id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
95,203,648 | h In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs.Shri B.S.Gaur, learned counsel, for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.sh This petition has been filed, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., e seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No. 121/17 at Police ad Station Pathariya district Vidisha for the offences punishable under Pr sections 294, 323, 506, 436 and 34 of the IPC, on the basis of compromise.a During pendency of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., hy the petitioners and the complainant/respondent No.2 have jointly filed ad application under section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. which was registered as I.A.No.821/18 stating that the dispute between the parties has been M resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more.This of Court, vide order dated 19/3/18, had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording their rt statements and for verification of factum of compromise.The Principal ou Registrar has submitted his report on 26/03/18 itself and verified the C compromise.No order as to cost.Pr The petition, accordingly, stands allowed. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
95,208,287 | And In the matter of:- Jinna Sk. @ Tusar Sk.363/376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for seven years and imprisonment for life and one year respectively with fine and default clause has preferred this appeal and after the appeal being admitted by a co- ordinate bench of this court, he has now approached this court for suspension of sentence and his release on bail.The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the victim was a consenting party and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure, she substantiated such fact.On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this application for suspension of sentence.He then submitted having regard to the facts that victim was a minor on the date of the alleged occurrence, her consent is no consent in the eye of law.He further submitted that the question of manipulating her age does not arise, inasmuch as, the birth certificate was issued on the basis of the record 3 maintained at the office of the concerned municipality during the course of its official business and not after the occurrence but soon after her birth.Considered their respective submissions.We have also gone through the impugned judgement as well as the depositions of the witnesses.Going through the same we find there is prima facie sufficient force in the statement of the learned counsel for the State.Having regard to that we reject this application for suspension of sentence.As the lower court records have already been received, office is directed to prepare the requisite number of paper books within six months from this date and as soon as the preparation of paper books is complete and the appeal is made ready for hearing, the same shall be placed before the appropriate bench for hearing.Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the learned counsel for the parties on their usual undertakings.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 4 (Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.) | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
95,213,155 | SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JIf the inquiry has extended for reasons other than the circumstances created by the accused, the board may consider terminating the inquiry.Preliminary assessment was concluded on 18.02.2015 and petitioner was declared a juvenile. | ['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
95,213,952 | IPC by PW13 but subsequently section 304 IPC was added due to death of the victim.PW11 investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet being no. 138/02 dated October 28, 2002 under Section 341/326/304/34 IPC against the appellants.Charge was framed on August 4, 2003 under Section 302/34 IPC against the appellants and after they denied their involvement in the commission of the offence, trial commenced.Prosecution examined thirteen (13) witnesses and also produced and proved certain documents and articles and thereafter on completion of trial and after examination of the appellants U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. learned court below passed the impugned judgement.Mr. P.S. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Senaul Sk.(appellant in CRA 660 of 2007) and as Amicus Curie for the appellants Sariful Sheikh (appellant in CRA 11 of 2008) and Jaynul Seikh @ Jainul Sk (appellant in CRA 63 of 2008) submitted that the impugned judgement, order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in law for the following reasons:-i) There were material discrepancies and variance in the evidence of eye witnesses with regard to the number of miscreants involved which gave rise to serious doubt regarding the veracity of prosecution story.ii) The inquest was held in presence of two eye witnesses but in the inquest report name of only Jaynul Sk. appeared while name of other appellants did not figure there which also casts a reasonable doubt about the prosecution case.iii) The weapon of offence in question or the blood stained earth were not seized nor the seized wearing apparel was sent to FSL for forensic examination which makes the prosecution case doubtful.iv) There was error in framing the charge as charge sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offence under Section 341/326/304/34 IPC but the charge was framed against the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and no reason was assigned for the same in the order sheet.According to Mr. Bhattachrya charge under Section 302/34 IPC was not proved as the appellants had no intention to cause death of the victim and the same can at best be under Section 304 IPC.According to him learned court below did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter for passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.It is submitted by Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate representing the state that the instant case was based on the evidence of eye witnesses and the case against the appellants had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.According to him PW1, PW4, PW5 and PW7 were the eye witnesses of the crime and they have vividly narrated the presence of all the appellants and the role played by each of them for the commission of the offence in causing the death of the victim and only PW2 and PW3 have named only one appellant and they might have overlooked the presence of other two appellants.According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, presence of Senaul Sk.and Sariful Sheikh at the spot and assisting Jaynul Sk.to stab the victim itself shows that they had also the common intention to commit murder of the victim.According to him case against the appellants had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and as such ld. court below was justified to pass the impugned order of conviction and sentence.We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other materials-on-record for examining the propriety of the impugned judgement, order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below.A close and piercing look at the evidence of the P.Ws.on record together with the evidence of the doctor, P.W.12 and the P.M. report, Ext.6 it was crystal clear that the victim Rabbul Khan sustained one incised wound about 4'' in length over right side of anterior abdominal wall, about 6'' above right inguinal ligament and a part of colon protruded through the abdominal wound and the death of the victim was due to the hemorrhagic shock which was ante-mortem in nature.According to the doctor the above type of injuries found on the person of the victim could be caused by any sharp cutting weapons like dagger, sword etc. Interestingly he was not challenged by the defence on this score.Defence had also not disputed or denied the injuries found on the person of the victim by the doctor, P.W.12, on May 27, 2002 at the time of conducting post-mortem examination and/or the cause of his death.So the question arises how the victim sustained those injuries on his person and/or who caused those injuries? In this regard it was the specific allegations of the prosecution that appellants Senaul Sk.and Sariful Sheikh caught hold the victim and Jaynul Seikh @ Jainul Sk. struck the victim on his belly with a knife causing severe bleeding injuries therefrom resulting in his death.Defence had denied the above allegations of the prosecution and had taken the plea of innocence and false implication.Now let us see how far the prosecution had been successful to bring home the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt before the learned court below.Learned court below took into consideration the evidences of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW7, the eye witnesses, as also the evidence of the doctor, PW12, to arrive at the conclusion that all the appellants shared the selfsame common intention to assault and kill the victim and in furtherance of their common intention they had killed the victim and thereafter came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 302/34 of IPC against all the appellants beyond all shadow of doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them.With regard to the discrepancies, as pointed by the learned advocate for the appellants, it is the settled proposition that the discrepancies found in the evidences of eyewitnesses cannot affect their credibility unless such discrepancies are so vital.It is also well settled that there bound to be some discrepancies between the depositions of different witnesses when they speak in details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.The above principles of law has also been discussed by us in the Judgement delivered on January 19, 2016 in the matter of Nashim Ali Gazi vs. State of West Bengal (In re: CRA 278 OF 2005) with Murtaza Gazi vs. State of West Bengal (In re: CRA 389 OF 2009).In the case in hand, the discrepancies as to the number of the miscreants disclosed in the inquest report and stated by P.W.2 and P.W.3 with the numbers disclosed by other eye witnesses, PW1, PW4, PW5 and PW7 was not of material dimension going into the root of the case making the prosecution case doubtful.Though P.W.2, P.W.3 as also the inquest report have disclosed only the name of principal miscreant Jaynul Seikh @ Jainul Sk. who actually stabbed the victim with knife but PW1, PW4, PW5 and PW7, the other eye witnesses, have categorically stated that Senaul Sk.and Sariful Sheikh caught hold the victim while Jaynul Seikh @ Jainul Sk. struck the victim on his belly with a knife causing severe bleeding injuries therefrom and also identified all the appellants in course of their deposition before court. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
95,222,926 | 2 Facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused are thus :(a) The prosecutrix/PW1, at the relevant time, was a minor female of about 14 years of age.She was residing with her aunt namely Kalavati Kale.The appellant/accused is neighbour of her parents, who used to reside at Gaikwad avk 2/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:25 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc Chawl, Jai Bhim Nagar, Ductline Road, Bhandup.The prosecutrix/PW1 became acquainted with the appellant/accused Rafiq Shaikh as he used to visit her parental house.Her friend Rani had given cell phone number of the prosecutrix/PW1 to the appellant/accused.Long acquaintance of the prosecutrix/PW1 with the appellant/accused Rafiq Shaikh ultimately culminated into love affair between them.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:25 :::(b) According to the prosecution case, on 18th September 2012, the appellant/accused called the prosecutrix/PW1 near Sai Baba Temple, Bhandup.He made her to sit in the tempo parked near the temple.After some intimate talks with her, according to the prosecutrix/PW1, the appellant/accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her by telling her that he will marry her.She was threatened that if she failed to come, she would be killed.Then, the appellant/accused took the prosecutrix/PW1 to Gaikwad Chawl at about 11.30 p.m. She was made to sit in the rickshaw of Baban parked at Ductline Road.(d) According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix/PW1 was again raped by the appellant/accused on 27 th September 2012 by calling her in the night hours in the rickshaw of Baban, parked at Gaikwad chawl of Bhandup.It is averred that when they both were alighting from that rickshaw, at about 11.00 p.m. of 27th September 2012, PW3 Baban avk 4/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:25 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc Sonawane had seen them.Then, mother of the prosecutrix/PW1 also came on the spot.The appellant/accused ran away.(f) The prosecutrix/PW1 was then sent for medical examination.She came to be examined by PW6 Dr.Baban Shinde at Nagpada Hospital.the judgment and order dated 8th July 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.189 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant/accused of offences punishable under Sections 376, 506-II and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.For the offence punishable under Section 376 avk 1/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:25 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.For the offence punishable under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months apart from payment of fine of Rs.200/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.For the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:25 :::Again by alluring her with a promise to marry, the appellant/accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.It is, further averred that, on 21 st September 2012, the appellant/accused again called the prosecutrix/PW1 to meet him at 10.30 p.m. near Sai Baba temple of Bhandup.She was then made to sit in the parked tempo belonging to a person named Bhau, where the appellant/accused committed rape on her.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:25 :::Mother of the prosecutrix/PW1 namely PW2 Indu questioned the prosecutrix/PW1, where upon the prosecutrix/PW1 disclosed to her that she has love relation with the appellant/accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:25 :::Then the report (Exhibit 15) against the appellant/accused came to be lodged at Mulund Police Station by the prosecutrix and it came to be recorded by PW7 Anil Jaikar, Police Sub-Inspector.It was then sent to Bhandup Police Station where PW8 Manohar Vichare, Police Inspector, registered Crime No.459 of 2012 avk 5/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::She was also subjected to Ossification test.The appellant/accused came to be arrested.Statement of witnesses came to be recorded.Certificate of date of birth of the prosecutrix/PW1 was collected.Clothes of the prosecutrix/PW1 were also seized.Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis and on completion of investigation, the appellant/accused came to be charge-sheeted.(g) The learned trial court framed Charge for offences punishable under Sections 376, 506(II) as well as under Section 417 read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused.He abjured guilt and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant/accused, the avk 6/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses.The Sub-Registrar under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, namely Dr.Exhibit 26 is the Certificate of Birth of the prosecutrix/PW1 whereas Exhibit 27 is the extract of Birth Register.Exhibit 29 is the report of medical examination of the prosecutrix/PW1 as well as that of her ossification test.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::(h) Defence of the appellant/accused was that of total denial.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant/accused and sentenced him as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.3 I have heard the learned advocate for the appellant/ accused at sufficient length of time.The prosecutrix/PW1 has not raised any hue and cry.Jayesh Katira and alleged that the said doctor had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on 5th September 2014 in the car by threatening her that he would upload her nude photographs on social networking sites.The learned advocate for the appellant/accused drew my attention to the order dated 10 th December 2014 passed by the Designated court under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Sessions Case No.481 of 2014 to buttress this contention and submitted that vide this order, said Dr.Jayesh Katira came to be released on bail and that the said order contained reference to the case against the present appellant/accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::4 The learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as well as resultant sentence, by contending that evidence of the prosecutrix/PW1, who at the relevant time was proved to be below 16 years of age, is believable and it demonstrates commission of rape by the appellant/accused on her.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::It only puts the Court on guard to search for and consider if any 1 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3145 (S.C.) avk 10/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc explanation has been offered for the delay.These aspects were highlighted in Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa [2003 (8) SCC 590]."::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::Only very rarely can one 3 AIR 1983 SUPREME COURT 753(1) avk 13/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites.Because :-::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::(8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo.(9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought in to controversy.(10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour.(11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocent.The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence.The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and 4 2007 CRI.L.J. 4704 avk 16/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc contradictions.If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary.There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::Whether there was rape or not would depend avk 17/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case."::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::10 Keeping in mind this law regarding appreciation of evidence of the prosecution in cases of sexual offences, let us examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to ascertain whether she is a witness of truth.While appreciating her version, one will have to keep in mind the fact that in such cases, the witness may go on adding embellishments to her version, perhaps with the fear that her testimony may be rejected by the court.The court, however, is not expected to disbelieve evidence of such witness altogether, if such witness is otherwise found to be trustworthy.11 It is in evidence of the prosecutrix/PW1 that on 12 th September 2012, she met the appellant/accused for the first time and then her friend Rani gave her cell phone number to the appellant/accused.The prosecutrix/PW1 deposed that thereafter, on 18th September 2012, at about 8.30 p.m., she met the appellant/accused at Ductline Road and they both sat in a tempo avk 18/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc parked near the temple.Thereafter, the appellant/accused, as per version of the prosecutrix/PW1, stated that he would marry her and committed sexual intercourse with her.She was with the appellant/accused till 5.00 a.m. The next incident of sexual intercourse by the appellant/accused with her is deposed by the prosecutrix/PW1 by stating that on 19 th September 2012, she was taken to Gaikwad chawl area by the appellant/accused and then he committed sexual intercourse with her in the rickshaw of Baban.As per her version, on 21st September 2012, the appellant/accused committed sexual intercourse with her in the parked tempo and thereafter, on 27 th September 2012, similar such incident took place in the rickshaw of Baban.The prosecutrix/PW1 further deposed that thereafter, Baban saw both of them and her mother also came on the spot and questioned her.The prosecutrix/PW1 then stated that she disclosed about her sexual relations with the appellant/accused to her mother.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::12 The tone and tenor of evidence of the prosecutrix/ PW1 regarding the incidents of sexual intercourse with the appellant/accused demonstrates consensual sex by her with the appellant/accused.She stated that she had submitted herself to the appellant/accused as he assured to marry her.In entire cross- examination of the prosecutrix/PW1, this evidence of the prosecutrix/PW1 in respect of sexual intercourse between the couple is not shattered at all.It is attempted to demonstrate from the cross-examination that many people and vehicles move around in the area where such incidents took place.However, it is seen that, such incidents which the prosecutrix/PW1 had described, took place inside the parked vehicle and that too, at night hours, and merely because there was movement of people and vehicles in that area, one cannot disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix/PW1 regarding sexual intercourse with her by the appellant/accused.The prosecutrix/PW1 has not claimed that avk 20/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc what was going on with her was against her wish and that she was protesting such incident by making hue and cry and by seeking help of the passersby.On the contrary, her evidence shows that she was accepting what was coming in her way, and therefore, there was no likelihood that such an encounter invited attention of the residents of the locality.Hence, I see no merit in contention of the learned advocate for the appellant/accused that evidence of the prosecutrix/PW1 is inherently improbable.The cross-examination of the prosecutrix/PW1 is not indicating any reason for the prosecutrix/PW1 to implicate the appellant/accused falsely in the crime in question and she had no axe to grind against the appellant/accused by his false implication in the crime in question.On the contrary, it is seen from evidence of the prosecution that she was having love affair with the appellant/accused, which had ultimately resulted in sexual relationship between both of them.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::13 Evidence of PW2 Indu, who is mother of the prosecutrix/PW1 makes it clear that the prosecutrix/PW1 was avk 21/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc residing with her sister at Mulund, whereas, she herself was residing in Jai Bhim Nagar, Ductline Road, Bhandup, Mumbai.PW2 Indu has stated that on 27th September 2012, she had seen the prosecutrix/PW1 in the rickshaw of Baban and she telephonically contacted the appellant/accused.Her version reveals that her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix/PW1 has disclosed that on the pretext of marrying her, the appellant/accused had committed sexual intercourse with her.The reason for delay is genuine in Indian setting and therefore, the delay of about 16 days is not fatal to the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::claimed to have seen the prosecutrix/PW1 in company of the appellant/accused in the vehicle in night hours but they have failed to support the case of the prosecution.15 The prosecutrix/PW1 came to be medically examined on 15th October 2012 by PW6 Dr.Baban Shinde and evidence of this witness, which is supported by contemporaneous medical report Exhibit 29 shows that during the course of medical examination of the prosecutrix/PW1, it was found that her hymen was having tears at 3, 6 and 9 O'Clock positions.Evidence of PW6 Dr.Baban Shinde, so also Medical Report at Exhibit 29 prepared by him at the time of examination of the prosecutrix/PW1, proves former statement of the prosecutrix/PW1 that the appellant/accused had indulged in avk 23/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc sexual intercourse with her on promise to marry her.Similarly, even PW2 Indu has deposed about former statement of the prosecutrix/PW1 regarding sexual intercourse by the appellant/accused with her and same is also reliable.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::17 The question which falls for consideration is whether the sexual intercourse between the appellant/accused and the prosecutrix/PW1 amounts to rape, so also whether such sexual intercourse amounts to cheating the prosecutrix/PW1 on false promise to marry her.If both parties agree to a particular course of action and one of them thereafter changes the course, it does not amount to cheating.In the case in hand, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the representation made by the appellant/accused was false to his knowledge when it was made avk 25/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc by him.Therefore, the Charge under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code must fail.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::PW5 Dr.It is duty of the Registrar to register every birth and every death which takes place in its jurisdiction.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::Evidence on record does not indicate that by threatening to the prosecutrix/PW1, she was made to submit her chastity to the appellant/accused.On the contrary, even according to the prosecution case projected from the FIR, the sexual intercourse was consensual in nature falling out of love relations between the parties.Hence, the prosecution has failed to make out the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.21 For the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which is held to be proved against the avk 29/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc appellant/accused, the learned trial court has imposed punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::The sentencing court are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.The sentence is required to be adequate, just and proportionate with the gravity and nature of the crime.At the same time, circumstances of the accused are also required to be kept in mind while imposing the sentence, as one of the objects of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate the transgressors and the criminals.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::(Amendment) Act, 2013, the offence of rape was punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may be for life or a term which may extend to 10 years apart from fine.Sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, however, was prescribing the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may be for life, apart from imposition of fine.24 Case of the prosecutrix/PW1 projected from the FIR shows that the prosecutrix/PW1 was in love with the appellant/accused.Such relations were undoubtedly consensual in nature but avk 31/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc punishable because the prosecutrix/PW1 at the relevant time was more than 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age.25 In the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Mange Ram5 the evidence on record was showing that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age.It is held thus in paragraph 16 by the Honourable Apex Court while sentencing the accused in that case :::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::"16 In view of the foregoing conclusions, we reverse the findings of the learned Sessions Judge which was confirmed by learned Single Judge and find that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. As regards the sentence, we take a lenient view for the reason that the prosecutrix and accused are related.They were both teenagers with an age difference of about 2-3 years.Both were immature and young.After the acquittal by passage of time, the members of the two families must have buried their hatchet if any arisen on account of this incident.The 5 2000 CRI.L.J. 4027 avk 32/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc learned Counsel for the respondent argued that a further order for custodial sentence at this distance of time may cause rapture to social harmony in the village life and may only help to rekindle the flames of anger which have been smouldering for so long between near relatives.Having regard to all these matters, we hold that sentence already undergone by the accused would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, and we do accordingly."::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::26 In the matter of Zindar Ali SK vs. State of West Bengal and Another6 there was no love affair between the prosecutrix and the accused but the accused was after the prosecutrix requesting her to marry him and ultimately committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.While dealing with quantum of sentence, following are the observations of the Honourable Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment :"15 This takes us to the last argument about the quantum of sentence.In our opinion, considering the fact that the incident took place about 6 years back and the 6 2009 CRI.L.J. 1324 avk 33/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc fact that the accused is behind the bars for last about 5 years, as also poverty on the part of the accused, we feel that the sentence already suffered would be sufficient.The sentence of fine is however, confirmed.Fine, if recovered shall be paid to the Prosecutrix.She shall be intimated by sending notice to her.We, accordingly, modify the sentence.The appeal is disposed of with this modification."::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::27 In the matter of Phul Singh vs. State of Haryana7, the accused was aged about 22 years and was not a habitual offender."7 He is a youth barely 22 with no criminal antecedents save this offence.He has a young wife and a farm to look after.Given correctional courses through meditational therapy and other measures, his erotic aberration may wither away.A man like the appellant has a reasonable prospect of shaping into a balanced person, given propitious social environs, curative and congenial work and 7 1980 CRI.L.J. 8 avk 34/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc techniques of internal stress release or of reformatory self expression."::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::"8 In this background, we regard a four year term of rigorous imprisonment more hardening than habilitative, even though we deplore the sex violence the young appellant has inflicted on his cousin's wife snatching a tricky opportunity.Even so, the incriminating company of lifers and others for long may be counter-productive, and in this perspective, we blend deterrence with correction and reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years.We wish to emphasise that the special circumstances of this case constrain us to relent a little on principle because the restorative approach to sentencing has been jettisoned by the courts below."28 Lastly, in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. (Accused)8 the Honourable Apex Court has observed thus while deciding the quantum of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code."19 Now remains the question of sentence.He was not allowed bail.During the trial as also during the hearing of the appeal by the High Court he remained in jail.It is only on 11.10.1995 when the High Court acquitted him of the charge that he was released from jail.Thus he had remained in jail for a little less than two years.Taking into consideration the period of remission for which he would have been entitled and the time which has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence, we are of the opinion that the accused-respondent need not now be sent to jail.It would meet the end of justice if he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and to a fine of Rs.2000/- with further simple imprisonment of one year and nine months in default of payment of fine as passed by the Triial Court.The appellant is allowed time till 1st May, 2000 for payment of fine.The accused- respondent is on bail.The bail bonds shall stand discharged on payment of fine as directed.Ordered accordingly."::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::29 In the case in hand also the appellant/accused was 22 years of age when the incidents took place and there is nothing on avk 36/38::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: 209-APPEAL-134-2015.doc record to show that he is a habitual offender or criminal.The incidents of sexual intercourse between the prosecutrix/PW1 and the appellant/accused are held to be consensual in nature.The appellant/accused was arrested on 7 th November 2012 and since then he is undergoing the jail sentence imposed on him after convicting him.Therefore, in the light of the observations in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that imposition of sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment with some fine will meet the interest of justice.Hence, the following order :::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::i) The appeal is partly allowed.ii) Conviction as well as resultant sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.The appellant/accused is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 506(II) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 :::punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.However, sentence imposed on this count is altered to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 2 months in absence of payment of fine.iv) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2018 01:44:26 ::: | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
9,522,321 | In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.199/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 372, 373, 506, 34 of IPC & u/S 3,5,7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act further added Section 370-3, 323 of IPC.It is submitted that the earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn on merits with liberty to repeat after recording of statement of witnesses before the trial Court vide order dated 14.05.2020 passed in M.Cr.There is no criminal history against the present applicant.She is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and shown her willingness 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.40507/2020 (Rani Shah vs. State of M.P.) to contribute an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the High Court Bar Association Fund Gwalior for the benefit of lawyers.It is further submitted that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench vide orders dated 7.9.2020 and 29.09.2020 passed in M.Cr.Hence, on the ground of parity prays for grant of bail.Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.However, she fairly submits that there is no criminal history against the present applicant.The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.The Supreme Court has observed as under :We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as,(ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.40507/2020 (Rani Shah vs. State of M.P.) years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."Accordingly, the application is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about her residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Panel Lawyer to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.E- copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2020.11.09 15:41:30 -08'00' | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
95,226,251 | The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:The defacto complainant, Ganesan, is the husband of the deceased, namely, Subbulakshmi and they are residents of Aladipatty village.They belong to Hindu Arunthathiyar (Scheduled caste) Community.The appellant / 2/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 accused, Muthulakshmi is also a resident of Aladipatty village and she belongs to Hindu Maravar Community.The deceased moved closely with the husband of the accused, one Thandavam, despite the warning of the accused.While so, on 16.06.2007 at about 08.00 am, when the deceased was sitting in front of her house, the accused came with an Aruval, picked up a quarrel in respect of the deceased's attitude towards her husband, assaulted the deceased indiscriminately with the Aruval and caused injuries on the deceased.When, Gansean [PW1] and Arunprasath [PW2], the husband and son of the deceased, respectively, tried to rescue her, the accused threatened them with dire consequences.She also threatened one Bakkiyam [PW4], the sister of the deceased, who was inside the house.When the complainant and others raised noise, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.Then they rushed to rescue the victim, but, they found her dead.Immediately, Ganesan [PW1], informed his relatives and proceeded to the Police Station and lodged a complaint [ExP1].3/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.On receipt of the complaint, Thiru Sargunam [PW15], Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.189 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against this appellant on 16.06.2007 at 10.30 am.The printed FIR is marked as Ex.The investigation in this case was carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli [PW17] as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police.On 16.06.2007, around 10.30 am, PW17 visited the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P4] and a rough sketch [Ex.P17] in the presence of Thiru Ramasamy, Village Administrative Officer [PW10] and the Village Assistant.He also recovered the soil with and without blood stains [Mos.2 & 3, respectively] and a portion of plugged hair [Ex.P4] from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses under a cover of mahazar [Ex.P5].He recorded the statements of witnesses Azhagammal, Ramaraj, 4/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 Ramasamy and Natarajan.He also conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatars and the inquest report is marked as Ex.He, then, sent the body for postmortem through Head Constable Senthil Kumar [PW16].Selva Isakki [PW9], received the requisition for conducting postmortem from the investigating officer on 16.06.2007 at about 11.00 am.She commenced the postmortem around 04.00 pm and noted down the following injuries on the deceased:A cut injury below right nose in supra labial region 4 x 6 X 1 cm.A cut injury in right shoulder 6 X 6 X 1 cm.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 PW9 gave her final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries.On 16.06.2007, around 06.30 pm, the investigating officer [PW17] arrested the accused Muthulakshmi on the Thiruchuli Road and based on the confession statement, he recovered an Aruval [MO1], bag [MO7] and blood stained cloth [MO6] under seizure mahazar [Ex.P7].Then he collected the community certificate of the deceased and accused, which are marked as Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 respectively.He also collected the Accident Register [Ex.P3] in respect of the accused.He also recovered a blouse [MO8], red colour inskirt [MO9], Mangalsutra [MO10].He sent the recovered material objects for examination through the concerned Judicial Magistrate.He collected the Biological report [Ex.P19] and Serology Report [Ex.P20].iv) PWs.5 to 8 are residents of Aladipatty village and 7/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 all of them have been treated as hostile witness.ix) PW13 is the then Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai, who forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Science Department, Ramanathapuram.x) PW14 is the then Tahsildar, Aruppukottai, who issued the community certificates, Ex.P14 and Ex.xii) PW16 is the then Constable at Thiruchuli Police 8/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 Station, who identified the body to the Doctor for Postmortem.PW1 was having dispute with his wife, condemned her illegal relationship with the husband of the accused and was residing at Karisalkulam village at the time of occurrence.The occurrence was taken place in the early morning hours at Aladipatty village and therefore, the presence of PW1 in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful.It was not elucidated by the prosecution that whether the assailant was a male or a female.PW2 has clearly stated that someone has assaulted.He did not refer this appellant / accused as the assailant.The occurrence was taken place at 08.00 am.PW1, in his complaint [Ex.P1], has stated that his wife / the deceased was combing her hair in front of the house at the time of occurrence.At that time, the accused came and assaulted her.But in his evidence, PW1 has stated that he was talking with his son [PW2] and brother-in-law [PW3] near the place of occurrence and his wife was sweeping the floors and at that time, the occurrence was taken place.But, according to PW2, his mother was sleeping inside the house at the relevant point of time.The arrest of the accused was also doubtful in this case.B.PUGALENDHI, J.This appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2009, dated 11.01.2017, in and by which, the appellant/accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5.000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.However, the appellant was acquitted from the charges under Section 506 (ii) IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. As against the conviction and sentence the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal.A cut injury on left shoulder 4 x 2 X 1 cm.A cut injury over right parietal and occiptial region exposing the bone 20 X 6 X 4 cm.A cut injury on the back side of the neck oblignet placed 10 X 4 x 4 cm.A cut injury over L1 region on the back 16 X 4 X 4 cm.A cut injury over L5 region on the back 16 X 4 X 4 cm.” 5/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.He recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, he filed a final report on 17.07.2007 against the accused for the offence under Sections 302, 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The final report was taken on file in P.R.C.No.6/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 38 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arupukottai and was then committed to the Court of Sessions.The case was taken in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2009 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur and during the trial, on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined and 20 documents were marked, besides 8 material objects.The available evidences from the prosecution witness are as follows:i) PW1 is the defacto complainant and also the husband of the deceased Subbulakshmi.He speaks about the offence committed by the accused and the lodging of the complaint [Ex.P1].ii) PW2 is the son of the deceased and he speaks about the noise raised by his mother / deceased and the injuries inflicted on her on the occurrence date.iii) PW3 is the brother and PW4 is the sister of the deceased.Both of them have been treated as hostile witness.v) PW9 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem and issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P2].vi) PW10 is the then Village Administrative Officer of Aladipatty village, who stood as a witness for the spot mahazar and for the arrest and recovery.vii) PW11 is the Constable of Thiruchuli Police Station, who handed over the express First Information Report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and to the higher officials.viii) PW12 is the then learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Virudhunagar, who recorded the statements of some of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C.xiii) PW17, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli, who conducted the investigation in this case and filed the final report.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false.Though she has stated that there are evidences to support her case, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on the side of this accused.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, though found the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, has found her guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced her as stated supra.Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.9/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018Heard Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned Counsel for the appellant has made his submissions as follows:PW1 cannot be an eye witness to the occurrence and even according to him, he was residing in another village and PW2, the son of the deceased, has also not stated about the presence of his father [PW1] in the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 of occurrence and only on the information from PW2 about the occurrence, she went to the occurrence village.The arrest and recovery were also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.According to PW2, at the time of occurrence, a Police Patrol Jeep came there accidently and he reported the incident to them and the Police secured the accused.Apart from the evidence of PW1, there is no other evidence connecting this appellant / accused with the commission of offence.Moreover, PW2, the son of the deceased, has not spoken about this appellant / accused 11/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for interference.Per contra, Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 clearly states the motive for this appellant for the commission of offence and her presence in the place of occurrence.PW1, though was residing in another village, came to the occurrence village on the date of occurrence to see his son [PW2] and therefore, his evidence cannot be suspected.The complaint was also lodged immediately after the occurrence and there is no delay in reporting the incident and the First Information Report reaching the Court.The evidence of PW1, coupled with the recovery of weapon, establishes the case of the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and he prays for dismissal.12/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record.The husband of the accused, namely, Thandavam, was a friend of PW1 and he used to visit the house of PW1, often and was moving closely with the deceased.PW1 suspected his wife's fidelity and condemned her activities.But, even then the deceased continued her relationship with Thandavam and therefore, PW1 left the house at Aladipatty and was residing at Karisalkulam.On the date of occurrence, according to PW1, he came to the occurrence village to see his son [PW2], who was studying 9th standard by then.While PWs.1 & 2 were talking to each other near their house, the accused came there, questioned the deceased on her conduct of relationship with her husband, Thandavam, plugged her hair and also attacked her with Aruval.When PW1 and others attempted to rescue the deceased, the accused intimidated them and ran away from the place of occurrence.The occurrence was taken place at about 08.00 am and the complaint was lodged at 10.30 am.13/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018The learned Counsel for the appellant, by referring to the signature of the learned Judicial Magistrate in the printed FIR [Ex.P16], taken a ground that the FIR registered on 16.06.2007 was received by the concerned Court only on 18.06.2007 at 03.30 pm and this inordinate delay has not been explained by the prosecution.The date seal found in Ex.However, the endorsement of the learned Judicial Magistrate in the complaint [Ex.P1] shows, without any ambiguity, that the complaint [Ex.P1] was received on 16.06.2007 itself.Therefore, we do not find any delay in the FIR reaching the Court and there is no delay in reporting the incident as well.Though PWs.1, 2 & 4 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence, PW1 alone supported the case of the prosecution.PW2, the son of the deceased, though stated about the occurrence, has not stated that this appellant / accused alone caused the injury.Whereas, PW1, in his evidence, has clearly mentioned that this appellant / 14/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 accused came to the place of occurrence, abused his wife and assaulted her indiscriminately and also criminally intimidated them.It appears the trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST [POA]Be that as it may, since the entire prosecution case rests upon the evidence of PW1, we have to carefully analyze his evidence.PW1 admits in his evidence about the illegal relationship of his wife / the deceased with his friend, one Thandavam and his dispute with the deceased and out of that dispute, he was residing away from the occurrence village.According to him, he came to the occurrence village on the date of occurrence to see his son [PW2] and to give some money for his studies.But, according to PW2, PW1 deserted them due to the dispute with his mother and was residing at Kalayar Karisalkulam village and he never visited them.PW2 added further that his father [PW1] never provided any assistance and cloths to them.15/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018PW2 is the son of the deceased and the natural witness available at the place of occurrence.But he specifically stated that PW1 deserted them and was residing in another village and never used to visit them after the dispute with the deceased.According to PW2, he was sleeping inside the house and at that time, he heard some noise.When he woke up, he found his mother standing outside the house and was assaulted by somebody.As stated supra, the prosecution has also failed to establish whether the assailant was a male or a female.A statement was recorded from PW2 immediately after the occurrence before the learned Judicial Magistrate [PW12] under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, PW2 has stated that his mother / the deceased was sleeping inside the house and at that time, the accused came and assaulted his mother.16/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018In fact, according to the statement of PW2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., at the time of occurrence, a Police Officer from Tiruchuli Police Station came to the occurrence place accidently in a Patrol Jeep and PW2 informed the Police immediately about the occurrence.The accused has also attempted to attack the police, however, the police secured the accused and taken her to the police station in their jeep.PW2 in his evidence as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate has not stated about the presence of his father [PW1] in the place of occurrence.The Doctor [PW9], who 17/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 conducted the postmortem and issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P2] has observed that the bladder was full.This observation by the Doctor in the postmortem certificate, coupled with the evidences of PWs.1 & 2 raises a reasonable doubt with regard to the time and manner of occurrence as projected by the prosecution.In fact, PW1, though in his evidence has stated that he along with his son [PW2] and brother-in-law [PW3] were talking near the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence, has not referred about his brother-in-law [PW3] in his complaint [Ex.P1].But, according to PW3, he was informed only by PW2 about the incident when he was at Madurai and immediately, he rushed to the village.Similarly, PW4, the sister of the deceased, in her evidence, has stated that it was only PW2, who informed her about the occurrence and she immediately rushed to the village.These contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses raises a serious doubt as to the presence of PW1 in the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time, as projected by the prosecution.18/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018PW2 in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate has stated that immediately after the occurrence, accidently, a Police Patrol Jeep came to the place of occurrence and he reported to the Police about the incident and the Police secured the accused.The evidence of PW2 / son of the deceased made it clear that PW1 deserted them and was living in another village and never visited them and never taken care of them.In view of the anomalies discussed supra, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant cannot be sustained, as the prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant / accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.19/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, in S.C.No.10 of 2009, dated 11.01.2017, are set aside.The appellant / accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against her and she is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her detention is required in connection with any other case / proceedings.Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded and bail bond, if any executed, shall stand terminated.1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.20/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 20184.The Record Keeper (2 copies) Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.21/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.263 of 2018 T.RAJA, J.AND B.PUGALENDHI, J. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,824,710 | A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.2/2003 on the file of Dhali Police Station, Tiruppur District, for offence under Section 304(b) IPC for having driven his wife to commit suicide by demanding dowry.Nevertheless, the departmental proceedings continued and during departmental proceedings, evidence was let in by the department to prove the dowry harassment by examining 9 witnesses and the enquiry officer found him guilty and that was accepted and he was imposed punishment of pay reduction by two stages for two years with cumulative effect and the punishment of reduction shall operate to postpone his future increment for two years by order dated 25.5.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police.That order has become final.This Court, after hearing both the cases together, by common order dated 31.1.2013 set aside the order of acquittal and ordered retrial.Without considering the same, an order of dismissal was passed on 23.6.2014 and this order is challenged in this Writ Petition.The High Court also has failed to see that the two orders passed against the respondent were on different grounds and were on different cause of actions.The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,618,262 | (a)The Accused Rajam is none but the deceased Arunachalam's wife'syounger sister.Undisputedly and indubitably, before the occurrence, there hadbeen a long standing civil dispute.There were civil proceedings also betweenthe accused and the deceased in connection with the house property under theoccupation of the accused, which is the scene of crime.The house of thedeceased Arunachalam and the house of the accused situated nearer to each other.Ofen quarrels erupted between them.(b)It so happened that on 10th February, 1997 at about 8.30 p.m., infront of the house of the accused, there was a quarrel between the deceased andthe accused which culminated to the extent of the accused loosing her self-control and consequently catching hold of the deceased Arunachalam, who was asexagenarian, so to say around 64 years, and dragging him into her nearbyhouse and taking out a knife (M.O.1) which was on the table of her house andinflicting successive injuries as found set out in Ex.P-12, the postmortemcertificate, issued by P.W.13, the postmortem doctor and thereby causing thedeath of Arunachalam.Thereupon, the accused fled away from the scene ofoccurrence with the weapon of offence (M.O.1).Ex.P-1, the complaint, was cameto be lodged by P.W.1, the son-in-law of the deceased, with P.W.5, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station and thereupon, as per Ex.P-2, theExpress F.I.R., a case was registered in Crime No.202 of 1997 of Vadasery PoliceStation and P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation.(c)In the course of investigation, P.W.14, the InvestigationOfficer, examined P.Ws.1 to 4, the eye-witnesses and recorded their statements,in addition to having prepared Ex.P-3, the observation mahazar and Ex.P-13, therough sketch.He also recovered M.O.6, the bloodstained floor tile, and M.O.7,the sample floor tile, under Ex.P-4 mahazar, attested by P.W.6 and another.Healso caused the place of occurrence to be photographed.He conducted inquestover the dead body as revealed by Ex.P-14, the inquest report and thereafter thebody was sent for postmortem.(d)P.W.13, the doctor, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceasedand issued Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.RAJASURIA,J) The appellant Rajam is the sole accused in S.C.No.102 of 2001on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division atNagercoil.She stood charged under Sections 341, 364 and 302 IPC and on trial,she was found guilty under Sections 364 and 302 IPC alone and sentenced to oneyear rigorous imprisonment for the former offence and life imprisonment for thelatter offence.P-12, the postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased wouldappear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to the vitalorgans.(e)In the course of investigation, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police,arrested the accused at 8.30 hours on 11.02.1997 and recorded her confessionstatement and as per the admissible portion of the confession, marked as Ex.P-5, the M.O.1, the knife, was recovered under Ex.P-6 mahazar.The materialobjects concerned were sent to Forensic Laboratory for getting expert opinionand Ex.P-9, the Chemical Examiner Report and Ex.P-10, the Serologist's Report,were received.P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, after completing the usualinvestigation filed the police report before the Magistrate Court concerned,which committed the case to the court of session, which framed the relevantcharges as against the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty.3.By way of unfolding the prosecution case, 15 witnesses wereexamined as P.Ws.1 to 15, Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked along with M.Os.1 to 10.In response to the questions put to her under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, theaccused came forward with a specific case to the effect that there had been along standing civil dispute relating to the house property; that the accusedattempted to grab her property; that somebody murdered Arunachalam andmanaged toput his dead body inside her house through the back door and that thereby thecase was foisted as against her.The trial court ultimately found the accusedguilty and recorded the conviction and imposed the sentences as set out supra.4.Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment of the trial inrecording the conviction and impoing the sentence, the appellant has preferredthe appeal on the grounds inter alia that the occurrence did not take place inthe manner projected by the prosecution; that the alleged eye-witnesses have notspoken the truth; that they could not have seen the occurrence at all; that theprosecution case was highly improbable; that the accused being a lady could nothave dragged the deceased into her house and inflicted the injuries on him so asto cause his death; that there was no electric power supply in that area asdeposed to by P.W.11, the wireman/helper; that the evidence of P.W.1 wouldhighlight that the accused was not occupying at the relevant point time herhouse; that the ocular evidence and the medical evidence do not hang together;that there was no recovery of M.O.1, the weapon of offence in pursuance of thealleged confession made by the accused; that the appellant did not commit anyoffence at all and if proper treatment had been given to the deceased, he couldhave been saved.Accordingly, the accused prayed for acquitting her.5.Heard both sides.The learned counsel for the appellant advancedhis arguments based on the grounds of appeal set out supra.The points fordetermination are:(1)Whether the accused being a lady could not have dragged the deceasedinto the house of the former and done him to death, as narrated by theprosecution?(3)Whether there are imperfections and improbabilities in the prosecutioncase as highlighted in the grounds of appeal?These points are taken together for discussion asthey are inter linked with one another.The incontrovertible and unassailablefacts are that the accused is the deceased Arunachalam's wife's younger sisterand before the occurrence, there had been a long standing civil disputeconcerning the said house property, whereupon often quarrel ensued between theaccused and the deceased.The house of the accused and the house of thedeceased are situated nearer to each other, as found set out in Ex.P-13, therough sketch, drawn by P.W.14, the investigator.7.P.W.1 Arunachalam, the son-in-law of the deceased and P.W.2Bhagavathi Amma, the wife of the deceased and P.W.4 Mutukumar are all theresidents of the same village where the occurrence took place and they would inunison and in one voice implicate the accused to the effect that it was she whodragged the deceased Arunachalam into her house and inflicted various knifeblows and caused his death.The cumulative effect of the narration in Ex.P-1,the complaint, and in the deposition of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 would show that at theinitial stage, only the accused and the deceased Arunachalam were quarrellingwith each other in front of the house of accused and only on hearing thealarming sound, which emanated from the quarrel between them, these eye-witnesses have been made to come to the spot.In the meanwhile, the accused, ina frenzied mood dragged the deceased into her nearby house and inflicted variousinjuries with M.O.1 knife and ran away from the scene of crime.8.Learned counsel for the appellant would develop his argument thata lady could not have dragged a male into her house and done him to death asprojected by the prosecution.The admitted facts are that at the relevant timeof occurrence, the accused was 45 years old and the deceased was about 64 yearsold and obviously and apparently there was an age difference of 20 years.Thereis nothing to show that the accused was suffering from any infirmity which wouldhave made her not to drag such an old man into her house and inflict injuries onhim.It is not the accused who dragged the deceased to a very long distance butshe simply dragged him from the door steps of her house into her house andbefore the eye-witnesses could rescue him from her clutches, the fatal injurieswere inflicted on him by her.9.P.W.3, a neighbour, was also one of the eye-witnesses to theoccurrence but, when she started deposing before the Court, she swooned andcould not depose further and hence her evidence is of no use in this case.Itis a trait proposition of law that simply because P.Ws.1 and 2 are closerelatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded.In thisconnection, the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court could fruitfullyand profitably be cited.As set out supra, during Section 313 Cr.P.C.examination, the accused came forward with the specific case as though somebodymurdered the deceased Arunachalam and put his body in her house so as to fastenher with criminal liability.Absolutely there is no iota or shred of truth inthe plea of the accused.Ex.P-13, the rough sketch, would reveal that therewere lot of nearby houses and if any such thing had happened, as narrated by theaccused, then certainly the said fact would have known to the police and others.Here, in this case, the police had no axe to grind in the matter and there is nopolitical overtone or extraneous pressure on the police in foisting the caseagainst the accused who is a lady.11.P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross-examined with reference to thephysical features of the house and the street, etc. without even visualising fora moment that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 are relatives of the deceased and admittedlythe house of the deceased is also situated very near to the house wherein theoccurrence took place.The trial court correctly highlighted these facts anddiscarded the cross-examination as untenable.P.W.1 being the son-in-law of thedeceased would expound and clarify that in connection with his nature of job, atthe relevant time, he was constrained to stay in his father-in-law's house andthat he had the opportunity of witnessing the crime.P.W.2, the wife of thedeceased, would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 relating to his presence inher house at the relevant time by narrating that in the evening at 07.45 p.m.P.W.1 came to her house and that both of them on hearing the sound emanated fromthe quarrel rushed to the spot and had the chance to witness the crime.12.The eye-witnesses withstood the cross examination and there isnothing to doubt their testimony.The medical evidence, as put-forwarded byexamining P.W.13, the doctor who conducted postmortem and marking Ex.P-12, thepostmortem certificate, would demonstrate that the deceased died as a result ofthe various incised wounds and the death was due to shock and haemorrhageconsequent upon the ante-mortem injuries inflicted on the deceased.It is,therefore, clear that the deceased died a homicidal death, over which there isno controversy at all.13.The injuries found as set out in Ex.P-12, the postmortemcertificate, do tally with the narration found in the deposition of the eye-witnesses, who, without mincing words, clearly deposed that the accusedinflicted successive knife blows on Arunachalam.M.O.6, the bloodstained floortile, which was sent for obtaining the opinion of the Forensic Science Expertunder Ex.P-10, would demonstrate that the occurrence took place inside the houseof the accused.Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act also would come intooperation as the occurrence took place in her house and in such a case, the onusof proof is on her to explain as to how it had occurred.However, she had comeforward with a false plea as though she was not in occupation of the house attherelevant point of time and somebody murdered the deceased andput his body in her house.Such a defence paves way for the bristling up ofvarious questions.There is nothing to show elucidate or exemplify as to whatmade her not to occupy her house and there is no evidence also to show as to howa third party entered into her house with a dead body, etc. Realising theweakness of the defence, the learned counsel for the appellant, in all fairness,did not develop his argument on the line of defence as put-forth by the accusedin her answer to the question under Section 313 Cr.P.C.14.The evidence of D.W.1, the Advocate Commissioner, who wasappointed in the civil case and Exs.D-1 and D-2 , the Commissioner Report andthe Commissioner plan, respectively are not germane to decide this case and thelearned counsel for the appellant, in all fairness, did not advance any argumentbased on such evidence also.15.Ex.P-5, the admissible portion of the confession of the accusedand the consequent recovery of M.O.1 knife, as revealed by Ex.P-6, the mahazar,would convey and exemplify the fact that the accused made the confession and inpursuance of the same, M.O.1 knife, the weapon of the offence, was recovered on11.02.1997 at about 20.0 hours from a heap of casuarina poles.Additionally,even this piece of evidence also supports the prosecution case.P.W.11Subramanian, the wireman of the Municipality concerned, would clearly andcategorically narrate and delineate that on the fateful day the lights wereburning, including the lights in the street in which the accused house situated.During cross-examination P.W.11 would state that from January, 1997, there mighthave been short supply of electricity in Nagercoil area.But, such an isolatedanswer can never be relied on by the accused as though there could have been nolight on the fateful day in front of the accused's house.In fact, p.Here, ourdiscussion supra, would undoubtedly highlight that owing to civil dispute therewas squabble and in that process alone, the accused, having lost her self-control and at the spur of the moment, dragged the accused inside her house andtook out M.O.1 knife and inflicted injuries and hence, we hold that the offencecommitted by the accused was not one covered under section 302 IPC but onlyunder 304(i) IPC.18.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying theconviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC into one under Section 304(i) IPCand we impose a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and rest of theconviction under Section 364 IPC and sentence imposed thereunder are allconfirmed.Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.The accused ison bail and hence the trial court is directed to issue non-bailable warrantagainst the accused so as to secure her presence and commit her to custody toundergo the remaining part of the sentence.The sentence already undergone byher shall be given set off.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.2.The Inspector of Police, Vadachery Police Station, Kanyakumari District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 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. |
