute, also recorded statements of witnesses.He sent the injured to doctor for taking their blood samples.Thereafter, he sent all the muddemal with blood samples to C.A., Aurangabad for its analysis.After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::(G) Since the offence punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 10 section 307 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the trial Judge committed the case to the Court of Sessions.Thereafter, the charge under sections 323 and 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. was framed and read over and explained to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Their defence, as it appears from the statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that, on the date of incident it is the complainant and injured who assaulted the accused persons.They have also filed complaint to the Police Station and on the basis of their complaint, N.C. was registered against the complainant, his son and daughters.It is defence of the accused that the complainant and other witnesses sustained injuries in road accident.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::The learned counsel appearing for ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 11 the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2003 filed by original accused no.1 - Dadu submits that, all the witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses.None of the independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.He invites my attention to the alleged eye witnesses and submits that, they were admitted in their cross-examination that, there is earlier litigation pending between the parties.He submits that, the evidence of Medical Officer or the panch witnesses does not support the prosecution case.He invites my attention to the evidence of Sanjay Vijaykumar Wekhande (PW-12) and submits that, he has stated in his cross-examination that, the injury sustained by Nirmala Sanjay Ranshur (PW-9) is also possible in motor accident.He submits that, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable, trustworthy and those witnesses are ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 12 interested witnesses, in that case, the benefit of doubt is extended by the trial Court in favour of all other accused, and the same benefit of doubt should have been given in favour of accused no.1 - Dadu.It is submitted that, Nirmala (PW-9) suffered the injuries during accident.The said suggestion was given during her cross-examination.Therefore, relying upon the grounds taken in the Appeal Memo, defence taken by the appellant, he submits that, the Appeal may be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::So far acquittal of other accused is concerned, he submits that, the trial Court has considered the evidence in its entirety and reached to the conclusion that, the evidence of prosecution witnesses against other co-accused is inconsistent, and therefore, the order of acquittal needs no interference.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. invites my attention to the evidence of the complainant and also medical evidence and submits that, Nirmala suffered grievous injuries and medical officer opined that, but for timely treatment Nirmala survived.He submits that, assault by accused no.1 was ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 14 with an axe i.e. sharp and dangerous weapon, and therefore, the trial Court ought to have convicted accused no.1 for an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.He submits that, the evidence of the eye witnesses and also medical evidence clearly demonstrates the involvement of other co-accused, who are acquitted by the trial Court.Therefore, he submits that, the appeals filed by the State deserves to be allowed by enhancing the sentence of accused no.1 and convicting the other co-accused by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::I have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and the counsel appearing for the original accused.With their able assistance, I have perused the entire evidence brought on record by the ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 15 prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::Dinkar Arjun Kolge (PW-1) lodged the first information report.In his deposition before the Court, he stated that, he is working in soil Conservation Office as a peon at Rahata.He used to go to Rahata to attend his duty at 9 a.m. and used to return back to his village at about 6 p.m. He has five daughters and one son.At the time of incident, his daughters Ujwala and Kamal were unmarried and residing along with him.Nirmala is his elder daughter, who has given in marriage at Niphad taluka.House of accused is situated on the way to his house.He made enquiries with accused no.1 Dadu and accused no.2 - Rakhama about grazing cattle in his field.Accused no.1 got annoyed and gave blow of axe on the head of Nirmala from sharp blade side, owing to that Nirmala felled down.He tried to intervene and caught Nirmala, at that time, accused no.1 Dadu gave blow of axe on his neck and head.He also ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 17 fell down.Thereafter, accused nos.2, 3 and 4 caught hold his wife Kusum and daughter Kamal and bet them by stick and stone.The daughter Nirmala sustained bleeding injuries.Accused ran away from the spot.His son Santosh came there and taken them in Jeep to Pravara Hospital at Loni.They treated as indoor patients for about five to six days.He identified axe shown to him.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::It is true that, in his cross- examination, he stated that, there is dispute in between accused no.2 - Rakhama and his brother Gopal and also between Dadu Waghmare and Gopal Bansode.He denied the suggestion that, he was aggressor and assaulted accused no.2, as a result, he sustained injury on his wrist.Nirmala (PW-9) identified the accused, who were present before the Court.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::591.03appeal+ 18 She stated that, when her father, other sisters and mother were coming back to their house, near the house of accused no.2 on road accused no.2 was present and PW-1 made enquiry from accused no.2 about grazing cattle in his field, at that time, accused no.3 - Alka caught and pulled her hairs and accused no.1 gave blow of handle of axe on her mouth.The blood was coming out from her mouth.Meantime, accused no.1 gave blow on the head.She became unconscious, after accused no.1 hit on her head by the blade of axe and felled down.She regained after six to seven days and she was admitted at Nashik hospital for 2 to 2 1/2 days.It is true that, she admitted in her cross-examination about the enmity between family of accused and family of his father.She denied suggestion that, she suffered injuries in an accident.There is also evidence of other eye witnesses.The evidence of PW-1 and PW-9 gets ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 19 corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses.However, on careful perusal of the evidence of witnesses so far other accused nos.2 to 4 are concerned, their evidence is not consistent and suffers from material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations, and therefore, it appears that, the benefit of doubt is extended by the trial Court.Upon an independent scrutiny of the evidence of alleged eye witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that, the trial Court is justified in acquitting those accused.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::Dr. Apur Ramprakash Tripathi (PW-11), in her evidence before the Court stated that, Kamal Dinkar Kolge suffered following injuries :-(1) C L W 5 x 1 x 1 right parietal region, grievous in nature, might have been caused by sharp and heavy object.