161,826,508 | Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that appellant Rohit Bhatti was a friend of Manish (deceased).The appellants Pradeep Pillai and Rohit Bhatti entered into a criminal conspiracy with their co- accused persons Arvind S. Lal, Sanjay Dass, Bharat Khilania and Khushi Ram to abduct the deceased Manish with a view to extort handsome ransom from his family.Said call was received by Dinesh Kumar Sharma (PW13).It is also the case of the prosecution that a message was also received on the Pager No. 962800437 of the deceased at 01:57 p.m. that Rohit was waiting for him at Liberty Cinema.The deceased Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 2 of 25 reached at Liberty Cinema where appellants Rohit Bhatti and Pradeep Pillai were already waiting for him.They had juice together at the Juice Shop of Satish Kumar (PW8).The appellants Rohit Bhatti and Pradeep Pillai lured the deceased by telling him that their boss had arranged for a nice girl and if he was interested, he could accompany them.On this pretext, they took him to house No. B-150, Sector 8, Pappan Kalan, Delhi.The appellant Pradeep Pillai accompanied the deceased from Liberty Cinema in his car whereas Rohit Bhatti went to Pappan Kalan on his motorcycle.They reached the said house at around 03:15 p.m. where they met the co-accused persons Arvind, Sanjay and Bharat at the gate.They escorted the deceased to a room upstairs where the other co-accused Khushi Ram, Chowkidar was also present.After some time, accused Sanjay and Khushi Ram proceeded to tie the hands of the deceased at his back.The deceased Manish protested and resisted and he even bit both the hands of Bharat.On this, Khushi Ram stabbed Manish on his back with a knife and accused Sanjay strangulated him with a piece of cloth, as a result, Manish died.Thereafter, they brought his dead body downstairs and dumped it into a gutter.Thereafter the appellants Pradeep Pillai and Rohit Bhatti alongwith the others left the spot of occurrence.Subsequently, in the evening of 08.10.98, the appellant Pradeep Pillai again went to Pappan Kalan house alongwith Ajay.They carried a phavra with them.At Pappan Kalan, they dug a pit outside the gate of the house with the Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 3 of 25 phavra and buried the dead body of Manish in the said pit after removing it from the gutter.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 3 of 25When the deceased did not return home on 08.10.98, complainant Anil Kumar Jain (PW14) visited the police station Sarai Rohilla at 11:35 p.m. and lodged a missing report.In the morning of 09.10.98, when the complainant could not find any trace of his son despite enquiries, he again visited the police station to lodge a formal complaint and his statement (Ex.PW5/A) was recorded by SI Ram Avtar wherein he expressed the suspicion that somebody might have kidnapped and killed his son.On the basis of said information, formal FIR was registered at the police station and investigation was entrusted to SI Ram Avtar (PW25).During investigation, it was revealed by PW8 Satish Kumar that in the afternoon of 08.10.98, the appellants along with Manish visited a Juice Shop and after taking juice, they left together in the car of Manish and motor cycle of Rohit Bhatti.Appellant Rohit Bhatti was arrested on 05.11.98 and on interrogation, he made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW22/B) detailing the above referred facts.On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement regarding the carrying of phavra to the spot and also burying the dead body of Manish in a pit after removing it from the gutter.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 4 of 2578/2009 & 225/2009 Page 4 of 25PW22/D, Pradeep Pillai got recovered the Phavra from the aforesaid house in Pappan Kalan.Disclosure statement of Pradeep Pillai also led the recovery of the dead body of Manish buried in the said pit when it was exhumed on 06.11.98 after seeking permission of the concerned SDM in presence of SDM Sh.Chandrakar Bharti (PW26) and Dr. K.Goel, Autopsy Surgeon (PW17).It is also the case of prosecution that blood samples were lifted during investigation with the help of CFSL officials from the wall of the house in question, the gutter as also the place of burial of the dead body and seized vide respective memos.Therefore, in our view, the last seen circumstance has not been firmly established in this case.PW22/B, which purportedly led to discovery of certain facts.Perusal of the disclosure statement reveals that as per the prosecution, Rohit Bhatti disclosed to the police that after killing the deceased in a room at the first floor of House No.B-150, Sector 8, Pappan Kalan, Delhi he and his co-accused persons brought his dead body downstairs and dumped it into the gutter.Learned counsel for the appellant submit that above said disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence being a confession made to the police and it does not fall within the exception provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the disclosure statement has not led to the discovery of the dead body or any fact.As against this, learned counsel for the State submitted that no doubt the dead body was not recovered from the gutter as it had been shifted subsequently by the other co-accused persons but the Crl.PW22/D has Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 16 of 25 been witnessed by SI Ram Avtar (PW25), SI Iqbal Singh (PW22) and Anil Kumar Jain, complainant (PW14).On perusal of disclosure statement, it transpires that in the said statement appellant Pradeep Pillai disclosed about his complicity in the crime and stated that after the murder, the dead body was initially concealed in the gutter/sewer within the premises of House No.B-150, Sector 8, Pappan Kalan.He also disclosed that subsequently on 09.10.98 at around 6:00 pm in the evening, he again visited said house along with other co-accused Khushi Ram, Arvind and Ajay.They dug a pit near the gate of the said house and thereafter, they removed the dead body from the gutter and buried it in the said pit.PW14 complainant Anil Kumar has corroborated the aforesaid version by stating that on 05.11.98, appellant Pradeep Pillai was arrested at about 3:30 pm and on interrogation, he made a disclosure statement Ex.PW22/D disclosing that he along with others had buried the dead body of the deceased near property No.Other accused were also arrested.They also made disclosure statements.Since they have been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge and their acquittal has not been challenged, it is not necessary to reproduce the facts relating to them.Pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.Aforesaid seized samples were sent to CFSL alongwith the clothes of the deceased for analysis and on analysis, the samples were found to contain the human blood of blood group A.On completion of the investigation, charge sheet against the seven accused including the appellants was filed, whereas the eighth accused Khushi Ram could not be arrested and he was declared proclaimed offender.The appellants as well as their co-accused persons, namely, Arvind S. Lal, Bharat Khilania, Sanjay Dass, Ajay S. Lal and Tarun Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 5 of 25 Kumar were charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC as also for abduction, murder and screening of evidence of their crime in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy punishable under Sections 364A IPC, 302 IPC and 201 IPC all read with Section 120B IPC.Appellants as well as other co-accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 5 of 25Accused Khushi Ram was shown as proclaimed offender in column No.2 of the charge sheet.In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants and the accused persons, prosecution examined 27 witnesses in all.However, the material witnesses examined with regard to the role played by the appellants Rohit Bhatti and Pradeep Pillai are PW8 Satish Kumar, PW13 Dinesh Kumar Sharma, PW14 Anil Kumar (complainant), PW17 Dr. K. Goel, PW26 Shri Chandrakar Bharti, SDM besides initial Investigating Officer, PW25 SI Ram Avtar, PW22 SI Iqbal Singh and the subsequent Investigating Officer PW27, Inspector Jagjeet Singh.The appellants as well as their co-accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to afford them an opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them.They all denied the correctness of prosecution evidence and claimed to have Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 6 of 25 been falsely implicated.Neither of the accused persons has examined any witness in defence.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 6 of 25On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Judge found the charges under Section 302 IPC, 365 IPC and 201 IPC all read with Section 34 IPC established against the appellants Rohit Bhatti and Pradeep Pillai.As regards other accused persons, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.They were accordingly acquitted of all the charges.We may note, though the appellants have preferred appeal against their conviction and consequent order on sentence, the State has not preferred to challenge the acquittal of other accused persons.Instant case is based upon the circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness to the occurrence.On perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned trial Judge has found the appellants guilty of the charges on the basis of following circumstances taken to be established on record:(i) That on 08.10.98 at around 01:45 p.m., appellant Rohit Bhatti called the deceased Manish Jain at his factory on telephone which call was initially received by PW13 Dinesh Kumar Sharma, to whom Rohit Bhatti disclosed his identity and the call was then passed to Manish Jain, who after attending the call immediately left the factory Crl.Ten minutes later at 01:57 p.m., a message was received on the pager of Manish Jain that "ROHIT IS WAITING AT LIBERTY".Therafter, the deceased was last seen alive with the appellants Rohit Bhatti and Pradeep Pillai in the afternoon of 08.10.98 by PW8 Satish Kumar when they all took juice at his Juice Shop near the Liberty Cinema.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 7 of 25(ii) That on 05.11.98, appellant Rohit Bhatti made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW22/B) about giving details of the occurrence.Pursuant to said disclosure statement, the place of occurrence i.e. room of first floor at B-150, Sector 8, Dwarka, Pappan Kalan, Delhi was inspected and its western wall was found stained with blood, which blood was lifted on a piece of thread, besides that, blood samples were also lifted with the help of pieces of thread from the gutter and also the blood stained earth was scraped from the main sewer hole (gutter), which samples when analysed at CFSL, gave positive tests of human blood group A, as that of the deceased.(iii) That the appellant Pradeep Pillai also made a disclosure statement on 05.11.98 stating that in the evening of 09.10.98 at around 06:00 p.m., he alongwith the other accused persons Khushi Ram, Arvind, Tarun Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 8 of 25 and Ajay removed the dead body from the said gutter and buried it outside the gate of the house at Pappan Kalan in a pit dug by them and pursuant to said disclosure statement, he got recovered the phavra with which the pit was dug as also the dead body.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 8 of 25(iv) That the blood-stained earth lifted from the aforesaid pit also tested positive for human blood group A as that of the deceased.B-150, Sector 8, Pappan Kalan, pursuant to the disclosure statements Exhibits PW22/B Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 10 of 25 and PW22/D respectively made by the appellants Rohit Bhatti and Pradeep Pillai.Learned counsel for the State further submitted that even the disclosure statements made by the respective appellants and recovery of the dead body pursuant to the said disclosure statements is firmly established on record from the testimony of PW14 Anil Kumar Jain (complainant), PW22 SI Iqbal Singh, PW25 SI Ram Avtar and PW27 Inspector Jagjeet Singh.He has submitted that from their testimony, it is also established that on inspection of the spot of occurrence, some blood stains were found on the western wall of the room in question from where the scrapings were seized and also some blood samples were lifted from the gutter/sewer and which samples on analysis , as per the Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 11 of 25 CFSL report, gave positive tests for human blood of blood group "A", which was the blood group of the deceased also, which is significant proof of the fact that dead body was initially concealed in the gutter and buried later in the pit.Satish Kumar deposed that three days after the day of 'Karva Chauth', the police visited his shop along with one person and inquired if the deceased Manish and appellant Rohit had visited his shop for taking juice, to which he replied in the affirmative.He also stated that on that day photograph Ex.PW8/A of the deceased was shown to him and since his memory was fresh, he confirmed the visit of Manish at his shop on the day of 'Karva Chauth'.He, however, failed to identify either of the appellants as the persons who had accompanied the deceased to his juice shop but he stated that the two persons who had taken juice with the deceased had come on a motorcycle.Thus, it is not certain that the appellants visited the juice shop of PW8 on 08.10.98 with the deceased.Even if aforesaid evidence of PW8 Satish Kumar is taken to be true, then also this Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 12 of 25 evidence establishes only the fact that the deceased along with two persons had taken juice at the shop of PW8 Satish Kumar on the day of 'Karva Chauth'.If, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that said two persons were the appellants, then also it is not of much help to the prosecution because PW8 Satish Kumar has not testified that after taking the juice all three of them left together for the same destination.In absence of any categoric evidence in this regard, we find it difficult to conclude that the deceased had accompanied the appellants from the juice shop of PW8 to the place where he was ultimately killed.Thus, in our considered view, above said evidence does not firmly establish that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellants.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 12 of 25Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no doubt PW8 Satish Kumar had failed to identify the appellants in his testimony, yet he has admitted that the deceased visited his shop and had juice with two persons.If this evidence is analysed in the context of the testimony of PW13 Dinesh Kumar Sharma and the message received at the pager of Manish Jain (deceased) on 08.10.98 at 1:57 pm stating "ROHIT IS WAITING AT LIBERTY", it is clear that it was the appellant Rohit Bhatti and his associate appellant Pradeep Pillai who had met the deceased near the Liberty Cinema and took juice along with him at the shop of PW8 Satish Kumar.To appreciate this contention of learned counsel for the State, it is necessary to have a look on the testimony of PW13 Dinesh Kumar Sharma.He has testified that on 08.10.98, he was present in the factory of the father of the deceased.On that day, at Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 13 of 25 about 1:45 pm he received a telephone call at the factory from Rohit Bhatti, who was a friend of the deceased.Rohit Bhatti disclosed his identity and requested him to pass on the call to the deceased.From this evidence, learned counsel for the State has urged us to conclude that it must be Rohit Bhatti with whom the deceased had juice at the shop of PW8 Satish Kumar.We are not convinced with this submission because it is not clear what conversation took place between the deceased and the caller who identified himself as Rohit Bhatti on telephone and it is also not clear as to where the deceased went after attending said telephone call.Coming to the pager message, the record of calls received at the aforesaid pager No. 962800437 of the deceased is proved on record as Ex.PW6/A. On perusal of the said record, it transpires that on 08.10.98 at about 1.57 pm, one message was received on the pager of Manish Jain "ROHIT IS WAITING AT LIBERTY".This circumstance, of course, raises a possibility that Rohit might have arranged for a meeting with the deceased at Liberty Cinema but this fact in itself is not sufficient to conclude that the deceased actually went to Liberty Cinema and met Rohit.Even if it is assumed that the deceased had gone to Liberty Cinema and met Rohit, then also the testimony of PW8 Satish Kumar falls short of saying that after their meeting and having juice they left together.We may note at this juncture that perusal of the call record of pager also indicates that on 09.10.98 also at 11:34 am, a message was sent to the pager of the deceased Manish Jain stating "CONT ROHIT AT HOME IMDTLY", which raises a possibility that appellant Rohit Bhatti was not aware of the death of the deceased.Otherwise, there was no occasion for him to send the said message to Manish Jain (deceased) on 09.10.98 at 11.34 am.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 13 of 2578/2009 & 225/2009 Page 14 of 25Another circumstance which weighed with the learned trial Judge against the appellant Rohit Bhatti is the disclosure statement Ex.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 15 of 25 fact remains that from the aforesaid gutter, blood samples were lifted, which on analysis, gave positive tests for the human blood of group "A" and this amounts to the discovery of the fact that at some stage, the dead body was concealed in the gutter.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 15 of 25Neither Dr. G.D. Gupta nor any member of the CFSL team which purportedly lifted the samples detailed in the seizure memo have been examined by the prosecution.In absence of their testimony, we do not find it safe to rely upon the evidence of the police officials and the complainant Anil Kumar Jain regarding the lifting of blood samples from the gutter/sewer, particularly when the CFSL report has been given under the signatures of Dr. G.D. Gupta but there is no mention in this report that the samples were lifted under his supervision by a team of CFSL.Coming to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, PW27 Inspector Jagjeet Singh, Investigating Officer has testified that on 05.11.98 he recorded the disclosure statement of the appellant Pradeep Pillai Ex.PW22/D. The disclosure statement Ex.B-150, Sector 8, Pappan Kalan.His aforesaid version also finds corroboration in the testimony of PW22 SI Iqbal Singh and PW25 SI Ram Avtar who are also the witnesses to the disclosure statement Ex.PW22/D of the appellant Pradeep Pillai.From the aforesaid evidence, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish the disclosure statement Ex.PW22/D made by the appellant Pradeep Pillai about burning the dead body of the deceased in the pit.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 16 of 25As regards the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, PW27 Inspector Jagjeet Singh has categorically stated that pursuant to the Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 17 of 25 disclosure statement made by Pradeep Pillai and Ajay, he had visited the place of occurrence on 05.11.98 and recovered a phawra which was used for digging the pit.He, however, did not try to recover the dead body in view of the fact that it was already night time and he was supposed to obtain prior permission of area SDM for exhuming the dead body.He also stated that on 06.11.98, he moved an application Ex.PW26/A before the SDM seeking permission for exhuming the dead body in furtherance of the investigation and after getting the permission, he visited the spot for recovery along with the complainant Anil Kumar Jain, SDM Shri Chandrakar Bharti (PW26) and Dr. K. Goel, the Autopsy Surgeon (PW17) and police official.His aforesaid version regarding seeking of permission for exhuming the dead body, grant of permission and visit of the police party for recovery to the spot of burial stands corroborated by the testimony of the SDM Shri Chandrakar Bharti (PW26) and Dr. K. Goel (PW17), who have testified that the Investigating Officer actually sought permission to exhume the body and they actually accompanied the police party for exhuming the dead body.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 17 of 25PW27, Inspector Jagjeet Singh has further stated that the police party along with the SDM and the Doctor reached at the spot on 06.11.08 where the appellant Pradeep Pillai pointed out the place where the dead body was buried.Thereafter on digging, the dead body of the deceased was recovered, which was identified by PW14 Anil Kumar Jain, father of the deceased.As regards the delay in effecting recovery of the dead body of the deceased, learned Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 19 of 25 prosecutor submitted that since as per the disclosure statement the body was buried, it was necessary as per Rule 25.34 of Punjab Police Rules to obtain the permission of the SDM for exhuming the dead body and for that reason the delay was caused.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 19 of 25As regards the fact of recovery of the dead body at the instance of appellant Pradeep Pillai, we find that PW27, the Investigating Officer in his testimony discussed above has categorically stated that the dead body was recovered/found buried in a pit near gate of House No.B-150, Sector 8, Pappan Kalan on the pointing out of the appellant Pradeep Pillai and also pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PW22/D. His aforesaid version finds corroboration from the testimony of the other members of the police party, namely, PW22 SI Iqbal Singh and PW25 SI Ram Avtar.All these witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing material so as to discredit their version could be elicited.We may note that two witness of recovery, namely, PW17 Dr. K. Goel, Autopsy Surgeon and PW26 Chandrakar Bharti, though public servants can easily be termed as independent witnesses because they are public servants having no interest either in the complainant or in the appellant or in the success or failure of the investigation.Both of them are officers of considerable status as such it is unlikely that they would have deposed falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 20 of 25Regarding one day delay in effecting the recovery of the dead body, the Investigating Officer has given the explanation that he did not make any endeavour to dig the spot and recover the dead body on 05.11.98 because he was supposed to obtain necessary permission for exhuming the dead body, which was stated to have been buried, because of requirement of Rule 25.34 of the Punjab Police Rules.Rule 25.34 of the Punjab Police Rules reads thus:"25.34 The following rules relate to the disinterment of bodies:-(4) Police officers shall invariably examine witnesses to prove the identity of disinterred bodies before commencing their investigation.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 21 of 25Perusal of the above referred Rule makes it clear that the legal requirement of seeking permission of the SDM for exhuming the dead body is applicable only in the cases in which the dead body has been buried formally pursuant to a religious or customary ritual.The object of this provision is to avoid causing hurt to the feelings and sentiments of the relatives of the deceased or his community by exhuming the dead body formally buried.Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Investigating Officer was under the impression that under the above referred Rule he was supposed to seek permission for exhuming the dead body from the SDM and if under that mistaken interpretation of the Rule, he had delayed the recovery of the dead body he cannot be faulted and this cannot be the reason to reject otherwise reliable evidence of recovery.Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the delay in recovery of the dead body is reasonably explained by the Investigating Officer.Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to suggest that during the intervening night of 05.11.98 and 06.11.98 and till the recovery of the dead body, it had been buried by someone at the spot.Thus, we find Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 22 of 25 that the dead body of deceased Manish Jain was recovered at the instance of the appellant.The above request made by the Investigating Officer to the Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. K. Goel to accompany the police party for recovery of the dead body after making preparation to conduct the autopsy at the spot does not imply that he knew for certain that there was a dead body buried at the said site and his aforesaid request can be attributed to his anxiety to expedite the investigation.Otherwise also, the deceased went missing on 08.10.98 and as per the disclosure statement, he was killed on the same day.Therefore, it must have weighed heavily on the mind of the Investigating Officer that the dead body within the span of almost one month must have decomposed and it would be a great bother to carry Crl.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 23 of 25 the decomposed body to the mortuary from Pappan Kalan for the purpose of post mortem.Thus, we do not find anything suspicious in the Investigating Officer asking Dr. K. Goel to accompany them for making preparation for conducting the autopsy.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 23 of 25From the above, we find that prosecution has been able to establish that the dead body of the deceased Manish Jain was recovered, found buried, from in front of the house at Pappan Kalan at the instance of appellant Pradeep Pillai.This imply that appellant Pradeep Pillay had knowledge of the presence of the dead body buried at the said spot.He has not come forward with any explanation as to how he derived said knowledge if he was not party to the commission of crime of murder of the deceased.This circumstance by itself is sufficient to lead to an irrefutable conclusion that appellant Pradeep Pillai was the party to the murder of the deceased and he also participated in the concealing of the dead body by burying it in the said pit.Thus, so far as the appellant Pradeep Pillai is concerned, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment to hold him guilty of the murder of the deceased punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also for the offence of causing the evidence of the offence to disappear punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.His appeal is accordingly dismissed.78/2009 & 225/2009 Page 24 of 25Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,832,913 | Seen the record of evidence.The complainant and the accused hail from thesame village.The secondproceeding is filed by the State for grant of leave tofile appeal against the same decision.2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitsthat the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents of 1 ::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 ::: 76 Cri Appeal No 777 OF 2019 with ALS No 179 of 2019.odtthe offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 326,325, 324, 323, 506, 143, 147, 148, r/w 149 of IndianPenal Code and under Section 3 r/w 25 of Indian ArmsAct and under Section 135 r/w 149 of the Bombay PoliceAct.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 :::Heard learned Counsel for the appellant andlearned A.P.P. for State.There was some dispute over the commonbandh, situated between the lands of the two families.The first incident took place on 03/10/2014 betweenaccused No.6 Ashok Wagh and Bhausaheb Wagh.After thefirst incident when father of informant Dnyandev camenear the house of accused and when he was talking withBhausaheb on the road, accused Ashok came out of hishouse and started giving abuses.By that time, accusedSominath Wagh came on the spot of incident and by hismotorcycle gave dash to Dnyandev, father of informant.The case of prosecution is that the dash was givenintentionally and the intention was to finish Dnyandev.When Dnyandev fell down, Ashok rushed to home and he 2 ::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 ::: 76 Cri Appeal No 777 OF 2019 with ALS No 179 of 2019.odtfetched the sword and gave blow of sword on the head ofDnyandev.Due to that Dnyandev sustained bleedinginjury and he died.When informant and others rushedahead to save Dnyandev, the lady members alsoparticipated in the assault and used iron rod and somelady member pelted stones.Accused Ganesh Wagh usediron bar and he inflicted bleeding injury to theinformant by using iron bar.Ashok assaulted thebrother of informant by using sword.This incident waswitnessed by some persons, who separated the quarrel.Allegations are made that at about 7.32 a.m. of thatday accused had given threats to the family members ofthe informant.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 :::There is direct evidence of injured witnessesincluding of informant.The Court has seen thepostmortem Report in respect of Dnyandev and InjuryCertificates in respect of as many as six injuredwitnesses.On the dead-body of Dnyandev, as many as 8injuries were found, which included fracture of shaftof tibia of left leg.There were injuries like CLW,abrasion.In postmortem report the probable cause of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 ::: 76 Cri Appeal No 777 OF 2019 with ALS No 179 of 2019.odtdeath is mentioned as head injury.As per the injurycertificates, all the injuries of other injured personswere simple in nature.Specific evidence is given asagainst accused No.6 that he had made assault by usingaxe on the head of the deceased.There are specificallegations as against accused No.8 Ganesh Wagh andthere is evidence of aforesaid nature as againstaccused No.1 Sominath Wagh.It appears that complaintwas given by the side of the accused also in respect ofsame incident.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 :::The tenor of the cross-examination does notshow that incident is disputed.Provision of Section149 of the Indian Penal Code is used and at least therole played by the accused No.6 and 8 needs to beconsidered.So many persons were injured in theincident and blow was given on the head by using sword.As there is the corroboration of circumstances to thedirect evidence, the reasons given by the Trial Courtfor acquittal are not convincing.Though the incidenttook place near the house of the accused, it was on theroad itself and the evidence of the aforesaid nature is 4 ::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 ::: 76 Cri Appeal No 777 OF 2019 with ALS No 179 of 2019.odtgiven.As the incident started there, according toPralhad, they were required to go there.From thetenor of the cross-examination it can be said thatpresence of accused Nos.1, 6 and 8 on the spot atrelevant time is not disputed.In F.I.R. itself it wasnot mentioned that Accused No.9 Kailas Dethe waspresent on the spot at the time of incident inquestion.In view of these circumstances, this Courtholds that evidence against accused No.1, 6 and 8 needsconsideration but evidence as against lady members isvague.::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 :::Male members were armed with iron bar andsword, the incident must have been taken place withinshort time after the dash given by the motorcycle tothe deceased.This Court holds that the view taken bythe Trial Court in favour of lady members and Kailashis possible view.Hence, following order:-- : O R D E R : -5 ::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 :::76 Cri Appeal No 777 OF 2019 with ALS No 179 of 2019.odtThe application of the state filed against remaining respondent/ accused stands dismissed.Appeal of informant against remaining accused also is dismissed.This Court has granted leave to the State to file appeal as against respondent Nos.1, 6 and 8 and appeal of the informant is also admitted as against respondent Nos.1, 6 and 8 and the reasons are given for the same.For the same reasons, Appeal filed by the State as against respondent Nos.1, 6 and 8 is also admitted.Comply the provisions of Section 390 of Cr.P.C.file appeal as against respondent Nos.1, 6admitted as against respondent Nos.1, 6 and 84. Send the record back to the Trial Court for preparation of paper book and list the appeals after receipt of paper book along with record.[ M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.] [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.]SSTare 6 ::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 07:01:22 ::: | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,839,863 | Item no. 67 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.7139 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.09.2018 in connection with Serampore Police Station Case No. 211/2018 dated 30.04.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B,406 with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Smt. Renu Pal & anr.... Petitioners Mr. Debabrata Ray, Advocate Mr. Debasish Ghatak, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Purnima Ghosh, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Serampore Police Station Case No. 211/2018 dated 30.04.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B,406 with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners are the mother-in-law and elder brother-in-law, respectively, of the victim.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,843,256 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the FirstInformation Report dated 11.06.2018 in Crime No.184 of 2018 on the file ofthe first respondent and quash the same2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the secondrespondent/ defacto complainant had preferred a false complaint in CrimeNo.184 of 2018 against the petitioners due to previous motive.No suchoccurrence had happened as alleged by the second respondent and he himself has admitted in the hospital for taking treatment.4.In the light of the above, no case has been registered against thepetitioners / Accused Nos.3 to 5 in the aforesaid final report.5.Recording the aforesaid submission, this Criminal Original Petitionis closed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.2.Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,846,549 | Rule made returnable forthwith and::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 ::: 942.18APPLN+.odt 3 heard finally with the consent of the parties.::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::By these applications, the applicants are praying to quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No.309 of 2017, registered in Mudkhed Police Station, dated 19th November, 2017, for the offences punishable under Section 468, 420, 494, 471, 498-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.The brief facts for filing these Applications are as under:-It is the case of applicants that, an informant Vaishali Narhari Aderao filed F.I.R. bearing Crime No.309 of 2017 with Police Station, Mudkhed, Tq.Mudkhed, District Nanded for the offences punishable::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 ::: 942.18APPLN+.odt 4 under Section 468, 471, 494, 420, 498-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.It is alleged in the first information report that she is a divorcee and she is now residing with her father.It is alleged that in the month of July, 2015 her maternal uncle Gopinath Mane, informed the father of the informant that, there is one proposal of marriage received from Vyankatesh Nagorao Surushe.Thereafter, one meeting was arranged and for the said meeting, in all 24 persons (whose names are mentioned in the first information report) were present.One Kundalik Khandare informed in the meeting that his brother-in-law, Vyankatesh Nagorao Surushe was married to one Usha Ucchitkar, resident of Umra and from the said wedlock Vyankatesh has two sons.Then said Kundlik Khandare allegedly showed a bond paper declaring divorce between Vyankatesh and said Usha, and further suggested that::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 ::: 942.18APPLN+.odt 5 there is no difficulty for conducting the marriage of informant with said Vyankatesh.It is further alleged that on 22nd August, 2015, the marriage between the informant and said Vyankatesh took place.All 24 persons, whose names are mentioned in the first information report, were present for the marriage.It is alleged that after the marriage, Respondent Vaishali started residing with said Vyankatesh.It is alleged in the F.I.R. that, due to indulgence of said 24 persons her marriage was solemnized with Vyankatesh who has already married i.e., accused.::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::It is alleged that applicants - Ganpatrao Jairamji Gaikwad, Sahebrao Ganparto Gaikwad, Raghoji S/o Rukhamaji Uchitkar and Kailash Sakharam Zunjare were present in the said meeting so as to settle the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Vyankatesh.It is submitted that the applicants have not played any active role and the allegations made against them in the first information report would not constitute::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 ::: 942.18APPLN+.odt 7 any offence much less the offence punishble under Sections 468, 420, 494, 471, 498-A and 120-B of the Indian penal Code.Hence the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applications may be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::On the other hand learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 jointly submit that, if the allegations in the first information report are considered in its entirety, the alleged offences are disclosed against all the accused.It is submitted that the applicants did not disclose Respondent No.2 that Vyankatesh has already married and his earlier marriage is not dissolved.We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties.::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::942.18APPLN+.odt 8 With their able assistance, we have perused the allegations in the first information report, and also the investigation papers made available by Investigating Officer.Upon careful perusal of the entire record and also the allegations in the first information report, there are vague and general allegations against the applicants, and there are no specific allegations, which would disclosed the alleged offences against them.Upon careful perusal of the first information report, the details in respect of the marriage i.e., when it was performed, and what type of ceremonies were undertaken at::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 ::: 942.18APPLN+.odt 9 the time of marriage are conspicuously missing in the first information report.Therefore, as already observed so far as the applicants are concerned, there are no specific role attributed to each of the applicants and hence, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the first information report to the extent of the present applicants only.Hence we pass the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::(i) Criminal Application No.942 of 2018 and Criminal Application No.1176 of 2018 are allowed.(ii) The First Information Report bearing Crime No.309 of 2017, registered in Mudkhed Police Station, dated 19th November, 2017, for the offences punishable under Section 468, 420, 494, 471, 498-A and 120-B of the Indian::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 ::: 942.18APPLN+.odt 10 Penal Code, is quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicants only in both the Criminal Applications.::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 :::(iii) Rule made absolute in the above terms.The Applications stand disposed of accordingly.The Application is allowed and stands disposed of, accordingly.Since Mr.R.L. Bidve, learned counsel is appointed to prosecute the cause of Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application no.942 of 2018 and Criminal Application No.1176 of 2018, his fees be paid as per the schedule of fees maintained by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 17:28:48 ::: | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,869,867 | 1. Leave granted.By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, has confirmed the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in S.C.No.99 of 1997 dated 29.04.1999, by which the appellant-accused was 1 convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.The deceased (Gangammal) was the wife of appellant-accused.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was an alcoholic, and habitually beating his wife after picking up a quarrel with her for silly reasons.He also didn't reside under the same roof with her, and only occasionally visited her.Gangammal was eking her livelihood by working as a domestic servant.At the time of the incident, Gangammal and the accused had a son and a daughter.It appears that on the previous night of the incident, the accused severely beat Gangammal as he doubted her fidelity.On 13.08.1997, around 6.45 a.m., the accused attacked her neck with a kitchen knife, causing her to bleed profusely, which ultimately led to her death.It has come in the evidence of P.W.2 (the neighbour) that she barged into the Gangammal's house on hearing her shriek in pain, and found Gangammal in a severely injured condition.In her evidence, she has also stated that Gangammal told her that the accused had caused the knife injury on her neck.Thereafter, P.W.2 has deposed that she 2 asked Gangammal to change her blood soaked saree and arranged for a rickshaw puller to shift Gangammal from the house to the Government Hospital at Yanam.In the hospital, P.W.1 (the doctor) treated the deceased.In the Examination-in-Chief, he has elaborated the nature of the injuries that Gangammal had suffered and the treatment that was given to her.He has further stated that, for better treatment, he had advised P.W.2 to take her to the Government Hospital, Kakinada.He has further stated that Gangammal had told him that the accused had first tried to throttle her neck and later on stabbed her on the neck with a knife.We have the evidence of P.W.3 (son of the accused and deceased) and P.W.4 (daughter of the accused and deceased), who, at that time, were 16 years and 14 years respectively.Both of them, in one voice, have stated that there used to be quarrel between their mother and father and their father used to beat their mother.They have also stated that after they came back to the house, they were informed that the accused had caused the knife injury on the neck of their mother.8. P.W.5 (the rickshaw puller who transported the deceased to Government Hospital, Yanam) has 3 testified that the deceased had stated to him that the accused had stabbed her on the neck.P.W.12 (the doctor who treated the deceased at Government Hospital, Kakinada) has explained the treatment she gave to the deceased in her evidence, and has confirmed that the death of the deceased was caused by the stab injury inflicted on her neck.In the evidence of P.W.13 (the medical examiner who conducted the post mortem) and the post mortem report, the nature of the injury on the body of the deceased and the seriousness of the same has come on record.We have heard Shri.Shekhar Prit Jha, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant and Shri.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,884,140 | It is averred by the petitioner that services of his vehicle were engaged by M/s.New Bharat Blue Metal, No.1/19, Muthu Nagar, Naranammalpuram, Sankarnagar, Tirunelveli District for transporting Mineral Sand [M-Sand] from Tirunelveli to Chennai, and accordingly, M-Sand was loaded and the said vehicle was entrusted to Tr.S.Sivamani, driver for transporting the said sand in the vehicle from Tirunelveli to Chennai.The M-Sand manufacturer, M/s.It is relevant to extract the same:-i. The District Level Task Forces and Taluk Level Task Forces, constituted pursuant to the order passed in WP [MD] No.9806 of 2018 should follow the G.O.Ms.No.135, Industries [MMA.1] Department, dated 13.11.2009 in letter and spirit.As stated in the above said Government Order, periodical meetings will have to be held which is inclusive of action taken / to be taken for the illicit mining.As and when illicit mining is reported, the same will be recorded in the records.x. The respective District Collectors will have to ensure by making vide publicity of phone particulars assigned to the District Level Task Forces and the Taluk Level Task Forces, so that, the general public can give their complaints.There should he affixture or display of the phone particulars in the Collectorate, Taluk Office, Office of Deputy Director and Assistant Director of Geology and Mining and that of the Village Administrative Officer.Complainant will have to be intimated on the action taken within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the complainant.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 xii.A complainant shall also be received even when made through phone calls.[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2 The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of the Multi Axle Goods Tata LPT Lorry bearing Regn.TN-88-A-2319 and is having a valid Registration Certificate issued by the Regional Transport Office [RTO], Namakkal South as well as valid Insurance Coverage.The petitioner would further claim that he is also having a valid National Permit [Goods] Authorisation Certificate issued by the Transport Department of Tamil Nadu.New Bharat Blue Metal has also issued necessary Tax Invoice No.BB 219 datedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 28.10.2018 along with the Certificate of Registration in Form No.D granted by the Collector of Tirunelveli District for transportation of storage minerals under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, bearing Registration No.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli had also issued Transport Permit No.0034 with Transit Pass Serial Nos.4415, 4416 and 4198 dated 28.10.2018 for transporting 15 cu.mts.The petitioner would further aver that on the way to Chennai, the driver of the vehicle who is hailing from Murugankudi near Thittakudi, went to his house with the vehicle on the evening of 29.10.2018 and on the next day, on 30.10.2018, the driver started the vehicle towards Chennai via Vridhachalam-Ulundurpet road and at 10.00 a.m., on the same day, the vehicle was intercepted by the respondent police and asked for the production of documents and accordingly, the driver produced the documents.However, not satisfied with the same, the respondent has registered a case in Cr.No.622/2018 on 30.10.2018 against the driver of the vehicle for the alleged commission of the offences u/s.379 and 430 IPC and under section 21[1] of Mines and Minerals [Development andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Regulation] Act, 1957 and he was arrested and subsequently, enlarged on bail.3 The writ petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle, on becoming aware of the same, prayed for the release of the vehicle by filing a petition u/s.451 read with 457 Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional Magistrate, praying for return of the said vehicle and the said petition was returned by the said Court stating that the Court has not power in the light of the order dated 24.09.2018 made in WP [MD] No.7595/2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court.The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the vehicle has been purchased by availing loan and unless the vehicle is run and income is generated, the petitioner is not in a position to service to debt incurred by way of loan and therefore, he came forward to file the present writ petition, praying for the return / release of the vehicle.4 The writ petition was entertained on 19.11.2018 and the learned Government Pleader [In-charge] accepted notice and sought time to get instructions and accordingly, it was adjourned to 26.11.2018 and on that day, the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for final opportunity to get instructions as to the M-Sand said to have beenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 transported in the vehicle, especially the fact whether it is really M-Sand or river sand and therefore, this Court has adjourned the matter to 30.11.2018 ''for orders'' and on that day also, once again time was sought on behalf of the respondent and therefore, this Court has posted the matter on 03.12.2018 as a last chance and on the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the matter was posted today ''for orders''.The District Collector, Pudukkottai and Others] and would submit that this Court, while disposing of the said writ petitions, has given the following directionshttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 and as such, any application for release of the vehicle shall be filed before the Special Court alone.Steps will have to be taken for dereliction of the duty by the concerned officials.Taluk Level Task Forces shall also comply with the directions issued in the Government Order by making frequent surprise checks and submit their report to the District Level Task Forces.v. The Taluk Level Task Forces shall meet every fortnight as mandated in the Government Order.The responsibility fixed in the Government Order will have to be strictly construed and action will have to be taken against the erring Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar, officer in-charge of the Department ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in Geology and Mining at District Level.Action taken report will have to be sent by the District Collector concerned for the purpose of taking necessary action.The District Collector concerned shall take appropriate departmental action by himself as per the Rules provided so.Separate records will have to be maintained by the Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar and Officer in-charge of the Department of Geology and Mining with respect to the cases involving illicit mining.Whenever, a final report is filed for the offence under Section 379 IPC by the jurisdictional police before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the sane shall also be committed to the Special Court.This is for the reason that it would be appropriate to deal with both the police case and the private complaint by the same Court and in order to avoid any possible conflict.The revenue officials at the time of seizure can issue a memo to the person in-charge of the vehicle, mineral among other things, indicating the seizure made, along with the date and time.New Bharat Blue Metal, viz., Thiru.M.Navaskan, dated 27.11.2018 and prays for release of the vehicle.7 This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.8 In the course of arguments, it is brought to the knowledge of this Court that Special Courts in the rank of District Judge to deal with the cases relating to sand, are yet to be constituted and thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 Government is also seeking clarification in that regard before the learned Single Judge.Admittedly, the contraband has been seized and kept separately and this Court is not inclined to go into the question whether the transported sand is M-Sand or river sand as it is for the Investigating Authority, viz., the respondent herein, to find out the truth by conducting investigation.A perusal of the documents filed in the typed set would prima facie indicate that license was accorded to M/s.New Bharat Blue Metal by the Department of Geology and Mining, Government of Tamil Nadu vide Registration No.9 Despite the fact that three opportunities have been granted to the respondent to come out with clear instructions, every time, time was sought on the ground that the Test Report is awaited.TN-88-A-2319 [Chassis No.[a] The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] without prejudice to his rights and contentions to the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli ;[b] The petitioner shall also file an affidavit of Undertaking before the said Official that he will not alienate or further encumber the vehicle till the completion of the investigation in Cr.No.622/2018 ;[c] The petitioner shall not, without obtaining orders from the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, viz., the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vridhachalam, alter the physical features of the vehicle.10 On compliance of the above said conditions No.1 and 2, the respondent, viz., the Inspector of Police, shall order the release of the vehicle forthwith and on such release, it shall be produce before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vridhachalam, once in two months, at M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,http://www.judis.nic.in AND 12 P.RAJAMANICKAM, J., AP 10.30 a.m., on the first working day, till the completion of the investigation.11 It is also made clear that this writ petition came to be disposed of on the above terms on the facts and circumstances of the present case and it need not be cited as a precedent for any other case.12 The writ petition stand disposed of accordingly.No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
161,888,367 | C.R.M. 11149 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 22, 2010 And In re.: Vishal Kumar Prasad @ Guddu & Anr.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Siliguri Police Station Case No. 323 of 2010 dated 28.5.2010 under Sections 341/323/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and the State.Perused the petition as well as the petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on their surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Prasenjit Mandal, J.) akb | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,618,930 | 2. Accused Natthu @ Natthua and Halkai are both brothers who, at the relevant time, lived in Village Chapri and who were vegetable venders.It was not disputed that on the night intervening 16/17-10-97, deceased Bhagat had gone to the house of Natthu to buy vegetables and Natthu had asked him to clear the earlier account first.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that while at 11 in the night, Bhagat was buying vegetables in the house of the accused Natthu Lohar, Sitaram was also present.Natthu was insisting that deceased Bhagat should first clear the old dues.There ensued an altercation between Bhagat and Natthu and the deceased snatched away the vegetables which he had given to the accused.Thereupon, Bhagat slapped accused Natthu and both started grappling.When accused Halkai asked the deceased as to why he had assaulted his brother, the deceased kicked him and he fell down.Natthu then, from their adjoining 'Tapra', brought a 'gupti' and his brother Halkai and iron rod, chisel shaped at one end, and started assaulting Bhagat.Sitaram, present on the spot, tried to intervene but he was also assaulted.As a result of the assault, Bhagat Singh died on the spot.It is alleged that both the accused then dragged the dead body of Bhagat Singh and threw it in the backyard of the house.Sitaram, however, staggered towards his house and fell on the ground unconscious.On regaining consciousness, he informed his brother Bhure the details of the incident.He was brought to P.S. Banda where report was lodged.Sitaram was sent to the Government Hospital, Banda where his dying declaration was also recorded.In view of the precarious condition of Sitaram, he was sent to Tili Hospital and, therefore, though he had serious injuries, he survived.The dead body of Bhagat Singh Thakur was also sent to the hospital for post-mortem.JUDGMENT S.K. Kulshrestha, J.Both the above appeals are directed against the judgment dated 28th September, 1998, by which in Sessions Trial No. 43/98, in which both the appellants were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, has convicted the appellants for the said offences and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 307, IPC and they have also been sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/- and on failure to deposit the fine, in each case, to simple imprisonment for one year.The substantive sentences have, however, been made concurrent.On completion of the investigation, the two accused were prosecuted.Accused Halkai and Natthu, both, denied having committed any offence.Halkai also pleaded that he was not in the house and after 3 o'clock, he had gone with his sister to Village Besli.Accused Natthu stated that Bhagat and Sitaram had gone to his house at about 2 to buy vegetables when they were fully drunk.Bhagat Singh had asked for 5 kg.vegetables and when he enquired as to what he would do with 5 kg.and that he should take only as much as is required, he insisted on the same quantity.Then he demanded money for liquor which he refused stating that he did not have the money.Sitaram then incited him to cut his hand.Sitaram was armed with a sword.Both of them fell him down in the courtyard and sat on him.Sitaram then caused him injuries with sword on his hand.Suddenly Bhagat got up and told Sitaram to keep him pinned on the ground.Bhagat went to his house and asked for money from his sister-in-law who refused.Bhagat, therefore, beat her and she cried.He, therefore, pushed Sitaram aside and went inside his house.When he saw that Bhagat was assaulting Ganeshi, he picked up a bamboo stick and assaulted Bhagat.Bhagat then rushed outside but since there was no light, Sitaram thinking that he (Natthu) had come out, assaulted him with a sharp weapon.He also pleaded that Sitaram in the earlier days had been a mental case.Both Sitaram and Bhagat, therefore, thought that it was when he gave a blow on Sitaram's head with a bamboo stick that Sitaram ran away.It was only to save himself that Sitaram concocted a story.The learned Judge, however, on trial, found the two appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated hereinabove.It was only on account of the quarrel with regard to the money demanded by Natthu and at his insistence that the dues should be first cleared and the demand of the deceased to allow him to take the vegetables on credit and thereafter when deceased Bhagat slapped him that there ensued a quarrel between them.At that point of time, accused Halkai came there and asked the deceased as to why he had slapped his brother, but Halkai was also kicked by him.It was on account of this provocation of grave nature that a situation suddenly emerged on account of violence of the deceased that the accused persons were deprived of the power of self-control and they countered the attack.Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that accused are entitled to acquittal and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.Though it is not disputed that the death of Bhagat was homicidal, a brief reference to the evidence in this behalf is necessary.The dead body of Bhagat was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination and report Ex. P-21 was received.The Autopsy Surgeon found as many as eight injuries on the body which were incised wounds and penetrating wounds of serious nature.As per the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was shock due to heavy blood loss from vital organs.Apart from the eye-witness P.W. 1 Sitaram and other witnesses as also Investigating Officer, P.W. 11 F.S. Randha, has also deposed to the death of Bhagat.According to the testimony of this witness, he had prepared inquest report Ex. P-2 and sent the body to the hospital for post-mortem.In the inquest report also, there was reference to the injuries to which the deceased succumbed.Before referring to the testimony of eye-witness Sitaram (P.W. 1) reference may be made to his injuries.His injuries had been recorded in Ex. P-19 containing multiple incised wounds on head, mastoid area, neck, mandible and scapular region.P.W. 1 Sitaram has deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 11 p.m., after reaping the soyabean crop when he had come to the place of accused Natthu, who was a vegetable vender, he found that an altercation was going on between Bhagat and Natthu.Bhagat was insisting on credit sale while Natthu was insisting that first old dues be cleared then only supplies would be made on credit.Enraged by this stance of Natthu, deceased slapped the accused.This attracted the attention of co-accused Halkai who demanded an explanation from the deceased but the deceased slapped/kicked him too.Natthu then went to his house and brought a 'gupti' and assaulted Bhagat Singh.Halkai also went inside the house, brought a rod, and assaulted Bhagat Singh causing injuries on his head, over his chest and in his abdomen.When this witness asked Natthu why he assaulted Bhagat, he assaulted him also.He also clarified that the rod with which Natthu had armed himself was sharp on one side and Natthu had assaulted him repeatedly causing injuries on his head, on his mandible, between his ears, on his hand and on his wrist.He had then lodged the report.The harm caused by the accused than the injury received would certainly suggest that accused had exceeded the right of private defence.In the result, these appeals are partly allowed. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
16,189,839 | Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each or to undergo SI for 2 months each in default under section 366 of IPC read with section 34 thereof.They were further sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each or to undergo SI for 3 months each in default under section 376 of IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.The FIR in this case was lodged by deceased Prabhu Dayal, father of the prosecutrix.He alleged that he had two children one son and one daughter, the son being elder.He further stated that his daughter, who had gone to house of her friend in Noida on 24th November, 1989, informed her cousin Satish Anand on 25th November, 1989 that she would be going to Pragati Maidan to visit the exhibition being held there and that he should come there to pick her up from Ahmad Food Stall, where Mohd. Imran Khan and Jamal Ahmed were working.He further alleged that when Satish Anand went to Ahmad Food Stall in Pragati Maidan, neither the prosecutrix nor the appellant Mohd. Imran Khan and Jamal Ahmed met him.He further Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 2 of 33 alleged that he was informed that the prosecutrix was seen in the exhibition ground along with the appellants and was to come back home in evening.When she did not come back till evening he went to Pragati Maidan on 26th November, 1989 and came to know that his daughter was seen with the appellants.He also informed that in the year 1988 he had put up a stall in Pragati Maidan, in front of a shop in which the appellants were working and that his wife Devki and his daughter also used to visit the stall for helping him.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 2 of 33The prosecutrix came in the witness box as PW 3 and stated that on 25.11.1989 she had gone to Pragati Maidan as her cousin Satish Anand had to pick her up from there.On reaching Pragati Maidan at about 1.30 P.M. she did not find her cousin at gate No.1 where he was supposed to meet her.She kept looking for him for about 2-3 hours, but did not find him.She further stated that she had told her brother to meet her at Ahmad Food Stall and since she did not find him at gate No.1, she went to Ahmad Food Stall, where both the appellants met her.They were already known to her as her father had put up a stall in Pragati Maidan in the year 1988, opposite the stall of the appellant.The moment they came out they whipped out a knife and Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 3 of 33 told her that in case she tried to run away and raised alarm, they would kill her.She was forcibly taken by them to ISBT, in a three wheeler scooter, and from there she was taken to Merrut by a bus.In Merrut she was taken to hotel Ajanta and both the accused raped her in room No.101 of the hotel.In the morning she was taken to the house of their sister and from there she was brought back to Delhi to the house of elder brother of appellant Jamal.There also she was raped by both the appellants in the night.On 27th November, 1989 they locked her inside the house and went away.They returned in the evening and again committed rape on her.In the evening of 28th November, 1989 the appellant Jamal Ahmed came along with elder brother and brother in law of Mohd. Imran Khan and left her in their custody.They took her to Pragati Maidan and from there she was taken to a flat behind G.B. Pant Hospital where both the appellants were present.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 3 of 33PW 7 Dr. R.K. Sharma, CMO, NDMC has proved the Birth Certificate Ex.PW7/A prepared by his staff and signed by him at point A. During cross-examination he admitted that another Birth Certificate Ex.PW 12 Data Ram is the Reception Officer of Ajanta Hostel, Delhi Road, Merrut.He has stated that on 25 th November, 1989 one Manoj had come to the hotel along with a girl.He identified the appellant Jamal Ahmed as the boy referred by him a Manoj and also produced the entry made in the register regarding stay of Manoj and a girl Mohini.PW14 Inspector R.K. Gulia has stated that on 28.11.1989 they conducted a raid at Government flat No.36/96 in G.B. Pant Hospital.The prosecutrix was found there along with both the appellants.According to him he was taken to that house by Mahboob Khan, brother-in-law of the appellant Mohd. Imran Khan Khan.PW13 constable Samunder Singh has corroborated the deposition of PW14 regarding the recovery of the prosecutrix.In his statement under section 313 Cr.PC the appellant Jamal Ahmed denied having taken the prosecutrix with him and having raped her.He claimed that he was introduced to the prosecutrix by Mohd. Imran Khan and she used to treat him as her brother.The appellant Mohd. Imran Khan also denied Crl.PW7/DA does not pertain to the birth of the prosecutrix and Ex.PW7/A is her genuine Birth Certificate issued by NDMC.Had the appellants put knives on the person of the prosecutrix at a crowded place like Pragati Maidan in day time, she would definitely have raised alarm because on account of presence of a large number of persons, she would not be intimidated even if knives are put on her person, confident as she would be that on alarm being raised by her the appellants would be caught by the persons who are present there and would be handed over to the police.This is more so when the appellants were not stranger to her, they being previously known to her.The prosecutrix has stated that in Merrut she was brought to hotel.She must have got down at a Bus Terminus at Merrut Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 17 of 33 and must have taken some means of transport for going from Bus Terminus to the hotel.No alarm was raised by the prosecutrix either at Bus Terminus in Merrut or during journey from Bus Terminus to the hotel.PC denied having taken the prosecutrix to Merrut and did not claim that he, along with Jamal Ahmed, had accompanied her to Merrut, he had come back from there for going to Bahadurgarh to bring the brother of Shri Mustafa Alam, advocate.Even otherwise it is difficult to accept to accept that if the appellant Mohd. Imran was having relationship with the prosecutrix he would leave her in the company of Jamal Ahmed and come back from Merrut.His claim that he wanted to go to Bahadurgarh but could not reach there because the bus had stopped on the way and he did not know the address of the lawyer and, therefore, he came to Delhi is totally unbelievable.The evidence that has come on record shows that the prosecutrix had willingly accompanied the appellants to Merrut and had willing stayed with them in the hotel where she was subjected to rape.These are two criminal appeals arising out of the judgment dated 29th May, 1999 and the Order on Sentence dated 31 st May, 1999 whereby both the appellants were convicted under section 366 of IPC read with section 34 thereof and under section 376 of IPC.After some time the police arrived there and recovered her.Her underwear P1 was seized by the police.She was produced before a Magistrate where her statement Ex.F3/A was recorded.PW7/DA was also signed by him.PW 9 Vijay Kumar is the Medical Record Officer of the Safdarjung Hospital Crl.The copy of the birth entry is Ex.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 5 of 33 having taken the prosecutrix with him and having raped her.He has claimed that Jamal Ahmed used to visit his place and had introduced him to the family of the prosecutrix.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 5 of 33Two witnesses have been produced in defence.DW1 M.M. Alam has stated that in the year 1989 the appellant Jamal Ahmed had come to him regarding marriage of the appellant Mohd. Imran Khan with the prosecutrix who told him that she wanted to marry Mohd. Imran Khan .DW2 Sayeed Akhtar is the brother-in-law of the appellant Mohd. Imran Khan .He has stated that on 27th November, 1989 police officials took Mohd. Imran Khan with them.DW4 Mohd. Shaqir has stated that on 27.11.89 some police officials had taken Mohd. Imran Khan to police station from U.P. pavilion in Pragati Maidan.The appellant Mohd. Imran Khan has himself come in the witness box as DW 5 and has stated that he had become friendly to the prosecutrix and on 25th November, 1989 she met him at his residence and told her that her mother had turned her out of the house.He stated that the prosecutrix and the appellant Jamal Ahmed went to Merrut to consult Shri Mustaq Alam, Advocate who was known to Jamal.Jamal Ahmed went to the house of the advocate along with the prosecutrix and asked him to bring his brother Zaheer, who was a friend of the advocate.He could not reach Bahadurgarh and came to home.Thereafter he had no contact with the prosecutrix or Jamal.On 27 th November, 1989 Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 6 of 33 he was arrested from his restaurant from Pragati Maidan and was taken to the police station.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 6 of 33The first issue which comes up for consideration in this case is as to what was the age of the prosecutrix on the date she is alleged to have been kidnapped and the dates she is alleged to have been raped.When the prosecutrix came in the witness box on 21st May, 1992, after about 2 years of the alleged kidnapping and rape, she stated that she was aged 17 years.The documents available on the trial court file show that the complainant Shri Prabhu Dass, father of the prosecutrix, who was cited as a prosecution witness died, during pendency of the trial.On the summons issued to Shri Prabhu Dass as a witness for 7th May, 1996 it was reported that he had died and a copy of his death certificate was also submitted by his wife Devki to the police official who went for service of summon upon him.The mother of the prosecutrix having not been cited as a witness was not produced in the witness box.Obviously, while conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer could never Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 7 of 33 have anticipated that the father of the prosecutrix would die during pendency of trial and will not be able to come into witness box.Therefore, it was not necessary for him to cite the mother of the prosecutrix as a witness, in order to prove her age.Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on account of non-production of the parents of the prosecutrix in the witness box to prove her date of birth.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 7 of 33As per the Birth Certificate Ex.The authenticity of this document has been duly proved by PW 7 Shri R.K. Sharma, CMO, NDMC who has signed this document at point 'A'.This public document finds corroboration from the birth register of NDMC which was brought by PW 9 Shri Vijay Kumar Harnal of Safdarjung Hospital and a true copy of the relevant entry made in that register is Ex.PW9/A. The particulars given in Ex.PW 9/A match those given in the certificate Ex.PW7/A. Therefore, both the documents are corroborative of each other.The Investigating Officer who came in the witness box as PW 15, specifically stated that this Birth Certificate was given to him by the father of the prosecutrix and that he had also obtained the photocopy of proof of the birth of the prosecutrix from Safadarjung Hospital, which is Ex. PW15/B. A perusal of Crl.This is yet another document which corroborates the authenticity of Ex.PW 7/A and PW 9/A. The Birth Certificate Ex.PW7/A having been produced by none other than the father of the prosecutrix and its authenticity having been duly verified by the Investigating Officer from the record of the hospital and the document finding full corroboration from the Birth Register of NDMC, I see absolutely no reason to doubt its authenticity.As regards the certificate Ex.PW 7/DA produced by the appellants and shown to PW 7 during cross-examination, I find that the material available on record shows that this certificate does not pertain to the birth of the prosecutrix.Though the name of the father of the child has been shown as Prabhu Dass the name of her mother has been shown as Devi Rani in this document.A perusal of the FIR would show that the name of the mother of the prosecutirx is 'Devki' and not 'Devi Rani'.During the course of the trial , the process issued by the court to Shri Prabhu Dass, father of the prosecutrix was received by his wife a number of times.The summon of Prabhu Das for 8 th November, 1994 received by one Devki and the report of the process server shows that she was the wife of Prabu Das.The summon of Prabhu Das for 12 October, 1995 was received by Devki and as per the report of the process server she was the wife of Prabhu Das.When the Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 9 of 33 summon of Prabhu Das was issued for 7th May, 1996, it was Devki who met the process server and informed him that Prabhu Das had died and she also handed over a copy of the Death Certificate to the process server.Thus, there can be no doubt that the name of the mother of the prosecutrix was Devki and not Devi Rani.Therefore, certificate Ex.PW7/DA cannot be in respect of the birth of the prosecutrix.A perusal of the FIR shows that late Shri Prabhu Das, father of the prosecutrix, had two children including the prosecutrix.The certificate Ex.PW 7/A filed by the prosecution shows that the woman who gave birth to the child to which the certificate pertains had two living children on the date of registration of birth.On the other hand, the certificate Ex.PW7/DA filed by the appellants does not contain any entry regarding the number of living children.This is yet another circumstance which shows that the certificate Ex.PW7/DA does not pertain to the prosecutrix.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 8 of 33Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 9 of 33There is no corroborative evidence which would assure the court that Ex.PW7/DA pertains to the prosecutrix.On the other hand, there is ample corroborative documentary evidence in the form of Ex.PW9/A and PW 15/B which gives complete assurance to the court that Ex.PW 7/A is the certificate pertaining to the birth of the prosecutrix.Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the Birth Certificate produced by the appellants.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 10 of 33Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 10 of 33It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in his cross-examination the Investigating Officer stated that the Birth Certificate produced by the father of the prosecutrix did not relate to the prosecutrix.PW7/A giving the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 2nd September, 1974 was verified by him from Safdarjung Hospital vide Ex.PW15/B. His deposition in the cross- examination to the effect that the Birth Certificate of the prosecution did not relate to her and that he did not verify about the Birth Certificate from NDMC, obviously refers to PW7/DA which the appellants claim to be the Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix.In his cross-examination the Investigating Officer also stated that he had submitted before the court, at the time of hearing of the bail application, that the Birth Certificate was genuine but did not relate to the prosecutrix.Obviously, he would not be saying so in respect of the Birth Certificate which he himself filed with the charge sheet and authenticity of which he himself had verified from Safdargjung Hospital vide Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 11 of 33 Ex.PW15/B. It appears that during arguments on the bail application the appellants relied upon Ex.PW7/DA, and it was in respect of this document that the Investigating Officer submitted before the court that though the document was genuine, it did not relate to the prosecutrix.Hence, I am satisfied that Ex.As per the Birth Certificate Ex.Therefore, on 25th November, 1989, she was less than 16 years old.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 11 of 33As per the report of the CW1 Dr. U.C. Garg Ex.CW1/A, the age of the prosecutrix was between 16-17 years.Relying upon his opinion it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age on the date she is alleged to have been kidnapped and that since there could be variation of up to 2 years in the age determined by Ossification Test, she could be more than 18 years old on the relevant date.In my view it is not appropriate for the court to give preference to the medical opinion in the form of Ossification Test over unimpeachable and authentic documents are available in the form of Birth Certificate of the NDMC produced by the prosecution which also finds corroboration from the record of Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 12 of 33 the hospital Ex.PW15/B and Birth Register of NDMC Ex.PW9/A. In the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey & Anr.(1992) 3 SCC 204 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 12 of 33A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of symptoms found on examination.The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court."In Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SC 508, the Birth Certificate of Municipal Corporation and register of the hospital where the prosecutrix was born showed that she was less than 16 years of age.On the other hand as per the Ossification Test her age was 18-19 years with error of margin of six months on either side.It was contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that determination of the age of the prosecutrix having been scientifically proved by conducting Ossification Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 13 of 33 Test, should be accepted.Rejecting the contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 13 of 33In the case of determination of date of birth of the child, the best evidence is of the father and the mother.In the present case, the father and the mother - PW-1 and PW-13 categorically stated that PW-4 the prosecutrix was born on 29.11.64, which is supported by the unimpeachable documents, as referred to above in all material particulars.These are the statements of facts.If the statements of facts are pitted against the so called expert opinion of the doctor with regard to the determination of age based on ossification test scientifically conducted, the evidence of facts of the former will prevail over the expert opinion based on the basis of ossification test.Even as per the doctor's opinion in the ossification test for determination of age, the age varies.In the present case, therefore, the ossification test cannot form the basis for determination of the age of the prosecutrix on the face of witness effects tendered by PW-1 and PW-13, supported by unimpeachable documents.In view of the above referred authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no reliance can be placed upon the report of Ossification Test in the face of the unimpeachable documentary evidence produced by the prosecution.I am, however, in full agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the facts and circumstances of the case Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 14 of 33 rule out any reasonable possibility of the prosecutrix having been forcibly kidnapped or raped against her consent as claimed by her.According to the prosecutrix after reaching Pragati Maidan on 25.11.1989 she looked for her cousin at gate No.1 as he had asked her to meet him there.On the other hand, the father of the prosecutrix alleged in the FIR that the prosecutrix had asked her cousin to meet him at Ahmed Food Stall.If the prosecutrix was to meet with her cousin at Ahmed Food Stall, there was no occasion to her to go first to gate No.1 of Pragati Maidan.According to the prosecutrix, she was brought by the appellant to gate No.3 of the Pragati Maidan and was forced to board a Three Wheeler Scooter, with two knives having been kept on her person by the appellants.She has further stated that the direction of the auto rikshaw was towards ITO and not towards Zoo.If that be so, the prosecutrix must have crossed Mathura Road in order to reach the side where the auto rikshaw was parked because Pragati Maidan is on that side of the Mathura Road which goes towards Zoo whereas the auto rikshaw was parked on that side of the Mathura Road which goes towards ITO.The Prosecutrix has admitted that there were lot of people in Pragati Maidan as Trade Fair was going on at that time.As a matter of fact, Pragati Maidan and its surrounding areas are extremely overcrowded during trade fair which is held every year between 14 th November to 27th Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 15 of 33 November.It is not possible to accept that no one noticed the prosecutrix going all the way from gate no. 3 of Pragati Maidan up to other side of the Mathura Road with two knives having been put on her side.Had that been the case a number of persons would have noticed it and would have immediately called the police.According to the prosecutrix she travelled in an auto rikshaw from Pragati Maidan to ISBT and both the appellants were sitting on her side with knives on her person during the course of the journey.Had that been the case, it could not have escaped the attention of the auto rikshaw driver and he would have caught the appellants and handed over them to the police instead of taking the prosecutrix and the appellants to the ISBT.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 16 of 33Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 16 of 33According to the prosecutrix they boarded a bus for Merrut from ISBT.A large number of persons including the police officers always remain present at ISBT.It is difficult to accept that knives had been put on the person of the prosecutrix when she remained at ISBT and boarded the bus from there but that was not noticed by any person present at the Bus Terminus.If a young girl is being escorted by two boys who have kept one knife each on both her sides, that would immediately draw the attention of some or the other person present at a busy place like a Bus Terminus and the persons wilding knives would immediately be caught and handed over to the police.According to the prosecutrix she travelled in a bus from Delhi to Merrut and other passengers were also present in the bus.She has stated that knives were kept on her person even during the bus journey.Had that been the case, the prosecutrix would definitely have raised alarm because she knew that on account of presence of a large number of passengers in the bus, it would not be possible for the appellants to harm her and since the bus was moving they also will not be able to escape.In any case, had the appellants kept knives on the person of the prosecutrix during bus journey they could not have escaped the attention of their fellow passengers.Had she been under threat, should would definitely have raised alarm and the appellants would have been caught by the persons present at the Bus Terminus or the persons present on the road while they were travelling from Bus Terminus to the hotel.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 17 of 33In the hotel also the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm.She did not complain either to the receptionist or any waiter.Had she not been a consenting party she would have never have gone towards the room and would have told the receptionist that she was being coerced to go into the room.The prosecutrix has stated that from hotel she was taken to the house of the sister of the appellants.Again she did not raise any alarm when she came down from the room or when she was being taken to the house of the sister of the appellants.She did not make any complaint to the family of the sister of the appellants that she had been subjected to rape and had been brought under intimidation.The prosecutrix came to Delhi from Merrut.For that purpose she must have travelled in a bus or a train from Merrut to Delhi and would have got down either at ISBT or a railway station in Delhi.Had she not been a willing Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 18 of 33 and consenting party, she would have raised alarm at any of these places.Her failure to do so despite having repeated opportunities that she had accompanied the appellants on her own and that she was not under any kind of threat or intimidation when she accompanied the appellants to Merrut and was subjected to sexual intercourse firstly in a hotel and then in a house in Delhi.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 18 of 33One does not entice other, unless the latter attempts to do a thing which he or she would not otherwise have done.In order to bring home conviction for kidnapping, there must be proof of the accused having done something which led to the girl going out of the keeping of her guardian.The words 'takes' and 'entices' as used in Section 361 of Indian Penal Code Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 19 of 33 need to be read together so as to take colour and content from each other.In my view the facts and circumstances brought on record clearly show that the prosecutrix willingly accompanied the appellants and stayed with them till they were caught by the police.The prosecutrix knew and had the capacity to know the full import what she was doing.It is, therefore, difficult to say that the offence of kidnapping has been made out against the appellants in the facts and circumstances of this case.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 20 of 33The deposition of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was subjected to intercourse under intimidation cannot be belied in the facts and circumstances of this case.Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants took the prosecutrix with them so as to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse.She was found going on the bicycle of the appellant.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 22 of 33 unknown to her with whom she was going and therefore, it was expected of her then to jump down from the bicycle or put up the struggle and in any case raise an alarm to protect herself.As no such steps were taken by her, the Hon'ble Supreme Court felt that she was a willing party to go with the appellants of her own and, therefore, there was no taking out of the guardianship.The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 366 of IPC.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 22 of 33The appellant was convicted under Sections 366 and 376 Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 23 of 33 of I.P.C. A learned Single Judge of this Court noticed that she had gone to Railway Station, had stood there with the appellant who also went to purchase tickets and then she had travelled with him in a compartment shared by other persons.She had then gone to a house in a tonga and yet she did not lodge any protest and made no attempt to flee despite having ample time and opportunity.The learned Single Judge noted that on the day of reckoning, she surely had crossed mark of sixteen years and since she was all along a willing party, the appellant was acquitted of both the charges against him.Thus, despite the prosecutrix being less than eighteen years of age, the appellant was acquitted not only of charge under Section 376 but also of the charge under Section 366 of I.P.C.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 23 of 33In Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1998(3) Crimes 570, the High Court found that the prosecutrix was more than sixteen years of age at the time of this incident, though, the case of the prosecution was that she was forteen years of old at that time.Since the High Court came into conclusion that no force was used in having sexual intercourse with him, the appellant was acquitted not only of charge under Section 376 but also of charge under Section 366 and 366-A of Indian Penal Code.In this case also, the prosecutrix was not found to be more than eighteen years of age.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 24 of 33Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 24 of 33In Bala Saheb vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Criminal Law General 3044, it was found that the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant/accused from her village and stayed with him for two to three days.It was held that these circumstances clearly show that offence under Section 363 or 366 of I.P.C. was not made out.In Chida Ram vs. State, 1992 Criminal Law General 4073, the prosecutrix went to the P.S. and lodged report that she had gone with the petitioner/accused, of her own accord.However, during trial, she deposed that she was forced by the accused/petitioner to go to the police station.She had also given statement before a Magistrate after lodging report with the police and in that statement she did not say that she was forced by the accused/petitioner to go to the Police Post and lodged the report.A learned Single Judge of this Court observed that she had ample opportunity to say before the Magistrate, before whom she was produced at the first instance, that she was forced by the accused to go to the Police Station and lodged report.The story set up by her during trial was considered to be an afterthought and was not believed.It was found that she was a consenting party in eloping from her house with the accused/petitioner.It was held that it could not also be called a case of kidnapping.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 25 of 33Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 25 of 33However, as far as charge under section 376 of IPC is concerned, the appellants are guilty even if they had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her consent as the prosecutrix was less than 16 years old at the time when she was subject to sexual intercourse.I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix as regards the sexual intercourse with her.It is extremely unlikely that a young unmarried girl will falsely allege sexual intercourse with her, since she knows that by making such an accusation, she would be sacrificing what is most dear to her.In a tradition bound non-permissive society like ours, a young girl would be reluctant even to admit an incident of sexual intercourse with her, conscious as she would be of being criticized not only by the society but also by her own family members, relatives and neighbors who may somehow or the other hold her at least partly responsible for the incident which happened with her.Even the parents of an unmarried girl would not report such an incident to the police unless they are absolutely sure of its truthfulness.The parents of an unmarried girl would always be aware of the risk that comes to be associated with the marriage of an unmarried girl who is subjected to sexual intercourse and that too by two young boys professing an altogether different religion.They know that if such an incident becomes public it would be difficult for them to Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 26 of 33 find a suitable match for their daughter from a respectable family.Their natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to such an incident lest their family name and family honour is brought under disrepute on account of an adverse publicity.Therefore, I find no good ground to reject the testimony of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by both the appellants.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 26 of 33In his statement under section 313 of Cr.PC the appellant Mohd. Imran claimed that his co-accused Jamal Ahmed used to visit his place and had introduced him to the family of the prosecutrix.On the other hand, the appellant Jamal Ahmed stated that it was Mohd. Imran who had introduced him to the family of the prosecutrix.Thus, both of them are contradicting each other as to who introduced whom to the prosecutrix.When Mohd. Imran came in the witness box as DW5, he stated that he had become friendly with the prosecutrix and they had been meeting each other.He also claimed that the prosecutrix had come to his stall on 22nd November as well as 25th November and she had told him that she had been turned by her mother out of her home.He further stated that he along with the prosecutrix and Jamal Ahmed went to Merrut to consult Shri Mustafa Alam, Advocate.According to him it was Jamal Ahmed who took the prosecutrix to the house of the advocate Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 27 of 33 and he himself went to Bahadurgarh to bring the brother of the advocate but could not reach Bahadurgarh.However, the appellant Jamal Ahmed has not taken the same stand and has altogether denied having accompanied the prosecutrix to Merrut.According to the appellant Mohd. Imran he had no contact with the prosecutrix or Jamal Ahmed thereafter and was arrested by the police from his restaurant.If one bus had gone out of order, he would have boarded another bus.His claim that he came back to Delhi as he did not know the address of the lawyer is ex- Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 28 of 33 facie false, as he himself stated that Jamal Ahmed had taken them to the lawyer at Merrut.If he had gone up to the place of the lawyer along with Jamal Ahmed, there could be no question of his not knowing the address of the lawyer and not being able to reach there.Since the appellant Mohd. Imran Khan was having an affair with the prosecutrix, in normal course of human conduct he must have remained with her throughout till they were apprehended by the police.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 27 of 33Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 28 of 33In his statement under section 313 of Cr.PC, Jamal Ahmed does not say that he along with Mohd. Imran Khan had accompanied the prosecutrix to Merrut and that in Merrut he along had taken the prosecutrix to the place of the advocate whereas Mohd. Imran Khan had gone to Bahadurgarh to bring the brother of the advocate.He does not say that he had accompanied the prosecutrix to hotel and had stayed there in the night with her.He does not say that he alone had brought the prosecutrix from Merrut to Delhi.During cross-examination of the prosecutrix it was suggested to her that in the hotel she and Jamal Ahmed had introduced themselves as brother and sister.Such a defence is inherently improbable and cannot be believed.Assuming that Jamal Ahmed alone had taken the prosecutrix to the hotel and stayed with her in the night, when a young boy goes to a hotel and takes a room on rent for staying overnight he would not introduce the girl accompanying him as Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 29 of 33 his sister because that would immediately create suspicion in the mind of the hotel staff because a young boy is not likely to stay with his young sister in a hotel in the night.The appellant Jamal Ahmed having been identified by PW12 Data Ram as Manoj, it cannot be accepted that he had not gone to the hotel with the prosecutrix and had not stayed there in the night with her.If the names of both the appellants were not got recorded in the record of the hotel that by itself would not show that they had not stayed in the room with the prosecutrix.It is quite likely that the names of them the boys were not entered in the hotel register because that would have created suspicion on account of two boys staying with a young girl in one room.Nothing prevented the appellants from taking the room for one couple and then both of them staying in the same room during night.There is yet another possibility that the hotel staff was persuaded to give room to all the three but the names of only one male and one female were entered in the register in order to show, on record, that a couple had stayed in the room.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 29 of 33Whatever be the circumstances in which all the three came to stay in the same room, it is difficult to believe that the appellant Mohd. Imran Khan who was carrying an affair with the prosecutrix would have allowed his co-accused Jamal Ahmed a young man to stay alone with the prosecutrix in a hotel in the night.Once it is shown that both the appellants had stayed in Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 30 of 33 the same room with the prosecutrix, it is difficult to accept that only one of them had sex with her.If either of them did not want to have sex with the prosecutrix, he would not have stayed in that room during the night.In any case, had the prosecutrix been subjected to sexual intercourse only by the appellant Jamal, she would not have implicated Imran, with whom she was friendly.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 30 of 33It was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar vs. State 2001(VII) AD(SC) 209 that the law has not fixed any time limit for lodging FIR and delayed FIR is not illegal.If there is a delay the court has to look for the reasons which could be many, but the FIR is not vitiated on account of delay alone.As regards reporting of cases of elopement of a girl that too with boys of a different religion one cannot be oblivious to the fact that since in such cases honour of the family is involved, a lot of thought must have gone into, before it was decided to lodge FIR.The prosecutrix being a young girl aged about 15 years at the time she accompanied the appellants, it is understandable that her father must have taken time to decide what course of action he should Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 31 of 33 adopt.Therefore, lodging of FIR in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 31 of 33For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, both the appellants are acquitted of the charge under section 366/34 of IPC.Their conviction under section 376 of IPC is, however, maintained.As regards sentence though the minimum prescribed punishment is imprisonment for 7 years coupled with fine, the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 7 years.More than 20 years have passed since then.These appeals are pending for last more than 10 years.She was more than 15 years old when she eloped with the appellants.The appellants were young boys when this incident took place.The main circumstance which persuades me to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence and awarding less than the minimum prescribed sentence is the consent on the part of the prosecutrix to accompany them which is more than evident from the facts and circumstances of the case.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 32 of 33Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 32 of 33Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the appellants are sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each or to undergo SI for 3 months in default under section 376 of IPC.The appellants are directed to surrender forthwith before the trial court to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence imposed upon them.(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE DECEMBER 8, 2009 RS Crl.Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 33 of 33Appeals 311-312/1999 Page 33 of 33 | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
16,190,089 | Heard on I.A.No.9698/2020 which is third application filed by appellant No.2 under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Katni, District Katni in Sessions Trial No.76/2015 convicting the appellant under section 366/120B of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and u/s 376(2)(dha) of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.After arguing at length, learned counsel or the appellant prays for withdrawal of this application.I.A.No.9698/2020 stands dismissed as withdrawn.List the appeal after final hearing as per its turn.C.C. as per rules.(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE HS Digitally signed by HEMA HEMANT SARAF DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF NT MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f8fa0b4f4478c623 SARAF 8823256688e73f3f8f39554 afa15525b099da0b0d4006 0cc, cn=HEMANT SARAF Date: 2020.11.26 14:51:26 +05'30' | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,629,383 | O R D E R We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a very great length, more particularly, as the judgment before us is one of reversal; the Trial Court having acquitted all the accused and the High Court reversing the judgment qua the solitary appellant herein.The facts of the case are as under:On the 4th November, 1991 PW.1, along with his brother the deceased-Tamilvendhan, went to a restaurant in Labortene Street, Pondicherry.At the restaurant his friends PWs.2, 3,4 and another person joined them.They ordered their food and while they were waiting to be served, asked for some drinks.A short while later they heard sounds of breaking of plates inside the restaurant.The seven accused then came out and while they were passing by PW's.1,2,4 and the deceased, appellant-Subramani made an abrasive comment on the complainant party.The deceased however laughed at him on which the appellant called his -2-friends and they surrounded the table of the complainants.The appellant also took up a bottle lying on the table, broke it by hitting it on the table and stabbed Tamilvendhan on his neck.When PW.1 intervened he too was caused injuries in that process.On seeing this PW.2 came out to rescue them and he too was attacked by the appellant.The deceased fell down on the ground whereafter all the accused ran away from the place.The incident happened at about 10.45 p.m. The deceased, accompanied by the injured PWs 1 and 2, was then taken to the Government hospital, Pondicherry, where they were examined by PW.10 at 11.10 p.m. Tamilvendhan was found dead on arrival.All the accused were arrested on the 26th November, 1991 and were subjected to a test identification parade three days later while in jail.1 and 2 identified all the seven accused in the course of the test identification parade.On the completion of the investigation the accused were brought to trial for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 324 read with -3-Sec.149 of the IPC.The Trial Court held that the statement of PW.1 could not be believed more particularly as both PW. 2 and PW.4 had been declared hostile.The Court also held that there was also some doubt as to the place where the incident had happened.An appeal was thereafter filed by the State before the High Court.The High Court has, while confirming the acquittal of six of the accused, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court with respect to the appellant Subramani, by holding that his acquittal was perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.The High Court accordingly relying on the evidence of PW.1, the medical evidence, and the test identification parade held that the appellant was involved in the incident but as the incident was the out come of a sudden quarrel the matter fell within Exception 4, to Section 300 of the IPC and the appellant was liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and accordingly keeping in the mind the fact that the case was fifteen years old and the appellant had a mentally challenged brother to look after, the ends of justice would be met if a sentence of three years R.I. was imposed on him.2 and 4, two of the eye-witnesses had been declared hostile the High Court's reliance on PW.1 alone was not acceptable more particularly in an appeal against acquittal.He has also pointed out that even assuming for a moment that PW.1 had been present at the place of incident the question of identification of the accused still remained alive as it had come in evidence that the light in the restaurant was very dim and as both parties were in a completely inebriated condition it was impossible for PW.1 to have identified anyone.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length.It is true that the High Court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has its options some what circumscribed.Even otherwise, the evidence that the incident happened at about 10.30-10.45 p.m. on the 4th November 1991 -6-and the injured had reached the hospital within 20 or 25 minutes and that the doctor had sent intimation to the police on which the ASI had reached the hospital within half an hour and the formal FIR recorded at 1.10 a.m. on the 5th November 1991 are all proved on record.Admittedly, the restaurant in question was a very small one having four tables.It has also come in the evidence that there were four tube lights in the restaurant.The High Court has opined very -7-adversely on the conduct of the Trial Court in ignoring this substantial and very pertinent evidence given as to identity the appellant. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
154,923,611 | The occurrence took Crl.On scrutinising the statements of the prosecution witnesses on record, it reveals that vital infirmities and inconsistencies have emerged making it unsafe to base conviction on her solitary statement.In her Court statement as PW-2, the prosecutrix admitted that she was familiar with A-1 as he used to live with his brother in front of their house.In April, 2001, A-1 came in the house in the absence of her brothers and sister who were away to school and her parents had gone for their jobs, he committed rape upon her. A-1 used to come and tease her subsequent to that also.Finally, he started enticing her to run away and marry.At night time, she accompanied A-1 in a TSR and reached Haridwar.She was taken to in-laws of Ram Kumar's brother and they remained there for about 8 - 9 days.In the cross-examination, she admitted that certain documents along with photographs were prepared for solemnization of marriage at Muzaffarnagar.She further disclosed that in the house where Crl.A.209-10/2006 Page 3 of 6 she was kept, Raj Kumar's father-in-law, mother-in-law, three brothers-in- laws and sister-in-law were present.She, however, did not raise alarm any time and did not complain to them about her kidnapping.She further admitted that in the bus, there was a large crowd but she did not raise noise due to fear.A.209-10/2006 Page 3 of 6From the whole testimony of the prosecutrix, it can be inferred that she was willing and consenting party throughout.It was a case of elopement with consent.At no stage, she attempted to contact her parents and to inform them about her whereabouts.Present appeals have been preferred by the appellants - Ram Kumar @ Gouda (A-1) and Raj Kumar (A-2) to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 18.11.2005 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.37/02 arising out of FIR No.180/01 PS Badarpur by which A-1 was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 366/376 IPC whereas A-2 was convicted under Section 376 IPC.By an order dated 21.11.2005, the appellants were awarded various prison terms with fine.Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 09.04.2001 the appellants in furtherance of common intention kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X' (Changed name) aged around 16 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents and was sexually assaulted from 09.04.2001 to 19.04.2001 against her wishes.A.209-10/2006 Page 1 of 6 place on 09.04.2001 when PW-3 (Braham Pal), victim's father, had gone along with his wife away at night.On return, they found 'X' missing from the house.FIR No. 180/01 under Section 363 IPC was registered.On 19.04.2001, the prosecutrix was recovered.She was medically examined.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.The appellants and their associate were arrested and medically examined.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all of them in the Court.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses.In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.The trial resulted in appellants' conviction as aforesaid.It is relevant to mention that co-accused Raju was acquitted of the charges and the State did not challenge his acquittal.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants.A.209-10/2006 Page 1 of 6I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.On Crl.A.209-10/2006 Page 2 of 6 09.04.2001, the prosecutrix had accompanied A-1 at night when her parents were away.She travelled with A-1 to Haridwar.At no stage, she raised alarm.When they came to know about lodging of the FIR by the victim's parents and the fact that the police was searching them, the prosecutrix was brought back to Delhi where A-1 was arrested.A.209-10/2006 Page 2 of 6When the prosecutrix was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW-7/DA), she categorically informed the examining doctor that she had accompanied A-1 with her consent and had sexual intercourse with him.She declined to get herself medically examined.As per MLC (Ex.PW- 7/DA), no visible injuries whatsoever were noticed on any vital body parts of the prosecutrix including private parts.Absence of the injuries on the private parts indicated that the prosecutrix was a consenting and willing party as disclosed by her to the doctor.She remained in the company of the appellants for about ten days.9. 'X's age becomes significant to ascertain the guilt of the appellants.It was the case of the prosecution that 'X' was below 16 years on the day of occurrence.The prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW- 5 (Bhim Singh) who proved school records (Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.This date of birth was recorded in the school records on the basis of an affidavit furnished by Mrs. Raj.She had assured to the school authorities to produce the X's birth certificate within a year.However, no such birth certificate has surfaced on record till date.It is not clear as to on what basis date of birth of the prosecutrix 11.06.1985 came to be recorded in the school records.Documents (Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B) reveal that the prosecutrix remained in the said school for around a year.Prior to that, she had also studied up to 3rd standard in some other school.The Investigating Agency did not collect any documentary record regarding date of birth registered in Crl.A.209-10/2006 Page 4 of 6 the school first attended by the prosecutrix.The prosecution did not examine Mrs.Raj to ascertain as to on what basis she had disclosed the birth date to the school authorities.Apparently, genuineness and correctness of the age recorded in the school register is suspect and cannot be relied upon.A.209-10/2006 Page 4 of 6It was particularly so in this case because according to the medical evidence the prosecutrix was found to have been used to sexual intercourse and the rupture of the hymen was old.The High Court having acquitted the appellant for an offence under Section 376 IPC, because the prosecutrix appeared to be a consenting party not only to the impugned acts of sexual intercourse in question but even on earlier occasions, it was, in our opinion, a fit case in which that court should have examined the question of her age more closely.On the evidence on the record we are far from satisfied that there is any trustworthy evidence on the record on which the conclusion that Satnam Kaur, prosecutrix, Crl.A.209-10/2006 Page 5 of 6 was under 18 years of age in March, 1965 can safely be founded."A.209-10/2006 Page 5 of 6In 'Raunki Saroop Vs State', MANU/PH/0068/1970, it has been held that the medical opinion based on X-ray report should be preferred to oral evidence.On the same set of evidence co-accused Raju was acquitted.Obviously, the Trial Court did not consider the statement of the prosecutrix sufficient to base conviction qua Raju.No independent public witness was associated at any stage of investigation.`20,000/- and gold ornaments allegedly handed over by the victim were never recovered.The Investigating Agency did not examine any witness from Muzaffarnagar to ascertain as to under what circumstances documents (Ex.PW-2/DA and Ex.PW-2/DB) came to be executed.Considering the inherent deficiencies and infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, X's statement alone cannot be accepted to base conviction.Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted.The conviction and sentence are set aside.Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 15, 2016 / tr Crl.A.209-10/2006 Page 6 of 6A.209-10/2006 Page 6 of 6 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,503,763 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.607 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alankulam, Tirunelveli District.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1390 of 20182.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent herein had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.443 of 2013 for the offences under Section 304 IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.V.Sasikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.The case was registered for the offences under Section 304 IPC.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was riding in a Motor cycle and dashed against the vehicle of the second respondent's wife.It is also seen from the statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Since the case is of the year 2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alankulam, Tirunelveli District is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate, Alankulam, Tirunelveli District.2.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.(MD).No.1390 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,526,900 | The prosecution case as disclosed in the First Information Report, lodged by PW-1 Ram Kumar, the son of the deceased Bharat Ram was that their house was adjoining the house of their grand uncle Ram Narayan.There was some abadi land between the two houses.Some land which was rightfully the informant's had been left out of their property, when the informant's side were getting their new house constructed as their Southern wall had not been built in a straight line.The accused side wanted to grab the said land and were making an effort to achieve this objective on the date and time of incident, i.e. on 24.10.1991 at 2.00 P.M. This was objected to by the informant, his father Bharat Ram and his brothers Hausila Prasad and Shiv Kumar.This angered the appellants and Anokhey Lal, and on the exhortation of Anokhey Lal, that one person be murdered so that the informant's side would not claim the said land in future, the appellant Radhey Shyam brought a spear from his house and the appellant Jagdish and Anokhey Lal brought out lathis and gave a chase to the deceased Bharat Ram, who ran along with the informant and others towards the main door of their house in order to escape the assault.At that point the appellant Radhey Shyam struck the spear on the chest of the deceased, whilst the appellant Jagdish Prasad and Anokhey Lal assaulted him with lathis.On their cries, Karkau, Brij Nath and Ram Niwas reached the spot.The appellant Jagdish also assaulted Haushila Prasad PW-2 with a Lathi causing an injury on his right arm.The FIR of this incident was got registered at the police station Colonelganj by PW-1 Ram Kumar on 24.10.1991 at 3.10 P.M. The Investigating Officer PW-6 SI R.S. Shukla conducted the investigation of this case.He inspected the spot, prepared the site plan( Ext. Ka-7) and thereafter he conducted the inquest and wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Gonda for conducting an autopsy on the corpse of the deceased.After completing the investigation, he submitted a charge sheet against the appellants ( Ext. Ka-13).PW-5 Dr. J.P. Pandey conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Bharat Ram on 25.10.1991 at 3.00 P.M. He found one lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on top of the head 12 cm above right ear and one punctured wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm cavity deep with a clean cut margin on front of the left side of the chest just below the left nipple.The internal examination showed no apparent damage (NAD) on the scalp, skull and bones, except some cut margins.About 3 liters of blood were also found in the heart.Thereafter, all the four brothers of his father built separate houses.The main door of the informant's house was to the north .On the Southern side of his house there was an Abadi land which he had got from his ancestors.Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J) These two connected criminal appeals which arise out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda dated 24.2.2009, convicting and sentencing the appellants Jagdish Prasad and Radhey Shyam to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/ each and a default sentence of 5 months imprisonment for non-payment of fine for an offence under sections 302/34 I.P.C are being heard and disposed of together by means of this common order.We have learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA.The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to ante-mortem injuries.The injury report of injured Haushila Prasad ( Ext. ka-16) has been proved by PW-7 Sudhir Kumar Mishra, the Pharmacist at C.H.C Colonelganj, district Gonda as Dr. Ravindra Singh, the Medical Officer, who examined the injuries of Haushila Prasad on 24.10.1991 at 9.15 A.M had died and this witness was familiar with the doctor's hand writing and signature.The injured Hoshila Prasad had two injuries of which one was a contusion 7.5 cm x 2.0 cm over right side of back, oblique red and the other was a contusion 4 cm x 2 cm over back of right wrist, oblique red.The injuries were simple and were caused due to a blunt object and were less than one day old at the time of medical examination.In this case, the informant's side and the accused side are related as follows.Anokhey Lal (the co-accused who died during trial and who was the father of appellant Radhey Shyam was the brother of Ram Narain (father of the appellant Jagdish), and Bharat Ram (the deceased of this case who was the father of the witnesses, PW 1, Ram Kumar, the informant and PW 2, Hausila Prasad, the injured).Anokhey Lal, Ram Narain and Bharat Ram had one more brother Sohan Lal, who does not figure either on the accused side or on the prosecution side in this case.This land was in the informant's possession.The house of appellant Jagdish was south of the said disputed land.On the date of incident at about 2 O' clock, the informant, his brothers Hosila Prasad and Shiv Kumar and their father Bharat Ram were getting some construction made to the south of their house on the Abadi land, as the earlier wall of their house was not in a straight line which had resulted in some of their land being left out.The appellants and Anokhey Lal wanted to grab the said land.When the informant and others tried to stop them, the accused resorted to abuses.When the deceased asked them not to abuse, then on the exhortation of Anokhey Lal that let one man be killed so that no body would come near the said land in future, the appellant Radhey Shyam carrying a spear and Jagdish and Anokhey Lal armed with Lathis began to assault the informant's party.The informant and others ran to their house towards the main door.Then the accused persons chased them and appellant Radhey Shyam plunged a spear on the chest of deceased Bharat Ram and the appellant Jagdish and Anokhey Lal assaulted him with Lathis.The informant and others ran to save their father then Hoshila Prasad was beaten by appellant Jagdish with a Lathi.Karkau, Brij Lal, were residents of the village where the incident took place, (i.e. Kasimpur Pure Kattey) and Ram Niwas, the cousin brother of the informant who was staying at their house in those days arrived at the spot.On their reprimand the accused persons ran away from the spot where the deceased was found lying dead.The informant then reiterated his FIR version which he had got scribed by his brother Shiv Kumar.Then he proceeded to the police station Colonelganj and handed over the report to the police and Hosila and Shiv Kumar remained near the corpse of the deceased.The Investigating Officer recorded the informant's statement and then proceeded to the spot for completing the investigation formalities of this case.PW-2 Hoshila Prasad deposed that at about 2 or 2.30 P.M, he was just returning after getting his wheat ground at the flour mill.When he arrived at the place of incident, he found the accused persons Anokhey Lal, Jagdish and Radhey Shyam abusing his father and when his father protested against the abuses, then Anokhey Lal cried out that someone may be murdered so that no one would come near the land in the future and the dispute could come to an end.Then the appellant Radhey Shyam pierced the spear into the chest of the deceased and Jagdish Prasad and Anokhey Lal gave him Lathi blows.When the witnesses arrived raising alarms then the accused persons ran away.The dispute arose over the land situate to the South of his house.The other witnesses in this case are formal in nature.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have a right both of private defence to their body and to their property.The co-accused Anokhey Lal who died during trial has also received some injuries, but the injury report could not be produced by DW-3 Sarveshwari Prasad Srivastava, Pharmacist at District Jail, Gonda because when he appeared in Court on 5.2.2009 in response to summons, he could not produce the injury register of 29/30th October, 1991 as the same had been misplaced.However, learned counsel pointed out that PW-2 Hoshila Prasad has admitted that when he arrived on the spot, he grappled with Jagdish.PW-2 has also admitted that they hurled brick bats on the accused side and the accused may have received some injuries.PW-1 has also stated that on the date in question, the informant and his brothers were trying to make a construction to the south of their house because the boundary wall of their house was not in a straight line and PW-6, the investigating officer SI R.S. Shukla has further admitted in his cross examination that the informant's side had annexed some part of the Abadi land to the South of the said house which they claimed as their own.This construction could have resulted in completely blocking out the Northern exit of the appellant's house, which was situated South of the informant and deceased's house.That disputed land is shown with the letters C D E and F in the site plan.It was further submitted by the appellant's counsel that no independent witness has been produced for supporting the prosecution case and even the three witnesses Karkau, Brij Nath and Ram Narain, whose names were mentioned in the FIR and in the evidence have not been produced for supporting the prosecution case.In his additional statement under section 313 Cr.P.C appellant Radhey Shyam averred that, the deceased Bharat Ram was the brother of his father Anokhey Lal and that Jagdish Prasad was the son of their brother Raj Narain.On the date of incident, Hosila Prasad, his father, Bharat Ram and Jagdish Prasad were trying to make a construction in front of the house of the accused by raising a wall of 4-5 arms height and were trying to block the exit of their house.When the appellant Radhey Shyam and Anokhey Lal and his son Jagdish Prasad protested, a dispute arose whereupon Haushila Prasad tried to plunge a spear on Radhey Shyam who moved aside and instead the spear struck his father, the deceased Bharat Ram causing his death.Hoshila Prasad and others then placed his father Bharat Ram's corpse on their front door.It was also argued that there was only a blunt object injury on the deceased Bharat Ram and it was not clear whether the said blow was given by the appellant Jagdish or by Anokhey Lal.On these contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for acquittal of the appellants.We are of the view that the defence version that the deceased Bharat Ram had received the spear injury accidentally when his son PW 2 Hoshila Prasad had tried to attack the appellant Radhey Shyam with the same, but the latter had moved out of the way, is too far fetched and unbelievable to be swallowed.No spear can be so long as to cause a chest cavity deep injury on the deceased, particularly when it was being aimed by someone from the side of deceased himself at the side of the accused.We, therefore think that no good ground is made out for reaching to a conclusion that the appellants have made out a case for complete acquittal.However we find that PW-1 Ram Kumar in his examination in chief has mentioned that on the date in question, Ram Kumar, his father the deceased Bharat Ram and his brothers Hoshila Prasad and Shiv Kumar were trying to raise a construction to the south of their house as the Southern wall of their building was not in a straight line.Significantly this fact was conspicuous by its absence in the FIR.Moreover, if the Southern wall of the house of the informant was not in a straight line, as is the prosecution case itself, then the informant and the deceased side would have greater motive to annex the land towards the South of their house, and to the North of the house of the appellants, and the appellants would have no motive to raise a construction on that part of the land as it would have blocked the entrance and exit of their house which fell on the Northern side of their house.We find that conveniently in his evidence PW 2 Hoshila has stated that he arrived when the fight had already broken out, when he was returning after getting his wheat ground at the flour mill.He seems to have taken this position because it appears that he was trying to conceal the genesis of the quarrel.Furthermore the IO PW-6 SI RS Shukla has stated that if the construction had been made on the disputed point (i.e. CDEF on the site plan), it would have completely blocked the exit from the house of the accused.PW-2 Haushila Prasad has also admitted that a scuffle had taken place between the parties and brick batting was resorted to even by the prosecution side, which may have struck the side of the accused.One witness DW-3 was sought to be examined to show that the accused Anokhey was medically examined in Jail but unfortunately the said register for that date (29/30.10.91) was misplaced by the time of this examination almost two decades later.In the said background it cannot be ruled out that some simple injuries may have been received by Anokhey Lal or another member on the accused's side in the course of the quarrel.So far as the appellant Jagdish Prasad, who may have given the single lathi blow which was not as serious as the blow given by appellant Radhey Shyam is concerned, we think that a sentence of three years RI would be proper under section 325 IPC, together with the fine as already awarded by the trial judge, subject to the default sentence, and he is awarded the same. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
565,499 | The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 145/1 of 2003 filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860, 1960 against them and further seeking Crl.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 1 of 29 quashing of order dated 17.02.2007, whereby, summons were issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, against the petitioners.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 1 of 29Upon receiving the aforesaid complaint along with an accompanying application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 16.08.2003, issued notice to SHO to investigate the case.In pursuance of the above-stated orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the concerned SHO filed its report stating that no cause was made out against the petitioners/accused persons.However, on 02.11.2004, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ignored the reports of the investigation agency and directed the complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence.The complaint case as stated above was filed on the premise alleged as under:-(i) That on 25.02.2003, the complainant/respondent deputed his employee, namely Sh.Pankaj Chauhan, to go to Crl.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 2 of 29 the premises of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and collect the bill and pay the cheque as payment thereof.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 2 of 29(ii) Towards the payment of the said bill, the respondent/complainant alleged though falsely that it had issued a cheque beraring No.891914 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the column of consideration and the date were left blank for the reasons that the exact value of the goods supplied were not known to the respondent/complainant at that time.(iii) That Sh.Pankaj Chauhan, employee of the respondent/complainant visited the shop of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 25.02.2003 and a bill NO.CM 002/02141 for a sum of ` 62,115/- was issued and signatures of Sh.Pankaj Chauhan was obtained on the duplicate bill by the petitioners.(iv) That as Sh.Pankaj Chauhan tried to fill the cheque in the sum of ` 62,115/-, the same was snatched by petitioner No.4/accused No.4 and kept with him with the remarks "We will talk first with sh.Praveen Kapoor, Director of the Crl.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 3 of 29 Complainant Company, who has telephoned two minutes ago regarding rate of material then we will fill up the cheque and present the same with the Bank."M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 3 of 29The respondent/complainant believed the petitioners/accused persons and issued another cheque bearing No.932659 on 21.04.2003 in the sum of ` 65,000 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi for clearing the bill.(vi) The respondent/complainant received a demand notice dated 30.06.2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from petitioner No.1/accused No.1, whereby a demand of ` 6,06,405/- was made on the ground that cheque No.891914 dated 18.06.2003 issued towards payment of the outstanding amount has been dishonoured.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 4 of 29M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 4 of 29(vii) The cheque in question was entrusted in a blank condition i.e. amount and date was not filled.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 5 of 29M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 5 of 29(iii) Pursuant to dishonour of cheque, the Petitioner No.1 Company issued a demand notice dated 30.06.2003 to the respondent Company and its Director, Sh.Praveen Kapoor, which was duly served."I have been taken through the report.I have also seen the allegations levelled in the complaint.The cheque firstly according to the complainant was blank as to date suddenly shows date as 24.02.2003 and corrected to 18.06.2003 as signed by the Director.Thus, it is obvious that the story set up in the complaint is utterly false, in fact trotted out to find cause to complain.Apart from that, the complaint suffers from inherent factual as well as legal contradiction for the reasons that at one place in the complaint, it is alleged that the cheque in question was "snatched" by the petitioner No.4, whereas, in the other place, it is stated that the same was "entrusted".The signatures were not put in his presence.He also admitted that it is wrong to suggest that the dispute here pertains to transaction only of 25.02.2003 and voluntarily stated that it is carried forward as well.In his cross-examination he said Crl.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 23 of 29 that did not receive reply dated 08.07.2003 from accused Sh.Praveen Kapoor.The address on AD Card (Mark A) belonged to him but did not bear his signatures.Mr. H.L. Tikku, Ld.Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners contended that the aforesaid complaint is completely false, frivolous, devoid of truth and without any cause of action, much less rather is a malafide act on the part of the respondent/complainant to implicate the petitioners/accused persons in false, malicious and unwarranted criminal case for the reasons mentioned below:-(ii) The respondent/complainant in discharge of its aforesaid liability gave a post-dated cheque dated 18.06.2003 of ` 6,06,405/- in favour of Petitioner Nof.1 but upon presentation, the same was returned unpaid by the bankers for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement".Since the demand was not complied with, the petitioner No.1 Company/complainant Company filed a complaint being Complaint No.2097 of 2003 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the respondent Company and its Directors.(iv) The respondent/complainant in order to wriggle out from its aforesaid liability filed a complaint case bearing No.145/1 of 2003 against the petitioners to pressurise them and further to withdraw the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, the aforesaid complaint is an afterthought besides being wreck with vengeance and malafide, which is evident from the order dated 30.07.2009 of this Court wherein, the statement of ld. counsel for the respondent was recorded that the said case set up by the respondent/complainant in his complaint is his Crl.The learned ACMM passed the order dated 02.11.2004 as under:-Put up on 27/01/05 for C.D. Steps be taken accordingly."Thereafter, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the petitioners No.2 to 4/accused No.2 to 4 Crl.The fact is that the complainant did not lodge any complaint on 25.02.2003, the date on which the complainant alleges the cheque bearing No.891914 was snatched.The complainant alleged that the accused have received the payment qua bill No.Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid statement is palpably false for the reasons that if Cheque No.891914 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Crl.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 8 of 29 Karol Bagh, New Delhi was paid according to the complainant against bill No.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 8 of 29M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 19 of 29Ld. counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the statement of the counsel for the respondent recorded by this Court on 30.07.2009, the same reads as under:- Crl.Needless to say the case of both parties shall be considered by the Ld. trial court.'He further clarified that on 24.02.2003 when the respondent alleges to have issued the cheque, there was no amount in his account.He further submitted that the respondent had filed a complaint after a gap of eight months.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 21 of 29M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 21 of 29He left that cheque because he had business dealings with the petitioners.Ld. counsel for the respondent further submitted that as is admitted by Sh.Rakesh Kapoor, when examined as CW- 1, in cross-examination stated that it is correct that on 25.02.2003, goods worth ` 62,115 were supplied to accused through his servant Sh.Pankaj Chauhan.It is correct that on the said date, delivery of goods were made to Sh.Pankaj Chauhan.It is further correct that that Sh.Pankaj Chauhan handed over the cheque bearing No.891914 drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to him on the said date bearing seal and signature of Sh.It is also correct that the name and amount are in two different handwritings.Voluntarily said name was filled up by accused and the amount was filled up by them and this Crl.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 22 of 29 was as per the regular practice.It is correct that cutting on date has been made by them.Voluntarily he further stated that the signatures were put by the accused, thereafter.The signatures on cutting were made by accused after delivery of goods but he cannot say the date.After he received the cheque, Sh.Parveen Kapoor came to his shop but he cannot tell the date exactly.Voluntarily said, he came twice and once even brought is son.He further stated that it was filled up as practice.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 22 of 29The ld. counsel for the respondent further submitted that when CW-1, Sh.Rakesh Kapoor, was further cross- examined, he stated that it is correct that between 09.11.1998 and 27.09./2001, no transaction took place with accused.He admitted that it is wrong to suggest that after 27.09.2001, except disputed transaction, cheques have been issued for all other transactions.M.C.No.1753/2007 Page 27 of 29Accordingly, Crl.No order as to costs.SURESH KAIT, J September 01, 2011 Vk/RS Crl. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,554,056 | In Re: Bharat Malik & Others .. Petitioners.Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ms. Amrita Chel .. For the Petitioners.The application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,561,282 | ORDER RESERVED : 3rd JULY, 2015 ORDER PRONOUNCED : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2015ORAL JUDGMENT :-1 The petitioner is the original complainant.He has filed a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'MOFA' for the sake of convenience) read with section 406 IPC and 420 of the IPC against the respondent nos.2 to 6 herein.The learned Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, after examining the ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 ::: Tilak 2/17 WP-830-14(J) petitioner on oath, formed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents in respect of an offence punishable under section 13 of the MOFA read with section 14 thereof.Accordingly, by an order dated 9 th March 2012, he issued process against the respondent nos.2 to 6, requiring them to appear and answer to the accusation of an offence punishable under section 13 of the MOFA read with section 14 thereof.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47 th Court, Esplanade, be quashed and set aside.Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent nos.2 to 6 moved the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai by filing an application for revision, praying that the order issuing process as passed by the learned Addl.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai, by an order dated 3rd February 2014, allowed the revision application and set aside the order issuing process as passed by the Magistrate.The Addl.Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to pass an order for return of the complaint for presentation before the proper Court.Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition invoking the inherent powers of this Court saved by section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 :::2 By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it was decided to decide the petition finally at the admission stage itself.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 :::respondents waiving the service thereof, the petition was heard finally.4 For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioner shall, hereinafter, be referred to as 'the complainant' and the respondent nos.2 to 6 as 'the accused'.5 I have heard Mr.Yashpal Thakur, learned counsel for the complainant.I have heard Mr.Sessions Judge in revision.6 Though a number of points were raised before the Court of Sessions in the revision proceedings, the real challenge was to the territorial jurisdiction of the Addl.He, however, submitted that the complaint, however, needs to be returned to the complainant for filing before a proper Court inasmuch as the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47 th Court clearly lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offences.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 :::Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47 Court, Esplanade had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the alleged offences.8 I have carefully gone through the complaint.In the complaint, it is mentioned that the complainant negotiated and bargained with the accused for purchase of shops in some buildings which were to be constructed on a plot of land situate at village Mira in Taluka Thane, District Thane within the limits of Mira-Bhayendar Municipal Council in the Registrar, Sub-Division of District Thane.After bargaining, the complainant booked 14 shops and 52 flats in two buildings which were to be constructed, as aforesaid.The complaint ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 ::: Tilak 5/17 WP-830-14(J) specifically mentions that it is confined only to the four shops in respect of which the agreements are registered all in the name of the complainant; and that the complainant shall be filing a separate complaint regarding the other shops and flats.(two other complaints have also been filed by the complainant against the respondents which are the subject matter of APL 504/14 and APL 505/14 pending before me).The basic grievance of the complainant is that the accused were purposely delaying the completion of the buildings and though the shops are ready, and though the entire/substantial payment towards the price of the said shops has been made; the accused are still not handing over the possession thereof to the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 :::Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade.It is not in dispute that some other Magistrate in Thane District would have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the flats are situate.10 There is a jurisdiction clause - so to say - in the complaint.It reads as under :-"The complainant carrying on business at 11, Bhangwadi Shopping Centre, 1st floor, Bhangwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 and accused having their registered office 811, Embassy Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 hence this Hon'ble Court have jurisdiction to ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 ::: Tilak 6/17 WP-830-14(J) try and entertain the above complaint.(Para 22 (Emphasis supplied) Thus, it is clear that as per the complaint, the existence of jurisdiction in the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is claimed on the basis that 'the complainant carries on his business at Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai' and 'the registered office of the accused is at Nariman Point, Mumbai'.Thus, it is on the basis of the place where complainant carries on business and the place where the accused have their registered office, that the claim that the Addl.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 :::He therefore, submitted that there was absolutely no case for holding that a Magistrate in Mumbai could have had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 :::conceded that neither the place where the complainant was carrying on the business, nor the place where the accused have their registered office would be relevant, in itself, for deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction.He submitted that apart from the offices of both the parties being situate within the jurisdiction of the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, the publication with respect to the proposal of constructing the buildings was given by the accused from their registered office situate at Nariman Point, Mumbai.According to him, pursuant to the said publications, several meetings and negotiations had taken place between the parties at the registered office of the accused.13 Mr.Mundargi, the learned Senior Advocate in reply, contended that the facts constituting jurisdiction would necessarily be required to be spelt out from the averments in the complaint, ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 ::: Tilak 8/17 WP-830-14(J) and when the complaint claims the existence of territorial jurisdiction on the basis of a certain fact, it would not be open for the complainant to now try to show that the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court had the necessary territorial jurisdiction on the basis of different facts and totally different grounds.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:35 :::the complaints.Chief ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:36 ::: Tilak 9/17 WP-830-14(J) Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, still, whether he had, or had not, such jurisdiction would need to be examined on the basis of the averments in the complaint and the annexures thereto.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:36 :::Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court.For deciding this, what the offence punishable u/s.13 of the MOFA constitutes of, needs consideration.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 20:09:36 :::It provides for punishment to a promoter who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with or contravenes the provisions of section 3, 4, 5, 10 or 11 thereof. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,561,730 | (Delivered on 26th April, 2018) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2017 delivered by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.10/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') for one year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 377 of IPC for 05 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two months' additional rigorous imprisonment.It is appellant's contention that complainant is his wife, who complained that on the date of the incident, i.e., 28.10.2015 at about 11.00 PM, the appellant under the influence of alcohol forced her to undergo carnal intercourse by firstly placing his penis in her mouth and thereafter in the anus and when she resisted, he had bitten her tongue.FIR was lodged on 29.10.2015 at about 13.30 hours.As per the prosecutrix, she had informed her brother-in-Criminal Appeal No.381/2017 law and mother-in-law about the incident at the night itself but because of it being late in night, the FIR was lodged on the next date.It is appellant's submission that as far as the offence under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, it is an admitted fact, but the offence under Section 377 of IPC was never committed by him and there is no medical evidence to this effect.It is further submitted that due to illicit relations of the complainant, she has falsely implicated the appellant.It is submitted that the conviction has been recorded under Section 377 of IPC against the evidence of PW4 Dr. Deepa Dubey, who has admitted that there was no sign of injury on the private part of the prosecutrix.Only one scratch mark was observed measuring 2.1/2 cm x 2.00 cm on the tip of the tongue caused by some hard and rough object and the injuries were found to have been inflicted within 24 hours of the examination.Two swabs were taken from the mouth and anus of the prosecutrix and were forwarded for FSL report after sealing them and were handed over to the Police.Though PW4 Dr. Deepa Dubey has given an opinion that the injury to the tongue was caused because of forceful oral sex, but in the cross-examination she has admitted that the injury to the tongue could have been self-inflicted.She also admitted that she had not found any injury marks in the anus region and further admitted that she has given narration of anal sex on the ground of narration of the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in her statement (Ex.D/1), prosecutrix has categorically stated that her tongue was bitten by the accused.Thus, she has given 3 Criminal Appeal No.381/2017 similar statements before the Court, in which she categorically stated that when she was at her home, her husband had come to her and had bitten her tongue with his teeth, which resulted in bleeding.When she resisted, he had done carnal act.Thus, the medical evidence and the opinion of the doctor when taken into consideration alongwith the statements of the prosecutrix, who had undergone the trauma and torture, it is apparent that the evidence of PW4 Dr. Deepa Dubey in regard to oral sex resulting injury to the tongue is not corroborated with the ocular evidence of the prosecutrix.Except for this, there is no other ground for such finding. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,563,297 | (2) Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant has filed a criminal complaint before the JMFC, Gwalior that being 2 M.Cr.C. No. 6219/2010 President of the applicant cooperative society, he was entitled to prosecute the complaint.On 20.05.1980, the respondent No. 1 was the President of the Society, who purchased some land for the society from the vendors Subashchandra Sharma, Ashok Sharma, Girish Sharma and Rakesh Kumar Sharma.In the present matter, it would be apparent that when the respondent No. 1 was the President of the society, he issued such allotment orders.The property was 4 M.Cr.C. No. 6219/2010 purchased in the year 1980 and at that time, the applicant Surendra Singh Bhadoriya was secretary of the society and his name was mentioned in the sale deed and, therefore, he had knowledge of that fact from the very beginning.The applicant did not show any reason as to why no steps were taken for change of use of the property in those 21 years of purchase.According to the allotment order, it appears that a map and planning was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Town and Country Planning Department and in those orders, it was mentioned that one plot would be given on a particular rate.Hence, it is possible that after approval of the Town and Country Planning, the society was in habit to permit his consumers to construct the house, hence, the change of use was not a condition precedent in view of the society at that time.The applicant has pleaded that the respondents No. 2 to 9 were not the members of the society but he did not file the office record of the society and list of members to show that the respondents No. 2 to 9 were not the members of the society in the year 1980 and thereafter.(Delivered on this day of 11th May, 2016) The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.08.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 242/2010, whereby the revision was dismissed and order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 267/2007 has been confirmed.The applicant has also challenged the order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed.That land was situated at village Lalitpur District Gwalior.The land was not developed and no procedure relating to change of land use or diversion was adopted and the respondent No. 1 allotted few plots to the respondents No. 2 to 6, who were not the members of the society and, therefore, a crime was committed of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC.After filing of the complaint, an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was accepted and a report was called from SHO, Police Station Kampoo District Gwalior.Vide letter dated 05.01.2008, the SHO, Police Station Kampoo has submitted a report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. that no offence was committed and, therefore, the magisterial Court permitted the applicant to produce the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after recording the same, the complaint was dismissed.Revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed.2 M.Cr.C. No. 6219/2010C. No. 6219/2010 471 of IPC.For such making, a person who makes or signs a document with dishonest or fraudulent intention that such document be believed to be a genuine.It is admitted by the parties that at the relevant time, when allotment of plots was done and an order was passed by the respondent No. 1, who he was the President of the society and he had issued such allotment certificates on the basis of his power.Under these circumstances, it is possible that such allotment documents were issued for commission of any other crime but those documents were genuine.The signature found on the documents was of the respondent No. 1 himself and he was competent to issue such orders.Hence, the Investigation Officer has submitted that no forgery was found and view of the Investigation Officer was duly confirmed by the concerned Magistrate and the revisionary Court.Since the respondent No. 1 or other respondents did not participate in making of any forged document, therefore, no complaint of offence under Sections 467, 468 or 471 of IPC could be registered against any of the respondent.3 M.Cr.C. No. 6219/2010Being President of the society, all previous record of the society was in possession of the applicant and if he had hidden some documents while filing of the complaint then he cannot get a case registered on the basis of the orders passed by the officers of the cooperative department for some irregularities done by the various officers of the applicant society.It is pertinent to note that the present President of the society was secretary of the society at that time and he is equally liable for action taken by the then President of the society.The applicant did not plead and prove that what was the loss caused by the respondent No. 1 to society or its members while allotting few plots to the respondents No. 2 to 9 and in absence of such evidence, by oral and omnibus allegations, it is not established that the respondent No. 1 or the remaining respondents have entered into a conspiracy of cheating and they committed cheating with the society or its members.Hence, the magisterial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint with the conclusion that prima facie no offence under Section 420 or 120-B of IPC was made out against the respondents.4 M.Cr.C. No. 6219/20105 M.Cr.C. No. 6219/20106 M.Cr.C. No. 6219/2010(8) Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below along with their records for information.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE (11/05/2016) | ['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. |
56,566,604 | P.W.5 is an another person who was present near the scene of occurrence.He was sitting in a car shed, near the place of occurrence.At that time, the deceased had come in a TVS 50 and the accused driving the Ambassador car came behind and dashed the moped and he had fallen down, causing injuries to his head.He was given an opinion that the accident did not happened due to mechanical failure.P.W.9 is the Doctor, received the body in the hospital and sent the body for post-mortem, and subsequently sent a death memo to the Police.The sole accused in C.C.No.87 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore is the petitioner herein.He stood charged for offences under section 279 r/w 304(A) IPC.The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 279 r/w 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore, and the lower Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision.The brief facts of the case are as follows:On 16.02.2006, at about 10.15 A.M., the deceased, in this case, one Mr.K.Ramasamy came in his TVS 50 Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.T.N.38 H 6109, in Coimbatore-Avinashi Road, near Gowtham Lodge.At that time, a Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TN.38 A T-0245, driven by the petitioner/accused came from West to East and dashed the TVS 50 Motor Cycle.In that effect, the deceased fell down and sustained head injuries.Immediately, he was taken to K.M.C.H. Hospital, and P.W.9, the Doctor working there, admitted him and found head injuries and some fracture in the left shoulder bones.He admitted him in the hospital and issued an accident report, which is Ex.Balasundaram, the Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.11, registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2006, for the offence under section 279 r/w 337 IPC, immediately went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch, and recorded the statements of witnesses.Thereafter, he seized the offending vehicle i.e.,the car as well as the TVS 50 and sent it for inspection by Motor Vehicle Inspector.Thereafter, the deceased succumbed injuries on 16.02.2005, at 8.25 p.m. P.W.1 received the death intimation, and altered the FIR for the offences under section 279, 304(A) IPC, and sent it to P.W.12-Inspector of Police, for further investigation.P.W.12 received the FIR and proceed to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore, where he conducted inquest and prepared inquest report, then he sent the body for postmortem.P.W.10, the Doctor working in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted the post-mortem autopsy and issued the postmortem report.The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased died due to head injuries.P.W.12 recorded the statements of the Doctor and the Inspector of the Motor Vehicles, and completed the investigation and laid Charge Sheet.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the charges made against him.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 11 documents.Out of the twelve witnesses, P.W.1 is said to be the eye witness to the occurrence.According to him, at the time of accident, he alongwith P.W.4 were standing opposite to Gowtham Lodge and he was talking to him.At that time, he saw a TVS 50 moped coming from Avinashi Road, from West to East, and at the same time an Ambassador car came behind him in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the TVS 50 from behind, and the driver of the TVS 50 was thrown away and was seriously injured.Then, he had come to know that the injured person was residing opposite to his residence, and he called the ambulance and took him to the hospital, thereafter he lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police.P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased, who went to the hospital after hearing the news that his father has met with an accident.According to him, at the time of occurrence, he alongwith P.W.1 were standing in front of Jayaseelan Provision Store, and saw the petitioner/accused was driving his Ambassador car in rash and negligent manner and dashed the moped from behind and the person driving the moped was thrown away, thereafter, they called the ambulance and sent him to the hospital.According to him, a TVS 50 came from west to east, and an Ambassador car came behind the TVS 50 and dashed against the moped and the person driving the moped was thrown away caused injuries.P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who examined the TVS 50 and found that the right side view mirror, head light and right side pedal, were damaged.P.W.8 is another Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the Ambassador car and found a small scratch in the left side mudguard where the side indicators were damaged, and the left side and back were slightly dented.P.W.10 is a Doctor working in the Government Medical College and Hospital, who conducted the post-mortem and gave the post-mortem report.P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the respondent Police Station, who registered the complaint, conducted investigations and after death of the deceased, altered the F.I.R and handed over investigation to the Inspector of Police for further investigation.P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police, who continued the investigation, conducted inquest and recorded the statements of the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem and other witnesses and filed the charge sheet.When above incriminating materials were put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the charges as false.The accused examined one K.Nataraj, who was working as an Administrative Officer in the P.S.G.Art College, Coimbatore, where P.W.4 was working, and he had also marked two documents namely, Attendance Register of P.W.4, in the College, and also an authorization letter from the College issued to P.W.1, to give evidence, were marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.Considering the above materials, the Trial Court convicted all the accused as stated above.Challenging the same, they filed an appeal in C.A.No.14 of 2011 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence, challenging the same, the present Revision is filed.Heard Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.M.F.Shabana, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent and perused the impugned order and the materials on record.At that time, an Ambassador Car driven by the petitioner/accused came from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed the moped.The driver of the moped was thrown away and sustained serious injuries.P.W.4 is a professor, who is working in P.S.G. Arts College, Coimbatore.At that time, P.W.4 and P.W.1 were talking together, opposite to the scene of occurrence near a provision store and he saw the petitioner/accused driving his Ambassador car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS moped and the deceased was thrown away and sustained injuries, where P.W.1 and P.W.4 called an Ambulance and sent the deceased to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore.From the perusal of the attendance of D2, it could be seen that P.W.4 was at the College at about 10.15 a.m., when the accident took place.Hence, P.W.4 ought not to have present at the scene of occurrence and he cannot be a witness to the occurrence.Hence, the evidence of P.W.4 cannot be believed.It is a case of P.W.1, that P.W.1 and P.W.4 were talking together at the time of accident, opposite to the scene of occurrence, since it was held that P.W.4 ought not to have present, thus the evidence of P.W.4 also cannot be believed.Apart from that, P.W.1 was residing opposite to the house of the deceased and he is known to the deceased and he is an interested witness.In the above circumstances, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 at the scene of occurrence is doubtful and their evidences cannot be believed.With regard to two other eye witnesses namely P.W.5 and P.W.6, they are independent and natural witnesses.On considering their evidence, they have not stated that the petitioner/accused had driven the car in a rash and negligent manner.They only say that the deceased was driving the TVS 50 from west to east and a car came behind and dashed against the moped and the person fell down.It is not their evidence that the petitioner was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner.The next evidence in this case, is the Motor Vehicles Inspector.Considering the damage in the car and the TVS 50, it could be seen that while overtaking the TVS 50, the car might have dashed right hand side mirror of the moped.The deceased at the time of accident is aged about 74 years and the evidence shows that he had undergone two eye surgeries.In the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for acquittal.In the result, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-A1 is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. | ['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,568,669 | i. Criminal Application No.1491/2020 stands allowed.Prabhawatibai Aatmaram Patil, legal representative of deceased Ravindra Aatmaram Patil, is hereby allowed to compound the offence registered against the present revision petitioners in view of Settlement Deed/Compromise arrived at between the parties, marked at Exhibit"X" for identification.v. The Criminal Revision Application and Criminal Application No.854/2020 stand disposed of accordingly.(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.) BDV::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2020 02:49:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2020 02:49:59 ::: | ['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