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::591.03appeal+ 20 (2) abrasion and swelling 3 x 2, right wrist X-ray taken, might have been caused by hard and blunt object.The injury was caused recently.The X-ray report was normal.It is stated that, the said injuries were recent.PW-11 also examined Nirmala Sanjay Ranchod and noticed the following injuries :-(1) C L O 8 x 4 x 3, vertex slightly left side, grievous, by sharp and heavy object, must heave been caused recently.CT Scan of the head of the patient was taken which shows intraventricular bleeding in both the lateral ventricals 3rd ventrical and 4th ventrical, intra haemispere.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::591.03appeal+ 21 (2) Liniar depressed fracture of the occipital bone of left side and left parital bone.(3) soft tissues swelling, irregularity in the temero partial region bilaterally, basal cistern are shifted and swellen and space are affected.Generalised cerebral oedema.I issued certificate it bars my signature, contents are correct, it is Exh. 63 .She expressed opinion that, injuries found on Nirmala were grievous and dangerous and caused by sharp and heavy weapon and the said injuries might have cause the death of Nirmala.He treated her.She was referred by the Government Civil Hospital, Nashik to him.He stated that, there was sutured wound over the left occipital and parietal area.She had swelling over lower lip and blood was oozing from her left ear.She had weakness on right side of the body.In his cross-examination, though he stated that, the injuries were also possible in the motor accident, but he reiterated in his cross-examination that, the injuries sustained by Nirmala is due to assault on her head.Therefore, the evidence of eye witnesses gets corroboration from the Medical evidence.Therefore, accused no.1 is rightly convicted by the trial Court.The submission of the learned A.P.P. that, he should have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. since he used the ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 23 dangerous and sharp weapon and therefore, his sentence be enhanced.Admittedly Nirmala survived.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act be given to the accused no.1 is devoid of any substance.The trial Court has observed in para 31 of the judgment that, accused no.1 has been convicted previously, therefore, accused no.1 has criminal antecedent.Keeping in view the antecedent of accused no.1 and nature of offence and injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-9, I am not inclined to consider the prayer of accused no.1 for extending him benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. In view of the provisions of Section 4 of the ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: 591.03appeal+ 25 Probation of Offenders Act, when there is earlier conviction, in that case, the benefit of said Act cannot be extended/given.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::In the light of discussion hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that, the conviction of appellant - Dadu Keshav Waghmare deserves to be confirmed and the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence of accused no.1 and for reversal of acquittal of accused nos.2 to 4 deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, all the Appeals stand dismissed.Bail bonds of accused no.1 - Dadu Keshav Waghmare stands cancelled.He shall surrender forthwith to undergo remaining sentence.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar shall ensure that, accused no.1 - Dadu Keshav Waghmare shall forthwith surrender to undergo remaining sentence and send the report to the Registry of this Court.The office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad to send the copy of this judgment and order forthwith to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar.(S.S. SHINDE, J.) ...SGA::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2017 23:57:35 ::: | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,918,683 | Her parents had gone out to market.The prosecutrix is born blind.She is acquainted with the voice of the accused persons.The appellant- Chirangilal is the Village Kotwar to whom the prosecutrix knew earlier.The accused persons came to her house.Co-accused Bhaiyan Birha asked for "matchbox." The prosecutrix went inside the house to bring the matchbox.The accused persons sent Kallu Bai to her house.The prosecutrix brought the matchbox.When she went inside again to keep the matchbox, the accused persons followed her into the house.They caught her, fell her on the ground, removed her clothes, shut her mouth.The appellant- Chirangilal caught her hands.Co-accused Bhaiyan Birha committed sexual intercourse with her.Later, the appellant- Chirangilal also committed sexual intercourse with her when co-accused Bhaiyan caught her hands.After commission of the crime, the accused persons left her house.When the prosecutrix shouted, witnesses- Rusia and Vitthal Bharose came to the scene of crime.The prosecutrix narrated the incident to them.When her parents returned from Bijawar market, they were informed about the incident.His brother had a quarrel with the accused persons.The accused/appellant- Chirangilal is the Kotwar of the village.He intimated him that summons has been received.The witness was asked to pay Rs.12/-.Therefore, he went to bring money from his wife.When he returned, the accused persons were not found in the market.When the accused persons reached the house of the prosecutrix (PW 1), they made sure that the parents of the prosecutrix are not present there.The prosecutrix intimated them that her parents are not at home.The accused persons asked for matchbox.She brought the matchbox from the house.The prosecutrix was with Kallu Bai (PW 3) when the accused persons reached there.When the prosecutrix went inside the house to bring the matchbox, the accused persons asked Kallu Bai (PW 3) to leave the place.Kallu Bai (PW 3) has stated that she was sitting with the prosecutrix when the accused persons reached there.Kallu Bai (PW 3) was stitching the old saree of the prosecutrix.The accused persons asked that where are her parents.The prosecutrix intimated them that they have gone to the market.While one was held her hands the other committed the crime.When she shouted, Kasiya came to her house.The accused persons fled from there.(31.10.2017) Law clearly expects the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment but by cross-checking the reasoning of the evidence on record.It is the duty of the appellant and his lawyer to remain present on the appointed day, time and place, when the appeal is posted for hearing.In the case of Bani Singh and Others Vs.State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439, the Apex Court while dealing with Section 386 of Cr.P.C held that when appellant and his lawyer are absent on appointed for hearing, the Court is not bound to adjourn the case, but should dispose of appeal on merits.The dismissal of appeal simpliciter for non-prosecution is not contemplated.In a similar case of K.S. Panduranga Vs.State of Karnataka, 2013 Cr.L.J 1665 the Apex Court has held that it cannot be said that the Court cannot decide a criminal appeal in the absence of the counsel for the accused, even if the counsel does not appear deliberately or shows negligence in appearing.This criminal appeal is pending since 1997, but none appeared on behalf of the appellant.Therefore, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, this appeal is being decided.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Chirangilal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.1996 passed by Special Judge under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Panna in Special Case No. 32/1996, wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 450 of I.P.C and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and for offence under Section 376 (2) (G) of I.P.C, sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with stipulated default.It is not disputed that the prosecutrix is "Kori" by caste and blind since birth.The appellant/accused used to visit her house.It is also admitted that the police arrested the accused persons.From the possession of co-accused- Bhaiyan Birha @ Chaturesh, a blue coloured underwear and from the possession of appellant- Chirangilal, a lining underwear were seized.Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case in brief is that on 25.03.1996, at about 10.00 am, the prosecutrix was sitting with Kallu, a village girl of her neighbour at her door step.On the same day at about 09.00 pm, the prosecutrix went to the police station and lodged the report against the accused persons.The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.The accused persons were also arrested and sent for medical examination.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed for offence under Section 3 (1) (11) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (for brevity the "Act, 1989") and Sections 450 and 376 (2) (G) of I.P.C.The learned Special Judge under the "Act, 1989," Panna framed charge for offence under Sections 450, 376 (2) (G)of I.P.C read with Section 3 (I) (11) of the "Act, 1989."The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.Co-accused Bhaiyan, pleaded that he had deposed in the murder case of Vishwanath Bargaiya in which the members of the family of the prosecutrix was murdered, therefore, he has been falsely implicated.The appellant- Chirangilal has stated that there was a partition between the father of the prosecutrix Sura and Baldua Kori wherein he deposed in favour of Baldua Kori.Hence, through the prosecutrix, her father Sura Kori have falsely implicated the appellant.Learned trial Court after adducing the prosecution evidence held that the appellant and co-accused are guilty for offence under Section 450 of the I.P.C and 376 (2) (G) of the I.P.C and imposed sentence as mentioned above.However, for offence under Section 3 (I) (11) of the "Act, 1989," the appellant and co-accused were acquitted.On behalf of the appellant, it is stated that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record.The witnesses Sura (PW 2) father of the prosecutrix, Kashi Prasad (PW 4) and Vitthal @ Pannalal (PW 5) have not supported the prosecution story.The trial Court has also overlooked the factum of delay in the F.I.R. The trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that no sign of rape was found on medical examination.The medical officer (PW 6) has stated that there was no external and internal injury found on the body of the prosecutrix.The eyewitness- Kallu Bai (PW 3) has not stated anything against the appellant.Despite the fact that the appellant is a man of thirty years and the sole breadwinner of his family, he deserves to be considered leniently.The proseuctrix (PW 1) is blind from the childhood.She was acquainted by the voice of the appellant- Chirangilal for the appellant often used to visit of her place.She clearly narrates that the appellant- Chirangilal came to her house when her parents were not present in the house.The statement of Sura (PW 2), the father of the prosecutrix, is relevant here.On the date of incident, he along with his wife had gone to the market.The accused persons then asked for matchbox.The prosecutrix went inside to bring the matchbox.At that moment the accused persons took out the needle.The appellant took away the needle and thread from her hand and said to her that some guest has come to her house, therefore, Kallu Bai (PW 3) left the place.This indicates that Kallu Bai (PW 3) was also the witness when the accused persons and co-accused- Bhaiyan Birha @ Chaturesh came to the house of the prosecutrix.According to the prosecutrix (PW1), when they used matchbox and returned it to her, she went inside the house to keep it back.At that time, the accused persons followed her inside the room, closing the door from inside, overpowered her.She was fell on the floor.She sent her younger sister to call her parents.When her parents arrived, she narrated the incident to them.Sura (PW 2) supports the prosecution story that Ramrati came to the market to call him stating that the prosecutrix is crying.Therefore, he came to the house and found the prosecutrix crying.The prosecutrix narrated about the incident.The prosecutrix disclosed the name of the appellant- Chirangilal.Sura (PW 2) then went to the police station Kakkarhati along with the prosecutrix for lodging report.From there, they had gone to Police Station Panna where report was lodged by the prosecutrix.No doubt Sura (PW 2) and Kashi Prasad (PW 4) have been declared hostile but for limited purpose.So far as Sura (PW 2) is concerned, he earlier narrated that the prosecutrix has not told the name of co-accused- Bhaiyan Birha @ Chaturesh whereas in her statement name of co-accused- Bhaiyan Birha was told by the prosecutrix.Similarly, in the statement of Kashi Prasad (PW4), he has stated that the prosecutrix shouted at about 9-10 am stating "Daddu- Daddu." He went to her home.Vitthal (PW 5) was also present there.Prosecutrix was crying.When she was asked, why she is crying, she narrated that the appellant- Chirangilal and co-accused- Bhaiyan had come to her house.But why they came, she did not disclose.However, in police statement, it is mentioned that the prosecutrix narrated that both of the accused committed rape with her.Even if considering the statement of Kashi Prasad (PW 4) to be true, according to the prosecutrix after the arrival of Kashi Prasad (PW 4), the accused persons fled away from the spot.Kashi Prasad (PW 4) also supports the version of the prosecutrix that the accused/appellant- Chirangilal and co-accused- Bhaiyan had gone to the place of the prosecutrix.That means the arrival of the appellant and co-accused has been proved by the prosecutrix (PW 1) and Kallu Bai (PW 3) and the departure of the appellant and co-accused was proved by the prosecutrix (PW 1) and Kashi Prasad (PW 4).The statement of Vitthal @ Panna Lal (PW 5) also is very relevant.According to him on that day at about 3 pm, Kashi Prasad (PW 4) informed him that the accused/appellant and Bhaiyan committed rape with the prosecutrix.It means that Kashi Prasad (PW 4) was aware of the fact that the prosecutrix was ravished by the appellant and co-accused.Vitthal (PW 5) has been declared hostile.But his statement to that extent is relevant and corroborates the prosecution story.Dr. Meena Namdeo (PW 6) has stated that there was no mark of injury on the body of the prosecutrix and no definite opinion can be given as regarding recent intercourse.But when the prosecutrix was ravished, the other accused person was holding her.It is but natural that she could not resist and no external injury could be found.The prosecutrix is a grown up lady but blind by birth and overpowered by the accused persons.So far as absence of mark of injury on her body is concerned, it would be appropriate to say that when two accused persons overpowered her, she could not resist properly.Therefore, absence of injury cannot be a criteria for presuming that the proseutrix was not subjected to sexual intercourse.When reliance can be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, conviction can be upheld.The evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity.Dr. Meena Namdeo (PW 6) obtained the vaginal swab and sent it for medical examination.Accused persons were examined by Dr. G.P. Singh (PW 9) after their arrest.Both were found competent to perform sexual intercourse.Sura (PW 2) has denied that the appellant- Chirangilal (the Kotwar of the village) had supported Baldua, the brother of Sura, therefore, he has enmity with the appellant.As there was no enmity between the parties, the chances of false implication is also ruled out.The prosecutrix being a physically handicapped woman, was overpowered and the accused persons having made sure that the prosecutrix is alone at her house, took the opportunity to commit the crime.So far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellant- Chirangilal has been sentenced for ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 (2) (G) of the I.P.C and a fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed and in lieu of fine, he has to undergo additional three months rigorous imprisonment.This is the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 376 (2) (G) of the I.P.C. Once the appellant has been convicted for offence of rape, he should be treated with heavy hands and undeserve indulgence or liberal attitude in not awarding adequate sentence