56,569,151 | And the matter of : Sukur Ali Mallick & Ors..... Petitioners.Therefore they may be enlarged on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for bail.He submits that a communal strife had broken out in the locality over the incident.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
101,069,142 | A very interesting question of law has been raised by Mr.Amit Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, for determination by this Court in this Revision Case.For better appreciation, it may be apposite to state in brief the facts in this case.2. (a) On a complaint lodged by one K.S.Kumar, the respondent Police registered a case in Cr.No.304 of 2015 on 1.8.2015 for the offences under Sections 406, 208, 420, 506(i) r/w 120B IPC against, (i) Muthunarayanan, (ii) Gopi @ Gopinath Sathasivam, (iii) Venkatramanan, and (iv) Kamalesh Kumar Sheth.(b) Kamalesh Kumar Sheth (A-4) was arrested by the Police on 4.8.2015 and on the same day he was produced before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai for remand.While he was being remanded periodically every 15 days, the Police filed an alteration report before the learned Magistrate on 23.9.2015 for including section 409 IPC on the ground that during investigation, the evidence relating to commission of an offence under Section 409 had surfaced. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
101,070,099 | Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is 2nd repeat bail application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for grant of bail after rejection of earlier one which was dismissed without being considered on merits.The petitioner has been arrested on 25/8/16 by Police Station Morar District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 585/2016 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 379, 511 of IPC.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.The allegation of attempt to theft is alleged against the petitioner with the basic allegation that he along-with other co- accused was trying to steal money from an ATM situated in sparsely populated area within the town of Gwalior.The attempt could not succeed since the police came to the spot.The petitioner and the co-accused had however broken the ATM.Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.(Sheel Nagu) Judge ojha Digitally signed by YOGENDRA OJHA Date: 2018.03.01 10:25:08 -08'00' | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
10,108,394 | No.537/2019 registered with Police Station, Shegaon, District Buldhana for an offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354(A) (1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, applicant - Dr. Vinaykumar S/o Vijaykumar Agrawal be released on bail on he executing P.R. bond in the sum of ₹15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.(iii) Applicant is directed to attend Police Station, Shegaon, District Buldhana as and when he is called by the investigating officer.However, for that investigating officer shall give clear cut two days written communication to him.The application is disposed of.JUDGEsrwagh ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2020 13:50:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2020 13:50:49 ::: | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
101,086,514 | 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, are as under:They were residing at Daregaon, Tq.Naigaon Dist.While the deceased was residing at the house of the accused, in the evening on 12.12.2014, she sustained 93% burns.The information of the incident was given to her mother and uncle.They came and they had taken the deceased in the injured condition by ambulance to Civil Hospital, Nanded for treatment.b) In the Civil Hospital, Nanded, on the same day i.e. on 12.12.2014, the concerned doctor informed the fact of admitting the deceased at 9.05 pm in the hospital, to the Police Inspector of Naigaon Police Station.Thereafter, police constable Kendre (PW-7)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (3) Cri.Therefore, she was fed-up with the conduct and behaviour of the accused her husband.Therefore, she poured kerosene on her person from a can and set herself on fire.She sustained burn injuries.Therefore, she made shouts.The accused, who was outside the house came and he poured one bucket water on her person and tried to extinguish the fire.Said incident was informed to her parental home.Her mother and uncle came and they had taken her in the Civil Hospital at Nanded.She stated that action be taken against her husband-the accused.After recording statement as above by police constable Kendre, again Dr.Chavan examined the patient and found that the patient was conscious/oriented and mentally fit after the statement.(31)Now, coming to the second dying declaration Exh.40 recorded by Shaikh Hayder (PW-14), Special Judicial Magistrate, Nanded on the same day i.e. on 12.12.2014, after the deceased was examined by Dr.He contacted Dr.Chavan, who was in-charge.Chavan came along him to the patient.Chavan examined the patient and made endorsement.He stated that, he (doctor) informed that patient was conscious and she was in a position to give a statement.According to him, the patient/deceased told him that their marriage was solemnized 18 years back.There was quarrel between her and her husband for landed property.RESERVED ON : 02.05.2019 DECIDED ON : 19.07.2019 J U D G M E N T :-The appellant-accused, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, as per the judgment and order dated 04.02.2016 passed in::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (2) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 Sessions Case No.15/2015, has filed this appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence recorded against him.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::Appeal No.173-18 went to the Civil Hospital, Nanded.He met Dr.Chavan (PW-11) and said doctor had taken police constable Kendre in Ward No.14, in which the deceased was admitted.Chavan examined the patient and informed police constable Kendre that the patient was conscious and she was in a position to make statement.Accordingly, Dr.Chavan made endorsement on the paper.Thereafter, police constable Kendre recorded statement of the injured patient/the deceased.The deceased disclosed to him that her husband-the accused is addicted to liquor and he consumes liquor daily.One Maroti Tukaram Shinde and Madhav Vyankat Shinde from the village of the accused instigated the accused and provided money to the accused for consuming liquor with an intention to purchase agricultural land of the accused.She further stated that the accused used to consume liquor daily and used to abuse and beat her daily.Two days prior to the incident i.e. on 10.12.2014, the accused had sent her to her parental home.Immediately on the next day, he came to her parental house and she was brought to Daregaon by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (4)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::Copy of said statement/dying declaration (Exh.21) was sent to Police Station, Naigaon by police constable Kendre.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (5)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::Appeal No.173-18 Moreover, Special Executive Magistrate (PW-14) recorded dying declaration (Exh.40) regarding involvement of the accused as stated by the deceased, as above.On the basis of copy of said statement/dying declaration (Exh.21) of the deceased, Crime No.77/2014 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.While the deceased was undergoing treatment, on 15.12.2014, she died due to burn injuries.Thereafter, offence under Section 306 of the IPC was added in the crime registered against the accused.c) The investigating officer prepared the inquest panchanama and got post mortem examination done on the dead body.Chavan opined that the deceased died due to septicaemia due to burns.The investigating officer went to the spot of incident i.e. house of the accused and drew panchanama of spot of incident in presence of panchas.He seized plastic can, match-stick, some pieces of burnt saree and kerosene mixed soil.The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses from the parental::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (6) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 home of the deceased as well as the witnesses from the village of the accused.He submitted charge-sheet in the court of JMFC, Biloli, who committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, as the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC was triable by the Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(6)d) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 323 and 504 of the IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.His defence is denial.e) To prove charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses and it has relied upon the panchanamas, post mortem report and reports of the Chemical Analyzer.Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.He has not examined any witness in defence.f) Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences under::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (7) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the IPC against the accused and it has held that the prosecution has proved the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him for the said offence as said earlier by the impugned judgment and order.Therefore, this appeal by the appellant-accused.There is no appeal against the acquittal of the accused of the aforesaid offences by the State.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::I have heard Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the accused and Mr.Kutti, learned APP for the respondent-State and with their assistance, I have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the impugned judgment and order.Jadhav, learned Advocate for the appellant-accused submitted that the deceased was married to the accused about 15 years prior to the incident.No single complaint was lodged against the accused by the deceased, making any allegations against him.The deceased was daughter of maternal uncle of the accused.It is the case of the::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (8) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 prosecution that the accused was assaulting the deceased after consuming liquor.But it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was addicted to liquor and continuously he was causing cruelty to the deceased by beating her under the influence of liquor and as such, he was causing physical cruelty to her.It is submitted that no specific incident of harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused is alleged by the prosecution.The deceased had no issue from the marriage with the accused, even after 15 years of her marriage and therefore, the accused has incurred huge expenses for her treatment to conceive.Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused was indebted due to habit of consuming liquor.Thus, according to the learned Advocate as the deceased did not conceive and she did not deliver child, even after 15 years of her marriage with the accused, she committed suicide out of said frustration.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (9)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(9)Appeal No.173-18Jadhav, learned Advocate for the accused further submitted that the accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 323 and 504 of the IPC.By the impugned judgment, he was acquitted of the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the IPC.According to the learned Advocate, when the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of cruelty against the accused, the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC i.e. abetment to commit suicide by the deceased is not legal and proper.Once the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has caused cruelty to the deceased, it cannot be said that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide due to cruelty caused to her by the accused.It is submitted that the trial court has not properly considered the aspect that the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 on harassment to the deceased was not sufficient to attract the offence of cruelty and still, the trial court held that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.It is further submitted that the dying declarations::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (10) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 (Exh.21 and 40) do not disclose anything that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide.It is submitted that the marriage of the accused with the deceased was performed prior to 15 years of the incident and therefore, presumption of abetting the deceased to commit suicide under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is also not available in the present case.It is submitted that the accused extinguished the fire of the deceased and immediately took the deceased to the hospital.Therefore, it cannot be said that he was harassing the deceased, which harassment, as per the prosecution case has led the deceased to commit suicide.Thus, according to the learned Advocate for the accused, reasons given by the Trial Court and findings recorded by the Trial Court that the prosecution has proved the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused are not correct and sustainable and therefore, conviction and sentence recorded against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC by the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(10)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (11)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(11)Appeal No.173-18To support his submissions that once the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC against the accused conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable and it is illegal, the learned Advocate for the accused has relied upon the following decisions:(i) In the case of Heera Lal and another V/s.State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No.790/2017 decided on 24th April 2017 (Supreme Court), the appellants, in-laws of the deceased were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.The trial court relied upon the evidence of PWS 4 and 5, who were neighbours, on the harassment.The deceased had sustained 90% burns.There was dying declaration made before Special Divisional Magistrate, both the trial court and the High Court referred the dying declaration, which states that the deceased had told the Special Divisional Magistrate that she was sleeping.Her husband-accused and in-laws were quarreling every::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (12) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 day.On the day of dying declaration also, they quarreled with her.They asked her to leave the house.The trial court held that the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was not made out, but convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for three years.In appeal, by them to the High Court, the High Court relying upon the aforesaid dying declaration dismissed the appeal.In the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Special Leave in paragraph 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(12)We find that having absolved the appellants of the charge of cruelty, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence made out under Section 498A, the third ingredient for application of Section 113A is missing, namely, that the relatives i.e., the mother-in-law and father-in-law who are charged under Section 306 had subjected the victim to cruelty.Also, we find on the facts, taken as a whole, that assuming the presumption under Section 113A would apply, it has been fully rebutted, for the reason::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (13) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 that there is no link or intention on the part of the in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide."::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(13)It was further observed that on the facts, therefore, in view of the facts, the appellants have not been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, that abetment of suicide under section 306 of the IPC is not made out.Ultimately, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.(ii) In the case of Vashim Vs.State of M.C.T.Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.365/2017 decided on 24th May, 2018 (Delhi High Court), the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.In the appeal before the High Court in paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 24, it was observed, as under:On the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the deceased suspected her husband to be in an extramarital relation which fact she stated to her family members also, however there is no evidence that in order to seek divorce from the deceased there was cruelty to the extent that she was driven to commit suicide.Thus, this Court finds that the prosecution has not made out::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (14) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 any case for raising a presumption that on account of mental cruelty by being involved in an extramarital relationship Wasim abated the commission of suicide by the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(14)This brings the Court to another facet of facts of the case i.e. whether the acts of Wasim had a live and proximate link to the death of the deceased as admittedly prior to the incident the appellant was not in Delhi.Nothing has been shown that before the death of the deceased she was subjected to such a mental and physical cruelty by the appellant which abated her committing suicide.There is no proximate and live link between the cruelty or demand of dowry and the suicide committed as already held by the learned Trial Court.However in view of the fact that though not soon before death but soon after the marriage there was demand of dowry and money was taken,this Court deems it fit to uphold the conviction under Section 498A IPC.Consequently the conviction and order on sentence of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is set aside however, for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is maintained."(iii) In the case of Shrinivasa Gowda Vs.State of Karnataka in Criminal Apeal No.355 of 2010 decided on 28th February, 2018 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru), the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.He was charged for the::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (15) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.He was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.PWS 1, 3 and 6 were vital witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.The evidence of DW-2, the sister of the deceased was contrary to the evidence of these material witnesses.The evidence of all these witnesses found full of inconsistencies and was contrary to each other relating to physical as well as mental harassment given by the accused to the deceased.Therefore, it was held that said evidence does not constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.Except the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 6 who are the father, mother and brother respectively of the deceased, there was no other corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the acucsed and the evidence of the other witnesses was only hearsay.It was held that under such circumstances, an::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (16) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 inference can be drawn that deceased committing suicide by consuming pesticides was not on account of ill-treatment or cruelty given by the accused.Trial Court based the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC slightly on the ground that the accused did not allow the deceased to go to her parental house and the same would amount to cruelty.In the absence of any material evidene on record, the Trial Court was not at all justified in coming to such a conclusion.In the appeal against conviction of the appellant on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, it was held that the trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective and that the learned Judge of the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offences alleged against him.As such, the appellant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him and conviction under challenge was set aside.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(15)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(16)(iv) In the case of Mohan Gangaram Kesade Vs.The::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (17) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.595 fo 2017 (Bombay High Court) decided on 26th November, 2018, the appellant filed appeal against his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.Suicidal death of the deceased in the said case was not much in dispute.The appellant was suspecting character of the deceased wife and he was frequently quarrelling with the deceased after consuming liquor during married life of the deceased of seventeen years.In para 14, it was observed as under:::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(17)deceased Sushila.Her dying declaration at Exhibit 26 was recorded on 17/04/2015 by P.W.No.6 Anant Gurav Nayab Tahsildar.Deceased Sushila has stated in the said dying declaration (Exhibit 26) that her husband used to suspect her character and used to beat her regularly.Being fed up with regular beating on suspicion as stated by Sushila, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself ablaze.Deceased Sushila also stated in her officially recorded dying declaration that the appellant/accused was very much present at the time of the incident.He was saying that he do not need her.Deceased Sushila has further stated in her dying declaration::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (18) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 that when she set herself ablaze, the appellant/accused extinguished the fire and ran away.Thus, we have two sets of evidence in order to ascertain whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and was driven to commit suicide by the appellant/ accused.One is oral evidence which also includes dying declaration of Sushila and another is that of her officially recorded dying declaration.If both these sets of evidence are carefully scrutinized, coupled with the case of the prosecution reflected in the FIR lodged by P.W.No.1 Indu Kamble, then it becomes clear that even after seventeen years of married life and after having begotten three children from the said wedlock, the appellant/accused used to suspect character of his deceased wife Sushila.He used to beat her frequently by picking a quarrel with her.However, P.W.No.3 Rani Dhanwade, who is neighbourer of the couple though had spoken about addiction of liquor of the appellant/accused and frequent quarrel between him and deceased Sushila, has not spoken about beating by the appellant/accused to deceased Sushila.Thus, though close relatives of the deceased are speaking about addiction to liquor, picking up the quarrel by suspecting the character and frequent beating by the appellant/accused to deceased Sushila, P.W. No.3 Rani Dhanwade, who appears to be the independent witness having an occasion to watch events happening in the matrimonial life of the couple, has not spoken about suspicion about the character of the deceased Sushila by the appellant/accused so also beating by the appellant/accused to the deceased Sushila because of such suspicion.Thus, in the wake of this variance and shortcoming in the evidence of closely related witness to the deceased and that of the independent witness, the appellant/::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (19) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 accused is certainly entitled for benefit of doubt so far as suspicion about the character of the deceased wife and frequent beating is concerned.If these aspects are ignored, then what remains is addiction to liquor and frequently quarreling with the deceased.Though such frequent quarrels with a married woman after consuming the liquor during married life of seventeen years may amount to cruelty as such conduct is harsh and harmful conduct of requisite intensity and persistence, the same may not be sufficient to infer abetment.The allegations which are established from evidence of P.W.No.3 Rani Dhanwade are not of such a nature which would drive the deceased to commit suicide, forming a natural result of normal conduct of a married woman.That apart, evidence regarding mens rea is missing.Without knowledge or intention, there cannot be abetment and the knowledge and intention must relate to the crime in question.In the instant case, as soon as Sushila set herself ablaze, the appellant/accused extinguished the fire on her person and ran away may be because of fear.This evidence of the prosecution reflected from the officially recorded dying declaration negates the case of abetment by the appellant/accused to the deceased for driving her to commit suicide."::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(18)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(19)The Trial Court has considered said evidence in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the judgment.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (20)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(20)Appeal No.173-18 In paragraphs 19 and 21 of the judgment, the Trial Court has considered the aspect of the accused abetting the deceased to commit suicide.There is no reason to reject the dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution.According to the learned APP, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and claimed to dismiss the appeal.To support his submissions on dying declarations and the conclusion of the trial court, the learned APP has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2013 decided on 26th February, 2018 in the case of Ganpat Bakaramji Lad V/s.The learned APP invited my attention to paragraphs 4 and 43 of the judgment, which read as under:After expressing its disagreement, the Division Bench in Ganpat Lad's case framed the question for reference to the Larger Bench as under :"Whether a Dying Declaration can be rejected merely because the same is not read over to the declarant and the::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (21) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 declarant admitting the same to have been correctly recorded?"::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(21)I have carefully considered the submissions made by the leraned Advocate for the accused and the learned APP.However, it is necessary to see whether the accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide.To prove the same, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5, 6 and dying declarations Exh.21 and 40 of the dseceased on the alleged harassment of the deceased, which amounts to cruelty to her, which abetted the deceased to commit suicide.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(23)Now coming to the evidence of above witnesses, both PWs 3 and 4, who are cousins of the accused and to whom the deceased made oral dying declaration have not supported the prosecution case::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (24) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 as they have denied that on hearing the shouts of the deceased "okpok ! okpok !", immediately, they rushed towards the house of the deceased and that on their asking to her, she (deceased) told them that due to harassment of the accused, she herself set her on fire.Thus, the evidence of both these witnesses is of no help to the prosecution to state that the accused harassed the deceased and thus, abetted her to commit suicide.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(24)The evidence of Maroti Shinde (PW-5), who is from the village of the accused is that on the date of incident on 12.12.2014, he came to his house from the field at 7.00 pm and came to know that there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased.Further, he deposed that habit of liquor was the cause of quarrel.The accused used to harass the deceased under the influence of liquor and due to harassment of the accused, the deceased poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.In the cross-examination, he admitted that in the year 2007, the accused met with an accident.He was admitted in::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (25) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 Dabhekar Hospital.When the accused was admitted in the hospital, they both approached him and demanded money for medical expenses.The accused assured him that he would return money and they were ready to hand over land to him.He admitted that he paid Rs.50,000/- as first installment and Rs.1,00,000/- as second installment.The accused was maintaining his family by doing labour work.He denied that the accused was not in the habit of consuming liquor and that there was no quarrel before him.He denied that he is deposing false that there was regular quarrel between the accused and the deceased.He denied that due to non-conception, the deceased herself poured kerosene and set herself on fire.He stated that he does not know that due to non-conception of 11 years, the deceased was nervous.This witness has not deposed about specific instance of harassing the deceased by the accused on consuming liquor and his evidence that the accused used to harass the deceased under the influence of liquor is quite vague and is not sufficient to infer that there was continuous harassment to the deceased by the accused.It::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (26) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 appears from his evidence that he had given an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused and the deceased at the time of treatment of the acucsed, when the accused met with an accident.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(25)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(26)She had no issue.The accused harassed the deceased under the influence of liquor.Her marital life was not happy.The accused sold his land to consume liquor and under the influence of liquor, he used to harass the deceased.He and his relatives tried to convince the accused but he has not heard.Further, he has stated that on 08.12.2014, the accused sent the deceased to his house saying that he is attending the sugar factory.Again on 11.12.2014, the accused returned to his house and the accused had taken the deceased along with him.The accused had promised that he would not harass the deceased and his brother (brother of the witness) sent the deceased along with the accused.On 12.12.2014, his cousin received phone::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (27) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 of the accused that the deceased sustained burn injury.He went to the house of the accused and saw that door was closed.There was nobody, except the deceased, his sister.He asked the deceased, what had happened and the deceased told him that the accused beat her severely and the harassment was unbearable, therefore, she herself poured kerosene and set her on fire.Further, he stated that he called ambulance and took the deceased to Nanded for treatment.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(27)In the cross-examination, Ananda Tekale (PW-6) has stated that there was accident to the auto of the accused.He stated before police that the accused severely beaten his sister/the deceased and it is not recorded in the said statement.He could not assign any reason of absence of said fact in his statement before police.Therefore, his evidence that the accused severely beaten his sister-the deceased is amounting to omission in his statement before police.Moreover, he stated that he made a::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (28) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 complaint to Naigaon Police Station about harassment by the accused to his sister-the deceased and police registered crime against the accused.He stated that the copy of that complaint is available, he will produce the same.However, it appers that he has not produced the copy of said complaint nor he has produced the record showing that crime was registered against the accused on the said complaint allegedly lodged by him about harassment to the deceased.In fact, it was possible for him to produce the complaint as above or to produce the material showing the fact that really crime was regisrered against the accused on the complaint of harassment to the deceased.Ananda (PW-6) has admited that the deceased was treated at various places to conceive.As referred earlier, there is no dispute that the deceased was daughter of the maternal uncle of the accused.In the above circumstaances, the evidence of Ananda (PW-6) regarding harassment to the deceased by the accused is not believable.Similarly, his evidence that the deceased told him that the accused severely beat her and the harassment was unbearable::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (29) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 and thereforee, she committed suicide is not believable.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(28)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(29)Exhibit 21 statement/dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by police naik (PW-7) on 12.12.2014, after the deceased was examined by Dr.Police Naik Kendre (PW-7) has stated that on 12.12.2014, after receiving information from Civil Hospital that the deceased recevied burn injuries and that she was admitted in Civil Hospital, Nanded, he immediately went to said hospital and met Dr.Vilas Chavan.Said doctor came with him to the patient.He examined the patient and put his endorsement.Thereafter, Ranjanabai-the deceased made statement to him that her husband was addicted to liquor and her husband used to harass her and beat her and due to harassment of the accused, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire.She immediately made shouts and her husband came and extinguished her.In the cross-examination, he has denied that the deceased has not given statement Exh.21 and that he is deposing false.Chavan (PW-11) has also stated::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (30) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 that he made endorsement (Exh.32) on dying declaration recorded by head constable and according to him, the paitent was conscious and mentally fit to give a statement.He also stated about second endorsement made on dying declaration (Exh.21) by him after the dying declaration was recorded by the police.In the cross-examination, he has denied that the patient was not in a position to speak real and voluntarily.Chavan (PW-11) made two endorsements as depsoed by said doctor, on the said statement.Thus, on the basis of above evidence, it can be said that PW-7 recorded dying declaration (Exh.21) and at the time of making said dying declaration, the deceased was admitted in injured condition in the hospital and she was in a position to make statement.It is stated in the said dying declaration (Exh.21) that on 12.12.2014, as the accused assaulted the deceased after consuming liquor and as he was assaulting her, she committed suicide on boaring to the said harassment by pouring kerosene on her person and::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (31) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 setting herself on fire in the house and that her husband is responsibile for the said incident.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(30)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::The accused beat her by handle of an axe.The accused under the influence of liquor used to harass her daily and on the day of incident she herself set on fire due to harassment at the::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (32) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 hands of the accused.She made shouts and neighbouring persons came to her home and they poured water on her person and extinguished fire.Maroti Shinde and Manohar Shinde provided liquor to her husband with an intention to purchase the land of Ganesh and she opposed to said transaction.She was fed-up with the behaviour of her husband and set herself on fire.She further told him that her husband extinguished the fire by pouring water on her person.The neighbouring persons came on the spot and they admitted her in Civil Hospital, Nanded for treatment.She further told him that her husband is responsibile.In the cross-examination, he has denied that patient was in critical condition and before recording statement, he collected all informations of the patient from relative and that only to help the prosecution, he recorded false dying declaration.Chavan (PW-11) has also stated that, on the same day i.e. on 12.12.2014, Special Judicial Magistrate made him request to examine the patient and accordingly, he examined the patient and put endorsements (Exh.33 and 34) and the Special::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (33) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 Judicicial Magistrate recorded dying declaration of the patient.In the cross-examination, he denied that the patient was not in a position to speak real and voluntarily and to help the prosecution, he deposes false.Thus, on the basis of the evidence of PW-14 and PW-11, it can be said that on 12.12.2014 between 10.35 pm to 11.05 pm, PW-14 recorded dying declaration (Exh.40) of the deceased and at the time of recording said dying declaration, the deceased was conscious.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(32)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(33)On perusal of dying declarations Exh.21 and 40, it appears that in Exh.21, the deceased as referred earlier states that on boaring to harassment caused to her by her husband and her husband assaulted her after consuming liquor on 12.12.2014 and as he used to assault her, she committed suicide.Whereas, in dying declaration Exh.40, it is stated that there was quarrel between her and her husband for landed property.The accused beat her by handle of an axe.The accused used to harass her daily under the influence of liquor and therefore, she::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (34) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 committed suicide.The neighbours as well as her husband came and extinguished fire.Thus, it is seen that dying declaration (Exh.21), which was prior in time as it was recorded on 12.12.2014 between 9.30 pm.to 10.00 pm, it is not stated that there was quarrel between the deceased and her husband on account of landed property.Thus, there is no consistency in both the dying declarations (Exh.21 and 40) in respect of quarrel between the deceased and the accused for landed property.It is true that in both the dying declarations, it is stated that the accused used to harass her, after consuming liquor and therefore, she committed suicide.But, said statement in both the dying declarations is not sufficient to state that there was really continuous harassment to the deceased by the accused and thus, the accused caused cruelty to the deceased, which was of such a nature that there was no alternative to the deceased than to commit suicide, because admittedly, the deceased was daughter of maternal uncle of the accused and their marriage was performed about 18 years prior to the incident of sustaining burn to the::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (35) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 deceased on 12.12.2014 as deposed by her brother and when it has come on record, particularly, in the evidence of brother of the deceased that the deceased was treated at various places to conceive.Therefore, above-referred both the dying declarations and solitary incident of 12.12.2014 of beating the deceased by the handle of an axe, which is not accepted and believed by the trial Court, are not sufficient to state that the accused caused harassment to the deceased, which amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC and thus, accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(34)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(35)As regards defence of the accused is concerned, it is his defence that the deceased had no issue even after 18 years of her marriage.The deceased was nervous and therefore, she committed suicide and that he has not abetted her to commit the same.As referred erlier, Ananda (PW-6) brother of the deceased has admitted that his sister was treated at various places to conceive her.Moreover, Maroti Shinde (PW-5) has stated that he does not know that::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (36) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 due to non-conception for 11 years, deceased was nervous.As referred above, it has come in the evidence of PW-7, who recorded dying declaration Exh.21 that the deceased told him that immediately, after she made shouts, the accused came and extinguished fire.She has also stated the same in dying declaration (Exh.40).This shows that the accused tried to save the deceased and he had no intention to abet the deceased to commit suicide.Therefore, there is substance in the defence of the accused that the deceased committed suicide as she was nervous, as she had no issue, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(36)There is presumption as per Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.As per said provision, when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a married woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (37) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.Thus, she died after about 18 years of her marriage.Therefore, it is not the case that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage with the accused.So also, as observed above, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused caused cruelty to the deceased by harassing her by beating her, while under the influence of liquor.The trial Court has acquitted the accused of the offence of cruelty::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (38) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.Therefore, no presumption as to abetment of suicide by the deceased under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can be drawn in favour of the prosecution and against the accused in the present case.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(37)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(38)On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, after referring the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6 and dying declarations Exh.21 and 40, the trial Court has not accepted the said evidence of the prosecution to hold that the proseuction has proved the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC against the accused.However, the trial Court observed that::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (39) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 the evidence of PW-6 brother of the deceased is believable and there is no any other reason to discard the evidence of the said witness.In paragraph 19 of the judgment, the trial Court made certain observations and concluded that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide.Observations in said paragraph 18, are thus:::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(39)"19- If we considered the statement recorded by P.C. Kendre both the statements are not inconsisistent.At Exh.32 in dying declaration she made a statement that on 11-12-2014 her husband called back.He personally taken her from her parental home and on that night he under the influence of liquor was beat her.On next day i.e. 12-12-2014 again he given a blow of wooden handle of axe under the influence of liquor.This statement itself suggest that on 11-12-2014 and 12-12-2014 on both the days this accused was consumed the liquor and under influence of liquor he has bet to her wife.These two days incidents between these two is sufficient evidence of instigating and beating to commit the suicide and according to me, the prosecution has proved both the dying declaration much is made by learned counsel for accused Mr.Kuncholikar.As per the evidence of doctor, the patient was on that day having high teperature, high blood pressure and high pulse rate and therefore, she was not in a positition.There are Catena of judgment that medical evidence is not material in absence of medical evidence the court can rely upon the dying declaration::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (40) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 but it would be subject to confirmation of the person who recorded that statement is material.In this case, police constable Kendre and Spl.Judicial Magistrate Hamid clearly stated before the court that they get confirmed her physical condition is good and she is able to give a statement before them, then they recorded the statement and this evidence of these two witneses is sufficient to believe in absence of evidence of doctor and therefore, I am not giving much weightage to doctor and I am not agree with the submission of learned counsel for accused.Therefore, I belive the dying declarations which was rightly recorded after due confirmation.There is no inconsistency it is supported by the brother of deceased and one Shinde from same village and regular harassment of beating and habit of liquor is duly proved by the prosecution and according to me, the accused Ganesh Shinde is responsible for the death of his wife Ranjana and he instigated to commit the suicide.For sake of argument apart from the evidence on record if we perused the conduct of the present accused after the incident the Ranjana made a statement before police constable Kendre that he was present there he thrown some water on her person and he left the place thereafter, no one has pointed the presency of accused it means after throwing water he left the house.The panch witness who came before the court made a statement that when they were visited to the incident spot accused was not present.The door was closed and which was opened by the police with panchanama.So far as the second seizure panch is concerned, that witness also supported the prosecution case that when the accused was arrested he produced one wooden handle of axe in presence of panchas in polcie station and that was seized and that handle was::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (41) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 identified this witness before the court.Not only that, the panch witness who came before the court he also identified again matchstick and burn piece of saree.Both the panchanamas are duly proved by the proseuction.In these circumstances, seizure of wooden handle of axe and the statement of deceased that on the day of incident i.e. 12-12-2014 the accused had given blow of handle of axe that was seized by the police in presence of pancahs.Prior to tht there is also harassment and beating that is called as a continuously beating and harassment and mental torture to the deceased and he instigate and abet to commit the suicide if in case he was present on the spot after the incident he extinguished he taken the deceased to the hospital then the fact would be otherwise but no presency of accused after the incident clearly indicate that he was not interested to survival of deceased.Hence, according to me, I conclude by saying that accused has committed the offnece and he should be punished.I heard the accused on the point of sentence."::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(40)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(41)From the above observations of the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court has believed the statement of the deceased in the first dying declaration Exh.21 (which is mentioned as Exh.32 in the judgment) that on 11.12.2014, the accused had taken the deceased to his house from her parental house and in the night, under the influence of liquor beat her and on the next day i.e. on 12.12.2014,::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (42) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 again the acucsed gave a blow of wooden handle of an axe to the deceased under the ingluence of liquor and as such according to the trial Court, these two incidents are sufficient to state that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.As discussed earlier, there is inconsistenncy in two dying declarations Exh.21 and 40 regarding quarrel beatween the deceased and the accused on account of land.So also, in dying declaration Exh.40, the deceased has not stated consistently with the contents of dying declaration Exh.21 that in the night of 11.12.2014, she was assaulted by the accused under the influence of liquor and on the next day i.e. on 12.12.2014 in the morning also, she was beaten by the accused, by the handle of an axe.Thus, there is no consistency in two dying declarations regarding act of assaulting to the deceased in the night, on 11.12.2014 under the influence of liquor.In the above circumstaances, when the trial Court did not accept the oral evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and dying declarations Exh.21 and 40 to attract the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (43) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 of causing cruelty to the deceased by the accused, the trial Court erred in accepting the dying declaration (Exh.21) without properly appreciating the contents of dying declaration (Exh.40) recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate (PW-14), immediately after Exh.21, to hold that the accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide, particularly, when the proseuction case was that the accused harassed the deceased by beating her under the influence of liquor, which harassment abetted her to commit suicide.The observations of the trial Court in paragraph 19 reproduced (supra) that absence of the accused after the incident clearly indicates that he was not interested in survival of the deceased and hence, the accused has committed the offence under Section 306 of the IPC are not correct because in both the dying declarations referred earlier, the deceased said that the accused put off the fire by pouring water on her person.This conduct of the accused very well shows that he tried to save the deceased.There is possibility of his leaving the spot after the incident due to fear of an action::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (44) Cri.Appeal No.173-18 against him at the instance of relatives of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(42)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(43)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(44)For all the reasons discussed above, oral evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6 and dying declarations (Exh.21 and 40) are not sufficient to infer that the accused harassed the deceased on consuming liquor and thus, abetted the deceased to commit suicide.Naturally, therefore, conviction and setence recorded against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable and the same is laible to be set aside and the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the said offence by allowing the appeal.In the result following order is passed.::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: (45)::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::(45)Appeal No.173-18 O R D E R (1) Appeal is allowed.(2) The judgment and order dated 04-02-2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Sessions Case No.15/2015, convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC is set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the said offence.(3) Appellant-accused Ganesh s/o Bhaurao Shinde, who is in jail, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case or crime.(4) Fine, if paid by the appellant-accused as per the impugned judgment shall be refunded to him.(5) In view of disposal of Criminal Appeal No.173/2018, Civil Application 2964 of 2018 stands disposed of.(6) Record and proceeding in Sessions Case No.15 of 2015 be sent to the trial court forthwith for necessary compliance.(8) Mr.Chetan T.Jadhav, Advocate was appointed to represent the appellant-accused through Legal Aid.I appreciate his sincere efforts in conducting the matter to arrive at a proper conclusion, I quantify his fees at Rs.7,500/-.(9) Appellant-accused to furnish bail as per Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court.[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] sarowar::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 06:26:37 ::: | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
101,087,215 | C. R. M. No. 5531 of 2013 In the matter of :-In the matter of :-In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the statement of the four witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at pages 71 to 82 of the case diary.Our attention has also been drawn to the statement of the eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at pages 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 of the case diary.The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that this petitioner was identified in the T.I. parade by a number of eye-witnesses including the injured persons.We have gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also gone through the medical papers and the report of T.I. parade lying with the case diary.Having regard to what transpires therefrom and also considering the nature and 3 seriousness of the allegations and other materials collected during investigation and also considering the role attributed to this petitioner and also considering the fact that 30.4.2013 is the date fixed for question of consideration of framing of charge, in our opinion, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner.Accordingly, application for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.The bail application being CRM No.5531 of 2013 is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Subal Baidya, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
101,090,910 | The plaintiff was the respondent No. 5 in such proceeding.of the defendant lodged a complaint with George Town police station, Allahabad against the defendant and a police case inter alia under sections 498A, 406, 313, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act was started.Such police case resulted in a charge-sheet against the defendant.The defendant challenged such charge-sheet before the High Court at Allahabad.Such challenge is pending.On February 9, 2017, the Family Court at Ranchi issued summons to the plaintiff for settlement of issues in the divorce petition.Such divorce petition contained the defamatory statements.The defendant filed a petition under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned magistrate at Karachi.A case was started against the plaintiff, his wife and his parents and the wife of the defendant on February 18, 2017 which resulted in a police report stating that there was a mistake as to fact in the complaint.The defendant challenged such report which was converted into a complaint case and the learned Magistrate issued summons against the wife of the defendant for prosecution under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 2005 but refused to issue summons 5 against the plaintiff, his wife and his parents.The defendant challenged the same before the learned Sessions Court at Ranchi which admitted the same and issued notice to the plaintiff, his wife, parents of his wife, and the wife of the defendant.The same is pending.The defendant filed a petition before the Principal Judge Family Court, Jharkhand on February 6, 2018 praying for withdrawal of the divorce case on the ground of defects in the plaint and also due to some other reasons.The learned Judge allowed the prayer and dismissed the case as withdrawn.The High Court when being informed about the dismissal of the divorce case, directed the defendant to ascertain the status of the divorce case.On October 3, 2018, the learned advocate for the defendant submitted before the Hon'ble Court that, the defendant filed a fresh case before the Civil Judge Principal Family Court, Allahabad.The defendant filed a fresh suit being MT.No. 1613 of 2018 before the Learned Principal Family Judge, Allahabad praying for a decree of dissolution of the marriage held on November 30, 2016 on the ground of cruelty committed by his wife.The plaintiff was made the respondent 6 No.2 in such suit.Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, although criminal defamation has been codified in the Indian Penal Code, 2005 the civil defamation part is yet to be codified.According to him, both the civil proceedings for damages caused due to defamatory statements and criminal proceeding for the same defamatory statements are maintainable simultaneously.There is a qualitative difference between criminal proceedings for defamation and civil proceedings with regard to the same defamation.In a civil action for defamation, the plaintiff can seek damages which the criminal Court may not be a position to grant in the criminal proceeding for the same defamatory statement.The plaintiff has sought a decree for Rs. 10 crores for damages for defamation.The mother-in-law of the plaintiff forwarded the summons and the petition to the plaintiff.(supra) a suit for damages for defamatory statements made against the plaintiff by the defendants in their written statement in a suit was under consideration.The suit was found to be maintainable and damages were awarded.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs." | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
10,109,229 | Certified copy as per rules.(G. S. Ahluwalia) JUDGE MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.08.24 13:45:15 +05'30'Heard on the question of admission.The revision being arguable is admitted for final hearing.This is an application filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been convicted under Sections 354-A and 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of one year for offence under Section 354-A of IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default imprisonment.The hearing of this revision is likely to take some time.The applicants shall appear before the Office of this Court on 17.12.2019 and on all other dates which may be given by the office for his appearance. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,010,927 | JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.The appellant has been convicted in S.T. No. 38/87 by judgment dated 1-2-89 of Addl.Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.The charge found established against him is that he committed murder of his wife Smt. Babitabai on 23-12-86 at about 3-45 p.m. by giving blows to her with a Gadasa and caused 3 injuries on various parts of the body including neck and cut vital parts resulting in her death.10 Santosh, brother of the deceased aged about 10years and P.W. 11 Motilal father of the deceased who lodged the FIR.The murder was committed in the house of Motilal where the deceased was at the relevant time and where the accused had gone that day.Babita died at the spot at once as a result of the injuries.P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 asserted having seen the accused striking the deceased with Gadasa while PW. 10 only said that the fact was told to him by Halkibai and Shanti as he found his sister Babita lying dead.There is further circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial Court that is on arrest of the accused on 24-12-86 at about 6-30 p.m., the pent and bush-shirt of the accused were taken into possession and were sent to chemical examiner and serologist and as per reports Ex. P. 21 and P-22 these were found to be stained with human blood.The autopsy surgeon's report indicated 3 injuries with sharp edged weapon on the neck and shoulder part of the body of the deceased.These injuries had cut spinal vertebra No. 3 on the right side of the neck and also cut acromion process of scapula.The death was caused due to shock resulting from the haemorrhage from the injuries.The FIR Ex. P-13 was lodged by Motilal on 23-6-86 at 5 p.m. i.e. within 2 hours of the incident.In this the accused was named as the author of the crime.In defence the accused had simply denied that he attacked his wife or caused her death.He gave no explanation regarding blood stains on his clothes or why PW. 8 and PW. 9 as also PW. 10 were deposing against him.Learned counsel for the appellant during the argument asserted that at pre-trial stage the accused had been sentto mental hospital Gwalior and remained there for a year and thereafter he was tried when he was found fit to be tried and of sound mind which resulted into present conviction.We find that no defence was taken by the accused during the trial that at the relevant time of offence he was suffering from any mental infirmity or he did not understand the nature of his action.That defence was not suggested to neither any witness nor taken even in statement of the accused Under Section 313, Cr.P.C.On close perusal of the testimony of P.W. 9 Shantibai who is neighbour of Motilal where the incident had occurred and whose attention was drawn on hearing the shrieks, there is no reason to discard her testimony.Her presence is natural being a neighbourer.There was no impediment in her seeing the incident and there is no reason why she should depose falsely against the accused.She had asserted that she saw the incident and accused had given blows to deceased with Gadasa.The witness is fully supported by P.W. 8 Halkibai.So far as P.W. 10 is concerned he is brother of the deceased and saw the deceased dead.P.W. 8 and 9 had told him that the accused had hit Babita.Santosh in his turn told his father to lodge the FIR and that is the reason why he named this accused as assailant in the FIR.The narration that hits were given with Gadasa is corroborated by the medical evidence of the autopsy surgeon.It is further confirmed by the fact that the accused's clothes were stained with human blood for which there is no explanation given by him.Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to create any dent in the evidence of these witnesses or in the circumstantial evidence.We find that the trial Court has rightly believed the evidence and reached the conclusion of the guilt of this accused.The net result is that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused of the crime of murder.The victim had died at the time of assault itself. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
101,094,949 | 1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 12062/2018 Pradeep Raghuvanshi Vs.State of M.P.Gwalior Dated :10.04.2018 None for the applicant.None for the State.Case diary provided by the office of AG is perused.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.147, 148, 149,323, 307 IPC and further added section 302 IPC registered as Crime No. 94/2017 at Police Station Basauda City, District Vidisha ( M.P.).The applicant has filed this 2 nd anticipatory bail application after rejection of earlier one on merits vide order dated 13.12.2017 passed in M.Cr.The allegation against the applicant is that armed with lathi / Kulhadi (axe)/ Lohangi and being part of unlawful assembly along with other co-accused assaulted the deceased Balram Raghuvanshi, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the assault.Accordingly, present application stands rejected.(Sheel Nagu) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2018.04.10 17:33:13 +05'30' | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,286,928 | In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.09.2017 in connection with Tamluk P.S. Case No.148 of 2013 dated 16.04.2013 under Sections 376/313/420/417/354C of the Indian Penal Code And In the matter of : Ataur Rahaman @ Sk.Ataur Rahaman ...Petitioner.Mr. A. K. Samanta ...for the Petitioner.He immediately surrendered on 1.9.2017 and since then he is in custody.Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner had misused his liberty earlier.We find that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered before the trial court.In view of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, subject to strict conditions.The petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur on condition that he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses nor tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without further reference to this Court.The petitioner shall also not leave the jurisdiction of Goraikhali Police Station without express permission of the court save and except for attending court proceedings until further orders.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,287,597 | Heard Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Smriti Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.The instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2010 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.3 (Fast Track) Gonda in Civil Appeal No.42/2006 whereby it has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in R.S. No.84/2006 by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.Briefly, the facts giving rise to the above second appeal are being noticed hereinafter.The plaintiff-appellants had instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Gonda, which was registered as R.S. No.54/1986 seeking recovery for a sum of Rs.1,53,198/-.The averments in the complaint were that the plaintiff has been running his business of distribution and sale of fertilizers in the name and style of Deep Trading Company.The plaintiff had obtained a cash credit loan from the Bank of India and as per the terms and conditions of the Bank, the shop and the stocks were to be compulsory insured against all perils vis-a-vis fire, riot, theft etc. The plaintiff had proposed to obtain an insurance cover from the defendant No.1-the respondent herein, for a general insurance cover for fire, riot, theft, etc., for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.Thereafter, completing all the formalities regarding the procurement of the insurance cover, a policy was issued in favour of the plaintiff styled as "MPI Policy No.7413300952".It was specifically pleaded in the plaint that on 31.10.1984 at around 05:00 PM, after the news of the assassination of late Prime Minister broke out, the plaintiff like others, closed his shop which was situated at Mohalla Maliviya Nagar, Gonda.On account of the ensuing events which took place, thereafter, the shop of the plaintiff remained closed on the next day as well.However, on 01.11.1984, it was pleaded that some anti-social elements got their chance and looted the shop of the plaintiff while the market was deserted.The alleged persons forcibly entered into the shop of the plaintiff by pushing and opening the doors and looted the stocks of fertilizers, cash and also damaged the furnitures and fixtures.The plaintiff had to pay the fee of the surveyor amounting to Rs.3,198/- and the surveyor also submitted its report, however, the same was not accepted by the insurance company and thereafter by means of the letter dated 29.03.1985, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that it was not covered under the policy.It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the suit came to be filed.The defendant insurance company filed its written statement bearing Paper No.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed four issues.It was primarily Issues No.1 and 3 which were the soul of the controversy involved in between the parties.The Issue No.1 related to the fact whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest and damages and Issue No.3 was to the effect whether the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable in light of the defence taken in Paragraph-22 of the written statement.The parties filed their documentary evidence and the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra was examined as PW-2 whereas Shri Shyam Sundar Pandey was the sole witness of the defendant insurance company. | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,311,199 | This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was filed and came up before this court in September, 2016 to seek quashing of the proceedings in the criminal case arising out of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted on conclusion of the investigation into case first information report (FIR) No. 21/2010 dated 27.01.2010 of Police Station Hari Nagar, involving offences punishable under Sections 448/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) wherein, by virtue of the order dated 13.01.2015 of the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), cognizance has been taken and Crl.M.C. 3562/2016 Page 1 of 5 process has been issued against the petitioners summoning them to appear as accused.M.C. 3562/2016 Page 1 of 5The record would show that the FIR of the case was registered pursuant to the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the compliant of second respondent.It appears that the third petitioner (wife) had some grouse against the husband, she accusing him of torture.The husband statedly went back to USA leaving the wife and the child in India.It is the case of the petitioners that the third petitioner started living with her parents-in-law, i.e., second and third respondents in her matrimonial home.On the other hand, on the petition of the husband, a decree of divorce was granted by a court in USA against the third petitioner.The petitioners' case is that the wife was constrained to file a complaint, inter alia, against the second and third respondents in July, 2009, they having allegedly taken her minor daughter to USA without her consent.Some reports to the police appear to have been Crl.M.C. 3562/2016 Page 2 of 5 lodged.It is the further case of the petitioner that the third petitioner had come to the matrimonial home on 18.08.2009, but she had to return to her parental home as she had forgotten to bring her keys from there.From this, it could be inferred that for some period prior to 18.08.2009 she had been living with her parental family and not in the house of the second and third respondents.M.C. 3562/2016 Page 2 of 5Be that as it may, the second and third respondents, in their complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate have alleged that the third petitioner had made visit to their house, i.e., DA-89E, Hari Nagar, Delhi on 18.08.2009 and though an attempt was made to arrange a duplicate key maker but they could not open the house, in their absence, they being away to USA.It is further their case in the FIR that upon their return from USA, they found the third petitioner living in their house along with her parents.It is against this backdrop that allegations have been made, inter alia, of the offence of house trespass under Section 448 IPC stated to have been committed, on which cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate based on the report of investigation submitted by the police. | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,314,616 | (Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderdated 08.07.2014 passed in Detention Order No.16/2014 by the detainingauthority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against thepetitioner/detenu by name Thirupathi Ramachandran @ Senthil and quash thesame and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station assponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority,wherein it is stated that the petitioner/detenu has involved in the followingadverse cases:(i)Crime No.91 of 2013 on the file of Dindigul Town West Police Stationregistered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.(ii)Crime No.413 of 2013 on the file of Dindigul Town North PoliceStation registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.(iii)Crime No.421 of 2013 on the file of Dindigul Town North PoliceStation registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv)Crime No.24 of 2014 on the file of Dindigul Town West PoliceStation registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.(v)Crime No.154 of 2014 on the file of Dindigul Town West PoliceStation registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 17.06.2014 onVelmurugan has given a complaint against the petitioner/detenu and others inDindigul Town West Police Station and the same has been registered in CrimeNo.192 of 2014 of 2014 under Sections 392 read with 397 of the Indian PenalCode and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of1982 against him.4.The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after perusingthe averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documentshas derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner/ detenuis a habitual property offender and ultimately invoked Act 14 of 1982 againsthim and thereby branded him as 'Goonda' by way of passing the impugneddetention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas CorpusPetition has been filed by the detenu himself as petitioner.5.On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed,wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made inthe petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/detenu has contendedthat on the side of the petitioner/detenu two representations have been givenand the same have not been properly considered without delay and thereforethe detention order in question is liable to be quashed.7.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted whereinit has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation inbetween Column Nos.7 and 9, eight clear working days are available and withregard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 and 9, five clearworking days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, two clearworking days are available and no explanation has been given on the side ofthe respondents with regard to such delay and that itself would affect therights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution ofIndia and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.4.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul District.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,315,204 | ad Sushri Guncha Rasool, counsel for the objector.Heard on I.A.Nos.18397/2017, 19546/2017 and M 19609/2017 for taking additional documents on record.of For the reasons stated in the applications, they are allowed and the additional documents are taken on rt record.ou Heard on this first application for bail under Section C 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of h the petitioner Sanjay Dahade and Shivam Namdeo in ig Crime No.23/2017, registered by P.S. Bilkhiriya District- H Bhopal under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, complainants Vijay Singh and seven other persons filed a joint application in P.S. Bilkhiriya to the effect that two years ago, they had purchased plots in Kanha City phase-1 from builder co-accused Rahul Singh Chouhan.They had paid the consideration amount to petitioner Sanjay Dahade, who is the Manager Rahul Singh Chouhan.Thereafter, Rahul Singh Chouhan, and power of attorney holder, Shivam Namdeo had executed registered sale deeds of the plots in favour of the complainants; however, the builder is neither sh giving possession of the plots to the complainants nor is getting the land mutated in their favour.When the complainants created e ad pressure, the builder and his accomplices got the land mutated in the name of one of the complainants; however, during enquiry, it Pr was learned that aforesaid mutation was forged.When the complainants tried to raise construction upon the plots, original a hy owner of the land Habbu Khan threatened that he would not allow anyone to place not even a single brick on the land.ad Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that M Sanjay Dahade is said to be Manager of builder Rahul Singh.He of had received the money on behalf of the builder and had passed it on to him.There is no allegation that the Manager rt misappropriated the amount of the complainants.He all along ou acted on behalf of the builder.Some dispute has cropped up C between the builder Rahul Singh Chouhan and original owner of the land Habbu Khan.h ig Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the objector has opposed prayer for bail made H on behalf of the petitioner Sanjay Dahade.The role that has been ascribed to Shivam Namdeo in the affair is that Habbu Khan and his family members executed a power of attorney in respect of the land in sh favour of Shivam Namdeo and Shivam Namdeo had executed the sale deed in favour of the complainants on e behalf of the builder.The possession M of the land has also been transferred to Shivam Namdeo.The complainants have also signed the agreement.of Possession of the plots has been delivered to the rt complainants and they can start construction.In support ou of aforesaid contentions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners have filed an affidavit of owner Habbu Khan.C However, Learned Government Advocate for the h respondent/State and learned counsel for the objector ig have opposed the application.By accepting power of Attorney and the Registering sale deeds.He has taken a greater sh responsibility upon himself.Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.e Consequently, the first application for bail under Section ad 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of Pr the petitioner Sanjay Dahade is allowed and that filed on behalf of the petitioner Shivam Namdeo is dismissed.a hy It is directed that the petitioner Sanjay Dahade shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum ad of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent, local sureties in the M sum of Rs.50,000/- each for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for of complying with the conditions enumerated under Section rt 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.ou C (C V SIRPURKAR) h JUDGE ig H vai VAISHALI AGRAWAL 2017.11.03 05:23:12 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,318,331 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.161 of 2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – XXIII Saidapet, Chennai, having been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 109 r/w 302 and 214, 506(i) of IPC.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 120B, 147, 109 r/w 302 and 214, 506(i) of IPC.He further submitted that all the points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial.Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this petition.3. Heard Mr.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:On receipt of the same, the trial Court is directed to take cognizance and to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such committal.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.05.04.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order nlhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.O.P.No. 16171 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.9989 & 9990 of 2017 05.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