would be improper.The appellant and the co-accused committed the heinous crime on a blind lady having taking every precaution.This appeal stands dismissed. | ['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,923,256 | It is submitted by counsel for the State that the complainant has been informed about pendency of this appeal, as required under Section 15-A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)This first Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ''Act 1989'') against the order dated 31/01/2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Shivpuri in SST No.14/2018, by which the application filed by appellant under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail has been rejected.The appellant has been arrested on 10/11/2017 in connection with Crime No.356/2017 registered at Police Station AJAK, Khaniadhana, District Shivpuri for offence under Section 452, 436, 435, 427, 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC and Sections (3)(2)(x), 3(2)(iv), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(z), 3(2) (v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)The counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal with liberty to revive the same after a month.With the aforesaid liberty, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
919,274 | JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.The Counsel for the parties were heard at length.The case of the prosecution is that Karan Radia (the abductee) received an SMS message on his mobile phone on 25.4.2003 from the petitioner asking him to come to Vasant Vihar on the next day.On 26.4.2003 the said Karan Radia reached Modern Bazar, Vasant Vihar along with his driver Ram Kesh and friend Jyotin Bakshi at about 12 noon.The petitioner was at that time allegedly buying cinema tickets for himself and his wife.Karan Radia along with the petitioner thereafter went to Gurgaon in the petitioner's car as the petitioner wanted to show his office to Karan Radia.At Gurgaon the petitioner is alleged to have called one Shailender who came there but left the office at about 2 p.m. Thereafter the petitioner called co-accused Vijay who arrived at the office.The petitioner and Vijay allegedly tied up the hands, legs and taped the mouth of Karan Radia in the petitioner's office at Gurgaon and wrapped him in a plastic sheet and put him in the boot of the petitioner's car.They drove to Rewari to the petitioner's haveli there.After reaching the haveli, the car was parked inside the compound and the petitioner and Vijay went inside leaving Karan Radia in the boot of the car.Apparently, Kalan found an opportunity and escaped through a window at about 6 p.m. It is alleged that Karan Radia removed the tape etc. and from the boot of the car (Opel Astra) he went inside the passenger compartment by pushing the back seat down and from there he escaped.It is alleged that he tried to contact his aunt but the call did not go through.He is alleged to have taken a lift from one Hari Kishan on a motor cycle to the Taxi Stand at Rewari.He hired a taxi from Rewari to Delhi, which unfortunately broke down at Gurgaon.From an STD booth in Gurgaon, it is alleged that, Karan Radia made a call to his Mausi (aunt) and informed her about his being abducted at about 8.20 p.m. Thereafter, Karan hired another taxi from Gurgaon and reached his residence it about 9 p.m. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the mobile phone of Karan Radia and one pistol with five live cartridges were recovered from the petitioner whereas a wrist watch of Karan Radia and one revolver with five live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the co-accused Vijay.It is also alleged that palm prints of Karan Radia were found from the boot of the car belonging to the petitioner.Co-accused Vijay refused T.I.P. Whereas the present petitioner was well known to the victim's family.It is further alleged that a ransom call was received by Smt. Neera Radia (mother of Karan Radia) at her office landline phone.The voice was that of an unknown male and it is further stated that the call could not be traced as no caller I.D. instrument was installed at the office.The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner has been charged of offences under Section 364A/365/307/120B/34 IPC and that some of these offences entail life imprisonment.The learned counsel for the State further submitted that Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) mandates that a person shall not be released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is related to an offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.In support of this contention the following judgments of the Supreme Court were referred:The State of Maharashtra v. Ritesh S/O Vasudeo Wanjari: 2001 (2) Crimes 30 (SC).According to the learned counsel for the State, 14 out of 27 witnesses have been examined and almost all the public witnesses except Shri Mast Ram Lohia, the petitioner's landlord and Jyotin Bakshi, Karan Radia's friend have been examined.He further submitted that the bail application moved by the co-accused Vijay Kumar has been dismissed twice by this Court and the Special Leave Petition which was preferred by the said co-accused Vijay Kumar has also been rejected by the Supreme Court.He further submitted that the witnesses so far produced have supported the case of the prosecution which reasonably links the involvement of the petitioner with the crime.Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the State, it would be in the fitness of things, at this stage, to instead of granting the bail, give a direction to the trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial within a specified time frame and that the prosecution would fully comply with the orders.The learned counsel for the State further submitted that since the crime is heinous and some of the public witnesses are yet to be examined the prosecution has strong apprehensions that in the event of the release of the accused on bail, there is every likelihood of his influencing the witnesses which would seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution.To substantiate this claim, it is stated that two vital prosecution witnesses turned hostile while co-accused Vijay Kumar was on interim bail from the Trial Court (i.e., the STD Operator Rishi and Taxi Driver Om Prakash of Gurgaon.).As regards the alleged offence and the petitioner's connection therewith, the learned counsel made detailed submissions to try and point out the contradictions and holes in the prosecution's case.Some of his arguments are as follows:For the purpose of getting paid a ransom a demand has to be made and communicated. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,928 | The detenu was detained by the second respondent DistrictCollector by his detention order HS(M) Confdl.No.16/2009 dated 29.06.2009, underTamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a "Goonda".The detenu was involved in three adverse cases, which are as follows:-Name of the Police station .Section of law and Crime No1 Nazareth P.S. 452, 294(b), 307, 506(ii)In the detention order the detaining authority has averred that"I am aware that Thiru.Peter was arrested on 25.05.2009 in ground caseCr.He has filed abail application in Cr. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,193,240 | Heard on I.A.No.18362/2014, which is an application for condonation of delay.There is delay of 02 days in filing the present application.For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, we find that sufficient cause for condoning the delay is made out.Accordingly, the delay in filing the application is condoned.The application is allowed.Also heard on admission.This application filed by the State under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.5.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna in Special Case No.47/2013 whereby he has acquitted the respondent No.1 of the charges under sections 5(g), 5(1) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 and Section 342, 376(d) and 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and respondent No.2 of the charges under section 5(g), 5(j)(II), 5(1) read with section 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 and 342, 376(d) alternatively 376(d)/109, 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution story, some time in the month of March, 2013 the prosecutrix was called by respondent No.2 to her house and thereafter the respondent No.1 committed forcible sexual intercourse with prosecutrix.The prosecutrix delivered a child.A First Information Report was lodged after a period of six months when the prosecutrix had become pregnant.The trial Court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them.Learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident and in her evidence has named the respondent as the person who committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.The trial Court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has found that the prosecutrix on the date of incident was a minor.However, in paragraph 31 the trial Court has recorded a finding that in D.N.A. Test the respondent No.1 has not been found to be biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix.Accordingly, the trial Court acquitted both the respondents of the offences alleged against them.The findings recorded by the trial Court, by no stretch of imagination, can either be termed as perverse or based on no evidence.After perusing the record we also find that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence.The application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed summarily. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
919,345 | These Revisions are filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.429/2002 in C.C.No.17/2001 and Crl.The above said petition was also filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.The relief asked for under the above said petitions before the trial Court is that there was no prima facie case made out against the petitioner to force him to face the ordeal of trial but to discharge him from the charges levelled against him.Apart from this petitioner, the co accused have also filed similar petition under Crl.M.P.No.410 of 2001(by A12).M.P.No.309 of 2002(by A9).The co accused in C.C.No.17 of 2001 have filed Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2002(by A9) and Crl.M.P.No.323 of 2002 (by A10).2a) In C.C.No.17 of 2001(Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2004), the specific charge against the accused is that the accused have under conspiracy illegally sanctioned the credit facilities to M/s Sathiyam Foods(P) Limited.All the accused have been charged under Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 420 of IPC.The specific allegation against A2 Thiru S.Arunachalam, the then General Manager of the Indian Bank was that during the relevant point of time, he was in charge of the Management Services and during 1992, when the loan was sanctioned to the accused company, he was one of the Secretaries to the Board and in 1993 , he had endorsed the recommendation for sanctioning the additional loan to the above said Sathiyam Foods(P) Limited.It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court in the petition filed by him under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge that he was in no way connected with the sanction of the loan and had not taken any decision of his own to recommend the above said additional loan to the said Company and that the sanction was not given after consulting with CVC and that there was no evidence for conspiracy.2b) In C.C.No.15 of 2001(Crl.R.C.No.169/2004) , the petitioner who was arrayed as A11 would contend that at the relevant period ie., on 24.5.1988, the petitioner was on deputation to Kuwait and not in any way dealt with the account of Indian Bank and that he was not involved in the sanction or release of the said credit facilities to M/s Kiran Overseas Ltd (A1) to the tune of Rs.3.59 lakhs and disciplinary authority in the sanction letter itself has mentioned about the fresh proposal dated 23.8.1994 forwarded on 10.10.1994 to the Managing Committee for confirmation and that the credit Department prepared note on 10.10.1994 in respect of the additional sanction of Rs.3.59 lakhs to M/s Kiran Overseas Limited(A1) and the same was considered by the Managing Committee and an order of sanction was passed on 18.10.1994 and with regard to the diversion of Rs.50 lakhs from M/s Kiran Overseas Export Limited, the proposal was sent by a branch Office to the Regional Office on 8.10.1994 and the note for approval was sent on 17.10.1994 to the head office and the petitioner's department had submitted a note to ED/CMD on 10.11.1994 for information and not for confirmation.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would brought to the notice of this Court that it has wrongly been mentioned in the charge No.25 framed by the trial Court itself describing the petitioner as a Zonal Manager along with A5 but actually A5 and A7 are the Zonal Managers and not the petitioner(A11).Only on the above ground, the petitioner sought for an order of discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, which after due deliberation to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor has come to a conclusion that no relief under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. can be given to the petitioner and accordingly dismissed both the petitions which necessitated the petitioner to come before this Court with these revisions.Now the point for determination in these revisions is that whether the petitioner is liable to be discharged from the charges levelled against him for the reasons stated in the memorandum of revisions?7.In C.C.No.17 of 2001, the charge against Thiru S.Arunachalam who has been arrayed as A2 is that during the period from May 1992 to 22.1.1996 along with other co accused conspired in order to get pecuniary advantage to themselves by availing packing facilities in the manner of foreign bill purchase.Foreign bill negotiated and other letter of credit, FDDBP facility under letter of credit by submitting forged/false documents in the name of fictitious firm M/s Sathiyam Foods (A-13) circumventing, laid down procedures of Indian Bank and RBI guidelines and thereby caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.31.75 crores to the Indian Bank.M.P.Nos 429 of 2002 in C.C.No.17 of 2001 and 443 of 2002 in C.C.No.15 of 2001 dated 4.11.2003 and 31.10.2003 respectively.Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.Nos.1079 and 1081 of 2004 are also dismissed.R.C.No.168 of 2004 arises out of an order passed by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases(IX Additional Court)Chennai in Crl.R.C.No. 169 of 2004 had arisen against the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases(IX Additional Court) Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2002(by A1).M.P.No.22 of 2003(by A3),Crl.M.P.No.428 of 2002(by A4).Crl.M.P.No. 332 of 2002 (by A5).Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2002(by A6).M.P.NO.608 of 2002 (by A7).Heard Mr.M.N.Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases and considered their rival submissions.The Point:The accused in a warrant case can be discharged only if the trial Magistrate considers that the charge levelled against the accused is groundless.6b) Under Charge No.13, A11 Thiru S.Arunachalam along with the co accused said to have dishonestly abusing the position had facilitated to divert Rs.50 lakhs from the account of A1 company(M/s Kiran Overseas Export Limited, Chennai) and hence charged under Section 409 of IPC along with the co accused.6c) Under Charge Nos.14 and 16, A11 Thiru S.Arunachalam has been charged under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in two counts.6d) Under Charge No.23, the charge against A11 along with A10is that they have negotiated a foreign bill to the tune of Rs.62 lakhs on 16.8.1995 and allowed the same amount as new Packing Credit instead of adjusting the same to earlier Packing Credit liabilities and further released Rs.3.59 lakhs TOD on three occasions with their consent and the same has been neither confirmed nor ratified by the Management Committee and the said amount is still outstanding .7c) Under Charge No.12, the petitioner was charged along with the other co accused under Section 409 of IPC and under Charge No.14 along with A6,A4 and A3 who was charged under Section 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and under Charge No.15, along with A6,A4 and A3, A2 was charged under Section 409 of IPC.Hence the learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial in C.C.No.17 of 2001 and C.C.No.15 of 2001 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases(IX Additional Court)The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, Chennai. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