182,320,356 | The CEC constituted by thisCourt was proposed to be converted into a Statutory Committee.After approval, the Court directed that a formalnotification will be issued within a week and the functions andresponsibilities given to the CEC were to be exercised by the saidStatutory Committee.It may be noticed here that, it was in furtherance to the order ofthe Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.M No. 467, Home (SCA) Dept.dated17th November, 2009, supplemented by Notification No. 228/61/2009-AVD-11dated 1st December, 2009 issued by the Central Government, that the CBI wasdirected to register a case against the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC).Earlier the CBI had registered a case against the OMC on 7th December, 2009and started the probe.This probably came to be stayed by the High Courtvide its order dated 12th December, 2009 which stay was vacated by anotherorder of that Court on 16th December, 2010 paving the way for a full-fledged probe.As a result of vacation of the stay, the CBI continued itsinvestigation.Samaj Parivartan Samuday, a registered society, filed petition underArticle 32 of the Constitution of India stating that the illegal mining inthe States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka was still going on in fullswing.Such illegal mining and transportation of illegally mined mineralswere being done in connivance with the officials, politicians and evenMinisters of State.There was a complete lack of action on the part of theMinistry of Environment and Forests on the one hand and the States ofAndhra Pradesh and Karnataka, on the other.It was averred that there wascomplete breakdown of the official machinery, thereby allowing such blatantillegalities to take place.This inaction and callousness on the part ofthe Central and the State Governments and failure on their part to controlthe illegal mining has allowed large-scale destruction, both of forest andnon-forest lands and has adversely affected the livelihood of the people.It thus, has filed WP (C) 562 of 2009 and has prayed for issuance of a writof mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to therespective State Governments and to the Union of India, to stop all miningand related activities in the forest areas of these two States.It also prayed for cancelling of the ‘raising contracts’ orsub-lease executed by the Government of Karnataka in favour of the variousprivate individuals and allowing back-door entry into the mining activityin those areas.The most significant prayer in this petition was thatafter stopping of the mining activity, a systematic survey of both theinter-state border between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka andmine lease areas along the border be conducted and proper Relief andRehabilitation Programmes (for short ‘RR Programmes’) be implemented.All the above cases, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995, 562/2009 and SLP(C)No. 7366-7367/2010, relate to protection of environment, forest areas,stoppage of illegal mining and cancellation of illegal sub-leasing andcontracts executed by any State Government in favour of the third parties,to the extent such contracts are invalid and improper.The CEC, in discharge of its functions and responsibilities, wasexamining the matters, in both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.These violations have come to the surface as a result of enquiriesconducted by the CEC, regarding illegal mining and mining beyond theirleased areas by these companies.It was pointed by the CEC with specificreference to these companies that there was not only illegal extraction ofiron ore but the minerals was being also extracted beyond the leased areaspecified in the lease deeds.Further, there was unchecked export of ironore from the border areas of the two States, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.This related to the quantum, quality and transportation of ore as well.Vide order dated 23rd September, 2011, this Court accepted variousrecommendations of the CEC and noticed that prima facie it appears that atthe relevant time, there existed linkage between the alleged illegal miningin the Bellary Reserve Forest, falling in the District Anantpur in AndhraPradesh and the illegalities in respect of grant/renewal of mining leasesand deviations from sanctioned mine sketch in the Bellary District inKarnataka.The Court also noted that illegally extracted iron orebelonging to one M/s. Associated Mining Company (for short “AMC”) wasapparently routed through the nearest Port in Vishakhapatnam, throughdistrict Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh.Vide the same order, this Courtrequired the CBI to additionally present a status report of investigationswhich the CBI had undertaken in respect of OMC in Andhra Pradesh under FIRNo.17A/2009-CBI(Hyderabad).It was also reported that there was massiveillegal mining by third parties in the mining lease No. 1111 of one M/s.National Minerals Development Corporation (NMDC).It was suspected thatone M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate (for short “DMS”) was involved in suchactivities and no action had been taken on the complaints of NMDC.Someother directions were also issued including directions for further inquiryby the CEC and the CEC was required to put up a comprehensive report beforethis Court.In the meanwhile, an application was filed by the petitioners of writpetition No.562 of 2009 which remained un-numbered.The prayer in thisapplication was to extend the scope of investigation by the CBI relating toillegal mining and other allied activities which the politicians and majorcorporate groups including M/s. Jindal Group and M/s. Adanis were indulgingin, within the State of Karnataka.They also prayed that both the Statesshould also be directed demarcate the inter-state boundaries, particularly,in the mining area.After examining the issues raised in the IA, the earlier orders ofthis Court and based on the meetings held by the CEC on 20th March, 2012and 11th April, 2012, respectively, the CEC identified the issues asfollows:-i) The alleged serious illegalities/ irregularities and undue favour in respect of (a) the land purchased by the close relatives of the then Chief Minister, Karnataka for 0.40 crore in the year 2006 and subsequently sold to M/s South West Mining Limited in the year 2010 for Rs.20.00 crores and (b) donation of Rs.20.00 crore received by Prerna Education Society from M/s South West Mining Limited.ii) the alleged illegal export of iron ore from Belekeri Port and associated issues;This agency may also be directed to investigate into other similar cases, if any, of lands de-notified from acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority and the illegalities / irregularities / procedural lapses, if any, and to take follow up action.The Prerna Education Society set up by the close relatives of the then Chief Minister, Karnataka has during March, 2010 vide two cheques of Rs.5.0 crores each received a donation of Rs.10 crores from M/s South West Mining Limited, a Jindal Group Company.Swatanter Kumar, J.Since we have heard the affected parties, thepetitioners and the learned Amicus Curiae, we shall summarize thecontentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.The case against the OMC for illegalmining was under investigation in respect of the areas of Obulapuram andMalangapudi villages of Anantpur district in the State of Andhra Pradeshand in the rest of the State of Andhra Pradesh.Further, the State of Andhra Pradesh vide its G.O. Rt.No. 723 dated25th November, 2009, issued by the Industrial and Commercial Department,suspended the mining operations and also the transportation of mineralmaterial by OMC and even other implicated companies, on the basis of thefindings of a High Level Committee, headed by the Principal ChiefConservator of Forests, Hyderabad and the Report of the CEC submitted tothis Court in I.A. No. 2/2009 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 201 of 2009, acopy of which was forwarded to the State Government.This was challengedbefore the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which, vide judgment dated 26thFebruary, 2010, set aside the notification and allowed the writ petitions,while holding that the G.O. issued by the Government suffered from ajurisdictional error and was in violation of the principles of naturaljustice.Against the said judgment of the High Court, the Government ofAndhra Pradesh filed a Special Leave Petition, SLP(C) No. 7366-7367 of 2010on different grounds.The latter cases,Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009 and SLP(C) Nos. 7366-7367 of 2010concern the Bellary Forest Reserve.Further, there were seriousallegations raised in these petitions as to how and the manner in which theleases were executed and mining permits were granted or renewed forcarrying out the mining activities stated in the petition.The CEC was required to submit quarterly reports, which it has beensubmitting and with the passage of time, large irregularities andillegalities coupled with criminality were brought to the notice of thisCourt.While passing an order of complete ban on mining activity in theseareas vide order dated 29th July, 2011 this Court sought submissions on themarket requirement for mined ore and vide order dated 5th August, 2011permitted only M/s. National Minerals Development Corporation Ltd. (forshort “NMDC”) to carry out very limited mining activity, so that theeconomic interest of the country and of the states does not sufferirretrievably.This Court has also directed the CEC to examine allaspects of the mining activity and report on various measures that arerequired to be taken for RR Programmes.Limited mining activity, thus,was permitted to be carried on in the area with the clear direction thatthe RR Programmes shall be simultaneously commenced and it is only aftersuch RR Programmes are satisfactorily put into motion and the CEC makes asuggestion in this regard, that the mining activity would be permitted.iii) alleged export from Krishapatnam and Chennai Port after exports were banned by the State of Karnataka; andiv) transfer of senior police officers on deputation to Lokayukta, Karnataka.”On issue No. 1, after summarizingthe facts and its observations during its enquiry, the CEC pointed outillegalities, irregularities and instances of misuse of public officecommitted for the benefit of the close relatives of the then ChiefMinister, State of Karnataka.It made the following recommendations :-The charge-sheet was not filed in the FIR which was lodged on the intervention of the High Court.Let the matter stand over to 3rd August, 2012 for consideration ofthe Report dated 27th April, 2012 filed by the CEC.….…………......................CJI.(S.H. Kapadia) …….…………......................J.(Aftab Alam) ...….…………......................J.(Swatanter Kumar)New DelhiMay 11, 2012 | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
766,359 | Heard on IA No.13900/2010, an application for urgent hearing.Also heard both the parties.The marriage of the applicant and the deceased took place in the year 2001, and therefore, at the time of incident the prosecution did not have any presumption under Section 113-A or 113-B of the Evidence Act. No allegation was made in one and half years after the incident.The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The police has recorded the statement of various witnesses of the locality and found that no harassment has been done by the applicant to the deceased.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,637,898 | Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Nakashipara Police Station FIR No. 232 of 2017 dated 25.4.2017 under sections 354A/448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
766,386 | She is also alleged to have told her that in case she did not want to listen to her then she should pour kerosene oil on her person and set fire to herself.She is also said to have been shouting angrily.The deceased Jayashree told her that she would set fire to herself and to that the appellant is alleged to have replied that she had perfect liberty to set fire to herself.On that Jayashree is alleged to have poured kerosene oil on her body and set fire to herself.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.The appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 27-11-1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1987, convicting her under section 498A I.P.C. and 306 I.P.C. and sentencing her to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under the first count and to suffer one year's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to under go simple imprisonment for 10 days under the second count, (substantive sentences to run concurrently) has come up in appeal before me.Along with the appellant her mother-in-law Shahabai Sampat Sonawane was also tried but vide the aforesaid order she has been acquitted.The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Jayashree John Sonawane was married to John Sonawane about 6 months prior to the incident.She used to reside along with her husband and her mother-in-law (acquitted accused) Shahabai Sampat Sonawane, her father-in-law Sampat and her brother-in-law Sunil in Thergaon, Laxmi Nagar, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune.It is alleged that about a month prior to the incident, her husband's sister, namely, appellant Nandabai Balu Dusing had come to her parent's house and since then was staying with them.It is also alleged by the prosecution that the appellant used to constantly abuse the deceased Jayashree on one ground or the other and constantly used to quarrel with her.Acquitted accused Shahabai always used to take the side of the appellant.On 25-11-1986, at about 12.00 noon, when Jayashree was going out of the house for washing clothes, the appellant quarelled with her and asked her not to go out of the house.She also taunted her alleging that she was not the daughter of one father and also started abusing her.It is also alleged that at that time inside the house, the acquitted accused Shahabai, father-in-law of Jayashree Sampat and her brother-in-law were present but none of the aforesaid persons made any endeavour to save her.On the other hand, Jayashree's father-in-law is said to have pushed her away.Immediately, after the incident a car was arranged for and in the same her in-laws brought her to Sassoon Hospital for treatment.On the way, her in laws are alleged to have told her to give a statement that she was burnt on account of bursting of stove.At Sassoon Hospital, Pune, Jayashree was medically examined on the same day by P.W. 1 Dr. Manmohan Vasant Jagade who found that she had sustained burn to the extent of 80%.The same day i.e. 25-1-1986 at 5.00 p.m. the dying declaration of Jayashree was recorded at the Sassoon Hospital, Pune, by P.W. 2 Rajaram Shankar Retwade, Special Judicial Magistrate, Pune.The aforesaid dying declaration was recorded in Ward No. 27 in question and answer form.The dying declaration was recorded in the presence of P.W. 3 Dr. Ulhas Vasudeo Patil who had certified that the declarant was conscious while giving dying declaration.Since the aforesaid dying declaration is a short one, I am reproducing the same.Whether you are fully conscious?A. Yes.I am Spl.Judicial Magistrate, Do you understand this?A. Yes.How you received the burn injuries? or someone else burnt you?A. Today at about 12.00 to 12.30 p.m. when I am in the house, my sister-in-law Nanda, abused me, and told me to pour kerosene and set myself on fire and therefore, I poured kerosene and set myself on fire.Always, my sister-in-law used to abuse me.Do you have complaint about this against anybody?A. I have a compliant against my sister-in-law Nanda."The next day the statement of the victim under section 161 was recorded and the same was tendered as Exh. 10 and relied upon by the prosecution as a dying declaration.In the aforesaid statement, the victim has stated all the facts which I have mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgement.On 21-1-1986 Jayashree is alleged to have succumbed to her injuries in Sassoon Hospital, Pune.He went to the place of the incident and prepared panchanama of the scene of offence.On 30-1-1986, he arrested the appellant and on 31-3-1986 he submitted the charge-sheet.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in usual course.In the trial Court charges under section 306 I.P.C. and 498A .I.P.C. were framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty to them.Her defence is that she has been falsely implicated.In all, in the instant case, prosecution examined 5 witnesses.The bedrock of the prosecution case were the two dying declarations one, recorded by the Magistrate and the other in the form of statement of the deceased under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The learned trial Judge believed the aforesaid two dying declarations and passed the impugned order.Inasmuch as the aforesaid two dying declarations did not incriminate co-accused Shahabai, the trial Judge acquitted her.I have heard Mrs. Anita Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.G. Vaidya, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra at considerable length.I have perused the depositions of the witnesses recorded in the trial Court and the various exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution in the trial Court.I have also carefully gone through the aforesaid two dying declarations as well as the impugned judgment.After giving my anxious consideration to the matter, I am of the opinion that on merits the conviction of the appellant has been rightly arrived at and this appeal should fail.Mrs. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any such infirmity either in the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate or in that, which is in the form of the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which would persuade me to reject the aforesaid two dying declarations.The evidence of the Magistrate recording dying declaration and P.W. 3 Dr. Patil clearly shows that the victim was in a fit physical and mental condition to make the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate.In the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, I find that there is an endorsement by the doctor to the effect that the victim was conscious while giving dying declaration.Similarly, I find that the aforesaid doctors has stated that the victim was concions while her statement was recorded by the police.After going through the two dying declarations, I find the averments contained therein to be perfectly natural and trustworthy . | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,664,049 | This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. 474/2006 under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC registered at P.S. Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi.Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. lodged a complaint on 20th August, 2006 with police station Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi within whose jurisdiction it has an office that it has been cheated and breach of Crl."To Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi Police C-22, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi Sub: complaint against M/s Kripa Overseas & Pylon Traders Pvt. Ltd. Delhi for the economic and other offences of cheat, fraud, misappropriation of funds, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy etc. Complaint by: NAFED, New Delhi (National Agricultural Co- operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. having its office at NAFED building, Sidharth Enclave, Ashram Chowk, Ring Road, New Delhi through A.M.D. (F&A) Against: (1) M/s Kripa Overseas 469, Ishwar Bhawan Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 (2) Sh.Sir, The above named complainant states as under:- (1) that complaint- National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as & Idquo NAFED & rdquo) is a national level co- operative society under Multi State Cooperative Societies Act having its registered office at NAFED building, Sidharth Enclave, Ashram Crl.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 2 of 12 Chowk, Ring Road, New Delhi carrying on business of trading of agricultural and non- agricultural items like food gains, edible oils, dry fruits, spices, metal ore, meal scrap, chemicals, petroleum products etc. NAFED provides financial assistance to persons, firms, companies for doing business if proposal from such person, companies/firm is found viable.That the accused no.1 M/s Kripa Overseas is a proprietary firm with accused no.2 Sh.Sandeep Khanna as its proprietor while accused no. 3 is a private limited company with the accused no. 4 as its Director M/s Kripa Overseas has later on being converted into private limited company namely M/s Kripa Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (3) That the accused No. 3 M/s Pylon Traders approached the complainant through accused No.4 in the month of February 2004 vide their letter dated 19th February, 2004 representing themselves as leading traders of amongst other things Aestophedia (Heeng) and Pistachio (Kaju) and expressed desire to become business associate of NAFED for import of heeng from CIS countries with financial support from NAFED.(4) That letter on vide their letter dated 15.5.2004 they (M/s Pylon Traders) introduced M/s Kripa Overseas as leading dealers of dry fruits and kirana items and requested to consider heir (Kripa Overseas) proposal for import of heeng and scrap from Kyrgystan and Tazakistan.(5) That accused No.1 M/s Kripa Overseas submitted its proposal vide letter dated 29.7.2004, 3.8.2004 and 16.9.2004 for import of heeng and rolling scrap from Kyrgystan and Tazakistan and requested to approve the proposal.(6) That believing and relying on the representations, assurances, promises and commitments and also on the request made by accused, NAFED agreed to enter into an agreement for extending financial facility to M/s Kripa Overseas the purposes of procurement and import of heeng rolling scrap.Consequently an agreement dated 20.9.2004 was executed between NAFED & M/s Kripa Overseas.That believing and relying on the representation, promises and assurances Crl.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 1 of 12 trust has been committed by M/s Kripa Overseas, a company having its office at 469, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi- 110006 and its proprietor Mr. Sandeep Khanna in collusion with another company known as M/s Pylon Traders Pvt. Ltd. of which Mr. Adarsh Bhushan Mitra the present petitioner was the Director.The exact language of the complaint on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR was registered needs to be reproduced in order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing of the FIR.The said complaint read as under:M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 1 of 12M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 3 of 12 made by the accused, the complainant paid Rs. 10 crores to M/s Kripa Overseas vide cheque No. 903517 dated 22.9.2004 receipt of the same issued by Kripa Overseas enclosed a Enclosure-M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 2 of 12M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 3 of 12(7) That M/s Kripa Overseas have not repaid any amount till date and even today.(8) Cheating and fraud by way of giving cheques that bounced on presentation.The accused gave open No. 411372 towards security for repayment of their dues.This cheque bounced on presentation due to reason & Idqo Insufficient funds & rdqo.A criminal complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act is pending in the Court New Delhi.(9) False promises.Assurance: there are letters dated 15.10.2004, 31.10.2004, 28.02,2005, 9.6.2005 and 1.6.2005 showing how M/s Kripa Overseas have making false promises.They do not appear to have any real intentions of repaying the loan.Photocopy of these letters are enclosed herewith as Enclosure-5 collectively.It has come to complaints knowledge that even the necessary license/permissions from that purpose has not been obtained by M/s Kripa Overseas.(10) Diversion of loan funds: Accused (Kripa Overseas) have not procured and imported the quantity of heeng and rolling scrap as they agreed under the agreement and as they promised and claimed while demanding funds from NAFED.Thus, there are strong apprehension that the funds has been diverted to some other use (or misuse).NAFED extended financial support to Kripa Overseas for the scientific purpose of procuring and importing heeng and rolling scrap from Kyrgystan and Tazakistan.The Agreement was executed for this specific purpose and Kripa Overseas themselves requested/indented for funds for this specific purpose.Therefore, they cannot apply and are not entitled/authorized to apply the funds to any other use.This is clear case of cheating, criminal breach of funds and misappropriation of funds.The above stated fact and circumstances make it clear that the accused intentionally and knowingly committed offences of fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of fund and hatching conspiracy against the complainant with the large sum of money taken from the complainant in the name of exporting iron ore.It is, therefore, requested that (a) FIR may kindly be lodged against the Crl.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 4 of 12 above named company and persons (b) investigate the matter to find out the funds and use of the large sum of fund as the complainant have been diverted to be used for the purpose other than it was obtained for (c) Recover the fund.(d) Take necessary action in accordance with law to bring the culprits/offenders to book.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 4 of 12N.K. Sharma Branch Manager, 2423/29 Surekha Building, 2nd Floor Shardha nand Marg, Delhi."On the basis of the aforesaid FIR the offence has been registered and investigations are being conducted by the police although earlier there was a restraint order that the charge sheet may not be filed.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the complainant apart from the learned APP.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that there are no allegations against the petitioner which prima facie shows that the petitioner had committed an offence of breach of trust or cheating because there was no inducement on the part of complainant to deliver any property much less the money by the petitioner.It is also submitted even though if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the allegations made in the complaint are correct, the said allegations are so vague and inaccurate that they do not warrant the registration of an FIR against the petitioner for Crl.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 5 of 12 an offence of breach of trust or cheating.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that although the point of quashing the FIR has not been raised but the entire FIR is actuated by malafides against the petitioner and it has no relation or concern whatsoever with M/s Kripa Overseas.It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case of the respondent/complainant hinges on the letter dated 15th June, 2004 purported to have been written by M/s Pylon Traders Pvt. Ltd. of which the present petitioner happens to be the Director for the purpose of introducing the M/s Kripa Overseas to the complainant.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 5 of 12It was contended that the said letter is actually forged and on that forged letter, the local police has already registered an FIR No. 364 under Sections 182/211/469/471/500/501B and 34 IPC registered at P.S. Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi on 9th July, 2007, and therefore, this clearly establishes that the present FIR is actuated with mala fides in which the officials of the complainant are involved.The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his prayer for the quashing of the FIR has placed reliance on case titled Ram Biraji Devi & Anr.Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr.2006 (5) SCALE 638 and U. Dhar & Anr.State of Jharkhand & Anr.(2003) 2 SCC 219 and State of Haryana Vs.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 6 of 12M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 6 of 12I have gone through all these three judgments.In the case of U. Dhar (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that for registration of an FIR under Section 403 IPC, accused should dishonestly misappropriate the money.This was a case where there were three parties and the allegations were made by the sub- contractor on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the contractor and was quashed on the ground that the contractor and the PSU were separate parties where the payment was allegedly received by the contractor and yet not paid to the sub-contractor for which there was a separate contract, the FIR was accordingly quashed.In Ram Biraji's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that the taking of cognizance for an offence of 420/120-B IPC by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was abuse of processes of law on account of contradicting stand of the complainant and further there was delay in lodging the FIR.The FIR was accordingly quashed.Thus, both these cases are different than the present one.So far as the Bhajan Lal's case (supra) is concerned, that only crystallizes the law regarding quashing and gives seven illustrative contingencies in which FIR can be quashed.It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly Crl.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 7 of 12M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 7 of 12The learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the submissions and so has been done by the learned APP with regard to mala fides.It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that so far as the question of the letter dated 15 th June, 2004 allegedly being forged is concerned, the said question is already under investigation by the local police in the FIR in question which is prayed to be quashed.Therefore, at this point of time this plea of the petitioner herein that the FIR No. 474/2006 ought to be quashed because the petitioner has got the cross FIR on the allegations of forgery registered against the officials of the complainant is not tenable.Further, while making the allegations of mala fides not only the petitioner is required to give specific instances to show malafides but the onus of prima facie proof of the same is also very heavy on the person alleging malafidies which the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 8 of 12 introduced by the present petitioner and its company, therefore, they have been impleaded as an accused because there was a consensus ad idem between these two accused companies.The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on case titled Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. & Ors.Tapan Kr.Singh AIR 2003 SC 4140 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has clearly observed that it is not necessary to disclose all facts and details relating to the offence and the true test is that the police officer has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which empowers him to register and investigate the offence.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 8 of 12If one reads the entire complaint in its totality the grievance of the complainant federation is that M/s Kripa Overseas of which Sh.Sandeep Khanna was the proprietor and he was introduced by the petitioner in the capacity of Director of M/s Pylon Traders Pvt. Ltd. and on its letter head that the former has the license to import dry fruits and hing from Central Asian Countries, and therefore, there can be a gainful joining of hands by them which Crl.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 9 of 12 would benefit both the parties.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 9 of 12AIR 1991 1260 has very categorically observed that it is very easy to make allegations of mala fides but very difficult to prove and in order to prove the allegations of malafides the onus is very heavy on the petitioner.The petitioner has not only to make an averment in the petition but also substantiate the same by prima facie proof of the same.Further, the petitioner has to make the person, against whom malafides are urged, as a party in the petition.No person against whom malafidies are alleged has been made a party, instances of incident on the basis of which malafides are alleged have not been given.For the reasons mentioned above, the petition of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 474/2006 under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC registered at P.S. Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 11 of 12 Crl.M.A.No.14369/2008 Since the main petition has been dismissed, no order is called for on this application.M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 11 of 12M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 12 of 12M.C. No. 3855/2008 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,642,573 | Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated.It is further submitted that the FIR was got registered by father of the victim on 30.11.2018 u/s 363, 366 IPC against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant has enticed away her minor daughter, who is aged about 16 years.She remains in the company of the applicant about four days without any resistance.It is further submitted that she has declined to get herself medically examined.She appears to be a consenting party.It has lastly been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.12.2018 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.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 applicantRajesh, 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 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,651,471 | Prosecution case in nutshell can be summarized as under :The complainant Barikram Somaji Raut (PW-3) and the Accused so also the deceased Rajesh, who was son of the complainant, all were residents of Nagra, Tahsil & District Gondia.On 9/9/2004 at 9.30 a.m. at Chandnitola, in front of the house of Accused - Dharamlal, deceased Rajesh along with Pirat @ Munna Pataye, Kisan Kundbhare (PW-1) and Rajesh Dhomane (PW-6) proceeded on foot from Nagra to Chandnitola.Deceased Rajesh had went to the house of Accused - Dharamlal.Some altercation took place between Accused - Dharamlal and Pirat.All of a sudden Accused Dharamlal threw chilli powder on the face of Pirat and deceased Rajesh, which caused irritation in their eyes.Deceased Rajesh started rubbing his eyes vigorously and came out of the::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: 3/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg) house.In the meantime, Accused Dharamlal took out the stick and rushed towards Pirat, however, Pirat fled away.Accused Dharamlal then gave a stick blow on the head of deceased Rajesh.The co-accused Munnalal took the stick (Article-4) from the hands of Accused Dharamlal and gave second blow on the head of Rajesh.Due to the said blows Rajesh received bleeding injury on his head and he fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.The Accused left the stick (Article-4) at the place of incident and fled away.PW-2 Dharamdas Raut came to Nagra and narrated the entire incident to the sister of deceased Rajesh and also to his father Barikrao Raut (PW-3).Barikrao Raut (PW-3) then proceeded to the police station and lodged the report (Exh.33).Police Inspector Ingale (PW-7) proceeded to the place of incident and conducted the spot panchanama (Exh.37).From the place of incident stick (Article-4) was taken charge.He took charge of the clothes of the::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: 4/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg) deceased as well as the Accused.He also conducted the inquest panchanama (Exh.36).The deceased Rajesh was found in possession of knife (Article-5) tagged to his waist.This Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 8th July 2005 delivered by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2002, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the Appellant (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Accused' for the sake of brevity) for the offence punishable under Section::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: 2/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg) 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to pay fine amount, sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The learned Trial Judge has acquitted the Appellant - Accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::While Accused - Bachchulal took another stick (Article-15) and dealt a blow on the back of Rajesh.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::It was taken charge under panchanama (Exh.38).The dead body of Rajesh was sent for postmortem.Dr. Narendra Bahirwar (PW-8) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Rajesh and opined the cause of death as due to cardio respiratory arrest due to head injury and asphyxia due to injury to thyroid cartilage and trachea.Accordingly, PW-8 Dr. Narendra prepared the postmortem report (Exh.71).::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::The Accused came to be arrested.Accused - Bachchulal showed his willingness to point out the place where he had kept the stick.Statements of witnesses were recorded.All the seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondia and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondia committed the case to the court of Sessions.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia after::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: 5/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg) recording evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing both the sides, convicted the Accused as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::The learned Counsel for Appellant - Accused vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective as well as based on the same offence acquitted the other two accused.Whereas the present Accused is convicted as aforesaid.So also the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-7 Suryabhan Ingale is not convincing on the said aspect.It is simply stated by the Investigating Officer PW-7 Ingale that on 11/9/2002 stick (Article-15) was seized on the basis of disclosure statement of the Accused - Bachchulal and accordingly memorandum panchanama was drawn.PW-7 Ingale, however, failed to state about the seizure of the said articles.It is thus submitted that the learned trial Judge has erroneously convicted the Accused.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::6/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg)As against this, the learned APP supported the Judgment passed by the trial court and submitted that the learned Judge has properly assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and has convicted the Accused.The prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses.The relevant witness is PW-2 Dharamdas Raut.The testimony of PW-2 Dharamdas Raut shows that on the day of incident at about 9.00 to 9.30 a.m. he was proceeding towards Chandnitola.Deceased Rajesh Raut, Pirat Patele, Kisan Kundbhare (PW-1) and Rajesh Dhomane (PW-6) were with him.All of them went to the house of Accused - Dharamlal.Accused Dharamlal threw something (powder) towards Rajesh and others which caused irritation in their eyes.Accused - Dharamlal then assaulted Rajesh Raut by stick.Accused Munnalal snatched the said stick from the hands of Accused - Dharamlal and assaulted Rajesh Raut on his head.Accused - Bachchulal also assaulted Rajesh Raut by means of bamboo stick on his head.Due to which Rajesh fell down and became unconscious.All the Accused fled away from the spot.PW-2 Dharamdas identified the stick (Article-4) as handled by Accused Dharamlal and Accused Munnalal.PW-2 Dharamdas failed to identify the stick (Article-15).According to PW-2::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: 7/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg) Dharamdas, Rajesh succumbed to his injuries on the spot.PW-2 Dharamdas then proceeded to Nagra and narrated the said incident to the sister of deceased (not examined).Thereafter he returned to his house.After sometime father of deceased came came to his house.PW-2 Dharamdas along with him went to the hospital.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::Cross-examination of PW-2 Dharamdas shows that he had not stated to the police that Rajesh and Pirat came out of the house having irritating pain in their eyes.He had also not stated that he narrated the incident to the sister of the Accused that Pirat and deceased Rajesh had gone to the house of Accused Dharamlal to pick up quarrel.Thus, PW-2 Dharamdas has not stated anything about the quarrel between the Accused Dharamlal and the deceased Rajesh.He categorically stated that he was not knowing the exact cause of quarrel and he had not heard any exchange of words between them.So also an improvement was pointed out in his version that Pirat fled away and Accused Dharamlal chased him with stick.A meticulous scrutiny of the testimony of PW-2 Dharamdas noticed that he has not specifically stated as to where exactly the Accused::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: 8/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg) assaulted the deceased Rajesh by means of stick.On the contrary, he has stated about the assault by Accused Dharamlal and Accused Bachchulal by means of sticks on the head of deceased Rajesh.PW-2 Dharamdas is not found to be a reliable and trustworthy witness.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::The evidence of PW-6 Rajesh Dhomane, who was allegedly with the deceased at the time of incident, shows that PW-1 Kisan came to call him while he was in the house of his neighbour Nakul.PW-1 Kisan told him that he was called by Pirat and Rajesh.They both were standing at the road side.Pirat then accompanied them for a walk.Thereafter PW-6 Rajesh along with Pirat and deceased Rajesh went to Chandnitola at the house of Accused Dharamlal.According to PW-6 Rajesh Dhomane, Pirat and deceased Rajesh went to the house of Accused Dharamlal, while he was in Kirana shop which was adjacent to the house of Accused Dharamlal, deceased Rajesh and Pirat came out with irritated eyes and deceased Rajesh fell down on the ground while Pirat fled away.Accused Dharamlal was chasing Pirat.People gathered at that place.PW-6 Rajesh was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case, however, no fruitful purpose was served on his cross-examination by the learned APP.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::9/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg)12. PW-6 Rajesh denied that Accused assaulted Rajesh by the sticks.Thus, the testimony of PW-6 Rajesh is of no assistance.He had not witnessed the incident as such.Thus, apart from the testimony of PW-2 Dharamdas, which is not found to be reliable one, there is no other eye- witness to the incident.The evidence of PW-3 Barikram Raut is of formal nature.He is the father of deceased Rajesh.Surprisingly although PW-6 Rajesh Dhomane was alleged to be the eye-witness to the incident, the investigating agency has not taken efforts to record statement of the witnesses and register the offence on the basis of statement.So far as the recovery of weapon is concerned, stick (Article-4) was taken charge from the place of incident.Whereas the stick (Article-15) was taken charge at the instance of Accused Bachchulal.No doubt the testimony of PW-4 Kodulal shows that he acted as a panch, however, he has only stated about the inquest panchanama and failed to state anything further.Therefore, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.During his cross-examination he has stated that spot::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: 10/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg) panchanama (Exh.37) was conducted by the police and knife found tied to the waist of the deceased Rajesh.Police took charge of the plain soil and blood mixed soil from the spot and seizure memo was prepared.He further stated that reference of stick in the seizure memo Exh.39 is correct.PW-4 Kodulal, however, did not state that he noticed the stick lying at the place of incident and it was taken charge by the police.Thus, the testimony of PW-4 Kodulal does not inspire confidence.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::The overall evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not throw any light on the aspect of the Accused assaulting deceased Rajesh and due to the said injury Rajesh died.No doubt the evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Narendra Bahirwar, who conducted the autopsy of deceased Rajesh shows that there were injuries on the dead body of Rajesh, however, it is not clear as to who was the author of those injuries.As discussed above, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the other two accused based on the same evidence.In fact, the evidence of PW-2 Dharamdas indicates that the injuries were caused by the deceased Rajesh on his head by the assault made by the acquitted Accused and the cause of death was cardio::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: 11/12 209.Apeal.407.05.(Judg) respiratory arrest due to head injury and asphyxia due to injury to thyroid cartilage trachea.There is no convincing evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused.The accused is therefore entitled for benefit of doubt.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the learned trial Judge should have assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective.Hence, the Judgment delivered by the trial Court needs to be set aside and the present Appeal is required to be allowed.Hence, the following order.Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia is hereby quashed and set aside.[C] Accused - Dharamlal Shobhelal Baghele is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.[D] Accused is on bail.His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 10:20:24 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,659,795 | C.R.M. 11317 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 26, 2010 And In re.: Asit Baran Mondal Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta ...For the petitioner Mr. Prabir Majumdar ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Sutahata Police Station Case No. 166 of 2010 dated 19.7.2010 under Sections 323/329/307 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State.Perused the petition as well as the petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner would be admitted on bail on furnishing of sufficient sureties on the following conditions that:It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on his surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,665,226 | The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThis is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.98/2014 registered at Police Station, Pohri, District Shivpuri, for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 294, 506-B, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and 25-B of the Arms Act.As per prosecution case, when the complainant had gone to bring water, Bhura armed with Gadasa, Ballu armed with axe and Diwan, Durga, Dayaram armed with Lathi started abusing him and thereafter Manju and Shivdeen armed with axe beat the complainant.Hence, on the ground of parity, the applicant is also entitled for bail.Case diary perused.Considering the allegation against the applicant, coupled with the fact that except fracture on radius and ulna to Brijsharma, other 2 M.Cr. | ['Section 147 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 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
766,663 | P.K. MISRA, J The order of detention dated 26.12.2006 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) on the allegation that the detenu is a Goonda and he is required to be detained for preventing disturbance of maintenance of public order, is in question.In the grounds of detention it has been indicated that detenu came to adverse notice in connection with Kovilpatti East P.S. Cr.No.484/05 dated 21.5.2005, where under the Inspector of Police had submitted information under Section 107 Cr.P.C. In Kovilpatti East P.S. Cr.No.780 of 2006 wherein the detenu along with six others were alleged to have committed offence under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.While describing the grounds on which detention has been made, it has been indicated that on 9.2.2005 one Velsamy, son of Sollaiappa Thevar was murdered by one Karuppasamy and 5 others due to motive regarding money transaction and Kovilpatti East P.S. Cr.No.85/05 has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC., was registered and chargesheeted and was pending in the court.Because of the aforesaid case, the detenu Solaiappa Thevar and others brutally murdered Karuppasamy (Accused in the above Cr.No.85/05).For the said incident, Kovilpatti East P.S. Cr.No.780/06 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, 506(ii) IPC against the detenu and others.On 6.12.2006 at 15.30 hrs absconding accused Solaiappa Thevar and Karuppasamy @ Chinnapandi came towards the complainant Murugan with intention to commit murder and each took out one knife and stabbed him on the chest, but such blow was evaded by Murugan.Even though one Chinna Karuppasamy and Velmurugan raised alarm, Solaiappa Thevar and Karuppasamy @ Chinnapandi escaped.By committing the above described grave crimes in a busy locality in a business and residential area, he has created an alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The detaining authority further concluded:-Solaiappa Thevar, surrendered before the court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur on 07.12.06 in Kovilopatti East P.S. Cr.He was formally arrested in Kovilpatti East P.S. Cr.No.781/06 U/s.307, 506(ii) IPC on 16.12.06 at Central Prison, Palayamcottai.P.T. Warrant was issued to produce him on 28.12.06 in the case of Cr.No.781/06 in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti.Solaiappa Thevar has not filed any bail application so far, and there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing a bail application before the same or higher court.If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."In the above background, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on several grounds.In the present case, the detenu surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sattur on 7.12.2006 and the detention order was passed on 26.12.2006, hardly 19 days after.We do not think the period taken, obviously through post, for calling and receiving such remarks can be said to be unreasonable.Similarly, the rejection letter was prepared on 21.2.2007, but since there were three intervening holidays, on the peculiar facts of this case, we are not inclined to accept such contention.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the averments made in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention are contradictory to the documents available at Page Nos.103, 127 and 135 of the booklet Since we have quashed the order of detention on other available grounds, we do not feel it necessary to delve into this aspect.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,666,749 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 29 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police as against these petitioners.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 29 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 120(B),420,465,468,471 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.He further submitted that the petitioners already approached this Court and obtained order in favour of them.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.O.P.(MD) No.16158 of 2018Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are also dismissed.However, the petitioners are directed to produce all the documents before the first respondent and the first respondent on receipt of the same is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.21.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav To1.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Theni District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16158 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
766,697 | The petitioner by name Raj Kumar N. Jain is a third party and a financier extending financial help to one of the accused by name Selvam for the car bearing Registration Mark T.S.R. 2191, who along with other accused is facing charges for the offences under Ss. 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 and 506(II), Indian Penal Code.The prosecution case is that the vehicle above referred to though belongs to the said accused Selvam, he is a hirer and the owner is the petitioner under the hire-purchase agreement as evident from the endorsement relating to the hire-purchase agreement found in the registration certificate of the said vehicle and that the said vehicle was used by all the accused prior to and after the occurrence i.e. for committing the crime and for going away from the scene of the occurrence.Since the above fact was ascertained during investigation, the car was seized and produced to the judicial custody.Learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties rejected the said application by making the following observations on 13-2-1995 :-"Heard : This is a petition for return of the vehicle bearing Registration Number as T.S.P. 2191 under S. 451, Cr.P.C. Prosecution strongly objects on the ground that the vehicle has to be identified by the witnesses.After hearing both the parties, learned ex-Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the said petition by passing the following order :-Earlier, the application for similar relief has been dismissed on 13-2-1995 under certain grounds, which the learned counsel sought to assail now.Much of the arguments now advanced by the learned counsel for armed to disturb the reasoning/the premises upon which the earlier order was passed.Aggrieved at this, the present revision has been filed wherein the legality and propriety of the said order is being challenged.I have heard the Bar for the revision-petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate Mr. A. N. Rajan, against and for the impugned order.True, from the records perused, it is noticed that on 13-2-1995 itself, the remedy of interim custody of the vehicle asked for by the petitioner was dismissed by the predecessor of the learned X-Metropolitan Magistrate for some reason or other and that it was not challenged at all by preferring any appeal or revision.The revision is ordered accordingly.Revision allowed. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
766,702 | Chugani is son-in-law of one Shri D.M. Waswani.The respondent-Smt.JUDGMENT J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') are that the petitioner-GK.Dhanwanti claims to be the legally wedded wife of Shri Waiwani.On 8th June 1982, the petitioner instituted a complaint against the respondent under Section 506(2)(2) read with Section 507, Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').It was contended that the respondent had been sending threatening calls on telephone and instigating her associates to make such threatening calls to him and members of his family for about a year.The motive for this was alleged to be the pendency of good deal of litigation between the family of the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent- Smt. Dhanwanti and her associates on the other.T.D. Keshav and the parties were directed to appear before the transferee court.On that day, the petitioner failed to appear although the case was called thrice.However, the respondent appeared through her counsel and her personal appearance was exempted for that day.Eventually, therefore, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution by the petitioner.(3) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved an application for restoration of the complaint but his application was rejected on the short ground that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, , he was not competent to restore the complaint as the order of dismissal amounted to a final order. | ['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
76,670,918 | When complainant told that what he wants then he called another person who shown Katta and told he is Tony Kushwah and the complainant will be killed.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;Heard on the bail application.Perused the case diary This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.200/2014 registered at Police Station, Dehat, District Bhind, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 353 and 506-B/34 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, the complainant who is posted in a Sub-Registrar Office, Bhind was discharging his duties on 21.05.2014, one person came there and asked him to come out to talk.Thereafter, they left the place.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated.He has not committed any offence.Trial will take some time.Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.The application is opposed by learned counsel for the State submitting that applicant has previous criminal history as many as 5 cases are registered against him.Considering the aforesaid facts that no similar type of offence is registered against the applicant and he is in custody since 22.05.2014, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of M.Cr. | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,631,041 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) vide its judgment dated 24.05.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.68/2009 had convicted the applicants of Section 147, 451 and 323 of IPC and passed the sentence against them whereas the applicants were acquitted from the charge under Section 506 II of IPC. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,641,213 | No.1706/2019 Page 1 of 26"a. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited b. M/s Subhiksha Securities & Consultants Private Limited c. M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited d. M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited."BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 4 of 26The SFIO through its status report has put forth the genesis of the investigation conducted stating to the effect that the investigation commenced pursuant to order dated 14.12.2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.818/2015 wherein it had been alleged that Mohd. Iqbal, a resident of Saharanpur had:-BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 5 of 26In Cluster-IV companies, there are around 47 companies which were acquired by the Group of A-1 to purchase land and fraudulent use of money for acquiring the land was shown to have been required by these companies in the form of loans and advances and mostly they are unidentified identities.Further it was found that majority of transactions made by these companies were outside the banking channels and most companies even did not maintain any account.Investigation has further revealed that these companies have no business since incorporation and they have acquired 175.65 hectares of land for worth Rs. 1896.94 lakhs and further these groups acquired the land through these clusters of companies 10 circumvent the Land Ceiling Act and A-28 Sachin Jain is the Director of four such companies.Allegations against accused persons also covered Section 447 of Companies Act read with Section 212 (6)(ii) of Companies Act.", significantly, vide paragraph 7 of the said order, it was observed to the effect:-BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 6 of 26The said status report of the SFIO submits that on investigation being carried out, the report was submitted to the Central Government under Section 212(12) of the Companies Act, 2013 concluding that Md. Iqbal in conspiracy with 111 accused entities and his family members/ key associates had committed a fraud as defined under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 with the ultimate objective of camouflaging ill-gotten money and of amassing real estate properties whilst violating various provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies Act, 1956 and had further committed offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and had caused a loss of Rs.610 crores approximately to the exchequer.The SFIO further submits that the investigation had revealed that the entire network of EUIs i.e. the Entities Under Investigation had been created with a single objective of creating/acquiring legal assets out of the wealth amassed through illicit sand mining activities and that to achieve this goal, Md.Iqbal group (accused no.1 to 9) created/used a complex grid of EUIs to camouflage the source of funds and fictitious assets acquired through accommodation entry operators were liquidated to create real assets.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 7 of 26The status report of the SFIO further states that a set of dummy/ ghost shareholders and Directors were used as a front to facilitate the liquidation and acquisition of assets and that the group had indulged in large scale falsification of the books of accounts and that the pliable auditors and accounting professionals, including the present applicant had totally disregarded the fundamental principles of accounting to please the kingpin of the group.The SFIO has further submitted that the investigation had revealed that amongst many illegal acts committed by the group, it included stockpiling of the unaccounted money and large scale money laundering for legitimizing the proceeds of crime.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 8 of 26The SFIO has further submitted that the applicant was detailed in Cluster-IV of the complaint and that the investigation revealed that the group in furtherance of a larger conspiracy, used Cluster-I accused companies i.e. Mastiff Industries Private Limited, Net Agrofoods Private Limited, V.K. Health Solutions Private Limited to acquire shareholding in 47 other accused companies, which were then used to acquire huge parcels of land in the State of U.P. to circumvent the land ceiling laws in the State and in this manner, they first used their unaccounted money and high net worth of the accused companies to acquire the said 47 companies and then purchased huge land in the name of the said 47 companies and that the acquisition of 47 companies and purchasing of parcels of land took place from the period 2009-2014 and that the investigation revealed that the group acquired the said four companies as under:-Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited- 20.1.11 BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 9 of 26 Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited- 25.9.10 Shadilal Marketing Private Limited- 31.3.11 Subhiksha Securities & Consultants Private Limited- 20.9.11 and that the applicant was a Director in four of the aforesaid accused companies i.e. from 2010 to 13.08.2013 i.e. Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited, Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, Shadilal Marketing Private Limited & Subhiksha Securities & Consultants Private Limited.No.1706/2019 Page 10 of 26 undertaken by the group through a series of contracts awarded to the entities controlled by the conglomerate and that most of the entities incorporated or acquired off the shelf through self-acknowledged entry operators did not carry out any commercial or economic activity and that the sole purpose of having multiple set of companies and partnership firms was to use them as a front for converting the unaccounted money into legal assets, mainly agriculture land and later on in real estate and construction sector.It was further submitted by the SFIO that the facts which had come forth during the investigation showed that the entire network was created with a single objective of creating/ acquiring legal assets out of the wealth amassed through illicit sand mining activities and that to achieve this goal, the group created a complex grid of business entities to camouflage the source of funds and fictitious assets acquired through accommodation entry operators were liquidated to create real assets.The SFIO has further submitted that a set of dummy/ghost shareholders and directors were used as a front to facilitate the liquidation and acquisition of assets and that the group had indulged in large scale falsification of the books of accounts.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 10 of 26BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 11 of 26The response of the respondent is on the record which has been adverted to elsewhere hereinabove, however, the specific evidence collected against the petitioner is not spelt out.Undoubtedly, the respondent alleges that in apparent reference to the group of Mohd. Iqbal, the stated king pin and his key associates and family members in furtherance of a larger conspiracy induced the accused companies i.e. Mastiff Industries Private Limited, Net Agrofoods Private Limited, V.K.Health Solutions Private Limited to acquire shareholding in 47 other accused companies which were then used to acquire huge parcels of land in the State of UP to circumvent the land ceiling laws in the State and that as per the investigation conducted, the petitioner was a Director in four of them from 2010 to 13.08.2013 as adverted to hereinabove and that the petitioner continued to remain the Director in Sanchit Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. till 13.08.2013 even after its acquisition by the Group, as a consequence of which the petitioner is stated to have been a participatory to a conspiracy hatched by the Group as being a Director in the said companies and thus committed fraudulent acts in furtherance of the said conspiracy whereby the Group was able to acquire Rupees 36.91, 53.66 and 178.90 lakhs worth of land parcels with the money infused in the said companies by the Cluster-1 companies of the Group despite the factum that these companies had negligible cash/net worth and were not having any business transactions in the past and that these companies with the help of the BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 20 of 26 petitioner and other accused were used by the Group to commit fraudulent acts.No.1706/2019 Page 22 of 26 shows that the person at this address was reported to have left as per the report dated 23.08.2016 in relation to the summons bearing No.SFIO/INV/334-339 & 359-463/ AMBBPL & Others and AAPL & Others/ 2016/I/8425/2016 dated 16.08.2016 issued by the SFIO and in relation to the summons bearing No. SFIO/INV/334-339 & 359-463/ AMBBPL & Ors and AAPL & Others/ 2016/I/10205/2017 dated 16.03.2017, it was reported on 18.03.2017 by the postal authorities that there was no such person.BAIL APPL.ANU MALHOTRA, J.and it is submitted by the petitioner that as per the said complaint of the SFIO, the aforesaid four companies had caused a loss to the State by hatching a conspiracy with one co-accused Md. Iqbal.The petitioner submits that he was summoned vide order dated 24.01.2019 on cognizance being taken by the Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka and appeared before the Court on 20.05.2019 and was taken into custody by the Court.The petitioner submits that his application seeking grant of bail was rejected vide order dated 07.06.2019 of the Special Judge (Companies Act) and further submits that he is not well educated and has not passed Standard X and worked as a salesman in a shoe shop company and is not connected with any of the four companies aforementioned and that he had not even been served with the summons by the SFIO for joining the investigation at any stage.The petitioner further submits that the requirements of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 for institution of a complaint under Section 447 of the said enactment has not been complied with, in as much as, the complaint was not filed by the Director of the SFIO nor by any other officer authorized in that behalf by the Central Government and has rather been filed by the Senior Assistant Director of the SFIO (Dheeraj Kumar) who was neither a Director of the SFIO nor was he specifically authorized under Section 212(6)of the BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 2 of 26 Companies Act, 2013 to file the complaint in relation to a cognizable offence.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 2 of 26The petitioner further submits that Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 has come into force only on 01.03.2014 and thus, does not apply to the petitioner who in any event is a stranger to all those four companies i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities & Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited wherein he was shown as a Director.The petitioner further submits that though the prosecution has relied on the Memorandum of Association, Resolution, Resignation Letters and share certificates of the four companies i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities & Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited as having been signed by the petitioner, the petitioner has never signed nor executed any of the said documents and submitted that the same are forged and fabricated bearing his forged signatures.The petitioner submits that there is no document that has been filed by the SFIO to show that the SFIO is a beneficiary of the transactions done by the companies.The petitioner further submits that the offences punishable under Sections 447 of the Companies Act, 1872 and the offences BAIL APPL.Inter alia the applicant submits that he has clean antecedents and that there has been no recovery effected from him and that he has deep roots in society and he is the only bread earner of his family and that he ought to be released on bail.Inter alia the petitioner submits that there are no chances of his tampering with the evidence.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 3 of 26The applicant further submits that in as much as the investigation in the matter is complete and the charge sheet has been filed, no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody.A catena of verdicts is relied upon on behalf of the petitioner to contend to the effect that the applicant ought to be released on bail, in as much as the investigation in the matter is complete and that he is not likely to tamper with the evidence.The verdicts relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are as under:-"I. "Court on its own Motion Vs.State" 231(2016) DLT 32(CN) IV."Sanjay Chandra Vs.C.B.I" VII (2011) SLT 428 V. "Suresh Kalmadi Vs.C.B.I" 187(2012) DLT 575 VI."Anup Prakash Garg VS.Enforcement Department" BAIL APP.NO. 1061/2018 passed by Delhi High Court on 06.08.2018 BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 4 of 26 VII. "Yogesh Gupta Vs.State of NCT of Delhi" Bail Appl.[ VIII."Data Ram Singh Vs.Vide order dated 08.01.2016, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in compliance of order dated 14.12.2015 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered the SFIO to investigate into the affairs of six companies allegedly owned by Md. Iqbal.Vide order dated 07.06.2019 vide BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 5 of 26 which the second bail application of the applicant was declined by the Trial Court, it was observed vide paragraphs 5 & 6 to the effect:-Arguments Heard.Investigation file record perused.IO of SFIO has shown me investigation file (which is confidential in nature)."The SFIO submits that in as much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.02.2016 had observed regarding extending the investigation to other companies, the MCA vide its order dated 23/24.02.2016 under Section 212(1)(c) directed the SFIO to investigate into the affairs of additional 104 companies and one LLP.The SFIO further submits that as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation" 2013 (7) SCC 439, economic offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 13 of 26 matter of bail and that the economic offences have deep rooted conspiracies and involved huge loss of public funds and thus, needed to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country, in as much as, they tend to seriously prejudice/ destroy the economy of a country and thus, caused immense irreversible damage to the larger public interest.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 13 of 26Reliance was also placed on behalf of the SFIO on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rohit Tandon Vs.Directorate of Enforcement" (2018) 11 SCC 46 to contend to similar effect.Reliance was also placed on behalf of the SFIO on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Gujarat V. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal" (1987) 2 SCC 364 wherein, it was observed vide para 5 to the effect:-"......5. ......The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book.A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 14 of 26No.1706/2019 Page 15 of 26Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the identical matter, this Court vide order dated 10.05.2019 in Application U/S 482 No.-18806 of 2019 has allowed the applicants to move discharge application before the court below.Therefore, the same relief may be given to the applicant in this case for moving discharge application before the court concerned.Considered the submission so raised.Consequently, the summoning order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the court below is sustained.No good ground is made out for quashment of the impugned summoning order is refused.No.1706/2019 Page 16 of 26 application personally or through counsel before the trial Court seeking discharge within five weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided on its merit by speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 16 of 26In the first instance, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till the period of five weeks from today or till presentation of the application, whichever is earlier and in case the discharge application is moved within aforesaid stipulated period, then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till disposal of discharge application.However, it is made clear that in the event no such application is moved within the time prescribed above, this order will be of no avail to the applicant."The applications of Mohd. Naseem and 18 others in the said complaint case i.e. CC No.720/2017 were likewise disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.On behalf of the applicant, has been submitted a copy of a complaint sent through speed post made by the applicant herein on 19.07.2019 to the SHO, PS Shakarpur seeking the registration of the FIR under Sections 420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the following persons:-(i) Sanat Kumar Jain R/o 62, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 17 of 26Inter alia it was sought to be submitted through the said complaint of the petitioner that he works as a salesman in a shoe shop company and that unfortunately on 13.02.2019, a notice was issued by the Court at Dwarka in his name and on his appearing before the Court, he was taken into custody by the Court whilst apprising him that he was a Director of M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities & Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited & M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited and that the said companies had committed a serious fraud and had caused loss to the State.The petitioner submits that he was also supplied the complete set of the charge sheet along with a pen drive and that after going through the same, he was shocked to see the documents i.e. MOA & AOA of the above mentioned companies deposited with ROC with FORM-1, Resignation letter attached with FORM-32/FORM DIR-12 filled with ROC by the above mentioned companies and Board Resolution attached with the account opening form of M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited, which were filed with the charge sheet on which the petitioner submits that it bore his forged and fabricated signatures.The petitioner submits that in the month of March 2010, he met one Sanat Kumar Jain A-87 for getting a job and Sanat Kumar Jain BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 18 of 26 promised to provide him a job of a peon as he had not passed Standard X and that Sh.Sanat Kumar Jain asked the petitioner to submit his voter identity card.The petitioner further submits that the said Sanat Kumar Jain gave him no job and did not contact him till the date of his complaint and rather forged and fabricated his signatures on the documents referred to herein above as submitted with the charge sheet by stating that he was a Director of the companies i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities & Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 18 of 26Inter alia the petitioner has submitted the copy of his account opening form bearing his signatures submitting that the same could be compared with the signatures on the documents that had been filed with the charge sheet in order to unearth the forgery done by the other accused persons.The petitioner submits that he does not know any of the accused persons in the matter.Though, undoubtedly, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and relate to the alleged commission of an economic offence, it is essential to observe that vide order dated 15.07.2019, the respondent i.e. SFIO had been directed to submit the BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 19 of 26 formal reply setting out the case against the petitioner and a brief summary of the evidence on which it was based.No. 7421/2018 vide order dated 04.09.2018 in "Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs.Neeraj Singh &Anr", in view of the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the accusations BAIL APPL.BAIL APPL.No.1706/2019 Page 21 of 26However, in as much as the basic premise of the prosecution launched against the petitioner relates to the documents allegedly retrieved to show that the petitioner was a Director of four companies i.e. i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities & Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited, the contention of the petitioner is that his proof of identity has been illegally and unauthorizedly used by Sanat Kumar Jain A-87 whom he met for getting a job.It is essential to observe that the documents that the petitioner has submitted during the course of the present proceedings are copies of an account opening form submitted to the Punjab National Bank, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi by Sarika Jain, his wife and by himself purportedly giving the same address 73, J-Extension, Murtiwali Gali, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, which is the address mentioned as J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 in the summons issued by the SFIO dated 16.08.2016 to the petitioner apprising him to appear before the SFIO on 15.09.2016 for examination in connection with the investigation into the affairs of M/s AMB Buildgroup Private Limited and Others and AarzooAgritech Private Limited & others under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act which is also shown to be the address on the summons dated 16.03.2017 issued to the petitioner to similar effect.Significantly, page 157 which has been submitted on the record which appears to be the copy of the page 157of the charge sheet, BAIL APPL. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,646,458 | Under such circumstances, applicant prays for bail.Learned P.L opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,364,918 | Heard on I.A.No.5763/2018, an application filed under Sections 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Raj Kumar and appellant No.2 Moolchand Rajpoot. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