926,203 | 2. Puran Singh (PW-1) is father of accused Narain and deceased Gopal aged about eight years.On 11-4-1986 he had gone to Berla and on his return to his village Kospatar in the evening he found his son Gopal missing.He informed Village Patel Prem Chand (PW-2).The accused confessed at about 10 p.m. before Prem Chand (PW-2) and his father Puran Singh (PW-1) that he committed murder of Gopal.He was assisted by accused Santan Verma who has been acquitted.On 12-4-1986 at about 7.30 a.m. Puran Singh (PW-1) lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P/1 at Berla Police Station.The Police reached the village.S. R. Diwan (PW-12) interrogated the accused at the house of Prem Chand (PW-2) in his presence and in the presence of Goverdhan Singh (PW-9).The accused gave the information that he has hidden the dead body of Gopal who was also known as Palu near the Nala.The accused took them to the Nala and he took out the dead body of Gopal from the Nala.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.Appellant Narain Singh has been convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code for fratricide and sentenced to imprisonment for life.He has also been convicted under section 364, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for this offence.He made a search for him.The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.The autopsy was conducted by Dr. C. S. Verma (PW-4).In his opinion the cause of death of Gopal was throttling.According to the prosecution the motive for causing the death of the deceased by the accused was that he had sold his own share of the land and he wanted to grab the share of Gopal after causing his death.In this appeal it is not disputed that Gopal met a homicidal end.That is amply proved by the medical evidence and other material on record.The only question is whether the accused is the author of this crime.We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and carefully scrutinised the evidence on record.We are of the opinion that evidence adduced by the prosecution does not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.We shall deal with the prosecution evidence in detail.Extra-judicial confession:Puran Singh (PW-1) has deposed that he asked the accused at about 8 p.m. regarding the whereabouts of Gopal.The accused denied having his hand in this affair.The witness has further stated that he was called at about 10 p.m. by Prem Chand (PW-2) and he told him that the accused is confessing his guilt.Thereupon, he asked the accused what he has done.The accused replied that he has killed Gopal with the help of Santan Verma of Bemetara.In cross-examination he has stated that Lakhan (PW-3) gave information at the house of Prem Chand (PW-2) that he had seen accused Narain with Gopal in the day time.Then accused Narain was taken inside the house of Premchand (PW-2) and he was questioned by Prem Chand, Sachidanand and Om Prakash.The witness has further stated that he did not go inside the house of Prem Chand.He has denied to have made the statement marked A to A in Ex. D/1 under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code ^^ukjk;.k ls ?kqek fQjk dj ikyw ds ckjs esa iwNrkN fd;s**APrem Chand (PW-2) has deposed that he confronted accused Narain with the statement made by Lakhan (PW-3) as having seen him sending Gopal on a cycle with some unknown person.Accused Narain denied having any knowledge of Gopal.He was interrogated for about two hours by him and other villagers and he asked Puran Singh (PW-1) to go to the police station and lodge the report.Thereafter the accused took him to a nearby lane and said he had committed the mistake he has done the job.^^dkdk xYrh gks x;h gS dke dj fn;s gS** He asked the accused to be more clear and then he broke down and acknowledged having caused the death of Gopal, in the presence of other persons.In cross-examination he has admitted that in the statement made under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, (Ex. D/2) he did not disclose that the accused took him in a lane and there he made a clean breast of the whole thing.This is a material omission.Sachidanand and Om Prakash before whom the accused is said to have made the confessional statement have not been examined.The evidence of Puran Singh (PW 1) and Prem Chand (PW-2) regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused is not satisfactory and does not inspire confidence.The F.I.R. Ex. P/1 shows that it is a mixture of hearsay and direct evidence with regard to the alleged confession.It appears to have been made under fear on account of the threat given by the village patel to lodge the F.I.R. against accused Narain.It was procured after two hours of interrogation by a person in authority.In Kartar Singh v. Stale of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 the Supreme Court sounded a caveat that the fascicule of sections 24 to 30 Evidence Act aim to zealously protect the accused against becoming the victim of his own delusion or the mechanisation of others to self-incriminate in crime.The confession, therefore, is not received with an assurance if its source be not omni suspicious mojes, above and free from remotest taint of suspicion.The mind of the accused before he makes a confession must be in the state of perfect equanimity and must not have been operated upon by fear or hope or inducement.Hence threat or promise or inducement held out to an accused makes the confession irrelevant and excludes it from consideration.Recovery of dead body:S. R. Diwan (PW-12), Sub-Inspector of Police, has deposed that on 12-4-1986 after recording the F.I.R. he went to village Kospatar and inspected the 'spot' of the incident.He interrogated the accused at the house of Prem Chand (PW-2) and he disclosed to him that he has buried the dead body of Palu inside the water of the Nala.Prem Chand (PW-2) deposes that this statement was recorded near the Nala and it was signed by him there.Goverdhan Singh (PW-9) says that this statement was made at 12 noon at the house of Premchand.It was not made at 3 p.m. It appears that the memorandum Ex. P/2 was prepared after the recovery of the dead body.The dead body of Gopal was no doubt recovered from Nala but it is doubtful that it was done at the instance of the accused.In case the accused had made the confessional statement in the previous night before Premchand (PW-2) and Puran Singh (PW-1), the immediate reaction would have been to ask the accused where is the dead body of Gopal.On that point they are silent.He has stated that accused Narain brought Gopal near his house at 11 a.m. and handed him over to another man to take him to Nala for the purpose of bathing.In cross-examination he has stated that accused Narain did not proceed towards the Nala in his presence.He did not know the man who took Gopal on his cycle.It was natural for this witness to inform others if he suspected something but he did not do so.If accused Narain did not go with Gopal, as the witness says, it cannot be said that he was last seen with the accused.On the other hand he was last seen with accused Santan who has been acquitted.In the absence of any direct evidence and clinching circumstantial evidence the accused cannot be convicted of the serious offence of murder.Suspicion and conjecture cannot take the place of legal proof.In the result this appeal is allowed. | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,262,144 | The applicant herein is in judicial custody since 20.6.2019 where inter-alia an offence under section 376 IPC has been alleged against the applicant.The charge against him is of having taken away the prosecutrix and committed rape with her along with co-accused persons.Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before this court an order passed by it on 24.4.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.13671/2018 by which the co-accused person was granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.The said bail was granted on the grounds that the 164 statement of the prosecutrix, which was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, in which the prosecutrix has stated that nobody has committed rape with her and that she had voluntarily gone to stay at the house of her relatives.Certified copy as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge ps PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA 2019.07.18 11:04:56 +05'30' | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