133,653,230 | Heard through video conferencing with the aid of case- diary.As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for seeking anticipatory bail.As per the prosecution case on 15.09.2020 at 10:30 am when the prosecutrix was alone in her office, the petitioner touched her shoulder immodestly.When she stared at him, moving a step ahead, he asked for her mobile number and on asking the reason for the same, he insolently made an indecent proposal that he wants to have sex with her.Upset and agitated, prosecutrix caught his collar and also made a clamour.The entire office staff rushed to the spot and disassociated them.The prosecutrix immediately reported the matter to the Police.It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was the second marriage of the prosecutrix.She left her first husband - Bharat Saini.Her second husband was found involved in some case of theft registered under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.In that case, the petitioner helped the police.For this reason, the prosecutrix was angry with him and to avenge, she has falsely implicated him in the present case.The other grounds taken by the petitioner are that he is a 55 years old man, belongs to a business community, arrest will ruin his image and prestige in the society, his custodial 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.38961 of 2020 Santosh Agrawal Vs.State of M.P.interrogation is not required, the trial is likely to take time, he is ready to cooperate with the investigation, he has no criminal record, there is no possibility of his absconding and he is ready to comply with the conditions to be imposed by the Court, therefore, it is prayed that he be granted anticipatory bail.The prosecution has opposed the prayer.The learned prosecutor has submitted that direct allegations have been made against the petitioner.He is named in the FIR.At the time of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix withstood on her allegation also before the Court.(Virender Singh) Judge Pankaj Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2020.10.15 12:58:30 +05'30' | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
185,190 | JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.Briefly stated, the abovesaid Sessions Case was instituted on the basis of a complaint by the Applicant herein, under Sections 204 and 210 of Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the commission of offence by the respondent No. 2 and two others (who expired during the trial) punishable under Sections 307, 364, 392, 506 and 342 of Indian Penal Code.It would be relevant to point out at this stage that the incident in question occurred on 30th September, 1983 at about 9.30 a.m. The F.I.R. was duly registered in respect of the said incident; and the Police, after investigation, filed 'A' Summary Report, which came to be accepted by the Magistrate.Reverting back to the private complaint, as filed by the Applicant, the allegation is that on the, fateful day, the Applicant was going to Mapusa side from House No. M.M.C. 8/4 at Camarcazana, Mapusa, in order to go to Panaji to submit complaint to the Chief Minister of Goa for giving Police protection to the Applicant at Camarcazana, Mapusa and that Smt. Khushali v. Nagvenkar and her daughter was following him for the said purpose.It is alleged that when the Applicant reached near the house of one Joao, or the house known as Battal, at that time suddenly Kashinath (Accused No. 3-now deceased) came to the Applicant and caught hold of his shirt collar and Atmaram (Accused No. 1/Respondent No. 2 herein) having a lathi (tonko) and Krishna (Accused No. 2-now deceased) having a chopper (koita) and rope in his hand came to the Applicant and started assaulting him with the said lathi all over his body i.e. over his head, forehead, both legs, both hands and also on backside of his body and on his back.It is alleged that on account of the said assault, the Applicant sustained injuries and started bleeding and eventually fell on the ground (katcha road).It is alleged that the Applicant shouted out for help but nobody came to help him.In the meantime, one taxi (car) reached at the spot from Acoi side passing towards Mapusa side and it stopped.The passengers in the said taxi and the driver were staring at the Applicant but in a short while a pick-up was reached near the taxi and started blowing horn which compelled the taxi driver to proceed further and he went away.It is alleged that the Applicant was able to recognise the car driver.It is further alleged in the complaint that thereafter Atmaram (Respondent No. 2 herein) assaulted the Applicant with a lathi on the mouth and head due to which the Applicant sustained blood injury and Krishna (Accused No. 2) showed a chopper to the Applicant and told him that they were to kill him.It is alleged that thereafter the documents which were in possession of the Applicant were snatched away by Krishna (Accused No. 2) as well as the silver ring (star ring) which bears the initial and having three stones was snatched away by Atmaram (Accused No. 1- Respondent No. 2).It is further alleged that Atmaram and Krishna caused the Applicant to lie down and tied each hand to each tree in different directions as well as each leg in the same way to each tree.It is further alleged that thereafter the Applicant was lifted by Atmaram and Krishna and was taken to a nearby hill (jungle) from corner side house of one Battal which door was opened.According to the Applicant, the said incident was witnessed by the residents in the locality and also by Kushali Nagvenkar and her daughters.The Applicant has further alleged that after he was carried to the top of the hill (jungle) said Atmaram and Krishna freed the hands and legs of the Applicant and once again Atmaram assaulted the Applicant with a lathi on the back side of his neck.It is alleged that after the Applicant was tied in this manner and after a long time Kalika Bomkar, Kushali and her daughter with Police party and other two persons known as Tatuli reached the spot where the Applicant was tied.The Investigating Officer thereafter drew panchanama and told the said persons to free the legs and hands of the Applicant and accordingly the Applicant was freed and lifted by the Police.The Applicant was thereafter taken in Police Jeep to Asilo Hospital, Mapusa where he underwent treatment.Other details have been given in the written complaint with regard to what followed thereafter.It is specifically mentioned in the said written complaint that the Applicant had lodged complaint dated 7th October, 1983 with the I.G.P. against the Investigating Officer for the harassment caused to him.Similar complaint is stated to have been made to the Chief Minister of Goa on 1st November, 1983 and others to institute C.B.I. enquiry.After the necessary enquiry was completed the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Mapusa examined 16 witnesses and thereafter committed the case for Sessions trial as offence under Section 307, allegedly committed by the Accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Session."CHARGES I, Shri D. R. Kenkre, Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, hereby charge you Atmaram J. Shetye as follows :--That you on or about the 30th day of September, 83 at about 9.30 a.m. at Camarcazana, Mapusa, you along with the deceased accused Krishna R. Pednekar and Kashinath N. Pullji alias Kashinath Parsekar, in furtherance of common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt in such a way that if by that act you had caused the death of Sangappa v. Tenginakai, you would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.The trial, proceeded before the Sessions Judge, which was conducted by the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Applicant, in view of provisions of Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In all 10 witnesses came to be examined on behalf of the prosecution on different dates.The Public Prosecutor on that day made an application to issue summons to other witnesses, who, according to him, were relevant witnesses.The order sheet clearly records that the case was adjourned to 28th August, 2000 at 10.30 a.m. for recording evidence and statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code.Accordingly on 28th August, 2000, evidence of P.W. 10 was recorded; and since no other witness could remain present at such a short notice the Public Prosecutor requested to issue summons, which request was turned down.The order sheet records that no summons will be issued as sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution well in advance.Thereafter, on 29th August, 2000 the Applicant filed an application before the Court praying that he should be allowed to assist the prosecution and Public Prosecutor as second party.By the same application the Applicant asserted that he would like to examine other witnesses who were not examined before lower Court as per Section 246, Criminal Procedure Code.Thereafter, an application was filed by the Applicant that witnesses who turned hostile should be prosecuted.The Court ordered that the said application will be considered at the appropriate stage if the Court finds that the witnesses are telling lies.Immediately on the next day i.e. on 30th August, 2000, the impugned order was pronounced by the Court acquitting Respondent No. 2 as well as the other accused of the alleged offence.The present revision application takes exception to the aforesaid impugned order.The Public Prosecutor had made an application in writing indicating that it was not possible for the complainant to produce evidence on that day.Accordingly, the application mentions that one witness is present today before the Court for giving evidence, but there are other relevant witnesses including Dr. Jog from Goa Medical College who had examined the complainant as also Dr. Neogi from Asilo Hospital, Shri Keshav Parsekar, resident of Pedne, Mapusa, and Shri Marcques D'Souza from Camarcazana, Mapusa.It is also not in dispute that on 25th August, 2000 witnesses P.W. 5 to P.W. 9 were present in Court and were examined as prosecution witnesses.On that day, the Public Prosecutor had moved an application for issuing summons to other witnesses, but the Court declined the said request to issue summons on the sole ground that the case was old and the prosecution had enough opportunities.In appeal against acquittal surely this would be cogent ground on which the order of acquittal could be successfully assailed.It was open for me to proceed to analyse and re-appreciate the evidence on record and to find out as to whether the conclusion reached by the Trial Court suffers from any error, but as I have observed earlier, the Trial Court did not permit the legal evidence to come on record and the same was illegally shut out from the evidence.From the stand taken by the Public Prosecutor, before the lower Court, the evidence of witnesses who were to be examined were material for establishing the prosecution case. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
185,195,219 | They also violated the order of abstaining himself to gather at a particular place issued under section 144 of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.40440/2019 and 41171/2019 Gazanfarullah and Salman Vs.State of MP the Cr.P.C. He further drew my attention towards three positive photographs and claimed that petitioners can be seen at the place of incident.Petitioner Gazanfarullah is himself a member of Nagar Suraksha Smiti of the said police station, therefore, his presence cannot be considered that he was participating in the incident.He is perusing LL.B and is in second year.Confining him in jail will spoil his career.The police completed the investigation and filing of the charge sheet is now mere a formality.The petitioners are in jail since 12.09.2019 and 06.09.2019 respectively.(v) They shall mark their presence in the first week of every month at the police station Sitamau District Mandsaur.Both these petitions have arisen out of same crime number of same police station, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.These are the first bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.353/2019 under Section 307, 353, 332, 333, 341, 147, 148, 188 of the IPC registered at Police Station-Sitamau, District-Mandsaur.Allegation against the petitioners is that they were members of a mob, who was disturbing law and order condition in Sub-urban Town Sitamau.Even after imposing section 144 of the Cr.P.C and prohibiting the presence of people in group of more than 5, the mob gathered there and assaulted the police personnel, who were pressed into service to maintain law and order situation.On the instigation of Jullubhai and Bhaiyu, members of mob pelted stones on the police personnel and caused lacerated wounds and abrasions to Ramnarayan, Sardarsingh, Balveersingh and Kuldeep.Learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners were member of mob, who were indulged in spreading communal riots.They dared to cause injuries to the police personnel.Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case diary.Considering the nature of incident, allegations against the petitioners, act attributed to them, period of custody and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the accused/petitioners on bail. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
185,197,577 | In the said statement, the second respondent has affirmed on oath that she has settled the dispute with the petitioners in terms of the settlement agreement dated 28.11.2017, out of her own free will and volition.In terms of the settlement arrived at through mediation, the second respondent (complainant) is to receive an amount of Crl.In 2014, she lodged first information report (FIR) no.2406/14 with police station Shakarpur, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner), his mother (second petitioner) and his father (third petitioner).On conclusion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet, the same being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.M.C. No.1126/2018 Page 1 of 9The parties were referred to the Delhi Mediation Centre at Karkardooma Courts, where they agreed to amicably resolve the matter by entering into a settlement dated 28.11.2017, in terms of which the parties were to approach, as per the timelines indicated, appropriate forum for obtaining the decree of divorce, they having also agreed, inter alia, to move for the aforementioned FIR to be quashed.This petition, thus, has been moved invoking the inherent powers and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr. PC) seeking quashing of the FIR no.2406/14 under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC of Police Station Shakarpur.The second respondent on being served with notice has appeared with counsel.The learned predecessor bench recorded her statement (as CW-2) on 12.03.2018, she also having been identified by SI Shri Gopal (CW-1) representing the police department.M.C. No.1126/2018 Page 2 of 9 Rs.16,00,101/- from the first petitioner as full and final settlement of all her claims for self, and also for the minor son Arham, who is in the custody, care and control of the second respondent.M.C. No.1126/2018 Page 2 of 9The counsel for the petitioners placed on record copy of the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts in HMA Case No.1369/17 confirming that demand draft no.889885 drawn on State Bank of India in the sum of Rs.16,00,101/- in favour of the second respondent, as revalidated on 17.09.2018 has been filed and has been placed on record of the Family Court.The petitioners' counsel submits that since the second respondent has given her no objection to the prayer in the petition they would have no objection to the said demand draft being released to her in terms of the settlement agreement.The demand draft submitted with the Principal Judge, Family Court as aforesaid shall be released to the second respondent for her use and benefit as also for the benefit of the child.During the hearing, the counsel for the second respondent submitted that an investment in the form of mutual bond of UTI folio no.598250923627 in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had been taken out in the name of the child Master Arham Jain.The submission is that the first petitioner is shown as the nominee in respect of the said deposit.The petitioners' through counsel submitted that though the concerned bank has already been advised that henceforth the mother Neha Jain would be the guardian in respect of the holder of the said bond, the first petitioner hereby undertakes that he would issue fresh instructions to the concerned bank to the effect that instead of he being the nominee in respect of such investment, the mother of the child Neha Jain be treated as the nominee.The needful shall be done within a week as has been undertaken.In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed.Dasti to both sides. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
185,208,300 | No.1/State.Shri Ankur Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant.Heard with the aid of case diary.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 04.06.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur in B.A. No.303/2018; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Parshottam @ Baba under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.137/2018 registered at P.S. Chichali, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(w)(i), 3 (1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(r), 3 (1)(s), 3 (2)(va) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who apprehend his arrest in the crime.As per prosecution case, on 13.05.2018 at 06:00 PM, when prosecutrix was working at Bhojraj @ Guddu Patel's field, applicant came there and molested her and pressed her breast and threatened to kill her.On that, police registered the Crime No.137/2018 registered at P.S. Chichali, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(w)(i), 3 (1)(w)(ii), 3(1)The appellant filed an application before the trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-4245-2018 (PARSHOTTAM @ BABA Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.) 2 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and falsely been implicated in the case.Such permissions must be granted for recorded reasons which must be served on the person to be arrested and to the concerned court.As and when, a person arrested is produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate must apply his mind to the reasons recorded and further detention should be allowed only if the reasons recorded are found to be valid.Under these circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with the liberty given to the State to place the case before the Superintendent of Police, District Narsinghpur who, if he feels necessary that the appellant's arrest is warranted in this case, shall give his brief report stating the reasons to justify such an arrest, which shall be given to the appellant herein.Thereafter, the police shall not arrest the appellant for a period of one week in order to enable him to approach the Special Judge for bail.With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of. | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,852,103 | Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of theGujarat High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offencespunishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short the `IPC') and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (inshort `DP Act').Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ahmedabad City imposed sentences of 3 years, 10 years and 5 yearsrespectively for the aforesaid offences and fine of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.20,000/-and Rs.20,000/- with default stipulations.Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:Soon after two years of his marriage, the accusedstarted inflicting mental and physical torture on her and she was taunted bythe accused for not bringing sufficient dowry in the marriage.He alsodemanded from the victim an amount of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose ofpurchasing a house.He even wrote letters to the in-laws and demandedRs.40,000/- for purchasing the house.The demand was persistent.Eventhreats were administered to the deceased and her family members.Thus,the accused inflicted mental and physical torture on the victim whichprompted her to commit suicide by burning herself on 23-03-1999 afterpouring kerosene on her body.Thus, as per the prosecution case, theappellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 498A and306 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of DP Act.On the strength of the complaint given by the complainantinvestigation was carried out.The place where the suicide was committedby the victim was visited and the panchnama of the place of incident wasprepared in the presence of the panch-witnesses.Statements of the witnessesfrom the neighbourhood were recorded.The injured was immediatelyrushed to the hospital for providing necessary treatment.Muddamal seizedwas sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of detailedanalysis.On the death of the victim, the inquest panchnama was preparedand the dead body was sent for autopsy.The appellant was arrested duringthe course of investigation.On receipt of the report from FSL, the post-mortem report along with other material, the appellant was charge-sheetedfor the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC as well asSections 3 and 7 of the DP Act. He was produced before the MetropolitanMagistrate, Ahmedabad, who in turn committed the case to the SessionsCourt under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in shortthe `Code') as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.As the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held.Seventeenwitnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.The trial court 3 found that the letters written by the accused clearly established the demandof dowry and further the suicide was clearly abetted by the acts and conductof the appellant.Accordingly, the conviction was recorded and sentenceswere imposed as afore-stated.In appeal, the High court concurred with the views of the trial Court.In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State supported thejudgment.We shall first deal with the plea relating to applicability of Section306 IPC.The said provisionreads as follows:If it transpiresto the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinarypetulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to thesociety to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord anddifferences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstancedindividual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Courtshould not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged ofabetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing.The offence of abetmentis a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence.A 6 person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to dothat thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracyfor the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegalomission, the doing of that thing.These things are essential to completeabetment as a crime.The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite,urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing.State of Haryana disposed of on April 7, 2008). | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
185,213,556 | On 12th May, 1996 at about 2.30 p.m. an information was received at P.S. Tilak Nagar that two thieves have been apprehended near 20-Block Gurdwara, Tilak Nagar, and police be sent.SI S.S.Yadav reached the spot along with Constable Rajender and found many people, present there.Sardool CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 1 of 9 Singh, the complainant had caught hold of the Appellant as well as one Mahinder @ Machhu with the public present at the spot and Sardar Saran Singh father of complainant was lying in an unconscious condition nearby.Accused Mahinder @ Machhu was having a gold kara in his hand.SI S.S.Yadav recorded the statement of the complainant who stated that at about 2.50 p.m. he came to the spot where he found his father Sardar Saran Singh in an unconscious condition.Two boys Kalu Singh s/o Pyara Singh and Mahinder @ Machhu were removing a gold kara from the right hand of his father.Kalu Singh removed the kara and handed the same to Mahinder Singh.Both of them ran away on which he raised an alarm.People gathered there and apprehended both of them.They were beaten by the public and their heads were tonsured.According to him the incident was also witnessed by Bishan Singh s/o Issar Singh, Mahinder Singh s/o Harbans Singh, Mahinder Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh besides other persons.Kalu Singh and Mahinder Singh were apprehended by the police personnel.The gold kara recovered from Mahinder Singh was seized.On the statement of Sardool Singh FIR No.359/1996 under Section 328/379/411/34 IPC was registered.CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 5 of 9PW4, the complainant in his testimony before the Court has deposed that he had seen the Appellant Kalu Singh along with the co-convict Mahinder removing the gold kara from the hand of his father.Both of them were CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 6 of 9 apprehended by the public, while his father was lying unconscious at the spot.The said gold kara was recovered from the pocket of the accused Mahinder Singh.As per the suggestion given by the learned APP to PW3 the role attributed to the Appellant Kalu Singh is that he gave the intoxicant and Mahinder Singh removed the kara.As per the testimony of this witness he had not witnessed his father being administered intoxicant.He states that both the accused surrounded his father and both removed the kara from his hand.His deposition of taking his father to the clinic has also been contradicted by PW- 10 Dr. Y.N. Chhabra who states that the daughter in law of Swaran Singh came to his house and took him to her house where he advised her to take the patient to DDU Hospital.At around 5 pm, the patient was taken to Singh CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 7 of 9 Heart Clinic on the request of the daughter in law.On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and both the accused were charged for offences punishable under Section 328/34 IPC and 379/34 IPC.The statement of the prosecution witnesses and the accused under CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 2 of 9 Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.The Appellant and co-accused were acquitted for offence punishable under Section 328/34 IPC, however convicted of offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC and awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of `5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The present appeal was filed by both the convicts, however, before this appeal could be finally heard, Appellant No.2 Mahinder Singh died on 5th March, 2007 and vide order dated 12th November, 2010 the appeal qua the Appellant No.2 stands abated.Thus, the only Appellant now before this Court in the present appeal is Kalu Singh.CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 1 of 9CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 2 of 92. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence contends that none of the witnesses has identified the Appellant or supported the case of the prosecution.Sardar Saran Singh, the victim implicates Mahinder co-convict as the person who gave the intoxicant and removed the kara.He states that there were 2-3 other persons with accused Mahinder who managed to run away.Testimony of PW5 Mahinder Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh and PW6 Mahinder Singh s/o Harbans Singh only implicates Mahinder Singh as the person from whom the gold kara was recovered.Both these witnesses have not ascribed any role or overt act to the Appellant Kalu Singh.It is stated that the testimony of PW4 Sardool Singh, CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 3 of 9 the complainant does not inspire confidence, as he says that he saw both the accused surrounding his father and both removing the gold kara from the hand of his father when they were apprehended by the public, while his father lay unconscious.The testimony of this witness is wholly unreliable as this statement of the complainant is an improvement from his earlier statement recorded by the police.Though he has deposed that he saw the accused surrounding his father and taking off the kara, he does not try to save his father nor makes any attempt to apprehend the accused.Nobody except the complainant has implicated the Appellant.None of the persons who apprehended and who had allegedly beaten the Appellant & co-accused Mahinder have been made witnesses.The witnesses examined including PW4 were not present at the spot and they have been planted as witnesses.PW 10 in his testimony has deposed that the victim was brought to his clinic by his daughter-in-law and thereafter was got admitted to Singh Heart Clinic, and in support thereof has produced the prescription Ex. PW 10/A whereas PW 2 has deposed that the victim was examined by him on 12.05.1996 with a suspected diagnosis of narcotic poisoning and stated that the victim was initially treated at M.P. Heart Centre for eight hours.Prescription in this regard is exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. It is thus prayed that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the Appellant and he be acquitted.In the alternative it is also prayed that the incident is of the year 1996 and the Appellant has faced the ordeal of the pendency of the trial and the appeal for 14 years, therefore, he be released on the period of sentence already undergone.CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 3 of 9CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 4 of 9The presence of the Appellant at the spot as he was beaten by the public and apprehended at the spot stands proved by the testimony of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 beyond reasonable doubt.PW3, the victim could not identify Appellant Kalu Singh in the Court as he was 80 years of age when he appeared as a witness in the Court.The Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken the plea of alibi, however, this plea has neither been put as a suggestion to the prosecution witnesses nor proved by the Appellant by way of defence evidence.Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.PW3, the victim has not identified the Appellant Kalu Singh and has deposed CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 5 of 9 that Mahinder Singh appellant No.2 (since dead) had given him the intoxicant and removed his kara.As per the suggestion given to this witness by the learned APP the role attributed to the Appellant Kalu Singh was that he gave lemon water; which suggestion he refused to acknowledge and replied that he could not identify the boy i.e. the appellant herein.He has reiterated in the cross examination by the learned APP that the kara was removed by the co- accused Mahinder and not by the other boy i.e. the Appellant, though he admitted that he was having diabetes and may have forgotten some facts.Similarly, PW5 Mahinder Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh has also stated that the gold kara was recovered from the accused Mahinder Singh.He also does not attribute any role to the Appellant except the fact that both of them were being beaten by the public in front of the Gurdwara.PW6 Mahinder Singh s/o Harbans Singh deposed that he had not witnessed the incident, and only witnessed the two accused being apprehended by the police near the Gurdwara.Thus, PW5 and PW6 are not the eye witnesses and have only witnessed the recovery of kara from Mahinder Singh and the two accused being beaten by the public.The son of Swaran Singh neither was present when he went to his house nor had come when he was taken to the clinic.CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 6 of 9CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 7 of 9The Appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC and the only evidence against the appellant is the testimony of PW4 Sardool Singh i.e. the complainant along with the fact that both the accused were beaten by the public and apprehended on the spot.PW4 Sardool Singh has also stated that both the accused present in the Court surrounded his father and both removed the gold kara from the hand of this father.The site plan Ex.PW8/E does not disclose about the place from where Sardool Singh was witnessing this incident.Neither there is any evidence on record nor does this witness says that he tried to save his father.His conduct of not stopping the two accused persons from removing the gold kara nor apprehending them, nor shouting for help, nor taking care of the unconscious father is an unnatural conduct.The testimony of this witness is not only not corroborated by any evidence on record to prove that the Appellant Kalu Singh removed the gold kara from the hand of PW3 but is contradicted on all aspects.Thus no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness.In his testimony PW3, Sardar Saran Singh has categorically stated that it was Mahinder Singh who gave him the intoxicant and removed the kara.CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 8 of 9Thus the only evidence left against the Appellant is the circumstance that soon after the incident the Appellant Kalu Singh was beaten by the public and apprehended at the spot along with the co-accused Mahinder.However, this circumstance alone is not sufficient to prove the charge under Sec. 379/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant Kalu Singh.This single circumstance is not sufficient to base the conviction for an offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC.Thus, Appellant Kalu Singh is entitled to benefit of doubt.Hence he is acquitted of the charge under Section 379/34 IPC.The bail bond and the surety bond are discharged.The appeal stands disposed of.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE DECEMBER 16, 2010 mm CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 9 of 9CRL.APP.174/2001 Page 9 of 9 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,694,773 | This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner, against the judgment passed in C.A.No.35 of 2011 dated 23.02.2012, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court No.II, Kancheepuram and confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.259 of 2006 dated 23.08.2011 by the learnedhttp://www.judis.nic.inJudicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram District.There is no representation for the revision petitioner.Heard the learned Government advocate appearing for the State.This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein the revision petitioner is held guilty for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A)(2 counts) IPC.The revision petitioner herein on 09.03.2006 at about 4.15 hours near Bakthavatsalam Polytechnic College, Kanchi Taluk on the NH Road ramped into a tanker lorry while driving his van.Due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner, his van collided with the stationed tanker lorry, two persons travelling in his van died on the spot.The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses and 11 documents were marked in respect of the prosecution witnesses to the occurrence.PW.2 and PW.3 have narrated about the manner in which the accident has taken place.The Motor Vehicle Inspector report coupled with the ocular evidence of the witnesses who have witnessed the accident have corroborated each other the evidence putforth by the prosecution that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.The evidence of PW.3 particularly has disclosed the fact that the van driven by the accused ramped into the stationed lorry.The rashness and negligence of the accused has been spoken by all the eyewitness.Therefore, the trial Court held the revision petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) (2 counts) IPC.Sentence him to undergo six months Simplehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-; each in default to undergo S.I for 3 months for an offence under Section 304(A) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default to undergo S.I for one month for an offence under Section 279 IPC.On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram confirmed the trial Court judgment.Against which the present revision petition has been filed.In the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner has contended that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 had not been properly appreciated by the Courts below.The failure of the lorry driver and its cleaner to place the parking signal for the upcoming vehicle to know a vehicle is parked ahead, has caused the accident and it is not due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner.The evidence appreciated by the Courts below would indicate that at about 4'O clock early morning the accident has taken place on an highways, the Maxi van driven by the accused has hit against the stationed lorry unless and until the driver had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently, this accident could not have happened.A little amount of deligence would have averted a major accident.The manner in which the accident has taken plance as spoken by the witnesses clearly indicates the total negligence on the part of the revision petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.Therefore, on perusing the records, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition to interfere, since both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and held the accused guilty.Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.22.02.2019 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order rpl To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram District.2.The Sessions Judge, Sessions Court No.II, Kancheepuram.R.C.No.382 of 2012http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,765,678 | Brother of the deceased was examined as PW-3 and mother of the deceased was examined as PW-4, who deposed on the lines of PW-1, father of the deceased that the respondents were consistently making demand for a four wheeler.A conjoint reading of testimonies of these witnesses goes to show that the alleged demand of dowry is general.From the perusal of the records, it is pertinent to mention that the railing on the roof, where the deceased was standing prior to her death, was only 2.5 ft.498A/304B/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Trial Court is as under:"...the accused Rakesh is husband, Shyam Singh is the father-in-law, Reshma is the mother-in-law and Deepak is brother-in-law of the deceased Ms. Shobha.On 30.09.2016, Ms. Shobha died after falling from the second floor of the house of accused i.e. A238, Devli Extension.On 30.09.2016, ASI Ranbir Singh reached Majidia Hospital, Hamdard Nagar with Ct.Manendra on receiving DD No. 39A. He obtained the MLC of Ms. Shobha and took the statement of her husband Dharmender.Dharmender told that Ms. Shobha had gone to the terrace to pick-up clothes and she fell down.While ASI Ranbir Singh was taking the stament of Dharmender, family members of the deceased, their relatives and neighbours attacked the in- laws of the deceased and started causing damage of the property of the hospital.With lot of efforts, the situation was brought under control by the local police and police from PS-Neb Sarai.The in-laws of the deceased ran away from the hospital to save their lives..."A. ______/18(to be numbered) Page 2 of 19under Section 306/34 to which they denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.To substantiate the accusation, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all.P.C were recorded wherein they reiterated their innocence and examined one witness in their defence.The learned Trial Court, upon analysis, examination and evaluation of the prosecution evidence and after considering the rival submissions recorded acquittal of the accused persons for the charged offences.Mr. Rajendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the parents (PW-1 and PW-4) and the brother (PW-3) of the deceased, on record, corroborate with each other and inspire confidence, thus should be relied upon.A. ______/18(to be numbered) Page 3 of 19demand of dowry which led the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.We heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the entire material available on record.Returning to the facts of the present case, the marriage between the respondent No. 1 and the deceased took place on 30.04.2011 and the deceased died on 30.09.2016 other than in normal circumstances within 7 years of the marriage.A legal fiction has been created to the effect that in the event if it is established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relative; for or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.To establish that the cruelty was meted to the deceased for the want of dowry soon before her death, the prosecution examined the parents and brother of the deceased.Father of the deceased stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that:"...After the finalization of marriage and before its actual performance, the father of Dharmender had asked four wheeler from me, on which I replied that it is not in my capacity to give four wheeler to him and hereafter, when I returned to my house, Shyam (father of accused Dharmender) and one relative namely Deewan(Bhanja) had telephoned me and asked, if I can give motorcycle to them, on which I replied them, I can give Crl.A. ______/18(to be numbered) Page 11 of 19 Ramesh Vs State (GNCTD) & Ors.A. ______/18(to be numbered) Page 11 of 19motorcycle along with other dowry artcles as per my means.After three months of marriage, accused Shyam came to my house to take money for the vehicle.I told him that I cannot arrange the money for the same as I had already told him prior to the marriage about the same.The in laws and the husband of the deceased Soma used to beat and maltreat her also demanding the car.The deceased along with the husband was residing at a rented accommodation in Sangam Vihar for about two years before this incident. "...My daughter used to tell to my wife that accused persons used to beat and torture her and she was not telling me as she was feeling that I will be tensed..."The witnesses failed to ascribe that the deceased was harassed "soon before her death" for or in connection with demand of dowry.It is pertinent to mention here that during cross examination, PW-1 categorically stated that "It is correct that I had given all the articles for domestic and daily use as per my own wish." He further added that "It is correct that my daughter was staying on rented accomodation along with her husband before the time of delivery".From the testimonies of these material Crl.A. ______/18(to be numbered) Page 12 of 19 Ramesh Vs State (GNCTD) & Ors.A. ______/18(to be numbered) Page 12 of 19witnesses, it emerges that, the deceased was residing with her husband separately in a rented accomodation for two years before the incident.In the instant case, PW-9 Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj, who conducted the postmortem, opined that, majority of the injuries are caused due to the deceased falling from the terrace of the second floor of her house.According to this witness, injuries 10 and 11 being self-inflicted are only a possibility and as far as injury 4 is concerned, it could have been due to some other mishappening.The alleged incident is stated to have been witnessed by PW-8, Krishan Kumar, a neighbour, who was standing on the terrace at the relevant time.PW-8 deposed that:"...I saw that one lady Shobha had fallen from the roof of her house.When i come down and after taking tea I saw that the relatives of Shobha had taken her to hospital.I had not noticed as to what Shobha was doing on the roof of her house.Later on I come to know that Shobha had expired due to injury received by her.Police official had visited my house and recorded my statement..."So the possibility of a person slipping and falling from there cannot be ruled out.PW-8 deposed in his examination in chief that 'I saw that one lady Shobha had fallen from the roof of her house' he has not stated about the presence of any other person on the roof.So the medical evidence ascertains that the injuries sustained by the deceased were due to the fall only.Moreover, as discussed earlier the charge of cruelty against the accused persons has not been proved.Taking into account the facts of the present case, the Crl.A. ______/18(to be numbered) Page 16 of 19 Ramesh Vs State (GNCTD) & Ors.From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,783,355 | Certified copy as per rules.ad M (H.P. SINGH) JUDGE of rt ou GT C Digitally signed by GAUTAM h TECKCHANDANI ig Date: 2017.12.23 13:20:47 +05'30' Ha Heard on the question of admission.hy Admit.ad Record of the Courts below be called for.Also heard on I.A. No.24147/2017, an application for M suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.of Applicant No.1 has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 324/34 and 323 of IPC and has rt been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months each with fine of ou Rs.500/- each with default stipulation, applicant No.2 has been C convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections h 324 and 323 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 ig months each with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation H and applicant No.3 has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 324/34 and 323 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months each with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments forwarded by learned counsel for the applicants, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A. No.24147/2017 is allowed, subject to depositing fine amount, if already not deposited, jail sentence of the applicants is hereby suspended.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum sh of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each along with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial e ad Court, applicants Ram Prasad Yadav, Prithvi Yadav and Rakesh Yadav be released on bail for their appearance before Pr the Registry of this Court on 17.05.2018 and on all such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till disposal a hy of the revision. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,979,261 | Joynal Mondal, Akkash Sk., Sadar Mondal and Tahajuddin Sk.On 16th February, 1984 at about 4.30 p.m. the convicts chased the victim Abdul Latif, a resident of Kalidaspur.According to P.W. 10 Moinudding Biswas he scribed the complaint as per the narration of Labani.He read over the contents of the complaint and thereafter he put his left thumb impression on that paper.He also signed the paper as a scribe thereof.He identified his signature on the written complaint.According to P.W. 2 after the Dairoga had come at about 9 p.m. her husband got the written complaint written by Moinuddin and made over the same to Daroga Babu.JUDGMENT Girish Chandra Gupta, J.By a judgment and order dated 9th May, 1996 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1(5} 92 arising out of the Sessions Cases No. 28/89 they were convicted and found guilty.By an order dated 10th May, 1996 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Murshidabad they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for commission of the aforesaid offence.The convicts came up in appeal.After the appeal was admitted by an order dated 2nd July, 1996 they were enlarged on bail.The appeal has now come up for final hearing.The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:The victim took shelter in the verandah of the de facto-complainant Labani Das.Joynal fired a shot from a pipegun.The complainant Labani sought to pacify him but the former* was bashed aside with a blow on his left cheek.He was also threatened with dire.cpnse quences.The accused persons thereafter dragged Abdul Latif to the courtyard pf the adjoining house of Haru, the father-in-law of the de facto-complainant whereat Akkash Sk., Tahajuddin and Sadar chopped different part of the body of the victim including shoulder, neck, hand, belly etc. witli pusli and hesua resulting in bleeding injury arid instantaneous death.The only point for consideration is whether the judgment under challenge-holding the appellants guilty on the basis, of the evidence on record can be upheld.The de facto-complainant Labajp Das, (P.W. 1) deposed that on the fateful (day at about 4/4.30 p.m. he was feeding grass to hisgoats.At that time he found the accused persons chasing Abdul Latif.Abdul Latif took shelter in his house.The accused Joynal fired a shot aiming at Abdul Latif.Abdul Latif fell down.The P.W. 1 protested.Joynal in return dealt a blow on his face.As a result of which the P.W. 1 fell down on the ground.His wife Bhubani Dassi came to his rescue and lifted him.Both the husband and wife raised alarm being attracted Murtaza, P.W. 7 and Nizamuddin P.W. 9 came running.The accused Akkash and Tahajuddin took the victim Abdul Latif to the courtyard of his father-in-law's house and dealt blows on the victim by hesua and pusli.Hearing the hue arid cry people of the locality also collected at the place of occurrence whereupon the accused persons left the place.Abdul Latif died instantaneously on the spot.Bhubani Dassi (P.W. 2) the wife of P.W. 1 deposed that Joynal Mondal and three others chased Abdul Latif.She was unable to tell the names of the three other accused persons accompanying Joynal.They came to her verandah chasing Abdul Latif.Joynal fired a shot at Abdul Latif from a gun.Abdul Latif fell on the ground.Then rest of the three accused persons dragged Abdul Latif to the courtyard of her father Haru Das's house.Joynal brandished a gun like instrument in the courtyard of the house of her father and the other three assaulted Abdul Latif by giving blows by hesua and pusli.Abdul Latif died instantaneously on the spot.She deposed that her house and her father's house were adjacent to each other.She also deposed that her husband requested Joynal not to commit murder of the victim Abdul Latif.She deposed that besides herself, her husband and her father were present in their respective houses.She identified the ,ac-cused persons on the dock.At that time he was at a distance of 30/40 cubits from the house of P.W. 1 thrashing mustard seeds.When he was taking the thrashed mustard seeds by his bicycle he found Joynal, Akkash, Tahajuddin and Sadar in the courtyard of the house of P.W. 1 with sharp cutting weapons and pipegun.He saw Tahajuddin, Akkash and Sadar assaulting Abdul Latif and giving him blows repeatedly.However the accused persons had left the place of occurrence before he arrived there.He heard a sound and went to the place from where the sound came.He went to the house of P.W. 1 and found Abdul Latif lying dead with bleeding injuries in front of the house of Haru.Haru, Labani and Bhubani Dassi told that Joynal and others assaulted the victim.These are the four material witnesses of whom P.W. 1 and his wife P.W. 2 are the eye-witnesses.P.W. 7 and P.W. 9, according to the evidence of P.W. 1 came running to the place of occurrence on hearing the hue and cry.She however said nothing about her husband (P.W. 1) being assaulted when he wanted to pacify Joynal.P.W. 2 talked about Joynal and three others.She was unable to tell the names of the three others.She did not give any clue by which it can be established that the rest of the accused were actually meant by her.It is true that she identified the accused persons on the dock.But such identification, easy as it is, does not lend any assurance.P.W. 7, it would appear, has given an altogether a different version of the incident.Joynal was standing with an iron pipe in his hand and the other three accused persons were carrying pulsi and hesua.I saw Tahajuddin, Akkash and Sadar assaulting Abdul Latif and giving him blows repeatedly.The accused persons left the courtyard of the house of RW. 1 before my arrival there".The evidence of P.W. 1 is that after firing the gun shot aimed at the victim, the victim had fallen down.Then the victim was dragged to the courtyard of Haru.It is in the courtyard of Haru that repeated blows with sharp weapons were given to the victim whereas the evidence of P.W. 7 suggests that the blows were given to the victim in the house of P.W. 1 himself.Admittedly P.W. 7 was not present at the place of occurrence.He was 30/40 cubits away according to his own deposition.Therefore the version of P.W. 7 cannot be preferred to that of the P.W. 1 in whose presence the entire incident is claimed to have happened and who is also to some extent corroborated by the evidence of his wife.We are, therefore, unable to place any credence on the evidence of P.W. 7 We are fortified in our view, in this regard, by the fact that Murtaza (P.W. 7) at 5 p.m. informed the incident to his elder brother Golam Mahabub Biswas but the names of the assailants were not disclosed to him.Had Murtaza really witnessed the incident it is inconceivable that he would not tell the names of the assailants to his elder brother.P.W. 9 according to his own evidence came to the place of occurrence after the incident was over.His evidence is "Haru, Labani and the wife of Labani told me that Joynal and others assaulted the victim".According to P.W. 1, P.Ws. 7 and 9 had come running hearing the hue and cry.P.W. 9 found the dead body of Abdul Latif in front of the house of Haru.This is another pointer to show that both P.Ws. 7 and 9 reached the place of occurrence after the event was over.Another significant picture emerging from the evidence of P.W. 9 is that immediately after the incident Haru, Labani and his wife told him that Joynal and others had committed the crime.Therefore at the first available opportunity before there was any scope for any concoction the crime was stated to have been committed by Joynal and others.The surviving two eye-witnesses immediately after the occurrence' did not give out the names of all the miscreants.The incident happened at about 4/4.30 p.m. From the village where the incident took place the distance of the police station is about 9 kilometers.According to Gularh Mahabub Biswas (P.W. 3), he got the information, that his uncle Abdul Latif had been killed around 5 p.m. from his younger brother Murtaza, P.W. 7 but the names of the assailants were not disclosed to him.Mahabub rushed to the police station and informed that his uncle Abdul Latif had been murdered.Police came to the place of occurrence around 9 p.m. accompanied by Gulam Mahabub Biswas.According to P.W. 1 Mahabub went to the police station after the complaint had been written disclosing the names of the assailants.According to P.W. 2 the complaint was written only after Daroga Babu came.She stated that if Mahabub had gone to the police station he must have gone on the basis of some rumour.Considering the evidence of Mahabub that he went to the police station after being informed by Murtaza the P.W. 7 who had not disclosed the names of the assailants, we are Inclined to hold that the complaint was written after the Daroga had come to the place of occurrence and it is at that stage for the first time that the names of the assailants were disclosed.P.W. 16, the Officer-in-Charge of the Harihar Para Police Station deposed that Mahabub Biswas, P.W. 3 reached the police station at about 8.35 p.m. and reported that his uncle Abdul Latif had been murdered.The records reveal that on 8th March, 1994 the prosecution applied under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to call a competent witness either on behalf of the prosecution or as a Court witness on the ground that a GD entry bearing No. 452 dated 16th February 1994 had inadvertently not been tendered in evidence.By that time the case had already been fixed for arguments.The learned trial Judge by his order dated 18th March, 1984 allowed the prayer and granted leave to the prosecution to examine a competent witness for the purpose of proving the aforesaid GD entry.In pursuance thereof on 4th January, 1995 the P.W. 16 was recalled and a true copy of the aforesaid GD entry was tendered in evidence on the ground that original GD was missing.The true copy was marked exhibit '5'.Exhibit '5' reads as follows:Information O/C.One Golam Mehabub Biswas s/o Golum Ahammed Biswas of Kalidaspur P.S.H. Para, Msd.Came to P.S. and reported that today (66/2) at 16.30 hrs.his cousin uncle Abdul Latif Biswas was murdered by one Joynal Mondal, Akkas Sk., Tahajuddin, Sader Mondal by using pipe gun, push, Hasua.As he did not witness the matter so he did not note the fact in detail.Accordingly myself along with S.I.P. Bhattacharjee & Force left for Tehatta to look into the matter.Sd/- N. Sarkar.O/C.In the cross-examination on recall it was suggested that the document was subsequently prepared incorporating the names of the four assailants.The genuineness of the copy which was tendered and marked exhibit '5' noticed above is in serious doubt.Golam Mehabub the P.W. 3 according to the GD is stated to have given out the names of the assailants at 8.35 p.m. on 16th February, 1984 whereas we already have discussed the evidence indicating that Mehabub himself was not aware about the names of the assailants.As a matter of fact, he has emphatically denied the suggestion that he narrated the incident in the police station which led to the death of his uncle Abdul Latif.Considering the fact that the victim was a near relation of the P.W. 3 it is difficult to believe that he would knowingly suppress the names of the assailants.We are therefore inclined to view this document with suspicion and are further inclined not to place any credence on that.P.W. 6 Dibakar Saha deposed that the accused party belonged to CPM whereas the relatives of the victim belonged to SUCI.P.W. 3 in his cross-examination deposed that he had heard that his uncle the victim was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and later was enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Court.P.W. 1 has been suggested that the case was cooked up falsely against the accused persons under the influence of Chowkidar, local police and the prosecution party.The FIR has been marked exhibit '3'.In his cross-examination he deposed that it takes one hour to reach Behrampore from Harihar Para Police Station.Behrampore and Hariharpara are connected by metallic road.He did not disclose any reason for the delay.Exhibit '1' the seizure list goes to show that bloodstained earth, the sample earth and two pellets were seized from the veranda of Labani Das which go to corroborate the deposition of Labani and his wife Bhubani Dassi that Abdul Latif was given a I gun shot in their veranda.P.W. 15, Dr. S.N. Sinha who conducted the post-mortem examination deposed that as many as 13 injuries were found on the dead body which included a gun shot injury on the upper back of the left arm with presence of three pellets.He opined that the death was due to the injuries giving rise to profuse haemorrhage and shock which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.From the evidence discussed above we are of the opinion that Joynal inflicted the gun shot injury on the victim.We, however, are unable to arrive at any definite conclusion as regards the involvement of the three other accused persons for the reasons already discussed.a) P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 witnessed the incident.We already have discussed and indicated our reasons why P.W. 7 cannot be said to have witnessed the incident.b) P.W. 10 on hearing the incident of murder before evening went to the house of P.W. 1 and came to learn that the four accused persons had committed the crime.We are sorry to say that the learned trial Judge omitted to notice that P.W. 10 was told the names of the accused persons only when he was asked to write out the complaint.The evidence of P.W. 2 is that the complaint was written after the Daroga came at 9 p.m. There was in the circumstances enough time and scope to concoct a story particularly when the evidence of P.W. 2 is that the names of the assailants were not disclosed before the Daroga came.c) The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 7, 9 and 15 goes to establish that all the four accused persons committed the crime.P.W. 9 does not profess to be an eyewitness.His evidence is that he came to know that Joynal and others assaulted the victim.P.W. 15 is a medical officer who conducted the post-mortem report.P.W. 1 has been materially contradicted by P.W. 2 which we already have discussed.Therefore it is not possible to hold on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 7, 9 and 15 that all the accused persons committed the crime.d) Exhibit '5' the GD entry was recorded at 8.35 p.m. on 16th February, 1984 and unerringly pointed the finger towards the accused persons.Exhibit 5 according to us is a suspicious document for reasons already discussed which we need not reiterate and the same cannot be taken into consideration.e) The fact that no TI Parade was held was of no consequence because P.W. 2 identified the accused persons in Court.The accused persons were known to P.W. 2 by face except for Joynal whom she knew by name.We are sorry to say that the learned trial Judge erroneously thought that P.W. 2 knew the accused persons by the face because she identified the accused persons on the dock.He however erred in not considering that it is easy of the easiest to say that the persons standing on the dock are the culprits.P.W. 2 did not in her deposition say that she knew the assailants by the face.Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment in the case of Vaikuntam v. State of A.P. wherein the following view was expressed.It is true that the substantive evidence of a witness is his statement in Court; but the purpose of test identification is to test that evidence and the safe rule is that the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to the witnesses, generally speaking, requires corroboration which should be in the form of an earlier identification proceeding.f) The fact that the P.W. 3 deposed that the names of the assailants were not disclosed to him by the P.W. 7 has been attributed by the learned trial Judge to failing memory of a human being.He reasoned that if P.W. 3 had not known the names of the assailants he could not have given the names of the accused persons in the police station at 8.35 p.m. on the basis whereof the GD entry was recorded which was tendered and marked as Exhibit '5'.Argent xerox certified copy of this judgment be made available to the learned Advocates for the parties on compliance of all formalities.Kishore Kumar Prasad, J.I agree. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,808,119 | Item No. 68And In the matter of: Atul Kumar Upadhyay & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin For the Petitioners Mr. Imran Siddique For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Liluah Police Station Case No. 217 of 2013 dated 21.03.2013 under sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code , have come to this Court for the anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,981,126 | The miniaturized version of the prosecution is that on 01.08.1996 at about 23.40 hrs.when the de facto complainant Shyam Prasad Mehta after fetching drinking water in a jug reached near their grocery shop in the name and style of "Probhat Stores" at 7/1, Bompass Road, Calcutta-29, a white coloured Ambassador car came and stopped there.The driver and one person remained inside the car.P.W. 3 (de facto complainant) after fetching water from a tubewell at Dr. Sarat Banerjee Road in a jug came in front of the counter of their shop at 7/1, Bompass Road, Calcutta at about 11.40 p.m., found the white coloured Ambassador car to stop in front of their shop, six persons - two armed with revolvers, two with nepala, one with sword and another with katari to come out therefrom, one took position at the gate of shop and five others entered into the shop.Two miscreants armed with revolvers pointed their arms towards his father and elder brother Mukesh (P.W. 6), for which they stood up when the said miscreants demanded key of the almirah from them.On the reply of Mukesh that he was without key, one of them viz. Nuruddin assaulted him with the butt of his revolver four times - thrice on his head and one near his eye resulting in his bleeding injuries.He entered into the shop and pushed out those two miscreants.All the five miscreants came out, took position in front of the counter and when he cried for help, one of the miscreants shot fire at the chest of his father and another miscreants viz. Akbar assaulted his father on his face and left joint of hand with nepala followed by their rushing towards the vehicle and boarding it.He rushed to the vehicle when it was about to move and noted down its No. WB-02B-6942 on a cigarette packet collected from a place near their counter.He rushed to their shop, found blood coming out of the wounds of his father who was falling down touching his hand on the glass container of the shop kept on the wall rack, clung him and cried for help.Pritamda (P.W. 7), para boys and Pritamda's wife came.Pritamda and others took his father and brother and he himself unsuccessfully searched for a taxi.His father and brother were put in the car brought by Pritamda's wife and Pritamda and his uncle Mohan Mehta also boarded there.Before leaving Pritamda informed him that they were going to Sishu Mangal Hospital.After about half an hour police came to their shop when he narrated the incident which was recorded by the police (Ext. 4).As per his evidence, Nemai (P.W. 4) and Ajit Mallick (P.W. 5) are amongst the five witnesses who also witnessed the occurrence, but he cannot recollect the names of others.P.W. 4 who is a fruit-seller at Lake Market and was gossiping with P.W. 5, Parvez (since murdered) and Jamil (not examined) standing on the opposite footpath of the above shop, found six/seven persons to get down from the car, a few of them to enter inside the shop while a few others to remain outside, the victim and miscreants altercating and the former was shot fire and then the miscreants coming out of the shop and fled away in the car.One/two persons were inside the car, said he.P.W. 5 on seeing six/seven persons to come out from the car parked near the above shop took them to be customers of the shop, heard a hue and cry near the shop, a firing sound, a cry of shopkeeper for help and then saw the miscreants to escape in the said vehicle.JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld.Out of six persons - two wearing pants and the rest wearing lungis - who came in front of the counter of their shop, one remained outside while five of them entered inside the counter.On their demand for the keys of cash box his father Gulab Mehta and elder brother Mukesh expressed their ignorance of the same, for which one of them assaulted his elder brother with the butt of a firearm on his face.He rushed inside, raised an alarm like his elder brother and pushed two of them.The miscreants came outside the counter and one of them armed with a firearm suddenly fired a shot towards his father resulting in bleeding injury on his chest followed by their rushing towards their car and boarding it.At the time of departure, one of the miscreants armed with a sharp-cutting weapon struck his father on his person.He noted down the number of the said car WB-02B-6942 on a cigarette packet.When his father was about to fall he held and brought him outside the shop.His neighbour Prasad Sen @ Pritamda and his wife took his father, elder brother and uncle Mohan to Sishu Mangal Hospital.Accused Sk.Akbar Ali, Sandip Arora @ Raju, Nuruddin Molla @ Noor Alam, Md. Afzal @ Sarju and Md. Rafique @ Chachu were identified at the TI parade.Hence, all the above five accused persons were charged under sections 302/34, 307/34 & 398 IPC.During trial accused Rafique escaped from police custody, for which WA/PA is pending against him.The defence case, as suggested to PWs.and as contended by the accused persons during their examination under Section 313 Cr.PC is that after a lapse of a number of days the FIR was written at the instance of police who supplied the vehicle No. The accused persons were identified to the witnesses at Lalbazar before the TI parade.They are innocent.5. 29 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record, the ld.Akbar Ali and Nuruddin Molla guilty under sections 302/34, 307/34 & 398 IPC convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- i.d. to R.I. for six months each, to suffer imprisonment for life and to suffer R.I. for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each i.d. to R.I. for six months each respectively, and acquitted the other two accused persons viz. Md. Afzal and Sandip Arora of the charges.Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the above conviction and sentence, both the said convicts Sk.Akbar and Nuruddin have preferred the present appeal.Instead of moving against the said order dated 06.02.1997 before higher forum, Akbar came up with another petition on 19.02.1997 along with a certificate issued by doctor praying for considering the said accused as juvenile.On the face of the above, when accused Akbar appeared to be much more than 16 years of age as per his own statement on the date of alleged occurrence and there was no doubt in regard to the said age, the question of inquiry was out of the way.As the miscreants were armed with nepala and revolver they did not move towards the shop.During T.I. parade he shortly narrated the incident but failed to identify Akbar.According to the evidence of P.W. 6 (Mukesh), out of six/ seven persons who came out of the car, three/four persons entered into the shop while two remained outside, one out of the two armed with revolver demanded key of the cash-box at the point of revolver, and when he asked for the reason, he was assaulted by one of the miscreants viz. Nuruddin with the butt of revolver on the left side of his eyebrow resulting in his bleeding injury.He raised an alarm.The miscreants who entered inside, on crossing the counter shot fire from a distance of 2/3 cubits at his father.Shyam (P.W. 3) who went to fetch water and saw the miscreants, appeared at the time of assault on him and his father and he also raised hallah.The miscreants escaped by the above car.He caught his father when the latter was on the verge of falling down on getting firearm shot.He and his father were taken to Sishu Mangal Hospital in a vehicle driven by Pritamda's wife.He was discharged on that very night but his father died after three days.P.W. 7 who was standing on their verandah in the first floor after taking dinner and saw a white coloured Ambassador moving towards Southern Avenue slowly leaving the place near the shop of Gulab Mehta, on hearing a call "Pritamda" came to the P.O., found Gulab Mehta lying inside the shop with profuse bleeding and Mukesh (P.W. 6) sitting placing his hand on his head.Mukesh reported that his father was shot fire by the miscreants and he was assaulted with the butt of a revolver.He and his wife took Gulab, Mukesh and his another relative in a car to Sishu Mangal Hospital and arranged for admission of Gulab who sustained injuries on his belly portion and informed the matter to Tollygunge P.S. over phone.Mr. Bagchi on referring to the above evidence of P.W. 3 contended that had he pushed the two miscreants armed with revolvers, for which they came out of the shop, as deposed, he would not have remained unhurt, that it is the specific evidence of P.W. 7 in cross-examination that he did not find brother of Mukesh at the relevant time, that P.W. 3 claims to have caught hold of his father at the time of his falling down which is contradicted by P.W. 6 and if really he held has father and took him to the vehicle with the assistance of others his dress would have been stained with blood, but here no such bloodstained dress of P.W. 3 has been seized and as such the story of presence of P.W. 3 at the P.O. and witnessing the alleged incident should not be believed at all.Undoubtedly, that part of the evidence of P.W. 3 that after being pushed out by him the two miscreants armed with revolvers came to the other side of the counter like good boys is not worthy of belief, since had he pushed them out he would not have been spared by those two miscreants.Furthermore, P.W. 3 claims to have noted down the number of the vehicle which too cannot be believed inasmuch as if the miscreants after committing the crime rushed towards the Ambassador car and took their seat, it could not be expected that he after entering into the shop and collecting the pen from the place where it is generally kept followed by picking up of the cigarette packet from a place near the counter and then running towards the vehicle would be able to note down the number as the vehicle obviously could not be expected to wait so long.Moreover, the vehicle number noted by him did not tally with the vehicle seized.There are some other inconsistencies in his evidence but these alone are no ground for rejection of his testimony in toto.It is to be borne in mind that even if a witness tries to embroider a story not on vital point to give a credible look to the case, he need not be false to the main issue nor can it defeat justice.The presence of P.W. 3 at the P.O. is admitted by P.W. 6 but all that he contended when he and his father were being assaulted P.W. 3 appeared at that time which does not appear to be in disharmony with the evidence of P.W. 3 whose specific evidence is that he was standing in front of the counter of the shop and when his elder brother (P.W. 6) cried out loudly after being assaulted with the butt of revolver by a miscreant, he entered into the shop, and so in such a situation P.W. 6 could not be expected to divert his attention to see where P.W. 3 was prior to his entry into the shop.P.W. 7 informed the matter over phone to Tollygunge P.S. from Sishu Mangal Hospital which was recorded in the G.D. (Ext. 24) at about 00.05 hrs.on 02.08.1996 by P.W. 28 who being accompanied by other officers had been to the P.O. at about 00.15 a.m. and recorded the statement of P.W. 3 (Ext. 4) as also the statements under Section 161 Cr. PC of P.Ws.4,5, Parvez and Jamil on that very night.Had P.W. 3 not witnessed the incident, it would not have been possible on his part to give a vivid description of the same in the FIR.There is no material to indicate that prior to recording of the said FIR., P.W. 3 consulted with any other person.The seizure list (Ext. 5/1) as also the evidence of P.W. 28 reveal that the wearing apparel of P.W. 3 stained with blood of the victim was seized which strengthens the story of presence of P.W. 3 at the scene of occurrence, witnessing the incident and taking his father to the vehicle.It is further evidence of P.W. 3 that he went out of the room and searched for a taxi unsuccessfully while he found Pritamda's wife to come with her car.The question that now requires consideration is whether involvement of both the above appellants viz. Akbar and Nuruddin in the crime can be held to have been established.As regards Akbar, he was identified at the TI parade by Sk.Jamil (not examined), P.W. 3 & P.W. 4 but the role played by him was not stated by them.If an identifying witness while identifying a suspect does not say anything about the specific part played by the suspect in the commission of offence, it does not render the evidence of identification inadmissible, as statements before the ld.Magistrate holding TI parade are not substantive evidence and identification at the TI parade is merely corroborative piece of evidence.In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of State of A.P. v. K. Venkata Reddy, .P.W. 6 who deposed that out of six/seven miscreants two were armed with revolver and one with nepala, identified Afzal (acquitted) in Court as the person who was armed with nepala, though, of course, in jail he identified the said Afzal as the person who was armed with sword.P.W. 3 failed to identify the said Afzal either in jail or in Court.P.Ws. 4 & 5 identified Afzal in jail as the person who was armed with nepala and after the sound of firing boarded the white Ambassador car, and the identification of the said Afzal armed with nepala in Court appears to be consistent with the above.P.Ws. 5 & 6 failed to identify Akbar either in Court or in jail, and P.W. 4 simply identified the said accused Akbar in Court without disclosing the role played by him.There is no evidence on the part of said P.W. 6 or P.W. 4 or P.W. 5 that the victim Gulab was assaulted with nepala or sword by any miscreants.On the contrary, it is the evidence of P.W. 6 that none was assaulted with nepala.Again, considering the above evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 it appears that Afzal alone was armed with nepala and so the story of assault on the victim Gulab by Akbar with nepala, as deposed by P.W. 3 alone, which is uncorroborated, does not obviously stand.P.W. 10 (M.O. of Ramkrishna Seva Pratisthan) on examination of the victim Gulab on 01.08.1996 at about 11.55 p.m. found four injuries, out of which one was cut injury on right cheek 4 cm.x 0.5 cm.The above fourth injury i.e. cut injury on right cheek is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W. 17 (autopsy surgeon) who found one incised wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle over left side of face 1/2" above left Malar eminence and 21/2" left to midline.In other words, there was no injury on left joint of hand caused by nepala.Conviction on the testimony of solitary witness may be sustained if it is wholly reliable and the evidence is clear, cogent and unimpeachable.But when he is neither wholly reliable nor unreliable the Courts call for corroboration as a rule of prudence.If the evidence of P.W. 3 is taken into account, two miscreants armed with revolver viz. Nuruddin who caused injury of P.W. 6 with the butt of revolver and Md. Rafique (absconder) who shot fire towards his father, and Akbar who caused injury of his father with nepala were amongst the five miscreants who entered into the shop, If the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6, on the other hand, is considered Afzal (acquitted) alone was armed with nepala.As per evidence of P.W. 6, out of three/four persons entered into the shop, two were armed with revolver viz. Nuruddin and Rafique and one was armed with nepala i.e. Afzal, and none was assaulted with nepala.Therefore, Akbar was not inside the shop, since had it been so, P.W. 6 who compared to P.W. 3 being nearer to the victim and as such in a better position to see the miscreants, could recognize him, and if he was outside, the question of recognizing him by P.W. 6 was out of the way, for which possibly he failed to identify Akbar at the TI parade as also in Court.Again, if Akbar was outside by the side of P.W. 3 (who was standing near the counter), P.W. 3 would not have deposed as above that he saw Akbar to cause injury of his father with nepala inside the shop which is inconsistent and does not stand.When one of the basis for identification is annexed to certain act which is found to be incorrect no reliance upon such identification can be placed.As regards P.W. 4 who simply identified Akbar without disclosing the role played by him or where he was actually i.e. whether inside or outside the shop, such evidence does not inspire confidence, since when P.W. 6 did not find him inside and the evidence of P.W. 3 is inconsistent, he being at a considerable distance his identification appears to be doubtful.Therefore, on the face of the above contradictory materials, involvement of accused Akbar in the crime appears to be doubtful and as such the said accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.Accordingly, the prosecution cannot be held to have brought home the charges against him and he deserves to be acquitted.During TI parade both the above witnesses stated that he was involved in the incident.It is the specific evidence of P.W. 6 that three/four persons entered into the shop and two remained outside, that two persons were armed with revolver and one with nepala, that one of the miscreants demanded key of the cash box on the point of revolver and when he asked for the reason, one miscreant viz. Nuruddin assaulted him with the butt of revolver on the left side of the eyebrow resulting in his bleeding injury.The above evidence is more or less corroborated by P.W. 3 who stated that on the point of revolvers aimed at by two miscreants, his father and elder brother (P.W. 6) stood up and when they demanded key of the almirah, P.W. 6 replied that he was without key, for which one miscreant viz. Nuruddin assaulted him with the butt of his firearm four times-thrice on head and one near his eyeside.P.W. 7 who came to the P.O. just after the occurrence was reported by P.W. 6 that he was assaulted with the butt of a revolver and he along with his father and a relative was taken to Sishu Mangal Hospital in his car.P.W. 10 on examination of P.W. 6 at about 1.30 a.m. on 02.08.1996 found a cut injury on the left zygomatic region 2 cm.x 0.3 cm.x 0.3 cm., and the history of the said injury, as reported to him by the patient, is that he was assaulted by butt of a small arm.So, the above evidence of P.W. 3 relating assault on P.W. 6 thrice on his head being completely a mistaken one apparent from the above materials may be ignored.Mr. S.S. Roy, ld. Counsel for Nuruddin, on referring a decision , contended that as none of the above two witnesses gave any description and identification marks of the miscreants in their statement or oral evidence and possibility of their mistake in identification cannot be ruled out, it will be unsafe to sustain conviction based upon their testimony. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,204,618 | This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 7.11.2017, in connection with Crime No.700/2017 registered at Police Station Maihar, District Maihar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of IPC.As per prosecution, a theft of motorcycle of complainant bearing registration No. MP-19-MJ/7428 has been committed on 20.8.2017, which was kept near a hospital, at Maihar.Thereafter, on the report of the complainant, a case was registered against unknown persons at Police Station Maihar.In other case registered in Kymore Police Station, the applicant has been granted bail.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2017.12.19 (H.P. Singh) 05:15:03 -08'00' JUDGE A.Praj. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,238,240 | 2 A précis of the germane facts necessary for the disposal of this criminal appeal are as under:2.1 Swaminathan (P.W.3), an octogenarian, gave an advertisement in the newspaper for selling his VCD player, seeing which, the appellant went to his residence on 21.03.2005 around 4.00 p.m., negotiated with him, fixed the price for it at Rs.4,000/- and gave eight currency notes of Rs.500/- each.Swaminathan (P.W.3) became a little suspicious about the genuineness of the currency notes and so, he called his neighbours, viz., Somasundaram (P.W.1) and Balasubramaniam (P.W.2), to his apartment.The appellant introduced himself as Mohan.The trio (P.Ws.1 to 3) checked the currency notes and were convinced that they were counterfeit ones and so, they handed over the appellant and the currency notes to the respondent police, viz., S.R.M.C.Police Station, along with a written complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Swaminathan (P.W.3).Page 2 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.497 of 2012 2.2 The respondent police registered a case in Cr. No.334 of 2005 on 21.03.2005 under Sections 420 and 489-(A) & (B) IPC against the appellant and placed him under arrest.From the possession of the appellant, four counterfeit currency notes, each valuing Rs.500/-, were recovered.Thus, totally, twelve counterfeit currency notes, each valuing Rs.500/, were seized by the police under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.9) immediately after the registration of the First Information Report.Page 2 of 102.3 The seizure was effected by Chandrasekaran (P.W.8), Investigating Officer, in the presence of two independent witnesses, viz., Jagadeesan (P.W.4) and Kannan (not examined) and Somasundaram (P.W.1), Balasubramaniam (P.W.2) and Swaminathan (P.W.3).2.4 The confession statement of the appellant was recorded by the police, pursuant to which, a huge haul of counterfeit currency notes and equipments (M.Os.4 to 6) used for printing such notes were seized from the appellant’s residence at No.1/6, Kalamegam Street, Mogappair, under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.11) in the presence of Jagadeesan (P.W.4) and Kannan (not examined).Page 3 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.497 of 2012 2.5 The seized currency notes were sent through the Court to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory, where, Hemalatha (P.W.6) examined them and gave a report (Ex.P.6).Hemalatha (P.W.6), in her evidence as well in her report (Ex.P.6), has stated that the seized currency notes were counterfeit ones.She has also given reasons for arriving at such a conclusion.Page 3 of 10Page 5 of 105 During the course of investigation, it came to light that the actual name of the appellant was Deva Arulraj, son of Ponnumani.The instant criminal appeal has been preferred calling into question the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee in S.C.No.142 of 2010 convicting and sentencing the appellant as detailed in para 2.11, infra.2.6 After completing the investigation, the police filed a final report in P.R.C. No.11 of 2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, for the offences under Sections 489-A, B, C & D, IPC against the appellant.2.7 On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C. No.142 of 2010 and was made over to the II Additional Sessions Court, Tiruvellore at Poonamallee, for trial.2.8 The Trial Court framed charges as detailed in para 2.6, supra, against the appellant, who, when questioned, pleaded not guilty.2.9 To prove the case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked 13 exhibits and 6 material objects.Page 4 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.497 of 2012 2.10 When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same and did not give any explanation at all.No witness was examined on his behalf nor any document marked.Page 4 of 102.11 After considering the evidence on record and on hearing either side, the Trial Court, by judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 in S.C. No.142 of 2010, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Rs.1,000, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.489-C IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years.489-D IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.2.12 Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentences, the appellant is before this Court.He identified the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by him.In the chief-examination, he has stated that on account of age, he does not remember the events.Therefore, he was declared hostile.But, in the cross-examination by the Prosecutor, he has spoken to about the sequence of events set out above.His evidence stands amply corroborated by the versions of his two friends, viz., Somasundaram (P.W.1) and Balasubramaniam (P.W.2).Somasundaram Page 6 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.497 of 2012 (P.W.1) was able to identify the appellant and also the eight counterfeit currency notes, which were marked as M.O.1 series.Page 6 of 106 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 12 currency notes that were seized by the police in the police station under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.9) were not sent for expert opinion and only the currency notes that were allegedly seized by the police from the appellant’s residence were sent.He built up his arguments further by contending that the independent witness Jagadeesan (P.W.4), who was the witness for the seizure of the currency notes in the police station as well from the appellant’s residence, turned hostile to the prosecution case and hence, the appellant cannot be convicted for the seizure of 12 currency notes in the police station in the absence of expert opinion and in the absence of satisfactory evidence for the seizure of the currency notes from his residence in view of Jagadeesan (P.W.4) turning hostile, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.7 Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) brought to the notice of this Court that the twelve currency notes that were seized under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.9) in the police station were also sent to the expert, but, the Magistrate through whom they were sent, did not specify in his letter that those currency Page 7 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.497 of 2012 notes also should be examined by the expert.Page 7 of 10“Please note that 12 numbers of 500 rupee notes sent along with the above items are returned unexamined as they have not been mentioned in the Court letter (vide ref.2).” 8 This Court gave its anxious thought to the rival submissions.9 It is true that Jagadeesan (P.W.4), independent witness, turned hostile.But, it is trite that even if the panch witness turns hostile, the evidence of the recovery officer will not be vitiated and conviction can be based on his testimony if it inspires the confidence of the Court (See Mohd. Aslam vs. State of Maharashtra1 and Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli vs. State of Gujarat2).Further, no mala fides have been attributed to Chandrasekaran (P.W.8), Deputy Superintendent of Police, for foisting a case of this nature on the appellant.In fact, it was the private citizens, viz., P.Ws.1 to 3, who handed over the appellant with counterfeit currency notes and only thereafter, recoveries of counterfeit currency notes and equipments were effected from the appellant’s residence.Hence, just because Jagadeesan (P.W.4) turned hostile, 1 (2001) 9 SCC 362 2 (2011) 3 SCC (Crl.) 102 Page 8 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.497 of 2012 the evidence of Chandrasekaran (P.W.8), who effected the seizure from the appellant’s residence cannot be jettisoned.Page 8 of 10This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the Government Press at Nashik would not have ever printed more than one currency note with the same number.On this short ground itself, albeit the absence of the opinion of the expert qua twelve currency notes recovered at the police station, an inference can safely be drawn that eight notes that were given by the appellant to Swaminathan (P.W.3) at the latter’s residence towards purchase of VCD player, were counterfeit ones.11 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the Court below warranting interference.Page 9 of 10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A. No.497 of 2012 P.N. PRAKASH, J.Page 9 of 10cad As a sequitur, this criminal appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merits.Connected M.P. No.4 of 2012 is closed.The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the period of sentence.Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
198,266,307 | Shri Rahul Jian, Dy.In view of aforesaid, IA is rejected.Petition be listed for final hearing as per turn.Shri Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent wants four weeks time to file reply.Prayer allowed.List after four weeks.Office to place the same on record.List after one week.Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent/ State.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy.Advocate General is directed to seeks instructions from the Secretary of the Tribal Welfare Department/ respondent No.4 and file the reply within four weeks.Shri J. K. Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner.Respondents have not filed any reply.Let reply be filed by the respondents within six weeks.Interim relief to continue.Shri Udayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.This application has been filed for restoration of W. P. No. 9627/14, which was dismissed for want of prosecution.Keeping in view the reasons given in the application which is supported by the affidavit of the applicant herself and finding the same to be bonafide, the application is allowed.W. P. No.9627/14 is restored to its original file.It be placed for order before an appropriate Bench.In case the petitioner is still continuing in service, the interim order passed in the writ petition shall continue to be effective in the matter.Application stands allowed and disposed of.Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within one week.Call for record from the Court below.List for hearing along with the record.Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondents.As a matter of last indulgence a week's time is granted to the respondents to file reply.It may be taken note of by the office of the Advocate General that in various cases pertaining to the admission in professional medical institute, the Director, Medical Education Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal has not filed reply, as a result various petitions are pending.The Office of the Advocate General is directed to communicate the concerned Department for taking steps to file reply in time.It is made clear that if the reply is not filed by the next date then this Court may consider for taking coercive steps against the Director, Medical Education.A copy of the Order be supplied to Shri Rahul Jain for communicating the order to the concerned Officer.Shri Manish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.It is stated that IA No.11753/14 has been filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. No such application is available on record.Office to place the said application on record.Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.It is further stated that legal heirs of said respondent are already available on record.Necessary correction in the cause title be made within a week.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy.Advocate General prays for time to file reply.Prayer allowed.List after six weeks.Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Interim relief to continue.Shri J. K. Jain, Learned Assistant Solicitor General has appeared for the Union of India and prays for time to seeks instruction in the matter.Four weeks time is granted to the Union of India to file reply.List after four weeks.Shri J. K. Pillai, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on application for restoration along with an application filed for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application.W. P. No.15627/10 was dismissed in default.W. P. No.15627/10, is restored to its original file subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to be deposited in the office of Legal Services Committee.It be placed for order before an appropriate Bench.Application stands allowed and disposed of.Shri ipin Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on application for restoration along with an application filed for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application.Arbitration Revision No.21/09 was dismissed due to non- compliance of common conditional order passed in the matter.It be placed along with Arbitration Revision No.19/09 for order before an appropriate Bench.Application stands allowed and disposed of.Shri S. K. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc Cr.Shri U. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Punit Shroti, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State Heard on admission.Shri Pramod Thakre, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Punit Shroti, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.Heard on admission.P. F. within seven.(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc Cr.Shri Prakash Chandra Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Punit Shroti, learned P. L. for the respondent State.Appellant is present in person.His absence is condoned.He is directed to mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 15.6.2015 and on other further dates, as may be notified by the Registry.(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc Cr.None for the appellant.Shri Punit Shroti, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.Perused IA No.22388/14, an application for condonation of delay.This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction.Looking to the facts of the case delay in filing the appeal is condoned.IA is disposed of accordingly.(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc Cr.Shri S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents.Counsel for the applicant wants to withdraw this petition.It is dismissed as withdrawn.(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc Conc.Service of notice on the respondent is awaited.List after four weeks.Learned counsel for the respondents prays for a week's time to file reply.Prayer allowed.As prayed for on behalf of the respondent State, list after four weeks.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder in view of the return filed by the respondents.List after six weeks.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to seek instruction.List after six weeks.Shri Amalpushp Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner.Issue notice.At this stage Shri Khandekar appears and take notice of the petition.Two copies of the petition be supplied to shri Khandekar enabling him to seeks instruction and file reply within four weeks.Notice be also issued on the question of interim relief.Reply be filed to the said relief also.Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks further time to file reply.Shri Mukesh Argawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.Issue notice to the respondents.List after two weeks.As prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after four weeks.At this stage Shri J. K. Jain, appeared on behalf of the respondents.Three copies of the petition along with the annexures be supplied to him enabling him to seek instruction and file the reply.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent State.As result of the petitioner has been declared, no further action is required in the matter.The petition stands disposed of.Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to file reply.Prayer allowed.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within one week.Call for record from the Court below.List for hearing along with the record.Petition is admitted for hearing.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time.List after four weeks.Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Proceedings for assessment of the petitioner for the year 1986- 87 has been remanded back by the Appellate Board and is pending consideration before the respondent No.3, Assistant Commissioner.Accordingly, for the present without entering into the controversy on merit and without expressing any opinion on the same, respondent No.3 is directed to hear all concern and conclude the assessment proceedings in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Needless to state that if the assessment proceedings have already been concluded, the respondent No.3 shall be free to communicate his decision to the petitioner.With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.Considering the fact that the respondents have vide order dated 5.12.2014 allowed the petitioner to take the examination in question, consequently, the petitioner has already appeared in the examination, therefore now the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner and regularise the examination.With the aforesaid observation the petition stands disposed of.Shri Manoj Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.Taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the time limit fixed for compliance of the order dated 11.10.2013 is extended for further period of 45 from today.With the aforesaid observation the petition stands disposed of.Shri Tapan Batre, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the petition.It is dismissed as withdrawn.W. P. No.6847/14 is restored to its original file.It be placed for order before an appropriate Bench.Application stands allowed and disposed of.Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to amend the petition.He may do so, four weeks time is granted for this purpose.After considering the submission made, the following question of law is framed for consideration :a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Board is right in confirming the levy of Entry Tax on the entry of Optic fibre cables and HDPE Ducts etc, which are merely laid beneath the ground for providing internet & Data services by the appellant to its customers and whether in absence of the same being subjected to any process, resulting into a different commercial commodity, can be said to be 'use or consumption', attracting liability to tax?c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellate Board is correct in coming to the conclusion that the goods imported from outside country and entered in the State of M. P. are liable to Entry Tax and whether the interpretation of the expression 'entry of goods into a local area' made by the Appellate Board is correct in law?e) Whether on the facts and on the circumstances of the case and having regard to the function of the HDPE Ducts and copper wires in the activity of providing internet and Date services through the optic fibre cables, whether the HDPE Ducts and copper wires can be said to constitute accessories of the optic fibre cables and be subjected to levy of Entry Tax u/s 3 (2) of the Entry Tax Act ?They may file the return in the matter.List after four weeks.Learned counsel for the State is granted two weeks time as a matter of last indulgence to file the status report with regard to the financial condition of the applicants, failing which matter shall be heard in the absence of such report.Shri Dhurv Verma, appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the return filed by the respondents he wants to seek/ instruction to file rejoinder.Four weeks time is granted for this purpose.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for time to file reply.Four weeks time is granted for this purpose.List along with W. P. No.11341/14 after four weeks.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for time to file reply.Four weeks time is granted for this purpose.List along with W. P. No.11345/14 after four weeks.In view of the reply filed by the respondents the counsel of the petitioner wants to seek instruction and to file the rejoinder, if so advised.Four weeks time is granted for the said purpose.Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.There bing some delay, IA No.107/15 has been filed.Condoning the delay in filing the restoration application, the restoration application itself is allowed.A. R. No.13/10 is restored to its original file.It be placed for order before an appropriate Bench.Application stands allowed and disposed of.Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.Respondents to file the reply within four weeks.List thereafter for orders.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for grant of four weeks time to file reply.Prayer allowed.Interim relief to continue.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for grant of four weeks time to file reply.Prayer allowed.Interim relief to continue.Service of notice on the respondents is awaited.List after two weeks.Interim order to continue.Notices sent to the respondents have been received back with the remark that they are not available at the address given.It appears that the notices could not be served on the respondents because the house was locked.Issue fresh notice on payment of PF within a weeks.Returnable within four weeks.The service of notice to the respondents is awaited.Copy of memorandum of appeal along with Annexures be served on the standing counsel appearing for the respondents and acknowledgment be filed.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for further four weeks time.Prayer allowed.Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the respondents.This application has been filed for restoration of F. A. No.838/07, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.There being some delay, IA No.470/15 has been filed.F. A. No.838/07 is restored to its original file.It be placed for order before an appropriate Bench.Application stands allowed and disposed of.Shri S. D. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.This application has been filed for restoration of R. P. No.797/12, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.There being some delay, IA No.17834/14 has been filed.R. P. No.797/12 is restored to its original file.It be placed for order before an appropriate Bench.Application stands allowed and disposed of.This application has been filed for restoration of W. P. No.8618/11, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.W. P. No.8618/11, is restored to its original file.It be placed for order before an appropriate Bench.Application stands allowed and disposed of.Learned counsel for the State prays for two weeks further time to submit the report with regard to financial status of the applicant.Prayer allowed.Shri S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.The dispute in this writ petition pertains to plying of heavy vehicles over about the load of eight tons on the roads in question which are classified as rural roads.There being serious dispute between the parties with regard to the fact as to whether such vehicles are plying on the road and there being conflicting reports available on the record we deem it appropriate to direct joint inspection of the road continuously for a period of about 10 days and thereafter submit a report to this Court.It is accordingly directed that the Commissioner Shahdol Division shall appoint a Committee consisting of representative of Government, the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Agency and one representative of the petitioner to conduct a joint inspection of the road for the period of about 10 days and take videograph and photograph during the inspection conducted and submit the report with this Court.The Commissioner shall also insure that preventive steps are taken for prohibiting plying of heavy vehicles on the road in question.Inspection be conducted between 2nd of February and 23rd of February or any till date as may be convenient to the parties and report be submitted.List along with said report in the first week of March.C. C. as per rules.Learned counsel for the petitioner wants time to implead the step ;mother as party in the matter.Two weeks time is granted for the said purpose.In view of the reply filed by the respondents the counsel of the petitioner wants to seek instruction to file the rejoinder.Two weeks time is granted for the said purpose.Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner.Keeping in view the aforesaid statement made by Shri Kherdikar, we dispose of this petition as having been rendered infructuous because of the aforesaid reason.Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate with Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Accordingly, as undertaken by Shri Choubey, it is directed that the result of the examination in question i. e. MBBS (Final) (Part-II) undertaken by the petitioner be not declared within a period of one weeks from today.With the aforesaid this petition is disposed of.C. C. as per rules.List after two weeks.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List in the next week.As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.It be produced on the next date of hearing positively.If the case diary is not produced on the next date of hearing the I. O. of the concerning P. S. shall be ordered to be present personally before the Court.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc M. Cr.It be produced on the next date of hearing.It be listed in the next week.Hence, it be listed before the appropriate Bench in the next week.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc M. Cr.It be produced on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc M. Cr.Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the applicant/ accused.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent.This is first application filed by the applicant/ accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.432/12, registered at Police Station Chorhata, District Rewa for offence under Sections 353, 332, 186, 294, 506-B, 427, 147 and 148 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant/ accused has not committed any offence, she has been falsely implicated in this case, she being lady be granted anticipatory bail.At this stage learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application.Hence, application is dismissed as withdrawn.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc M. Cr.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute has been resolved between the parties owning to which he wants to file a petition for compromise within seven days.The prayer is accepted List after seven days.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc M. Cr.List after a week.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc M. Cr.This first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.349/2014, registered at P. S. Themi, district Narsinghpur for offence under Sections 323, 498-A r/w Section 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being husband of the complainant has been falsely implicated in this case.There was petty dispute between the applicant and her wife Smt. Shanti Bai regarding payment of some money for treatment which was got conducted at Jabalpur owning to which the complaint was made by the complainant/ wife on the basis of false and fabricated facts stating that a T. V. and a Motorcycle were not given by the parents of the complainant and she was harassed and oppressed for demand of dowry by the applicant/ accused and his family members.Counsel further submits that there is no kind of recovery to be made from the applicant/ accused in this case.Moreover, no reason has been assigned in the case diary as to why the arrest of the applicant/ accused is required in this case.The alleged offences are punishable up to seven years imprisonment.Counsel further placing reliance upon the judgment Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , has prayed for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused have prayed for rejection of the bail application.If the applicant/ accused is sent to the jail a compromise in the dispute would not be possible.Nonetheless there is not kind of recovery to be made from the applicant/ accused in this case.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment cited by the applicant, this court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.The applicant shall abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub section (2) of Section 438 of Cr. P. C. It is further ordered that applicant/ accused shall not influence in any manner to the witnesses and threaten to the complainant.If any violation of terms and condition of bail order is found in future, his bail may be cancelled.M. Cr. C. stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc Cr.Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant/ accused.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent.As prayed by the counsel of the respondent applicant is directed to supply him a copy of the petition as well as IAs along with the documents within seven days.Shri S. N. Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent.Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to produce the appellant Shiv Prasad Kewat within three weeks.The prayer is accepted.Meanwhile application for condoning his absence be also filed.Shri S. B. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused.Heard on the question of maintainability.The appellant/ complainant has filed this appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence whereas the appeal is not maintainable.At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he wants to move an application for converting this appeal into the revision and seeks two weeks time for the same.The prayer is accepted.List along with Cr. A. No.1956-13, after two weeks.Nonel for the appellant/ accused.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1..Shri S. B. Agnihotri, learned counsel for objector/ complainant.The appeal has already been admitted, hence list for final hearing in due course.Appellant/accused Bablu Pasi is present in person along Shri Nagendra Singh, Adv.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent.Considering the facts stated in the application, the said IA is allowed and his absence is condoned.Appellant/ accused is directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court on 27.3.2015 and all subsequents dates which are fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.Appellant/ accused has not appeared before the Court.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant two week's time is granted to produce the appellant/ accused.Meanwhile application for condonation of his absence be also filed.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc Cr.In compliance of order dated 27.8.2014 the current status of trial be produced within two weeks and case be listed thereafter.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc M. Cr.None for the applicant/ accused, even in second round.Since none is appeared on behalf of the applicant, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, as none appeared on 12.12.2014 also which indicates that the applicant has no interest in this petition.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc Cr.Due to paucity of time matter cannot be heard.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc M. Cr.Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for the applicant/ accused.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent.This first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.570/2014, registered at P. S. Mandideep, District Sehore for offence under Sections 294, 324, 307 and 506/34 of IPC.Learned counsel further submits that during investigation an offence under Section 307 of IPC has been further added owning to which the applicant/ accused may be again arrested either by the Court or by the police.State of M. P. 1995 (1) MPWN 111 has submitted that once the applicant/ accused was arrested in a crime, he shall not be re-arrested in the said crime even after a grievous offence is made out against the applicant accused.On the aforesaid ground learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused has submitted that applicant/ accused has a criminal background and 33 criminal cases were registered against him owning to which the bail application filed by him be rejected.Heard the arguments of both the parties.Indisputably the applicant/ accused was earlier enlarged on bail by the court of Judicial Magistrate as stated earlier, during investigation the offence under Section 307 has been added on the basis of medical report.The applicant shall abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub section (2) of Section 438 of Cr. P. C.M. Cr. C. stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.In VATA No.12/14 and other connected cases under the statutory provisions the question of law have been framed, they have to be answered that being so learned counsel for the parties pray for analogous hearing.Shri Choudhary also points out that two writ petitions on the same question are also pending.Parties submits that pleadings in all the cases are completed.Keeping in view the interim stay granted by this court learned counsel for the revenue prays for early hearing.Office to take steps for listing of the matter for final hearing under the category of Court expedited matters.IA No.16476/14 has been filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC.The respondent's wants to file counter affidavit.Two weeks' time for the said purpose is granted.List after two weeks.None present for the parties.List after six weeks.counsel prays for time to tile appropriate application to bring the legal hearing on record.Prayer allowed.IA No.12203/14 has been filed for urgent hearing of this appeal.respondent may file the additional return, if so advice.List after four weeks.None present for the appellant.List in the next week.Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents.P. F. within one week.Call for the report from the Collector with respect of financial status of the applicant.List along with the report.Issue notice to the respondents.P. F. within a week.Returnable within four weeks.Smt. Kanak Gaharwar has filed the reply.Copy given to the counsel of the petitioner.He may seeks instruction.He may do so.I. R. to continue.In view of the return filed by the respondents learned counsel for the petitioner wants time to seeks instruction.Four weeks time is granted for said purpose.I. R. to continue.Shri Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel appearing for the Board prays for four weeks time to file reply.Prayer allowed.Due to non-availability of the Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy.Advocate General the prayer for adjournment is made.List in the next week.List in the next week, as prayed by the counsel of the applicant.Appeal is admitted for hearing.Issue notice to the respondents.P. F. within one week.At this stage Shri J. K. Jain, takes notice on behalf of respondent No.1/ union of India.A copy of the petition along with annexures be supplied to shri Jain enabling him to seeks instruction and file reply within four weeks.Two copies of the petition along with annexures be supplied to shri Sausarkar enabling him to seeks instruction and file reply within four weeks.Issue notice to the respondents.P. F. within one week.Returnable within three week.The question of interim relief shall be considered on the next date of hearing.List on 28th of January, 2015 along with W. P. No.939/15, as prayed.Shri V. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.P. F. within one weeks.Returnable within six weeks.Till the next date of hearing the respondents are directed not to create any third party interest in the property in question.C. C. as per rules.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this application has been filed for restoration of F. A. No.272/99, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.There bing some delay, IA No.704/15 has been filed.Keeping in view the reasons given in the application which is supported by the affidavit of the applicant himself and finding the same to be bonafide, both the applications are allowed.F. A. No.272/99 is restored to its original file.It be placed for order before an appropriate Bench.Application stands allowed and disposed of.P.F. within one week.Call for the record of the court below.List for hearing along with the record.P. F. within one week.I. A. No.22620/14, has been filed for seeking condonation of delay in filing this petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr. P. C.Keeping in view reasons stated in the application explaining the delay in filing the petition, IA is allowed and delay is condoned.Call for the record.List for admission along with the record.Shri S. K. Kashyap, learned G. A. for the applicant.I. A. No.19015/14, has been filed for seeking condonation of 150 days delay in filing this petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr. P. C.List after one week for admission.P. F. within one week.None present for the appellant.List the matter after a week.It is stated that now due to conclusion of the trial, this revision has rendered infructuous.Issue fresh bailable warrant of Rs.10000/- against the respondents.Learned counsel for appellant prays for one more time to keep present the appellant.Shri V. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri S. K. Kashyap, learned G. A. for the respondent.IA No.493/15 has been filed seeking condonation of non- appearance of appellant No.3 and 4, Smt. Basanti Bai and Smt. Ramsakhi.It is stated that they could not appear on 8.1.2015 due to certain bereavement in the family.Keeping in view the aforesaid, absence of appellant No.3 and 4 on 8.1.2015 is hereby condoned.They are present today, their presence are marked on record.Considering the fact that the appellants are ladies and it is not convenient for them to appear before this court.They are granted liberty to appear before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur.They shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur now on 18.8.2015 and on other dates, as may be directed by such Court.C. C. as per rules.Taking note of aforesaid statement, the IA is dismissed as not pressed.Issue fresh warrant of arrest for appearance of the accused Luvkesh Kumar Chaturvedi.List on 24th of March, 2015 for production of the accused.Shri S. K. Kashyap, learned G. A. for the appellant.Shri Sudeep Deb, learned counsel for the respondent.Keeping in view the reasons stated in the application, absence of the respondent on 28.10.2014 is hereby condoned.C. C. as per rules.List the IA No.18643/14, for consideration after four weeks before the appropriate Bench.As prayed list after two weeks to file appropriate application indicating the fact that appellant being in custody in some other case.Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ravi Shankar Dubey, learned P. L. for the non-applicant/ State.Heard the arguments.The prosecution allegations are that the applicant and co- accused persons were found in unlawful possession of 55 bulk liters of country made (Hath Bhatti ki Bani Sharab) liquor.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 2.11.2014 and the charge sheet had been filed.It is also submitted by him that vide order dated 5.1.2015 passed in M. Cr. C. No.20760/14, this Court had granted bail to co-accused Naresh under Section 439 of the Cr. P. C. It is also submitted by him that it is first ever offence registered against the applicant under the Act. It is also submitted by him that the case is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and the conclusion of trial will take long time.Upon these submissions, the prayer for grant of bail is made.Learned P. L. has opposed the bail application.Certified copy today.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge kkc M. Cr.Shri D. Chandra Mallik, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ravi Shankar, learned P. L. for non-applicant/ State.Such bail application was decided by Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Gupta.Shri Harikant Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Alok Tapikar, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant/State.Heard on the question of admission.Having perused the impugned judgment, this revision appears to be arguable, hence the same is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No. 1306/15, which is an application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.Vide impugned judgment dated 12.1.2015, passed by the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in criminal appeal no.361/14, Vachan Kewat Vs.State of M.P. through P. S. Panagar, District Jabalpur the applicant stands convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant had been on bail during the trial and the appeal.However, he is in jail since 12.1.2015, after passing of the impugned judgment.As such, the applicant had already suffered 15 days' imprisonment.It is also submitted by him that the applicant had deposited the fine amount.It is further submitted by him that there is no likelihood of this revision being heard in a reasonable time.Hence, the revision becomes infructous, in case the applicant would have suffered the jail sentence before hearing of it.He, therefore, prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer submits that considering the short jail sentence and there is no likelihood of this revision being heard in near future, he has no objection in allowing the aforesaid I.A.The execution of remaining jail sentence of the applicant is hereby suspended and it is ordered that subject to depositing the fine amount, if any, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Jabalpur.He shall appear before the Registry of this court on 29.4.2015 and thereafter on all such dates, which shall not be less than the period of three months, as may be fixed by it in this regard until further orders.Registry is directed to requisition the records of trial court as well as appellate court.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.Shri Ramashankar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Alok Tapikar, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant/State.Heard on the question of admission.Having perused the impugned judgment, this revision appears to be arguable, hence the same is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.1268/15, which is an application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.Vide impugned judgment dated 16.1.2015 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in criminal appeal no.143/13, Lal Singh @ Hardayal Yadav Vs.State of M.P. through P. S. Garhimalhara District Chhatarpur, the applicant stands convicted under Section 25(1-B) (A) of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant had been on bail during the trial and the appeal.However, he is in jail since 16.1.2015 after passing of the impugned judgment.As such, the applicant had already suffered 11 days' imprisonment.It is also submitted by him that the applicant had deposited the fine amount.It is further submitted by him that there is no likelihood of this revision being heard in a reasonable time.Hence, the revision becomes infructous, in case the applicant would have suffered the jail sentence before hearing of it.He, therefore, prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.The execution of remaining jail sentence of the applicant is hereby suspended and it is ordered that subject to depositing the fine amount, if any, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Chhatarpur.He shall appear before the Registry of this court on 28.4.2015 and thereafter on all such dates, which shall not be less than the period of three months, as may be fixed by it in this regard until further orders.Registry is directed to requisition the records of trial court as well as appellate court.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE kkc Cr.Shri R. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Alok Tapikar, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant/State.Heard on the question of admission.Heard on I.A. No.590/15, which is an application for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.Vide impugned judgment dated 5.1.2015 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in criminal appeal no.130/14, Tejman Singh @ Kaushal Singh and two others Vs.State of M.P. through P. S. Baikundhpur, Distric Rewa, the applicants stand convicted under Section 325 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer RI for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant had been on bail during the trial and the appeal.As such, the applicant had already suffered 22 days' imprisonment.Hence, the revision becomes infructous, in case the applicants would have suffered the jail sentence before hearing of it.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE kkc Cr.Smt. Sarita Chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Alok Tapikar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to argue IA No.594/15, which is an application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr. P. C.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge kkc Cr.Shri R. B. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant.State of U. P. 2014 (2) MPWN 147, the learned P. L. is directed to file the return/ reply of the IA on the next date of hearing.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge kkc M. Cr.This is first application by the applicant Dilip @ Kalu under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.838/14, registered at P.S. Kotwali, Sidhi, against him and co- accused Raju for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Prosecution allegations are that upon the secret information the police searched a Motorcycle bearing registration No.It was being driven by the applicant and co-accused Raju was sitting upon it as pillion rider carrying a bag in his hand.When the bag was opened, 4 Kg Ganja (Cannabis) worth of Rs.8,000/- was found keeping in it unlawfully.The applicant gave him lift at his request without knowing the fact that he has been carrying the Ganja in his bag.The police had falsely implicated the applicant in the matter.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their advocates and the registration of aforesaid case against the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, hence, his bail application is rejected. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,389,841 | This appeal under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 09/10/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.722/2014 acquitting the accused from the charges under Section 450, 354, 506 and 376-II (N) of IPC and 7/8 in alternative 5-L/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesAfter hearing learned counsel for both the parties and looking to the facts that at the time of incident prosecutix was minor and also considering the statements of the prosecutrix as well as their parents, prayer seeking leave to appeal may be granted.Leave as prayed for to file an appeal against the impugned judgment is granted.Registry is directed to register this M.Cr.C. as a Criminal Appeal and list before the appropriate Bench. | ['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,391,999 | under Sections 448/354A/323/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In his application for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against him, the petitioner has stated that he is a practicing advocate.He is a writer and researcher and has been honoured by the Calcutta University with Griffith Memorial Award for his research works on Freedom Fighters' History of Hooghly district.The facts which are necessary to dispose of the present revisional application are as follows :-The opposite party no.2, Manika Dutta, is the wife of the son of the sister of the petitioner.Financial condition of the sister of the petitioner was not sound and as such the sister and her husband were allowed to reside in the paternal house of the petitioner prior to the death of the father of the petitioner.The opposite party no.2 on 12.09.2015 at about 10-45 am visited the police station along with her husband and lodged a written complaint to the effect that on that day her maternal uncle in law (the present petitioner) and the driver of the petitioner forcibly entered into her room and used filthy languages.When the opposite party no.2 raised protest, then the petitioner and his driver outraged her modesty and assaulted her and also snatched away her gold chain.They threatened the defacto complainant i.e. opposite party no.2 with dire consequences and left that place.On the basis of the said written complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2, Chinsurah Women Police Station Case No. 24 of 2015 dated 12.09.2015 was started against the FIR named accused persons.Prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings has been strongly opposed by the learned advocate for the State.The court while considering the prayer for quashing should not assume the jurisdiction of the trial court and to consider the plea of innocence of the accused. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,402,139 | On 01.08.2013, a complaint was lodged by Shamshuddin stating missing of his sister/victim, a minor girl, aged about 15 years from the school namely Tentwala school, Old Mustafabad.As per the missing report she left for the school at about 7.00 am but did not return back to her home.An FIR was registered on the basis of the missing report under Section 363 of IPC.Thereafter, being dissatisfied by the investigation, he filed a complaint to the DCP office, North East stating that on 01.08.2013, while her sister was returning from school his younger brother saw that his neighbour Guddu (respondent herein) had forcibly put the victim in a Maruti Van with the help of 3-4 persons and fled away.The complainant Shamshuddin further alleged that on 07.08.2013, he received a phone call from the respondent wherein he informed him Crl.L.P. No.270/2017 Page 2 of 13 that the dead body of the victim would reach his home by the next day.L.P. No.270/2017 Page 2 of 13On 19.08.2013, the victim reached the Police Station and stated to the Investigating Officer that on 01.08.2013, her brother Rashid had given beatings to her on some domestic issue and out of anger she had gone with her friend Gulafsha to her native village Sambhal, U.P. and stayed there.The victim made no allegations of any kidnapping or abduction against anyone and said that she had gone out of her own free will and returned likewise.On the same day, her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein she had repeated the same.On 19.08.2016 itself, the statement of the mother of the victim was also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she reiterated similar facts as stated by the victim.On the basis of these statements, a cancellation report was prepared by the Investigating Officer.Thereafter, on the complaint made by the complainant to the DCP, the matter was transferred to PG cell and was re-investigated and the statement of the victim was again recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 18.10.2014 i.e. after more than one year and two months from the day of incident.CRL.M.A.7577/2017 (Exemption)Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of.CRL.M.A. 7576/2017 (delay)This is an application seeking condonation of 103 days delay in filing the present leave to appeal.For the reasons stated in the application and since we have considered the leave to appeal on merits, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.L.P. No.270/2017 Page 1 of 13The application stands disposed of.Present leave to appeal has been filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for leave to assail the judgment dated 18.10.2016 whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for commission of the offence by which he was charged in a case being SC No. 45008/2015 arising from FIR No. 331/2013 registered by the PS Gokalpuri under Sections 363/366/376(i)/506/419/420/494 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 4/8, 9 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as POCSO).In her statement, victim alleged that the respondent had forcibly married her and took her to Sambhalpur where he threatened to kill her and her brother Rashid and also made physical relations with her without her consent.She further alleged that she was kept under fear by the respondent and she had not submitted herself for medical examination.L.P. No.270/2017 Page 3 of 13After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent.On 08.04.2015, charge under Sections 363/366- A/506/476 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO was framed against the respondent to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses in all.Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he claimed that about 2-3 days prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place between the victim and her brother Rashid who gave her merciless beatings on which she left her house with her friend Gulafsha and after some days she returned to her home.The victim was in love with him and when he got married, she lost her hope of getting married with him and had falsely implicated him in the present case.The respondent examined no witness in his defence and denied all the allegations against him.Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises and is against the facts and law and thus, liable to be set-aside.It was further submitted that the testimony of the victim suffer from minor contradictions which should not be a ground alone for the acquittal.It was also contended by the counsel for the State that Trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the date of birth of the victim which was duly proved by PW19 Doly Goyal (teacher from the school of the victim, who proved her school admission record).L.P. No.270/2017 Page 4 of 13The counsel further submits that the Trial Court has erred in not relying upon the school records including admission register and SLC (School Leaving Certificate issued by the previous school) to show that the victim was minor on the day of incident.We have heard learned counsel for the State and carefully examined the testimony of the witnesses and the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court.The learned Sessions judge while acquitting the respondent observed as under:(1) the case of the prosecution is full of improbabilities and the material witnesses have made numerous improvements of material facts, more particularly, the victim herself; (2) there was unexplained delay in filing the FIR; (3) the allegation made against the respondent that she was forced to enter into marriage by him was not proved and also the said nikah between them could not be proved;(4) the evidence of all the persons who had witnessed the alleged nikah between the victim and the respondent turned hostile and even failed to identify the respondent in Court.(5) the fact that the victim was a minor could not be proved.The questions which arise for our consideration is as to whether the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent on the basis of contradictions made by the victim in her statement and whether the Trial Court was correct in reaching to this conclusion that the victim was major on the day of incident.To deal with the issue in hand, it would be necessary to analyse the testimony of the victim (PW1).The victim testified in Court that on Crl.L.P. No.270/2017 Page 5 of 13 01.08.2013 after her school was over at about 12.30 pm, she was returning to her home alone, when she reached the corner of Gali No. 6, she met the respondent Guddu (who was known to her) who was accompanied by 4-5 other boys.She further deposed that a black colour van was standing nearby in which the respondent pulled her inside while putting a handkerchief on her mouth.She further deposed that the incident was witnessed by her younger brother Amish (PW5) though he could not be seen by her.Thereafter, she became unconscious and does not know what happened next.After she gained consciousness she found herself in a house at Sambhal.On 02.08.2013, the respondent forced her into a marriage accompanied by a Maulvi in the same house.She further deposed that she was kept in the same house for about 20 days and during this period the respondent repeatedly performed intercourse with her against her wishes.She was brought to Delhi in a bus and was taken to the house of maternal uncle of the respondent.On the next day, she was dropped outside PS Gokal Puri.She also deposed that she had refused her internal medical examination as she was instructed by the mother of the respondent for the same.L.P. No.270/2017 Page 5 of 13In her cross-examination, she was confronted with her previous statements which clearly show her improvements made during her depositions.In her Court testimony, she deposed that the respondent had forcibly married her.She was beaten by him and after the alleged nikah, the respondent had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes.However, when she was confronted with her statement under Crl.L.P. No.270/2017 Page 6 of 13 Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was recorded that after nikah they resided as husband and wife.L.P. No.270/2017 Page 6 of 13Further, in her cross-examination she admitted that she had called the respondent on his mobile phone on the day of incident fifteen times.Upon being asked the reason for the same, she stated that since she used to generally talk to the respondent, she called him.Later, she also admitted that she was in love with the respondent.The evidence has to be read in its totality.In Crl.The prosecutrix has deposed that she was taken from one place to the other and remained at various houses for almost two months.The only explanation given by her is that she was threatened by the accused persons.It is not in her testimony that she was confined to one place.In fact, it has been borne out from the material on record that she had travelled from place to place and she was ravished a number of times.Under these circumstances, the medical evidence gains significance, for the examining doctor has categorically deposed that there are no injuries on the private parts.In the absence of both, we are compelled to hold that the learned trial Judge has erroneously convicted the appellant-accused for the alleged offences and the High Court has fallen into error, without reappreciating the material on record, by giving the stamp of approval to the same."L.P. No.270/2017 Page 10 of 13(Emphasis Supplied)The learned Trial Court considered the story of abduction of the victim as highly improbable as she claimed to have been abducted by the respondent on 01.08.2013 whereas she admitted that she had called the respondent fifteen times on the day of the incident and was in love with him.Further, it is evident from the examination-in-chief of PW5 that he informed his mother and brother about the incident, same day at about 1.30 pm.However, PW4 (his brother) deposed that he was informed by PW5 about one or two days after the incident.Additionally, the FIR was lodged at 09.35 pm i.e. after about nine hours of the incident.It is further evident from the cross-examination of her brother Amish (PW5) wherein he admitted that he was carrying a mobile phone at the time of incident but he did not inform the police or to his elder brother (PW4 Shamshuddin).In the present case, the following circumstances stands proved: | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,403,626 | -4.5pt;tab-stops:.5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 200.25pt 3.0in 247.5pt 3.5in 4.0in 338.25pt"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing: 1.2pt"><span style="mso-tab-count:7"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>JUDGE</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.5pt;line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; line-height:150%;font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma; letter-spacing:1.2pt">Irfan</span><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"></span></p> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:10.0pt;<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.5pt;line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""><span style="mso-tab-count:2"> </span></span><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt">Heard arguments.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.5pt;line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2"> </span>Perused case diary and material on record.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.5pt;line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2"> </span>This is first application by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.8/2014 registered at Police Station %u2013 Kotma, District-Anuppur against him and co-accused Bhupendra, Golu and Suraj for the offence under Sections 186, 353, 294, 506, 332 and 34 of the IPC.He prevented the applicant and co-accused persons from taking coal from a goods train.Thereupon, the applicant and co-accused persons committed marpeet with him.In the marpeet, the applicant and co-accused persons used an axe and Dandas.As a result, he sustained injuries and could not discharge his official duty.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:As such, offences under Sections 186, 353 and 332 of the IPC are not made out.At most, it may be a case under Section 323 with other minor offences of the IPC.Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.5pt;line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""><span style="mso-tab-count:2"> </span></span><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt">Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer of bail and submits that as per the evidence on record the complainant has been employed by the Railway for Security purposes as such he is a government servant.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.5pt;line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2"> </span>On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Accordinlgy, this application is rejected.<span style="mso-tab-count:3"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"><span style="mso-tab-count: 10"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;letter-spacing:1.2pt"><span style="mso-tab-count: 5"> </span>(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN )</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:4.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;mso-style-noshow:yes;mso-style-parent:"";font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:#0400;mso-fareast-language:#0400;mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--<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> | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 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', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,407,036 | Petitioner was standing outside the house along with other persons.The witness had heard the voice of the deceased from inside the house asking Dheeren to release him and he would return all the articles.Thereafter petitioner was seen going inside angrily and had closed the door.Thereafter deceased was again heard as saying that he would return all the articles and he be, therefore, released.339/2020 Page 4 of 4BRIJESH SETHI, J.