92,622,069 | Brief facts of the present case are that a Regular Case bearing No.5(S)/2000/SCB-1/DLI was registered by the petitioner on 27.12.2000 against the respondent, upon a complaint dated 12.12.2000 referred by the Ministry of External Affairs relating to CRL.M. C. 4417/2017 Page 1 of 7 several forged complaints/letters addressed to the Ministry, various political personalities etc. regarding alleged irregularities in the functioning of B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Services, Dharan, Nepal (BPKIHS Project).The respondent who was the Private Secretary to the Chief Engineer (Project), was appointed on deputation in the BPKIHS Project by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) amongst other officials.By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 31.07.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) (East), Karkadooma Courts, New Delhi, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for recalling of PW-17/Sh.R.K. Sharma for further examination was dismissed.During investigation it was revealed that out of the 16 instances of forged complaints, three were engineered at the instance of the respondent.Search under Section 93 Cr.P.C. was conducted at the respondent's premises and voluminous incriminating documents were seized therefrom.Chargesheet was filed against the petitioner on 06.05.2002 under Sections 465/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').M. C. 4417/2017 Page 1 of 7The prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses.In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW17/Sh.R. K. Sharma for re-examination as he failed to prove his signatures on certain important documents.Hence the present petition.Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of the CRL.M. C. 4417/2017 Page 2 of 7 Trial Court dismissing the application for recall filed by the petitioner is erroneous and bad in law; that PW-17 was a witness to the search conducted at the residential premises of the respondent on 04.04.2001; that PW-17 had missed to prove his signatures on certain seized documents which were also a part of the search memo dated 04.04.2001/Ex.PW 16/4 as the said documents were kept separately in another file of the Court Record and inadvertently could not be placed before the witness during examination; that the opinion tendered by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) on the seized documents confirmed the culpability of the respondent in the commission of the alleged offence; that for the just decision of the prosecution case it is essential that permission be granted to re-call and re-examine the said witness so that the above mentioned remaining documents could also be examined and exhibited.M. C. 4417/2017 Page 2 of 7Per Contra, Mr. N.B. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present petition and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to CRL.M. C. 4417/2017 Page 3 of 7 warrant any interference by this Court; that it is the fourth application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner after two months of conclusion of final arguments in the matter which has been reserved for judgement and is therefore merely an abuse of the process of law; that the present petition has been filed by the prosecution to fill the lacunae in its case after 586 days of examination and discharge of PW17 and after 62 days of completion of final arguments without assigning any proper reason for non-filing at an earlier stage; that re- examination of PW17 is not likely to advance the case of the prosecution in any manner and the same is only going to delay the trial which has been going on for the last 15 years; that the present petition is nothing but a dilatory tactic adopted by the petitioner to prejudice the respondent; that hence in the above mentioned circumstances the present petition be dismissed.M. C. 4417/2017 Page 3 of 7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.In the meanwhile the petitioner moved a revision petition before the Court of District and Sessions Judge against the order of ACMM dated 07.04.2016 dismissing the third application CRL.M. C. 4417/2017 Page 4 of 7 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the same was subsequently allowed vide order dated 30.11.2016 only in respect of one witness.M. C. 4417/2017 Page 4 of 7Thereafter the prosecution evidence was concluded on 27.04.2017 and defence evidence was closed on 02.05.2017 after recording the supplementary statement.The entire timeline of the present case reflects that the prosecution was given sufficient time and ample opportunities to lead evidence during trial and also to re-examine a material witness despite conclusion of final arguments.Again on 18.12.2015 when PW-17 appeared for his cross- examination, he was not examined by the learned PP for CBI.Even thereafter when the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.11.2016 in respect of one witness, the petitioner could have prayed for the re-examination of PW-17 alongwith other witnesses.However it is only now after the matter has been fixed for the pronouncement of final judgement that the petitioner has filed the present application for re-examination of CRL.M. C. 4417/2017 Page 5 of 7 PW-17 that too merely on the ground that inadvertently PW17 had missed out to prove certain important documents as they were placed separately in another file of the Court Record. | ['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
92,622,876 | 1.State Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort.,George, Chennai2.The Director General of Police, Directorate, Beach Road, Chennai.3.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.4.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.5.The Inspector of Police, Pavoor Chathiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.6.Aadivel, Then The Sub Inspector of Police, Pavoor Chathiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District..The petitioner has come up with this Writ petition seeking direction tothe first respondent to pay the compensation and further direction to therespondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent.One Ponnupandi had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from his father-in-law in the year 1999,but he did not repay the money.Hence, the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2009 on thefile of the Sub Court, Thenkasi was filed by his father-in-law for recoveryof money.The petitioner would further state that the borrower, Ponnupandi,lodged a false complaint to the fifth respondent police against his father-in-law.Thereafter, the sixth respondent pressurized the petitioner's father-in-law to make compromise in the civil case.Hence, the petitioner's father-in-law sent a telegram to the higher officials against the illegal act of thesixth respondent.3.The petitioner would further state that one Annadurai, who is havingland adjacent to the petitioner's land, dumped the waste materials in thepetitioner's land.So, he approached the fifth respondent on 23.12.2010 tolodge a complaint against the said Annadurai.The sixth respondent havingvengeance against the petitioner with regard to the earlier telegram sent byhis father-in-law, detained the petitioner in a illegal custody till eveningand also assaulted him.On 23.12.2010, the petitioner was remanded to thejudicial custody.Since no favourable orders were passed, hence the present writ petition.4.The fourth respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner,who was already married, had an affair with one unmarried woman, namely,Muppidathi.She belongs to another community.Hence, on 18.08.2012, he was attacked with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries resulting in hisphysical disability.In this connection, a case in Crime No.276 of 2002,under Sections 120(B) and 307 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner.5.It is further stated that the police have not interfered in the civildispute of the petitioner's father-in-law.On 23.12.2010, one Annadurai, sonof Muthiah Thevar has preferred a complaint against the petitioner and onthe basis of complaint, a case in Crime No.446 of 2016, under Sections294(b), 506(ii) I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner.In the courseof the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the petitioner at14.00 hours and produced him before the Judicial Magistrate, Thenkasi forremand.It is further stated that since the petitioner complained injury onhis body, the Judicial Magistrate referred the petitioner to the GovernmentHead Quarters Hospital, Thenkasi for a medical check up.However, MedicalOfficer found that no injury on the petitioner's body and thereafter he wasremanded to the Judicial custody.6.The fourth respondent further stated in his Counter affidavit thatthe petitioner is a habitual law breaker and facing the following criminalcases:ii) Crime No.80/2015 U/s.279, 338 I.P.C (Pending trial)iii)Crime No.254/2011 U/s.294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 4 ofthe Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant interest ordiance 2003(Pending trial)iv)Crime No.91/2013 U/s.294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C (Pending trial)7.The specific case of the petitioner is that when he went to thepolice station on 23.12.2010 to lodge a complaint against Annadurai, who haddumped the waste materials in the petitioner's land, the petitioner wasassaulted by the sixth respondent with lathy and caused injury, due to thecomplaint given by his father-in-law against the sixth respondent to thehigher officials.On the other hand, the fourth respondent in his counterhas specifically stated that the petitioner was produced before the JudicialMagistrate on 23.12.2010 at 7.00 p.m and as per direction of the JudicialMagistrate, the petitioner was taken to the Government Head QuartersHospital, Thenkasi for medical check up.The accused was carefully examinedby the doctors, but they could not find any injury on his body.G.Muthukannan, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 would submit that on the basis of the representation ofthe petitioner, dated 05.07.2011, the fourth respondent conducted an enquiryand found that the allegations are all false.10.Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that thepetitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ petition.This Writ petition fails, and the same is dismissed.No costs. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
926,235 | This is a petition by one Dulal Chandra Mandal for revision of certain orders passed against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barasat.It appears that on receipt of a police report the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate drew up proceedings against the present petitioner under Section 110, Criminal P.C., on 26-6-1952, asking him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 500/- with two local sureties for good behaviour for a period of three years.The petitioner was present in Court and on the same day the proceedings drawn up against him under Section 112, Criminal P.C., were explained to him under Section 113, Criminal P.C. On the very same day, the learned Magistrate passed against the petitioner an order under Section 117 (3), Criminal P.C. directing that he be detained in custody until the conclusion of the enquiry or until a bond of Rs. 500/- with two local sureties was executed, as in the opinion of the learned Magistrate immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of breach of the peace and commission of offences and for public safety.This order under Section 117 (3), Cr.P.C., was it appears, passed on the basis of a police report submitted against the petitioner requesting that he might be dealt with under that section. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
926,246 | ORDER S.S. Subramani, J.This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by third party against the order passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet in LA.Material facts which compelled petitioner to come to this Court could be summarised thus: O.S. 51 of 1984, which is subsequently renumbered as O.S. 77 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Court was a representative suit.Sixth respondent in the suit was one Ponnuswamy Mudaliar.Suit filed by plaintiffs was for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their men and relatives from interfering with plaintiffs' right to administer the Vadapura Sangunathar Samudhayam and manage the properties of the Vadapuram Sengunathar Samudhayam described in the schedule of properties.Written statement was filed by 1st defendant and finally on 27-11-1992, suit was decreed.Along with the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A. 234 of 1984 for grant of interim injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the rights of plaintiffs to administer the said Samudhayam and manage its properties till the disposal of suit.An order was passed by learned Subordinate Judge on 10-5-1984 granting temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the right of plaintiffs to administer and manage Samudhayam and its properties on condition that they should deposit the amounts got in the auctions held customarily in Samudhayam into Court and if amounts are required for meeting expenses of Samudhayam, they can approach Court for getting suitable orders.Pursuant to this direction an amount of Rs. 1,31,725/- was deposited in the Court on various dates.After the suit was decreed, request was made for release of those amounts as LA.Court ordered notice to respondents.With regard to notice to 6th respondent, i.e. Ponnusamy Mudaliar, the same was being returned from time to time and Court was also ordering fresh notices.In the suit, 6th defendant was set ex parte.When attempt was made by Process Server to effect service on 6th defendant, petitioner herein, who is the President of local Panchayat seems to have made endorsement thus.(Vernacular matter omitted) On the basis of endorsement.Process Server returned the process as unserved on the ground that 6th defendant has gone out for two years.Children of 6th defendant wanted to get themselves impleaded and one of the sons K. P. Kandasamy filed affidavit in LA.According to him, his father died two years back after prolonged illness and petitioner also attended the death ceremonies in his house.It is further averred that petitioner herein had made such endorsement solely with a view to receive the money lying in the Court deposit and the endorsement amount to fabricating false evidence and she is liable to be proceeded with under Sections 193 and 197 of Indian Penal Code.In that application, petitioner filed a detailed Counter.Lower Court passed the following order:File if otherwise in order.It is this order that is challenged under Article 227 of Constitution of India.8A. When the matter came up for admission, complaint had already entered caveat and after hearing both sides, operation of impugned order was stayed for a period.The same was challenged before Honourable Supreme Court.When summons were issued they approached Honourable High Court of Allahabad. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 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.