(oral)Vide this order I shall dispose of a bail application filed u/s. 439 CrPC moved by the petitioner Birju in FIR No. 508/2020 u/s. 302/34 IPC, P.S. Jaitpur.Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.Chargesheet in this case has already been filed and all the material witnesses have been examined.Nothing incriminating has appeared on record against the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.339/2020 Page 1 of 4BAIL APPLN.339/2020 Page 1 of 4ASJ has not appreciated the fact that the deceased Govind entered into the house of Dheeran to commit theft and he was caught red handed and the alleged beatings were given in self defence.It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail in the interest of justice.APP for the state has opposed the bail application on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.The petitioner has been charged u/s. 302/34 IPC.It is submitted that during course of investigation statement of eye-witness Anil was recorded who has categorically stated that petitioner was involved in the murder of the deceased.It is submitted that charge has been framed but the witnesses are still to be examined.In case, the petitioner is released on bail, he can threaten the complainant and other witnesses.He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail application.I have considered the rival submissions.There are allegations against the petitioner that he along with his brother Dheeren caused the death of deceased Govind who had entered in their house with intention to commit theft.Perusal of statement of the eye-witness Anil recorded u/s. 161 CrPC on 03.10.2017 that the deceased Govind has died because of the beating given by the co-accused Dheeren as well BAIL APPLN.339/2020 Page 2 of 4 as his brother i.e. the petitioner.In his statement recorded u/s. 164 CrPC it has come on record that the petitioner was also involved in the commission of the offence.The witness has deposed that on receipt of telephone he had reached the residence of Dheeren where deceased was lying and his hands and legs were tied and he was bleeding.He asked Dheeren (co-accused) to call the police but he said that police would be called in the morning.Thereafter petitioner had come out.The above facts appearing on record shows the active role being played by the petitioner.Moreover, charge under Section 302/34 IPC has been framed against the petitioner as well as his brother Dheeren.In view of above allegations which, prima facie, reveal active involvement of petitioner in beating of the deceased due to which he died and further keeping in view that there is apprehension that petitioner can influence BAIL APPLN.339/2020 Page 3 of 4 the witnesses, no grounds for grant of bail to the petitioner are made out at this stage.The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.BAIL APPLN.339/2020 Page 2 of 4BAIL APPLN.339/2020 Page 3 of 4BRIJESH SETHI, J MARCH 04, 2020 Amit BAIL APPLN.339/2020 Page 4 of 4BAIL APPLN. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,412,721 | Heard SriSanjay Singh, counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.The allegation in the FIR dated 03.09.2018 is that on 27.08.2018 the applicant along with another co-accused person took the deceased to Aligarh on the pretext of providing him job.He has further submitted that in the statement of independent witness who is not an eye-witness, he has stated that the deceased and the applicant along with Kamdev @ Kaluwa Yadav were gambling and also took liquor togetherthereafterunderthe influence of liquor theapplicant fired and he died.He has not mentioned when he came toknow about this incident.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,864,134 | JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.The allegation against the accused is that the accused and the deceased fell in love with each other and their marriage was conducted in a temple and later the same was registered.P.W.1, is a native of Udayadithamangalam Village and is presently residing at Thiruvilanthur.His first wife is Govindammal and he had two children through her.After the demise of his first wife, he married another lady, by name, Anjalai as second wife, through her, he had two children.He is a load-man by profession.The deceased is his daughter through his first wife and the accused is his son-in-law.The incident occurred about 2 " years prior to the date of his deposition before Court and the marriage between the accused and the deceased had taken place three years prior to the date of his giving evidence.Since they loved each other, their marriage was performed in a Temple and the same was registered.None attended the marriage on the side of the accused.Some time after the marriage, the accused harassed the deceased by demanding dowry.However, his daughter never returned to his house and she was residing with the accused only.(c) On 12.05.1993, around 11.00 a.m., when he was loading cement bags in Ramamurthy Iyer Godown at Mayiladuthurai, one Dhanapal of Udayadithamangalam Village came and informed him that on the previous day i.e., on 11.05.1993, at about 8.00 p.m. his son-in-law Madhanagopal - accused, strangulated his daughter, by using a Towel.He saw the body of his daughter lying in a hut in Mela Theru.He noticed a Towel mark on her neck.In the place of occurrence, Village Headman - Uthrapathy was present at that time.He came to know that it was the accused, who strangulated his wife (daughter of P.W.1) and no complaint was made by the Village Headman to the Police, since temple festival was being performed on that date at Udiyaththimangalam Village.Accordingly, P.W.1 went and met the Village Administrative Officer, Puthagaram - P.W.8, around 3.30 p.m. He informed about the death of his daughter.The Village Administrative Officer - P.W.8, recorded his statement and obtained signature.P.1 is the complaint.According to him, P.W.1 is his agnate (g';fhsp) He knows the deceased as well as the accused.The marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed three years ago despite the objection of the parents of the accused.On 11.05.1993, at about 8.00 p.m. when he was returning from the field after watering the sugar cane crops, from North to South and while crossing the hut of the deceased Senthamarai, he heard some noise (fh; fh;) and thinking that it is a sound of a bird like hen, he went to his house.After taking food, he went to Temple.When he was standing near the temple around 8.30 p.m., he saw the accused running from his hut in a restless manner.After spending some time at the temple, he returned home and slept.On the next day morning around 8.00 a.m., he heard that Senthamarai died in her hut.He went there and noticed a Towel mark in her neck and bloodstains on the floor of the hut.He saw Mani, S/o Natesan - P.W.3, Mani, S/o.Govindan - P.W.5 and others at the place of occurrence.After ascertaining that it was the accused, who strangulated the deceased, he sent his brother to Thiruvilanthur to inform the same to P.W.1 - father of the deceased.P.W.1 came to the hut around 2.00 p.m.After narrating about the marriage between the deceased and the accused, he deposed that on 11.05.1993 around 7.30 p.m. when he was proceeding to his field, near Senthamarai's house, he saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other.The accused beat the deceased, however, he left the place and after attending his field work, returned home at about 8.15 p.m. At that time he saw the accused running from the hut in a perturbed manner.Thereafter, P.W.3 spent some time in the temple, returned home and slept.Only on the next day, after hearing the death of Senthamarai, he visited her house and noticed a Towel mark in her neck and bloodstains on the floor of the hut.P.W.1 came to the place of occurrence around 2.00 p.m.She conducted the autopsy on the body of Senthamarai on 13.05.1993 and issued post-mortem certificate - Ex.She opined that due to strangulation the death has been occurred.It is, he, who recorded the statement - Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1 - father of the deceased on 12.05.1993 at 3.30 p.m. P.W.8 went to Manalmedu Police Station at 4.30 p.m. along with P.W.1 and gave Ex.P.1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police - P.W.10, who registered the same in Crime No.383 of 1993 under Section 302 IPC; prepared printed FIR Ex.P.9 and sent Exs.He also informed about the incident to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai over phone, who reached the scene of occurrence at 5.00 p.m. And took up investigation.During the inquest, he inquired P.W.1, his wife Anjalai and other five panchayathars and recorded their statements.Those statements are Exs.After the completion of inquest, P.W.14 sent the body for post-mortem.On information, he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a observation mahazar Ex.P.7 in the presence of P.W.9 and one Ramasamy and also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P.15; recovered earth - M.O.3 and bloodstained earth - M.O.2 under mahazar Ex.It is also not in evidence from the mouth of PW2, that when accused ran away, he saw his wife inside the hut, atleast to inform both would have been present, together at that time.After noticing the tempestuous accused, admittedly, P.W.2 did not inform this to anyone, however, he went to his house and slept.He recorded his statement and obtained his signature, which is Ex.He took P.W.1 to Manalmedu Police Station and deputed his menial Rajendran to the place of occurrence.As the parents of the accused were against their marriage, they did not attend the same.Six months prior to the occurrence, both of them were living in a separate hut at Mela Theru, Udayadithamangalam Village.On 11.05.1993, at about 8.00 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused, and the latter took M.O.1 - Towel, put it around the neck and strangulated her to death.The learned Sessions Judge finding the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.The present appeal challenges the above conviction and sentence.The case of the prosecution is this.(a) Since the deceased, hailing from a poor family, did not bring jewels, the accused - husband, ill-treated her by demanding dowry and wanted to marry another girl, hence he wanted to do away the deceased.On 11.05.1993 at about 8.00 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and his wife - the deceased, the accused took M.O.1 Towel, put it around her neck and strangulated her to death.(b) One Dhanapal went to Mayiladuthurai and informed P.W.1 - father of the deceased.P.W.1 came to the place of occurrence.Since the death occurred within a period of three years from the date of marriage, he sent a copy of the FIR to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai.P.8 in the presence of the same witnesses.He also inquired P.W.1, his wife Anajali, P.W.9 and Ramasamy and recorded their statements.On 13.05.1993, he recorded statements from P.Ws.6,7,2,3,8,12 and Dhanapal.He enquired P.W.4 and Dr. Govindarajulu and recorded their statement.After completing investigation, P.W.15 filed charge sheet on 20.12.1993 against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances, he denied the complicity of the same.Now, we shall consider whether the prosecution has established their case beyond doubt as alleged?It is seen from the materials placed that the accused and the deceased fell in love with each other and their marriage was conducted in a temple it was registered later.As the parents of the accused were against the marriage, they did not attend the same.It is the case of the prosecution that, after the marriage, they resided separately for 3 months and then they joined with accused's parents home Mela Theru, Udayadithamangalam Village, which lies within Manalmedu Police Station limits.In the earliest document, viz., Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated that when he was unloading cement bags at Mayavaram Ramamurthi Iyer Godown around 11.00 a.m. on 12.05.1993, one Dhanapal of Udiyaththimangalam Village informed him that his daughter was killed by the accused, by strangulating her .It is further stated that on hearing the same, P.W.1 went to the residence of his daughter at Udiyaththimangalam Village, there he saw the dead body of his daughter.He noticed ligature mark in her neck and also enquired others what had happened.Though the said information was first passed on to P.W.1 at Mayiladuthurai by Dhanapal, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said Dhanapal was not examined.In other words, the informer of the death of Muthulakshmi @ Senthamarai, who is alleged to have been strangulated by her husband was not examined.No explanation was offered by the prosecution for the non-examination of the said Dhanapal.When it is stated that the occurrence had happened in a hut, and nobody witnessed the same, the best person to speak about the occurrence is Dhanapal, who informed the incident to P.W.1 - father of the deceased, but he was not examined.Though P.W.1 has stated that after one year from the marriage, the accused and his parents started ill-treating his daughter, admittedly, neither the deceased nor P.W.1 made a complaint either to the police or atleast to the local Panchayathars at any point of time prior to the occurrence.However, it is the claim of P.W.1 that for the welfare and benefit of his daughter, he left Udayadithamangalam Village and settled at Thiruvilanthur along with his family members.In this regard, it is relevant to note that even in chief examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that even after ill-treatment, his daughter continued to live with her husband and never came to his house.In the context that the marriage between the accused and the deceased happened due to falling in love with each other, it is hard to believe that mere strained relationship between them would form a motive in the mind of the husband/accused to murder her wife.This, in our view, falsifies the motive to certain extent.Though motive need not be proved in all cases, the fact remains that the allegation of quarrel and misunderstanding between the accused and the deceased has not been substantiated by placing acceptable evidence.He is a resident of Udiyaththimangalam Village.It is his case that on 11.05.1993 at about 8.00 p.m. when he was returning from his farm after watering sugarcane field and while crossing the hut of the deceased Senthamarai, he noticed that the door (Xiyj; jl;L) of her house was closed.At that time he heard a noise (fh; fh;) from the house.It is not his evidence, that at that time, actually, both the husband and wife were inside the hut, on verification, or put on notice.Though he heard such noise, admittedly, he did not try to verify the noise in order to know what happened inside the hut, instead he went to his house, took dinner and went to temple around 8.30 p.m., where festival was going on.He also claims that around 8.30 p.m., when he was standing near the temple, he saw the accused running from his hut towards his father's house, which is on the western side.Only on the next day around 8.00 a.m., he heard the news of death of Senthamarai.He went there and noticed ligature mark in her neck.He also noticed bloodstains on the earth near the body of Senthamarai.Even then P.W.2 did not take any effective steps.According to him, he discussed the matter with persons standing there and arrived a conclusion that she might have been murdered by accused and thereafter he sent his brother Dhanapal to Thiruvilanthur to inform the news to P.W.1 - father of the deceased.This would suggest, by deliberation, the Villagers have fixed the culprit, as accused, without actually knowing who is the cause for death, which is carried out, latter on.In this view, we are not impressed with the evidence of P.W.2, since even on the fateful night i.e., on 11.05.1993, though he heard some noise from the hut, he did not try to verify the same, he went home and after taking food, went to the temple and after spending sometime there, he returned home and slept.As said earlier, when he was standing near the temple, according to him, he saw the accused running from the hut and even then he did not inform the same to the persons standing near the temple, nor made any attempt to catch hold of the accused, which are against human conduct.He is a resident of Udiyaththimangalam Village.According to him, on 11.05.1993, around 7.30 p.m., he went to his land through the hut of Senthamarai.While crossing her hut, he noticed the accused beating the deceased and there was a wordy quarrel.Here again, he did not do anything to pacify them, however, he went to his land.It is his further case that while he was returning from his land at 8.15 p.m., he saw the accused running from the hut towards his father's residence.Even after seeing the accused, he did not take any step to inform anyone, but, he went to his house, took his food and slept.Only on the next day morning, he came to know the death of Senthamarai.He went to the hut and noticed ligature mark in the neck of the deceased and also blood stains on the earth.It is not clear whether any light was burning either at 7.30 or 8.15 p.m., when he saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling and the former beating the latter.Like P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.W.3 also did not take any step either to apprehend the accused or to inform the incident immediately to others.His evidence is also unreliable.Another eye-witness examined on the side of the prosecution is P.W.5, who is also a resident of Udiyaththimangalam Village.He is residing at Mela Theru.According to him, both the accused and the deceased were living in a hut, which is opposite to his house.Like P.Ws.1 and 2, he also states that on 11.05.1993 at 8.15 p.m. he saw the accused running from the hut, however, without informing the same to anyone, he went to his house, and after taking food, he went sleep.Like P.Ws.1 and 2, he heard the death of Senthamarai only on the next day and noticed ligature mark in her neck and bloodstains on the earth.Now, we shall consider the evidence of P.W.8 - Village Administrative Officer, since the entire case is sought to be proved by the extra judicial confession, said to have been given by the accused to him, though it is a weak piece of evidence.It is the case of P.W.8 that on 12.05.1993 at about 3.30 p.m. when he was in his office along with his menial Rajendran, P.W.1 - Kalimuthu, came and made a statement regarding the murder of his daughter Senthamarai.At the police station, he presented Ex.Based on Ex.P.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police - P.W.10, registered a case around 4.30 p.m. in Crime No.383 of 1993 under Section 302 IPC and came to the place of occurrence at 5.30 p.m. It is also the claim of P.W.8 - Village Administrative Officer, that on 17.05.1993 at 11.00 a.m. when he was in his Office, the accused - Madhanagopal came and made a voluntary confession in the presence of two witnesses, admitting his guilt, i.e., it was he, who strangulated the deceased with M.O.1 - Towel and surrendered before him.Thereafter, P.W.8 sent the confessional statement of the accused - Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 - Towel to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.10 under his covering letter Ex.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by drawing our attention to the "Subject" and "Reference" made in the letter - Ex.P.6 of P.W.8 - Village Administrative Officer to the Sub-Inspector of Police - P.W.10, would contend that in the absence of explanation as to how he mentioned the particulars of FIR, Crime Number and the Section of law in the letter Ex.P.6, the document was prepared only an after thought and created for this case.Since the said letter goes to the root of the case, the same is extracted hereunder:"mDg;g[jy;$p/ bry;ykzp fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh;gl;lth;j;jp/bgWdh;cjtp Ma;thsh; (rl;lk; xG';F) kzy;nkL/Iah.bghUs;: bfhiy tHf;F vjphp ruz; mile;J xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yk; bfhLj;J xg;gilj;j jlaj;ija[k;.vjphpiaa[k; xg;gilj;jy;rk;ke;jkhf/ ghh;it: kzy;nkL fh/ep/ F/vz;/383-93 r-gp 302 ,jr/ //// ,d;W 17-5-93 njjp 11/00 kzpf;F g[j;jfuk; vd; mYtyfj;jpy; ghh;itapy; fz;l tHf;fpd; vjphp kjdnfhghy; taJ 23-93 j-bg/ g{nyhfk; nkyj; bjU cjahjpj;jk';fyk; vd;gth; M$uhfp rhl;rpfs; Kd;dpiyapy; jhnd kdKte;J bfhLj;j xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yj;ij gjpt[ bra;Jk;.mg;nghJ vd;dplk; xg;gilj;j nkw;goahhpd; kidtp bre;jhkiu vd;w Kj;Jyl;Rkpia rk;gtj;jpd;nghJ bfhiy bra;a gad;gLj;jpa Rkhh; 3 3-4 x 1 3-4 mo mst[s;s bts;isThe main thrust of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the extra judicial confession viz., Ex.P.5 could not be the voluntary confession of the accused and it should be the handy work of the police.In other words, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the hands of the Village Administrative Officer were used, to record Ex.P.5 and the brain behind for the information contained in Ex.P5, must be the police.In this view, he attacked Ex.P.5 on the ground of unreliability, as well as on the ground of inadmissibility of the document.Only on the basis of Ex.P.1, as aforementioned, the law was set in motion, by registering a case.Thus, we could safely conclude, P.W.8 knew about the case and the subsequent investigation also, because it is his further case that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, inspected the premises at about 5.30 p.m., prepared observation mahazar, etc. Having the above factual aspect, we have to see Ex.P.5 as well as Ex.In the cross examination, P.W.14 has stated, "gpnuj tprhuiz mwpf;if gf;fk; 6 y; 12/5/93 fhiyapnyna nghyPrhh; kj;jpapYk;.Ch; kf;fs; midth; kj;jpapYk; vjphp Fw;wj;ij xg;g[f;bfhz;ljhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd;/ ////// " | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,863,152 | Respondent-Maruti is the nephew of respondent-Nivrutti.The respondents on one hand and the deceased Jubedabi and others on the other used to live in immediate proximity in village Khandali, Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur.To the western side of the open space was the cattle-shed of respondent-Vithal.On 26-8-1983, at about 8 a.m. respondent-Vithal was in the cattle shed milking cow and the other respondents were also there.The informant came at that lime and started collecting cowdung from the contiguous place where her cattle were tethered.The respondent-Vithal, Madhu and Nivrutti asked the informant to remove the cattle from that place.When the informant refused, a quarrel ensued between them.The respondents abused the informant.It is said that the respondent-Nivruiti was armed with an iron peg; respondent-Vithal was armed with stick; and respondent-Madhu was armed with an iron bar.The said respondents assaulted the complainant with their weapons.The other respondents pelted stones on her.On the cries of the informant, the deceased Jubedabai, Paigambar, Hajarat Rukhsana, Shahbuddin, Jehangir and Amir who were in the house came.Jubedabai was first to reach.She asked the respondents to releaseGulshanbi but, they paid no heed to her.Instead they started assaulting her.It is said that the respondenls-Nivrutti, Madhu and Vithal gave blows on the head of Jubedabai with the weapons which they had.Other respondents are alleged to have thrown stones at her.While she was being assaulted, her children and Shahbuddin came there and intervened.It is said that the respondents assaulted Paigambar and Rukhsana when they tried to rescue Jubedabi.The respondents Vithal, Madhu and Nivrutti also assaulted Jehangir and Amir.It is said that one police head constable P.W. 7, Krishna Dhavale who was attached to Akluj Police Station happened to be passing by the road at the said time.He went to the scene of the offence and saw the informant and her relations in an injured condition.He made arrangements for a truck and on the same, removed Jubedabi and all the injured persons to Akluj Primary Health Centre and Rural Hospital.He sent a message to P.S.I. Pawar, of Akluj Police Station, about the injured persons being brought to the hospital.On receiving the telephonic message, P.S.I. Pawar of Akluj Police Station immediately came to the Primary Health Centre and Rural Hospital, Akluj.On the person of Jubedabi, the doctor found two contused lacerated wounds and a swelling.The said injuries were situated on the head.On medically examining Paigambar Mulani, the doctor found one contused lacerated wound, multiple contusions on the back and one abrasion.On the person of Shahidabi Abbas, the doctor found a contused lacerated wound, two abrasions and tenderness over right shoulder.On the person of Khutubuddin Ismail Mulani, the doctor found tenderness at three places and one contusion.On screening the chest, he found fracture of 6th and 7th rib.On the person of Rukhsana, the doctor found two abrasions, one contusion, and tenderness over left shoulder.On the person of Jehangir Mulani, the doctor found tenderness at some places.On the person of Gulshanbi Mulani, the doctor found tenderness at two places and abrasion.In the opinion of Dr. Deodikar, the injuries of the victims could be caused by hard and blunt substance like iron bars, sticks and stones.The evidence is that since the injuries of Jubedabi were serious, she was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Solapur, where she succumbed to her injuries the same day.After being medically examined, the informant Gulshanbi came to Akluj Police Station where she lodged her F.I.R. which was recorded by P.S.I. Jadhav.On the basis of the F.I.R., C.R. No. 140 of 1983 was registered at 11.30 a.m. at police station, Akluj, the same day.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Jadhav.Alongwith the complainant, P.S.I. Jadhav came to village Khandali, and visited theplace of the incident.From the place of the incident, he seized blood-stained earth.He also took intopossession the blood stained clothes of Paigambar, and Gulshanbi the same day.During the course of investigation, he took into possession the blood stained clotheswhich were worn by respondent-Vithal.Some of the recovered articles were sent byhim to the Chemical Analyst.A perusal of para 54 of the impugned judgment, shows that the counter F.I.R. was lodged immediately after the incident.The case as unfolded by Vithal in his F.I.R. is that at about 8.30 a.m. he was milking his cow in the cattle shed.The deceased Jubedabi, complainant and others came and picked up a quarrel regarding the open place, and asked him to take away the cattle.In fact, they started taking away the cattle.ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J.The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11-10-1984, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1984, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section 302, read with 149 I.P.C. etc. has come up in appeal before us.Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :---Respondent-Nivrutti is the father of respondents-Vithal, Madhu and Govind.After completion of the investigation, the respondentswere charge sheeted.Dr. Kanaki found two sutured wounds over scalp at parietal region which were parallel to each other and each of them were 2" in length.On internal examination, Dr. Kanaki found that there was crack fracture of coronal suture 7" in length with fracture of left parietal bone.In the opinion of Dr. Kanaki, the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.In would be pertinent to point out that a counter-F.I.R. with respect to the same incident was lodged the same day by the respondent Vithal at Police Station Akluj.Vithal asked them not to take the cattle.Thereupon, Jubedabi caught hold of his private part and pressed it.In the meantime, Paigambar Mulani and Hazarat Mulani came there and assaulted him with stick and iron bar respectively.Vithal's brother Madhu also came there, and tried to rescue him but the informant's party assaulted him.8A. It is also relevant to point out that immediately after Vithal had lodged the F.I.R., the injuries suffered by him and Madhu were medically examined by Dr. Deodikar.On the person of Vithal, Dr. Deodikar, found the following injuries :---1) C.L.W. on left side of face over left maxillary region oblique about 1" x 1/ 4" x 3/4" deep, with irregular edges fresh bleeding and swelling.2) Contusion over right occipital region extending from occiput to one-third of upper neck about 3" x 1" with swelling and tenderness.3) Contusion over right arm on lower one-third 3" x 1" reddish and tender.4) Tenderness over both scrotum region with swelling and tenderness andredness of left scrotum."In the opinion of Dr. Deodikar, injuries 1 and 4 were grievous.He opined that whereas injuries 1 to 3 were caused by a hard and blunt object injury No. 4 was possible due to physical violence.On the person of Madhu @ Baliram Patale, Dr. Deodikar found the following injuries:--"(1) Contusion over back at dorso lumber region, horizontal x 3" x 1" reddishwith swelling and tenderness.(2) Tenderness over both thighs at the level of lower one-third of femur."The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner.In the trial Court, the respondents were charged under section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. etc. To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses.Four out of them, namely Gulshanbi, Paigambar, Kuttubddin, and Baban, P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 6 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses.In defence, no witness was examined.After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution; the statement of the respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents vide the impugned judgment.Hence, this appeal.We have heard Mrs. Jyoti Subhash Pawar for the appellant and Mr. Tanaji Mane for the respondents.It is significant to point out that according to the prosecution, the respondent-Nivrutti with an iron peg; respondent-Vithal with a stick; respondent-Madhuwith an iron bar; and other three respondents with stones assaulted the deceased.The post-mortem report of the deceased shows that she had sustained two contused lacerated wounds and one swelling; all three on the head.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,317,139 | This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in Crime No.211/2019, under Sections 34(1) & 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 registered at Police Station-- Kacchi Mohalla, District--Indore.The petitioner is implicated in the present case for having 54 bulk liters country made liquor in his illegal possession.Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed.(Virender Singh) Judge skt Santosh Kumar Tiwari 2019.08.06 10:39:17 +05'30' | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,863,206 | ORDER K.T. Thomas, J.This is an appeal under Section 19 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act (in short 'TADA').Four persons were convicted by a designated court, first among them was of the offences under Sections 307 and 399 of the Indian Penal Code.The remaining appellants were convicted under Section 399 of the I.P.C. alone.The first appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on the first count and all the appellants were given the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years in respect of the latter count.The case of the prosecution was this: A gang of dacoits including the appellants determined to make a strike during the night of 1.5.1995 on the residence of an industrialist by name, Govind Damodar Kelkar (he is said to be one of the proprietors of an industry by name, S.H. Kelkar and Company), to loot the residents and to kidnap him to keep him for ransom for knocking off a huge sum of Rs. 20 crores.The police had sleuth information regarding the planned operation and, therefore, they formed a raiding party for outwitting the dacoity attempt.One of the police party was sent in the guise of a tea peddler and the remaining police party took different places in anticipation of the arrival of the dacoits.The police party was headed by Inspector Naik (before he could be examined in court he died in a motor accident).After midnight the dacoits came in two motor cars and reached the particular spot.The dacoits alighted from both the cars and then PW.2 Sub-inspector who was in the guise of a tea-peddler went towards them offering tea.They declined the offer for supply of tea.But PW.2 passed the pre-determined signal to the other police officers who immediately emerged from concealment and over-powered the dacoits in the said operation.First appellant, Chander Shekhar Bhatt fired his pistol at the chest of Inspector Naik.But he escaped as he was then wearing a bullet in the vestment, but did not go further forward All the dacoits were caught except one Shekhar @ Anna Sonnappa Hegade who escaped from being caught.A pistol was recovered from first appellant and a revolver was recovered from second appellant for which a panchnama was prepared.The bullet embedded in the vestment worn by Inspector Naik was taken out at the police station for which also a panchnama was prepared.The evidence consists of the testimony of PW-2 the Sub-inspector of police who went in the guise of a tea peddler.PW-4, a chowkidar attached to Kelkar Industries and PW-15, Atma Ram, who was also present at the time of the operation though he had conducted part of the investigation also.As the most important evidence was that of PW-2, Sub-inspector on whose information the FIR was registered at 1.45 a.m. on the same night, we went into his evidence threadbare.We perused the other evidence also.PW-2 had given full narration of the event.If his testimony is believed it admits of no doubt that the conviction passed by the designated court should be upheld.Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that PW-2 cannot be believed for so many reasons, main among which is that he made improvements on his version to suit the prosecution case.He stated instances of such improvements.We have applied our mind and noticed that though there was some marginal variations on certain aspects as between his statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and the testimony given in court, such variations cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive.They are elaborations elicited by the public prosecutor during examination-in-chief.It is the prerogative of the public prosecutor to elicit such points from a witness as he deems necessary for the case.No public prosecutor can be nailed to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code.We scrutinised the so called improvements from that angle and we are satisfied that PW-2 had basically remained at the same position which he has stated in the FIR.PW.2's version is fully supported by circumstances in this case, particular among which was the recovery of the pistol and the revolver from the appellants.The evidence of PW. 4 chowkidar attached to Kelkar has been criticised by learned Counsel mainly on the ground that he is obliged to Kelkar.He is examined for his role as chowkidar of Kelkar and therefore, the criticism that he is obliged to Kelkar is of no avail.Of course learned Counsel contended that there was another chowkidar working in the same establishment, but he has not been examined.We are only interested in weighing the evidence of the chowkidar who was examined and not the one who was not examined, unless the non-examination of that chowkidar could be shown to be of any ulterior motive.The defence did not establish any such ulterior motive for not examining the other chowkidar.So far as the first appellant is concerned, he cannot escape from conviction under Section 307 because it was he who fired the pistol at Inspector Naik.Of course, learned Counsel made an attempt to show that there was no intention to kill the Inspector but the intention was only to escape after inflicting injury to the Inspector (this argument was made as an alternative argument).We are unable to appreciate the said argument in the light of the use of the lethal weapon and the situs of the wounds.It was contended that regarding appellants 2-4 there is no evidence regarding preparation to commit dacoity.One of the most crucial circumstances presented by the prosecution is a dialogue which transpired between the appellants at the site which is thus: "As per the plan we will first loot the belongings and then abduct Kelkar in car. "It was contended that it was an artificial introduction of the dialogue.The only possibility for communicating between the occupants of two different vehicles when they come out of it is to speak to each other.There is no improbability in one of them reminding the others of the sequences to be follower! in the operation.After all the dialogue was not stated to the hearing of the police officers but hearing of a tea vendor; overhearing it need not concern the culprits much as they did not then know that the tea vendor was really a police officer. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,329 | Along with this memorandum, which is at Exh, "B" to the Petition, a statement of misconduct or misbehaviour was also issued to the petitioner.The petitioner had submitted his reply as far back as on August 16, 1984, which is at Exh. "C" to the petition.The petitioner had taken several contentions regarding the nature of his duties in the General Stamp Office and his role in the sale of the said stamps.This petition reflects a very sorry state of affairs regarding the conduct of a departmental inquiry by the 1st Respondent/State.I am constrained to say this because the alleged fraud and/or misappropriation related to the sale of postal stamps in the General Stamp Office, at Bombay, and the amount involved was as much as Rs. 66,000/-.By the present Petition, the petitioner Shankar Gangaram Khade is challenging the memorandum and the charge framed against him on February 1, 1988, being Memorandum No. 10411/ESST in the following facts and circumstances :-It appears that there was a fraud in the General Stamp Office, Bombay, of the nature indicated above and some inquiry was held towards the end of 1969 and/or in the beginning of 1970 by responsible Government Officers.However, all that transpired in the said inquiry was that everything was in order.The offences with which these 4 accused were charged were punishable under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.By his judgment and Order dated March 19, 1976, the Special Judge, Bombay, acquitted accused No. 1-Deshpande and also accused No. 4 Koparkar.Accused No. 2, Dalvi, and accused No. 3, Gadkar, were, however, convicted of the charges and were each sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 12,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for one year.Against the said Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed against accused No. 2 and accused No. 3, two Criminal Appeals were preferred.This Court came to the conclusion that the conviction of accused No. 2 was based on the evidence of witnesses, whose evidence suggested that they were themselves accomplices.One such witness in the Special Case was the present petitioner, Khade.The other two witnesses were Stamp Vendor-G. S. Chaudhari and Asstt.It appears that identical charges have been framed against as many as 6 employees, including the petitioner Khade.Against all the 6 delinquents, including the petitioner, identical charges were initially framed in the year 1984, but no action seems to have been taken.(vii) The petitioner retired on April 30, 1986; | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,333,509 | The parties are identified by the Sub Inspector of Police.Today, Mr.R.Kannan, Sub Inspector of Police, C-2, Elephantgate Police Station, Chennai 600 079, is present.On the complaint lodged by Arthi, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.1001 of 2016 on 30.07.2016 u/s 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 against the petitioner herein, for quashing which the petitioner is before this Court on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise.It appears that Vignesh is none other than Fathima's brother's son.Since he is closely related to Arthi, the parties have arrived at a compromise pursuant to the intervention of the elders.I submit that the Petitioner is the close relative of mine.There was some disagreement between myself and the petitioner and consequently on 30.07.2016 at 4.00 P.M. due to some altercation, unfortunately the accused without any intention pushed me down resulting in minor scratches.The de facto complainant submits that the above incidents are true and both the family members have amicably settled the matter outside the court.Fathima, the mother of the second respondent/de facto complainant and Vignesh, the petitioner herein have also filed an affidavit.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 341 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. |
186,336,399 | The case of the prosecution is that, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint to the police alleging that a will has been forged and based upon such will, the proforma respondent No. 2 had made an application under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, for issuance of probate certificate, so that the 'will' can be given effect to.Consequently, these orders became as subject matter of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court bearing SLP No. 23237/2010 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court showed indulgence and an interim order granting stay was passed in favour of Mr. Gaurav.While the proceeding before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pending, the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the police alleging commission of several offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.However, the police did not register any case.Consequently, the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and alongwith such complaint an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed.The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior issued instructions in terms of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for submitting the report.However, the police considered the material sufficient for registration of first information report and the FIR dated 17.09.2009 was registered against the applicant leading to filing of the charge-sheet.The trial Court has framed the charges against the present applicant for commission of aforestated offences, in furtherance to which the present application has been preferred by the applicant.However, during the pendency of present application, the applicant sought amendment in the memo of application | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
186,339,544 | Bail Application No. 17862 of 2020, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 01.12.2019 In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,665,367 | P.W. 1 Shib Sankar Ghosh, the father of the victim lodged a complaint with the O. C. Dubrajpur P.S. on 8-2-1999 at 15.50 hours against 11 persons including the nine opposite parties herein alleging that his daughter Lakshi Rooj was married to Ashim Rooj (O. P. No. 1) at Tarapith Temple following love affairs was not taken kindly by the members of the matrimonial family as a result of which the members of the family of Ashim did not allow his daughter and Ashim to enter into their house.Ashim and Lakshi took shelter in another house of Ashim at Panditpur and the house of Ashim's father's elder brother Balahari Rooj was having a common courtyard with Ashim at Panditpur.While staying at Panditpur Latika Rooj, wife of Uttam Rooj.Basanti Rooj, wife of Tarun Rooj used to go to the Panditpur house and caused torture to the girl physically and mentally telling that she should be ashamed of herself since her father (de facto-complainant) had no capability to offer dowry and asked her to commit suicide or else they would kill her.ORDER Partha Sakha Datta, J.P.C. the judgment and order dated 18-5-2005 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Suri.Birbhum in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 101 of 1999 whereby the learned Judge acquitted three accused persons namely Uttam Rooj (O. P. No. 3), Latika Rooj (O. P. No. 4) and Dipti Rooj (O. P. No. 9) of the charges under Section 498A/306 of the I.P.C. is under challenge.The victim narrated these incidents to the de facto complainant and the relatives of Ashim or Ashim did not raise any protest against such behaviour of Latika and Basanti and on the contrary Ashim said that there was nothing to be worried and he would look after the matter.On 4-2-1999 the son of Balahari namely Ashis Rooj (O. P. No. 8) herein and his wife Dipti Rooj picked up quarrel with the victim and provoked her to commit suicide as a result of which being mentally hurt the victim poured kerosene oil on her body in the house of Balahari Rooj and she succumbed to the injury in the hospital where she made a dying declaration shortly before her death.On this FIR investigation was conducted and police submitted charge-sheet against only three persons namely Uttam Rooj, Latika Rooj and Dipti Rooj under Section 498A/306, I.P.C. and the learned trial Court also framed charge against the three persons who are Uttam, Latika and Dipti (O. P. Nos. 3, 4 and 9) herein.The other accused persons who were named in the FIR were not charge-sheeted as there was prayer for discharge of them.Learned trial Court upon consideration of evidence on record found the three accused persons not guilty of the offence and accordingly acquitted them of the charges and it is against this judgment and order of acquittal dated 18-5-2005 that the de facto complainant has preferred this revisional application contending inter alia that the learned trial Court did not appreciate evidence properly, that the mother of the deceased said in evidence that there was demand of dowry, that the learned trial Court forgot to remember himself the presumption arising under Section 113A of the Evidence Act since the victim died within a year of marriage, that the learned trial Court was wrong in disbelieving the dying declaration made by the victim in the presence of the nurse of the purported (sic) before the police officer and thus the Judgment and order of the learned trial Court is not sustainable.Of the 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution it is the evidence of P.W. 1 Shib Sankar Ghosh, the father of the victim.P.W. Gouri Ghosh (wife of P.W. 1) and P.W. 7 Sanjoy Ghosh, the son of P.W. 1 that alone call for consideration because evidence of other witnesses are of no assistance since some of such witnesses are purely formal ones and some again did not say anything at all.It is the evidence of P.W. 6 that Ashim used to misbehave with her daughter for non-payment of money as demanded by Ashim, Manik, Tarun, Uttam, Kanchan, Latika and Basanti all the family members as also Ashim used to ill-treat and misbehave with her daughter.Her daughter used to tell her about such ill-treatment by her husband and his family members whenever she would visit her house.Evidence of P.W. 7 is to the same effect and it bears no repetition.P.W. 2 Aruna Dutta did not tell any-thing and she was declared hostile.P.W. 3 Bhasta Pada Dutta is a witness to the seizure list and he also turned hostile.P.W. 4 Dipti Dey is a hearsay witness having no knowledge as to why or how the victim committed suicide.She never visited the house of the couple at Panditpur.P.W. 5 Netai Rooj was tendered for cross-examination which was declined.P.W. 8 is one Ajit Pada Dutta who pleaded ignorance about the matter as he said that he could not say how the victim resided at Pandipur.Evidence of P.W. 9 Saraja Bala Dutta, a senior nurse at Suri Sadar Hospital is of some relevance on the ground that in her presence the O. C. of Suri Police Station Ashim Mondal recorded the dying declaration of the victim Lakshi Rooj (Ext. 2) P.W. 10 is Dr. D. K. Mukhopadhyay under whom the victim was admitted in the hospital at Suri Sadar and he wrote to the Superintendent of Suri Sadar Hospital for arrangement of recording dying declaration of the victim and the letter was marked (Ext. 4).P.W. 11 is Kamini Mohan Sarkar, Additional District Magistrate and District Land Reforms Officer who held inquest over the dead body of the victim (Ext. 5).P.W. 13 is Madhab Chandra Mondal, S.I. of Police who also held inquest over the dead body.P.W. 14 Arun Kumar Das is the I. O. of the case.P.W. 15 Chandana Kahar, a member of the staff of Suri Sadar Hospital who proved her signature in the dying declaration says in her cross-examination that she signed on a blank paper and her signature was taken by the police.It is noticeable that the FIR was lodged against 11 accused persons including the husband of the victim but charge-sheet was submitted only against three accused persons namely Uttam Rooj, Latika Rooj and Dipti Rooj.Learned trial Court framed charges against only the aforesaid three accused persons and upon consideration of evidence on record found them not guilty of the charges and acquitted them.Before the learned trial Court no petition was filed by the prosecution or the de facto complainant that although 8 accused persons out of 11 accused persons have not been chargesheeted they may be tried in the Court on the alleged ground that in the police papers evidence was transpiring against them.In the midst of trial no petition was filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for addition of the 8 accused persons to be charged with.Balahari Rooj one of the accused in the FIR reportedly died subsequently.But in the revisional application all the 10 accused persons have been made opposite parties and I fail to understand how a revisional application is maintainable against Ashim, Manik, Kanchan, Tarun, Basanti and Ashis since they did not face trial and they were not charge-sheeted.This is one aspect of the matter that must be taken note of.If we go through the FIR, we find that there is no allegation against Ashim, Manik, Uttam, Kanchan, Tarun.It is in the FIR that Latika and Basanti used to go to the couple's house at Panditpur and would physically and mentally torture the victim on the ground that she married Ashim out of love because of her father's inability to pay dowry.The matter of the fact is that Basanti Rooj was not charge-sheeted and she did not face trial before the learned trial Court.Again in the FIR there is no iota of allegation that the victim's husband, Ashim ever perpetrated torture upon the victim on demand of dowry.If the FIR is strictly construed it would not reveal at all that the accused persons who faced trial ever demanded dowry.The grudge of the accused persons was against the victim's marrying Ashim Rooj out of love because of her father's inability to pay dowry.So far as the incident of 4-2-1999 is concerned it centers round Ashis and his wife Dipti but Ashis has not been charge-sheeted and there was no consequently occasion of his facing trial.Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner laid stress upon non-consideration of the dying declaration of the victim which was recorded by P.W. 12 in the presence of P.W. 1, P.W. 15 and P.W. 9, P.W. 1 said in his cross-examination that no dying declaration was recorded in his presence.P.W. 15 said in her cross-examination that she signed on a blank sheet of a paper at the instance of the police.It is P.W. 9 who says that in her presence P.W. 12 recorded dying declaration.P.W. 12 says that as P.W. 10 refused to record dying declaration he recorded it in the presence of P.W. 1 but P.W. 1 denied that any dying declaration was recorded in his presence.P.W. 10 never said that he refused to record dying declaration of the victim or that he was requested by P.W. 12 to record any such dying declaration; on the contrary he said that he wrote a letter to the Superintendent of the hospital to record a dying declaration of the victim.There is no evidence at all that the victim was physically and mentally capable of making any such dying declaration.The I. O. himself recorded in his own words that the victim was unable to sign.In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate was not unjustified in not relying on such dying declaration.Even if the dying declaration is taken into consideration still then the prosecution case does not move an inch.This dying declaration is only against the accused Dipti Rooj.Dipti used to telephone her and tell her that she would not be happy and on 4-2-1999 there was a quarrel with her and then being unable to bear the quarrel she poured kerosene oil in her body.In that dying declaration she said that she loved her husband and her husband also loved her and it is Dipti who used to have quarrel with her.As regards Uttam Rooj, as said above, there is no allegation against him in the FIR.According to I. O. (P.W. 14), P.W. 6 did not tell him that the family members of Ashish namely Uttam, Kanchyan, Manik, Tarun and Basanti used to misbehave with and ill-treat her daughter.Accordingly, the revisional application fails. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
16,653,887 | On 10th February, 2005, a -1- missing report was lodged by Noor Ahmed, father of Sadma as well as Mohd Ayub, father of Taranum.through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE GITA MITTAL1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?These two girls were recovered vide D.D. No.17 dated 13th February, 2005 from the house of a relative of Mohd Rashid in Roorkie, Uttar Pradesh.Statements of the two girls and their fathers were recorded in which they made no allegations whatsoever against anybody.Custody of the two girls was therefore handed over to their parents.Subsequently, on or about 16th March, 2005, Mohd Ayub, father of Taranum made a complaint to the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate complaining of commission of offences under Sections 363/364/376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and one Salim with regard to the occurrence on the 9th February, 2005 and thereafter.The complainant stated that he had also made a written complaint dated 4th March, 2005 to the higher authorities of the police complaining the non-action of the police in the matter.As nothing was done pursuant thereto, he was filing the complaint before the court making a prayer that the accused persons be summoned and punished.On this complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order dated 11th May, 2005 directing the SHO, Police Station Punjabi Bagh to register an FIR under the appropriate provisions of law; to get the same investigated and file a report at the earliest.As a result, the police registered FIR No.384/2005 under the provisions of Sections 376/363/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 18th May, 2005 against Shamshad-petitioner no.1 and one Salim.It is noteworthy that no case was registered against the accused Mohd Rashid, petitioner no.2. -2-On 28th May, 2005, during the course of investigation, the police recorded statements of Mohd Ayub the complainant, the two girls as well as Noor Ahmad, father of Sadma.These statements were followed with the recording of the statement of Taranum and Sadma on 6th June, 2005 by the learned Magistrate under Sections 164 of the Code of Civil Procedure.My attention is drawn thereafter to the detailed order dated 26th August, 2006 recorded by the learned Magistrate complaining of the manner in which the investigation of the case proceeded.The order notes that the investigating officer was not present with the final report which had taken more than one year and three months for submission.The investigating officer had filed the final report in the case in court on that day.The chargesheet was filed only against Shamshad-petitioner no.1 herein.He had placed the name of the accused Salim in Column no.2 and in the body of the chargesheet, had mentioned that there was no evidence against Salim.The learned Magistrate observed that the chargesheet was completely silent about Mohd Rashid.It was observed that nothing has been found mentioned even on a query made by the court.The investigating officer orally informed the court that Rashid had married Sadma who was a friend of Taranum the prosecutrix in the case, and had accompanied her.The learned Magistrate considered the statements given by the two girls before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and observed that the prosecutrix Taranum had given a statement on oath -3- assigning a specific role to Salim as well as Rashid.The court was of the view that despite the statement of the prosecutrix Taranum with regard to implication of Rashid for serious offences of kidnapping and other offences, the accused person had been deliberately let off by the investigating agency.The learned Judge placed reliance on the judicial pronouncements reported at 2004 (1) JCC 611 Jagadish Ram Vs.State of Rajasthan & Anr.; (2003) 4 SCC 139 Dy.Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs.Roshan Lal Aggarwal & Ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 241 S.W. Palanltkar & Ors.State of Bihar & Ors.It was further observed that even if the process may have been issued against some of the accused, in exercise of power under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate can on the next date, issue process to other persons against whom there is material on record and whose name was not included as an accused person in the chargesheet.It was observed that there was sufficient material to issue non-bailable warrants against the accused Salim whose name has been placed in Column No.2 but for the reason that no parentage or the address of Mohd Rashid was on record, process could not be issued against him.In this background, the court directed the police station Punjabi Bagh to take up further investigation in the case with regard -4- to the role of Mohd Rashid and directed non-bailable warrants against the accused Salim to issue for the next date.No challenge has been laid to this order dated 26th of August, 2006 by any person.A supplementary charge sheet was then filed on 9th February, 2007 against the accused Mohd Rashid by the investigating officer.Counsel for the complainant submitted that he is not pressing any other sections besides the section in which cognizance was taken by the court on 19th February, 2006 nor he is pressing the complaint case for any other accused.Before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20th January, 2009 primarily on the ground that the first statements made by the two girls as well as their fathers on 13th February, 2005 were totally exculpatory and did not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners.It is further contended that the statements -5- made by the girls and fathers were witnessed and signed by several relatives and other persons as well and that the police also recorded D.D. No.17 on 13th February, 2005 with regard to the recording of such statements.The police specifically noted that the two girls left their home for checking the result in the Hansraj School and from there they left for touring and bathing in Haridwar with their friends without informing their families.The police also noted that there was no disclosure of any misbehaviour against these boys and that the girls did not want to be medically checked up.For this reason, the custody of the girls was handed over in good health to their fathers.Mr. Haneef Mohd, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in the light of these statements duly signed not only by the two girls and their fathers, the complaint allegedly made on 14 th March, 2005 to higher authorities as well as the complaint filed on 16th March, 2005 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the court of the learned ACMM deserve to be totally rejected.It is also urged that the statements attributed to the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. made on 6 th June, 2005 are totally fabricated and concocted.It is only in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she has for the first time stated that Salim was waiting in the auto rickshaw outside her school.The submission is that in this background itself, the petitioners deserve to be discharged.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.It cannot be disputed that at the stage of consideration of the award, this court is only required to consider whether the allegations in the complaint and the material placed on record, prima facie give rise to grave suspicion of the implication of the accused persons for the commission of offences for which they have been arraigned to stand trial.So far as this statement is concerned, the complainant as well as the prosecutrix have stated that their signatures were taken on blank papers by the police.They have also made allegations of police collusion with the accused -7- persons.The complainant has further stated that he was insisting upon the police to register a case and to get the prosecutrix medically examined but the police did not do so.So far as the veracity and correctness of these submissions is concerned, the same would require to be tested in the statement which shall be made on oath before the court and shall require to stand the test of cross-examination.However, at this stage, there is nothing on record which would enable this court to discredit the explanation given by the complainant or the prosecutrix.They have rendered an explanation for the first statement which is attributed to them and made other allegations with regard to the police inaction.The two girls were taken to Inter State Bus Terminus (ISBT) and from there to Haridwar and thereafter to Roorkee to the residence of relatives of Mohd Rashid.She also stated that after leaving their school on the 10th of February, 2005, the girls sat with the boys in the park and apprehensive of being scolded by the parents, accompanied the boys to Haridwar.Sadma stated that she had married Mohd Rashid on 25th February, 2005 and had a son from this marriage.She stated that neither her parents nor she has any complaint against him and that she does not want legal action to be taken against him.The impact of this statement and the refusal to join the complainant or Taranum in the allegations which have been made, would be examined during trial.It is the case of the prosecution that the girls were minors at the time of the incident and were taken out of the custody of their guardians without their consent.In this background, the challenge by the accused persons to the order dated 20th January, 2009 framing charges against the petitioners and the order summoning the petitioner no.2 is untenable and wholly devoid of legal merit. | ['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,539 | It is also clear that at this stage villagers including PW-4, Ram Sumiran intervened and the parties were separated.( -02-2010 ) R.S.Jha, J. :This appeal has been filed by the appellant against his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) by judgment dated 17-11-2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1995 and the consequent sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, R.I. for two yearsThe prosecution case against the accused/appellant Ramhit is that he and his father Dadoli were harvesting their crops in the afternoon of 13-11-94 in village Kalla when the deceased Lallu broke their hedge for making a passage for their bullock cart which led to an altercation between the appellant Ramhit, his father Dadoli and the deceased Lallu.On hearing the altercation villagers, specifically, Ram Sumiran (PW-4) and Rambali (PW-5) and others reached the spot and stopped the parties from fighting.Thereafter, while the deceased Lallu and his brother Makholi (PW-3) were 2 Cr.A.No.2769/20 00 going to their house which was only at a short distance on way, the accused/appellant ran to his house, brought a spear (Ballam) and struck a single blow in front lower neck of the deceased Lallu which cut through his wind pipe and heart resulting in his death.2 Cr.The appellant further submits that he and his father Dadoli were assaulted by the deceased Lallu and his brother Makholi and the appellant and his father retaliated in their defence.3 Cr.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the evidence on record including the evidence recorded regarding injuries on the person of the appellant and his father has duly been taken into consideration by the trial Court.It is stated that the trial Court has duly analysed the oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly recorded a conclusion that a fight broke out between the appellant, his father Dadoli and the deceased Lallu but the parties were pacified by Ram Sumiran (PW-4) and others after which the deceased and his brother started going home but the accused/appellant ran to his house, brought a spear along with him and struck a heavy blow by the said spear on the front of the lower neck of the deceased Lallu which resulted in his death on the spot and in such circumstances, the appellant has rightly been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted 4 Cr.A.No.2769/20 00 thereunder.From the statements of the aforesaid witnesses it is clear that a fight between the accused/appellant and his father Dadoli and the deceased Lallu occurred on account of the deceased removing a part of the hedge between the land of the appellant and the deceased and blows were exchanged by both the parties and the father of the accused/ appellant was thrown on the ground by the deceased Lallu as a result of which he suffered amongst others a simple injury on his head but at this stage Ram Sumiran (PW-4) and others reached the spot and counselled both the sides after separating them.Ram Sumiran (PW-4) in paragraph 17 of his statement has clearly stated that at this stage peace was brought about and that the parties started going to their separate ways.It is also evident from the statements of the witnesses specifically PW-4, Ram Sumiran (in paragraph 23) that thereafter the accused/appellant ran to his house and came back after five minutes with a spear (Ballam) and without saying anything struck the fatal blow in the front lower part of the neck of the deceased Lallu as a result of which he fell down and thereafter died on the spot.The 5 Cr.A.No.2769/20 00 offending blood stained weapon and blood stained clothes were also seized by the police from the accused.5 Cr.In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the incident actually occurred in two parts, the first part when the parties exchanged blows inflicting simple injuries on each other and the second part when after being pacified the parties started going their home ways, the accused/appellant ran to his house which was nearby, brought a spear and struck the fatal blow.The plea of self defence or of accidental death in sudden fight taken by the appellant deserves to be rejected as in the instant case it is clear that when the sudden fight broke out between the parties the offending weapon was not carried by the accused/appellant and that in the sudden fight both the parties grappled with each other resulting in simple injuries to both of them including the injury on the head of Dadoli, father of the accused/appellant. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,540,351 | Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8906/2018, which is first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant -Devkishan.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, Neemuch vide judgment dated 30/11/2018 passed in Special Case No. 24/2014 as under:Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of entry made in the scholar register, the trial Court held that at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was minor.However, Ramkanya Bai (PW2), the mother of the prosecutrix accepted in her cross-examination that she is not having any birth certificate or horoscope of the prosecutrix and she did not know that on what basis her date of birth was written in the 20 scholar register.As per ossification test report, the age of the prosecutrix is found to be 17 to 18 years and the Doctor, who conducted the ossification test opined that there is possibility of margin of one year in either side in estimating the age of the prosecutrix.Hence, there is sufficient material available on record to show that at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was major.It is further submitted that there are fair chances of success of this appeal and there is no possibility of early hearing of this appeal in near future.If the remaining custodial sentence of the appellant is not suspended then appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer by contending that as per entry made in the scholar register of Govt. Primary School, Hamakhedi,Teh.Manasa, District-Neemuch, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 01/04/1998 and this entry is a conclusive proof regarding the age of the prosecutrix according to provision of the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules, therefore, at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was minor, thus her consent is immaterial.Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the alleged offence.Under these circumstances, she prayed for rejection of the application.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the material available on record, at this stage no case for suspension of custodial jail sentence of the appellant is made out.Accordingly, I.A. No.8906/2018 is dismissed.However, the appellant is at liberty to renew his prayer, after serving out the substantial period of jail sentence. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,541 | 2. Prosecution story in short is as under:On the intervening night of 27/28-9-89, Jamuna Singh, deceased was found dead in his own house.According to the prosecution, appellant had some doubt with regard to illicit relations between his wife and Jamuna Singh.Thus, with an intention to take revenge, he had hidden himself on the fateful night in the house of Jamuna Singh.When Jamuna Singh returned after watching Ramlila to his house and when he went off to sleep, this appellant took out a 'tangi' kept in the house of the deceased and caused injuries.On hearing the sound, parents of Jamuna Singh, P.W. 2 Jaibhan Singh and P.W. 3 Chandramati, woke up and went to the room of deceased Jamuna Singh.The appellant pushed them and ran away from the spot.JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J.This appeal has bee preferred by accused Raj Bahadur Singh against the judgment and order of conviction recorded in Sessions Trial No. 12/1990 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Beohari, District Shahdol, decided on 13-1-1992, wherein and whereby this appellant has been found guilty for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and has been awarded Life Imprisonment and one year R.I. respectively.The appellant himself went to Police Station, Beohari and lodged a report that someone has caused murder of Jamuna Singh.On the said First Information Report and the merg intimation Exhibits P-17 and P-7 respectively, an offence under Section 302, IPC, was initially registered against an unknown person.The body of deceased Jamuna Singh was sent for post-mortem.Exhibit P-1 is the post-mortem report proved by P.W. 1 Dr. A.K. Mishra.On the strength of post-mortem report and the evidence of P.W. 1 Dr. A.K. Mishra, it has not been disputed before us that deceased Jamuna Singh had met with a homicidal death.Thus, this fact stands proved from the evidence available on record that Jamuna Singh was murdered and had met with a homicidal death.After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against this appellant.He abjured his guilt and submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the case.He further alleged that on account of undue pressure by the police on the witnesses, they are trying to falsely implicate him.To bring home the charge against the appellant, prosecution examined 19 witnesses on its behalf.In defence appellant did not examine any witness.On appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court found both the charges proved against the appellant and, accordingly, found him guilty for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and awarded sentences as mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.We have accordingly heard Shri V.K. Lakhera, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R.S. Patel, for the respondent/State.Perused the record.Admittedly, P.W. 2 Jaibhan Singh and P.W. 3 Chandramati are the parents of deceased Jamuna Singh.After having gone through their evidence, it is crystal clear that they were not the eye-witnesses to the incident.In fact, they had also not identified the appellant as the assailant.P.W. 2 Jaibhan Singh has deposed that he had seen a man going out of the house who looked like the present appellant.He could not depose with certainty that it was this appellant only who after having caused the fatal injuries to his son was seen running away from the house.P.W. 3 Chandramati deposed that one injury by this appellant was caused on the body of her son Jamuna Singh and then he ran away from the spot after pushing her husband Jaibhan Singh.This fact does not find place in her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC.Thus, it is obvious that she is now trying to improve her version so as to implicate the present appellant.In view of the aforesaid discussion of these two witnesses, it leads us to nowhere that this appellant had hidden himself in the house of Jamuna Singh so as to cause injury to him in the midnight.They were neither eyewitnesses to the account nor they had clearly identified the person who had committed the murder.The identification, by these witnesses, of the appellant was very doubtful.Thus, no help is rendered on the strength of this evidence to the prosecution case.As per prosecution story, after having lodged the report with the police on 28-9-1989, this appellant was absconding and was not even traceable to the police.If this appellant was absconding between 28-9-89 to 3-10-89 and was not even traceable to the police, how he could have made an extra-judicial confession to P.W. 15 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Mishra and P.W. 16 Mahaveer Shukla is not understandable to this Court.It is said that the said extra-judicial confession was made to these witnesses in the Panchayat Bhawan.This also appears to be highly improbable.It was also known to the accused that the police is on search for him in connection with the murder of Jamuna Singh and, therefore, he would not have dared to enter the Panchayat Bhawan and that too with an intention to make an extra-judicial confession.Apart from the above, it is also to be seen from the evidence of P.W. 15 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Mishra that the confession was made in the presence of the police when this appellant was in custody.It is also to be seen that this witness has not disclosed the reason as to why the appellant chose him to repose his confidence and to make his confession.Evidence with regard to extra-judicial confession in order to be acted upon must stand the test of reproduction of the exact words of the confession made and it also should be shown by the prosecution as what was the reason or motive for the accused to make confession and as to whether the accused reposed confidence in the person before whom such a confession is said to have been made.Similar is the evidence of P.W. 16 Mahaveer Shukla who was said to have been present at the time when extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant to P.W. 15 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Mishra, but both these witnesses have specifically denied that any extra-judicial confession was made by this appellant to them in the Panchayat Bhawan.According to them, the extra judicial confession was made by the appellant only when the appellant was in police custody at the police station.Admittedly, the appellant had not carried any weapon with him.He was also not aware that any weapon would be available in the house of the deceased with which he would be able to commit murder of Jamuna Singh.It is also not been established that this appellant was hiding himself in the house of the deceased and was waiting for him to return from Ramlila so as to commit his murder.If the prosecution story is to be believed, then it appears that the appellant had entered the house of Jamuna Singh at about 7 P.M. and then had murdered him at about 1.00 o'clock in the morning.This also appears to be highly improbable as it would not be possible for anyone to remain hidden in someone's house, that too under a cot of one of the witnesses, for such a long number of hours.The Serologist report is also not in favour of the prosecution as no grouping of blood could be performed due to its disintegration.For the aforesaid reason we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.The appeal is, therefore, allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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.